Georges Ibrahim Abdallah, a pro-Palestinian Lebanese fighter, walked out of a French prison on Friday. That was never known because he had spent almost 40 years behind bars. Abdallah was subsequently convicted in France in 1987 for assassinating the U.S. military attache Charles Robert Ray and the Israeli diplomat Yacov Barsimantov in Paris. At the time of his release, he was 74 years old.
The Paris Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Abdallah’s release last month, stating that he posed “no serious risk in terms of committing new terrorism acts.” The court gave weight to his “exemplary” conduct while in prison. The ruling required Abdallah to depart French soil and never return.
Abdallah’s incarceration began, in 1984, after French police found a cache of submachine guns and radio equipment in one of his apartments. In his own mind, he is absolutely not guilty. Rather, he prefers to see himself as a “badass” “fighter” on behalf of Palestinians. He imagines himself as a militant in the field—every day, directly on the front lines of the struggle. This mentality makes it impossible for him to take any responsibility for what may have happened.
His commitment to activism as a pro-Palestinian activist was clear even after Abdallah’s long imprisonment. On a visit earlier this year from that same lawmaker, he doubled down on his characterization of himself as a “militant with a struggle.” His incomparable passion and focus has turned heads. Militarist and Islamophobe, various constituencies that would object to his alignment with the Palestinian cause, have cheered him on.
This hearing and release of Abdallah would be an unprecedented and remarkable moment. As many people understand, he has become an influential symbol of Palestinian resistance. He was responsible for founding the now-defunct Lebanese Revolutionary Armed Factions. This decision cemented his place as one of the leading lights of the pro-Palestinian movement in subsequent decades.
Supporters have embraced Abdallah’s release as a victory. It does raise significant questions, both about his future and what it means for the region that he’s returned to Lebanon. He is now beginning a new chapter. In other words, the legacy of his controversial foreign policy activities and their long-term effect on U.S. relations abroad remains a fiercely debated topic.
