Two events happened this week that to the untrained eye might seem like mirror reflections of each other, but in reality serve as a window into a dimension of the cancel culture debate that is rarely discussed.

Event #1: As a result of pressure from the Israeli government and pro-Israel lobbying groups, Leila Khaled was cut off from being broadcast on Zoom, Facebook, and YouTube.

Khaled is considered by many to be a beyond-the-pale terrorist, because as a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, she hijacked a plane in the 70's.

Event #2: AOC was pressured by Palestinians and their allies into withdrawing from an event that commemorated the legacy of Yitzchak Rabin.

Rabin is considered by many to be a martyr for peace, because he signed the Oslo Accords and was ultimately assassinated for it.

The problem with this neat story is that while Khaled did hijack a plane, she didn't actually physically hurt or kill anyone. Rabin, on the other hand, was responsible for killing and hurting Palestinians during his military career in the Israel Defense Forces.

One group, without the power of a nation state, managed to persuade a Congresswoman to avoid participating in an event, while the other compelled three of the most important platforms in the world to literally stop someone's voice from being heard.

Without a proper accounting of the power dynamics at play, cancel culture critiques *will always* end up justifying and perpetuating the status quo.