الخميس، 12 مايو، 2011

Five Stanzas for Revolution - خمســة مقاطــع للثــورة


Five Stanzas for Revolution
By: Muhammad Ali Shams Edine
Translated by: Adib S. Kawar

I  Not white is the revolution
Not red or rosy is the revolution
The color of colors is the revolution
Take care to live in the heart of the revolution
So as to live without
A name
A picture
Or an address!!!

II

In squares yelling was roaring
The people want…
The people want…
Never mind, what you want we shall not ask you
Enough to raise the voice
In this desolate wilderness… In the desert of death

III


Something the distracted man, said
Something and defeated and fatigued we were
Asleep like lost time the revolution was
For us enough it is that the revolution died
And a spade we took to in silence to bury it
And our hands we cleaned and returned
Astounded we were… in our ribs we were digging

IV

Poets said: “We searched
for revolution’s origin in words
In ancient books
In yellow papers
Wilderness and mirage we saw
The thirst of the thirsty it doesn’t
 quench, the burn of the thirsty
From the tunnel of words we escaped
and the cave of sorrows
to find that babies is the revolution
in the wilderness are playing

V

The old man said: For the meaning of freedom are you asking?
A sea or a flying eagle?
A pearl or a perplexed star?
An open wound in the sun’s eye?
or a pulsing heart in a volcano?
The old man laughed…
Like whispering he mumbled
Is the condition to see is be blinded, O master…
To blind my eyes?!
Is it…
(And to freedom he pointed)
To freedom he pointed
Possibly to accept as dowry by her suitor
Less than death?
O liberty…
O my distrait dowry… my dowry
Allow me in doubt to your steps follow
The sparkling of hoof’s strikes
When on the Arab land
Drawing the orbit’s map..

-------

      خمســة مقاطــع للثــورة

محمد علي شمس الدين

I
الثورة ليست بيضاءْ
الثورة ليست حمراء ولا ورديةْ
الثورة لونُ الألوانْ
فاحرص أن تسكن في قلب الثورةْ
كي لا تحيا وتموت بلا
إسم
أو رسم
أو عنوانْ

II

كان هتاف يهدر في الساحاتْ:
الشعب يريدْ...
الشعب يريدْ...
لا بأس ولا نسألكم ماذا تبغونْ
يكفي أن يرتفع الصوتْ
في هذا القفر الموحش من صحراء الموتْ
I I I

قال الرجل الذاهل: شبنْا
شبْنا وهزمنا وتعبنا
والثورة نائمة كالزمن المفقودْ
فحسبنا أن الثورة ماتتْ
وأخذنا رفشاً كي ندفنها في صمتْ
وحين نفضنا أيدينا ورجعنا
أذهلنا أنّا كنّا نحفر في اضلعنا

IV

قال الشعراءُ: بحثنا
عن أصل الثورة في الكلماتْ
في الكتب الدهريّة
والأوراق الصفراءْ
فرأينا تيها وسراباً
لا يروي غلّ الظمآنْ
وخرجنا من سرداب الألفاظ
ومن كهف الأحزانْ
فوجدنا أن الثورة أطفال
تلعب في أرجاء الساحةْ
V

قال الشيخ: أتسألني عن معنى للحريّة؟
بحر أم نسر طائرْ؟
لؤلؤة أم نجم حائر؟
جرح مفتوح في عين الشمسْ
أم قلب ينبض في بركانْ؟
ضحك الشيخ
وغمغم مثل الهمس:
هل شرطي كي أبصر يا مولايْ
أن تظلم عينايْ؟
هلْ...
(وأشار الى الحريةْ)
يمكن أن ترضى مهراً من طالبها
أدنى وأقل من الموتْ؟
يا حريّة
يا مهري الشارد يا مهري
هبني أن أتبع في الريّهْ
وقع خطاكْ
ان أبصر برق الحافرْ
وهو يخط على الأرض العربيةْ
خارطة أخرى للأفلاكْ

O our home: One day we shall return -  سنعود يوماً يا دار

O our home: One day we shall return
By the little girl: Siham Ehab Adali
Translated by: Adib S. Kawar



“You shall not remember it” they say
It, you in five days, you shall forget
No, it is sixty three years
and engraved in our memory it is still
Oh… How the house and the garden, we still remember
And the grandmother’s voice us calling
O boys and girls… come, a story let me tell you
The inheritance of our land story
that never we shall give up
Repeatedly repeating again and again
Without weariness or boredom
A story of passion, struggle and strife
Till rockets, canons and bullets came
To some of us throw wounded, war prisoners and martyrs
and the rest granted the title of refugees
Without homes for them… and keys in their hands
saying: O our home a day we shall return
O our home a day we shall return
And ours victory shall be…



سنعود يوماً يا دار
كلمات الطفلة الفلسطينية/ سهام إيهاب الدالي

يقولون لن تتذكروها
كلها خمسة أيام و تنسوها
لا بل بقينا ثلاثة وستون عاما
في ذاكرتنا محفورة, في أفكارنا باقية
آه ... كم نتذكر الدار والحاكوره
وسماع صوت الجدة تنادينا
أيها الأولاد تعالوا أروي لكم قصة
قصة وراثة أراضينا
التي لن نتنازل عنها
ترددها مرات و مرات
بلا كلل و بلا ملل
قصة عشق، كفاح و نضال
حتى أتت الصواريخ، المدفعيات و الرصاص
لتسقط بعضنا جرحى، أسرى و شهداء
و تمنح الباقي لقب لاجئ
لا بيت له .....و بيده مفتاح
و يقول سنعود يوما يا دار
سنعود يوما يا دار
و سيكون لنا الانتصار
 

The Dos and Don'ts of Palestine .....ما يصنع وما لا يصنع لفلسطين‏


Remi Kanazi: The Dos and Don'ts of Palestine – A Poem
Gilad Atzmon


don't call it genocide
we don't want to offend anyone
if we offend them
they'll never listen to us
we have to be reasonable
1,400 is just a number
no names
no death
we want peace and negotiations
don’t mention Zionism
if you mention Zionism
they’ll call you anti-Semitic
and people will believe them
don’t ever be angry
if you’re angry
they’ll call you angry
if they’re angry
everyone will call them
understandably emotional
we have to be pragmatic
pragmatism is not a euphemism
 concessions
although it may feel that way
don’t mention Allah or martyrs
it reminds them of Al Qaeda and 9/11
it’s not your job to fix their ignorance
don’t talk about refugees
boycott
or a one-state solution
if we want to win
we have to compromise
the road to peace is just ahead
don’t make analogies that include
the Holocaust, Nazis, or the Warsaw Ghetto
only Israelis are allowed to do this
when discussing wars on
Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran
don’t mention Yaffa, Haifa, Safad
or where your family is from
but if you do
nod when random people say they love Israel
it doesn’t matter where you came from
you can’t go back

don’t
just don’t
and that will lead to doing.

ما يصنع وما لا يصنع لفلسطين

شعر: رامي قنازع
ترجمة: أديب قعوار

مجزره لا تدعوها
أحداً لا نريد أن نكدر
إذا كدرناهم
منا لن يسمعوا

مجرد رقم هم  ال1400 انسان
لا أسماء
ولا موت
فقط سلام ومفاوضات ما نريد
الصهيونية لا تذكروا
إذا الصهيونية ذكرتم
لا ساميين سيعتبرونكم
والناس سيصدقونهم
أبداً لا تغضبوا
فإذا ما غضبتم
غاضبين سيعتبرونكم
أما هم إذا ما غضبوا
فسيعتبرهم الجميع
وبتفهم فإنهم مجرد منفعلين

الظروف يجب أن نراعي
مراعاة الظروف العامة ليس تلطيفاً للكلام
التنازلات
مع أنها قد تبدو كذلك

لا الله ولا الشهداء أبداً لا تذكروا
فبالقاعدة و 9/11 تذكرونهم
فليس من شأنكم أن تصوبوا جهلهم

عن اللاجئين أبداً لا تتكلموا
المقاطعة
أو حل الدولة الواحدة
إذا لم نفز
علينا أن نساوم
درب السلام أمامنا
لا تحللوا ولا تناظروا ولا تذكروا
الهولوكوست، النازيين أو غيتو وارسو
فقط الإسرائيليين لهم الحق بذلك
عندما تبحث الحروب على:
فلسطين، لبنان، سوريا وإيران...

لا تذكروا لا يافا، حيفا، صفد ولا الناصرة
أو أي مكان أتت منه عائلتك
ولكن إذا فعلت
برأسك طأطأ إذا ما أحدهم قال أنه إسرائيل يحب
من أين أتيت غير مهم
فالعودة غير واردة

لا تفعل
كلا لا تفعل
فهذا يؤدي لأن تفعل

Congress and AIPAC?‏

Congress and AIPAC?‏

Arab Revolts resistance are the answer
“He said recent events suggest that while (the revolts spreading across the Middle East) are not the immediate  end of the State of Israel, he believes they are harbingers and signal the ‘beginning of the end of the State of Israel as we have known it. And that will be good for America and humanity.”
He quoted Dov Lior, the rabbi of Kiryat Araba, an illegal settlement near Al-Khalil (Hebron), who according to media reports told a conference organized to discuss how to get non-Jews in mandatory Palestine to leave the country for the sake of Jewish immigrants who had no roots in Palestine




Panic in the Houses of Congress and AIPAC? 
Franklin LambBeirut

On April 13, 2011, more than a dozen Israel “First, last and always” US congressional leaders from both houses of Congress held an urgent conference call organized by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Their purpose was to discuss how best to promote Israel during next month’s US visit by Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu and more importantly how to confront the rapidly changing Middle East political landscape. One consensus was that no one saw it coming and that is was dangerous for Israel.
 Among those participating were former Jewish Chairman of powerful committees including Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who headed the Banking Committee; Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), ex-chairman of the Commerce and Energy committee; Howard Berman (D-Calif.), ex-chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee; and Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), ex-chairwoman of the foreign operations subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee as well as Eric Cantor, House Majority leader, the highest rankling Jewish member of Congress in history.

What AIPAC operatives reportedly told the conferees was that Netanyahu is once again furious with President Barack Obama and outraged by what he sees as a vacillating US Government attitude towards Israeli needs. They were told that the Israeli PM sees real political danger for Israel in the shifting US public opinion in favor of the young sophisticated attractive Arab and Muslims increasingly seen on satellite channels from the region who remind the American public of their own ideals.
Netanyahu, the conferees were told, wants Congress to flex its muscle with the White House and deliver a strong message to President Obama that his political future is tied to Israel’s. Hence, the current “America needs Israel more than ever stupid!” campaign is wafting from the Israel lobby across the talk radio airwaves. 


 
In addition, as more Israeli officials are indicted for various domestic crimes, and some harbor fears of arrest for international ones, 68% of the American Jewish community, according to one by poll commissioned last month by Forward, believe the US Israel lobby is increasingly fossilized with the likes of ADL (Anti-Defamation League) director Abe Foxman’s vindictive infighting among several of the largest Jewish lobby organizations which continue to lose  memberships, especially among the young.

Congressman Eric Cantor lamented that “Israel is badly losing the US College campuses”, despite heavy financial investments the past few years to curb American students growing support for Gaza, Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, all dreaded symbols of the growing opposition to the 19th Century Zionist colonial enterprise. “Support for Palestine is skyrocketing,” he claimed. “Until Palestine is freed from Zionist occupation no Arab or Muslim is truly free of Western hegemony,” according to one assistant editor of Harvard University’s student newspaper, the Crimson.

Admitting that the Mossad did not foresee even the Tunisian or Egyptian uprisings some AIPAC staffers, of whom there are more than 100, admit to not knowing how to react to the topics they were presented with for discussion, some of which included:

• The Egyptian public emphatic insistence that the 1978 Camp David Accords be scrapped and that the Rafah crossing be opened. The latter has just been announced and the former is expected to be achieved before the end of the year.

• The change of regimes and the dramatic rise in publicly expressed anti-Israel sentiment and insistence that Israel close its embassy and Egypt withdraw its recognition of the Zionist state.

• The apparent rapprochement between Fatah and Hamas which has been increasingly demanded by the Palestinians under occupation and in the Diaspora.

• The fact that the new regime in Cairo is seeking to upgrade its ties with Gaza's Hamas rulers as well as Iran.

• With respect to possible PA-Hamas rapprochement, U.S. National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor is trying to reassure Israel before Netanyahu’s visit by announcing this week that "The United States supports Palestinian reconciliation on terms which promote the cause of peace, but to play a constructive role in achieving peace, any Palestinian government must renounce violence, abide by past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist."

AIPAC, frequently knocks heads with the Israeli embassy in Washington for control of visiting Israeli PM’s and important governments schedules will control what Netanyahu says and does.  AIPAC Executive Director Howard Kohr recently told a group of visiting Jewish student activists from California that “sometimes there is confusion in this town over just where the Israeli Embassy is located, but let me assure you it’s no more than 300 yards from the Capitol Dome on North Capitol Street, NW.”

AIPAC, not the Israeli Embassy will write the final draft of Netanyahu’s speeches including the themes he will emphasize. According to a Congressional source with AIPAC connections, Netanyahu’s visit will focus on the following:

• Bashing Iran to please the White House. However, this mantra will have to compete with   the democratic revolutions that are sweeping the Arab world and which are terrifying not just Netanyahu, but also AIPAC and their hirelings in congress.

• Warning against the dangers to “the peace process” of any PA-Hamas unity government.

• Warnings about the threats to Israel from Egypt and popular calls for scrapping of the 1978 Camp David Accords, ending the Egyptian subsidy and supply of 40% of Israel’s natural gas, closing the Israeli Embassy, the dangers of permanently opening the Rafah border crossing over concern of building up a "dangerous military machine" in northern Sinai, according to an Israeli official speaking on condition of anonymity to the Washington Post.

• The tried and tested bromide that “Israel has no peace partner to negotiate with,” will be used, but this too has lost its bite given that the Palestine Papers have shown that the PA has for five years habitually caved into Israel demands and are widely viewed as collaborators with Israel in preserving the status quo-- so what more could be expected from them? The truth is that Mahmoud Abbas and Salem Fayyad are Netanyahu, Liberman’s and Barak’s favorite “peace partners.”

• Netanyahu will hint at - and AIPAC will drill in - the idea that the Obama administration has been too hard on Israel.

While Netanyahu announced this week that "I will have the opportunity to air the main parts of Israel’s diplomatic and defense policies during my visit in the United States”, he informed sources that his main goal and timing of his visit is to undermine a rumored initiative that President Obama’s team has been working on.

Netanyahu, according to AIPAC, also plans to attack the UN’s plan to admit Palestine and its offices are preparing a media blitz in an attempt to undermine the U.N. recognition of Palestine by arguing that such a General Assembly action would not in reality mean Palestinian sovereignty over the West Bank and East Jerusalem because of the fact that Israel currently controls those territories. AIPAC is arguing that such United Nations recognition of Palestine would only reiterate the principle, previously articulated by the U.N which denies the legitimacy of Israel's claim to territories acquired by force in the war of June 1967.

In reality, and as AIPAC well knows, UN recognition of Palestine would have a devastating effect on Israel’s legitimacy and would fuel an international campaign to force every colonist out of the West Bank. Given the feelings of virtually all people in the Middle East and North Africa toward Israel, this could dramatically undermine the apartheid state. AIPAC and Israel’s agents in Congress also ignore the fact that the U.N. is the only the international body that admitted Israel as a member state in May 1949, although the resolution noted a connection between Israel's recognition and the implementation of resolution 181 of November 1947, which called for partition of what had been British Mandate Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states.

The reason that intense angst and even fear stalks the Houses of Congress and AIPAC is that Netanyahu will remind his hosts in the coming days that Israel has always called “home” is that some US officials are starting to express treasonous thoughts long kept to themselves.

One seemingly shocking statement was made to a visiting Oregon delegation during a recent visit to Congressional offices by a Member of Congress never known for being publicly critical of Israel. As reported via email: “He said recent events suggest that while (the revolts spreading across the Middle East) are not the immediate  end of the State of Israel, he believes they are harbingers and signal the ‘beginning of the end of the State of Israel as we have known it. And that will be good for America and humanity.”

"What seems to have particularly upset him was his own mentioning to the group of a recent report about a conference of Rabbis in Israel who are demanding the expulsion of non-Jews, especially Palestinians, from occupied Palestine in order to maintain the "ethnical and religious purity of the peoples of Israel."

 He quoted Dov Lior, the rabbi of Kiryat Araba, an illegal settlement near Al-Khalil (Hebron), who according to media reports told a conference organized to discuss how to get non-Jews in mandatory Palestine to leave the country for the sake of Jewish immigrants who had no roots in Palestine: u"Today there is a lot of land in Saudi Arabia and in Libya, too. There is a lot of land in other places. Send them there." As scholar Khalid Amayreh reminds us, it was Lior, who in 1994 praised arch-terrorist Baruch Goldstein for massacring 29 Arab worshipers at the Ibrahimi Mosque in downtown Hebron, said peace in the Holy Land was out of question because the Arabs wouldn't allow Jews to usurp the land.

Meanwhile, a large coalition of pro peace and pro-Palestinian organizations, under the umbrella of http://www.moveoverAIPAC.org/ is preparing a new and different American reception for the Israeli Prime Minister.

The Arab Revolution Is Marching On -- Arabs Recover Their Dignity‏

This an advance view of my article to appear in the quarterly journal Contemporary Arab Affairs.
The Arab Revolution Is Marching On -- Arabs Recover Their Dignity
An Editorial
By Ziad Hafez

Like the phoenix arising from its ashes the Arab revolution is living a renewal. I guess the late President Nasser must be smiling from wherever he is as he is watching the peoples of Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and Tunisia (for the time being) leading an upheaval, if not the first popular revolution in contemporary Arab history.  And yes, it is one Arab Revolution taking place in various parts of the Arab homeland. The Arab nationtoday, the Umma, is different from what is was in early January and has completely metamorphosed.  She is more assertive and less afraid of its dictators and their Western allies.  She has reclaimed her destiny, her dignity, and her identity, an identity that many chose to ignore and even deny her existence.

Some would say that the second Arab Renaissance/Revolution has started on January 15 in Tunisia with the fall of her her ruler, others would say on January 25 in Tahreer Square in Cairo. More historically oriented observers would put the Arab renewal with the defeat of Israeli forces in Lebanon, the floundering US occupation of Iraq, or the Palestinian resistance and steadfastness in Occupied Palestine.  Irrespective of when and where did this renaissance start the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt (and the ongoing revolts in other countries) are there to stay and change the face of the Arab world and with that the rest of the world. 
Indeed, regimes enjoying the unconditional support of Western powers are crumbling at the time of writing these lines (late February 2011).  Those who were surprised by the turn of events are those who were drunk with the arrogance of power and narcissism.  The fumbling and contradictory statements of Western officials about the events unfolding in Tunisia, in Egypt, in Libya, in Yemen, in Bahrain, and before that in Lebanon with the demise of Prime Minister Hariri’s cabinet, underscore their lack of understanding of the Arab Umma.  Western countries advocating their ‘democratic’ ideals and values had and still have as strategic allies corrupt autocratic rulers who are oppressing their people and plundering the wealth of their countries.  Hence, it is no surprise that they are caught by…surprise!

The revolution in Arab countries broke several myths and misconceptions.  The first myth is the ‘absence’ of the Arab street.   Renegade Arab scholars seeking refuge in the West and in the columns of an Arab press toing the line of autocratic petrodollar regimes have gone out of their way to disparage, mock, deride, and express contempt of what they denominated the ‘so-called’ Arab street.  The various expressions of discontent, revolt, and resistance to the dictates of Western powers aligned unconditionally with Israel have all been dismissed as ‘terrorist rhetoric’, ‘insurgents’ blabber’, or ‘extremists’ hysteria’, and so forth.  Tangible actions of resistance were even considered ‘terrorism’.  Opposition to Arab governments was even deemed at some time as a ‘threat to US national security’ as during and after the Israeli war on Lebanon in July 2006.  Ever since the tragic events of September 2001 Arab rulers were stifling Arab calls for political, economic, and social reform in the name of the ‘war on terror’ as ordered by the United States.  Arab masses were afraid of their rulers who plundered their homelands and denied any shred of dignity to their people.  Arab rulers were more afraid of the West and Israel than of their own people.  Today, Arab rulers fear their people and watch in dismay as a helpless and toothless Western rhetoric cannot prevent the anger of Arabs of toppling their most hated and feared autocrats.

The second myth to crumble is the Islamic threat raised as a scarecrow, propagated in the West, and a rallying battle cry against any reform, any manifestation of justice in the Arab homeland.  To their apparent dismay, the revolution in both Tunisia and Egypt (and in other places) were not organized and promoted by Islamic movements, even though editorials warn about the possible ‘theft’ of such revolutions.  Events did show that although Arabs are quite religious they are not ‘Islamic’ in the Western sense.  Islamic movements did rally the revolution but they certainly did not lead or organize it.For over twenty years since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Western media with their ignorant pundits, and mediocre politicians and officials, have brandished the ‘Islamic threat’.  Democracy, it was said would bring to power ‘extremists’.  ‘Democracy is incompatible with Islam’! The ‘Arab street’ has proved them wrong as the revolution took place in more than two countries within a month without any ‘extremist’ claiming the credit for it!

The third myth is the ‘support’ given by Western governments to local autocrats.  Ben Ali’s search for an exile refuge in France was turned down.  Italy said: donot even think of it!  At the end, neither the United States nor former colonial powers could not salvage a cozy relationship that had lasted decades, a relationship that was clearly hurting the Arab people.  Wikileaks revelations about the ‘high esteem’ Western chanceries held Arab autocrats were already announcing the fickleness of such alliances.  Arab autocrats are realizing that while opposing the West in general and the United States in particular may be dangerous, yet an alliance with the West and the United States is a lethal blow to their survival among their people.  The monarchies in the Arabian Peninsula may be pondering that fact nowadays!

The fourth myth is the ‘softness’ of Arab youth.  They were portrayed as more preoccupied with the latest communication gadgets, virtual relationships and reality, a craving for consumption, than with the conditions of their own society.  They demonstrated their ability to communicate, to plan and organize, and mostly to mobilize and execute.   They also showed an uncanny ability to focus on specific demands winning the approval of the larger segments of society. Modern communication tools proved in the end to be weapons of ‘mass revolution’.  A joke runs wild in the Arab world:  Mubarak had died and was greeted in the other world by Nasser and Sadat who asked him about the causes of his death: ‘Poison’? Nasser asked, ‘bullet’? Sadat asked.  ‘Twitter and face book’ Mubarak replied!
As to the lessons learned, indeed it may be still early to draw definite conclusions.  But at least some facts have been established with certainty.  Arab peoples have developed a sense of identifying the critical moment to conduct successful revolutions.  It answers the question of why now or not before or later. It is the conjunction of domestic, regional, and international factors that are necessary ensure the success.  In the past, local and international factors were not in sync to allow success.  Egypt in particular had witnessed several popular uprisings over the last thirty years or so.  At that time, hegemonic powers like the United States were fearsome.  Arab regional autocrats had the momentum.  Nowadays, the strategic retreat of the United States in the region has been instrumental in limiting the support it lent to their client autocratic rulers in the region.  The defeats (or ‘lack of success’) of Israel in her military adventures in Lebanon and Gaza have also contributed to the weakening of autocratic rulers.  The impasse in Occupied Palestine killed a negotiated settlement, if in the first there ever was one!  And finally, the accumulation of mistakes, injustice, and an acute sense of loss of dignity at the hands of Arab autocrats provided the critical mass for an explosion.  The revolution is an accumulation of past experiences at expressing rejection of unjust conditions.  In a sense, it is a continuation of the first revolution of the fifties, an upgrade of the resistance movements in Iraq, Lebanon, and Occupied Palestine.

The first lesson of these revolutions is that they are a clear expression of rejection of a style of government deemed subservient to the will of foreign powers and especially that of the United States.  Policies implemented at the suggestion of foreign powers and international financial institutions have led to a generalized impoverishment.  Furthermore, Arab regimes aligned with Western policies in the region have created a deep sense of alienation and loss of national dignity.  To a large extent, the revolutions resemble the insurgencies against foreign colonial powers in the last century.  These revolutions are a rejection of subservience and also an expression of recovery of national dignity.  Arab regimes were based (and some still are) on dependence, corruption, and dictatorship.  The youths led popular revolts negated them.
Second, the Army in Arab countries was no longer believed to be a modernizing institution.  In fact, it had been sidelined by local autocrats and was no longer part of the political process even though it was thought to be the backbone of Arab regimes.  The recent revolts saw the Army tilting to the side of the people and not to that of autocrats.  In the past, the Army thought legitimacy from the people; today it is subservient to its will and provides legitimacy to people’s demands for reforms and change.

Third, traditional political parties have been overwhelmed by the dynamism of young uprising educated groups who have mastered modern technology as a means of communication, mobilization, organization, and implementation of any mass action.  The network of relationships developed by such instruments and tools bypassed traditional means of spreading the information, mobilization, and execution.  Political parties in the Arab world will have to adjust to such new realities if they are to be of any relevance in the future political process.  The conduct of the revolution in the streets of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, and Yemen without the leadership of such parties could be an indication of the declining relevance of traditional political parties.
Now as to the orientation of such revolutions it may be too early to state the course they are going to take.  However, contacts with organizers in the field (both in Tunisia and Egypt) have indicated that the domestic agenda cannot be separated from the Arab national agenda.  The call for political reforms, for more openness and participation of all political forces are likely to translate into more assertive policies toward the Palestinian tragedy.  Autocrats will no longer be there to pursue policies agreeable to the United States.  The Camp David accords and peace treaty may not be abrogated but will likely be voided of any useful content for the security of Israel.  The latter is likely to consider its southern front exposed. Libyans, Yemenis, Bahrainis, Tunisians, and Egyptians do feel strongly about Palestine and have expressed their resentment towards their government policies.  They have also made it clear that these revolutions are part of a global Arab revolution. The era of dependency, corruption, and dictatorship is over. 

As to their domestic orientations both revolutions are likely to assert more openness, more transparency, more egalitarianism, more equitable distribution of benefits and wealth.  How successful will they be may be for some a matter of conjecture but one thing is for sure accountability for failures and mistakes will take place.  Their economies will no longer be directed by the ‘suggestions’ of the IMF and the World Bank but by those who will provide a national vision for sustained development.  One may also hope that a transformation from a rent based economy to a productive one will take place.  It will require not only far fetching reforms but also a new way of thinking, even a new economic paradigm.  The Arab Renaissance Project, a document assessed in the last issue of this journal has called for a renewal of the cultural heritage.  This may lead to a new Arab epistemology, also a concept described in this journal (Hafez, Vol. 3, No.3 2010 ‘A review essay’).

In the end, the Arab Revolution has entered history as much as the American Revolution War, the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, and last but not least the Iranian and Turkish Revolutions.   It will take some time to study the impact of the Arab Revolution but one thing is for sure:  the world will no longer be the same as before.

Adib S. Kawar's family on Easter day‏

Adib S. Kawar's family on Easter day‏




 (photos) Wajih is Hala’s son   & Fadi & Rola’s daughters Nour and Leen


Arab Revolutions & Dependence on the West!

Arab Revolutions & Dependence on the West!















Is it permissible for any revolutionary Arab movement to receive funds from the United States of America and other colonialist powers, whose if not is their sole interest is its primary interest, centers on the security of the Zionist enemy, and on the other hand to overthrow a regime that was the supporter of Arab resistance against this particular enemy, is that possible even if this particular regime is considered dictatorial??!!  

Wasn’t the United State always supporting and defending dictatorial Arab regimes many of whom concluded or were forced by the United States to conclude peace treaties with the Zionist enemy if not to conclude alliance with it that could be against other Arab states, mostly because of the enmity of this third party towards our arch enemy!!!??

Change should take place in all totalitarian, and to be specific undemocratic Arab states, but not through colonialist powers that are allied with the Zionist enemy… Change should lead to full liberation internally and externally… The change that is taking place at the moment is costing the lives of a vast number of young and promising men and women and vast damage, that, which cost many billions of dollars that are supposed to be utilized for the well being of Arab people development namely education, health, proper housing, infrastructure defense including resistance against the enemy etc., thus we should make sure it won’t be in the interest of the enemy, but should lead towards full Arab liberation and total Arab unity.

Change should lead to Arab unity… liberation… anti sectarianism=secularism… democracy…

WikiLeaks cables detail U.S. involvement in the Middle East

The London-based satellite channel, Barada TV, began broadcasting in April 2009 but has ramped up operations to cover the mass protests in Syria as part of a long-standing campaign to overthrow the country’s autocratic leader, Bashar al-Assad. Human rights groups say scores of people have been killed by Assad’s security forces since the demonstrations began March 18; Syria has blamed the violence on “armed gangs.

Barada TV is closely affiliated with the Movement for Justice and Development, a London-based network of Syrian exiles. Classified U.S. diplomatic cables show that the State Department has funneled as much as $6Â million to the group since 2006 to operate the satellite channel and finance other activities inside Syria. The channel is named after the Barada River, which courses through the heart of Damascus, the Syrian capital.
The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.

The cables, provided by the anti-secrecy Web site WikiLeaks, show that U.S. Embassy officials in Damascus became worried in 2009 when they learned that Syrian intelligence agents were raising questions about U.S. programs. Some embassy officials suggested that the State Department reconsider its involvement, arguing that it could put the Obama administration’s rapprochement with Damascus at risk.
Syrian authorities “would undoubtedly view any U.S. funds going to illegal political groups as tantamount to supporting regime change,” read an April 2009 cable signed by the top-ranking U.S. diplomat in
Damascus at the time. “A reassessment of current U.S.-sponsored programming that supports anti-[government] factions, both inside and outside Syria, may prove productive,” the cable said.

It is unclear whether the State Department is still funding Syrian opposition groups, but the cables indicate money was set aside at least through September 2010. While some of that money has also supported programs and dissidents inside Syria, The Washington Post is withholding certain names and program details at the request of the State Department, which said disclosure could endanger the recipients’ personal safety.

Syria, a police state, has been ruled by Assad since 2000, when he took power after his father’s death. Although the White House has condemned the killing of protesters in Syria, it has not explicitly called for his ouster.

The State Department declined to comment on the authenticity of the cables or answer questions about its funding of Barada TV.

Tamara Wittes, a deputy assistant secretary of state who oversees the democracy and human rights portfolio in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, said the State Department does not endorse political parties or movements.

We back a set of principles,” she said. There are a lot of organizations in Syria and other countries that are seeking changes from their government. That’s an agenda that we believe in and were going to support.â
The State Department often funds programs around the world that promote democratic ideals and human rights, but it usually draws the line at giving money to political opposition groups.

In February 2006, when relations with Damascus were at a nadir, the Bush administration announced that it would award $5 million in grants to accelerate the work of reformers in Syria. 

But no dissidents inside Syria were willing to take the money, for fear it would lead to their arrest or execution for treason, according to a 2006 cable from the U.S. Embassy, which reported that no bona fide opposition member will be courageous enough to accept funding.

Around the same time, Syrian exiles in Europe founded the Movement for Justice and Development. The group, which is banned in Syria, openly advocates for Assads removal. U.S. cables describe its leaders as liberal, moderate Islamists who are former members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Barada TV

It is unclear when the group began to receive U.S. funds, but cables show U.S. officials in 2007 raised the idea of helping to start an anti-Assad satellite channel.

People involved with the group and with Barada TV, however, would not acknowledge taking money from the U.S. government.
“Iâ€m not aware of anything like that, Malik al-Abdeh, Barada TVs news director, said in a brief telephone interview from London.

Abdeh said the channel receives money from independent Syrian businessmen whom he declined to name. He also said there was no connection between Barada TV and the Movement for Justice and Development, although he confirmed that he serves on the political groups board. The board is chaired by his brother, Anas.

If your purpose is to smear Barada TV, I dont want to continue this conversation. Malik al-Abdeh said. Thats all Im going to give you.

Other dissidents said that Barada TV has a growing audience in Syria but that its viewer share is tiny compared with other independent satellite news channels such as al-Jazeera and BBC Arabic. Although Barada TV broadcasts 24 hours a day, many of its programs are reruns. Some of the mainstay shows are Towards Change a panel discussion about current events, and Step, a program produced by a Syrian dissident group based in the United States.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-secretly-backed-syrian-opposition-groups-cables-released-by-wikileaks-show/2011/04/14/AF1p9hwD_story.html

U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show

/ AP - Syrian anti-government protesters march in Banias, Syria on Sunday. The Arabic banner at center reads: "All of us would die for our country.”
By Craig Whitlock, Sunday, April 17, 11:01 PM
The State Department has secretly financed Syrian political opposition groups and related projects, including a satellite TV channel that beams anti-government programming into the country, according to previously undisclosed diplomatic cables.

الثورات العربية والاعتماد على الغرب!

الثورات العربية والاعتماد على الغرب!

هل يجوز لحركة تدعي الثورية والتغيير  تلقي الأموال من الولايات المتحدة التي همها الأول أمن العدو الصهيوني لقلب نظام كان ظهيراً وداعما للمقاومة العربية ضد العدو الصهيوني حتى ولو كان دكتاتوريا... الولايات المتحدة كانت دائماً تدعم الأنظمة الدكتاتورية التي تواليها وتصالح العدو الصهيوني.

التغيير يجب أن يلحق جميع الأنظمة العربية التوتاليرية والغير ديمقراطية ولكن ليس عن طريق القوى الاستعمارية الغربية المتحالفة مع العدو الصهيوني... التغيير يجب أن يؤدي إلى التحرير الكامل داخلياً وخارجياً... التغيير الجاري حالياً في الوطن الذي يكلف العديد من الأرواح العربية الشابة الواعدة والدمار الكبير، أي المليارات العديدة الواجب صرفها لمصلحة وأمن المواطن العربي... التعليم، الصحة، السكن اللائق والصحي، البنية التحتية والدفاع والمقاومة ضد العدو الصهيوني وحماته الاستعمار الغربي... الأموال لذا يجب التأكد من ألا تذهب  لمصلحة الأعداء بل نحو التحرر العربي الكامل  والوحدة الشاملة...
التغيير يجب أن يأتي بالبديل الوحدوي... التحرري... المناهض للطائفية=علماني... ديمقراطي...

"نقلت صحيفة «واشنطن بوست» الأميركية، أمس، عن وثائق سربها موقع «ويكيليكس»، أن واشنطن مولت سرا مجموعات من المعارضة السورية وقناة تلفزيونية تبث برامج تنتقد نظام الرئيس بشار الأسد."

"وبحسب الصحيفة، فإن قناة «بردى» مقربة من «حركة العدالة والبناء»، وهي شبكة من المعارضين السوريين في المنفى. وذكرت أن وزارة الخارجية الأميركية قدمت لهذه الحركة ستة ملايين دولار منذ العام 2006
لتمويل قناة «بردى» ونشاطات أخرى داخل سوريا."

*

“ويكيليكس”: واشنطن تموّل المعارضة السورية في الخارج 
نقلت صحيفة «واشنطن بوست» الأميركية، أمس، عن وثائق سربها موقع «ويكيليكس»، أن واشنطن مولت سرا مجموعات من المعارضة السورية وقناة تلفزيونية تبث برامج تنتقد نظام الرئيس بشار الأسد.

وأشارت الصحيفة إلى أن قناة «بردى» التلفزيونية، التي تتخذ من لندن مقرا لها، باشرت بث برامجها في نيسان العام 2009، غير أنها كثفت تغطيتها لنقل وقائع الاحتجاجات في سوريا.
وبحسب الصحيفة، فإن قناة «بردى» مقربة من «حركة العدالة والبناء»، وهي شبكة من المعارضين السوريين في المنفى. وذكرت أن وزارة الخارجية الأميركية قدمت لهذه الحركة ستة ملايين دولار منذ العام 2006 لتمويل قناة «بردى» ونشاطات أخرى داخل سوريا.
وأشارت الصحيفة إلى أن الإدارة الأميركية باشرت بتمويل معارضين سوريين في عهد الرئيس السابق جورج بوش، حين سحب السفير الأميركي من دمشق في العام 2005، واستمر التمويل في عهد الرئيس باراك أوباما.
وجاء في تقرير «واشنطن بوست» انه لم يتضح ما إذا كانت الولايات المتحدة ما زالت تمول جماعات معارضة سورية، لكن البرقيات تشير إلى أن الأموال تم تخصيصها بالفعل على الأقل حتى أيلول عام 2010. وأشارت الصحيفة إلى أن إدارة بوش أعلنت، في شباط العام 2006، أنها ستقدم 5 ملايين دولار «كهبات لتسريع عملية الإصلاح في سوريا»، لكن وثيقة صادرة عن السفارة الأميركية في العام ذاته أظهرت أن جميع المنشقين رفضوا اخذ المال، خوفا من إعدامهم بتهمة الخيانة. وكتب في الوثيقة «لا يمتلك أي معارض شجاعة كافية من اجل قبول التمويل».
وأوضحت الصحيفة انه في هذا الوقت، ألف معارضون سوريون في المنفى «حركة العدالة والبناء»، التي تدعو إلى الإطاحة بالأسد. وتصف الوثائق الأميركية قادة الحركة «بالإسلاميين الليبراليين والمعتدلين» وهم أعضاء سابقون في جماعة الإخوان المسلمين.
وأظهرت وثائق عدة صادرة عن السفارة الأميركية في دمشق أن المعارضين السوريين في المنفى تلقوا أموالا عبر برنامج «مبادرة الشراكة مع الشرق الأوسط» التابع لوزارة الخارجية الأميركية. وأشارت إلى أن وزارة الخارجية قدمت المال إلى الجماعات في المنفى عبر «المجلس الديموقراطي» ومقره لوس أنجلس. وأظهرت وثيقة صادرة عن السفارة في دمشق في نيسان 2009 أن «المجلس الديموقراطي» تلقى 6،3 ملايين دولار من وزارة الخارجية الأميركية من اجل برنامج «مبادرة تقوية المجتمع المدني» في سوريا، وبين الأفكار المطروحة قناة «بردى». وتظهر الوثائق أن الإدارة الأميركية قدمت حوالى 12 مليون دولار بين العامين 2005 و2010 من اجل برامج خاصة بسوريا.
ودعا دبلوماسيون أميركيون في البرقيات المسربة إلى الحد من سياسة تمويل المعارضة. وكتب احدهم «قد تكون مفيدة إعادة صياغة البرامج الحالية الأميركية لتمويل فصائل داخل سوريا كما خارجها».
وأظهرت البرقيات أن مسؤولي السفارة الأميركية شعروا بالقلق في العام 2009 حين علموا أن الاستخبارات السورية تثير تساؤلات عن البرامج الأميركية. وجاء في برقية بتاريخ نيسان، موقعة من جانب ارفع دبلوماسي أميركي في دمشق وقتها، أن السلطات السورية «ستعتبر بدون شك أن أي تمويل أميركي لجماعات سياسية غير مشروعة يصل إلى حد تأييد تغيير النظام. وقد يكون من المجدي إعادة تقييم البرامج الراهنة التي ترعاها الولايات المتحدة والتي تدعم الفصائل المناهضة (للحكومة) في داخل سوريا وخارجها».
وتقول وثيقة صادرة في أيلول إن الاستخبارات السورية استجوبت عددا من الأشخاص حول «عمليات مبادرة الشراكة مع الشرق الأوسط». وتضيف «من غير الواضح المدى الذي وصلت إليه الاستخبارات (السورية) حول كيفية فهمها طريقة دخول الأموال التي تقدمها الإدارة الأميركية إلى سوريا، وعبر أي منظمات، لكن الواضح أن عناصر الاستخبارات يركزون بشكل كبير على هذه القضية». وحذر الدبلوماسيون من أن الاستخبارات السورية قد تكون «اخترقت» حركة العدالة والبناء عبر اعتراض الاتصالات.
«السفير»، ا ف ب، رويترز

بعد شهود العيان..«أجندة مفتوحة» على «بي بي سي العربية»
“شاهدا سماع” سوريان من السعودية واليونان!

انا عائد.. لا تلمس هذه الريموت» (عن الانترنت(

سامر محمد اسماعيل

يلجأ مراسلو القنوات الإخبارية ووكالات الأنباء إلى شهود العيان في صياغة تقاريرهم الإخبارية، لا سيما عند عدم وجود مراسلين في مكان الحدث. وفي حالة عدم توفرهم، يلجأ المراسل إلى رواية شهود السماع. ويستعين أحياناً برواية أكثر من شاهد عيان أو سماع، ليقوم بعدها «بمنتجة» أحاديثهم، مستخلصاً النقاط الأهم لجدولة تقريره. وبدورهم يقوم محررو الوسيلة الإعلامية التي يعمل فيها بتحرير القصة من جديد، حسب أجندة الوسيلة، ومن خلال إبراز عناصر خبرية على حساب أخرى. بل يمكن تحوير التقارير الإخبارية وقلبها وفق قاعدة الإعلام الرأسمالي القائلة بأن «الإعلام كلب سيده».
المستغرب أن قنوات إخبارية بارزة «كالجزيرة» و»العربية» تتعامل مع الأحداث في سوريا وفق رواية شاهد العيان، بحيث اقتصرت خيارات القناتين على شاهد عيان واحد في النشرة الواحدة، وتحت أسماء مستعارة، أو حسب الطلب. ما أدى إلى أجندة مطاطية ولعب خطير بمكونات الخبر وتوازنه. وكأن الفضائيتين، في خرقهما لأبسط قواعد المهنة، تنتقمان من عدم وجودهما على أرض الحدث السوري، كما تنطلقان من دوافع سياسية بحتة.
اللافت أن قناة «بي بي سي العربية» توسعت في هذا الأسلوب عبر برنامجها «أجندة مفتوحة» مساء الثلاثاء الماضي إلى الاستعانة بشاهديّ سماع سوريين للتحدث عما يجري في مدينة درعا. والمفارقة أن الشاهد الأول «أبو ظاهر» كان يتكلم من السعودية، والثاني «أبو حوران» مواطن سوري مقيم في اليونان! وكلاهما تحدث عن «مجازر في سورية»، وعن «محاصرة الجيش والأمن لمدينتي درعا وبانياس»!
الغريب أن «بي بي سي العربية» التابعة لهيئة الإذاعة البريطانية؛ التلفزيون الأكثر عراقة في العالم لجأ إلى هذا الأسلوب مغيباً أدنى درجات المهنية ليقطع الرنامج الحواري «الأجندة المفتوحة» مناظرته مع ضيفيه: عبد الباري عطوان رئيس تحرير «القدس» اللندنية، والكاتب البريطاني باتريك سيل، ويحوله إلى برنامج إخباري، متحدثاً مع شاهدي سماع من خارج سوريا تبعاً للتعريف: «مواطنان سوريان يدليان بمداخلة». لكن مقدم البرنامج الزميل عمر عبد الحميد تعامل معهما كشاهدين على الأحداث، فأخذ يسألهما: «ماذا يجري في درعا وبانياس؟»
كما عرض البرنامج تقريراً مصوراً عن الطوائف الموجودة في سوريا وأماكن تموضعها جغرافياً، ما دفع الدكتور سمير العيطة رئيس تحرير جريدة «اللوموند ديبلوماتيك» العربية، ضيف البرنامج عبر الأقمار الصناعية من باريس، الى إبداء تحفظ على سؤال مقدم البرنامج عن إمكانية نشوب فتنة طائفية. واعتبر العيطة تقرير القناة عن الطوائف في سوريا «أمرا فيه نوع من التحريض، فالشعب السوري شعب وطني بدليل اتحاده في الثورة السورية الكبرى (..) واستقبل أهل الشام ما يقارب مليون ونصف مليون من شيعة الجنوب اللبناني أثناء عدوان تموز2006، حتى إن صور السيد حسن نصر الله ترفع في قلب العاصمة السورية، وهذا دليل على أن الشعب السوري شعب وطني، يتوزع سكانه في كل المدن بكل أطيافهم من دون التمركز في منطقة أو مدينة، على أساس طائفة أو عرق».

The Slave Market

The Slave Market
 Nuha Zurub Kawar

Translated from Arabic by: Adib S. Kawar


















This poem was written in the memory of Arab workers killed in Ouyoun Qarah (Rishon LeZion) on 20/5/1990


Our address is: In Gaza, Khan Younis – Al-Khalil (1)
In Al-Quds, in the Ghour (2) – in the sad home
My friend: my tears and yours are twins
Crying? The first tear is crying
the eyes it wounds - it blasts them
Two sides are burning in the center
And the other tear
Separation…
Sorrows they awaken - separate us
Two tears are shed
Why is it O you time of subduing
Without security you accept that we live
our dreams…

a long routed life divides us
and babies' food it plunders from us and the place
and in the slave market we live
as with strife we live
on roads, our days aged
in fields,
by silence’s dust they are watched
feeling lost
black are our dreams
as the bereaved dress - dusted is the veil
and the same are our young ones
In my homeland and in the “shatat” (3)

***
A life’s time is your curse
Dawn’s light was an ousted thing throwing me
Sad between tigers' mouths
In my way things were jostling
and in my head
And in pain they were revolting
And time was informing me that the cursed incident
to us is approaching
Bullets shall pierce our sides tomorrow
the sun is setting from afar
agony shall in my head roam
devastation in my opinion is the cursed street
The damned killer in gaiety is carousing
Death’s shadow I saw wallowing in the lane
Disparity - all the people
with bullets are targeted

Sorrow told me
Fear in the world - the bitterness
of separation it carries
your stubborn temple I noticed
looming as mirage among temples
our steps slacken
in you I sunk my pains
A step I heard killing the faraway silence
of my fear I shouted
and of my pains
imprisoned we shall be anew!!!!
How many a prisoner in spite of prison
became like a stubborn mountain

I live in a homeland that
Loves flowers and poems
the warbling unique tone
the judgment of fate I accepted
To patronize you one day I accepted
In security
And in your heart I felt
Traces of ignominy
So I opened a healed wound
Two tears fell
To the ill-omened street I returned
To beg the coward
Asking him – around him I picked
blood I feared to let
 Two tears ran
From my pains I cried
And from my sorrow
and I admonished the place

***
For peace I searched
For security
The place revolted
The place revolted with pain
And in sorrow and it said:
Who told you that the deserted street
security gives you???!

The deserted street
Like sorrow it is
Like a beast
Malice, lowliness, contempt
 The deserted street
is a massacre and a battle
people die in it
whenever ill fate played
stumps hate are disarrayed
among its masses
confused sight disdains it
its ideas are imbecilic
they stumble whenever they are on a road
Goodness disdains them
O you the annoyance of time
To search in the earth’s filthy we came to search
For work to ease our hunger
But victims of time we became
Remains in the place we became
For a shield we ask people
For eyes we ask tears
To dampen our sorrows
O you the annoyance of time
The world's tale we became
The known street
A massacre, the boy shouts
The rubble what shall we do with it??
Would hate sink in our brain’s folds
Our dreams in peace are deeds
We watered them, they grew among us
In the ill-fated street is our blood
Flowing in glory near us
Don’t shed tears O our eyes
Still searching I am for the people’s remains
Our young ones shall grow among us
And see peace’s birds
Near us from pain they sing
don’t despair you our souls
No, no, don’t despair
Even if the whole world rises against us
The baby shall live with this rubble
The baby shall remove the traces of wreckage
No, no it shall not be bought and sold
in the world’s slave market

(1) Al-Khalil - Hebron
(2) the Ghour - The Jordan river lowland
(3) Shatat – The Palestinian diaspora

Nuha Zurub Kawar, was born in Nazareth, Palestine, her father, Munib Amin Zurub, was of Lebanese origin, he completed his secondary school in Sahyoun school in Jerusalem, and higher education in the American University of Beirut, which was called at the time "The Syrian Protestant College".
Her mother is Izat Salim Kawar, a Palestinian from Nazareth, who is the granddaughter of Tannous Kawar, (The great grandfather of Adib Kawar) the founder and first president of the municipality of Nazareth.
Nuha is the wife of Bahjat Iskandar Kawar, who is a graduate of Haifa University, where he specialized in the Arabic language, and they have four children, Sahar, Dr. Iskandar, Marwah and Sany who are all university graduates.

She wrote for several newspapers, magazines and broadcasting stations early in her life under the name of “The daughter of Nazareth”. She gave many lectures in the country and abroad. She worked for many international voluntary organizations. Her name was registered in the international record, and “The American Organization for Biographies” from which she got a certificate of “Outstanding International Leaders”, she also got in 2002 from International Biographical Center" the certificate of “The Golden Record for Achievements", as well as a certificate of esteem from Cambridge University, and a certificate of excellence from the minister of Sciences, culture and sports. Dutch Television shot a film about her life and achievements. She also participated in a documentary film that was shown in the local museum and around the world.

She wrote many poems in Hebrew, and many of her poems were translated into English.
Composer Ishaq Abu Al-Izz composed the music for some of her poems which were sang on the largest theaters of the country.
      
Posts of the writer:
.          Chair of Women’s Organization in Nazareth N.W.O.
·         Chair of the Women’s Foundation for World Peace W.F.W.P.
·         Member of the International Voluntary work in Switzerland
·         Member of the international executive committee for religious brotherhood
·         Member of the executive committee for Palestinian Writers
·         Member of the International Society of Partisans of Literature

Works of the writer:
·         “Hitaf Al-Kubria” “Cheers of Pride” a poetry collection
·         “Wahj Al-Yara3” “The Glow of the Pen” a poetry collection
·         “Shajarat Al-Majd” “The Tree of Glory”: a poetic play
·         “Al-Shari3 Al-Ghadib” “The Angry Street” A book for children
·         “Tarikh Annasirah” “History of Nazareth”, which is one of the most important books that was published about this period as critics wrote, which is an encyclopedia that talks about the history that little was written about, it also talks about the occupation of the city of Nazareth and its sufferings during the occupation and the dark periods and ages that it passed through.

She also wrote many books for children, poems, memories about the war on Iraq, and a ribbon of memories and the tales of the Sibat (A sibat is an arched alley, one of he most famous sibats in Nazareth is the Kawar family sibat) all these are ready for publication.

آل قعوار: غساسنة جنوب بلاد الشام‏

آل قعوار: غساسنة جنوب بلاد الشام‏

كتاب
آل قعوار
غساسنة جنوبي بلاد الشام
تأليف: الدكتور رؤوف أبو جابر
عرض: أديب قعوار
*
471 من القطع الكبير

قال النابغة الذبياني يصف الغساسنه:

لهم شيمة لم يعطها الله غيرهم          من الجود والأحلام غير عوازب
محلتهم ذات الإله ودينهم قويم          فما يرجون غير العواقب    


2011-03-06
الدكتور رؤوف أبو جابر يوقع كتابه "آل قعوار"
قي مبنى جمعية آل قعوار في عمان





















الكاتب، ابن العمة، المؤرخ الدكتور رؤوف سعد أبو جابر بعد أن تخرج من الجامعة الأمريكية قي بيروت بدرجة بكالوريوس في العلوم التجارية والاقتصادية عام 1946 أسس "شركة سعد أبو جابر وأولاده التجارية" وعدة شركات مساهمة في مجالات التجارة والصناعة والتأمين، وأصبح رئيس الاتحاد العربي لشركات التأمين 1996-1998 والاتحاد الأردني لشركات التأمين لشيع دورات، وعميداً للسلك القنصلي الفخري وقنصلاً فخرياً لهولندا في الأردن 1960 – 1995 ومع كل هذه  المشاغل والأعمال درس في الجامعة الأردنية ونال شهادة الماسترز في التاريخ كما نال شهادة الدكتوراه في الموضوع ذاته من جامعة   أكسفورد المرموقة في بريطانيا عام 1987 بعد أن عمل 40 عاماً أي عندما كان في سن الثانية الستين من العمر!

للدكتور أبو جابر عدة كتب بالعربية والانجليزية وبعد أن  أرخ لتاريخ عائلته أبو جابر رأى أن عليه التأريخ لعائلة أخواله "آل قعوار" أي "القعاورة" من سماهم غساسنة جنوب بلاد الشام". ومن أهم أهداف هذه الدراسة التاريخية المعمقة تثبيت عروبة المسيحيين العرب رداً على ادعاء رجال الاكليروس اليونان، مستعمري الطائفة الأرثوذكسية العربية في فلسطين والأردن لمئات السنين، وقول البطريرك الأرثوذكسي اليوناني الجنسية الحالي بأن المسيحيين الأرثوذكسيين العرب ليسوا عرباً بل هم روم أي يونانيين يتكلمون العربية، كما صرح مؤخراً هذا المتسلط على الكرسي ألبطريركي مؤخراً. هذا علماً بأن الغساسنه الذين ينحدر منهم المسيحيين العرب في بلاد الشام ومنهم القعاوره انضم معظمهم إلى أبناء جلدتهم المحررين العرب لبلاد الشام ليحرروها من الحكم البيزنطي.

وفي هذا الخصوص ينقل الدكتور أبو جابر عن الأديب المؤرخ روكس بن زائد العزيزي في الجزء الرابع من كتابه (معلمة للتراث الأردني) "..... وتعزز هذه الرواية التي يوردها المؤرخ العزيزي التي تتحدث عن ترحيب العشائر المسيحية العربية في شرق الأردن بالفتوحات العربية الإسلامية وتعاونها مع العرب المسلمين في التعجيل بتحرير شرقي الأردن وباقي بلاد الشام من الروم البيزنطيين على أثر الزيارة التي قام بها في عام 9 هجري الموافق 630م وفد يمثل العشائر المسيحية العربية في جنوب الأردن (الشوبك، أزرح، الجربا، العقبة والبتراء) بزعامة مطران العقبة يوحنا بن رؤية إلى مدينة تبوك للقاء الرسول العربي الكريم محمد بن عبد الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، وأهدي المطران يوحنا بن جربه إلى الرسول الكريم بغلة بيضا، وأعجب بها النبي وأهدى النبي الكريم المطران يوحنا بردة من برده. وتمخضت مقابلة وفد عشائر جنوب الأردن عن عقد اتفاق لفتح أبواب هذه المدن أمام جيوش الفتح الإسلامي العربي، وهذا ما حدث فعلاً، ولم تلبث جيوش الفتح الإسلامي أن حققت النصر الحاسم. ويذكر..." (الصفحة 90/91)

وقد خصص المؤلف العديد من صفحات كتابه للتحدث عن عملية استعمار الكنيسة الأرثوذكسية أوقافها وهيكليتها البشرية بما معناه أنه لم يكتف كبار رجال الإكليروس  بالتسلط على الطائفة الأرثوذكسية العربية دينيا وكسلطات في هرميتها الإكليريكية بحرمان أبناء الطائفة العرب قي فلسطين والأردن من تبوأ المراكز العليا إكليريكياً فيها بل إنهم يتصرفون بالأوقاف العربية، أي بالأملاك التي تبرع بها أبناء الرعية العرب وغيرهم من المواطنين ليصرف من ريعها لمختلف حاجاتهم من تعليم وإسكان والعناية بذوي الحاجات الاجتماعية والحياتية والصحية ةالتعليمية. ولكن هؤلاء المفروض بهم أن يخدموا المواطنين من أبناء الكنيسة ورعيتها التي تسلطوا عليها جوراً وبهتاناً، لم يكتفوا بنهب أموال هذه الأوقاف خدمة لمطامعهم الذاتية، بل أنهم خانوا الأمانة الوطنية والقومية لأبناء الكنيسة وأصحاب الوقف العرب، فقد باعوا أو اجروا مساحات شاسعة منها للمستعمر الصهيوني لمدد طويلة من الزمن أي لتسعة وتسعين عاماً، ولا يخفى أن الباع الطويلة للعدو الصهيوني في مجال الكذب والاحتيال في نهب أراضي فلسطين العربية، فقد حاول من يدعون بأنهم رجال دين من اليونانيين الكذب والتغطية والتعمية على أعمالهم تلك، علماً بأن هذه الأوقاف تشكل نسبة لا بأس بها من مساحة فلسطين، وبذا تآمروا على عروبة فلسطين بعد محاولتهم التآمر على عروبة أبناء الطائفة الكبيرة التي نصبوا أنفسهم عليها أوصياء مستعمرين بكل ما للكلمة من معنى.

ويتحدث الدكتور أبو جابر عن تاريخ الغساسنه وبشكل خاص عن آل قعوار عبر خمسة قرون طويلة وتجولهم عبرها في جنوب بلاد الشام أي في حوران ولبنان وفلسطين والأردن وبشكل خاص قي بلدة القسطل ومدن الناصرة والسلط والفحيص والقدس وحيفا ومنذ ثلاثينيات القرن العشرين في بيروت كما يوجد عدد منهم حالياً في بلاد الاغتراب حيث ساهموا في الحياة العامة اجتماعياً واقتصاديا وسياسياً والزراعة خصوصاً في تنمية الأراضي لتصبح صالحة للزراعة والتجارة والبناء والمال كما تبوأ عدد منهم الوظائف العليا في المؤسسات الخاصة والعامة والطب والصيدلة والجيش والشرطة خصوصاً في الأردن وأكاديمياً حيث برز الكثيرون كل منهم في مجال اختصاصه.

إلى جانب انجازات أبناء العائلة العشيرة القعوارية المتعددة الاتجاهات والمناحي أفرد الدكتور رؤوف فصلاً خاصا من مؤلفه لأبناء العائلة الذين ساهموا بمواقفهم الوطنية والقومية قي حق العرب بفلسطين والحق العربي في البطريركية الأرثوذكسية المقدسية والحقوق العربية التي كما قال المؤلف "يفاخرون بانتمائهم إلى أصولها..."، أفرد فصلا للتحدث عن من ساهموا فكرياً وأدبياً وسمى منهم على التوالي:
·        الشاعرة والقصصية الأديبة نجوى عارف قعوار
·       الدكتور البروفيسور المؤرخ الكبير عرفان عارف (قعوار) شهيد – صاحب المؤلفات والأبحاث التاريخية العالمية
·       الشاعر الفلسطيني الدكتور جمال إسكندر قعوار
·       الكاتب والباحث القومي أديب شفيق قعوار
·       الشاعرة والكاتبة نهى زعرب قعوار
·       البروفيسور الدكتور نصري شفيق قعوار
·       الكاتب الروائي فخري أنيس قعوار نائب سابق ورئيس اتحاد الكتاب الأردنيين 4 دورات ورئيس اتحاد الأدباء والكتاب العرب
·       مؤرخة التراث الكاتبة وداد إيراني قعوار

وينهي الدكتور أبو جابر مؤلفه بسير أجداد العشيرة وذراريهم

No Politician With ‘Anti-Zionist Mindset’ Could Dream Of Living In White House – Interview

No Politician With ‘Anti-Zionist Mindset’ Could Dream Of Living In White House – InterviewWritten by: Kourosh Ziabari
April 14, 2011










Naseer Aruri is Chancellor Professor (emeritus) of Political Science, University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. He is president of Trans-Arab Research Institute in Boston. Prof. Aruri is the a contributor to the book “Iraq Under Siege: The Deadly Impact of Sanctions and War” by the South End Press and the author of the book “Palestinian Refugees: The Right of Return” published by the University of British Columbia Press in 2001. Prof. Aruri is on the Advisory Board of the Council for Palestinian Restitution and Repatriation.

Aruri has also written the book “The Obstruction of Peace: The U.S., Israel and the Palestinians.” Amazon.com has described this book “a Palestinian perspective on the peace process in his Middle Eastern region which provides a different view for the reasons behind Palestinian-Israeli impasses.”

According to Wikipedia, Aruri contributed to the foundation of the Arab Organization for Human Rights (AOHR) in 1983. From 1984-1990, Aruri was elected to three consecutive terms on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International, USA, and served on the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch/Middle East from 1990 to 1992.

What follows is the complete text of my exclusive interview with Prof. Naseer Aruri in which we discussed a variety of topics including the prospect of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the role of the United States in the solving the crisis in Palestine and the performance of PLO as the defacto representative of the Palestinian nation in the international level.

Kourosh Ziabari: Dear Prof. Aruri; there are various interpretations regarding the truth behind the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both sides of the conflict cite claims over the land which is known as the Land of Israel. So, from an impartial and objective point of view, which side is the righteous? Which of them tells the truth?
Naseer Aruri: This is not a conflict between two equal claims. The Palestinian population is the indigenous party living on the land since the days of the Cananites. Their presence as the dominant party was interrupted by the Crusades but it was restored by the Islamic conquest of the 7th century A.D. When the Zionists received the Balfour Declaration from Britain in 1917 the Jewish population constituted less than 7% of the population. It was an unauthorized promise made by an imperial power to a colonial settler movement at the expense of the Majority (the indigenous Palestinians). By World War II the Jewish population had increased to one-third mainly as a result of colonial settlement. This minority was in possession of less than 6% of the land. Today it controls all of historic Palestine through the force of arms, an illegal phenomenon under international law.

KZ: You’re said to be an outspoken critic of the Oslo Accords and described it a cover for territorial conquest. Would you please explain for us the reasons you oppose Oslo Peace Process? Given that the Declaration called for the withdrawal of Israel Defense Forces from parts of Gaza Strip and West Bank and facilitated the creation of a Palestinian National Authority, what are your reasons for contesting the Oslo Accords?

NA: The Oslo Accords constituted an act of surrender by Yaser Arafat, whose movement was facing economic, diplomatic and leadership crises, and having recognized Israel in 1988, it took the easy way out by concluding an unauthorized deal with Israel in 1993 in which Israel did not cede any bit of sovereignty whatsoever not only in historic Palestine but even in the West Bank, which constitutes 22% of historic Palestine. The phrase “external security” was the corner stone of the document and it served as a euphemism for sovereignty, which remained in the hands of Israel. Oslo has also negated the culture of the Intifada, which was based on voluntary maxims and associational values In brief, Oslo created a facade of equality when Israel was an occupant within the meaning of International law, while the Palestinians were occupied rather than co-equal. Under such a cover, Israel was given license to expand its territorial conquest even farther and this added territory was acquired under presumed “peaceful conditions.” Colonial settlements in the occupied territories have more than doubled since 1993 and they continue to constitute the single most intractable obstacle to a diplomatic settlement until this day. Technically, Oslo was an agreement to reach agreement, but better yet, an agreement to obfuscate an equal settlement and an honorable and principled compromise.

KZ: Although the Palestine Liberation Organization has recognized Israel’s right to exist, accepted UNSC resolutions 242 and 338 and made several concessions during its interactions with the State of Israel, the United States still considers it a terrorist organization. What’s your viewpoint regarding the performance of PLO? Has it succeeded in representing the Palestinian people and defending their demands? Recently leaked documents show that the PLO under Mahmoud Abbas had agreed to Israel’s sovereignty over nearly all Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem. What’s your take on that?
 Palestine.



















NA: I think that the answer to your question is embedded in the question itself. Moreover, the PLO should have never accepted the stipulation that it is a terrorist organization which must “renounce” and not “denounce” as Arafat had attempted unsuccessfully and reminded about the crucial difference between the two concepts. The assumption that the US was a judge and jury while at the same time a chief armed supplier, bank roller, and diplomatic backer was unfortunately accepted by the PLO leadership since the 1980s and should not have been a surprise when the so-called Palestine papers were released and leaked out quite recently. Under both Arafat and Abbas, the PLO concessions were bottomless and these concessions had only encouraged Israel to throw more obstacles to peace and to encourage Washington to act as a “Dishonest Broker.”

KZ: Some commentators refer to Israel as an artificial state and believe that it was created through the efforts of politicians and leaders who wanted to sympathize with and satisfy the expansionistic demands of the Zionists in Europe; however, there are a group of thinkers who believe that to the extent that Israel is an artificial state, countries such as United Arab Emirates or Kosovo should be considered artificial as well, because they lack a historical background as independent nations. What’s your estimation of these viewpoints?

NA: It serves no useful purpose to debate the moot issue of whether Israel, UAE, and Kosovo are artificial states. The important thing is that they are defacto states which through admission to the UN become de jure states.
Irrespective of who wins the argument, Israel is a state, but the important thing is what kind of a state? A state of its own citizens? a state of all Jews in the world? A state of the Jewish people in historic Palestine? What are the boundaries of this state? Is it not an apartheid state as it exists at the present? These questions are far more important than whether Israel is artificial or natural?

The UAE, the rest of the Arabian Gulf states as well as most Arab states were created by European colonialist powers on the basis of divide and rule, and to facilitate the establishment of the Zionist entity to act as an long arm for their colonialist ambitions in the Arab homeland; so neither these Arab “statelets” nor the Zionist entity are natural states… they are artificial.  ASK

KZ: The Stance of President Bush Sr. on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict had convinced many international observers that the pro-Israeli era of Ronald Reagan was over. On May 22, 1989, Secretary of State James Baker had told an AIPAC audience that Israel should abandon its expansionist policies. On his part, George H. Bush had indicated that he was under the pressure of Zionist lobby by saying to reporters on the sidelines of an AIPAC summit that “I’m one lonely little guy” up against “some powerful political forces” made up of “a thousand lobbyists on the Hill.” He was forced to apologize consequently; however, he was opposed to grant a $10 billion loan guarantee to Israel as long as Israel continued building homes on the Palestinian lands. What’s your viewpoint regarding Bush’s Israel policy? Why did his son adopt a totally opposing stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict compared with that of his father?

NA: True, there is a vast difference between the policies of the two Bushes. Bush senior had a major conflict with Israel and its Zionist lobby in Washington. He and his Secretary of State James Baker challenged Israel’s settlement building in occupied territory, particularly Jerusalem and its environs. Israel and its minions in the U.S. such as former Senator George Mitchell objected to the assumption that Jerusalem is “occupied” territory. Perhaps Bush, Sr’s Iraq policy illustrates the major differences between the father and son. If one looks at the Israeli press during the summer of 1990 when U.S. forces were in Saudi Arabia while Saddam Hussein’s army was occupying Kuwait, one finds an important reality: Bush was in effect telling Israel that, we the U.S., as the sole super power, are in charge of security in the [Persian] Gulf region and in the whole Middle East.. Consequently, Israel has nothing to worry about and it must come to terms on the Palestine question knowing that Washington is in charge of security. That was probably the closest that the U.S. had ever come to the concept of an imposed settlement in which Israel must abide by Washington’s will based on its national interest as a super power.

But the plan did not come into fruition particularly when Bush was defeated in the presidential elections by Bill Clinton, who derailed Bush’s diplomatic train and diverted it to Oslo instead, hence the end of Bush, Sr’s designs.

When Bush the son came to the White House, the neo-conservatives had managed to secure a position of power and station themselves strategically around the New President who had to shoulder the whole issue of “terrorism” after September 11. These developments hastened the penetration of Bush’s policies by neo-conservatives, hence the difference between the two Bushes.

KZ: Upon taking office, the Presidents of the United States conventionally make trips to Israel and pay homage to the Israelis by saying that they are committed to the security of Israel and that they will try their best to serve the interests of the Jewish regime. Is the Zionist lobby so influential to prevent from coming to power a President who has an anti-Zionist mindset? Is it ever possible for an anti-Zionist politician to rise to power in the United States?

NA: The answers to both questions are yes and yes. No politician with an “anti-Zionist mindset” could ever dream of living in the White House. The American political system has institutional and constitutional barriers against anti-Zionists winning the U.S. presidency. Take for example the Electoral College by which Americans elect their presidents. The EC stipulates that a candidate to the presidency must gain plurality and the winner takes all. These two factors (plurality and winner takes all) tend to polarize the system and promote the two party system. In that setting, there is no place for a minority, which is likely to be the anti-Zionist mindset. Rather, the system would promote two polarities and avoids the diffusion of power. In the US minorities which are cohesive and disciplined can easily develop factions such as Afro-Americans or Zionists who would give their votes to their co-nationals and insure the victory of disciplined, single-minded, and organized constituencies. In such a political system, anti-Zionists could never aspire to win a senatorial or even a lower House position, let alone win the Presidency. That is an impossible task.

KZ: What’s in your view, the source of Zionist lobby’s enormous power and wealth? You may admit that the majority of mainstream media in the United States are being run by the well-off Jews and that the Zionist lobby plays a central role in the decision which the U.S. congress makes. What is the source of this power and influence?

NA: The sources of Zionist power in the US stem from superior organization, good finance, a ready-made “defense” of their cause such as “anti-Semitism,” which serves as a sort of black-mail and a barrier against valid criticism of policies. While the public can criticize Obama and his policy and expect no retribution, that same public cannot criticize Israel in the same way. Look at what happened to Helen Thomas, the dean of the White House journalists since the 1950s when she dared to express her opinion on the Israeli theft of Palestinian land, ongoing since the 1940s. Senators and Congress people have been dumped by the Lobby upon the first sign of dissent and deviation from the delivered wisdom and accepted orthodoxy on Israel. In short, the Zionist lobby is fortified by a shield which enables it to suppress dissent in a democratic nation.

KZ: As my final question, I would like to ask you to propose your solution for drawing an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Do you champion a two-state solution? Do you believe that the Jews should be returned to their original homelands in Europe? What’s your viewpoint in this regard?

NA: As for the ideal solution, I am afraid no just and lasting solution seems to be on the horizon at the present time. Israel and its supporters have stood firmly during the past four decades against the global consensus which demanded withdrawal from occupied territories and a just resolution of the refugees problem in accordance with UN resolutions and the general principles of international law– a resolution based on the principles of equal justice, equal protection of the law, and an end to apartheid, which now prevails throughout historic Palestine pre and post 1948. As for the two-state solution, there is no such a thing. It is already too late for that, as the entire spectrum of Israeli politics allows no sovereignty on any piece of land lying between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. That leaves one just solution: a single state in which Muslims, Christians and Jews can live together on the basis of equal justice and equal protection of the law.

About the author:
Kourosh Ziabari   kziabari@gmail.com
Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian media correspondent, freelance journalist and interviewer. He is a contributing writer of Finland’s Award-winning Ovi Magazine and the the Foreign Policy Journal. He is a member of Tlaxcala Translators Network for Linguistic Diversity (Spain). He is also a member of World Student Community for Sustainable Development (WSC-SD). Kourosh Ziabari's articles have appeared in a number of Canadian, Belgian, Italian, French and German websites. He can be reached at kziabari@gmail.com