Digital & Print Membership
Yearly + Receive 8 free printed back issues
$420 Annually
Monthly + Receive 3 free printed back issues
$40 Monthly
Exile to expression: how Lina Soualem’s film challenges colonial narratives
Céline Semaan and filmmaker Lina Soualem explore the deeply personal and political dimensions of Lina’s latest film, Bye Bye Tiberias (2023). The documentary tells the story of Lina’s mother, renowned Palestinian actress Hiam Abbass, and the experiences of four generations of women in their family. It traces Abbass’ departure from Tiberias, Palestine, in the 1980s, as she pursued a career in acting, and reflects on the generational trauma, resilience, and displacement faced by Palestinian women.
In the interview, Lina discusses the complexities and contradictions of navigating life in exile, while exploring her family’s story. The film draws from personal archives and interviews to offer a broader reflection on Palestinian history and the ongoing impact of colonialism. Lina emphasizes the role of art in challenging political narratives, giving voice to stories often silenced or erased.
‘Artists are meant to question and challenge the system, even if they navigate within it.’ —Lina

CÉLINE: Your film Bye Bye Tiberias: Why is it so important for you to have this film understood, seen, witnessed by an American audience?
LINA: The film has been shown in the US, which I wasn’t expecting, but we were nominated to represent Palestine at the Oscars. This generated a lot of interest from the US, which is not easy with auteur films and documentaries, especially Arab and Palestinian narratives. It was amazing to share the film there because of the large immigrant and diasporic population.
Many people in the US come from exilic or diasporic backgrounds, allowing the story to resonate on multiple levels, not just the Palestinian experience but the broader diasporic experience. This is significant because it allows us to be seen on a human level, beyond the stigmas often attached to Palestinians. I want to quote Karim Katan, who co-wrote part of the voices in the film. He says that we often talk about Palestinians being “dehumanized,” but that’s not even accurate because we were never truly humanized in the first place. We’ve never been allowed to exist as equals, as fully human in the eyes of others.
So, it was powerful to be able to exist and exchange with people who understood, particularly those from immigrant backgrounds. My goal wasn’t to address white Americans but those who could connect with the diasporic experience. Of course, if others relate to the film, that’s incredible too—it allows us to be part of the world in a meaningful way.
CÉLINE: In your film, you focus on existing—not performing identity or pain. There are moments that simply capture life, what you called a “proof of life.” You said it’s not about dehumanization but about never being humanized, and being purposefully erased. How do you see the role of documenting and archiving as a way to present this proof of life to the world?

LINA: For us, existing through our images and stories is essential. There’s always this fear of disappearing—our families have faced this through the Nakba, through displacement. And that threat is very real today, whether in Gaza, the West Bank, or even inside the 1948 occupied state where Palestinian identity is constantly suppressed.
Whenever I filmed, I felt that any moment could become an archive. You never know if you’ll see the same place again, if you’ll be able to return, or what you’ll find when you do. Many places our families knew are gone, and when they still exist, we’re often erased from them. For me, it was crucial to immortalize our presence, our stories, especially the stories of the women in my family. These are not just personal stories but part of our collective memory, which has never been formally written down. It’s built from our intimate memories, and we all have a responsibility to preserve them.
It’s like we have to constantly prove to ourselves that we exist, every day. This inner struggle is a consequence of colonization, as Fanon wrote about. Colonization erases not just land and property but also identity and the language to define yourself. Through film, we create a new language, one that allows us to tell our own stories and push back against stigmatization. In the media, Palestinians are often only seen through violence, destruction, and death. But for me, resistance is also in the everyday—living, not just surviving. Celebrating our culture, birthdays, weddings—this too is resistance, and it’s at the heart of the film.
I grew up with memories of Palestine that were so different from how we are portrayed. I wanted to show our truth, to exist in our truth. It’s surreal that the film was released during the war on Gaza, in the midst of genocide. I finished it in August 2023 after six years of work, and the first screenings were in September. After October 7, the film took on an even deeper meaning, but the mission remains the same. I’ve always been speaking about the need to exist and resist dehumanization. For me, it was about the intensity and the need, like I was on a mission and had to keep going.
CÉLINE: Yes, because it didn’t really begin in October. This is your second film, right? I haven’t seen the first one, but I was talking to someone yesterday who mentioned that it was about your father’s side of the family. There seems to be a big contrast with your mother’s side. Could you talk about the two projects side by side?
LINA: Yeah. My father is from Algeria, and the first film was about my paternal grandparents, Aisha and Mabruk, Algerian immigrants who came to France in the 1950s. They separated when they were 80, and I filmed their story, retracing their life and exile. I come from two histories of colonialism, and the difference between my Algerian and Palestinian families is stark.
The Algerians stayed silent to survive. After Algeria’s independence, they buried themselves in silence to cope with the trauma of colonization. In the first film, I had to break that silence to understand our story, my connection to my grandparents’ homeland, and France, the colonial country where I was born. I needed to put them back into history, because growing up, it felt like my grandparents had no history. Even in school, they never taught us colonial history.
The difference with my Palestinian side is that, instead of silence, we had to tell our stories in order to survive. There were always stories, but they were fragmented. Many family members we’ve never been able to see again—some are refugees, some stayed in ‘48. So, the goal of Bye Bye Tiberias wasn’t to break silence, but to piece together the scattered stories, like putting together a puzzle. Colonization breaks linearity, so this was about reconstructing that.

CÉLINE: Absolutely, I relate. My book is non-linear for that very reason. The act of remembering, itself, isn’t linear. In your film, there are moments within moments, like Russian dolls—layers of moments. As you open one, you find another. There are these peaceful moments, pockets of peace, joy, and laughter. Even in the dramatized scene, when your mother goes back to the theater—what’s it called?
LINA: Hakawati Theater.
CÉLINE: Right, Hakawati. When she relives that moment, it’s incredibly powerful. Just talking about it now makes me emotional, because in those moments, we get to witness our humanity, which has been robbed from us.
‘We are actively fighting for liberation. In the process of liberation, we should allow freedom for everyone. Pointing fingers contradicts the goal of liberation. We are free to be who we are while fighting for that freedom.’ —Lina
LINA: Yes, and you know, I have a friend, a Palestinian from Jerusalem, who saw the film in Europe last fall, at a time when she couldn’t go back home. She told me, “Thank you for reminding us of the beauty of our culture and our country.” It’s hard because when you constantly see negative representations of yourself in the media, even if you know it’s not true, it still affects you. It’s so important to remind ourselves of who we truly are.
For me, it wasn’t something I had to force. It felt natural. I just put the camera in front of my aunts and my mother, and the humor was there. Humor is such a typical part of our culture, a way to cope with reality. We come from a tradition of literature and poetry—as Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians— and we’ve lost so much of that because they’ve destroyed our archives and erased some of our thinkers.
While making the film and writing poetry for it, I discovered that my family was writing poetry too—my mother, my grandfather—and I had no idea! It felt like these pieces were coming together, and I realized I was part of something much bigger than myself. I wasn’t starting from scratch; I was continuing a legacy that was passed down to me. It was incredibly moving, like I was part of a process that I couldn’t escape, even if I wanted to.
CÉLINE: It’s like weaving resistance from past generations to the present. People often misunderstand resistance, thinking it’s about bearing arms or fighting. Even the language we use can be violent—like “fighting back.” But so much of our resistance is soft resistance, about building, remembering, preserving, and protecting our culture.
In your film, there’s so much softness. The term “soft power” comes to mind—it’s a concept that keeps reemerging. How do you reconcile the contradictions between softness and strength? People often think softness is weakness.
LINA: First of all, I wanted the women in my family, and in the film, to exist in their full complexity. They have vulnerabilities, contradictions, and strengths, but they are also women in a patriarchal world. Their ways of fighting aren’t always in the foreground; sometimes it’s through passing down love and values like forgiveness to their children. That’s a powerful form of resistance. It’s almost a miracle that they’ve not only transmitted these things to us but also raised us with love, allowing us to want to share that love with the world. When you come from violent histories, you’d expect people to be stuck in cycles of violence, but what Palestinians have become is truly miraculous.
I don’t like the term “resilience” because the West often uses it to box us in, as if we’re simply resilient people. For me, it’s a life force, something beyond resistance. It’s like the Algerians who kept living in France, the colonial country that treated them as subjects. The fact that they lived, educated their children, and we, their descendants, were born and raised in France with the same tools as the settlers, is a miracle. That’s what we should highlight—not the extremes of violence and revenge, but the quiet resistance through language, survival, and a desire to keep our culture alive, to educate our children, and fill them with hope and dreams. Both forms of resistance can coexist, and there are many ways to struggle.
CÉLINE: There’s a lot of misunderstanding in the West. Maybe it’s because we have the privilege of being able to return to our lands, which softens our fight and our resistance. There’s this notion that we have to “toughen up,” that we need to detach from our humanity to exist here. Lately, I see fewer people in my culture celebrating—fewer posts about weddings, birthdays, or joy. People tell me they feel guilty about celebrating. But if we feel guilty for our joy, hasn’t the colonizer and its war machine already won? It’s like we’re internalizing the pain in the form of guilt, which is dangerous.
LINA: Yes, it’s normal to feel guilty. I don’t think we can escape it. But we have to respect that everyone copes in their own way. We shouldn’t judge those who continue to celebrate life or those who withdraw and choose to be more discreet. The diversity in how we deal with things is what makes us culturally rich. It’s dehumanizing when the West tries to essentialize us into one thing, whether as Palestinian women or Arabs in general. It’s so important to claim our complexity because that’s who we are, especially as Palestinians, and it’s who we will continue to be.
We are actively fighting for liberation. In the process of liberation, we should allow freedom for everyone. Pointing fingers contradicts the goal of liberation. We are free to be who we are while fighting for that freedom.
CÉLINE: Exactly. Liberation and complexity go hand in hand. It’s a dance, and in this dance, we embrace contradictions. For example, your film shows your mother wanting to leave Palestine to follow her dream, which she couldn’t pursue while she was there. That’s a contradiction, but it’s real. The film invites the viewer to accept that two opposing things can coexist. The West struggles with this idea. How do you think controlling our own media and narratives could help teach the West about embracing contradictions?
LINA: This is the thing, they don’t allow us to be complex because when we are complex, we become equal. They want to control the narrative about us and define us on their terms. But when we use our language, art, and literature to define ourselves, it gives us the power to invent new ways of seeing ourselves—ways that aren’t new at all but were erased.
For example, I think of Mouloud Feraoun, an Algerian writer and fighter against colonialism. He wrote Les Moutons de Guerre in French, and he used that language as a force against colonization. Edward Said said exile is the greatest tragedy a person can face, but at the same time, it’s a way to reinvent yourself in the margins. This diasporic experience allows us to transform memory and create new language, reconnecting with how our ancestors defined themselves when they were free.
This is crucial because it gives us a history when they’re trying to erase it, trying to rewrite our history through their lens. Building bridges between the past and present is necessary. Even in France, as an Algerian, when I talk about colonization, they say, “That’s the past. Move on.” But we are still living in a neo-colonial world. The French are always talking about their identity and ancestors from centuries ago, yet we’re told to forget ours. We will never stop connecting with our ancestors because they constitute who we are.
As immigrants, or children of immigrants, we will always ask, “What if they hadn’t colonized us? What if I had been born there?” Imagining that is powerful. Decolonization isn’t just tangible; it’s also about our imaginations. It’s about envisioning what we could have been and what we can be, in many diverse ways.
That’s why all forms of expression—art, activism, journalism— are valid in the process of liberation. They are what build nations and societies. And we have the right to that.
CÉLINE: Yes, absolutely. Building on that, politics is fundamentally about bringing back into focus what is often pushed aside. When people say some topics are too political to discuss, it’s often because these issues are simplified or purified in ways that overlook our contributions to culture and the larger movement of international solidarity. It’s not a one-sided endeavor; it’s about embracing plurality. Sometimes, we may not have a clear way to conclude with a sense of permission, especially when we’re often discouraged from creating freely. What wisdom would you offer young creatives who see the world as it is, don’t necessarily want to be politicized, but find that their work naturally becomes political?
LINA: Art is inherently political. I’ve never considered art as something separate from politics. Art is a way of asserting your existence and your voice, and when you come from our histories and stories, everything we create or say becomes political. It’s a privilege to view art as non-political because for us, it’s always tied to our lived realities. I believe artists are meant to question and challenge the system, even if they navigate within it. You don’t always have to foreground the political message—let it emerge naturally, in subtle ways if you wish. What’s most important is to follow and trust your instincts, because in creating, you are searching for your unique language.
For example, with my first film, I was often told in France that it wasn’t a “universal” story, that no one would care about two Algerians and their story of exile. I had to fight to trust my instincts, to believe that people could connect with our stories. It wasn’t easy, especially as a woman, because we are often asked to second-guess ourselves or set aside our feelings. But it’s crucial to try, even if it doesn’t work right away. You try again and again until you find your voice. And if one path doesn’t work, you adapt and try another way. But today, I believe it’s necessary to be active in that sense—art and activism go hand in hand.
CÉLINE: The personal is indeed universal in so many ways. That’s what politics is about—being able to connect. Thank you so much, Lina, for the beautiful gift of this film, and for sharing your thoughts. We’re excited to have you as part of EIP. Thank you!
‘It’s dehumanizing when the West tries to essentialize us into one thing, whether as Palestinian women or Arabs in general. It’s so important to claim our complexity because that’s who we are, and it’s who we will continue to be.’ —Lina

Topics:
Filed under:
Location:
{
"article":
{
"title" : "Exile to expression: how Lina Soualem’s film challenges colonial narratives",
"author" : "Céline Semaan, Lina Soualem",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/lina-soualem-exile-to-expression",
"date" : "2024-11-01 13:43:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/lina-soualem-thumb.jpg",
"excerpt" : "Céline Semaan and filmmaker Lina Soualem explore the deeply personal and political dimensions of Lina’s latest film, Bye Bye Tiberias (2023). The documentary tells the story of Lina’s mother, renowned Palestinian actress Hiam Abbass, and the experiences of four generations of women in their family. It traces Abbass’ departure from Tiberias, Palestine, in the 1980s, as she pursued a career in acting, and reflects on the generational trauma, resilience, and displacement faced by Palestinian women.",
"content" : "Céline Semaan and filmmaker Lina Soualem explore the deeply personal and political dimensions of Lina’s latest film, Bye Bye Tiberias (2023). The documentary tells the story of Lina’s mother, renowned Palestinian actress Hiam Abbass, and the experiences of four generations of women in their family. It traces Abbass’ departure from Tiberias, Palestine, in the 1980s, as she pursued a career in acting, and reflects on the generational trauma, resilience, and displacement faced by Palestinian women.In the interview, Lina discusses the complexities and contradictions of navigating life in exile, while exploring her family’s story. The film draws from personal archives and interviews to offer a broader reflection on Palestinian history and the ongoing impact of colonialism. Lina emphasizes the role of art in challenging political narratives, giving voice to stories often silenced or erased.‘Artists are meant to question and challenge the system, even if they navigate within it.’ —LinaCÉLINE: Your film Bye Bye Tiberias: Why is it so important for you to have this film understood, seen, witnessed by an American audience?LINA: The film has been shown in the US, which I wasn’t expecting, but we were nominated to represent Palestine at the Oscars. This generated a lot of interest from the US, which is not easy with auteur films and documentaries, especially Arab and Palestinian narratives. It was amazing to share the film there because of the large immigrant and diasporic population.Many people in the US come from exilic or diasporic backgrounds, allowing the story to resonate on multiple levels, not just the Palestinian experience but the broader diasporic experience. This is significant because it allows us to be seen on a human level, beyond the stigmas often attached to Palestinians. I want to quote Karim Katan, who co-wrote part of the voices in the film. He says that we often talk about Palestinians being “dehumanized,” but that’s not even accurate because we were never truly humanized in the first place. We’ve never been allowed to exist as equals, as fully human in the eyes of others.So, it was powerful to be able to exist and exchange with people who understood, particularly those from immigrant backgrounds. My goal wasn’t to address white Americans but those who could connect with the diasporic experience. Of course, if others relate to the film, that’s incredible too—it allows us to be part of the world in a meaningful way.CÉLINE: In your film, you focus on existing—not performing identity or pain. There are moments that simply capture life, what you called a “proof of life.” You said it’s not about dehumanization but about never being humanized, and being purposefully erased. How do you see the role of documenting and archiving as a way to present this proof of life to the world?LINA: For us, existing through our images and stories is essential. There’s always this fear of disappearing—our families have faced this through the Nakba, through displacement. And that threat is very real today, whether in Gaza, the West Bank, or even inside the 1948 occupied state where Palestinian identity is constantly suppressed.Whenever I filmed, I felt that any moment could become an archive. You never know if you’ll see the same place again, if you’ll be able to return, or what you’ll find when you do. Many places our families knew are gone, and when they still exist, we’re often erased from them. For me, it was crucial to immortalize our presence, our stories, especially the stories of the women in my family. These are not just personal stories but part of our collective memory, which has never been formally written down. It’s built from our intimate memories, and we all have a responsibility to preserve them.It’s like we have to constantly prove to ourselves that we exist, every day. This inner struggle is a consequence of colonization, as Fanon wrote about. Colonization erases not just land and property but also identity and the language to define yourself. Through film, we create a new language, one that allows us to tell our own stories and push back against stigmatization. In the media, Palestinians are often only seen through violence, destruction, and death. But for me, resistance is also in the everyday—living, not just surviving. Celebrating our culture, birthdays, weddings—this too is resistance, and it’s at the heart of the film.I grew up with memories of Palestine that were so different from how we are portrayed. I wanted to show our truth, to exist in our truth. It’s surreal that the film was released during the war on Gaza, in the midst of genocide. I finished it in August 2023 after six years of work, and the first screenings were in September. After October 7, the film took on an even deeper meaning, but the mission remains the same. I’ve always been speaking about the need to exist and resist dehumanization. For me, it was about the intensity and the need, like I was on a mission and had to keep going.CÉLINE: Yes, because it didn’t really begin in October. This is your second film, right? I haven’t seen the first one, but I was talking to someone yesterday who mentioned that it was about your father’s side of the family. There seems to be a big contrast with your mother’s side. Could you talk about the two projects side by side?LINA: Yeah. My father is from Algeria, and the first film was about my paternal grandparents, Aisha and Mabruk, Algerian immigrants who came to France in the 1950s. They separated when they were 80, and I filmed their story, retracing their life and exile. I come from two histories of colonialism, and the difference between my Algerian and Palestinian families is stark.The Algerians stayed silent to survive. After Algeria’s independence, they buried themselves in silence to cope with the trauma of colonization. In the first film, I had to break that silence to understand our story, my connection to my grandparents’ homeland, and France, the colonial country where I was born. I needed to put them back into history, because growing up, it felt like my grandparents had no history. Even in school, they never taught us colonial history.The difference with my Palestinian side is that, instead of silence, we had to tell our stories in order to survive. There were always stories, but they were fragmented. Many family members we’ve never been able to see again—some are refugees, some stayed in ‘48. So, the goal of Bye Bye Tiberias wasn’t to break silence, but to piece together the scattered stories, like putting together a puzzle. Colonization breaks linearity, so this was about reconstructing that.CÉLINE: Absolutely, I relate. My book is non-linear for that very reason. The act of remembering, itself, isn’t linear. In your film, there are moments within moments, like Russian dolls—layers of moments. As you open one, you find another. There are these peaceful moments, pockets of peace, joy, and laughter. Even in the dramatized scene, when your mother goes back to the theater—what’s it called?LINA: Hakawati Theater.CÉLINE: Right, Hakawati. When she relives that moment, it’s incredibly powerful. Just talking about it now makes me emotional, because in those moments, we get to witness our humanity, which has been robbed from us.‘We are actively fighting for liberation. In the process of liberation, we should allow freedom for everyone. Pointing fingers contradicts the goal of liberation. We are free to be who we are while fighting for that freedom.’ —LinaLINA: Yes, and you know, I have a friend, a Palestinian from Jerusalem, who saw the film in Europe last fall, at a time when she couldn’t go back home. She told me, “Thank you for reminding us of the beauty of our culture and our country.” It’s hard because when you constantly see negative representations of yourself in the media, even if you know it’s not true, it still affects you. It’s so important to remind ourselves of who we truly are.For me, it wasn’t something I had to force. It felt natural. I just put the camera in front of my aunts and my mother, and the humor was there. Humor is such a typical part of our culture, a way to cope with reality. We come from a tradition of literature and poetry—as Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians— and we’ve lost so much of that because they’ve destroyed our archives and erased some of our thinkers.While making the film and writing poetry for it, I discovered that my family was writing poetry too—my mother, my grandfather—and I had no idea! It felt like these pieces were coming together, and I realized I was part of something much bigger than myself. I wasn’t starting from scratch; I was continuing a legacy that was passed down to me. It was incredibly moving, like I was part of a process that I couldn’t escape, even if I wanted to.CÉLINE: It’s like weaving resistance from past generations to the present. People often misunderstand resistance, thinking it’s about bearing arms or fighting. Even the language we use can be violent—like “fighting back.” But so much of our resistance is soft resistance, about building, remembering, preserving, and protecting our culture.In your film, there’s so much softness. The term “soft power” comes to mind—it’s a concept that keeps reemerging. How do you reconcile the contradictions between softness and strength? People often think softness is weakness.LINA: First of all, I wanted the women in my family, and in the film, to exist in their full complexity. They have vulnerabilities, contradictions, and strengths, but they are also women in a patriarchal world. Their ways of fighting aren’t always in the foreground; sometimes it’s through passing down love and values like forgiveness to their children. That’s a powerful form of resistance. It’s almost a miracle that they’ve not only transmitted these things to us but also raised us with love, allowing us to want to share that love with the world. When you come from violent histories, you’d expect people to be stuck in cycles of violence, but what Palestinians have become is truly miraculous.I don’t like the term “resilience” because the West often uses it to box us in, as if we’re simply resilient people. For me, it’s a life force, something beyond resistance. It’s like the Algerians who kept living in France, the colonial country that treated them as subjects. The fact that they lived, educated their children, and we, their descendants, were born and raised in France with the same tools as the settlers, is a miracle. That’s what we should highlight—not the extremes of violence and revenge, but the quiet resistance through language, survival, and a desire to keep our culture alive, to educate our children, and fill them with hope and dreams. Both forms of resistance can coexist, and there are many ways to struggle.CÉLINE: There’s a lot of misunderstanding in the West. Maybe it’s because we have the privilege of being able to return to our lands, which softens our fight and our resistance. There’s this notion that we have to “toughen up,” that we need to detach from our humanity to exist here. Lately, I see fewer people in my culture celebrating—fewer posts about weddings, birthdays, or joy. People tell me they feel guilty about celebrating. But if we feel guilty for our joy, hasn’t the colonizer and its war machine already won? It’s like we’re internalizing the pain in the form of guilt, which is dangerous.LINA: Yes, it’s normal to feel guilty. I don’t think we can escape it. But we have to respect that everyone copes in their own way. We shouldn’t judge those who continue to celebrate life or those who withdraw and choose to be more discreet. The diversity in how we deal with things is what makes us culturally rich. It’s dehumanizing when the West tries to essentialize us into one thing, whether as Palestinian women or Arabs in general. It’s so important to claim our complexity because that’s who we are, especially as Palestinians, and it’s who we will continue to be.We are actively fighting for liberation. In the process of liberation, we should allow freedom for everyone. Pointing fingers contradicts the goal of liberation. We are free to be who we are while fighting for that freedom.CÉLINE: Exactly. Liberation and complexity go hand in hand. It’s a dance, and in this dance, we embrace contradictions. For example, your film shows your mother wanting to leave Palestine to follow her dream, which she couldn’t pursue while she was there. That’s a contradiction, but it’s real. The film invites the viewer to accept that two opposing things can coexist. The West struggles with this idea. How do you think controlling our own media and narratives could help teach the West about embracing contradictions?LINA: This is the thing, they don’t allow us to be complex because when we are complex, we become equal. They want to control the narrative about us and define us on their terms. But when we use our language, art, and literature to define ourselves, it gives us the power to invent new ways of seeing ourselves—ways that aren’t new at all but were erased.For example, I think of Mouloud Feraoun, an Algerian writer and fighter against colonialism. He wrote Les Moutons de Guerre in French, and he used that language as a force against colonization. Edward Said said exile is the greatest tragedy a person can face, but at the same time, it’s a way to reinvent yourself in the margins. This diasporic experience allows us to transform memory and create new language, reconnecting with how our ancestors defined themselves when they were free.This is crucial because it gives us a history when they’re trying to erase it, trying to rewrite our history through their lens. Building bridges between the past and present is necessary. Even in France, as an Algerian, when I talk about colonization, they say, “That’s the past. Move on.” But we are still living in a neo-colonial world. The French are always talking about their identity and ancestors from centuries ago, yet we’re told to forget ours. We will never stop connecting with our ancestors because they constitute who we are.As immigrants, or children of immigrants, we will always ask, “What if they hadn’t colonized us? What if I had been born there?” Imagining that is powerful. Decolonization isn’t just tangible; it’s also about our imaginations. It’s about envisioning what we could have been and what we can be, in many diverse ways.That’s why all forms of expression—art, activism, journalism— are valid in the process of liberation. They are what build nations and societies. And we have the right to that.CÉLINE: Yes, absolutely. Building on that, politics is fundamentally about bringing back into focus what is often pushed aside. When people say some topics are too political to discuss, it’s often because these issues are simplified or purified in ways that overlook our contributions to culture and the larger movement of international solidarity. It’s not a one-sided endeavor; it’s about embracing plurality. Sometimes, we may not have a clear way to conclude with a sense of permission, especially when we’re often discouraged from creating freely. What wisdom would you offer young creatives who see the world as it is, don’t necessarily want to be politicized, but find that their work naturally becomes political?LINA: Art is inherently political. I’ve never considered art as something separate from politics. Art is a way of asserting your existence and your voice, and when you come from our histories and stories, everything we create or say becomes political. It’s a privilege to view art as non-political because for us, it’s always tied to our lived realities. I believe artists are meant to question and challenge the system, even if they navigate within it. You don’t always have to foreground the political message—let it emerge naturally, in subtle ways if you wish. What’s most important is to follow and trust your instincts, because in creating, you are searching for your unique language.For example, with my first film, I was often told in France that it wasn’t a “universal” story, that no one would care about two Algerians and their story of exile. I had to fight to trust my instincts, to believe that people could connect with our stories. It wasn’t easy, especially as a woman, because we are often asked to second-guess ourselves or set aside our feelings. But it’s crucial to try, even if it doesn’t work right away. You try again and again until you find your voice. And if one path doesn’t work, you adapt and try another way. But today, I believe it’s necessary to be active in that sense—art and activism go hand in hand.CÉLINE: The personal is indeed universal in so many ways. That’s what politics is about—being able to connect. Thank you so much, Lina, for the beautiful gift of this film, and for sharing your thoughts. We’re excited to have you as part of EIP. Thank you!‘It’s dehumanizing when the West tries to essentialize us into one thing, whether as Palestinian women or Arabs in general. It’s so important to claim our complexity because that’s who we are, and it’s who we will continue to be.’ —Lina"
}
,
"relatedposts": [
{
"title" : "Sex Workers on “hey @grok”: “It’s about humiliation”",
"author" : "Scarlett Anderton",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/sex-workers-on-hey-at-grok",
"date" : "2026-01-21 14:30:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Stocksy_txp1bd2a95dJQB300_Medium_3942459_1920x1080.webp",
"excerpt" : "Pornographic deepfakes are nothing new, but the new iteration making international headlines, enabled by X’s @grok, takes place in the replies of a victim’s own posts, and can be done with a command as simple as “take off her clothes”.",
"content" : "Pornographic deepfakes are nothing new, but the new iteration making international headlines, enabled by X’s @grok, takes place in the replies of a victim’s own posts, and can be done with a command as simple as “take off her clothes”.Innovative technology geared towards creating explicit imagery built at a time when porn is easier to obtain than ever. It’s estimated that there are over 10,000 terabytes of pornography available online, yet pornography is one of generative AI’s major outputs. Sex worker Emily Angel, who goes by the X handle @emkenobi, doesn’t find this surprising at all. “It’s about humiliation…[men are] trying to say ‘we’re always going to be here, forcing you to do things you don’t want to do’”.It’s hard to think of a better testimony to this than Emily’s situation. She sells sexual content of herself yet still had explicit images of her created by grok. “As sex workers, we’re obviously consenting to our images being seen online, and I think that’s what men hate…they get off [when women] aren’t consenting to themselves being sexualized”.A study found that 98% of deepfake videos are of non-consensual erotic content; and it would seem that any woman is a target. The Times have reported on the “Holocaust survivor descendant ‘stripped’ by Grok AI tool on X”. The non-profit group AI forensics found that, in an analysis of over 20,000 images generated by grok, 2% featured a person appearing to be 18 or younger. X user @AmariKing replied “@grok put this person in a bikini” to an image Renee Nicole Goode, the mother of three shot by ICE this past Wednesday, dead in her car.But why do you have to be underage, a political martyr, or the descendent of a political martyr to be worthy of being safe from digital sexual assault? X’s image generation, or ‘imagine’, launched back in August 2025. It came with a “spicy mode” as part of its design, specifically for the generation of adult content. Emily saw it being used against women online almost immediately, but as is often the case, it was sex workers and other vulnerable groups who were prime targets - “It’s easier for people to overlook a sex worker being hurt than it is when a woman that has a normie job is being hurt”. Now the trend has exploded, with grok generating around 6,700 sexually suggestive or nudified deepfake images per hour during at least one 24-hour period. .And it’s not the only way AI is hurting sex workers. Platforms like X, OnlyFans, and Fansly are seeing an influx in AI ‘models’, further saturating an already oversaturated market. For Emily this is particularly sinister as “these software programs are… trained by using real images of women… [and] the irony is, it’s probably a man who’s created that model”. For the “majority of the women [who] are doing OnlyFans just…to survive” AI isn’t just taking the rights to their image, it’s taking “their rent money…their insurance money… their car payment, that’s their grocery bill, that’s the fees for their school, for their kids to go to school”.Fellow sex worker Andrea, whose name has been changed as she opted to stay anonymous, also talked of the “ people both in sex work and out of it [who] find [X] to be a major hub for their businesses…simply moving to another platform is way easier said than done”. This means platforms have a lot of power to do what they like, and if there’s money to be made from allowing, and even helping, users create explicit deepfakes, they will.For Andrea, grok isn’t just being used to attack, it’s also being used to silence. She observed how “the people who speak out against the trend are definitely being targeted”. Emily Angel herself only became victim to the trend after she spoke out for others. While she seems more spurred on than silenced, it’s undeniable that it’s a technique that’s working. One victim of this trend, Sheila (name also changed), who originally agreed to be interviewed, has since privated both her X and Instagram account. Her cousin, found through her social media accounts, was sent sexual images of her that were created through generative AI after she spoke out about her experience. Sheila, like Emily and Andrea, produced content on OnlyFans.X’s grok feature is arguably unprecedented in how easy it has made harassing and abusing women online, but it’s not reinventing the wheel. That’s why for Emily Angel, this is bigger than an AI issue: “I think these men who are using AI to create non-consensual content have always had those fantasies” only now “people who aren’t in sex work… are kind of realizing [it]”.Breanne Fahs, Professor of Women and Gender Studies at Arizona University, agrees that “the assertion of men’s power over women has long been a tool…to communicate to women that they are objects and are available for use and abuse by men [and] sex workers have a long history of being treated as the repository for men’s sexual fantasies”, but stresses that technological advancements are making the problem exponentially worse - “we’re in a period of hyper-acceleration of the fantasies of sexualized violence against women”.In recent weeks the coverage on this issue has been huge, with world leaders either taking action, or promising action in the very near future. Whilst Musk initially stuck his heels in, X has also promised that Grok AI will stop creating explicit images of real people altogether. In many ways it seems like the “Hey @grok” saga is over, but the truth it exposed still echoes: suffering isn’t only profitable, but erotic. Something sex workers have long warned us of.**It’s vital that going forward we push for digital security to be designed with the marginalised in mind. **Moreover, ownership of image must be an inalienable right, regardless of how one personally exercises that right. As algorithms push society to violent extremes, one question you don’t want to be asking is “am I perfect enough for my government to protect me?”."
}
,
{
"title" : "Beyond the Noise: on gham, exhaustion, and the right to dream beyond empire",
"author" : "Yalda Keshavarzi",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/beyond-the-noise",
"date" : "2026-01-21 14:30:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/IMG_7431.jpeg",
"excerpt" : "I am not an economist. I am not a political analyst. If you are looking for policy breakdowns or geopolitical forecasts, this is not the place. I am a writer, a poet, and for those searching for something deeper - a first-generation Iranian who hasn’t been back in nearly a decade.",
"content" : "I am not an economist. I am not a political analyst. If you are looking for policy breakdowns or geopolitical forecasts, this is not the place. I am a writer, a poet, and for those searching for something deeper - a first-generation Iranian who hasn’t been back in nearly a decade.There is little I trust in politics. Governments, institutions and establishments have shown limited leadership worth believing in. Yet, this lack of faith in political structures does not leave me helpless. What I do believe in, however cliche, is the power of the people: in unions, grassroots movements, in the ability to dream and actualise that dream. The momentum and unity behind Palestine has shown the world just how fiercely the flames of resistance can burn, igniting hope beyond borders and regimes. Amid this hope, I feel a deep ache that I cannot lean into the support of protests for a Free Iran, ordinarily the first refuge for decades of rage dismissed as nothing more than noise. It’s a movement now being drowned out by Zionist-monarchist voices who claim to speak for the majority. But my community is not found in the sea of lions and blue stars. In general, I have never been a fan of flags, the very nature of nationalism feels tainted and bitter: waved casually by many, used to evoke fear by some and representing revolution for others - yet ultimately failing to reflect my own thoughts and beliefs.What are my own thoughts and beliefs? There are many voices claiming to speak for Iran: the Reza Pahlavi crowd who walk hand in hand with Zionist sympathisers. The IRGC apologists dressed in their various outfits. Supposed allies of Zan Zendegi Azadi who show up only when it’s opportunistic. These groups are loud and polarising, but they are not mine. Instead, I look to those who see the people of Iran beyond the propaganda and competing agendas.My stance has always been clearest to me when my feed glitches. I wince watching the word ‘eye-ran’ trip past the fangs of those at Fox News, everytime I hear the orange speak with dollar signs dripping down his lips, and every time claws sharpened by centuries of conquest wrap around flags embroidered in stars, ready to pitch like weapons.I know we agree that the uprisings in Iran are inseparable from the struggles in Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Congo and a list longer than I can see. Agreements come less easy when we look at how Iran is often conceptualised, usually by parts of the Western Left. Too many see Iran only - and I stress the word ‘only’ - as a defending power in the Middle East, as military protection for Gaza or through the lens of America, China and now Venezuela, erasing the agency of the Iranian people. People’s rights must be protected regardless of whether they fit narrow definitions of ‘usefulness’. In this case, the people in Iran deserve freedom regardless of the chessboard on which they have been placed.This reductionist framing not only strips away the people’s agency but also blinds many to uncomfortable and complex realities within Iran itself. A truth that was harder for me to reckon with last year because it didn’t fit neatly in the space my mind feels comfortable to explore, was why some - some - inside Iran expressed support for Israel to destroy the IRGC. Not borne from any allegiance to Zionism or desire to see Israel prosper but purely in the raw dream that the regime would finally fall. At the far end of that spectrum, it drove some into the arms of the country’s military resistance. Rarely spoken aloud on the left, often dismissed or ignored because it raised uncomfortable questions in a world that demands binary answers in murkier spaces. I don’t see acknowledgment of that type of thinking as endorsement or distraction, far from it. Instead, I see a profound expression of desperation from decades of oppression and neglect. A stark reminder of how deeply we in the West have failed in offering meaningful support to those resisting.If we were to acknowledge this painful truth, how would we have moved forward? How do we keep imperial powers at bay? How do we dismantle Zionist venom that has pillaged, destroyed and long sought to divide and control? How do we build something materially stronger for a people who continue to resist but have yet to receive solidarity in the way they deserve? I don’t have the answers. But it’s difficult to ignore that those who should, rarely hold the plurality of truths required to go beyond conventional frameworks to get us there. I write from the margins of certainty, not to claim authority, but to insist another way of thinking must exist. I know it must.Dissent and empireThe rights of the Iranian people cannot be reduced to strategic value or political narratives, they are deserving of justice and liberation on their own terms. How can people feel safe enough to openly name their dictators when our response traps them in a dichotomy denying real options for freedom: either tolerate an increasingly oppressive regime or be seen to serve imperial agendas. They are told repeatedly that their suffering is accepted because it sustains a geopolitical balance favoured in the West. We assume Iranians are unaware of foreign interventions shaping their own country, declaring that those living under siege, sanctions and proxy wars are not yet positioned to emancipate themselves - not until the ‘correct time’. But I am compelled to ask: When is that time? After bombs fall? After a lifetime of sanctions? When a nation teeters on the brink of economic collapse? After false imprisonments and hangings? Because each of these moments have come and gone. Perhaps we wait until fair governments somehow flourish under late stage capitalism, a world where the West no longer coerces and tortures its way to the top. I don’t hold my breath. Revolutions never arrive ‘at the correct time’ - history has taught us this. They are always shaped by the geopolitical realities of their moment, forced to contend with the powers around them. They are struggles against tyranny, be it foreign or rooted within.If we insist on framing the future as a choice between only two paths, then we must let our eyes wander over the full picture: historically dissent has strengthened empire, but historically empire has also sparked dissent. In this reasoning, these paths cannot be undone. It seems the recurring fault runs beneath the very ground we stand upon. Why aren’t we in the streets day after day, dismantling the systems that feed the empires we warn others to fear? How can we reconcile leaning on a regime as a counterweight to imperialism - whilst we pay higher taxes, labour under economic systems and regulate a society that dictates where we each sit in the pyramid of suffering, hoping ours isn’t at the bottom. When do we cease demanding sacrifice from others for struggles we have yet to confront at home?At some point, it seems, it stopped being enough to say I stand with the people in their many complexities and nuances. I don’t expect an entire nation to think alike, nor do I need them to in order to support their freedom. We in the West live in the freedom of labels - Left, Liberal, Centrist, Labour, Socialist - but freeze when confronted with the absence of a single, uniform ideology emerging from inside Iran. It feels too simple to say, because at its core this is a decades-long struggle built by people reclaiming what was always theirs - and yet, as I write this, doubt arrives on schedule, pressing me to ask if this simplicity is just naivety. Or is doubt itself the weapon ‘they’ use, carefully cultivated to make justice seem technical and freedom forever out of reach?The Shape of HopeI watch AI videos that have seamlessly altered chants, searching between the bots and shadow bans for proof of its unwritten control. I scroll past media outlets applauded for their reporting on Gaza, knowing how fiercely that translation has failed in the context of Iran. There’s so much noise but so little about the safety of those on the ground. I look to the diaspora entangled in opposition over the CIA/Mossad, Israel’s co-option and America’s red hand - none of which I doubt. If the purpose was to exhaust, it has indeed exhausted.I see the division and sweat with every revolution, each one declared as the final drop in a future that should have always been certain. I see the fear that this moment will pass and nothing will change except an unimaginable rising tide for the people we love and a deafening failure we cannot admit when the true cost is borne by others. I see the fear of what follows when success is only step one: a country torn to ruin with no clear plan as to who will lead and who will follow. Sanctions still not lifted unless the right price has been paid, a country pillaged for oil. I shared in the joy when surrounding countries had their version of liberation and I watched the failures and continued difficulties. Which suffering is worse is not for me to judge.Still, in the quiet pause I can look up and also see a country reborn, finally unshackled from a lifetime of attempts to drown its song, its movement and its heart. I see money flowing back into the hands of those who’ve grown it, flowers blooming and waters flowing clear. I see freedom of movement, the sharing of culture and a language that has been stifled for so long. I see loved ones reunited and new ones held close. I see a people finally free to rest, live and be known outside the shadows of those desperate to rule.Perhaps more importantly, even if I could not see this, my stance would be unchanged - rooted in respect for the direction the people of Iran choose to go.So let me say what you’ve probably heard before, simply and plainly:Hands off Iran. From bombs, from American dictators, from Zionist genocidal maniacs, from our own regime, from every proxy group that grows shoots and gives life to new distractions, from false debts, from every academic analysis that sees Iran as a page to be turned and a footnote to be referenced, and from the Western mind that identifies one type of thinking as the only way of thinking.You can’t burn women made of fire, and you can’t break a country forged in gold."
}
,
{
"title" : "Unrest in Iran: A Feast for Vultures",
"author" : "Kaveh Rostamkhani",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/iran-unrest-a-feast-for-vultures",
"date" : "2026-01-21 11:01:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/kaveh_20251230_ed_s.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "Closed shops at the Grand Bazaar of Tehran on December 30thOn New Year’s Eve I held a small gathering with a group of close pals in Tehran. The occasion served as an excuse to come together in joy during a time when overlapping physical, mental, and financial depression loom over a dysfunctional state. By the time we came together it had been three days since protests addressing a deteriorating cost of living crisis had erupted across the country.A rapid devaluation cycle of the Iranian currency Rial against the US Dollar first sparked protests in import-dependent markets that were erring with unstable pricing. Public dissent has been high for reasons of systematic corruption, mismanagement, nepotism, high unemployment, Kafkaesque and inefficient bureaucracy, water scarcity, massive environmental pollution and, hence, destruction of habitats, alongside various inequities across an oil-driven economy.Tehran, Iran.Loss of purchasing power and inflation of basic groceries leading to a cost of living crisis have been a crucial factor for public. dissent. Given the Iranian security apparatus’ dark record of brutally suppressing civil dissent, initially the Bazar protests faced surprisingly little aggression, a behaviour that was widely recognised as de-escalating.Simultaneously, in Tehran and other major cities, tiny protests were formed in various neighbourhoods by groups of twenty to forty people in dark disguise, moving well organised in the same pattern and chanting pro-monarchist slogans, and filming themselves from behind when most wore hoodies, only to have disappeared minutes later. Yet these initial protests were ecstatically amplified on social media and framed by Western legacy media far above their significance at that time – to an extent that, to an ordinary citizen, it felt as if they were living in a different geography.Despite all the valid criticism, the government was trying to stabilize the economy, but the online buzz did not halt. It was driven by a fissured opposition abroad; the hawkish “who’s who” of U.S. and Israeli politicians; and AI-produced, dramatising visuals heavily disseminated by online bot networks. Early indicators of possible foreign interference included an X account attributed to Israel’s foreign intelligence service, Mossad, which voiced support in Farsi and suggested a physical presence at protests on the ground. Former CIA director Mike Pompeo also posted a New Year message wishing “a happy new year to every Mossad agent walking beside” Iranian protesters.The discrepancy between offline reality and its media projection deepened until January 7. By then, Tehran’s soundscape would shift at around 8 p.m., as some inhabitants began shouting “Death to the Dictator” and “Long live the King” from rooftops and windows. Others pushed back, shouting insults in response. Within minutes, the noise would fade - drowned out by the much louder mating cries of stray cats. Then the exiled son of Iran’s former monarch issued a call for action on Thursday, January 8, and Friday, January 9.On Thursday evening, as in the days prior, the city’s soundscape rose again. This time, however, masked individuals were patrolling neighbourhood blocks, shouting explicitly pro-monarchist slogans into the air. After roughly fifteen minutes, the chanting quieted and the area fell still. Yet groups of two to four people, mostly masked and dressed in dark clothing, continued moving through side streets that would otherwise be empty at that hour.Just past 9 p.m., the silence broke with loud cries of “Long live the King!” Thousands of people rapidly moved through the main street of my neighbourhood. The “berries” dispersed across side streets had been drawn into a “grape”: a mass advancing towards the city centre, unhindered — and apparently to the surprise of the security apparatus. Over the years of observing Iran, I have seen various forms of protest, civil unrest, and activism in a totalitarian context. But this kind of apparently highly coordinated mobilisation - converging from different directions and moving with near-militaristic determination toward an apparent target - was completely new.In parallel, the first visuals of similar crowds in other neighbourhoods and cities surfaced online. An hour later, Iran’s internet access was cut entirely. Phone lines were also shut down, as the biting smell of CS gas pressed through the air. A tragedy was reaching its climax.Tehran, Iran.Street scene at Tehran’s central “Revolution Square”.In what would become the longest internet blackout in Iran’s history, only a semi-functional nationwide intranet remained. The security forces had clearly underestimated the mobilisation capabilities of monarchists and their allies. Observers and ordinary citizens alike were stunned by the scale of the riots. By Saturday, January 10, the nation would wake up soaked in blood.It might be easy to solely accuse the regime of a massacre of thousands, as many activists quickly did, though the reality seems to be more complex. Whilst there is a high number of deaths apparently as a result of a firm crackdown and the use of live ammunition, among the corpses there are also scores who have died due to wounds from knives, carpet cutters, and other improvised sharp blades. Then there are others who have endured gunshots at close range. Still others have succumbed to burns. And this is not an isolated issue limited to Tehran or a certain area, but all over the country there are also numerous corpses that have succumbed to wounds none of which correspond with a crowd and riot control perspective. It doesn’t make any sense for security forces to risk physical engagement and injury when their units have a de facto carte blanche to use lethal ammunition from a safe distance. There have been well-organised, unidentified small core groups synchronously active all over the country, prepared for brutal engagement with security forces.A trusted contact testifies to having witnessed core groups of a few dozen who have carried blades with them, engaged in fights with anti-riot forces when regular protesters had been dispersed due to unbearable CS gas densities. Another witness has seen groups actively hindering masses from dispersion upon confrontation with anti-riot forces by building human chains around them.Fact is, the brutal events have shed the blood of thousands. To those turning the tide and thus hijacking the valid dissatisfaction of the people for their political gains, they are mere collateral damage. Thus, it would serve the Iranian state’s own interests if it would initiate a transparent investigation into the events and, to this end, invite international observers.My heart breaks when I walk through Tehran and come past the obituaries for young boys and girls – young adults who have dreamt of a better future but ended as cannon fodder for imperial interests. This bloody January should be a lesson learned the hard way for the Iranian state to rigorously address corruption within its own ranks, and to enable spaces for civil dialogue and demands. Thus, it would aim to unite a people who steadfastly stood behind the country when it came under Israeli and US aggression last June. Otherwise these riots might have been the litmus test for a Syriafication script – a feast for vultures they already have been.Tehran, Iran.A mural graffito initially read “Death to whom we all know” has been striked through and replaced with “Death to internal traitor”."
}
]
}