CITIZENSHIP STUDIES 277 acting only with a clear mandate from the community; acting from a place of political responsibility, not out of guilt or charity; educating yourself and not relying on the com­ munity to educate you; seeking never to speak on behalf of the community unless explicitly asked; limiting political influence on a community’s decisions or decision-making process; being prepared to do any kind of work requested, including staying in the background and raising funds; making a long-term commitment; and having a sense of humour and some patience. [. . .] Mainly, a clear and undisputed line of guidance and source of agreement coming from Indigenous peoples themselves. [. . .] Ultimately, an ally has to measure the principle of solidarity against the principle of non-interference (Pasternak 2013, 139-140). This type of ‘taking leadership’ entails accepting that the struggle may lead towards an uncertain future, one that will not be determined by settlers, or necessarily suit their needs or desires. But, as Bouteldja (2016) reminds us, it also contains the possibility that indigenous leaders might offer the settler some place in it. This is a crucial difference – one that departs from a demand for an inclusive future after decolonisation. Indeed, some activists in Palestine already do adhere to the same principles that Pasternak describes (Turner 2015; Weizman 2016a; Wright 2018). It is crucial to remember and recognise, however, that the possibility of co-resistance does not solve the structural paradox: There is no easy or comfortable way to reconcile between being a settler and an anticolonial ally. The politics of resistance across the settler/native divide lines is troubled for it involves a firm reckoning with the positionality and subjectivity of being settlers, and with the disorder that is part of the anticolonial struggle and decolonisation. It must also include a relinquishing of claims for setter futurity. In this sense, it is a multidimensional struggle towards an uncertain future. A clear illustration of this direction is apparent in the case of Jonathan Pollak, an anticolonial Jewish Israeli activist arrested by the Israeli police for consistent refusal to appear in court to answer criminal charges of assaulting soldiers during demonstrations in the West Bank. Shortly after his arrest, he published a piece in Haaretz (2020). He ended with this exhortation – the last sentence of which was subsequently taken off-line21 In order to genuinely join the struggle to bring down Israeli Apartheid, the minority of those Israeli citizens that want it will have to acknowledge their privileges and be ready to pay the price that comes with giving them up. The Palestinian resistance is leading a rebellion against the regime for years, and the price its members are paying is huge. In order to contribute to a change, Jews must willingly give up the desire to lead the struggle, and instead support the Palestinian one, not just in their hearts, but also in deeds. Yes, we must cross the lines and break the law; despite the price, we must join the children throwing stones and molotov cocktails, we must march in their footsteps. Notes 1. These include both the areas defined by the Oslo Agreements as ‘A’ (under full adminis­ trative and security control of the Palestinian Authority) and areas under full or partial Israeli control which are often declared by the occupation authorities as ‘closed military zones.’ 2. See http://boycottisrael.info. Currently, about a 1,000 Israeli citizens (both Jews and Palestinians) have signed this call. 3. The theoretical and empirical literature around ‘resistance’ is vast and wide. There seems to be an agreement among scholars that resistance entails both action (verbal, cognitive or physical) and opposition as core constitutive elements (Hollander and Einwohner 2004).