What it is about:

Leila Khaled, a figure well-known for her involvement in two high-profile airplane hijackings in the late 1960s on behalf of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), is scheduled to deliver a speech via video at an event organized by the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign (PSC) in Birmingham, UK. This move has ignited significant controversy and criticism from various quarters, including local UK politicians who are concerned about public safety and the promotion of violence.

Why it matters:

The invitation extended to Khaled underscores the troubling glorification of violent activism under the guise of political discourse. It raises critical questions about the boundaries of freedom of speech and the responsibility of organizations to not provide platforms that indirectly endorse terrorism or terrorist figures. Khaled’s history and the legacy of PFLP—both closely associated with acts of violence targeting civilians—further emphasize the need for a measured and principled approach in international advocacy efforts.

Context and Backlash:

Khaled gained international infamy following her participation in hijacking a TWA flight in 1969 and an attempted hijacking of an El Al flight in 1970, establishing her as a controversial figure subsequently idolized in certain circles for her role in these dangerous incidents. In the wake of planning for her virtual speech at the PSC event, there has been an outcry from several community leaders and international figures iterating the insensitivity and potential hazards of granting her such a platform. Concerns emphasize not only the past violence but also the ongoing implications of legitimizing figures tied to terrorist activities.

Official Response:

The reaction from UK officials, particularly West Midlands Mayor Andy Street, focuses on the implications for public order and the broader message conveyed by hosting such a speaker. Street’s critical stance illustrates the divide between free expression and the tacit endorsement of violent extremism. Following the backlash, the PSC has attempted to distance itself from the provocations associated with Khaled’s speech, signaling a reconsideration of the event’s framing in light of the principles supposed to guide the organization.

Implications for the Community:

Allowing Khaled’s speech to proceed not only fails to acknowledge the trauma suffered by the victims of her actions and by extension, other acts of political violence but also muddies the waters of legitimate and peaceable advocacy for Palestinian rights. Identifying and rejecting extremism in all its forms is paramount in achieving meaningful dialogues between Israel and Palestine, ensuring a safer and informed community dialogue that underlines the possibility for peace and respect across contentious divides.

Conclusion:

As discussions unfold around Khaled’s scheduled appearance, the incident highlights the continued challenges facing advocacy and activism concerning Israel and Palestine. Engaging in productive discourse, while unequivocally condemning violence, remains the cornerstone of advancing towards a resilient and peaceful resolution. It behooves political and advocacy groups alike to reflect on the impact of their choices of representatives and the deeper meanings of the platforms they provide.

This story was first published on jpost.com.