Zionism & anti-zionism with Good Shepherd Collective

Mehmet Eliarsson: Hello, everyone. Welcome to another episode of Fredhetsarna, which is in English Peacemongers. I am Mehmet Eliarsson. I am a musician turned activist, I guess I'd say. And I have with me my co-host today, Kajsa Eki-Seikman. She's a long-term journalist, a solid anti-imperialist, She's been doing this for a long time. One of those people who never buckles from the principles, which is really hard to find these days. Our guests today are from one of my favorite organizations, Good Shepherd Collective. Cody and Lara, welcome. Thanks for having us.

Lara Kilani: Thank you.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Thank you. It's an honor to have you. So why don't you guys, folks, sorry, introduce yourselves a bit, both the organization and yourselves, so that people can get an idea of who you are and what you're doing. And then I can also introduce the main topic of today is what Zionism is, what anti-Zionism is, and other questions around those two central topics.

Lara Kilani: Sure. That sounds great. So thank you so much for having us. We're so happy to be here with you both. My name is Laura Killany and I'm a member and co-founder of the Good Shepherd Collective. I'm a Palestinian American, so my family are refugees from 48, originally from Haifa. And I grew up in the U.S., so that's why I sound like this. But I helped co-found the Good Shepherd Collective back in 2017, 2018, when we first started. um, started and then moved here to Palestine about seven years ago now. So that's where I'm based. And that's generally where our collective is based. And I'll let Cody introduce himself, but maybe I can just say a bit about our collective. Um, you know, like I said, we started about seven or eight years ago and it was really with, you know, the expertise of Cody and others about the problematic situation on the ground in Palestine with regards to how organizing happens a lot of the time, you know, in the most vulnerable spaces. A lot of the times when there are these things like home demolitions, you know, just straight up resource theft, you know, demolition of schools, demolition of schools, of clinics, forced displacement, things like these really, you know, difficult situations that the Zionist entity creates. The response is largely from the NGO community, right? That's sort of what dominates the space here is NGOs and NGOization. And it's not really to address the root problem. And it's not even really to address the political needs and concerns of Palestinian communities. It's really about just giving people tents, giving people places to be able to stay or meet their most basic needs. And this is really difficult and it's really problematic because you see the huge amounts of money flowing into Palestine that are going into these organizations, but really aren't addressing the needs of communities in the short term or the long term, right? And so this is where Good Shepherd Collective sort of came in. We rejected this idea that we were going to accept these large communities like donations from funders, which really restricts your work into this area of humanitarianism and also restricts your work politically because so many of these donors are tied to political parties, political interests, which means reinforcing these old ideas. Actually, not particularly old ideas, but old in spirit ideas of, you know, two state solution and that this is what we need. We need peace. We need dialogue. Or I should say peace through dialogue. And so GSC really rejects that. We, you know, we talk about decolonization. We talk about anti-capitalism. We talk about what it means to reject Zionism, what it means to build something new. And that's sort of been one of the most important elements, I think, of our work, especially in recent years. All right, Cody, I talked too much. Sorry.

Mehmet Eliarsson: No, that was great. That was great. Thank you.

Cody O'Rourke: Go ahead, Cody. Yeah, no, that was that was a great summary of of the collective. I think just just one thing to add is, is that there's a couple other of us as well. Who's currently studying in Dublin, working on her her Ph.D., And Amit Fallah, who is moving on from Al-Quds Bard. He just finished his BA and I think will be starting to move on to work on his master's degree. So there's currently four of us. You know, and a lot of Palestinian organizing, of course, is complicated by geography and logistics. You know, we don't get to spend as much time as what we would like, you know, because of the checkpoints, the restrictions, et cetera, et cetera. So that's one of the difficult parts about it. And plus, you know, we also just love our other compadres, you know. You know, they're smart. They're, you know, they're important. So it's just important to, you know, to give them a nod as well. So for myself, I'm also from, I'm originally from the United States. I started coming here about 20 years ago. And like many others, I had also got to understand Palestine, I think, through the NGO network. So a lot of the shortcomings that we've kind of experienced in organizing in Palestine is, yeah, from the direct involvement, from filling out the grants to the UN, to USAID, and understanding the implications of it. It's from that firsthand experience of knowing what these limitations are and what doors are open and what doors are shut, depending on which narrative and analysis that you're willing to articulate on behalf of the institution.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Thank you very much for the introduction. You're both in West Bank, Palestine. and our audience and most of us know quite a lot about what's happening in Gaza at least from what we can follow but not much is covered about West Bank unfortunately at the same time and I mean it's understandable because of the scale of things but how is the situation right now if you can if we can briefly touch that and then go into our main topic maybe

Lara Kilani: Yeah, I can talk about that briefly. I mean, it's difficult here as well, because, you know, with the focus on Gaza, as you know, as is right, like you said, and also as it's difficult to take in so much information. But it really is. It's been difficult here as well, getting an adequate sort of sense of what's going on, because the situation has really taken a turn for the worse in the West Bank as well. Um, and, and not just in the West Bank. I mean, I should say, I'll talk about the West Bank and I think it's important to, to just, you know, discuss some of this, but it's also important to say that the situation in Palestine in general, in the entirety of Palestine has gotten significantly worse. You know, we'll talk about Jerusalem as well, but, um, For Palestinians in general, I mean, it's really the possibility of arrest, of torture, of all of these things, whether you're a citizen or not. Of course, it's much worse for non-citizens. But whether you're a Palestinian citizen of Israel, it's also a very difficult situation. And so... Yeah. So in the West Bank, you know, since October 7th, 2023, one of the things that we've experienced that has really led to this restriction of movement, restriction of sort of flow of information and difficult and increased difficulties are these massive closures. So there have been, I think, thousands of closures placed throughout the West Bank, flying checkpoints, random closures. you know, sort of closures of towns, of different entries to communities, which makes it really difficult. You know, Cody mentioned our other comrades who we love in the Good Shepherd Collective and how, you know, It's been really difficult even to connect with one another in person because you don't know what it's going to be like when you try to leave Nablus or when you try to enter Bethlehem or, you know, just traveling on the roads, traveling through the checkpoints. The closures at the container checkpoint, which separates the northern and the southern parts of the West Bank, have been used... To completely stop the flow of traffic for hours at a time. And this is, you know, a space that probably thousands of Palestinians move through on a daily basis using private or public transportation have been used as sites of search, seizure, you know, abduction, things like that. I just looked up the figures right before we jumped on and the most recent figure I could find, which is old because it's from January of this year. is that something like 14,300 Palestinians have been abducted from the West Bank by Zionist forces since October 7th, 2023. And I think that's really important. I'll say it again, 14,300. That's a huge number of people. Yeah.

Mehmet Eliarsson: I mean, I keep hearing, sorry to jump in, but it's like, I keep hearing people or see people talking about this. Oh, 10,000 Palestinians. are hostages or something like that to counter the hostages narrative. But as you say, you get annoyed every single time because just in West Bank, It is.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Yes. So I hear a lot about crackdowns on people posting things on social media, this thing about maybe you can correct me on this, but six months of preventive arrest if you would post something pro-Palestinian on social media. Those people that you're talking about being abducted, is that because of this law or other reasons or we don't know why they're being abducted?

Lara Kilani: Well, I think there are a variety of reasons. And part of the difficulty is... So part of what I think is difficult for folks to understand from outside maybe sometimes is that when you're in the space of the checkpoint or even when Israeli forces raid a home, raid a community, we're not necessarily dealing with a real system of laws and policies, right? This is a very like... sort of arbitrary, you know, emergency laws, emergency procedures situation where when you're moving through the space of a checkpoint, for example, these people have guns and they have the power and you are, you know, already in a very precarious situation, but you certainly usually don't have a gun, have a knife, have anything to use. Not that you would, but just the, you know, the obvious power differential in the situation means that These people can essentially do whatever they want to for any reason, and when you question it, the response is usually nonsensical. So there are policies in the sense that they allow people to – They allow Zionist forces and, you know, the government and the state in general to to carry out these acts of violence with some sort of law in the background. Right. Like this law that you mentioned of the social media posts. And that's definitely been used against people. Right. People are being abducted for those things. But people are also or have been at least abducted for things like having telegram on their phones. Right. you know, seeing videos that Palestinians are sharing from Gaza or from elsewhere in Palestine. And so the situation in these spaces at the checkpoint and elsewhere is just, I just point that out because I think that, you know, oftentimes when Palestinians are abducted or are killed or are, you know, abused in some way, like it's natural, right, to look for the reason, to look for the law, to look for the, rationale behind it. And a lot of times, it's not really about that as much as like, this person at the checkpoint didn't like you, this person at the checkpoint wanted to carry out an act of violence, this person at the checkpoint knew that they could get away with what they wanted to do, you know, and so that's part of how that happens.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: And so what is the legal status of those people being abducted? Like, where are they being held? You know, have they been let out? Or are they still being held?

Lara Kilani: So it depends like person to person. But in terms of these 14,000 plus, you know, probably now we're at a higher number since it's been about five months since that statistic. But people are being detained in Zionists. you know, prisons and Zionist jails and being tried through this military system. When we're talking about the case of the West Bank, right, it's a military law that's being applied to people with about a 99 percent conviction rate. So if you get to this point of being charged and being tried, the chances of being convicted is quite high. And that's something I wanted to talk about as well in the summary of the West Bank, is that the conditions in Zionists, you know, we call them online when we talk about them, torture chambers, because this is really what the situation is. I mean, I should say, it's important to say, even having noted that 99% conviction rate, that we're talking about a law that whether or not it could ever be just is being imposed on an indigenous population that has been dispossessed, you know, as of its ability to exercise sovereignty by a foreign population. So even if this was the most just law, even if there was a 10% conviction rate, it wouldn't be a just situation because it's a foreign population imposing their laws in order to maintain a situation of power over people. So that's important. But the situation itself in these prisons has really turned, has taken a turn for the worse. So Reports from prisoners coming out, you know, included things like and they vary. Right. Because we're talking about a period over 19 months now. But people have been talking about systematic refusal of access to food, systematic starvation, systematic dehydration. People are refused regular access to water. um people are refused access to showers prevented from being able to pray and then of course much worse i guess i shouldn't say much worse but additional things like torture systematic torture medical neglect abuse by medical professionals um and then sexual assault and other things like that so we're really talking about a situation that's incredibly dire in the in the israeli prison system And that is affecting literally thousands of people, right? So it's dire in the sense that the conditions have been made horrible, and it's dire in the sense that an absurd number of people are being subjected to them.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: So what would you say, like, what is the PA's role in this when it comes to, like, jurisdiction?

Lara Kilani: Well, this is another sort of... difficult thing to discuss so on the one hand you have PA involvement in the sense that there has been literal collaboration in spaces like some of the refugee camps which I also should mention that in the north of the West Bank there are four refugee camps that have been completely or let's say almost completely forcibly displaced so we have about 40,000 people in the north of the West Bank that have been forcibly displaced from refugee camps that they've been living in at least for decades, who are already forcibly displaced because they're living in a refugee camp, right? And so now these people are living where they can. Some people are living in schools that have been turned into shelters and sort of... for example, there is direct PA involvement, direct PA collaboration in the sense that there were interventions even before the Israeli military showed up in order to try to, what's the word that I want to use, sort of halt the operation of resistance forces in some of these camps. Right. And so there's direct collaboration in that way. In other ways, when we think about like raids at night or arrests at night, not just at night, at any time, there's collaboration in the sense that, you know, PA forces will move out of a space in order to make way for Israeli forces to come in and abduct Palestinians. And so because there is this understanding of security coordination that began with the Oslo Accords, this sort of collaboration, this sharing of information, this, you know, moving out of the way to allow Zionist forces to do what they want in these spaces, to a is an important function, I would say, of the PA's role, right? That, you know, people often talk about the PA as a subcontractor of the occupation in the West Bank. And in this sense, it's certainly true, right? Because whether they themselves are carrying out the arrests for people who are later then abducted by Israeli forces or whether they're moving out of the way to allow people to be abducted and abused, they're in that process, right?

Mehmet Eliarsson: We actually, or at least I have a plan to invite Amid from Good Shepherd Collective to talk about specifically about PA and two-state solution. And he's written some great articles on that as well.

Lara Kilani: Yeah, he'll be much more, he'll be great on that.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Yeah, he's extremely sharp. So I'm looking forward to that as well. Thank you very much for all the introduction and the information. I think we can now move on to the topic at hand. That is to say, let's start with Zionism. I mean, when I was thinking about this, like how to ask the question, I thought like, Now, every single time, like we don't hear, we hear very seldom from Palestinians about what Zionism is, like what their definition of Zionism is. It's almost always, it's either some Western expert or some Jewish person who's going to explain what Zionism is. It's like... Especially the idea that, oh, you have to ask a Jewish person what Zionism is. It's like, okay, I have to ask a German what Nazism is. It's so absurd. But it becomes absurd only when you think about it that way. So can you please explain to us and our audience how you define Zionism? And then we can move on or build up on that.

Lara Kilani: Absolutely. And, you know, it's so funny because I was just thinking, well, I have to stop talking now and hand it over to Cody. And then you're like, well, we never hear from Palestinians about what the definition is. I'm like, yeah, sorry. No, but you know what? Why don't I introduce how we define it? And, you know, I think it's important what you said. It's really important because, you know, Oftentimes it is. I mean, it's almost never, right? It's almost never Palestinians who are actually the ones who are allowed to define what Zionism is, even though, to be honest, they know better than anyone. I mean, especially since October 2023, but also long before, it was very apparent that Palestinians understand Zionism, Zionist, system functions much better than Israelis or Zionists outside of this land ever have.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Because it's like a question of survival, right? I mean, you have to understand it in order to survive.

Lara Kilani: Absolutely. Absolutely. And that's part of the that's part of what makes it so grotesque as well. Right. To like intimately know something that is trying to destroy you. But no, but so I think it's very important. And that's part of why we've tried to sort of come up with this definition and come up with this definition based on our experiences and also based on the literature that exists of Palestinians. as scholars own words as well, because that's important. But I think I just want to say before I actually get into the definition, you know, another reason this is important, two things. When I first came to Palestine, I was like a young, I'm still young, but I was a young woman, you know, coming straight from college. And I had these interactions when I came here with Palestinians in the West Bank and in 48 and in Jerusalem as well. And then at the same time, foreigners and also, quote unquote, like Jewish solidarity activists. And so one of the things I was shocked by, because like I said, my family's from Haifa. I grew up with the word occupation around the house all the time. And when we talked about occupation, we were talking about the occupation of the land of Palestine since 1948 or even before. Right. And so when we when we talked about the occupation, it was this long, you know, historical process of colonization, really. But that's not the word that I think most Palestinians use in their homes with their children, you know. different parts of Palestine. I heard them use this word as well in a way that I could identify, you know, having grown up with. And the thing that was very shocking to me in that space wasn't the way the Palestinians Because you would talk to Palestinians in 48 and you would talk to Palestinians in the West Bank and they would both say the same word, occupation.

Mehmet Eliarsson: And I would hear it as this long process of colonization.

Lara Kilani: And the internationals with me would hear it as the military occupation that began in 1967. And that these Palestinians in 1948 are complaining on behalf of other Palestinians, you know, that they don't want to be part of this or whatever. And that Palestinians in the West Bank are complaining against this military system of oppression against them. Right. And so this is a totally different understanding that really skews our idea of what resistance is. And this is something that we see across all Palestinian solidarity spaces.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Right, like they're talking about the tree, but they're not talking about the roots.

Lara Kilani: Exactly, exactly. And they're not even really talking about the whole tree, right? They're talking about, like, maybe a part. Right, right. Like, really, like, only a part of the tree. And this is also...

Mehmet Eliarsson: That idea of occupation as military occupation and just something about the law or whatever, that's completely the dominating idea in the West. We see this every single day when politicians in Sweden, for example, talk about, oh, the solution is to end the occupation. Of course, they mean only 1968.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Oh, they're not even saying that anymore. Now we have all these very right-wing politicians who are even denying the fact that there is an occupation going on.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Yeah, I mean, I'm not even talking about them. They're like, I almost all hope about them. But I'm thinking about like the left party or whatever. Those people, when they talk about occupation, they mean the specific definition you mentioned, Lara.

Lara Kilani: No, absolutely. And I should just give a shout out really quickly that, you know, yesterday we saw this, right? Yesterday, there's... A left wing, you know, quote unquote, socialist, democratic socialist person running for office in New York. He was asked, you know, if he believes that the state of Israel should exist. He's sort of been targeted for his so-called Palestinian solidarity. And he said on camera, yes, I think the state of Israel has the right to exist. Now, what rights do state have states have to exist? I wish somebody would have asked him if all states have a right to exist, you know, which states anyway. So, yeah. So it's really the dominant conversation, even in the, you know, allegedly left political spaces of parties and things like that. Then when we went to, you know, I think we really realized after October 7th how dire the situation was, that we needed these definitions, right? And so we had published this piece about anti-Zionism that we can talk more about. But when we started looking into how people are already defining Zionism, that was also part of the catalyst, you know, because you have groups like—and I know I'm really— referencing the us a lot so i apologize but but i think that's i think that's that's where most people get their ideas from right now at least so at least in sweden so okay okay so at least it's not totally useless and i think it it i'm sure it relates as well to sweden that there are probably groups like this so you know one of the largest groups the most well-funded i believe palestine solidarity group in the us is jewish voice for peace a Jewish definition. We talked about this rather than a Palestinian definition of what Zionism is. I mean, I guess I shouldn't say Jewish definition, but it's a, you know, it's not a Palestinian definition. Let's say this. In fact, they're really not giving a definition at all. What they have said is that Zionism is a broad term or I think it's anti-Zionism is a broad term referring to anything from a criticism of the current government's policies to a rejection of the state itself. Right. And so that's not what anti-Zionism is. But we see there that there is a complete misunderstanding. And with other groups as well, you know, when we looked at how people define these things There are some DSA chapters that have this, but it's very prescriptive.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Sorry, DSA is Democratic Socialist Alliance?

Lara Kilani: Sorry, Democratic Socialists of America.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Of America, yes.

Lara Kilani: I believe. And wait, who are they?

Mehmet Eliarsson: They're sort of adjacent to the Democratic Party. They're trying to move the party to the left. This is Bernie Sanders?

Lara Kilani: Exactly. Yeah, sort of, right?

Mehmet Eliarsson: I mean, you know it better than I do, Lara.

Lara Kilani: No, I probably don't. But I think that, you know, evidenced by the fact that I'm like, what does the A stand for? I'm pretty sure it's for America. Yeah, they're sort of like a Bernie Sanders, like, I think, like the... like they came after Bernie Sanders sort of influenced by his ideas. They call themselves democratic socialists suggesting that they're socialists, but I, I'm not sure whether that definition would fully apply or not. And yeah, I don't think they would necessarily call themselves as like associated with the democratic party, but functionally that is generally what happens, right?

Mehmet Eliarsson: Because these, They've been sort of pushing people in primaries, like democratic primaries, and proposing candidates, supporting candidates, running campaigns for them, etc. So they are sort of embedded within the Democratic Party system.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Sounds like a big headache, but I guess they're good for something. Yeah.

Lara Kilani: well i think that's some so that's part of the problem so there are chapters and individuals and chapters that have really strong positions so for example when when we were looking at these definitions there are chapters that have a definition of what anti-zionism is and what zionism is and can be really helpful like i said the ones that i came across were sort of prescriptive like you should support bds you should not vote for you know military funding for israel these sorts of things which are helpful like they are helpful tools right but then of course you have chapters and individuals within chapters that don't uh support that at all and can be very disruptive and so this is really like the context that we were looking at when we tried to define zionism and now i'm going to answer your question um which is that we define zionism as basically a structure So I'm not sure. OK, let's stick with structure. So it's a structure that has historically enacted the theft of Palestinian lands and resources and the elimination of Palestinian people through different means, right, through forced exile, through murder, through genocide, through a process of settler colonialism. And it's important to say that Zionism and the settler colonialism that it has enacted is supported, facilitated and maintained by imperial powers. Right. Without imperialism, Zionism definitely doesn't exist in this way. And I think I just want to say as well, I want to hand it over to like Cody talk more, but. Or talk, I should say. But I think that it's important to say as well that and I think we can talk about this more in a second. But, you know, a lot of times in the U.S. context, at least, but I'm sure in Europe. And there's this conversation that there are multiple Zionisms, you know, that Zionism isn't just what we see today, that there's a version of Zionism that Netanyahu has, and there's a version of Zionism that Moretz has, and there's, Moretz is, you know, a party, an Israeli Zionist party. Yeah. And then there's a socialist Zionism and there's a religious Zionism and there's a cultural Zionism. And what we say is, no, there's one version of Zionism. There's one historical version of Zionism. This is the version. This is Zionism. And this is what we need to deal with. And this is what we need to define and understand in order to be able to resist and undo it.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Before you jump in, Cody, neither of you have to answer this right away, but those differences within, at least, either purported or real differences like religious Zionism versus socialist Zionism, whatever, do they even matter? If so, why? And if not, why not?

Cody O'Rourke: I think part of it is understanding that, you know, like, for example, of how this works. So when people talk about Christian Zionism, you know, we like to say it's how does Zionism put Christianity, you know, and turn that into a resource for Zionism. So it's not that so much that Christian Zionism is separate from Zionism, but it's how that is commodified and used to advance the project. So the question of how we ask it is what's important. And I think that one of the ways that people liked to frame Christian Zionism or Socialist Zionism as something distinct, is that then in return it creates specializations. So unless you've studied, you know, quote unquote Christian Zionism, therefore you're not a specialist to comment on that. And so then in return, what that does is that that takes away Palestinians from being able to comment on what Christian Zionism is. So by creating these specializations, it's a way that it silences Palestinians and again kind of perpetuates a system that doesn't allow them to narrate their own experiences, if that makes sense.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Yeah, yeah, it does. I mean, go ahead, Kajsa.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Yeah, no, I just think like when you look at concepts or, you know, ideologies, you know, sometimes if you go back to the founders, you find something completely different than what became. So, for example, if we speak about like Christianity or communism, you know, you can look at Marx or Jesus and you can say, you know, that's not what it became later. But if you look at Zionism, I think it was very clear from the beginning what it was. I mean, even more so than what it is today. Yeah. Like if you go back to Herzl, like what he said when he wanted to convince the European powers to support Zionism, I think it was in 1895 or 96, he had three arguments. And one was, you know, this is a great tool for you guys to perpetuate imperialism. He set it out clear. This is what it still is. You know, one leg of this, as has already been said now, is perpetuating imperialism, not from Europe so much as before, but more from the U.S. And the second one was get rid of all the Jews. Because if we get rid of them, you know, there's going to be less anti-Semitism because all the Jews from Eastern Europe are not going to come to Western Europe. They're going to go somewhere else. And the third one was we get rid of all these radical Jews like the socialists and, you know, all these people who want to overthrow our governments, like we'll just ship them somewhere else. And he was so clear on this. And he was very clear that this was a colonial plan. And I think, speaking of Christian Zionism, I think either it was him or Shane Wiseman who went to the Pope and asked for support. And the Pope was like, forget it. You guys don't recognize Jesus. So, you know, we're not going to do anything for you. And apparently there's been a lot of, you know, campaigns and propaganda since to get Christians on board as well. most likely because of the first three arguments. They get rid of the radicals, if there are any left. They can get a guaranteed ally in the Middle East, which they could never get from any other country there. So this is a great business for the United States. And also, yeah, they get rid of the Jews. And I think that has been so downplayed, talking about Zionism. You know, that it seems like now, you know, the anti-Semite was the mufti, you know, and not Herzl himself, who even said at some point, you know, all the Jews are hating on me for wanting to ship them off somewhere. So I'm becoming the best, the greatest anti-Semite over here.

Cody O'Rourke: Yeah, no, for sure. I think those narratives are often buried. And I think what's important is looking through this through a lens of capitalism, because when we understand imperialism as being the logical outworkings of capitalism, it certainly makes more sense. And people can relate to it in different ways, because certainly the capitalist movement inside of Europe and the way that it commodified Jewish bodies certainly isn't unique. You know, in the sense that, you know, in the United States, you know, capitalism, you know, is used to commodify, you know, all kinds of different bodies. You know, black and brown folks as well. And black and brown communities are also invested in those structures which monetize those bodies as well. So it's just important to... I think for us to remind ourselves that there's nothing inherently unique about Zionism when we refocus it on the lens of capitalism, because that's what capitalism does, is it exploits people regardless of race, religion, or creed. Because even in the sense of the West Bank, Palestinian capitalists are still exploiting Palestinian bodies themselves. You know, in the way in which, you know, there's there's Palestinian business owners that are that are profiting off of the way that Israel's system works. And they profit first and foremost because they're capitalists. Right.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: And so I just ask you like a parenthesis here, like white Americans always say bodies as opposed to people.

Cody O'Rourke: I think just because maybe because people are a little bit is a term that's more that's more personable.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: I think it's objectifying. I've never heard somebody speak about the white man's body. They're always talking about women's bodies, black and brown bodies. Are we only bodies? I mean, we're people. So I think body sounds like you're already dead or something.

Cody O'Rourke: Yeah, I mean that certainly wouldn't be the case that we would describe it, but just in the sense that when capitalism looks at commodities, it's in that sense. So it's – when people in the United States are building these systems, they're looking at bodies as commodities. I guess putting it back into the context of Palestine – You know, there's always this kind of this narrative that the apartheid wall serves the security, the security feature. But really, when when people looked at it and they looked at the ways in which, you know, each Palestinian body that moves in and out of that checkpoint could be monetized. You know, you can see how capitalism is kind of the is is kind of like the foundation of even of the apartheid wall, because the Israeli the Israeli state makes millions of dollars each year just because. Palestinians have to pay, you know, 5,000 shekels a month or $2,000 a month approximately just to be able to go to work. So it's bodies in that sense. You know, it's just counting the numbers. Yeah, I see what you mean.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: No, I understand that the system looks at it like that. I just think it sounds like a bit dehumanizing. Like I hear it from the U.S. a lot that they just use that like bodies. And I'm like, hey, we're people, you know, like why bodies? You know, it sounds like corpses or something. Yeah. But would you say, like, I just want to ask you a follow-up question to that. Like, would you say that then, because I think a fundamental difference between the South African apartheid system and the Israeli one is that South African apartheid didn't have an interest in committing genocide because they actually needed the labor force that black South Africans, you know, were. Whereas in Israel... They don't really need Palestinians now. They want to get rid of everyone. But you're saying that this is an important source of income.

Cody O'Rourke: Yeah, I mean, depending on which population group, you know, so. And also the different ways in which these population groups are needed, you know, over time as well. So it's like when we see this process of indigenous erasure, like certainly it trends, you know, over time. And so, you know, what we see with October 7th is that, you know, when this population, you know, showed, you know, new signs of like resistance, it became a threat. So then the response, you know... of, you know, is kind of like this heightened form of genocide. And so when the threat is like heightened in places in Jenin or Trikelem or in Tubas, you see, you know, the, the, you know, you see Zionism coalescing around, you know, around those threats. So there's ways in which if, if indigenous populations kind of like interface with the settler colonial regime in the way that it's designed, you're able to survive. Because I think what people forget is that erasing the indigenous people isn't just in the physical sense. You erase people by getting them to adopt the ideology of the state. And so if you adopt the ideology of the state, you don't necessarily face the same sort of physical elimination. And in fact, in a lot of ways, you can profit in advance. And you can see it anywhere.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Sorry, I was just going to add, isn't it just about if you accept subjugation, then you can be part of the state. If you don't accept subjugation, then they can't use you and you will be a threat, so they have to eliminate you. And they try to find other ways to go about, like, okay, then we bring in Thai workers instead, or something like that. Or we bring in Yemeni Jews who we can use as second-class citizens who do our shitty work instead, instead of Palestinians doing that and things like that. But when they have this... existential threat from the people the indigenous people that do not accept subjugation then they have to deal with that first and everything else comes after and I think it's like right now we're in this flux period where they can't use Palestinians as labor but they can't use Thai workers either but right now they're like fuck all that we don't care about that right now you care about finishing this job and then we can see what we can do after I guess that's where they are now but I don't know

Lara Kilani: Yeah, I think it's two things, because I agree with what you said, Mehmet. I think that... Maybe let me say it like this, because remember, we're talking about Zionism as inherently eliminatory, right? Within settler colonialism, there is an inherent need to eliminate, control, minimize, you know, displace, kill, in order to be able to take the land, control the resources, you know. And so, like how Cody had said that this is a... Cody, I can't remember the word that you said. Escalated form of genocide. Maybe this is an elevated genocide. What's happening in Gaza? Because it has been a genocide. Right. It's been a genocide since before 1948. And actually, I wanted to. OK, let me not get off track. But I did want to say something about the different forms of Zionism before 1948 as well. But no, you know, it has long been about getting rid of Palestinians from the land. And so when you have these acts of resistance, I think you have this form of genocide that was always sort of grinding on in the background, all of a sudden becomes really escalated. And like you said, that, you know, this comes to the forefront, like, okay, we need to deal with the problem of labor, we need to make sure our economy is still functioning, we need to make sure that we can still profit off of this, because that's the point. But we can do that after we deal with this. And I really think that in terms of in the Zionist government, that is a fundamental part. Not talking so much about Netanyahu, but, you know, the people around him, the people who are really sort of driving the religious Zionist fervor, if we want to call it that, today, that is definitely a thing. Now, for the average person, do I think that is the same thing? I don't know. I don't know if they have those same feelings or if they feel the economic instability a little more strongly intensely. But I wanted to say something about what you said as well. Like if you accept your subjugation, you can be part of the state. I don't think that's true. I think that there are certain Palestinians with access already to certain privileges who can in some ways be allowed benefits, be allowed to participate in the system, be allowed to enrich themselves, harming other Palestinians or commodifying them or whatever. But I don't think that Palestinians are ever considered to be part of the state or allowed to be part of the state in a really fundamental way. You know, you have these people like Standing Together, for example. Standing Together is like an Israeli organization.

Mehmet Eliarsson: I call them the Purple Zionists.

Lara Kilani: The Purple Circles. Yeah, the Purple Circle Zionists. Yeah, that's how you can identify them online if anybody's looking. I don't recommend it, but... You know, they're sort of like this liberal – I'm using quotations here – liberal Zionist – Go ahead.

Mehmet Eliarsson: I'm just going to add something after. Just go ahead.

Lara Kilani: Okay, okay. No, just that they sort of – You know, have this this sense that, oh, well, we can all be equal, but at the same time, you know, and might consider Palestinians part of the state in the sense that the Palestinians who go along with them and it is go along with them. because Palestinians are not driving the ideology, the so-called movement of standing together, those Palestinians can be part of the state because it's also convenient to be able to be seen as diverse. But we all stand together against the existential threat that standing together, for example, sees within Palestinian resistance in Gaza. Sorry, go ahead.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Wait, can you explain a little bit more? Like, who are these people? Like, where are they from?

Lara Kilani: Yeah. So really quick. So standing together is like they're in Hebrew. They're like that's literally standing together. They are a group mostly of like liberal Zionists, I would say Israelis. Like they see themselves as Jews. They're here in the land. They don't see themselves as settlers. They very much ascribe to this thing of like, okay, 1948, Israel is legitimate, and it's the settlements in the West Bank that are problematic, if they see them as problematic at all. You know, they don't want to be associated with these images of starving children and families in Gaza, but at the same time, they don't really... do too much substantially to challenge it. There are some Palestinians, I would say like figureheads more than like any kind of real participation from communities that do show up in their spaces and sort of provide that legitimacy of, oh, there are Palestinians, this isn't just a Jewish-Israeli group, but they're very... They very much put this like a nice face on Zionism, right, that we can all stand together. I don't believe they call it genocide, but they call for the release of the quote unquote hostages and so on. And one of the things that was interesting about them recently was that they made a call. to refuse to participate in, again, I don't believe they call it a genocide, but I could be wrong, but to refuse to participate in the genocide in Gaza. And so any person who is not here, would assume that they mean that they're calling on Jewish Israelis and others who participate in the Israeli armed forces not to participate, right? Because who's carrying out the genocide? You know, who's dropping the bombs? But they released a statement in English, Hebrew and Arabic saying, And in Hebrew, at least, they put a statement at the bottom where they said that they were not asking people not to show up for their military duties or whatever. They did not put that in the Arabic version of the statement.

Mehmet Eliarsson: What? I mean, these people are insane. Have they never heard of Google Translate, man? Exactly. I mean, we see this again and again. They don't think Hebrew is a language that everybody else can translate. Like, what is wrong with these people?

Lara Kilani: Exactly. And also, who speaks Hebrew? Palestinians. Exactly. Who reads Hebrew? Palestinians read Hebrew. So, you know, it's it's so anyway, this is sort of like a good introduction to the group. But just if I can really quickly, Mehmet, I know you want to say something, but if I can really quickly add something. I think this is sort of the logical like outworkings. This is the the the effect of this idea of different Zionisms. Right. Because if we want to talk about different Zionisms, there was this. there was this group in pre-1948. They still exist today. But they were like sort of a socialist Zionist group. That's what they called themselves called Hashomer Hatzair, which means the young guard in Hebrew. And they were this sort of like, like I said, socialist Zionist, they would call themselves group who began before this period. And who really invested-

Mehmet Eliarsson: No, he joined again, so it's fine. Can you see him?

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Yeah, now we see him. Oh, okay, okay.

Lara Kilani: Yeah, he... Yeah. So... Yeah, so this group began before 1948 and began colonization before 1948. They were really invested in developing this sort of system of kibbutzim across historic Palestine and, of course, in strategic areas, right? And where were these strategic areas? Next to Palestinian communities or on top of Palestinian communities. And it was about disrupting Palestinian communities' access to these lands and connection to one another. And you can read, there's a great book on this by Arij Sabah Khoury. about this project that focuses specifically on these... Like I said, these are supposed to be leftists. These are supposed to be socialists. And here they are alienating indigenous people from the land in order to be able to use huge swaths of it and commodify it themselves and control it. And this is still going on today. And so this kind of... you know ideologically like ideologically these people wouldn't have considered themselves and and don't today consider themselves to be aligned with someone like um oh shoot what's his name The head of the, okay, Batsalel Smotrich, for example. Oh, Itamar Ben-Gavir, that's who I'm thinking of. They wouldn't consider themselves aligned with these people, but functionally, what do they do? They're settlers. They're alienating Palestinians from their land. They're enacting violence against them. They're also building the policies, building the state, protecting it in these different ways. And these people who think of themselves as leftists, as socialists, I believe are connected in ways to these groups, like standing together that put a nice face on occupation, right? On the one hand, they're talking about refusal. And at the same time, they're saying, well, don't actually not show up.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: So what happens when you point that out to them? Like, how do they respond?

Lara Kilani: Oh, of course it's ignored. You know, I mean, I think that these, uh, This is the problem, and this is why we wrote these, you know, well, we're writing the piece about Zionism, we published the piece about anti-Zionism, because for so long, and it's not just people in standing together, you know, it's self-identified anti-Zionist solidarity activists in the U.S., in the U.K., everywhere, who call themselves these you know, nice terms like anti-Zionist, lovely term, but do not accept critique from Palestinians. Do not accept, you know, do not accept even that these words have meaning, right? We can't just say, you know, Cody gives this great example, but maybe I'll give it this time, about someone who says, I'm not a racist, right? Well, you know, if you have to say you're not a racist, first of all, what does that tell you about the person? But second of all. you know, racism isn't something that you declare or not declare. It means something. The word racism means something. And to be racist is something we can identify in your actions or we don't, right? And so when we, I don't want to say confront, but when we bring these problems up, and we have before to many different groups of their framing, of their, you know, conception of resistance, of different forms of resistance, of what kind of resistance they engage in or don't, It's either met with just completely being ignored and that's happened. Or it's met with like, you know, there's this, I think, like very US sort of way of responding where people listen and nod their heads and say, oh, we're going to look into that. You know, we're going to look into that and then never get back to you either.

Mehmet Eliarsson: I understand how you feel.

Lara Kilani: Yeah, exactly.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Yeah. Okay, good. Go ahead.

Lara Kilani: I think this also connects to the rest of our conversation, or another part of our conversation, maybe. They call you an antisemite, right? That's another part of it.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Yeah, we'll come to that. We'll come to that. Before we move on.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Wait, I think Cody's gone again, though. I don't see him. No, he's here. He's here? Why don't I see him? I do see him. You see him? Yeah, I'm here.

Cody O'Rourke: I just had one thing I wanted to add after Lara finishes.

Lara Kilani: No, I'm done.

Cody O'Rourke: Ah, okay.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Yeah, I mean, go ahead. There's something I really need to add about standing together, the Purple Zionists. Go for it. There was very recently, like I think in the weekend, there was one of the biggest unions in Sweden, L.O., They had this... Trade unions. Trade unions, sorry. What did I call them?

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Union. I mean, yeah, it's a trade union, just to clarify, because maybe they don't know.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Yes, yes, trade unions, exactly. They're sort of the bedrock of social democrats. They've been their base, more or less. And there was this proposition about boycotting Israel in some form. And it was reported that, I've seen the picture, they showed some footage from these Purple Zionists sort of campaigning against any boycott. So the leadership of the trade union, what happened? Lara, are you trying to?

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: She disappeared.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Can you hear me? I do hear you. Yes, I do.

Lara Kilani: No, sorry. No, I was trying to laugh, react, not raise my hand.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Yeah, don't worry about it. But I mean, it's it's and it's the leadership of this union that has invited them to tell their members, tell the union's members why they shouldn't boycott Israel. So it's standing together. So these people are really dangerous. They are extremely dangerous. I mean, a boycott from LU, which is the largest trade union in Sweden, would mean so much. I mean, you could build up on that and organize actual, real, physical strikes and other forms of boycott. But they're actively trying to sabotage that. So, Cody, please go ahead now. Sorry, I'm done.

Cody O'Rourke: No, but I think that I think that that points to even to what I was going to talk about is, is that, you know, our theoretical understandings have real implications, you know, of, you know, trade unions were supposed to kind of be like this formation to fight back against capitalism. And now they're treated more as a way to organize so people can just have like higher wages, you know, and those are two different things. So, you know, the theoretical, you know, implications of how we do our work are really impactful. So I think even kind of going back to the way that we even understand what anti-Zionism is, is, you know, anti-Zionism isn't just about the Israeli state, because Zionism, you know, it... It's about all of these, also these external structures. And oftentimes what that means is that your activism can be local because there's a lot of people who think about, oh, I can't do much because it's the Israeli state and it's over there and it's out there. But a lot of times you have Zionist connections in your own communities. And when you dig into these even a little bit more, you kind of realize why some people don't necessarily engage with them yeah, in impactful ways because of the implications it has for themselves. You know, in this sense, you know, A lot of the Jewish federations in the United States, they also fund quite other liberal-type projects. They fund museums. They fund daycare centers. They fund things about refugee rights and legal aid centers and all of these other things that are generally associated with progressive issues. But at the same time, they're also used as like – as like these financial hubs to also fund like the settlement movement. So what happens is, is, is that a lot of times like different groups that are receiving money from these Jewish federations, even though they're progressive, you know, in some ways they won't necessarily go against, you know, the Zionism in their own community. They're happy to talk about the Israeli state, but not necessarily the structures in their own community because they're benefiting from them as well. And so when we talk about the structures of Zionism, it's just important to think about that outside of the Israeli state. Because in the context of the United States, what a lot of people don't realize is that like – the largest amount of money that the United States gives the Israeli state is not through military aid. Because that military aid, 90% of that is forced to get purchased in the United States. So that's like me giving Mehmet money, but he has to spend that money in my shop. I'll take it anyways, but yes. Yeah. So the United States kind of gets this kickback. But you know, there's well over $6 billion a year that gets funneled to the broader Zionist movement that moves through these U.S. charities. And so since charities are so oftentimes, you know, connected to other liberal movements, there's not that challenge that's been happening. And so, you know, the Good Shepherd Collective, you know, a few years ago, we had started this campaign that was called the Campaign to Defund Racism. And The logic behind it was this, is that if we can prove that these charities are using this money for discrimination, for violence, for breaking international law, breaking domestic law, that that would disqualify them to be in charities. And that would actually disrupt the way that money can flow from the United States to Europe. Yeah, to the Zionist movement. And so when we went to the United States and had dialogue with the different nonprofits in the United States, we were quite surprised. Their hesitancy to get involved with the campaign. And it had nothing to do with the analysis or the tactics per se, but they were hesitant. you know, in this way, because what they said is, is that, you know, if we win this and could that create a legal precedent where we would lose our charitable status?

Mehmet Eliarsson: Yeah, I was thinking, I was thinking exactly about that when you were saying, okay, if they break domestic law, for example, well, there are a billion laws around terrorism or terrorism support or whatever that they, that they can apply. And they did apply actually to Palestinian organizations, uh, I don't remember the name of the case, but 8 Palestine, or something like that. There was this charity organization. No, but a lot of them have been shut down.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: I mean, after Hamas takeover, a lot of them were associated to them somehow, and their funds were frozen, and the money wasn't coming through. I mean, there's been a lot of those.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Yeah. I mean, I understand the campaign, but there is also the... I don't know, relying on the established state. But I mean, it's a tactic, it's a tool, sure.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: No, so the problem we have here in Sweden is mostly the fact that, you know, Zionism as a term is so intimately associated to Judaism that even the former party secretary of the left party, I mean, you remember this, Mehmet, when he gave an interview yesterday, to this Swedish magazine, Jewish Chronicle. And he said, I think we should avoid talking about anti-Zionism because in most people's minds, that's just anti-Judaism. And you know that here in Europe, if you put Jewish before the word suffering, that is noble. Whereas if you put Palestinian or any other word before suffering, that means the suffering is justified. And I think it just strikes me as so interesting how there's been so much talk about the Holocaust the last two years. And how that's just intimately connected to, you know, we have to remember this and therefore Israel has the right to defend itself. Or every time we talk about boycott, boycott of Israel, that's being associated to the night of glass. You know, and you see this archetypical photo from Germany where, you know, the Nazis put up Kaufnich bei Juden. And then you think, OK, so they're boycotting Jews. I mean, that's our biggest rhetorical challenge right now, because I think if it weren't for that, you know, our trade unions would have, you know, voted differently. And we really need the trade unions with us. You know, there's been all these like calls for for strikes. on the internet, like, tomorrow we're all going to strike for Palestine. I mean, you know, that's just, you set up, like, you plan to fail if you don't bring the unions on, because you can't have two people here and two people there just, you know, going on a strike all by themselves, not covered by strike fund. You know, either they're going to lose their jobs or it's just not going to happen that anybody strikes. But like a big strike, you know, supported by the unions, that would really make a change. And, you know, like when we were protesting the Iraq war in 2003, we had the unions with us. Nobody was telling us that because we were against the invasion, we supported Saddam Hussein. I mean, that wasn't even on the table. Nobody talked about that. But rhetorically now, we've had a big change. And also, even though the Swedish population is largely pro-Palestinian, we have 12% of the population who's in favor of Israel. And those people are in power right now.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Connected to that... Maybe we can talk about the IHRA definition, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism. I think the Social Democrats a while ago... Yeah, this is our fault.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: This is Göran Pesel.

Mehmet Eliarsson: No, I think it was Stefan Löfven who... that actually.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Yeah, but Jeroen Passion was the one that started this whole change in the Social Democrats. It was the party leader in yeah, like I would say 2000 when was he party leader? From the end of the 90s to 2000 something.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Yeah, maybe we can like talk about that because that definition is also used by the SKOMR, the Swedish Committee Against Antisemitism, which is like basically a zionist lobbying group i'd say but they are revered to be the oh they are the people to go to uh about antisemitism their definitions about antisemitism are more or less the law for the left and everyone else as well so maybe we can talk about this a bit if you if you don't mind

Lara Kilani: any one of you yeah sorry i thought cody was gonna uh say something i i think um let's definitely talk about it really quickly though if i can just go back to the defund racism thing i think it's important you know we're talking about the ihra definition so it goes together right that And it's not a new thing. Laws are used in order to silence us, to stop us from doing our work, to disrupt whatever work we're doing. Right. And they have been for as long as laws have existed, basically. And so I think it's important, you know, that the. For me, the point in Cody's story, because I was also there when we met with these nonprofits and, you know, the situation we're describing in the West Bank, like I talked a lot about, you know, the prisoners and displacement and everything. But one of the things I didn't talk about is home demolitions and home. Sorry, not home demolitions. Demolitions in general are at like a huge high right now. You know what I mean? Like in recent years, a massive high. And so what is this about? Right. It's not just about a visceral reaction that people are having to October 7th. It's also part of maintaining and speeding up the process of colonization in the West Bank. And so when we're talking about these different groups that are receiving money and when we were talking to these organizations in the U.S., we're describing a very stark reality that people understand. I mean, Thousands of people have been displaced, even like setting aside these refugee camps, just talking about the rural areas of the West Bank now. Thousands of people have been displaced from their villages just since October 7th, 2023. So before that, it was very much escalating. And so to talk to these organizations and have these people who are making five, six figures, you know, in a very nice room, in one of the wealthiest endowments in the United States, in one of the biggest cities, being told that we need to worry about whether or not they're going to be targeted when people are losing their homes, losing their lives, losing their kids, losing their land, being arrested, being held for years at a time. for nothing, for being attacked, it's enraging beyond words. And it's also self-defeating. I mean, if we decide not to take calculated risks, because we're worried about being targeted. Well, we're already being targeted. I mean, you gave that example of the Holy Land Foundation. Those people, I believe some of them are still in prison. They were certainly in prison for a very long time for doing what? Charity work. You know, it's not the fact that we need to protect ourselves from some potential threat. It's that the threat is here. And we're either going to try to politicize this conversation and have a I think we were a bit naive in this idea that NGOs in the this is from a few years ago, this campaign. But I think we were a bit naive in the idea that NGOs in the United States were interested in making this a political conversation to have with political candidates. You know, we we understood their relationship with some of these candidates to be more meaningful, maybe more like based on a shared perspective. principles not only between themselves but with us as well and we came to realize well actually that's not the case but so i think just for me the message of that story is the political risk is already here right we we need to find ways that we can intervene in our own communities and maybe with these ngos it's you know with ngos in the united states for example It might not make sense to be operating with them, but people can certainly take a campaign like this and look in their own communities how they can disrupt this funding because it's a serious problem. And if there was even a small amount of the money stopped or just no longer made tax deductible, that would be a significant thing. It doesn't mean it would stop. But it would be a significant thing. So, OK, I just wanted to say that. Can I just ask you something?

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Like when Americans say like their own communities, like what do they mean? Because I think we don't have communities here. I mean, we don't use that word in Sweden. Like we don't use that word. Like what does it mean? Does it mean their neighborhood or like does it mean what does it mean?

Lara Kilani: Oh, yeah. Like, so, oh, that's such a good question.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Yeah. Because I hear Americans say that all the time, like their communities, my community, like our communities. And I'm like, what do they mean?

Lara Kilani: No, yeah, absolutely. I think that when I say it, what I'm imagining is like, you know, people can... think about what they can do in their own towns or in their own cities. I mean, I think people imagine their communities in different ways, right? Because even within a town, there could be several communities. So it's like, how do you... Sort of organize in spaces where you can create influence or you can have influence or you already have it, that you have connections to other people and you can mobilize them. And that can be like statewide or it can be in your own town. It could even be in your own like community center or religious, you know, community. Space if you're religious. So I think there are lots of ways to do that. You know, there are some churches that have like divested from the Zionist entity and from, you know, investments that support it. So it's really such a good question, because I think sometimes when we say that, you know, especially since October 7th, when we say that. and we sort of give people a wide variety of examples of things they can do, it can feel really overwhelming, right? Because it's like, well, I'm not in my state's capital. How can I organize a huge march or something? But yeah, people can, you know, try to stop their local grocery from selling Israeli products? You know, like there are all kinds of things that we can do. So that's such a good question.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Yeah, no, I see it even on Instagram. They're like to keep our community safe. And I'm like, what community are they talking about? Like, do they mean everyone who's using Instagram or like, what do they mean? Cause here, like the term we use is more like, we mean like society. Like when we talk about people, we mean society. It means everyone. Like we don't break it down like that. So, but I have a follow-up question because, um, We're like at a like a crossroads right now in our country. Like, as I told you, like the majority of the population support Palestine, want to see an end to the genocide. But we don't have our political parties with us. As a matter of fact, as Mehmet and I have talked about, there is like no political party who's like seriously anti-Zionist. I mean, the best we have in parliament is like the left party. who's expelling people by the day for whatever they liked, whatever they posted, anything pro-Palestinian that can be vaguely interpreted as anti-Semitic, like they're being expelled, even people high up in the party. So what would you suggest that we do? Do we boycott all the parties? Do we create new parties? Do you think that we should target politicians like one by one and complain about them? I mean, do we try to create like a unity front and invite even liberal Zionists so as to just have like, you know, the most people possible just like stop the genocide kind of thing?

Lara Kilani: It's such a good question. And I don't know if I have a like a real answer, because I think that it's important for people in their context, you know, you know, the context so much better than I probably ever could. So I think it's hard for me to say, yeah, you should make a new party or you should target, you know, because I don't really know what the what makes the most sense in that context. But I can say, You know, I think it's important to try to either influence on a party level to, you know, there is a level of education that needs to happen. And that's part of why we wrote these articles, because it's not just about saying, oh, well, people don't know. Oh, people have bad intentions. People want the continuation of the suffering. They're making money off of it. Like, actually, no. People don't know. Right. Because the resources they are being given are either bad or like intentionally tainted. And so when you ask about bringing liberal Zionists in, for me, it's a resounding no, because like oftentimes we and this is the case in the U.S. OK, like just to. unveil like there are palestinian large national palestinian organizations that continue to organize with groups like jvp which call themselves anti-zionist but functionally are not right jvp also organizes with if not now if not now is not anti-zionist does not call themselves that um and shouldn't frankly because they're not and so when you see this happening It's because people think they need this large unity coalition. But what happens? What actually happens? These organizations that are not functionally anti-Zionist, no matter what they say, continue to pursue campaigns along lines that are Zionist. OK, and so just to talk a little bit more about like what is Zionism? Well, Zionism isn't just about securing the state of Israel the way that it is. Right. Zionism is about maintaining this process of controlling land and controlling resources at the expense or elimination of Palestinians. Right. And so when we think about maintaining Zionism, it's not just about maintaining the state, and it's not just about maintaining the state the way that it is. You could have a place that was Israel, really was Palestine. It's hard for me to even say that out loud. But a place that is currently understood to be Israel. You could change the name to Palestine. You could make everyone equal tomorrow. And you could still have Zionism. And why is that? Because without undoing all of the structures that exist, without undoing all of the, you know, land theft, home theft, resource theft. I mean, everything has been taken. So tomorrow, do I want to live in a like so-called liberated Palestine where all of the corporations, all of the Zionist corporations still exist? All of the people still live in their stolen homes? You know, all of that.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: You don't think they would just leave?

Lara Kilani: Well, I think it depends.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Maybe they would just say, like, if I don't get supremacy, like, I'm not interested. Like, look at the white South Africans now. They're claiming genocide and they're, you know, like fleeing to the United States. So you don't think something like that would happen as well?

Lara Kilani: Well, I do, but that's what I'm talking about. So you have to undo the mechanisms that maintain the supremacy, right? So in order to have the decolonization that we want, that means removing all of the structures that have been in place. And that's not just about the political structures. That's about all of the laws. That's about returning the land. That's about returning the homes. That's about everything. What's the word that I want to use? Dismantling all of the Israeli corporations that exist that control the means of production, that control all. You know what I'm talking about? Everything needs to be undone. And so when you undo all of that, then you take away the material privileges that people have over Palestinians. Do I think that most Israelis want to live as equals who are no longer being given all of these privileges? material privileges as a result of their presence in Palestine when they're no longer fulfilling the function of settler? No. But unless all of those things are undone, yes, I do think they would want to stay. Because why have so many white South Africans, you know, maintain their citizenship and remain? I don't think it's because, you know, I don't think it's because they felt like they were equals. You know, they didn't feel threatened. They didn't have the same kind of process of decolonization. And so this is something we just talked a bit with folks about when we were in South Africa. Mehmet, I know I didn't get to your question. Can I just say one parenthesis?

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: I mean, at least. The white South Africans, some of them have been there since the 1600s. We're not talking about people who came in the 80s or 90s as a lot of the Israelis who still actually are Americans or French or Russians or whatever they are. I mean, they've been there for a second.

Lara Kilani: I think that this is also something that we talk about when we talk about decolonization is, OK, so for the people who came, you know, yesterday or this year or last year from the US or from the UK or from Canada or France or wherever, what does decolonization look like for them? Right. Because. Is it just and it's a question like it's something that that actually we think is a question that needs an answer, that some of these logistics needs and need an answer. Like, what does justice look like? Does it look like them being offered citizenship in a in a decolonized Palestine or does it look like them leaving? And I think, yeah, it's it's for me, it's still a question that needs to be answered.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Yeah, no, I agree. I mean, we can talk about, oh, would they want to go or would they want to stay? Whatever. But these are not stuff that one can rely on. There needs to be structures in place and definitive answers that one can build the new Palestine from, I guess. But if we go back to... So I really like the fact that we talked about... Or you said, Dara, explicitly, liberal Zionism, no. Don't work with liberal Zionists, right? And I've been calling the left party for several months now a liberal Zionist party, because that's what they're advocating for actually they talk always like the i mean the leadership of the party i don't mean the all the members because there are a lot of people a lot of members in the party that are constantly at the demonstrations they're constantly trying to work for a free palestine in the way they understand it but this idea that oh israel has the right to exist oh israel has the right to defend itself which is even according to the international law, which is extremely flawed. But even according to international law, Israel doesn't have that against Gaza. But anyways, these are sort of the principles they work from. So ergo, they are liberal Zionists and just don't work with them. And we see the representatives of the so-called PLO now having pictures with them, sort of having meetings about Nakba Day together with the left party. Like, just don't do it. But, I mean, maybe we can expand from that.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Yeah, but they're thinking strategically, you know. They're thinking that they're trying to influence whatever party they can get a hold of.

Mehmet Eliarsson: You know, it's also understandable. Yeah, but is it now at this point? I think maybe we can talk about that, Lara and Cody, and connect that to... What is real anti-Zionism? I mean, we didn't talk about the IRA definition, but maybe we can just leave it for now. We will come back to this with someone else, probably. But maybe we can talk about more what real anti-Zionism is and what are things that are okay or not okay anymore, maybe.

Cody O'Rourke: Yeah, I mean, I think that, you know, for us, you know, there's the theoretical, but also the practical. And I guess, you know, The lessons we've also learned from lived experience, like what does it mean to be, you know, to be anti-Zionist, but also perpetually creating spaces where Zionists can have platforms to be legitimized, to have access to power? You know, that means something. Power in society isn't just something that's mystical. You can see it in real ways in which how do people have access to power? Well, we create those spaces for them. So if we're allowing liberal Zionists into our coalitions, we're giving them access to power. We're legitimizing them with our being. We're cosigning off in part on their politics because what we're saying is that what they stand for is in part Not that dangerous. You know, that's what signals out to the rest of the other people. So then that allows other people to co-organize with them. So, you know, I think what I think what what what what. I think people on the left get these sorts of things confused because there are individuals that are liberal Zionists, there are small groups that are liberal Zionists, and there are institutions that are liberal Zionists. So how do we interface with these people in ways that are authentic? So recently, we have done several speaking tours across the United States, across Florida, New York, Michigan, Illinois, California, etc., etc. But as an organization, as the Good Shepherd Collective, like we refuse to be like platformed by like the Jewish Voice for Peace, by the Democratic Socialists in a public way. Because if we're doing a public event with those groups, that legitimizes them in some way because it's, oh, look at like we held this thing with like the Good Shepherd Collective and they were willing to work with us. And then so people who don't understand that full context goes, oh, well, if the Good Shepherd Collective is working with these people, then it's not so bad. So then they're able to like move into spaces based on like how they interacted with us. So how we were willing to like deal with that was is that, you know, we said like we will meet as like individuals like in private and not have public events, right? To discuss, like, how we've come to understand, like, anti-Zionism, what solidarity should look like, et cetera, et cetera. You know, in some cases, for people who are really trying to evolve, like, those conversations were really important. For other people who are tied more to the organization and understand that changes need to be made, they were a little bit less receptive. But the important part of it was is that how do we have these sorts of conversations that don't legitimize the organizations and we're also not creating space for them to be legitimized, if that makes sense. That makes a lot of sense to me.

Mehmet Eliarsson: I mean, that opens up the possibility to course correct for the actors in question without, as you say, legitimizing them. I mean, in the case I'm talking about, I don't know what they call themselves, PLO. It's something connected to PLO anyways. But they met with the leader of the party, left party, and the secretary and someone else. like a couple of weeks after they kicked out one of the members of the party, parliament, like parliament members of the party who just shared.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: something that pisano shared because that was maybe vaguely somehow if you're insane anti-semitic yeah but i mean okay so your legitimizing power also depends on your strength and how you perceive your strength and who you are in the political landscape so i think the answer depends on who you are what negotiating power you have you know and and where is your strength like who are you going to pull and where are you going to pull them Because it depends, you know, Mehmet, if you are a person, you have an Instagram account or if you are the PLO. I mean, the answer to that question is going to be very different.

Mehmet Eliarsson: I mean, the definition of like who is in PLO and who is not matters as well. I think that's a discussion that needs to be had as well. And for example, PFLP was not part of that discussion. That's just an example. Like...

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Look, I look at it as a spectrum, okay? So, like, the whole society, like, needs to be pulled more and more towards a pro-Palestinian stance. There are political parties and actors and newspapers who are very far from that stance. You know, for them, it would just be a victory if we could make them use the word genocide or if we could make them criticize Israel for anything. You know, so just that would be a victory. Then, you know, we have people who are like already on that side, you know, and for them, it would be a victory if we could make them declare themselves to be like anti-Zionist, right? You know, something we could never do with a right wing. So I think like, you know, we need... We need voices like yours, you know, like to be very radical and to call all these people out all the time because you have nothing to lose. And then we also need, you know, voices that are like in the middle talking to all those parties because those guys are someone that those parties can trust. You know, like if you and I went there, like they wouldn't listen. You know, because to them, we're like, you know, we love Putin, Hezbollah, Hamas, North Korea, Cuba and all those like, you know, like, you know, states or leaders that, you know, they just, you know, are enemies of the West. You know what I mean?

Mehmet Eliarsson: I'll let Lara speak. I think I have some opinions about that as well, but I'll let Lara speak.

Lara Kilani: Yeah, I mean, I think what we really call for is consistency. Because for a long time, Palestinians have thought that being, you know, I hate the word pragmatic, but being, you know, quote unquote, pragmatic, you know, being what's strategic, you know, sort of not saying what we really want, but being willing to negotiate Putting sort of a liberal face on what is not very liberal demand would work. And we see where that's gotten us, right? I don't think I need to elaborate too much on that. This idea of the Oslo Accords, of recognizing Israel, of negotiating. I mean, we're like 30 years past the Oslo Accords, and there's no state, right? And anyway, I don't think that most Palestinians were... I don't think that most Palestinian refugees, of which there are millions, right, would be happy with the idea of returning to only the West Bank and not their homes elsewhere, including people in Gaza. Right. More than 70 percent of people in Gaza are refugees. So I think for a long time and still today, like I said, some of the most prominent Palestinian organizations in the United States and not just in the United States. continue to platform and work with organizations that fundamentally do not align with our interests. It is wrong, it is wrong to say you're guided by the, you know, analysis of Ghassan Kanathani and Basel Al-Araj and then promote people who won't even call themselves anti-Zionist or talk on stage next to them, right? That is not right. It's not even consistent. And so I think this idea of negotiating what it's done and actually I can tell you like what it's done on the ground. OK, let's talk about what it's done on the ground, because that's more of like a material like thing. So when we started, we were really operating in some of the most vulnerable communities in the West Bank and in the rural areas where the vast majority of demolitions are taking place. And we're talking about places that don't have a clinic in their community. When we talk about community here, we're talking about like 100, 200 people, less, sometimes dozens. Not a clinic, not a school in the community, like not living in, you know, brick houses, like really a difficult situation, not regular access to electricity, no building permits, things like that. And so what happened was that in these communities, you know, there are organizations like humanitarian organizations supporting them because a lot of these communities are of refugees. And then there was our organization where what we were really trying to do was help address the needs of the people on the ground and find ways that we could allow them, you know, basically like provide channels of advocacy for what they really wanted. Right. And we're talking about refugees. So what they wanted was the end of the military regime in the West Bank and decolonization. And these are conversations that we had amongst ourselves and conversations that Palestinians have amongst themselves everywhere in the world. Right. And so that was great. Like those conversations were great. But what else happened in those communities? Because they were in a dire need of resources. Liberal Zionists who were the members of Hashomer Hatzair and others. Hashomer Hatzair is that kibbutz movement that I talked about before. People can look it up. had their own organizations and would offer these communities things like fundraising campaigns. They would do little PR stunts every now and then, you know, to quote unquote raise awareness. They would help rebuild homes because they had the money and the connections to be able to do that. things like this, right? If somebody's in jail, they can, you know, mobilize people internationally to kind of things that other people could have done as well. But nonetheless, these are things that they did, right? And so they could offer resources. Well, what happens in response? What do they need, right, in return for that resource? Well, they need your face. They need your name as a Palestinian. They need to be able to say they're working with Palestinians. They need to they're doing the pictures of the houses they've rebuilt the PR actions things like that and what do they get in return they get huge email lists they get donations every month they get to live in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in the homes of our families they get all the subsidies that come from the government of them coming from Canada and the United States everywhere else and they're making careers off of this right careers off of the legitimacy of Palestinians because they couldn't do it otherwise And what happens to those Palestinian communities? Those Palestinian communities get money for houses sometimes. They get help with bail sometimes. Why were they arrested in the first place? Sometimes it has to do with these activists, right? And they get, in some cases, ostracized by other Palestinian communities, other Palestinian communities around them who are in need of resources, and Palestinian communities in 48 or in the is already difficult because they're rural. They don't have like roads oftentimes to get there, like proper paved roads. And because they don't want to engage in normalization, because what these groups are doing is normalization. And what these Palestinian organizers, what these Palestinians on the ground in these communities have to say in order to make sure they can secure those resources is they can only talk about the military occupation and the military occupation in the West Bank. And so Sure, they can create a platform, they can have some money here and there, but they're also not being able to be honest. The conversations that they have with their family and with their community is not the conversation that they have publicly. And so what happens? This is part of how these groups build their influence and lobby politicians. This is how people begin to imagine the future. This is how politicians talk about the future of Palestine. And so it's not just a matter of... you know, of what is strategic in the moment. It's strategic for people to be able to live in their homes. But is it strategic that they're cut off now from potentially potentially tens of thousands of people who might have otherwise come out to support them or help rebuild their homes or help get them out of jail or whatever, right? So there are ways that it's strategic, but it's not strategic when you think about, okay, well, are we in solidarity with this one little community? Is this group in solidarity with this community? Or are they really being... from this community in terms of, you know, huge lists of people they can email for donations later for their own work, which is Zionist. I mean, is explicitly Zionist. And which really You know, when we talk about this idea of different Zionisms, what does it really do? It really rehabilitates the idea that settler colonialism is, you know, it gives us this idea that it can be rehabilitated, that there is a version of the world in which Jewish internationals do have a right to live in Palestine and do have a claim over our lands. And our resources.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: So like these NGOs that you're talking about, or are they NGOs or like, what are they?

Lara Kilani: Yeah, so they're like registered organizations here. Sorry, go ahead.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Are they in cahoots with like the government of Israel? Like, is this a kind of strategy that they like actually invent or pay for these organizations to kind of like water down the discourse on the left?

Cody O'Rourke: Yeah, I mean, I don't necessarily want to say what the intent is, but certainly we can say that's what the impact is. So some of these organizations do get money from Zionist formations and certainly from individuals. If they are getting funded by individuals, they're also individuals who have a stake in in watching the articulation of the Zionist dream become materialized. So when you look at these groups like the Center for Jewish Nonviolence, Chabad Tamim, Standing With Us, Combatants for Peace, etc., etc., a lot of these groups receive money from Zionist formations. So what does that mean? These are people that understand that They have paid staff. So if they don't follow a very specific political line, they're going to lose their funding. And so I think that that's, and this kind of goes back to, you know, the idea of bringing these groups into our coal, into our coalitions, you know, coalitions function because there's political alignment. So when you bring these groups inside, it becomes just by definition antagonistic to It gets drawn out and processed. You can't move forward. And so the idea – I want to say like I acknowledge the fact that, yes, that like we have to push people forward and get people to change their ideas and get them to adopt like our rhetoric. But the idea that that can only happen – in the case of if we allow them into our organizing spaces, I think is not very imaginative. And it also kind of negates the way in which individuals can go outside on their own personal time if they're sincerely committed to it. And I think that that kind of even goes back to what Laura had pointed out, is that when we enter into these coalitions with these Zionist formations, this isn't a relationship that we share with with us and them exclusively. People from Palestine see who we're organizing with, who's on our webinars, who's sharing the stage with us. And so for them, they look back and go, well, what's the nature of that relationship? Because, you know, indigenous people, whether it was in India or South Africa or Zimbabwe or Algeria, you know, these colonial mechanisms on collaboration. And so there's already this inherent distrust that's in this organizing space that isn't necessarily in organizing spaces that haven't been colonized in the same way. So when you're trying to build trust, which is an indispensable ingredient in terms of liberation movements, You can't build that sort of trust strategically by co-organizing with liberal Zionist formations. The communities will maybe let you in, but they will never fully trust you. And so what does that mean? So it's always important to remember, like Stephen Salaitis says, is that oftentimes the people of Gaza, the people of the West Bank, the people of East Jerusalem, they do hear and see what we're doing in public because they have access to social media. They read English. They read Hebrew. They read Spanish, you know. So it's important to remember that whatever we're doing, Palestinians can see what we're doing.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Yeah, I think both answers were great. And also, I'd like to flip that idea. I mean, I understand, like, okay, the way you see the movement as, like, having several branches, like, okay, some will do this, some will do that, some will be more radical, some will be less radical. But that applies, if you invert that, it applies to Zionism as well. I mean, they have these nutcase, like, Tamar Ben-Gaviris and Smotriches. But they also have the liberal Zionist side, the standing together kind of, oh, we're so nice. Look, we are holding hands with Palestinians kind of people working also in tandem for the same goal, which is perpetuating Zionism.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: So this shows that it's a great strategy. I mean, because apparently it's working. Yeah. So we got to do the same thing.

Lara Kilani: I think it's a great strategy if you are in power in the status quo. Exactly. That's what I was going to say as well. Right. If you want to topple the status quo, what you need is coherence. And I think also what it is, is, you know, there is alignment. When you look at Palestinian conceptions of justice, there is alignment. There's no question. And so the question isn't, can Palestinians be aligned? The question is, can Palestinians Our, you know, people in solidarity with us be aligned. And that answer has less to do with, I think, access to power. It has less to do with what, you know, people's agency. And it has more to do with what people are willing to give up. Because when we look at people like, I named that DSA politician, you know, who said that thing about, yeah, Israel has a right to exist. Well, he's not new to say that, right? He's giving Palestinians up in a way that everyone who has supported him until now has done, right? The Democratic Socialists of America, I don't know if they've actually said Israel has a right to exist or not, but I don't believe that they've said- But I know that Bernie says that- Right, right. Bernie said it. AOC has said it. Everyone who has made their career. I mean, I'm talking about even like the NGOs in the United States.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Wait, can I ask you something about her, about Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez? Like, is she unaware of the situation or why is she always so nervous when she talks about this question? Like, is she uneducated or is she being paid by someone? Or like, because often like she is such a, like she has a rhetorical gift. Like she can talk. But every time she's being questioned on Israel, she's like, well, you know, and you get this like really nervous, panicky face, which strikes me as a bit odd because, I mean, this was like several years ago and now she's still doing that. So she's had time to like, you know.

Lara Kilani: I know. I think that I think that this exactly goes to my point, right, that the question isn't about what we believe. The question is about. are we interested in aligning ourselves with power or are we interested in making the future what we want, right? Because the reason that Zohran Mamdani, who is the candidate I've been talking about and AOC, do these things is because they're interested in access to power. They're not interested in changing the power structures, right, as they would have you believe.

Mehmet Eliarsson: They're interested... Access to power as is, not... You mean access to power for power's own sake, not for changing things.

Lara Kilani: Yeah, I believe so. I mean, at every opportunity that AOC has had, and I think this goes to your question, like has she stood up to power or has she kind of like meekly made a symbolic gestures or gone along with it right her saying that biden and kamala harris were fighting tirelessly for a ceasefire or whatever it was that she said you know we all knew that that was a lie at the time and i think that that's what well at least any of us who have our eyes open and so i think that um you know, it goes to your question of is she actually nervous or is it, you know, it's a difficult front to maintain over years that you're in solidarity with people when you consistently break from solidarity with them and they can see that. But part of being reelected, part of maintaining your image and therefore your access to power is by, you know, showing that you're in solidarity with them. So it's a difficult line to tread if you're not actually principled, right? On the one hand, she doesn't want to be attacked by Zionists because that could put her in a dangerous position. But of course, she doesn't want to say that she's in solidarity with Palestinians either. And she doesn't want to say that she's not because... If she does, then she loses this image that has been part of cultivating her access to power. So, yeah, I don't think it's a lack of education.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Yeah, so it's not a theoretical weakness. It's more like a weakness of position.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Or principle, like, yeah, backbone, lack of backbone. But we can leave AOC aside for now. I think we're reaching the end soon. Yeah.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: I mean, I just want to add something on the whole, like, who to ally with debate. I don't know that much about the NGO world because I haven't been involved in that. But when it comes to the political landscape here, you know, it is really a question of, you know, like, how do we get, you know, a mass movement going? You know, on the streets, in the trade unions, in the parties, because I believe that, like, as I said, we have the people, but we don't have the power. We don't have the media, you know, less so than ever. So, you know, and it's really complicated here because the censorship is so strong that anything you say is going to be twisted into something else. Like, I was on a podcast and I talked for like three hours, no, four hours, I think it was, about... you know Hamas and who they were and I read up I read all these books before and like I was talking about how they came up it was like a charity organization at first and so on and that's not a secret like it's been said in the Swedish parliament many times but of course right now like in the heat of everything like the media twisted that and they said you know that I had said that Hamas is nothing but a charity organization like that's what it is and people of course all over Sweden thought I was a lunatic for saying that You know, and that's how extreme it is. So, I mean, I have talked to people who are like, I don't want to go to the marches because I think that they're pro-Hamas marches, you know, because in Gothenburg, at least, there is like, you can have any flag. So people are bringing all these flags. They're bringing the Turkish flag, the Hamas flag, the whatnot flag, you know, the Ukraine flag, even you have all these sorts of things. And people are saying, I don't want to go because of this and that, you know. And... that's why i see the problem like i think for us for sweden to change policy condemn israel boycott israel stop buying all these weapons from israel we need to take the power somehow we need to take the power in the majority of the political parties in order to change policy now how do we do that we need a radical wing but we can't all be the radical wing because we're if we're all like maybe you and me are doing mehmet we're supporting the armed resistance You know, we have about 200 years to go before we convince the majority of the parliament. So I see the importance of people who have more like a just stop the genocide position being there and talking to them and influencing them. And then you're calling them out. And all of that creates a very good dynamic, you know, to be able to pull the whole political landscape a little more to our side.

Mehmet Eliarsson: I understand your point. And I agree to a certain degree. But like what is happening with Palestinian organizations openly, publicly talking to or sort of almost endorsing or working with the left party, for example, who is openly liberal Zionist. They've just shown it again and again.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: They're not thinking like the PLO, like you were talking about, that had a meeting with the left party. I don't think they think that like they're endorsing. I think what they think they're doing is they're trying to influence them.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Yeah, but OK, I understand that. And I've had this discussion with people who have been in these meetings. But the critique still stands that what happens from the outside is that, oh, OK, they do the Palestinians. OK, I can vote for the left party, even if it's a liberal Zionist party openly. And like we should look at what has happened.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: I think the PLO would want to meet any political party that would want to listen to them, because right now most political parties here won't listen to anybody.

Mehmet Eliarsson: I mean, again, when we say PLO, we mean like... When people hear PLO, they understand something. And what the PLO sub-organization that met left party is something else. It's not representative of the whole of Palestinian people. It excludes completely Hamas and also excludes, if I understand correctly, PFLP. But my point is this. What has the left party... as it is, as it was, achieved so far? And where has it been pulled to so far with all this? They have been constantly caving in to Zionism, constantly. And it's just gotten worse.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Yeah, it's worse and worse. I'm not going to vote for them anymore, I'm telling you.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Yeah, but my point is...

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: But I'm not the PLO.

Mehmet Eliarsson: No, no, but the idea...

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Okay, so I'm an intellectual. So my role in this is to give background, is to give context, is to pull people... Like, I'm already on the fringe, right? you know, like speaking in the Swedish political landscape. I'm already in the French. So my role is a bit similar to yours, like to pull people who are already on the left a bit more to this side. But, I mean, I would be dreaming if I thought that everybody tomorrow was going to be like me.

Mehmet Eliarsson: No, I don't expect that from everyone either. But what are we striving for? And what, like, we should think about the consequences of, as you said, Cody, as well, like publicly... being in the same picture with these people right after they've kicked out someone because of bullshit anti-Semitism.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Look, if somebody's in the same picture as me, I win. That's the position that I have right now.

Mehmet Eliarsson: I don't agree, but we can leave that aside.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: With me, it's like that.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Well, okay, but from... get, for example, the Palestinian ambassador or whatever, or the PLO subgroup together with them, people will go, oh, okay, so the left party is fine. We can vote for them. That's sort of where I'm getting at. But anyways, that's a different and longer discussion, maybe. If you have anything to add, Lara or Cody, just about this, please continue, or we can sort of round up and talk about Maybe what you would like people to do actually, how they can support you or the cause itself. So feel free to take it away.

Cody O'Rourke: Yeah, no, great. Thanks for that opening. Yeah, I mean, I think one of the ways that folks can support us is, yeah, I mean, going to our website at goodshepherdcollective.org and signing up for our email list. We provide routine updates on how many homes were demolished, how many people have been imprisoned, how many people have been killed. We offer some analysis from the ground as well. All of the data on our website is open source and easy to access. You can download it in spreadsheet formats, for example. You know, one of the things that separates the Good Shepherd Collective from a lot of other organizations is what Laura said in the beginning, is that, you know, we reject, you know, large, large donors. And that's what keeps us, you know, politically independent and to be able to take the positions that we take. So having said that, you know, we're fully reliant on individuals, you know, who are willing to donate $5, $10, you know, 20 euros, you know, a month in order to keep us functioning. And so, you know, in that way, you know, we've been able to build, yeah, like a movement around us. You know, whereas, you know, the analysis that we share, you know, certainly isn't fringe. You know, people really are hungry for Yeah, like a principled stance and trying to really understand what does anti-Zionist organizing mean and what is the PA and what is the PLO and how do those parties function to actually perpetuate systems of oppression? People are looking for something alternative and something more authentic from the voices of the ground here. So, yeah, so, you know, donating to the Good Shepherd Collective is one way that people can support.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Laura, anything you want to add?

Lara Kilani: I think I just want to say, I think the message I want to leave people with is about the importance of really reflecting on these terms and how we apply our understandings of Zionism and anti-Zionism in our organizing. You know, I think like what Cody said, it's important to remember that the people we're talking about can almost always hear us, right? If we're talking publicly, they're listening to what we're saying. And so it's important to speak honestly. And I think one of the figures who I really think about often, who was killed in this genocide in December 2023, for sure you'll know who I'm talking about, Rifat al-Arir. Right. You know, one of the things like he was a person who was whose influence certainly was larger than life. Right. And one of the things that he left me with and I'm sure many, many other people was the importance of speaking the truth. And so when we think about that. That really makes it a lot simpler, right? We can talk about strategy or what is like politically makes the most sense or, you know, that we think will be the most effective or whatever. But when we're talking and we know that the people who are being harmed can hear us, what we really want to say is the truth. Because that's the thing that gives them dignity and gives them, you know, these things that have been violently stolen. And so... I think that that is what makes these understandings of Zionism and anti-Zionism so important. It's not about being academics or being the most knowledgeable person in the room or memorizing a bunch of dates or anything like that. It's about... It's about knowing that the way we understand these things and the way we apply these understandings impact other people's lives, right? And so we should speak from this knowledge and from really giving the time to try to understand these things, which are simple at the end of the day, right? We all can see injustice and know that it's injustice and we can all see something else and know that it's not the same, right? And so... We all have that ability in us, and we shouldn't let anyone make us feel like we don't or that we don't understand. So I just want to say, because I didn't say it, that our piece on anti-Zionism, anti-Zionism as decolonization, is available at Ebb magazine. It's available online for free, but if folks buy a copy, I believe still some of the proceeds go to support Palestine Action, which is great. Yeah, and hopefully the piece on Zionism will come out soon, but you already know how we define it.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Wait, what magazine did you say it was in?

Mehmet Eliarsson: Ebb.

Kajsa Eki-Seikman: Ebb magazine. Oh, that's a great magazine. Yeah. Isn't it? Yeah, I've read it before.

Mehmet Eliarsson: It's awesome. I mean, the one you've been featured in, I think it was called On or For Palestine, I think it was called. That has, I mean, including yours, it has some fantastic articles in there.

Lara Kilani: Oh my gosh, we were so honored. We kind of snuck in at the last minute and we didn't even know they were making a magazine. So it was a really big deal. Yeah, that one's great. So I recommend folks check it out.

Mehmet Eliarsson: I mean, I think your article deserves to be there as well. And people should, I mean, we've had a great discussion and I thank you for it. But since we discussed stuff, it wasn't maybe as clear as... uh i've intended to when when it comes to the definitions of zionism and anti-zionism yeah but you know mama that's the point of a podcast though like you just let it flow like you know because if you're gonna like stick to certain themes it just becomes like more like a lecture so i think it's great i'm not gonna let it happen i'm not i'm not complaining i think this was fantastic but just for people to get a clearer picture they could and should go read the full article either getting a copy of Ebb, as you said, Lara, or going to Good Shepherd Collective's website, and we will have links to those. And you also have a mailing list. People should join that as well. And stay tuned for our episode with Amid about Tuesday Solution and the PA. I think that's a really needed intervention as well. Thank you so much. This was fantastic. I mean, we've taken two hours and we had some really good discussions as well. Anything else you want to add? Otherwise, let's say goodbye.

Lara Kilani: Just thank you so much. Thanks for your great work. Thank you.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Take care of yourself.

Lara Kilani: Thank you both for this.

Mehmet Eliarsson: Thank you. And take care of yourselves. Stay safe. Bye.