Yes, I'm a half-Palestinian lesbian, but I dream of being a Republican congresswoman. Here's my six-point plan
My haters are going to rejoice when I say this, but I think it's high time I changed careers. Being a half Palestinian, wholly homosexual freelance writer based in the US isn't currently looking like the most stable situation. Either my livelihood is going to get obliterated by AI, or I'm getting shipped to a detention centre for thoughtcrimes and gender treachery. It's anyone's guess which comes first.
Having mulled over the various directions my future could take (dog-cloning saleswoman, astronaut, head of sanitation for the city of Philadelphia), I have finally decided what I want to be when I grow up. And I'm going to exclusively reveal the result in this column. I'm … going into politics!
Once upon a time, the fact that I have zero experience in politics may have been an impediment. In a country run by a reality TV star turned convicted felon, however, the criteria for what qualifies one for office have drastically changed. The fact that I am a permanent resident rather than a US citizen would also normally pose a problem, but the beauty of Trumpworld is that all the silly old laws from the past are getting ripped up. Anything – even Republican congresswoman Arwa – is possible if you abandon your principles and play your cards right.
And I intend to play my cards perfectly. I have done extensive research and devised a cunning plan for how to make it in modern American politics. Study it carefully and you too can be as successful as I am obviously going to be.
1. Become a billionaire and buy yourself a roleAmbassadorships have, in effect, always been pay-to-play in the US but, thanks to the self-proclaimed 'GREATEST FRIEND THAT AMERICAN CAPITALISM HAS EVER HAD!', the entire government is now for sale. You can seemingly buy yourself everything from a nice little foreign policy to a cabinet position. Never has democracy been so democratised: anyone with enough cash can participate. The only snag to this strategy is that I do not, in fact, have enough cash. Like many a feckless millennial I squandered all my 'political influence' money on avocado toast.
2. Become a billionaire's special little boyIf you can't become a billionaire yourself, find one you can sell your soul to: it's what I call the JD Vance manoeuvre. The vice-president would still be writing about hillbillies were it not for tech billionaire Peter Thiel's mentorship and piles of money.
3. Achieve notoriety through whatever means possibleShould you be unable to locate a billionaire who wants to use you as an avatar to advance their dystopian accelerationist agenda, you will have to master the dark arts of the trollitician. John Fetterman (nominally a Democrat) and far-right Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene both seem to have advanced their careers by modelling themselves on internet trolls. Fetterman wanders around in basketball shorts, chumming it up with accused war criminals, and praising Trump for his 'God-tier level trolling'; Greene spreads conspiracy theories about governments controlling the weather. Meanwhile, a Republican candidate for governor of California, clearly hoping to achieve name recognition through virality, has proposed that migrant women can stay in the country if they 'marry one of our Californian incels'.
4. Harness the potential of 'A1' technologyDuring a recent panel discussion, former wrestling mogul turned education secretary Linda McMahon – who may or may not be in that position because she donated handsomely to Trump's campaign – repeatedly referred to AI as A1. 'Now let's see A1 and how can that be helpful,' McMahon mused at one point. Food for thought.
5. Share your top-secret plans in multiple group chatsThe Trump administration, we keep being told, is the most transparent in history. If you want to get ahead, you'll have to embrace that ethos. For more information, go find Pete 'nobody's texting war plans' Hegseth on Signal – he'll fill you in on all the deets. Along with his brother, lawyer, wife, and some random dude he once met in a bar.
6. Finally, sit back and watch your net worth riseGetting your foot in the door is the hard part. Once you're in, the job's a breeze: cancel all your public events and ignore your constituents, stat. Like Marjorie Taylor Greene, focus on making extremely well-timed trades in the stock market. If you bump into a pesky constituent, post a video of yourself ranting at them in the skincare aisle, as South Carolina congresswoman Nancy Mace just did. Most importantly, remember JFK's famous quote: 'Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you.' That's how it goes, right?
Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Belfast Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Belfast Telegraph
Have politics ruined Glastonbury? Here's what festival goers think
Not only has the festival faced a slew of unflattering press in the last few weeks for underpaying its artists, but a brand new headache presented itself on Saturday afternoon when Irish rap trio Kneecap took to the West Holts stage to play their much anticipated set. They were preceded by Bob Vylan, a London punk duo. And they made their voices heard: the last ten minutes of the set interspersed their music with calls of 'free Palestine.' They finished off with a chant that called for 'death to the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces)' - not exactly what you expect to be hearing at 3.30pm in the afternoon. Or is it? When I passed through the crowd on my way to secure a spot for Kneecap, I did a double take. The crowd seemed equally divided- despite the waving Palestinian flags, the chants seemed muted. But Kneecap didn't vary their tune much. During their set - which was watched by a stonking 30,000 members - its members, Mo Chara and Móglaí Bap, called for a 'riot' to take place on Mo Chara's upcoming court date in August. They then led the crowd in chants of 'f*** Keir Starmer' - they later clarified that they were joking about the riot claims. Naturally this has sparked an outpouring of online outrage and frothing. Some people on social media have compared the incident to a 'woke Nuremberg rally'; patently hysterical when you consider that the crowd was a peaceful one. Regardless of the feeding frenzy on the internet, on the ground at the festival, the mood seemed to be more of a collective shrug than fist-waving. 'I didn't see them, but I read what happened on the news after doing a blast of ket the next morning,' one festival goer told me dryly. 'I didn't care then and I still don't care now.' 'I just think, don't give anyone a reason to discredit the [free Palestine movement],' Olivia told me the morning after it happened. 'It's a peaceful protest, let it continue that way.' 'It was radical, I guess, but that's the whole point,' her friend Amy added. 'When things have gone too far, what do you expect people to do?' Others were blunter. 'Absolutely not,' Raj said when asked if Bob Vylan should have gone as far as they did. 'It's further than political. It's inciting violence. Glasto is a hundred per cent about 'free Palestine,' but I draw the line at 'death to the IDF.'' The BBC has also come under fire for first not filming, then filming the set (and cutting cameras after Bob Vylan, who ultimately proved the more incendiary performer). 'I think it's wrong of the BBC to edit out and censor it,' Ed told me. 'The BBC's meant to be impartial, so why not just livestream it and let the people decide what they think of it?' When asked about Bob Vylan's chants, the response was a shrug. 'I think a strong situation calls for a strong call to action.' For the government's part, health secretary Wes Streeting condemned the comments but added that 'Israel should get its own house in order.' Eavis herself has also issued a statement, adding that the sets 'crossed a line' and that the festival was 'appalled' by the statements made. To be honest, the whole thing does smack of hysteria. Coverage of both bands' comments have conveniently left out the fact that Israel's army have bombed and killed an estimated 60,000, likely more, Palestinians - something Kneecap repeatedly drew attention to during their set. Both bands have been open about their pro Palestine stance; the festival must have expected something like this would happen. Indeed, the Eavis family stood behind Kneecap when politicians called for them to be pulled. Factor in a general groundswell of people willing to speak about the issue of what is happening in Gaza- Amyl and the Sniffers, who played later at the Other Stage, gave an impassioned monologue about the topic - and what you have is a recipe for a perfect storm. Certainly it doesn't feel like the issue is as much of a talking point on the ground as it is online; the chatter I've heard has mostly been about who to see and where. But even as I type this, I've just heard band Turnstile yell "free Palestine" from the Other Stage, and those shouts are always met with cheers from the crowd. Like it or not, Glastonbury (and by extension, the BBC, which broadcasts it) can't escape this discussion. What remains to be seen is the extent of the fallout.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
What the UK arms sales to Israel challenge actually decided
What was being argued? And what did the court actually decide? Here's everything you need to know. Why was the case brought? In September, the secretary of state for business and trade, Jonathan Reynolds, suspended export licences for items which could be used in Israeli military operations in Gaza. Read More: The decision was made due to concerns that Israel was not committed to complying with international law, and that weapons and technology could be used "to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law". However, licences for components for F-35 fighter jets were excluded, a decision which the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq challenged in court. Why were the fighter jet components excluded? The UK is part of the 'F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme' which makes the jets, along with the US, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Australia and Norway. Israel is not a member of the programme but it is a customer, meaning it buys fighter jets from the programme. The UK government argued that it could not suspend licences for the F-35 components because doing so would undermine the programme as a whole. What was the legal challenge? Al-Haq, as well as interveners Amnesty International UK, Human Rights Watch and Oxfam argued that this 'carve out' meant that there is still a possibility that components made in the UK could be used in violations of international law. They called for a judicial review, based on six grounds. The first was that the carve out breached the UK's commitments under international law, including the Geneva Conventions, the Arms Trade Treaty and the Genocide Convention. The second argued that the government made an error in stating that the carve out was "consistent with the UK's domestic law obligations" because it "breached three rules of customary international law which either have been or should be received into the common law, namely the obligations to ensure respect for the Geneva Conventions, to prevent genocide and not to facilitate internationally wrongful acts". Campaigners at the High Court (Image: Ben Whitley/PA Wire) The third was that the secretary of state went beyond his legal powers by risking "facilitating serious crime" under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the International Criminal Court Act 2001. The fourth argued that the carve out was irrational, as it was based on a 'logical gap'. The fifth contention was that the secretary of state did not give enough consideration to the possibility of facilitating violations of international law. Finally, the claimants argued the export suspension was wrongly limited to items used in Gaza, rather than all arms potentially used by Israel elsewhere. What did the court find? The High Court rejected all six claims, though for differing reasons. On the first claim, the court noted that Israel is already facing an ongoing charge of genocide at the International Court of Justice. The court said it was not able to make a ruling on "a contentious question of international law"; that the treaties cited were not incorporated into English law; and that questions of international relations or national security were for the government to decide, not the courts. Essentially it said it had no jurisdiction on the matter. The judges said: "Under our constitution that acutely sensitive and political issue is a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts.' The rejection of the second claim was similar, concluding that international law (such as the Genocide Convention) is not a matter for the English courts and that it could not rule on Israel's intentions and actions in any case. On the third, the court ruled that the secretary of state did not exceed his legal powers because the Strategic Export Licensing Criteria (SELC) allow for exceptions and there was no evidence that the exports would definitely facilitate breaches of international law, nor that any crimes which took place would be for an English court to rule on. For the fourth claim, the court ruled that the secretary of state had not failed to weight up the situation sufficiently, saying that even had the UK stopped supplying components to the F-35 programme there was "no realistic possibility" of convincing the other nations not to sell fighter jets to Israel. Therefore, "he was faced with the blunt choice of accepting the F-35 carve out or withdrawing from the F-35 Programme and accepting all the defence and diplomatic consequences which would ensue. The decision which he made was not irrational." On the fifth contention, the court found it was in the power of the secretary of state to use his discretion, particularly on matters of national security. The final claim was rejected on the basis that the Government acted within its remit by tailoring the suspension to where it found a clear legal risk (i.e Gaza), and a broader suspension was not required under the law. Did the court find that Israel was not breaching international law, such as the Genocide Convention? No, the High Court said it would not and could not make a finding on that. The judges acknowledged that there was serious concern, citing an Export Control Joint Unit (ECJU) assessment which said "it is uncontentious that conduct which could, in principle, satisfy the physical component of genocide continues to take place in Gaza" but which further said that, although some Israeli statements were troubling, the available evidence did not meet the high threshold for determining that Israel had genocidal intent. The High Court could not rule on the issue, as it's a matter of international law and already before the International Court of Justice. The judges did not find that Israel is not committing genocide, nor that it is, and was never going to because it was never in their remit to do so.
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Palestine Action seeks court showdown over ban using anti-terror laws
Palestine Action is set for a court showdown with the Government after Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced it would be banned using anti-terror laws Campaign group Palestine Action is set for a court showdown with the Government over the decision to ban it using anti-terror laws. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is set to make membership and support for the group illegal, punishable by up to 14 years in prison. But lawyers for co-founder Huda Ammori are seeking an interim order blocking Ms Cooper from proscribing the group. An urgent hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice was told a decision is expected next month on whether Palestine Action can mount a full legal challenge. Ms Cooper is expected to publish a written statement to lay the order to make membership and support for the direct action group illegal. Last week she announced Palestine Action would be proscribed as a terror organisation after activists damaged two RAF planes. She said the group had "orchestrated a nationwide campaign of direct criminal action against businesses and institutions". And the Home Secretary said the June 20 vandalism at the RAF base was the latest in a "long history of unacceptable criminal damage committed by Palestine Action". Ms Ammori said: "I have been left with no choice but to request this urgent hearing and to seek either an injunction or other form of interim relief because of the Home Secretary's decision to try to steamroll this through Parliament immediately, without proper opportunity for MPs and Peers to debate and scrutinise the proposal, or for legal and human rights experts and civil society organisations to make representations, or for those of us who would be denied fundamental rights as a result and criminalised as 'terrorists' overnight, including the many thousands of people who support Palestine Action." A decision on whether Palestine Action can bring a full legal appeal is expected during the week of July 21. Human rights groups Amnesty International, Liberty and European Legal Support Centre have all submitted supporting statements over concerns of unlawful misuse of anti-terror measures to criminalise dissent, it is understood. Actions taken by the pro-Palestinian network, which has targeted arms companies in the UK, included disrupting supplies to Ukraine, Ms Cooper said. She said three attacks - including the vandalism of two warplanes at Brize Norton in Oxfordshire - had caused damage worth millions of pounds. The Home Secretary went on: "In several attacks, Palestine Action has committed acts of serious damage to property with the aim of progressing its political cause and influencing the Government. These include attacks at Thales in Glasgow in 2022; and last year at Instro Precision in Kent and Elbit Systems UK in Bristol. "The seriousness of these attacks includes the extent and nature of damage caused, including to targets affecting UK national security, and the impact on innocent members of the public fleeing for safety and subjected to violence. The extent of damage across these three attacks alone, spreading the length and breadth of the UK, runs into the millions of pounds." Five people have been arrested on suspicion of a terror offence in relation to the incident at RAF Brize Norton.
