By Romana Rubeo  

In this episode of The FloodGate podcast, Baroud and Brehony explore four key elements of Ghassan Kanafani’s legacy—from his unwavering commitment to guerrilla resistance to his revolutionary vision for Palestinian unity.

In the latest episode of The Floodgate podcast, Dr. Ramzy Baroud sits down with Dr. Louis Brehony, a leading scholar on Palestinian intellectual Ghassan Kanafani and co-editor of ‘Ghassan Kanafani: Selected Political Writings,’ to explore the legacy of this iconic figure.

Through a compelling discussion, Baroud and Brehony revisit Kanafani’s role in shaping Palestinian resistance media, his early embrace of guerrilla warfare, and his deep understanding of international solidarity. 

The interview sheds light on Kanafani’s pioneering intellectual contributions, the resilience of Palestinian journalism, and the revolutionary power of culture—elements that continue to guide the movement today.

In the ongoing fight for Palestinian freedom and justice, few figures have had as profound an influence as Ghassan Kanafani. A visionary intellectual, revolutionary writer, and tireless advocate for resistance, Kanafani’s work continues to resonate within the hearts and minds of those dedicated to the Palestinian cause. 

His contributions to literature, media, and revolutionary thought have shaped generations of activists and intellectuals, offering both a critique of imperialism and a powerful call for self-determination.

Here are four key takeaways from the interview: 

Guerrilla Resistance

For Ghassan Kanafani and his comrades, resistance wasn’t an abstract idea — it was a necessary outcome of imperial domination and occupation. 

“They were also serious in the belief that there was a big struggle coming in terms of a revolutionary confrontation with the occupation and with those who stood behind the occupation, the imperialists,” Brehony said.

That belief was reflected in Al-Hadaf, the newspaper of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), which Kanafani edited until his assassination. 

“Let’s not forget, at this period — so the mid to the end of the ’60s, and particularly after the Arab defeat in June 1967 — the guerrilla resistance among Palestinians who were displaced was particularly sharp in Gaza, in confronting Israel. And this was covered in the pages of Al-Hadaf,” Brehony added.

Anti-Imperialist Fronts

Palestinian revolutionary intellectuals of the 1960s and 70s were not only theorists of liberation—they were also master organizers who understood the press as a vital tool of resistance. 

As Brehony explains, “these Palestinian intellectuals and visionaries knew that… they had to organize themselves and these newspapers were really organs of doing that.”

Among these publications, Al-Hadaf stood out for its sharp political analysis and internationalist lens. 

“There were reports, for example, of companies like the British supermarket chain Marks and Spencer, which has this history of support for the Zionist project economically,” Brehony noted, “and there were analyses of Marks and Spencer on the pages of Al-Hadaf, this Arabic newspaper.”

Through such reporting, Palestinian revolutionaries were not just documenting struggle; they were shaping its infrastructure—connecting local resistance to global systems of oppression and organizing readers into a broader anti-imperialist front.

Centrality of Armed Resistance

Much has been written about Ghassan Kanafani’s towering intellectual legacy—his fiction, journalism, and revolutionary vision. 

Yet, there persists a myth, particularly in liberal or depoliticized readings of his life, that he was somehow hesitant about the role of armed struggle in the liberation of Palestine. 

This misrepresentation not only distorts Kanafani’s political commitments but also severs him from the very movement he helped shape.

As Brehony points out, “Let’s not forget that the PFLP itself—this organization which he was so central in developing in terms of its ideology and theory—was actually, um, active and was one of the factions that participated in the 7th of October operation, and is, according to its activists in, in Gaza, still performing well in this battle.”

According to Brehony, the notion that Kanafani was somehow reluctant to support armed resistance is not only inaccurate but also dismisses the revolutionary clarity with which he approached Palestinian liberation. 

“So there is one of these myths propagated about Ghassan—that he was somehow reluctant to support armed resistance, or that his position was somehow different to the PFLP position, which is maintained to this day. In reality, there’s no truth behind this assertion.”

As a leading intellectual and spokesperson of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Kanafani was deeply embedded in the revolutionary praxis of his time. 

For him, literature and resistance were inseparable, and armed struggle was not a deviation but a necessity. He understood the rifle and the pen not as opposites but as twin instruments of liberation. Any attempt to sanitize his legacy by downplaying this reality does a disservice to the clarity with which he spoke—and acted—on the necessity of resistance in all its forms.

Unity for Victory

Ghassan Kanafani’s vision of national unity was uncompromisingly rooted in revolutionary principle. 

“It wasn’t just unity for the sake of unity,” said Dr. Louis Brehony in our recent Floodgate interview. “It was unity for the sake of victory.” 

Kanafani, active in the leadership of PFLP, supported alliances, like that of the PLO, only when they reflected genuine revolutionary goals.

 “There were periods in which the PFLP…boycotted the sessions of the Palestinian National Congress and the PLO on the basis of its kind of domination by Fatah and Arafat,” Brehony noted, highlighting Kanafani’s resistance to top-down leadership that sidelined radical voices.

Kanafani’s rejection of hollow compromises also shaped his view on Palestinian liberation. 

“He was not against the idea that Palestine would be liberated in stages,” Brehony said, “but he was in favor of the idea that it should be in the form of liberation, not in the form of a compromise or a settlement.” 

For Kanafani, that distinction was essential—between reclaiming land as a revolutionary act and accepting “crumbs from the table of negotiation.” 

It was a vision informed not just by Palestine but by international struggles: “There was the phrase of Arab Hanoi…Hanoi was this kind of international symbol of how US imperialism could be defeated.”

(The Palestine Chronicle)