Yesterday, San Francisco State University had intended to hold a meeting with Leila Khaled. Zoom refused to host it. SFSU managed a 20 minute livestream on Youtube before it was also taken down. Since they spent those twenty minutes congratulating Khaled, she did not even have the time to speak. I found myself following all of this with so much curiosity (who needs sleep when you can follow political drama in the states?).
Leila Khaled is a terrorist. And not in a political slandering way. She literally hijacked two planes. And yet, organizations that claim to believe in non-violent resistance like BDS and JVP supported her. The organizers of the event claimed that the event was being targeted by extreme right wing Zionists, by racists and antisemitism, by people who want to silence Palestinian voices. It was bizarre to hear because opposing terrorism is a pretty mainstream position (and come on, it can't be antisemitism when no Jews are involved). None of us want to find ourselves in a hijacked plane, even if it's for Palestinian freedom.
The organizers of the event suggested that academic freedom also means letting Khaled speak and it is here that I agree with them. I genuinely can't think of a single person that I wouldn't be okay with hearing on Zoom. I understand why social media platforms shouldn't be a space for promoting violence but it's a shame that voices were silenced this way. The problem is that no sane organization should be supporting violence against civilians, especially the kind that doesn't yield any positive results (like, come on, what would a plane hijacking bring? more security on Israeli flights! that's it).
In any case, I cannot fathom the mental gymnastics one has to go through in order to end up claiming an actual plane hijacker is a hero and a symbol of feminism. I had hoped to go to the webinar in order to understand how you can possibly be a leftist who fights against racism and homophobia but is okay with attacking civilians. Since the webinar was cancelled, this book is perhaps the closest I'll get.
In thick and clumsy prose, Khaled (with the help of Hajjar) recounts her life. This was published in 1973 so it ends with Khaled as a 29 year old. In between anecdotes of her life and radicalization, she weaves in big chunks of heavily biased history. I mostly feel bad for her that she sees the world as if it is a battlefield between the West and the Arab world, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a global battle between imperialism and oppressed people.
The thing is, no matter how many Palestinians I hear, I still haven't heard a solid counter argument for the basic Israeli claim: Palestinians started the war in 1948 and they lost it. I realize that losing her home has brought much hardship and pain for Khaled and Palestinians in general but at the end of the day, they insisted on getting into military battles with Israel and then lost every single one (kind of, the Lebanon wars seem to be a loss for everyone and nothing was really achieved with the 2014 war).
The highlight of this book for me was hearing her description of the plane hijackings themselves. It's wild to hear her rationalize it to herself. She tries so hard to convince us that a plane hijacking is harmless, that it's a way to make her voice heard. She attempts to shrug away the terrorist label but it's just so unconvincing. Those people on that Amsterdam-New York flight didn't have anything to do with Palestine and it's wrong to put them in danger for any kind of ideal. That's really what terror is.
Khaled is pathetic in her desire to pretend her terrorist organization is an organized army. Saying that she's a commando, claiming that she's a prisoner of war when she's in prison for her deeds is just silly. As I see it, the difference between an army and a terrorist organization is that the army is limited by some sense of morals, by laws. An army is limited by its government (this is really why I did not continue with the army and instead chose to study politics). The PFLP aren't limited by anyone.
In general, reading this book in 2020 highlights exactly where Palestinian leadership went wrong. Palestinians are going to have to compromise. This Palestinian nostalgia of the past is going to leave Palestinians stuck. People like Leila Khaled simply do not want to compromise. They want everything and they're willing to do whatever it takes to get it. That just creates more military battles and well, in 2020 it's not a fair fight and Israel keeps winning. Is this progress?
It's hard to separate between Khaled's opinions about Palestine and her thoughts about a pan-Arab socialist country. I don't know if this is a generational thing or a me thing but I no longer feel excited by revolutionaries. We don't need people blowing stuff up. What we need is policy and community work. Those things aren't as glamourous but I really do believe slow and steady changes are lasting while revolutions often end in more bloodshed. What can Khaled bring to the table that isn't violent?
Khaled spends much time talking about "ending the Zionist regime" but doesn't bother discussing how the future state will actually function. Sure, she says that it'll be a democratic state with rights for Jews and Arabs but she doesn't clarify how socialism will work or how the heck it will function. Not to mention that you can't ignore that Jews have nationalist desires which won't be curbed by giving them minority rights. There are actual problems here that aren't going to be solved simply by toppling the Israeli government.
There's a part of me that regrets the webinar was cancelled because I have questions for Khaled now. If she excuses her own hijacking, does she excuse other acts of terror? Where does she stop? When does it stop being okay? How did she move to Jordan and why? Apparently she has kids now, did she tell them about this? What do they think? How have her opinions changed since writing this book? As a seventy year old now, what does she think will happen?
To conclude, this book isn't well written. It's interesting but my low rating comes because I think Khaled does not deserve our admiration. At its best, Khaled manages to describe her strong emotions but for the most part, this book is just not built very well and also supports terrorism (but doesn't even manage to grapple with the morals of it, I can admire and respect different moral arguments when they're well thought).
What I'm Taking With Me
- I just finished a two hour Zoom call with my Palestinian and Israeli friends from the seminar and wow, there's such a difference. Like, hey Leila, a Palestinian from Bethlehem just invited us, a group of Zionists, to visit his home and promised he'd make us knafeh.
- Let's take a moment to talk about that one person during the event who said "everyone keeps focusing on one moment from Leila's life" and I'm just here like, first of all, it was two moments.
- You know, if anything, this book convinced me that Israeli security is important. Like, without those two air marshals on the El-Al flight, Khaled would have succeeded yet again. That's unfortunate because I really want to believe our security is overdone.
- Khaled's best attempt at excusing her actions is that part when she says that the oppressors can't determine the morality of the oppressed. Say I accept that, who can? Does being oppressed grant you the right to behave in whatever way you want?
-This book pinpoints why Israelis from my parents' generations believe peace is impossible.
- Wow, feminism, first woman to hijack a plane. Really breaking barriers for women.
-------------------------------
I just signed up for a uni course about Palestinian nationalism but looking at the way things are going this summer, I'll be really bored of learning about Palestinian things by the time I get to that course. Review to come!