Thursday, March 26, 2009

أكثر من 70 الف "لا" لـشركة "مبارك وأبنائه" على الفايس بوك

وائل عبد الرحيم

مصر على موعد في 6 نيسان / ابريل المقبل مع صرخة انتفاض جديدة في الذكرى السنوية الأولى لحركة مماثلة أجهضها حزب مبارك الحاكم.
لكن هذا العام، وحتى لو لم يستطع المصريون الخروج إلى الشارع للتعبير عن غضبهم من بؤس الأوضاع التي يتحمل مسؤوليتها حكم نخرته أمراض العصر العربي الرديء من فساد وتوريث وانحياز إلى حيتان المال أرباب الاقتصاد المافيوزي السائد، فإن الصوت وصل وبات يقضّ مضاجع أسياد القصور والعزب المبنية بدماء الفقراء وعرق الشغيلة، والمحروسة بحملة الحراب المسمّين شرطة وجيشاً وعسكر.
أكثر من 70 الف عضو انضموا إلى مجموعة 6 ابريل على الفايس بوك، تعدادهم يزيد على تعداد أكبر حزب في المعارضة، وصوتهم يعلو في نوعيته على صوت أكبر رأس في حزب مبارك أو ولاية العهد المسمّاة لجنة السياسات.
أولاد 6 ابريل 2008 باتوا اليوم أضعاف أضعاف ما كانوا عليه، ومن خرج منهم ليتضامن في العام الفائت مع عمال شركة المحلة للغزل والنسيج فتح الباب أمام كل مصري للتضامن مع نفسه في مواجهة صلف الحاكم وعهر النظام السياسي والاقتصادي في البلاد.
أما مطالبهم فبسيطة وواضحة، خالية من فضيحة سوء استخدام المادية الديالكتيكية التي يلعب بها أيديولوجيو الممانعة "بتوع الجزيرة وشافيز" و"النفط مقابل الغذاء"، ولا لطّخها تجّار الدين بتوع "الإسلام هو الحلّ" و"توظيف الأموال بالحلال".. وهي كما يعرضها شباب مصر النّضر:

1- حد أدنى للأجور 1200 جنيه بما يضمن أن يحيا المواطن بكرامة ويشعر بالأمان على مستقبله ومستقبل أبنائه.

2- ربط الأجور بالأسعار

3- انتخاب جمعية تأسيسية لوضع دستور جديد للبلاد يضمن الحريات السياسية والنقابية ويحدد فترة الرئاسة بمدتين على الأكثر.

4- وقف تصدير الغاز "لإسرائيل".

ابسط الأمور تُقال بأبسط التعابير، دون رسائل تُنصّ إلى رؤساء الدول العظمى، ودون تمويل غير حكومي او حكومي.. وبكثير من الغضب، وبأكثر من الحُلُم، يشقّ الأولاد طريق الحرية في مصر، حريتهم وحرية جيلهم والأجيال التي ستلي، يقولون لنظام الحكم اليائس والبائس إن التاريخ لا يرحم وإن شعب مصر لا تزال تسكنه روح الانتفاضة، وإن 6 ابريل هو تاريخ بداية النهاية للظلم والتسلط والطغيان، وتاريخ ولادة لبصيص أمل.

رابط موقع الفايس بوك الخاص بحركة 6 ابريل


Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Mabrouk El Safara!*

By Joseph El-Khoury

The Lebanese flag floats over Damascus as Lebanon officially inaugurates an embassy in the Syrian Capital. This highly symbolic step 65 years after both countries gained independence from French colonial rule has clearly been forced down the throat of Syrian officials who did not bother attending the ceremony. While the official propaganda tells us that the split of Greater Syria was a treacherous act by Western powers against the will of the indigenous population, any serious scrutiny would reveal a much more complex picture. I find it unhelpful to indulge in wishful thinking on what could have been and believe that it distracts from the real issues facing the relation between Lebanese and Syrians. Whoever is interested in bridging the gap has to accept the fact that a sense of separate national identity, shaped by diverging political, social and economical paths, is firmly established in both countries. Expressions of it on the Lebanese side of the border take various shapes and fashions but are increasingly cross partisan: Whether you are a ‘resistant’ Lebanese or a ‘patriotic’ one you integrate your national identity to your political views.

It is harder to gage the Syrians attitudes because of the restrictions imposed on their freedom of expressions. Nonetheless they do appear to have developed a genuine sense of Syria-Centric pride separate from the broader Arabo-islamic culture they contributed to for centuries. This was very apparent in the few weeks that followed the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon in 2005 and the show of sympathy in public and private for the regime. Bashar El Assad, posing as a defender of the nation against Zionist attacks, successfully capitalised on this sentiment at home and evaded internal criticism of the Syrian legacy in Lebanon. But it is this legacy that essentially shapes the opinion of millions of young Lebanese who lived through 30 years of Syrian military presence.

This presence was not an amicable arrangement but a heavy-handed occupation that the Lebanese experienced on a daily basis and which pervaded every aspect of their life. Many who had only known the war could hardly see past the roadblocks, tanks and uniforms to discern the real Syria with its hospitable cities and enchanting scenery. We were taught early on that ‘The Syrian is your enemy’. This slogan was ubiquitous in the Eastern (Christian) Region and made sense to us as we sheltered from Heavy artillery, loosing life and limb in the name of an independent 10452 Km2. On the other hand, the allies of Syria did little to help its image, as they helped the Baath Big Brother extend its tentacles across the border. For years the moukhabarat would run Beirut the way they run Damascus and Aleppo... ruthlessly.

As the lid was lifted following the assassination of Rafik Hariri, resentment gave way to some ugly manifestations of generalised abuse against innocent Syrian nationals. The signs of anger had been there for years waiting for an opportunity. I still vividly remember a soccer game held in 1998 between the Lebanese and Syrian national teams in the then newly refurbished ‘Cite Sportive’. A hardcore group of Lebanese fans started hurling verbal abuse and bottles of water at anyone suspected of being Syrian. In selecting their targets they relied on a strange formula of racial and social stereotyping: dark-skinned men dressed in colourful shirts and sandals. One of their victims, a middle aged man screamed that his was a case for mistaken identity. He held his Lebanese passport begging for the projectile shower to stop. Following a dismal performance on the pitch which resulted in a 2-1 victory for the visiting team, the previously bellicose crowd left the stadium in a sheepish orderly manner under the watchful eye of the Tank crews. Inside, the Syrian spectators who had kept a low profile throughout the game took their revenge on the stadium by vandalising the stands.

The mutual mistrust remains and the embassy is a necessary step which will hopefully be mirrored by the Syrian regime. Late Hafez El-Assad once remarked that Lebanon and Syria were ‘eternally linked by History and Geography’ while his actions did much harm to these links. I am hopeful that they will recover one day but can hardly see any of the prominent Lebanese factions providing us with a road map to this partnership for the future.

*Congratulations on the Embassy

Monday, March 16, 2009

Bloggers Bearing Witness in Gaza: Bias or Added Value to Media Coverage?

By Najate Zouggari *

Source: BBC Website/Middle East

The relationship between ‘warbloggers’ and journalists is precisely not a peaceful one. It is often caricatured - with some reason - as the encounter of frustrated failed journalists with professional ones jealous of their privileges. Donald Matheson and Stuart Allan** in a chapter entitled ‘War Zone: The Role of Warblogs in Iraq’ are thinking about the collaboration between what they call mediasphere and blogosphere. They say that blogs cannot be separated from the mediasphere to which they respond. In the case of the recent war on Gaza, it seems on the contrary, that the blogosphere was an impulse of news and the main source of information. Matheson and Allan’s model, which was applied to the 2003 invasion of Irak, could clearly be inverted as far as the 2008 Gaza offensive is considered.

Their main conclusion is still valid though:
the dominant model of the foreign war correspondent, developed during the relatively information-scarce nineteenth-century, relied upon the correspondent having a monopoly of information and the status of an expert by dint of being present on foreign soil and having general journalistic skills. Such a model becomes less tenable when news editors and readers have instant access to multiple voices, both journalist and lay, experiencing the news event in question from an array of perspectives in multiple locations.Matheson, Allan (2007, p.87)

Some of these multiple voices are put together on Global Voices, a platform started by the Berkman Centre for Internet and Society at the Harvard Law School. Ethan Zuckerman and Rebecca MacKinnon founded this valuable meeting point in 2004. Four years later, it became a central independent resource for anyone interested in listening others’ voices. MacKinnon told the BBC: ‘If bloggers are out there creating media and talking about things that the mainstream media isn't covering, that may also help push the mainstream media to recognise that there are a lot of things out there that people care about that they've simply failed to cover.***

From Gaza, with Love is a blog - created on Blogspot - by Mona Al-Farrah, a physician and human rights activist who actually was in Egypt while the bombings started. Her messages revealed though an authentic voice, transmitting directly in the blogosphere the news she received from her friends, before they got into the mediasphere. At least, when they eventually reached it. She was giving her phone number in case someone - journalists? - would like to speak with her. Mohammed Fares Al Majdalawi, film maker and social worker in Gaza strip, published a post on Mona’s blog (4/01/2008): ‘There is a horror in every minute (...) I have two message to the world, (...) to the lovers of peace and freedom in the world. First message: Imagine your life with no electricity, destroyed homes, missiles night and day, no food. Imagine your children and your family telling you they are afraid of the missiles (...) My second message: End the siege and stop the killings, stop the demolitions of our houses.’ ****

The lack of professional mediacy might be considered as an evidence of bias. Technically, however, the blogger is making himself available by putting his mobile phone number online, at the end of his post. Any journalist or any simple reader is invited to check the facts. Many bloggers like Mohammed kept writing, as far as they got an internet access. Hopefully, the mediasphere - not entirely - echoed the cries and stories of the blogosphere. Al Jazeera English, from Gaza, had a Twitter feed which gave the general public an opportunity to follow - and check - the news almost at the same time as a new post was published.

Passing through both mediasphere and blogosphere is a way for the audience to get really involved in the news process instead of absorbing passively the crumbs delivered by mainstream media. It is a chance for professional journalists to share a conversation with this sort of active public, as well as with non-professional writers and witnesses. It is worthwhile noticing how Al Jazeera English, at some point, realized the perfect combination between blogosphere and mediasphere through an experimental platform called ‘War On Gaza. Experimental Beta’. On this website, a map was available and accidents could be submitted through the site, Twitter and mobile phones (SMS). Then, they were checked and possibly validated.

In conclusion, ‘truth in a war zone’ does not depend anymore on the monopoly of information by foreign correspondents. It is more likely a dialogue between an active blogosphere and a open mediasphere that values the intelligence of its audience by putting it in the centre of the news process - in a shared rationality.

* French Journalist Living in London, Visit her Blog

** Maltby S., Keeble R. (2007) Communicating War. Memory, Media and Military. Bury St Edmunds: Arima Publishing
*** Boyd C., (2005). "Global voices speak through blogs," BBC NEWS Technology, April 6, 2005.
**** From Gaza, With Love (Mona El-Farra)


Related Links:
From Gaza, With Love
Gaza Today
Rafah Today
Diary of a Palestinian mother
Aljazeera Labs

Sunday, March 15, 2009

March 14 and the Reproduction of the Corrupted System

By Bachir Habib

Since 2005, the 14th of March stopped being a normal date. This day booked a prominent place on the Lebanese political calendar. A date remembered in different ways each and every year. Whether it is to celebrate it as an event that opened “a new glorious chapter” of our History (for its contribution to the withdrawal of the Syrian army from the country after three decades of controversial presence), or to criticize it as a pro-Western opportunistic moment that has not added any value to the Lebanese political life, this day holds an important place at least because of the debate it instigates.

Unlike 2006/7/8, March 14, 2009 is more related to the one of 2005 even if the political context and alliances are hardly comparable. However, same as in 2005, the country is heading towards legislative elections Lebanese leaders describe as crucial or vital and some even dare pretending that the future of Lebanon depends on them.

The illusion of a radical rupture with the past vanished in 2005 with the emergence of the “four party alliance”: an opportunistic electoral understanding between the pro Syrian Amal movement and Hezbollah, and the fresh anti Syrian Future movement of Hariri and the Socialist Party of Walid Jumblat.

Back in 2005, this alliance cornered the Free Patriotic Movement of General Michel Aoun despite the role this party played in organizing and mobilizing for the so called “Cedar Revolution”. The electoral invoice of this action was sent to the 14th of March leaders by the Christian electorate who, by counter reaction, voted massively for Aoun, winner of nearly 70% of the Christian vote.

Aoun’s strong mandate liberated him from his former alliances, and gave him the freedom to build new ones, that appeared to be with the hardliner pro Syrian camp and specifically Hezbollah.

In that sense, and because it is now clear that the Christian vote direction will decide the outcome of the whole electoral process, 2009 is comparable to 2005. But while in 2005 it was a spontaneous referendum on the behavior of the “fresh anti Syrian camp” in the Christian areas, it will be in 2009 a referendum that will determine whether the Christian electorate approves the Aoun – hardliner pro Syrians alliance.

Even if the coming elections are important, they are not as crucial as some pretend. July 2009 will not determine the identity of Lebanon, because an identity change will only occur by creating a real rupture with the past, which is not yet the case since the Lebanese political class is busy preserving the sectarian system while the real need is to change it or at least structurally reforming it.

Lebanon missed a golden opportunity in 2005 by running away from creating a new momentum powered by the strong popular mandate Lebanese citizens gave to the notion of Change when they took the streets on the 14th of March. The Lebanese political class and specifically the March 14 camp ignored calls from architects of the Cedar Revolution, who urged them to initiate an “Uprising Within the Uprising, or in other terms, an uprising against ourselves”*.

But the message was not heard, “yesterday’s revolutionaries” preferred giving more credit to the sectarian system, and whatever the outcome of the 2009 elections, the conclusion will be nothing but a “top-up” to the lifeline of the corrupted confessional system, with a semblance of a lifetime guarantee for Nabih Berry as Speaker of Parliament.

*Samir Kassir, "Intifada fi al Intifada", An Nahar, 01/04/2005

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Go to Gaza, Drink The Sea

By Joseph El-Khoury


‘...Go and Drink the Sea of Gaza’ Yasser Arafat (1929-2004)

There are plays that leave you in two minds about contemporary theatre. ‘Go to Gaza’ playing in North London was one of them. The experience meant to be truely total, my friends and I squatted on pillows, sacrificing comfort for Arab authenticity. The strikingly designed stage consisted of a mound of abandoned shoes. It would have been enjoyable if it wasn’t for the overwhelming fumes that would invariably shorten the life of an asthmatic. Never since the filming of Michael’s Jackson’s ‘Beat it’ has so much fumes been released in the atmosphere in the name of art. But seeing, with a bit of effort, passed the aesthetics and you are from the onset struck with a message: In Gaza, People die! Mostly miserable deaths caused or worsened by the Israeli occupation. Whether on the beach or in the camps, in their houses or on the roads, eating their dinner or firing AK-47s they die.

This omnipresent threat of death drives the play, through the obsessions and ruminations of the main character, a Palestinian young man. Too well-dressed, middle-class and detached from his surrounding(Not that the three are intrinsically linked)he is presented to us with too little background to allow empathy to develop. While all the main characters are Palestinian, an Israeli refusenik is thrown suddenly in the mix. Representing a fringe movement, she provides no real insight into the Israeli side of events. This is left to Mark Regev and Alan Dershowitz through recorded news interviews. Their smug, technical account of events is in contrast with the screams and sounds emanating from the strip. And here lies the problem for me; again Arab characters seem to shine in their state of emotional victimhood all the way to their decision to die a martyr of a generic colourless and faithless resistance far removed from the reality of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Although full of energy, the choreographed closing piece is too reminiscent of the PLO training camps of the 1970s, reflecting a phase of the struggle with which the traditional British Left is more at ease. All in all, I felt the play too targeted at a western audience to strike a chord with me. At times the attempts to help this audience identify with the sufferings of a Palestinian mother felt less than subtle (using the Madeleine McCann analogy) and with the potential to backfire. On a more positive note, the play contains moments of striking rawness and authenticity. My favourite being a father’s account in Arabic of a confrontation with the Israeli military machine that left his family in tatters and his home destroyed.

As I left the theatre I reflected on the weeks that followed the savage Israeli assault. With the siege still in place the Gaza strip is still on the mind of many activists. Not a day passes without a concert for Palestine, an exhibition for Palestine or a dinner for Palestine; all done in genuine support of the struggle of this people denied a land and an identity for too many years. This buzz coincided with the 50th anniversary of the 1959 Tibetan uprising against Chinese occupation on 10th March. The irony that this now province of the People’s Democratic Republic of China has enjoyed public Western sympathy for many years wasn’t lost on me. Over the years, the Tibetan cause has become the equivalent of a cuddly cub or a helpless puppy: cute, popular and everyone’s favourite pet. It enjoyed the right celebrity endorsement and became an unavoidable political topic. But whether you believe the Dalai Lama is a peace loving saint or an astute manipulator, you cannot but acknowledge that when things get serious Tibetan freedom is downgraded to the level of East Timoran stability. On a recent visit to China, the appointed international face of Obama’s promises of change, secretary of state Hillary Clinton, demonstrated the A to Z of post-modern Realpolitik. With the latest global financial downturn, a people’s rights to freedom and auto-determination are relegated to the anti-chamber while mutual interests dominate the agenda.

I wonder in that environment what chance the Palestinians have of seeing progress on the peace process in the foreseeable future. They, because of their persistent struggle, in its guerrilla version, its international terrorism version, its rock throwing version, its suicide bomber version or its Kassam Rocket version have no chance of playing at the cuddly puppy. Despite all the best efforts of their supporters, they can at best hope to be viewed by the wider audience as an exhausted haggard mutt with the right scars to show it.

Read more About the Play:
http://gotogaza.wordpress.com

Monday, March 9, 2009

Al Bashir, the US and the ICC

By Bachir Habib


The International Criminal Court issued a long awaited arrest warrant last week against President of Sudan Omar Al Bashir.
In its first warrant against a serving head of State, the panel of the ICC judges ruled that Al Bashir should answer two counts of war crimes, and five counts of crimes against humanity related to the conflict in Darfur.
The warrant issued has been praised by most Western countries including the United States. However, the history of the relations between the US and the ICC is all about “conflicts and disagreements”, and it is essential to mention that Washington did not ratify the Rome Treaty that brought the ICC into being in 2002.
To avoid any confusion, it is essential here to shed some light on the ICC and its relation with the American “Power”.

The International Criminal Court is not to be confused with the International Court of Justice. It is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.
As of March 2009, 108 states are members of the Court; however, a number of states, including China, Russia, India and the United States, are critical of the Court and have not joined.
The Court is designed to complement existing national judicial systems: it can exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes. Primary responsibility to investigate and punish crimes is therefore left to individual states.
To date, the Court has opened investigations into four situations: Northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic and Darfur. The Court has issued public arrest warrants for thirteen people; seven of them remain free, two have died, and four are in custody. The Court's first trial, of Congolese militia leader Thomas Lubanga, began on 26 January 2009.

Regarding the Court’s relation with Washington, it is primordial to mention that The US has been so far in opposition to ratifying the Rome Statute and joining the ICC. However, the United States took no action to oppose using the ICC to prosecute atrocities in Darfur, as evidenced by the U.S. abstention on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1593 referring the Darfur situation to the ICC for prosecution.
The U.S. State Department has in the past published a long list of US objections against the ICC, stating that it is vague, broad, and has unaccountable powers, that the statute of the Court is an “infringement of national sovereignty and is in incompatibility with the American Constitution”, and finally, that it paves the way to “politically motivated prosecutions”.
The US State Department has even posted a Frequently Asked Questions section on its website explaining why Washington is against ratifying the ICC Treaty.

The above “facts” are clear, and they are nothing but a brief summary of a whole juridical literature written during the past few years regarding the US position towards the ICC. However, the US support of the ICC, specifically in Al Bashir’s case, is a clear example of a politically motivated act, rather than a support for the international legality. Washington is actually harming the international system with its attempt to serve its National Interest by using a young legal body that needs to go a long way ahead, before proving its independence, credibility and authority.
In that sense, it is maybe time to remind that there is no democracy, national or global, without implementing the principle of separation of powers. In other words the need is for a separation of the legal international system from any political interference once a judicial process is launched.

Friday, March 6, 2009

Is Religious Education Psychological Cloning?

By Dr Numan Gharaibeh


Xenophanes suggested that men (yes, men) arbitrarily attributed human-like qualities to gods:
“But if cattle, or lions, or horses had hands….then the horses in drawing their gods would draw horses; and cattle would give us pictures and statues of cattle; and therefore each would picture the gods to resemble their own constitution. Aethiopian [sic.] gods–snubnosed [sic.] and black, Thracians—blue eyed and blond.” It certainly was (and is) an ancient genius insight by Xenophanes: we created gods in our image and not vice versa.

In a new millennium, a new century, and in the golden age of science and technology one would’ve expected religious fervor to start a gradual decline. Unfortunately, judging by the first 8 years of the new millennium, religious extremism does not seem to be declining. One would have liked the global financial system to have fared as well. How can we explain that (if at all possible)?

One clue to the answer is that in science and technology we no longer believe (and may laugh at) what we believed 50 years ago, while in religion people still believe what was believed 500 or even 5000 yeas ago. So, what is religion’s secret in immunizing itself against change?

Here is one clue. By the time most children reach at the age of abstract reasoning–the consensus is that it is by age 12, but one may argue as late as 20 or never in some cases–they typically would have gone through as many years of education and indoctrination. The process of education/indoctrination may have other names as well: instruction, acculturation, socialization, assimilation, tutoring, rearing, upbringing, etc. The essence, however, is the same, creating a future adult in our own psychological image: believing what we believe, behaving as we behave, and carrying on our legacy and tradition.

There is nothing more insulting to the mind than to ask of it not to reason at all. Reasoning is one of the defining attributes of the human mind, arguably it is what makes us who we are. To ask of the mind not to think and to blindly accept what it is being told is to ask it to stop acting as a mind. It might as well be a programmed computer. Children learn what are taught by the adults around them. They are trusting, innocent sponges who will absorb what typically they have no choice over, they trust adults because that’s what evolution had programmed them to do. They can’t go it alone, so they accept what is presented to them as facts. They are taught to believe in the unseen (they are told to call it faith). Children are taught the ideology of the parents and other grown ups, what is right and wrong, true or false, good and bad or evil, etc. By the time the child reaches an age of independent reasoning it is difficult to undo all the previous indoctrination.

Dawkins and Hitchens rightfully argued that indoctrination amounts to psychological/emotional child abuse. Correcting errors of logic (well-intentioned as they may have been), and undoing the harmful effects of dangerous instruction and negligent lack of instruction may be an extremely difficult task (or may be even impossible).

Deliberately creating an identical human to us with the same exact genes (i.e. same hardware) may be an ethical sin (or not), however, it is a greater injustice and more unethical to create an identical psychological copy (i.e. software) of ourselves. Unfortunately, while physical cloning is debated frequently by bioethicists, psychological cloning remains very acceptable (if not even encouraged). Where do we draw the line?

Our education becomes indoctrination and psychological cloning when we teach kids absolute obedience and submission, when we teach them to accept dogmatism without questioning, when we instruct them that doubt is a sin punishable by extreme forms of torture, when we neglect to teach them skepticism and free thinking, when we neglect teaching them alternative views, humanistic multicultural views, multinational views, scientific curiosity, when we neglect to teach them that looking for evidence is imperative and not a sign of being unfaithful. Yes, belief without evidence may be called faith but it may also be called brainwashing, psychological cloning, indoctrination and psychological abuse.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

مهاجرون في فضاءات رماديّة... في سيرة مدينة لم تلدني

وائل عبد الرحيم


قالت لي العصفورة في يوم غائم ممطر إن البعض أقنعها قبل أن يرحل إن الواحد منا يختار أوان الرحيل بملء إرادته..
إنني قد أخالفها الرأي، فالرحيلُ ليس خياراً واعياً، إنه صُدفة.
كذلك هي الصُّدفة التي قادتني إلى هذه المدينة.
مدينة ما كنت أخال أنني سأحبها يوماً بهذا القدر.
كانت في المخيّلة كتلة اسمنت وحديد، وسقفاً من غيم رمادي.
لعلها هي كذلك، لكنّ أمرها عجيب حقاً.. فتحت الرمادي حياة أخرى.. وألوان للناس والقطارات ونوافذ المنازل.. ومذاقات النبيذ المحلي والمستورد...
ليست لندن مدينة شاعرية، ولا غرابة في ذلك.. بل لا اعتراض..
هي مدينة صعبة، لكنها لصعوبتها طيّعة إذا امتدت إليها يد واثقة.. وقد تكون مدينة مضاءة إذا قرّرت السماء أن تمنحها بعضاً من الشمس.. وربما تصبح مدينة مغضمة العيون إذا داعبتها يد متهوّرة تبحث عن زاوية في حدائقها.
كلا ليست لندن مدينة تمنحها حبُّك بسهولة.. ولكنك إذا أحببتها فسينعصر قلبك إلى حدّ الانسحاب.
سألتُ الصغيرة في باريس، وهي مثلي مهاجرة إلى مدينة ليست المدينة التي ولدتها، ولكنها على الأقلّ أوروبية.. هل يمكن لنا أن نشتاق إلى مدينة لم نغادرها بعد؟ فقالت: "نعم. لا يمكنك أن تتخيّل معاناتي، فأنا أيضاً أخاف أن أغادر باريس".
فقلت: حقاً؟؟ حتى لو انني قررت الرحيل الآن، لكنني لا أعرف إلى أين. فالمدينة التي ولدتُ فيها أصبحت غريبة بعض الشيء عني.. ربما أذهب إلى إفريقيا إذا وجدت عملاً هناك.
فقالت الصغيرة "عليك أن تتصالح مع مدينتك".
لكن قولي لي هل يعني هذا أننا إذا كنا قد غادرنا المدينة التي ولدنا فيها منذ سنوات وأحببنا مدناً أخرى، أو كرهناها، هل يعني هذا أننا لم نعد نحب المدينة الأولى؟
فقالت "أبداً. إنه الغياب المزدوج لشروط المهاجر". ولم أفهم شيئاً لكنني لم أطلب شروحات إضافية، فكنت قد رجوتها الإيجاز.
لكن ألا يعني ذلك أننا فقدنا معنى الشعور؟
"قطعاً لا. إنه تشتت الأحاسيس!".
غريب امر المدن، وغريب أمر بعض الناس الذين من كثرة الترحال امتهنوا الرحيل. إنني أفهم الغجر.. ألا يرتحل الغجر في اوروبا؟
ولندن أيضاً مدينة للموسيقى، فهي المساحة التي يصبح فيها التعبير عن المكنونات متاحاً بحيث لا يمسّ خصوصيات الآخرين.. يمكنك أن تكون عنصرياً في بلد تعاقب قوانينه هذا السلوك، وبنوع من الموسيقى تتجنب العقاب.. ويمكنك أن تسمح لنفسك بقليل من العدوانية تنساب عبر الموسيقى.. ويمكنك ان تكون أحمراً بالموسيقى.. وأن تحبّ إذا شاءت السماء، بالموسيقى أيضاً لمن لا يعرف كيف يحبّ دون ألحان ونبيذ وبعض من الأرض.
هل يمكن لنا أن نحبّ مدينة بشعة مثل لندن؟
"نعم" قالت الصغيرة.
وهل إذا أحببنها تبطل ان تكون بشعة؟
"بل بشعة، ولكن عميقة".
مثل البحر؟
"تشبيه جيّد".
مع خطر الغرق؟
"نعم" قالت.
ولكننا هنا لا نعني الموت.. لا؟
"بل يمكن أن نموت إذا لم نستطع ان نتحكم بتنفسنا".