Digital & Print Membership
Yearly + Receive 8 free printed back issues
$420 Annually
Monthly + Receive 3 free printed back issues
$40 Monthly
A Tale of Two Filmmakers
Omar Gabriel x Ruchi Mital

RUCHI MITAL: You once said something like art is my only refuge. Has that always been the case for you? Did your journey with the camera start when you were young? How did it come about?
OMAR GABRIEL: I realized at a later stage in my life that art has always been my refuge. I think it’s a cliche to say, art heals me, or art allows me to be myself. I don’t think it’s that. You watched my films, and you got to discover a deeper layer of myself. And this deeper layer was not easily accepted, embraced or celebrated, because it’s vulnerable, because it’s not based on: ‘I have achieved this. I have this amount of money. I am a strong man.’ It doesn’t fit into these standards. It’s more like, I’m feeling all these feelings, and that has been, in the course of my life, not celebrated, especially in the younger years when I didn’t have community or like-minded people holding space for each other. I would say it has been my cathartic tool, my way to be curious, to go outside of myself and into myself, and at the same time, it has been my peaceful way to show my rage and to say, ‘This cannot continue.’ Things need to be addressed properly, with depth, with humanity and with soul. I want to dig, dig, dig deep to a place that I don’t even know what it is. I want to enter something somewhere. It’s always never enough for me. I think it’s a problem for me that it’s always never enough. But at the same time, this is how I feel when I’m on an artistic quest.

RUCHI MITAL: Do you ever have the feeling that you touched it, the thing you were digging for?
OMAR GABRIEL: I think I’ve touched glimpses of it, and the rest is not touched. This is what keeps me digging. I’m afraid this is a big greedy part, or a part of me that’s always a bit unfulfilled. Not like, ‘I’m not satisfied,’ but more like, ‘Wow, we’re so complex and our stories are so multi-layered, so it will never be enough.’ When I finish any piece, I always feel like I missed a lot of things, and maybe it’s not enough, and I need to search more and dig more, but then it resonates with a lot of people, and they find it so deep and profound, and then I’m like, ‘Ah, okay, I asked for more, but maybe it’s already enough.’
RUCHI MITAL: There can be two parts to it’s not enough. One is, it’s not enough for me, the other is feeling a responsibility toward other people, like I’m taking on telling this story. I have a responsibility. Do you feel that? Do you have a responsibility to someone, some community, some country you carry when you’re making work?
OMAR GABRIEL: So much. I think this is why I also feel it’s not enough. Because I ask myself, ‘How can I, in a short film or feature film, tell the story of one person?’ I must understand what they have been through to be able to communicate it, verbalize it or address it properly. I feel this responsibility that they are giving me a door into their life, into their psyche, into their hearts. I feel so responsible, especially when someone knows what it means to open up, when they are vulnerable and want to be want to feel safe, want to feel appreciated, want to feel celebrated. I always want to push more to make them feel they are being represented in a way they feel good about while sharing things they thought might be too shameful or vulnerable. I want them to see that it resonated with a lot of other people, so they become the heroes of their story, and not the other way around. I think this feeling of it’s not enough comes from I want to touch the core of depth, realness, and authenticity, and I don’t have a reference.
RUCHI MITAL: Let’s talk specifically about your series, A Letter to Myself. I think it brings together so many of the things that you were just talking about. And I wonder if you can tell me a little bit about how this series come about, what drove you to do this series, a little bit about how you connected with the people you featured in the series, and the intention behind the approach that you took. It has the feeling of a home movie, and yet there’s also a kind of timeless quality to it. It could be almost any time period since cameras have been invented. It’s very intimate, but it’s also very universal. It’s experimental in that it’s not just a narrative, with a beginning, middle and end. It’s a really rich series you created. If you can, tell me a little bit about how you came to it and what your idea was.
OMAR GABRIEL: It all started after the Beirut blast, when I was very close to death. I was blessed to stay alive and stay in shape and healthy, and I asked myself, ‘What is my responsibility, since I’m here and what can I do without fear?’ I had been inhabited by the fear of expressing something too real and too authentic. I’ve done this in the past, but not to that extent, and I felt like since I have been so close to that, there’s nothing to be afraid of anymore. I wouldn’t say it’s only about queerness; it’s also about acceptance, and it’s about embracing the inner child and addressing something to oneself, and taking the time to reflect about oneself in a world where we’re always doing things for others.
I am writing a letter to myself, taking the time to write words intuitively with all my heart, not to another person, but to myself. It’s meeting the self that sometimes we don’t have the time for or are afraid to meet. I started with the others, and they inspired me to end it with a letter to myself, because I felt like, ‘Those people are so courageous.’ They are strong enough to write letters to themselves and to accept being filmed and to know that these films are going to go viral on Instagram. So why am I still hiding behind my camera? What I wanted to ask others is what I’m searching for in myself. So, this time, I would not hide behind the camera. The turning point was when I realized that what we’re looking for in others is also what we look for in ourselves.

RUCHI MITAL: There’s always this tension in a documentary, this power thing about, I’m looking at you, I’m telling your story. And as much as you are giving someone the opportunity to tell their story, you’re looking at them and making yourself one of the subjects of the series. To me, this seems like a political act, in the framework of Everything is Political. It seems to be related to this thing that happens when you’re a person from a particular community… you’re from Lebanon, you’re a queer person… It’s like you’re now going to speak for this group. If you’re from this country, you can only talk about wars, because that’s what this experience is about, and the multi-layers of complexity somehow are not allowed for. And I don’t know if that’s something you experience, but it feels that in this space of allowing one person to write to themselves and not have to speak to the audience or the world, and putting yourself in it, you’re kind of reclaiming this complexity.
OMAR GABRIEL: I totally agree that it’s a political act to place myself in this. In the beginning, I never thought about it as political. I just felt that intuitively, I felt the need to be in this series. But in terms of hierarchy, somehow it puts us all at the same level, when we are all expressing in the same way. As a filmmaker, I express differently through the camera, through the stories I want to tell, because also others are reflections of me. I don’t choose the people I work with randomly. Maybe it’s an intuitive choice, but deep down, we have things in common, or we have values that are shared in common, or wounds that are shared in common. It’s like a spider’s web; we’re all connected in some way or another.
I have to step back and look at it with consciousness to be able to understand it. We are all part of each other’s stories because we’re all having this human experience, and we go through things that are similar and different, but the things we share are part of this human experience of loss and grief and celebration and identity crisis. I think what is political about it is that we are an inspiration for each other, and by connecting and by opening up and by sharing, we realized that we as human beings have so much in common.
One of the insanely incredible things about this art form is that this specific individual story or life or experience has this power to burst into something universal. One of my favorite parts about making documentaries is the level of surprise you’re always dealing with. You know what it is, and it becomes something else, or it moves in a different direction, and you have to go with it. I think some art forms are inside out, like I have a feeling, or I have an idea, and then I express it. But this one is very much like you’re eating it, and then it’s digested and transformed. I would call it a humbling process. You realize that if you trust life and you trust the people, it can give you a lot more than you know. I would say it removes the control. It removes it’s my idea, it’s my vision.
My short film, Lebanon After the War: Is Healing Possible?, was filmed in the Shatila, Palestinian camps. I was shooting at the same time the genocide was happening and while the war in southern Beirut was going on. I wanted to go to Shatila to see if I could find some joy in this very complex and difficult territory, where Palestinians and other migrants, Syrians and Lebanese were staying. In this intense place, I wanted to search for joy, because the violence is inflicted on us and our bodies and I wanted to understand how it is possible to liberate ourselves while the system is still present and while the oppression is still happening and the war is still ongoing.
I met a dancer named Omar a couple of years ago, and he is from Shatila. I said to him, ‘Let’s do a movie while we try to liberate our bodies.’ And he was like, ‘Yes, great. Where?’ And I said, ‘In Shatila.’ He said, ‘No way. I wouldn’t dare dance in the streets of Shatila.’ I said, ‘I’m with you. Let’s take on this challenge. I don’t think it will be a problem.’ We started to test it out, and then we started celebrating our bodies, and we ended up dancing with this whole community we found in Shatila. I realized that people are here to celebrate joy, to dance, to move, and not to judge, even while they endure political oppression and violence.
As a man from Lebanon dancing with another man in this environment, it wasn’t the most comforting or safe in the beginning. But this was part of the challenge, to feel fear and move with it and see where it took us. Of course, we had some backups for our personal safety, but you can never control everything. We decided to move with fear and see where it guided us. Are you being chased, or is this an expression? And the answer is, it’s both. It really captures both those feelings. It’s all these feelings of wanting to escape what scares you, but also wanting to protect yourself, but also wanting to move to a place where you don’t know where you’re going, you’re just escaping something that has been imposed on you.
Palestinians, Lebanese people, and Syrian people have been living and experiencing for decades violence imposed on us. There’s always something we need to run away from. We need to run away from our home. We need to run away from our belongings, from our family, from our body. We always feel like there’s something that is threatening us. We carry with us all of these traumas.
I don’t have an answer as to how to liberate ourselves from fear, violence, and trauma. It’s still an ongoing journey as a Lebanese person, as a queer person, as a sensitive artist who also feels things in a global way. I don’t only feel my own story, I also connect to the global narrative. I try in my films to explore the possibilities of how we can do that, but I don’t have an answer for it. I just have suggestions, humble, simple, small suggestions.

RUCHI MITAL: Perhaps the most political thing you can do in this kind of work is not to close the loop, not to say the end, not to answer the question, because then the danger is it becomes a one-dimensional image, and that image then can easily be used against you. You did a really good job of showing that resilience has a cost, and that it’s not an end to anything. A new story is always beginning.
OMAR GABRIEL: Resilience is sometimes not a choice, but if you haven’t chosen to take your own life, you resist by default. This is what most of us have been experiencing. As you can see in this film, some resist by partying, some resist by putting on makeup and dressing up, and some resist by grieving in their own room and allowing those feelings to rise. There isn’t one proper way of healing to be able to continue, and we don’t have the formula yet. We don’t always have the space and time and luxury to explore and discover, because the day you start healing, there is another trauma that’s inflicted on you and your body and your nervous system. I started figuring out how to process this.
The Western methods of healing don’t apply to us, which is mostly everything is inside you, and you find it inside you, and you heal it inside.
I’m not only wounded, and I’m not only traumatized because of things that are inside me. There are things that are inside me that are coming from outer sources. So, once they stop, things can maybe start getting better, but as long as they are still there, we are figuring out our own healing. We don’t want to turn it into violence, and we don’t want to become the oppressor; we still want to be kind and loving. This is our own way of figuring it out, and, and it’s complex and it’s hard and it’s sad, but we are still going and finding ways, as long as we still can.
RUCHI MITAL: I think that all your films have a space for sadness, but they don’t stay there. They have a space for rage, but they don’t stay there. Maybe especially for men, but for a lot of us, sadness isn’t really allowed, because on one hand, you should be grateful for what you have, you’re here, you’re doing these things… I think a space for sadness is revolutionary in and of itself.
OMAR GABRIEL: Thinking that way, that if you are grateful, you should not be sad is imposing a binary way of thinking. You can grieve and still feel sad and still feel joy and still want to feel joy and still mourn and be depressed and get anxious. This is why I refuse to stick to one facet of life, or to one facet of our psyche. I want it to be complex because it is complex. You know, grieving is not linear, and it’s not rigid. It includes so many layers. I am curious about how people can still find their life force amidst all of what’s going on. And I think people like us—Arabs, Lebanese, Palestinians, Syrian—should become the reference for how to find a life force and continue. We should have our own healing systems that we teach others, or we should show others how we can continue, because it’s honestly extremely impressive. And even me, as a Lebanese, I’m still impressed, even if I’m not impressed by myself, I’m impressed by a lot of people in Lebanon and Syria and Palestine. When I see Gaza and people are carrying a life force to continue, I’m curious to know how. I want to learn from those people. I want to learn from my community. I want to learn from the human beings around me.
I want people around me, my neighbors, to tell me how they survived civil war and so many wars, and the explosion and their own personal journey. I’m impressed by the people around me. And I think this is why, with my camera, I don’t search far. I don’t want to travel to find this amazing story. All the people around me and around us have amazing stories.

RUCHI MITAL: Are you working on a film right now?
OMAR GABRIEL: I’m finishing my feature film, my personal feature film called Album, which is going to be, hopefully, distributed this year in festivals. It’s about the life of three queer people in Lebanon and their relationships with their mothers, told through archival images that they find in photo albums. It’s a reflection of their childhood but it’s also about questioning the present time and hoping for something in the future.
{
"article":
{
"title" : "A Tale of Two Filmmakers: Omar Gabriel x Ruchi Mital",
"author" : "Omar Gabriel, Ruchi Mital",
"category" : "interviews",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/omar-gabriel-ruchi-mital-tale-of-two-filmmakers",
"date" : "2025-06-19 14:26:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/omar-gabriel-1.jpg",
"excerpt" : "Emmy-winning producer Ruchi Mital sits down with award-winning director Omar Gabriel to investigate the inspiration and process of creating great film works.",
"content" : "RUCHI MITAL: You once said something like art is my only refuge. Has that always been the case for you? Did your journey with the camera start when you were young? How did it come about?OMAR GABRIEL: I realized at a later stage in my life that art has always been my refuge. I think it’s a cliche to say, art heals me, or art allows me to be myself. I don’t think it’s that. You watched my films, and you got to discover a deeper layer of myself. And this deeper layer was not easily accepted, embraced or celebrated, because it’s vulnerable, because it’s not based on: ‘I have achieved this. I have this amount of money. I am a strong man. ’ It doesn’t fit into these standards. It’s more like, I’m feeling all these feelings, and that has been, in the course of my life, not celebrated, especially in the younger years when I didn’t have community or like-minded people holding space for each other. I would say it has been my cathartic tool, my way to be curious, to go outside of myself and into myself, and at the same time, it has been my peaceful way to show my rage and to say, ‘This cannot continue. ’ Things need to be addressed properly, with depth, with humanity and with soul. I want to dig, dig, dig deep to a place that I don’t even know what it is. I want to enter something somewhere. It’s always never enough for me. I think it’s a problem for me that it’s always never enough. But at the same time, this is how I feel when I’m on an artistic quest. RUCHI MITAL: Do you ever have the feeling that you touched it, the thing you were digging for?OMAR GABRIEL: I think I’ve touched glimpses of it, and the rest is not touched. This is what keeps me digging. I’m afraid this is a big greedy part, or a part of me that’s always a bit unfulfilled. Not like, ‘I’m not satisfied,’ but more like, ‘Wow, we’re so complex and our stories are so multi-layered, so it will never be enough. ’ When I finish any piece, I always feel like I missed a lot of things, and maybe it’s not enough, and I need to search more and dig more, but then it resonates with a lot of people, and they find it so deep and profound, and then I’m like, ‘Ah, okay, I asked for more, but maybe it’s already enough. ’RUCHI MITAL: There can be two parts to it’s not enough. One is, it’s not enough for me, the other is feeling a responsibility toward other people, like I’m taking on telling this story. I have a responsibility. Do you feel that? Do you have a responsibility to someone, some community, some country you carry when you’re making work?OMAR GABRIEL: So much. I think this is why I also feel it’s not enough. Because I ask myself, ‘How can I, in a short film or feature film, tell the story of one person?’ I must understand what they have been through to be able to communicate it, verbalize it or address it properly. I feel this responsibility that they are giving me a door into their life, into their psyche, into their hearts. I feel so responsible, especially when someone knows what it means to open up, when they are vulnerable and want to be want to feel safe, want to feel appreciated, want to feel celebrated. I always want to push more to make them feel they are being represented in a way they feel good about while sharing things they thought might be too shameful or vulnerable. I want them to see that it resonated with a lot of other people, so they become the heroes of their story, and not the other way around. I think this feeling of it’s not enough comes from I want to touch the core of depth, realness, and authenticity, and I don’t have a reference. RUCHI MITAL: Let’s talk specifically about your series, A Letter to Myself. I think it brings together so many of the things that you were just talking about. And I wonder if you can tell me a little bit about how this series come about, what drove you to do this series, a little bit about how you connected with the people you featured in the series, and the intention behind the approach that you took. It has the feeling of a home movie, and yet there’s also a kind of timeless quality to it. It could be almost any time period since cameras have been invented. It’s very intimate, but it’s also very universal. It’s experimental in that it’s not just a narrative, with a beginning, middle and end. It’s a really rich series you created. If you can, tell me a little bit about how you came to it and what your idea was. OMAR GABRIEL: It all started after the Beirut blast, when I was very close to death. I was blessed to stay alive and stay in shape and healthy, and I asked myself, ‘What is my responsibility, since I’m here and what can I do without fear?’ I had been inhabited by the fear of expressing something too real and too authentic. I’ve done this in the past, but not to that extent, and I felt like since I have been so close to that, there’s nothing to be afraid of anymore. I wouldn’t say it’s only about queerness; it’s also about acceptance, and it’s about embracing the inner child and addressing something to oneself, and taking the time to reflect about oneself in a world where we’re always doing things for others. I am writing a letter to myself, taking the time to write words intuitively with all my heart, not to another person, but to myself. It’s meeting the self that sometimes we don’t have the time for or are afraid to meet. I started with the others, and they inspired me to end it with a letter to myself, because I felt like, ‘Those people are so courageous. ’ They are strong enough to write letters to themselves and to accept being filmed and to know that these films are going to go viral on Instagram. So why am I still hiding behind my camera? What I wanted to ask others is what I’m searching for in myself. So, this time, I would not hide behind the camera. The turning point was when I realized that what we’re looking for in others is also what we look for in ourselves. RUCHI MITAL: There’s always this tension in a documentary, this power thing about, I’m looking at you, I’m telling your story. And as much as you are giving someone the opportunity to tell their story, you’re looking at them and making yourself one of the subjects of the series. To me, this seems like a political act, in the framework of Everything is Political. It seems to be related to this thing that happens when you’re a person from a particular community… you’re from Lebanon, you’re a queer person… It’s like you’re now going to speak for this group. If you’re from this country, you can only talk about wars, because that’s what this experience is about, and the multi-layers of complexity somehow are not allowed for. And I don’t know if that’s something you experience, but it feels that in this space of allowing one person to write to themselves and not have to speak to the audience or the world, and putting yourself in it, you’re kind of reclaiming this complexity. OMAR GABRIEL: I totally agree that it’s a political act to place myself in this. In the beginning, I never thought about it as political. I just felt that intuitively, I felt the need to be in this series. But in terms of hierarchy, somehow it puts us all at the same level, when we are all expressing in the same way. As a filmmaker, I express differently through the camera, through the stories I want to tell, because also others are reflections of me. I don’t choose the people I work with randomly. Maybe it’s an intuitive choice, but deep down, we have things in common, or we have values that are shared in common, or wounds that are shared in common. It’s like a spider’s web; we’re all connected in some way or another. I have to step back and look at it with consciousness to be able to understand it. We are all part of each other’s stories because we’re all having this human experience, and we go through things that are similar and different, but the things we share are part of this human experience of loss and grief and celebration and identity crisis. I think what is political about it is that we are an inspiration for each other, and by connecting and by opening up and by sharing, we realized that we as human beings have so much in common. One of the insanely incredible things about this art form is that this specific individual story or life or experience has this power to burst into something universal. One of my favorite parts about making documentaries is the level of surprise you’re always dealing with. You know what it is, and it becomes something else, or it moves in a different direction, and you have to go with it. I think some art forms are inside out, like I have a feeling, or I have an idea, and then I express it. But this one is very much like you’re eating it, and then it’s digested and transformed. I would call it a humbling process. You realize that if you trust life and you trust the people, it can give you a lot more than you know. I would say it removes the control. It removes it’s my idea, it’s my vision. My short film, Lebanon After the War: Is Healing Possible?, was filmed in the Shatila, Palestinian camps. I was shooting at the same time the genocide was happening and while the war in southern Beirut was going on. I wanted to go to Shatila to see if I could find some joy in this very complex and difficult territory, where Palestinians and other migrants, Syrians and Lebanese were staying. In this intense place, I wanted to search for joy, because the violence is inflicted on us and our bodies and I wanted to understand how it is possible to liberate ourselves while the system is still present and while the oppression is still happening and the war is still ongoing. I met a dancer named Omar a couple of years ago, and he is from Shatila. I said to him, ‘Let’s do a movie while we try to liberate our bodies. ’ And he was like, ‘Yes, great. Where?’ And I said, ‘In Shatila. ’ He said, ‘No way. I wouldn’t dare dance in the streets of Shatila. ’ I said, ‘I’m with you. Let’s take on this challenge. I don’t think it will be a problem. ’ We started to test it out, and then we started celebrating our bodies, and we ended up dancing with this whole community we found in Shatila. I realized that people are here to celebrate joy, to dance, to move, and not to judge, even while they endure political oppression and violence. As a man from Lebanon dancing with another man in this environment, it wasn’t the most comforting or safe in the beginning. But this was part of the challenge, to feel fear and move with it and see where it took us. Of course, we had some backups for our personal safety, but you can never control everything. We decided to move with fear and see where it guided us. Are you being chased, or is this an expression? And the answer is, it’s both. It really captures both those feelings. It’s all these feelings of wanting to escape what scares you, but also wanting to protect yourself, but also wanting to move to a place where you don’t know where you’re going, you’re just escaping something that has been imposed on you. Palestinians, Lebanese people, and Syrian people have been living and experiencing for decades violence imposed on us. There’s always something we need to run away from. We need to run away from our home. We need to run away from our belongings, from our family, from our body. We always feel like there’s something that is threatening us. We carry with us all of these traumas. I don’t have an answer as to how to liberate ourselves from fear, violence, and trauma. It’s still an ongoing journey as a Lebanese person, as a queer person, as a sensitive artist who also feels things in a global way. I don’t only feel my own story, I also connect to the global narrative. I try in my films to explore the possibilities of how we can do that, but I don’t have an answer for it. I just have suggestions, humble, simple, small suggestions. RUCHI MITAL: Perhaps the most political thing you can do in this kind of work is not to close the loop, not to say the end, not to answer the question, because then the danger is it becomes a one-dimensional image, and that image then can easily be used against you. You did a really good job of showing that resilience has a cost, and that it’s not an end to anything. A new story is always beginning. OMAR GABRIEL: Resilience is sometimes not a choice, but if you haven’t chosen to take your own life, you resist by default. This is what most of us have been experiencing. As you can see in this film, some resist by partying, some resist by putting on makeup and dressing up, and some resist by grieving in their own room and allowing those feelings to rise. There isn’t one proper way of healing to be able to continue, and we don’t have the formula yet. We don’t always have the space and time and luxury to explore and discover, because the day you start healing, there is another trauma that’s inflicted on you and your body and your nervous system. I started figuring out how to process this. The Western methods of healing don’t apply to us, which is mostly everything is inside you, and you find it inside you, and you heal it inside. I’m not only wounded, and I’m not only traumatized because of things that are inside me. There are things that are inside me that are coming from outer sources. So, once they stop, things can maybe start getting better, but as long as they are still there, we are figuring out our own healing. We don’t want to turn it into violence, and we don’t want to become the oppressor; we still want to be kind and loving. This is our own way of figuring it out, and, and it’s complex and it’s hard and it’s sad, but we are still going and finding ways, as long as we still can. RUCHI MITAL: I think that all your films have a space for sadness, but they don’t stay there. They have a space for rage, but they don’t stay there. Maybe especially for men, but for a lot of us, sadness isn’t really allowed, because on one hand, you should be grateful for what you have, you’re here, you’re doing these things… I think a space for sadness is revolutionary in and of itself. OMAR GABRIEL: Thinking that way, that if you are grateful, you should not be sad is imposing a binary way of thinking. You can grieve and still feel sad and still feel joy and still want to feel joy and still mourn and be depressed and get anxious. This is why I refuse to stick to one facet of life, or to one facet of our psyche. I want it to be complex because it is complex. You know, grieving is not linear, and it’s not rigid. It includes so many layers. I am curious about how people can still find their life force amidst all of what’s going on. And I think people like us—Arabs, Lebanese, Palestinians, Syrian—should become the reference for how to find a life force and continue. We should have our own healing systems that we teach others, or we should show others how we can continue, because it’s honestly extremely impressive. And even me, as a Lebanese, I’m still impressed, even if I’m not impressed by myself, I’m impressed by a lot of people in Lebanon and Syria and Palestine. When I see Gaza and people are carrying a life force to continue, I’m curious to know how. I want to learn from those people. I want to learn from my community. I want to learn from the human beings around me. I want people around me, my neighbors, to tell me how they survived civil war and so many wars, and the explosion and their own personal journey. I’m impressed by the people around me. And I think this is why, with my camera, I don’t search far. I don’t want to travel to find this amazing story. All the people around me and around us have amazing stories. RUCHI MITAL: Are you working on a film right now?OMAR GABRIEL: I’m finishing my feature film, my personal feature film called Album, which is going to be, hopefully, distributed this year in festivals. It’s about the life of three queer people in Lebanon and their relationships with their mothers, told through archival images that they find in photo albums. It’s a reflection of their childhood but it’s also about questioning the present time and hoping for something in the future. "
}
,
"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. "
}
]
}