Digital & Print Membership
Yearly + Receive 8 free printed back issues
$420 Annually
Monthly + Receive 3 free printed back issues
$40 Monthly
Special Feature:
Reclaiming Feminism and Collective Liberation
Mia Khalifa & Céline Semaan on Healing, Identity, and Political Awakening
Reclaiming Feminism and Collective Liberation

CÉLINE SEMAAN: I have so many questions—they are a bit intense. So we are going to start with the intensity immediately… Anjed we woke up and the news was so disgusting. I mean this is our reality.
We joke and laugh because we’ve developed this amazing sense of humor, but the world we’ve grown up in has been very very intense. We’ve mastered the art of talking about heavy issues, making it personal because everything is political right?
MIA KHALIFA: Everything.
CÉLINE: I wrote something recently, about how ‘free Palestine’ is also about Lebanon. The Lebanese endured 35 years of war and genocide in Lebanon, all before social media existed. Back then, the media painted us as terrorists, manufacturing consent for the bombings. It’s a humanitarian crisis that’s rarely discussed, though as Lebanese people, it’s been our lived experience.
You and I both grew up in Lebanon. Today, waking up to what’s happening in South Lebanon, Dahiyeh, and Tyre, with 200 people killed just today, is heartbreaking. I hope when this is published, it’s over, but I’m not holding my breath.
As women, especially Arab women, we’ve faced oppression, both from conservative and so-called progressive spaces. How do you reconcile feminism when it doesn’t seem to include us?
MIA: That’s a very good question. Honestly, it’s only in the last few years, as I’ve grown older, that I’ve been able to reconcile those feelings. I realized that you can only control your own views and actions. For a long time, I was immaturely angry at feminism because I felt excluded from it. I felt ostracized, so I responded by rejecting it and, unfortunately, internalizing a lot of misogyny. I didn’t feel supported by that community for much of my life.
I grew up in a predominantly white, predominantly Jewish area in Washington, DC, and Maryland. I didn’t see much support from feminist circles there. It wasn’t until I got older, traveled, and found community with women of color—Indigenous, Latinx, and especially Lebanese and Arab women—that I started to understand. It took time, but I get why others struggle to reconcile their place within feminism. It wasn’t until I got older that I began to find my own.

CÉLINE: Growing up in constant war, having to flee over and over. I’ve moved so many times. Just this morning, I was on a call with my parents, and they’re preparing to flee Lebanon again with everything that’s going on. I’ve lost count of how many times they’ve had to leave and come back. It makes you rethink what home really means.
So now, sitting here in a hotel, I wonder, what does “home” mean to you?
MIA: Home, for me, is hearing your accent and having manoushes around the table. That’s what makes it feel like home—those little reminders that are so important. It’s all that really matters. As long as you’re surrounded by the right people, that’s it.
CÉLINE: This morning, as I was buying manoushe and heading to see you, I felt like, “Wow, I feel at home in New York,” just knowing there’s this place I can go to for that familiar taste. I literally inhaled that manoushe while watching the news, and it hit me—wherever we go, we’re transporting our home with us. It sounds cheesy, but anjad it’s true. We carry it within us—our bodies, our everything. We bring home wherever we are.
MIA: Growing up, the only thing we ever ate at home was Lebanese food, of course. But after moving to America, going out to different restaurants and trying new cuisines became a bit of a tradition. I remember one time we went out for Thai food, and my grandma brought a little Tupperware of tarator to eat with the fried fish.
CÉLINE: No way! That’s so cute!
MIA: At one point, the Thai restaurant actually asked if they could taste it, and then they asked her for the recipe so they could make it themselves—because the fried fish went so perfectly with the tarator.
That’s what home is. You make it wherever you are, even in a foreign restaurant eating a cuisine you’ve never had before. It’s one of my favorite stories about her—she’s an icon!
CÉLINE: That’s so cool! Growing up here, my parents also had a restaurant, and even though it wasn’t a Lebanese restaurant, but my mom made everything Lebanese! It was so fusion. She’d cook American dishes, but with a Lebanese twist. You want a hamburger? We make it kafta burger.
MIA: Sure, but with seven spices! Literally everything had that touch. I put that on everything. Za’atar too.
CÉLINE: What do you put za’atar on?!
MIA: Literally everything! I’ll even put za’atar on my cheese pizza—especially if it’s New York style. It’s so good when it mixes with the grease, like yum! It sounds wild, but honestly, it works!
‘For a long time, I was immaturely angry at feminism because I felt excluded from it. I felt ostracized, so I responded by rejecting it and, unfortunately, internalizing a lot of misogyny. I didn’t feel supported by that community for much of my life.’ — Mia

CÉLINE: Let’s circle back to Everything is Political. Your whole life has been about liberation—liberating our bodies, minds, sexuality, and beauty. What does collective liberation mean to you?
MIA: To me, it’s as simple as the idea that none of us are free until Palestine is free. I don’t see that as a radical statement at all—it perfectly captures the sentiment. It’s a no-brainer for me. I get why you feel the need to defend it, because people probably ask, “What does that mean?” But honestly, if they’re asking, they might not want to get it. It’s always been clear: liberation means everyone. It’s not exclusive, and no one person or group is more entitled to it than another. We all have to work together.
CÉLINE: Even in the U.S., you’ve always advocated for a free Palestine, even before October 7. But since then, with the escalation of violence, the Free Palestine movement has transformed. The world has changed in how America views us and how America sees itself.
From your perspective, what have you observed regarding the sudden embrace of the Free Palestine movement? It used to feel niche and unwelcome, and it’s still not completely accepted— there’s significant censorship and backlash. But it does seem like there are way more people now willing to support the cause, doesn’t it?
MIA: Yeah, exactly. It’s hard to ignore the reality when people who were once neutral or wanted to stay out of it are now realizing just how egregious this situation is. This is pure genocide backed by Western powers, and it’s terrifying. The veil has been lifted, and we’re starting to see the ugly truths of how the world operates—and how it could operate differently if there was the will to change things.
It’s a wake-up call. Watching this unfold for so long, seeing it happen so blatantly, and witnessing the constant stream of heartbreaking videos… It’s heartbreaking that the pain of Arabs has to be exploited like this for people to finally believe it. It’s disgusting and incredibly hurtful.
CÉLINE: You know, sometimes we find ourselves advocating not just for our rights but for our very survival. At the same time, we’re human—we’re evolving, changing, and transforming. I feel a responsibility to ask you about the criticism you’ve received regarding the fetishization of the hijab, for instance. What are your thoughts on that criticism? How do you navigate those conversations, especially given the complexities involved?
MIA: I feel like that criticism is very valid because it comes from a place of young women feeling sexualized for something they didn’t do. I understand that I’m an easy person to target; I’m a public figure, and people can leave comments on my photos and tag me, making it simple to pinpoint the issue onto me.
I have immense compassion for those women and feel a deep guilt that an innocent young woman is being fetishized for something she chooses to embrace as part of her religious beliefs. But I think, as women, we should focus on the larger issue—the patriarchal system that promotes this, produces this and distributes this, which continues to fetishize women. Even if they’re not using Arab actresses, they’re often casting Latin women who could pass as Arab. I’m not the first nor the last to face this; I’m just the one people can identify because there’s a face connected to the name and to the action.
CÉLINE: Absolutely. When we talk about feminism and this idea of purity, it often feels like you have to come from a place of purity to advocate for human rights, right? Do you feel that pressure? It’s almost as if you have to be a saint to be taken seriously in these conversations. What are your thoughts on that?
MIA KHALIFA: Oh my gosh, I completely disagree with that! Most of us don’t come into these mindsets from a place of purity. Many of us are traumatized individuals dealing with so much that we need to work through to reach these realizations. I wasn’t the same person I was even five or six years ago; my thoughts were nowhere near what they are now.
I know it might sound insane, but every single thing I see radicalizes me further and further. The way I thought when I was 20 was influenced by my own internalized misogyny and racism, along with many other issues that shaped my actions and beliefs. But then I started going to therapy and delving deeper into myself, actually growing into my identity. That’s why I feel so secure in who I am now.
CÉLINE: Criticism can be so harsh. Yet in this movement for liberation, there seems to be a punitive mindset, a carceral approach that contradicts the very essence of liberation. The idea that you can publicly punish someone or correct them through harassment is so counterproductive. How do you feel about this? Where do you draw the boundary, and how do you navigate your own evolution and transformation in this public space?
‘The veil has been lifted, and we’re starting to see the ugly truths of how the world operates— and how it could operate differently if there was the will to change things.’ —Mia

MIA: You just have to give people grace. It’s essential to consider intentions before judging actions. At the end of the day, it comes down to listening, understanding, and being empathetic and compassionate when it’s necessary. Of course, not everyone deserves that grace, but for those who do, it can make all the difference.
Ultimately, I believe that to grow and transform in this world, you have to embrace contradictions. You can’t change without acknowledging that you might have to contradict yourself along the way.
CÉLINE: It’s all about grace and generosity. We often discuss radical generosity in our culture. In Arab culture, it’s like this dance where you fight to pay the bill or show up at someone’s house with more than enough. There’s a deep-rooted understanding that sharing and giving are essential parts of our community.
MIA: Oh, exactly! You call ahead and show up at the restaurant six hours early just to slip your credit card to cover the bill. Then you leave and come back, saying, “Oh, I’m so sorry I was late!” It’s all part of that generous spirit.
CÉLINE: Yes, exactly! There’s this radical generosity that you embody so well through your constant acts of giving. I’d love to hear how your approach to giving has evolved and how you’re seeing the impact of your actions. Where do you want to focus your generosity now?
MIA: Thank you for saying that; it really means a lot. I’ve always felt this innate need to contribute because you’re not truly deserving of anything if you’re not also supporting your community. It’s like a mental version of Reaganomics that actually could work if it weren’t so corrupt! That’s how community is supposed to function.
But as I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to realize there’s a big difference between just giving and giving with purpose.
CÉLINE: Your recent tweet really resonated with us: “You get to a point in life when you realize everything is political—the brands you support, the places you patronize, the celebrities you platform, and even the people you date. If they’re not at least trying to be informed, have a stance, and be vocal, then they’re not in alignment.” This was so powerful, especially since we just launched our “Everything is Political” initiative. We knew we wanted to be in conversation with you, and this tweet felt like a perfect alignment!
MIA: Just a couple of years ago, I might have been okay with friends who said things like, “Oh no, I stay out of all that.” But now, if I hear someone say that, I’m genuinely taken aback. Like, what do you mean? It feels almost robotic, like they’re disengaged from reality. We all have a responsibility to each other, regardless of our backgrounds.
Whether you’re walking down the street or staying in a hotel, every action counts. Holding the door open for someone behind you or treating housekeeping staff with respect—these seemingly small gestures reflect our shared humanity. It’s all interconnected, and we need to recognize that our choices impact those around us. Every single role we play comes with responsibility, and it’s time we embrace that fully.
CÉLINE: I feel like that’s very cultural to us, like the idea of responsibility. This is how we were raised—to really understand our place in the world and our responsibility in it. This brings me to addressing “poverty porn”, by showing images of dying brown kids covered in blood.
There’s a gap between that and our dignity as humans. Those images actually hurt our dignity. People say this is one of the most documented genocides, yet it’s not moving the needle because many don’t even see us as human.
So, we started this idea of building a fund for collective liberation so that we can put our money in multiple places at once. It’s not just about feeding the poor or educating the uneducated—categories that are ultimately so colonial. We wanted a fund that was more holistic because it’s a case-by- case situation.
There’s no standardized way to heal the world; it has to be designed in a modular way that fluctuates with the situation. I feel like Arabs understand this inherently, especially Lebanese and people from the Levant. The ways in which we have survived could not have happened if we were stuck in a one- track, standardized mindset. This idea of a fund for collective liberation came to be, and I know it spoke to you. In what ways did it resonate with you?
MIA: That’s exactly the reason. The fact that I don’t just have to commit to education—because education is so important—but if a tragedy strikes, which unfortunately has been happening way too often, I want to be partnered with an organization that can go with the ebb and flow of life. When, thankfully, things are quiet and good, we can fund arts, education, and other things that are important for culture.
CÉLINE: I’m so grateful to be in community with you. I wanted to ask you, oftentimes people ask, “What would you tell your younger self?” But I feel like the question could also be, “What do you think your younger self would say and do now?” Like, what’s your inner child saying to you these days? I feel like there’s a lot of repair we have to do in reconciling with our inner child.
For me personally, my whole healing journey and all of my therapy sessions have focused on my inner child because she’s someone who was born in a war, fled the war, and experienced a lot of neglect. I’m sure that you can relate because you were in Lebanon during that time as well. Our parents were stressed, and we were being neglected.
Now, looking at what’s happening in Gaza, there’s a war on children currently happening, and I feel like our inner children are acting up—they’re being vocal. What does Sarah’s inner child say?
MIA: She says, “Thank you for caring about making sure there’s a place for me to go back to, and thank you for not being ashamed of me anymore. Thank you for doing all the things I would have wanted to do. And can I borrow your shoes?” What does yours say?
CÉLINE: Mine says, “Thank you for being the person who protects me, the person who would have held me and cared for me. Thank you for doing everything you can to ensure that people like us have a place to be, and for never forgetting that you are me.” You know, I’m very much a kid at heart. I mean, I feel like the biggest conversation is about healing, you know? I want to ask you, what’s your practice for healing? How did you invite healing into your life?
MIA: Therapy and mushrooms.
CÉLINE: Oh, wow! yes.
‘Just a couple of years ago, I might have been okay with friends who said things like, “Oh no, I stay out of all that.” But now, if I hear someone say that, I’m genuinely taken aback. Like, what do you mean? It feels almost robotic, like they’re disengaged from reality. We all have a responsibility to each other, regardless of our backgrounds.’
—Mia

MIA: Ya.
CÉLINE: That helped you?
MIA: What caused me to start going to therapy was really just being fed up. I’ve never been against it, so it wasn’t a hard sell.
CÉLINE: Sometimes, culturally, we’re like, “Oh, we’re fine, we’re fine, we’re fine,” you know? And then we don’t take the time.
MIA: I was just in denial. Finally, it got to a point where there was one specific moment where I exploded on a radio host during an interview. The way they introduced me triggered me and felt very disrespectful. It was a sports show, and I just didn’t feel like the way they introduced me was respectful. I exploded on them, and then I got a fine from the SEC because it was live radio, and it went viral. People were like, “This bitch is crazy,” and I was like, “Yeah, this bitch is crazy. She needs to go to therapy, actually.”
So, I went to therapy, and then I realized, oh, that was a trigger because I have unhealed shame from unhealed trauma—from things I did because of my unhealed trauma. So that was the catalyst. Psilocybin and mushrooms has been a lot more recent. When I got access to it in California, it was first in chocolate form, then in gummy form. I started microdosing, and then I worked my way up to proper psilocybin, like just grown mushrooms. I have someone guiding me, or sometimes I follow a schedule. My microdosing is very self-guided. I’ll do a cacao ceremony with a spiritual guide or in a group setting, in a very positive environment. But with microdosing, I just wake up in the morning and decide what flavor I want.
CÉLINE: That’s amazing! I did that for the first time in Montreal when I was in my 20s. Yeah, in my 20s, we would make Nutella sandwiches and put a ton of mushrooms in them, then go out and walk in the forest all day, eating the Nutella sandwiches. It was life-altering for me. I started understanding so much; I did my own little healing, doing that therapy in nature—eating a Nutella sandwich with my friends, walking all day, laughing, and just being in nature.
But then one time, we went inside a little too early, and I realized that if you’re very high on mushrooms and you’re indoors…I got SCARED.
MIA: No, no, I did it at Universal Studios.
CÉLINE: Yeah, it was not okay. No, you cannot be around people. I saw myself in the mirror, and I was like, “No, don’t ever look at yourself in the mirror!”I see why you’re guided now because I did it by myself in my 20s, and now it’s so common, right? There’s a big transformation in the healing space where people are finally recognizing the beauty of it and the power of plant medicine. You did it at Universal Studios?
MIA: I did it at Universal Studios! I cried on the Hogwarts Express, and people had to come and ask my friend, “Is your friend okay?” It was bad. We threw up in the bushes.
In Conversation:
Photography by:
Céline Semaan (author, founder and Slow Factory Creative Director) chats with Mia Khalifa (entrepreneur, digital creator, philanthropist & human rights activist) over manousheh. The two discuss how they navigate being a Lebanese woman in America at this time, Global South generosity, politics, making home in the diaspora and how they reconciled their heritage with their own path to create the type of world they want.
Topics:
Filed under:
Location:
{
"article":
{
"title" : "Reclaiming Feminism and Collective Liberation: Mia Khalifa & Céline Semaan on Healing, Identity, and Political Awakening",
"author" : "Mia Khalifa, Céline Semaan",
"category" : "interviews",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/mia-khalifa-celine-semaan-reclaiming-feminism-collective-liberation",
"date" : "2024-11-01 13:56:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/MIA_IEP_9-thumb.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "CÉLINE SEMAAN: I have so many questions—they are a bit intense. So we are going to start with the intensity immediately… Anjed we woke up and the news was so disgusting. I mean this is our reality. We joke and laugh because we’ve developed this amazing sense of humor, but the world we’ve grown up in has been very very intense. We’ve mastered the art of talking about heavy issues, making it personal because everything is political right?MIA KHALIFA: Everything. CÉLINE: I wrote something recently, about how ‘free Palestine’ is also about Lebanon. The Lebanese endured 35 years of war and genocide in Lebanon, all before social media existed. Back then, the media painted us as terrorists, manufacturing consent for the bombings. It’s a humanitarian crisis that’s rarely discussed, though as Lebanese people, it’s been our lived experience. You and I both grew up in Lebanon. Today, waking up to what’s happening in South Lebanon, Dahiyeh, and Tyre, with 200 people killed just today, is heartbreaking. I hope when this is published, it’s over, but I’m not holding my breath. As women, especially Arab women, we’ve faced oppression, both from conservative and so-called progressive spaces. How do you reconcile feminism when it doesn’t seem to include us?MIA: That’s a very good question. Honestly, it’s only in the last few years, as I’ve grown older, that I’ve been able to reconcile those feelings. I realized that you can only control your own views and actions. For a long time, I was immaturely angry at feminism because I felt excluded from it. I felt ostracized, so I responded by rejecting it and, unfortunately, internalizing a lot of misogyny. I didn’t feel supported by that community for much of my life. I grew up in a predominantly white, predominantly Jewish area in Washington, DC, and Maryland. I didn’t see much support from feminist circles there. It wasn’t until I got older, traveled, and found community with women of color—Indigenous, Latinx, and especially Lebanese and Arab women—that I started to understand. It took time, but I get why others struggle to reconcile their place within feminism. It wasn’t until I got older that I began to find my own. CÉLINE: Growing up in constant war, having to flee over and over. I’ve moved so many times. Just this morning, I was on a call with my parents, and they’re preparing to flee Lebanon again with everything that’s going on. I’ve lost count of how many times they’ve had to leave and come back. It makes you rethink what home really means. So now, sitting here in a hotel, I wonder, what does “home” mean to you?MIA: Home, for me, is hearing your accent and having manoushes around the table. That’s what makes it feel like home—those little reminders that are so important. It’s all that really matters. As long as you’re surrounded by the right people, that’s it. CÉLINE: This morning, as I was buying manoushe and heading to see you, I felt like, “Wow, I feel at home in New York,” just knowing there’s this place I can go to for that familiar taste. I literally inhaled that manoushe while watching the news, and it hit me—wherever we go, we’re transporting our home with us. It sounds cheesy, but anjad it’s true. We carry it within us—our bodies, our everything. We bring home wherever we are. MIA: Growing up, the only thing we ever ate at home was Lebanese food, of course. But after moving to America, going out to different restaurants and trying new cuisines became a bit of a tradition. I remember one time we went out for Thai food, and my grandma brought a little Tupperware of tarator to eat with the fried fish. CÉLINE: No way! That’s so cute!MIA: At one point, the Thai restaurant actually asked if they could taste it, and then they asked her for the recipe so they could make it themselves—because the fried fish went so perfectly with the tarator. That’s what home is. You make it wherever you are, even in a foreign restaurant eating a cuisine you’ve never had before. It’s one of my favorite stories about her—she’s an icon!CÉLINE: That’s so cool! Growing up here, my parents also had a restaurant, and even though it wasn’t a Lebanese restaurant, but my mom made everything Lebanese! It was so fusion. She’d cook American dishes, but with a Lebanese twist. You want a hamburger? We make it kafta burger. MIA: Sure, but with seven spices! Literally everything had that touch. I put that on everything. Za’atar too. CÉLINE: What do you put za’atar on?!MIA: Literally everything! I’ll even put za’atar on my cheese pizza—especially if it’s New York style. It’s so good when it mixes with the grease, like yum! It sounds wild, but honestly, it works!‘For a long time, I was immaturely angry at feminism because I felt excluded from it. I felt ostracized, so I responded by rejecting it and, unfortunately, internalizing a lot of misogyny. I didn’t feel supported by that community for much of my life. ’ — MiaCÉLINE: Let’s circle back to Everything is Political. Your whole life has been about liberation—liberating our bodies, minds, sexuality, and beauty. What does collective liberation mean to you?MIA: To me, it’s as simple as the idea that none of us are free until Palestine is free. I don’t see that as a radical statement at all—it perfectly captures the sentiment. It’s a no-brainer for me. I get why you feel the need to defend it, because people probably ask, “What does that mean?” But honestly, if they’re asking, they might not want to get it. It’s always been clear: liberation means everyone. It’s not exclusive, and no one person or group is more entitled to it than another. We all have to work together. CÉLINE: Even in the U. S. , you’ve always advocated for a free Palestine, even before October 7. But since then, with the escalation of violence, the Free Palestine movement has transformed. The world has changed in how America views us and how America sees itself. From your perspective, what have you observed regarding the sudden embrace of the Free Palestine movement? It used to feel niche and unwelcome, and it’s still not completely accepted— there’s significant censorship and backlash. But it does seem like there are way more people now willing to support the cause, doesn’t it?MIA: Yeah, exactly. It’s hard to ignore the reality when people who were once neutral or wanted to stay out of it are now realizing just how egregious this situation is. This is pure genocide backed by Western powers, and it’s terrifying. The veil has been lifted, and we’re starting to see the ugly truths of how the world operates—and how it could operate differently if there was the will to change things. It’s a wake-up call. Watching this unfold for so long, seeing it happen so blatantly, and witnessing the constant stream of heartbreaking videos… It’s heartbreaking that the pain of Arabs has to be exploited like this for people to finally believe it. It’s disgusting and incredibly hurtful. CÉLINE: You know, sometimes we find ourselves advocating not just for our rights but for our very survival. At the same time, we’re human—we’re evolving, changing, and transforming. I feel a responsibility to ask you about the criticism you’ve received regarding the fetishization of the hijab, for instance. What are your thoughts on that criticism? How do you navigate those conversations, especially given the complexities involved?MIA: I feel like that criticism is very valid because it comes from a place of young women feeling sexualized for something they didn’t do. I understand that I’m an easy person to target; I’m a public figure, and people can leave comments on my photos and tag me, making it simple to pinpoint the issue onto me. I have immense compassion for those women and feel a deep guilt that an innocent young woman is being fetishized for something she chooses to embrace as part of her religious beliefs. But I think, as women, we should focus on the larger issue—the patriarchal system that promotes this, produces this and distributes this, which continues to fetishize women. Even if they’re not using Arab actresses, they’re often casting Latin women who could pass as Arab. I’m not the first nor the last to face this; I’m just the one people can identify because there’s a face connected to the name and to the action. CÉLINE: Absolutely. When we talk about feminism and this idea of purity, it often feels like you have to come from a place of purity to advocate for human rights, right? Do you feel that pressure? It’s almost as if you have to be a saint to be taken seriously in these conversations. What are your thoughts on that?MIA KHALIFA: Oh my gosh, I completely disagree with that! Most of us don’t come into these mindsets from a place of purity. Many of us are traumatized individuals dealing with so much that we need to work through to reach these realizations. I wasn’t the same person I was even five or six years ago; my thoughts were nowhere near what they are now. I know it might sound insane, but every single thing I see radicalizes me further and further. The way I thought when I was 20 was influenced by my own internalized misogyny and racism, along with many other issues that shaped my actions and beliefs. But then I started going to therapy and delving deeper into myself, actually growing into my identity. That’s why I feel so secure in who I am now. CÉLINE: Criticism can be so harsh. Yet in this movement for liberation, there seems to be a punitive mindset, a carceral approach that contradicts the very essence of liberation. The idea that you can publicly punish someone or correct them through harassment is so counterproductive. How do you feel about this? Where do you draw the boundary, and how do you navigate your own evolution and transformation in this public space?‘The veil has been lifted, and we’re starting to see the ugly truths of how the world operates— and how it could operate differently if there was the will to change things. ’ —MiaMIA: You just have to give people grace. It’s essential to consider intentions before judging actions. At the end of the day, it comes down to listening, understanding, and being empathetic and compassionate when it’s necessary. Of course, not everyone deserves that grace, but for those who do, it can make all the difference. Ultimately, I believe that to grow and transform in this world, you have to embrace contradictions. You can’t change without acknowledging that you might have to contradict yourself along the way. CÉLINE: It’s all about grace and generosity. We often discuss radical generosity in our culture. In Arab culture, it’s like this dance where you fight to pay the bill or show up at someone’s house with more than enough. There’s a deep-rooted understanding that sharing and giving are essential parts of our community. MIA: Oh, exactly! You call ahead and show up at the restaurant six hours early just to slip your credit card to cover the bill. Then you leave and come back, saying, “Oh, I’m so sorry I was late!” It’s all part of that generous spirit. CÉLINE: Yes, exactly! There’s this radical generosity that you embody so well through your constant acts of giving. I’d love to hear how your approach to giving has evolved and how you’re seeing the impact of your actions. Where do you want to focus your generosity now?MIA: Thank you for saying that; it really means a lot. I’ve always felt this innate need to contribute because you’re not truly deserving of anything if you’re not also supporting your community. It’s like a mental version of Reaganomics that actually could work if it weren’t so corrupt! That’s how community is supposed to function. But as I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to realize there’s a big difference between just giving and giving with purpose. CÉLINE: Your recent tweet really resonated with us: “You get to a point in life when you realize everything is political—the brands you support, the places you patronize, the celebrities you platform, and even the people you date. If they’re not at least trying to be informed, have a stance, and be vocal, then they’re not in alignment. ” This was so powerful, especially since we just launched our “Everything is Political” initiative. We knew we wanted to be in conversation with you, and this tweet felt like a perfect alignment!MIA: Just a couple of years ago, I might have been okay with friends who said things like, “Oh no, I stay out of all that. ” But now, if I hear someone say that, I’m genuinely taken aback. Like, what do you mean? It feels almost robotic, like they’re disengaged from reality. We all have a responsibility to each other, regardless of our backgrounds. Whether you’re walking down the street or staying in a hotel, every action counts. Holding the door open for someone behind you or treating housekeeping staff with respect—these seemingly small gestures reflect our shared humanity. It’s all interconnected, and we need to recognize that our choices impact those around us. Every single role we play comes with responsibility, and it’s time we embrace that fully. CÉLINE: I feel like that’s very cultural to us, like the idea of responsibility. This is how we were raised—to really understand our place in the world and our responsibility in it. This brings me to addressing “poverty porn”, by showing images of dying brown kids covered in blood. There’s a gap between that and our dignity as humans. Those images actually hurt our dignity. People say this is one of the most documented genocides, yet it’s not moving the needle because many don’t even see us as human. So, we started this idea of building a fund for collective liberation so that we can put our money in multiple places at once. It’s not just about feeding the poor or educating the uneducated—categories that are ultimately so colonial. We wanted a fund that was more holistic because it’s a case-by- case situation. There’s no standardized way to heal the world; it has to be designed in a modular way that fluctuates with the situation. I feel like Arabs understand this inherently, especially Lebanese and people from the Levant. The ways in which we have survived could not have happened if we were stuck in a one- track, standardized mindset. This idea of a fund for collective liberation came to be, and I know it spoke to you. In what ways did it resonate with you?MIA: That’s exactly the reason. The fact that I don’t just have to commit to education—because education is so important—but if a tragedy strikes, which unfortunately has been happening way too often, I want to be partnered with an organization that can go with the ebb and flow of life. When, thankfully, things are quiet and good, we can fund arts, education, and other things that are important for culture. CÉLINE: I’m so grateful to be in community with you. I wanted to ask you, oftentimes people ask, “What would you tell your younger self?” But I feel like the question could also be, “What do you think your younger self would say and do now?” Like, what’s your inner child saying to you these days? I feel like there’s a lot of repair we have to do in reconciling with our inner child. For me personally, my whole healing journey and all of my therapy sessions have focused on my inner child because she’s someone who was born in a war, fled the war, and experienced a lot of neglect. I’m sure that you can relate because you were in Lebanon during that time as well. Our parents were stressed, and we were being neglected. Now, looking at what’s happening in Gaza, there’s a war on children currently happening, and I feel like our inner children are acting up—they’re being vocal. What does Sarah’s inner child say?MIA: She says, “Thank you for caring about making sure there’s a place for me to go back to, and thank you for not being ashamed of me anymore. Thank you for doing all the things I would have wanted to do. And can I borrow your shoes?” What does yours say?CÉLINE: Mine says, “Thank you for being the person who protects me, the person who would have held me and cared for me. Thank you for doing everything you can to ensure that people like us have a place to be, and for never forgetting that you are me. ” You know, I’m very much a kid at heart. I mean, I feel like the biggest conversation is about healing, you know? I want to ask you, what’s your practice for healing? How did you invite healing into your life?MIA: Therapy and mushrooms. CÉLINE: Oh, wow! yes. ‘Just a couple of years ago, I might have been okay with friends who said things like, “Oh no, I stay out of all that. ” But now, if I hear someone say that, I’m genuinely taken aback. Like, what do you mean? It feels almost robotic, like they’re disengaged from reality. We all have a responsibility to each other, regardless of our backgrounds. ’—MiaMIA: Ya. CÉLINE: That helped you?MIA: What caused me to start going to therapy was really just being fed up. I’ve never been against it, so it wasn’t a hard sell. CÉLINE: Sometimes, culturally, we’re like, “Oh, we’re fine, we’re fine, we’re fine,” you know? And then we don’t take the time. MIA: I was just in denial. Finally, it got to a point where there was one specific moment where I exploded on a radio host during an interview. The way they introduced me triggered me and felt very disrespectful. It was a sports show, and I just didn’t feel like the way they introduced me was respectful. I exploded on them, and then I got a fine from the SEC because it was live radio, and it went viral. People were like, “This bitch is crazy,” and I was like, “Yeah, this bitch is crazy. She needs to go to therapy, actually. ”So, I went to therapy, and then I realized, oh, that was a trigger because I have unhealed shame from unhealed trauma—from things I did because of my unhealed trauma. So that was the catalyst. Psilocybin and mushrooms has been a lot more recent. When I got access to it in California, it was first in chocolate form, then in gummy form. I started microdosing, and then I worked my way up to proper psilocybin, like just grown mushrooms. I have someone guiding me, or sometimes I follow a schedule. My microdosing is very self-guided. I’ll do a cacao ceremony with a spiritual guide or in a group setting, in a very positive environment. But with microdosing, I just wake up in the morning and decide what flavor I want. CÉLINE: That’s amazing! I did that for the first time in Montreal when I was in my 20s. Yeah, in my 20s, we would make Nutella sandwiches and put a ton of mushrooms in them, then go out and walk in the forest all day, eating the Nutella sandwiches. It was life-altering for me. I started understanding so much; I did my own little healing, doing that therapy in nature—eating a Nutella sandwich with my friends, walking all day, laughing, and just being in nature. But then one time, we went inside a little too early, and I realized that if you’re very high on mushrooms and you’re indoors…I got SCARED. MIA: No, no, I did it at Universal Studios. CÉLINE: Yeah, it was not okay. No, you cannot be around people. I saw myself in the mirror, and I was like, “No, don’t ever look at yourself in the mirror!”I see why you’re guided now because I did it by myself in my 20s, and now it’s so common, right? There’s a big transformation in the healing space where people are finally recognizing the beauty of it and the power of plant medicine. You did it at Universal Studios?MIA: I did it at Universal Studios! I cried on the Hogwarts Express, and people had to come and ask my friend, “Is your friend okay?” It was bad. We threw up in the bushes. "
}
,
"relatedposts": [
{
"title" : "Argentina’s Migration “Security Turn”: How Javier Milei’s Migration Policies Are Reshaping Belonging in Argentina",
"author" : "Marina Simonet Hernandez Jurado",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/argentinas-migration-security-turn",
"date" : "2026-03-17 10:39:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Screenshot-2026-03-12-at-4.14.21PM.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "In late January, Argentina’s Ministry of Security published a video on Instagram showing federal forces conducting an operation in Villa Celina, a working-class neighborhood in La Matanza, reportedly searching for undocumented immigrants. Days earlier, a Colombian-born trans man who had requested asylum in Argentina, was detained at the airport for six days, unable to communicate with his family. According to La Izquierda Diario, his asylum claim was rejected, and he was placed on a flight to Porto Alegre, Brazil, under the classification of a “false tourist. ” According to an X post by Alejandra Monteoliva, Argentina’s Minister of National Security, “in December and January, nearly 5,000 foreign nationals were either denied entry or expelled from the country”. These episodes unfolded amid significant changes to Argentina’s immigration governance. Before Javier Milei took office in December 2023, immigration policy fell under the Ministry of the Interior, but former Minister Patricia Bullrich transferred oversight of immigration to the Ministry of National Security in November 2025, effectively redefining migration not as a matter of civil administration, but as an issue of national security. There have been no large-scale arrests of undocumented migrants in Argentina. Yet the symbolic force of security operations in poor neighborhoods and the high-profile expulsion of an asylum seeker signals to a broader political narrative. Like Donald Trump’s “law and order” rhetoric in the United States, Milei’s discourse relies on nationalist appeals and moral distinctions between “decent Argentinians” and those portrayed as threats. Slogans such as “el que las hace las paga” (an idiom similar to “do the crime, do the time”) compress complex social realities into punitive certainties, repositioning immigrants, workers, and other vulnerable groups as subjects of suspicion rather than individuals with rights. The correlation between Milei’s and Trump’s anti-immigrant policies is clear from the dates of implementation: Javier Milei took office in December 2023 and made no major changes to immigration policies until May 2025 (only five months after Trump took office) with the publication of the decree 366/2025 that announced modifications to the Migration Law, especially in article 114 where the creation of the “Auxiliary Migration Police” was announced. Furthermore, the desire to emulate Trump’s ICE is explicit even from members of the Milei administration, as reflected in these statements published by La Nacion, by a source close to Patricia Bullrich’s office: “The ANM (National Migration Agency) will adopt a security-driven approach. It will be modeled on the United States Department of Homeland Security, including its Border Patrol and the TSA [Transportation Security Administration, which oversees airport screening]. We are working to establish a civilian-police force operating at all of Argentina’s border crossings — an agency that centralizes migration control and maintains comprehensive records of individuals with criminal backgrounds”. Argentina’s Ambivalent Immigration TraditionArgentina’s national mythology celebrates immigration more explicitly than that of most countries in the Americas—a tradition rooted not only in historical narrative but also in constitutional language, and linked to the country’s vast, sparsely populated territory. The 1853 Preamble famously commits the nation to “secure the blessings of liberty … for all men of the world who wish to dwell on Argentine soil,” embedding an explicit invitation to migrants within the country’s founding legal imagination and framing hospitality as a foundational principle rather than a contingent policy choice. Dominant narratives credit European migration in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries with shaping Argentina’s economic and cultural development, as well as its national identity—one that has often imagined Argentines as descendants of Europeans and, therefore, distinct from the rest of Latin America. However, enthusiasm for immigration was never universal. In 1899, physician and intellectual José María Ramos Mejía wrote in Las multitudes Argentinas that immigration had “made Buenos Aires ill,” contaminating the traditions of established families. This anxiety reflected elite fears of demographic change, urban disorder, and political radicalism. In the context of the country’s expanding capitalist economy, these fears translated into hostility toward labor organizing, often portrayed as a foreign and subversive activity, as unions began to develop under the influence of anarchist and socialist ideas, including organizations such as the FORA, the country’s first major anarchist labor federation, as documented by Working Class History. The state also responded with legislation facilitating deportations, most notably the 1902 Ley de Residencia (Law 4144), which allowed the executive to expel foreigners deemed a threat to public order. Today’s nostalgia for a “good immigration” rests on two fragile premises. First, European migration is interpreted through a contemporary lens that imagines Europe as inherently prosperous and orderly, projecting present-day “First World” status onto a past marked by poverty, instability, and social conflict. Second, that race did not matter. Yet Argentina’s self-image as a predominantly white nation emerged alongside the violent erasure of much of its Indigenous population, including state campaigns such as the Conquest of the Desert, and the marginalization of Afro-Argentine communities. The celebration of European immigration has always been intertwined with racial hierarchy, evident in the markedly different treatment given to European migrants compared to those from neighboring countries such as Paraguay and Bolivia, who were racialized in distinct ways. The distinction between “good” and “bad” immigrants persists, now recorded through the language of legality and security. The False Security ArgumentThe Milei administration justifies its migration policies in the name of public safety. However, official data complicates that claim. Administrative data from the National Registry of Persons (RENAPER) indicates that Argentina has roughly 2. 3 million foreign-born residents, representing about 5 percent of the total population. Compared to countries where immigration dominates electoral politics, Argentina’s foreign-born population remains relatively small. According to 2023 national penitentiary statistics, foreigners account for roughly 6 percent of Argentina’s incarcerated population, approximately in line with their share of the country’s population. These figures suggest that migrants are not overrepresented within Argentina’s criminal justice system. Essentially, migration has not been a central axis of political instability or social crisis in recent years. Framing migration as a primary security concern appears disproportionate to the available evidence and contrasts with claims by President Javier Milei that migrants disproportionately benefit from public services such as health care and education or contribute significantly to Argentina’s economic crisis. Emulation and Political StrategyThe parallels with Trump-era discourse are not accidental. Javier Milei has openly aligned himself rhetorically with global right-wing leaders who frame migration as both a cultural and criminal threat. The emphasis on border control, internal enforcement, and moral categorization mirrors strategies used by U. S. and European conservatives to consolidate political identity around fear and grievance, while also resonating with broader regional trends. Argentina is not an isolated case in the adoption of restrictive migration policies; rather, it reflects a broader regional trend. In Chile, President-elect José Antonio Kast campaigned on proposals that included large-scale deportations of undocumented migrants. Similarly, in Costa Rica, President Rodrigo Chaves Robles declared a state of emergency in 2023 in response to migrants transiting the country en route to the United States, as reported by Reuters. In a recent interview with Louis Sarkozy, son of former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Milei argued that when a migrant “does not adapt to your culture,” it constitutes an “invasion” capable of “altering the cultural foundations” of a country. Yet beneath this security narrative lies a broader political project. The administration’s economic agenda (including labor reforms framed as “modernization”) favors deregulation and business interests. In this context, anti-immigrant rhetoric functions less as a response to empirical conditions than as a symbolic instrument: it constructs an internal adversary while redirecting attention away from structural economic transformation. The coherence of this narrative is further complicated by reports, including those published by The New York Times, suggesting an alleged agreement between Trump and Milei for Argentina to receive deported migrants from the United States. In this sense, security has become the language through which a deeper class realignment is articulated. Argentina’s history shows that debates over immigration have often reflected anxieties about identity, race, and labor control rather than measurable threats. The current turn toward securitization thus represents not merely a policy shift, but a transformation in democratic language itself. The question, then, is not whether Argentina faces a migration crisis, the available data suggests it does not, but what political purpose is served by insisting that it does, and what this insistence reveals about the broader direction of governance under Milei. By constructing an internal enemy embodied by vulnerable populations, the government seeks to redirect attention to politically expedient scapegoats. This logic is reflected not only in the immigration policies described here, but also in labor reforms that frame workers’ rights as a burden on public spending, the repression of retirees demanding improved pensions, and new restrictions on protest and the right to strike that limit collective organization. Taken together, these measures suggest that immigration restrictions form part of a broader institutional reconfiguration, one that prioritizes the projection of authority over the resolution of concrete social and economic challenges. In doing so, the government reframes manageable social dynamics as existential threats, a shift that risks undermining the very constitutional principles it claims to defend, both domestically and in its international positioning. "
}
,
{
"title" : "Borrowed Geography: How US Bases Serve the Empire",
"author" : "Jwan Zreiq",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/borrowed-geography",
"date" : "2026-03-17 10:03:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/us-syria.jpg",
"excerpt" : "Who are the bases for? For decades, the United States and Arab regimes have rehearsed the same script: the lie that American military presence in the region protects the Arab world, to preserve stability, and to defend against external threats. Hundreds of bases, tens of thousands of troops, naval fleets parked in the Gulf, all of it, supposedly, for Arab safety. But if protection is the purpose, then the question answers itself: protected from what, exactly? The Arab region has endured more wars, more destruction, and more instability since the establishment of these bases than in any comparable period before them. Iraq was invaded. Syria was shattered. Yemen was starved. Libya was bombed into state collapse. Palestine remains under occupation and siege. If this is what protection looks like, then the word has lost all meaning.",
"content" : "Who are the bases for? For decades, the United States and Arab regimes have rehearsed the same script: the lie that American military presence in the region protects the Arab world, to preserve stability, and to defend against external threats. Hundreds of bases, tens of thousands of troops, naval fleets parked in the Gulf, all of it, supposedly, for Arab safety. But if protection is the purpose, then the question answers itself: protected from what, exactly? The Arab region has endured more wars, more destruction, and more instability since the establishment of these bases than in any comparable period before them. Iraq was invaded. Syria was shattered. Yemen was starved. Libya was bombed into state collapse. Palestine remains under occupation and siege. If this is what protection looks like, then the word has lost all meaning. The Scale of PresenceThe American military footprint in the Arab region is staggering. The United States maintains forces in more than a dozen countries, with at least nineteen military sites, eight considered permanent. Qatar hosts Al Udeid Air Base, the largest US installation in the Middle East, serving as the forward headquarters for US Central Command with around 10,000 troops. As of mid-2025, roughly 40,000 American service members were deployed across the region. The narrative behind the purpose of these bases were sold to Arab governments, and by extension, to Arab publics, as shields against regional threats, primarily framed as Iran. But the record tells a very different story. They have served as launch pads for the destruction of Arab states, not their protection. What the Bases Did to IraqThe invasion of Iraq in 2003 remains the most damning evidence, and a vital one to read alongside what is happening today with Iran. Here is an Arab country, a founding member of the Arab League, destroyed using bases hosted by neighbouring Arab states. Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, and others became staging grounds for an invasion whose human cost is staggering. Population-based studies estimate over one million Iraqi deaths resulting from the war, while the Iraq Body Count project has documented between 186,901 and 210,296 violent civilian deaths. Brown University’s Costs of War project estimates that over 940,000 people were killed by direct post-9/11 war violence across Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan, with more than 432,000 of those being civilians. The bases did not protect Iraq. The bases destroyed Iraq. And the Arab states that hosted those bases were complicit, whether they admitted it or not, in the annihilation of an Arab neighbour. If the bases exist to protect Arab nations from external aggression, then what do you call an invasion launched from those very bases against an Arab capital?At the time of writing this, the pattern is repeating, and it is vital to read what is happening today alongside the record of Iraq. The US-Israeli alliance has launched strikes on a sovereign nation, Iran, calling it preemptive. Unnecessary, unprovoked, and deeply violent. What much Western media has failed to acknowledge is that the strike is unlawful. Not a grey area. A criminal act under international law. The current escalation is driven not by any genuine Iranian or Arab interest but by Israeli strategic calculations that position American bases as staging grounds for strikes against a neighbouring, non-Arab, Muslim-majority country with which Arab states share geography, trade, and centuries of cultural exchange. The shield became the target. Exactly as predicted. Netanyahu’s Guarantee; Peace Is Always One War AwayThere is no better illustration of Israel’s role as the architect of this configuration than the words of Benjamin Netanyahu himself, whose career has been defined by a single recurring promise: destroy the current enemy, and peace will come. The enemy changes. The promise never does and it never will. In the 1980s, Netanyahu told Pat Robertson that the Soviet Union was “a major force” behind international terrorism and that “if you take away the Soviet Union, its chief proxy, the PLO, international terrorism would collapse. ” In 2002, Netanyahu appeared before the US Congress to lobby for the invasion of Iraq. He told lawmakers: “If you take out Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations in the region. ” Predicting that regime change in Baghdad would trigger the implosion of Iran. In 2015, he returned to Congress to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal, claiming it would guarantee an Iranian bomb. The same language of certainty he had used about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, which never existed. In 2024, he stood before Congress again: “Israel will fight until we destroy Hamas’s military capabilities and its rule in Gaza. That’s what total victory means. ” He framed every front as one war: “When we fight Hamas, we’re fighting Iran. When we fight Hezbollah, we’re fighting Iran. When we fight the Houthis, we’re fighting Iran”. The normalisation agreements of the Abraham Accords were about integrating Israel into a security architecture in which American bases, Arab territory, and Israeli strategic interests become indistinguishable. Even the $142 billion Saudi arms deal is constrained by America’s guarantee that Israel receives more advanced weaponry than any Arab state, a policy known as the “qualitative military edge. ” A deal that, as Foreign Affairs documented, was designed to normalise relations with Israel without demanding, in exchange, the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. The bases that were once justified as protecting Arab sovereignty now serve a framework that prioritises Israeli security at Arab expense. At no point in this trajectory have the bases served the interests of ordinary Arab citizens. They have served American power projection, Israeli regional ambitions, and the narrow survival calculations of ruling elites who exchange sovereignty for patronage. The geography has been borrowed for decades. The return on that investment has been the destruction of Iraq, missiles falling on Doha, and trillions flowing in the wrong direction. The Geography Reclaims ItselfBut the myth is fracturing. In January 2026, the Iraqi army assumed full control of Ain al-Asad Airbase after a complete US withdrawal, ending more than two decades of American military presence in western Iraq. In Jordan, daily protests after October 7 forced the government to recall its ambassador from Israel; Israel evacuated its own and has not replaced its diplomatic mission since. In Morocco, which normalised relations with Israel in 2020, public support for normalisation collapsed from 31 percent to 13 percent after October 7, and in 2025, the country’s largest labour union called for banning Israeli-bound ships from Moroccan waters and organised protests in support of Gaza. The 2025 Arab Opinion Index, the largest public opinion survey in the Arab world, covering 40,000 respondents across fifteen countries, found that 87 percent of Arabs oppose recognition of Israel, citing its status as a “settler-colonial state occupying Palestine”. Despite the Abraham Accords, support for normalisation dropped even further, including in signatory states. This is not passive discontent. It is a political force constraining governments that would otherwise deepen their alignment with Washington and Tel Aviv. Within the Arab world, a generation of writers, organisers, and researchers from Azmi Bishara’s work on sovereignty and the failure of normalisation, to Abdel Razzaq Takriti’s recovery of Gulf revolutionary traditions, to the policy analysts at Al-Shabaka dismantling the security-sector myth, is building the analytical tools to name what previous generations could not say aloud: that the security architecture sold to them was never designed for their protection, and that genuine regional security begins with sovereignty–not the kind performed at summits and investment forums, but the kind that decides who can and cannot wage war from your soil. The Yemeni blockade of Red Sea shipping, whatever one’s position on the Houthis may be,, demonstrated something that decades of Arab League communiqués never did: that collective action rooted in solidarity with Palestine can materially disrupt the logistics of empire. "
}
,
{
"title" : "Kurdistan and Palestine: Mapping Solidarity Beyond Colonial Borders",
"author" : "Rojin Namer, Jwan Zreiq",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/kurdistan-and-palestine",
"date" : "2026-03-17 10:00:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/shutterstock_232668253-956x539-c.jpg",
"excerpt" : "“No one can understand the suffering of the palestinian people more than the Kurds. No people can share a relationship of empathy more than the peoples of Palestine and Kurdistan. This has been proven by their experiences and joint struggle. It was as such yesterday and it is as such today.” - Duran Kalkan",
"content" : "“No one can understand the suffering of the palestinian people more than the Kurds. No people can share a relationship of empathy more than the peoples of Palestine and Kurdistan. This has been proven by their experiences and joint struggle. It was as such yesterday and it is as such today. ” - Duran KalkanKurds live under imposed borders and know occupation firsthand. People shaped by displacement do not romanticize occupation or occupiers as allies. Kurdish writer Egultekin’s words cut through decades of propaganda that has painted Kurdish movements as Israeli proxies. The truth is simpler and far more painful: the “Kurdish-Israeli alliance” is a narrative weapon wielded by the very states that carved up Kurdistan, designed to turn regional solidarity into suspicion and transform indigenous resistance into foreign conspiracy. As a result, Kurdish and Palestinian struggles have been deliberately misunderstood as competing, when in fact they share a common root. Both of their people live as the largest stateless populations in the world, their identities fractured across borders drawn by colonial powers who never asked for their consent. The Kurds estimated number is 40 to 45 million across Turkey (Bakur), Syria (Rojava), Iraq (Başȗr), Iran (Rojhilat) – names the Kurds use for their own lands– as well as in diaspora. Palestinians number 15. 5 million, scattered across Palestine and the diaspora. Both peoples have lived and survived through genocide, displacement, and the systematic erasure of their existence, still fighting, relentlessly, just to assert their right to exist. The Architecture of FragmentingKurdistan is often described as if it were an absence, a land that does not exist because it does not appear on official maps. This absence is political, not historical. What appears today as four separate “minority” populations spread across widely recognized nation-states was once a connected social, linguistic, and cultural landscape where the Kurds lived as the indigenous people of the mountains, which is where the famous saying comes from, “No friends but the mountains,” a phrase born from watching these mountains given to different countries while the Kurds themselves were denied the ability to move through land that had always been theirs. Those same mountains were also pathways for commerce, escape, and cover for those fleeing or fighting. Many Kurds lived as Koçers–a Kurdish word related to families’ seasonal migration with their belongings, their sheep and goats, between lowland winters and highland summers. Their routes never knew the borders that would later claim to define them. Borders that would turn their ancestral movement into crime, making them “illegal” on land their ancestors had traversed freely for generations. To understand the ties between Palestine and Kurdistan, we must trace the borders that fractured them. In 1916, Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, dividing Bilad al-Sham, the Levant. They partitioned what had been a living geography of different tribes, faiths, and peoples into Syria, Jordan, Palestine, and Lebanon, carving nations from what was once one land. The same lines fractured Kurdistan across Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran, leaving its people stateless across four different borders. The agreement laid the ground for the Balfour Declaration the following year, which promised Palestine to a European Zionist movement while Palestinian hands still worked its soil, cultivating the land while it’s being promised away. These colonial borders made Kurdish existence itself a threat to four different nation-states simultaneously, which means attempts at autonomy have been met with violent repression to this day. Because acknowledging Kurdish identity challenges the legitimacy of the borders themselves, and challenging the story these states tell about who belongs and who doesn’t, also challenging who controls the resources beneath their feet. Kurdish lands, recognized as one of the world’s most significant untapped energy frontiers, holding massive reserves of oil, gas, minerals, and fertile agricultural land, none of which has benefited Kurdish populations. In Iraq alone, Kurdish regions sit on an estimated 45 billion barrels of oil reserves, resources that all four states have consistently fought to keep out of Kurdish hands. Taken together, control over these resources has allowed these states to determine who holds political power and who remains outside it; who sits at the table, and who is never invited. So when we ask why the mere existence of Kurdish identity remains so threatening to the states built on their erasure, the answer lies in understanding how statelessness becomes not just a condition but a tool. Israel’s interest in Kurdish movements has nothing to do with self-determination and everything to do with weakening Iran, fragmenting Iraq. The same imperial logic that created Kurdish statelessness is now offered back as an alliance. Rojava: Liberation, ethnic and gender justice movementIn 2012, amid the Syrian civil war and the withdrawal of regime forces from Kurdish-majority areas, Kurdish political forces in northern Syria began to organize autonomous self-governance. While defending their territories against ISIS, they initiated a political project grounded in grassroots democracy. This radical resistance movement evolved into what is known today as the Autonomous Administration of North Syria. Crucially, what began in predominantly Kurdish areas expanded to include Arabs, Assyrians, Armenians, Turkmens, and other communities as they joined the autonomous regions. The system adapted a council-based structure extending from local communes to district and regional assemblies. Representation is based not on ethnicity nor religion, but on a shared participation in self-governance. In a region marked by unresolved national questions and sectarian fragmentation, this model represents both a rupture and a possibility; challenging the nation-state through decentralization and multi-ethnic coexistence. Crucially, gender equality is not an addendum but the structure itself. The women’s movement within the revolution has transformed social and political life, placing women’s liberation at the center of democratic transformation. In this way, every governing body in Rojava operates under mandatory co-leadership between a woman and a man, with a minimum 40% quota for women’s participation across all institutions, and women’s councils hold autonomous veto power over community decisions, meaning that no law, no policy, or local decision can ever be moved forward without women’s consent. One of the most notable accomplishments perhaps is how the administration has banned polygamy, child marriage, and forced marriage. Equally significant, it criminalized honor killings and gender-based violence –transforming what were once dismissed as private cultural matters into prosecutable violations. Alongside this legal transformation, women formed their own armed units, the YPJ (Women’s Protection Units), founded in 2013 as an autonomous military formation that fought ISIS on the frontlines as independent fighters, defying the narrative of women fighters as auxiliaries to male forces by becoming instrumental in the liberation of Kobani and the rescue of thousands of Yazidis from genocide on Mount Sinjar. Beyond military defense, Kurdish women established their own justice system through Mala Jin (Women’s Houses), a network of more than 60 centers across the region. Here, women resolve disputes, address domestic violence, and challenge patriarchal practices without state or male mediation; offering reconciliation and mediation processes at the community level, instead of through courts or police. Educational academies followed, training women in everything from political theory to cooperative economics, and in the process, they created the infrastructure for women’s autonomous power. In the spirit of women resisting together, Leila Khaled, the Palestinian revolutionary and PFLP member, has consistently recognized the Kurdish struggle as inseparable from Palestine’s. Khaled visited Leyla Güven, a Kurdish parliamentarian imprisoned for opposing Turkish incursions into Syria, during Güven’s hunger strike demanding an end to the isolation of imprisoned Kurdish leader Abdullah Öcalan. Khaled draws direct parallels between the partition of Palestine and the partition of Kurdistan, between the denial of Palestinian return and the denial of Kurdish movement through their mountains. A Bijî Kurdistan & Free PalestineKurdish writer Özlem Goner’s words map the liberation path forward when she wrote: “Kurds and Palestinians in this particular context have suffered various forms of colonial violence at the hands of Turkey and Israel respectively, and it is our alliance, together with all the other colonized and oppressed populations of the Middle East and beyond, that can bring justice and peace. From learning to self-defend together, to invaluable moments of solidarity. ”Daily resistance is not always courageous. Sometimes it is a compromise you’re willing to take in simply choosing not to disappear. In both Kurdish and Palestinian contexts, resistance then, is a condition of existence, perhaps the only one available when your whole being is read as a political stance. The question has never been whether there will be one state or two, but whether that state will be based on equality or continue to be based on domination. The map with further fragmentation of lands promises resolution while preserving the very architecture of oppression. So, until the maps and borders reflect justice rather than colonial division, until Kurds can traverse their mountains and Palestinians can return to their lands, the project of liberation remains unfinished. Liberation will emerge, if at all, from the recognition that to be Kurdish, to be Palestinian, is to have one’s very existence made political by those who drew borders to erase it, and that survival itself no state has managed to extinguish. From women governing in Rojava to families returning to olive groves in Palestine, the stubborn refusal to stop being who we are is the political act no state or borders can legislate away. "
}
]
}