Here is a blog entry from Cecilia Lucas's blog Mariposa Rhythms -- Creative Dissent (at <http://mariposarhythms.blogspot.com/2006/08/my-love-for-hizbullah-revisited.html>). Lucas published an essay "A Love Poem" in CommonDreams on 24 July 2006 (at <http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0724-22.htm>), which indeed included her love poem for Hizbullah "I Don't Want to Love You, But I Do." She apparently received "a lot of hate mail," which included "the ways you should be raped," suggestive that many of the hate messages came from men. Here's an interesting intersection of sex and politics: women who love Muslims and men who hate them. I take it that many of the emotionally negative responses to my remarks on Iran, also from men only, come from the same intersection, that is to say, how men feel about my regard for my Persian Prince*.
Lucas says, however, that hate messages are "outweighed by messages from people who are also struggling to come to terms with their support of Hizbullah by learning more about who they are, what they have done, and what they believe," and so are they in my case as well. I don't know what these messages in conflict will add up to, but surely they are part of a war of position. * The term is mainly my allusion to Machiavelli and Gramsci, whose thoughts frame my understanding of Iran, its masses, and its opposed factions of leadership and make me entertain a hope for a passive revolution in Iran, as well as my love of alliteration, but it is also intended to speak in several other registers, too, obviously. Yoshie <http://mariposarhythms.blogspot.com/2006/08/my-love-for-hizbullah-revisited.html> Tuesday, August 01, 2006 My Love for Hizbullah, Revisited by Cecilia Lucas When you write a love poem to Hizbullah, you receive a lot of hate mail, including graphic descriptions of the ways you should die, of the ways you should be raped. But those descriptions, of course, do not even come close to capturing the terrifying ways people are being massacred. These real deaths are then described by Condoleeza Rice as "the birth pangs of a new Middle East." I prefaced my poem to Hizbullah with the statement that I don't think there is such a thing as inherent evil. Rather, systems get created – regardless of intent – that allow great cruelty to grow, flourish and become institutionalized. Cruelty becomes common sense, begins to seem natural, comes to be accepted as the only possible course of action. So long as the people who actually are in positions of power to resolve conflicts peacefully fail to do so, there will be many more of us who start to acknowledge our love for Hizbullah. The hate mail I have received has been outweighed by messages from people who are also struggling to come to terms with their support of Hizbullah by learning more about who they are, what they have done, and what they believe. Though we may not agree with all of their ideologies, though we may condemn some of their actions, Hizbullah is right now standing up to great cruelty. I can hear some of my readers screaming at me: "What about the cruelty of Hizbullah?!?" I insist that even those of us who believe in the power of non-violent resistance must acknowledge that there is no moral equivalency between the violence committed by the oppressor and the violence committed by the oppressed. Who is in which role may change over the course of history – but that must not paralyze us from dealing with the power relationships in play today. It is, of course, ridiculous to support a group just because it is the underdog resisting a stronger party. But Hizbullah is resisting forces that have institutionalized cruelty and insanity. What else can you call it when the deaths of thousands and the displacement of millions across Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq are described as "birthing pangs"? Many have asked me, "What if Hizbullah wins? Do you really want to live in a world of their design?" To answer that question, as it is framed, in a nuanced and thoughtful manner would require more space and time than is available here. Ultimately, however, the answer to that question as framed is "no." But that question need not be framed as it is, implying that Hizbullah's fending off Israel means that it will go on to be the new super-power, waging wars at the rate and with the destructive capacity of the U.S. and Israel. But, of course, the U.S. needs to see Hizbullah as a huge threat that will terrorize the world if every member is not exterminated. Terrorism has become for the 21st century what communism was for the 20th. The construction of a distinct, one-dimensional evil other against which we can define ourselves as virtuous, enlightened, free and worthy – and thus justified in pursuing our unending and highly profitable wars. If you are dependent on war, you need a never ending supply of enemies that the public will believe are worth the expense and the immorality of destruction. Some of my readers are screaming again: "What about the immorality of Hizbullah?!?" Okay, let's compare. A wise woman once taught me, "When they tell you about all the horrid things those people over there are doing, always ask yourself (and ask them): as compared to what?" When they talk about mistreatment and rape of women as if these are things that belong to foreign cultures, ask them to look up the domestic violence and rape rates in the United States. When they tell you about the civilians the "terrorists" have killed, ask them to look at the numbers of civilians killed by the militaries they are defending. Compare those numbers. When they insist these numbers can not be compared, that Hizbullah is hiding behind civilians, remind them that Hizbullah is not only a militarized resistance movement, it is also a widely supported and legitimized political party and social service provider whose members live as citizens among other citizens of Lebanon. Ask them where the Israeli soldiers live and whether these areas are thus legitimate bombing targets. Moreover, ask them to compare the global atrocities committed over the last 20 years by Hizbullah, Israel and the United States. Ask them, then, what meaning the word "terrorism" still holds. On Sunday, I bore witness to a public altar for Arabs and Arab-Americans to collectively mourn and to express outrage and hope. As candles were being lit and family members were being remembered, the bodies of the Qana massacre were still being unburied. Israeli hands released those bombs, but we should not neglect to speak of the role the U.S. is playing in all of this. Through supplying missiles, through vetoing ceasefires, through strategic advice. Many have been asking, "Don't the U.S. and Israel realize that their actions are just increasing 'terrorism'?" I think they do realize this. I think they see this as a win-win situation. (Especially the U.S., whose civilian population -- unlike that of Israel -- is not in the line of fire.) If the Arabs are quickly bombed into submission and fear, then we can move right in and set up camp and shop. If there is resistance, we have all the more justification for waging this profitable war -- and it will ultimately make the long-term conquering process easier as the people and their environment will already be broken. It is true that the U.S., Israel and Europe have not been the only colonial/imperial forces in the world. And, if we manage not to blow up the whole planet in the near future, it is likely that they will not be the last. But this does not excuse us from seeing them as what they are right now and from doing everything in our power to stop this institutionalized, naturalized cruelty. Maybe if enough of us within this country and Israel could get together and really put massive consequence-inducing non-violent pressure on our current administrations as well as on our larger so-called democratic systems, we wouldn't find ourselves turning to Hizbullah for hope. In the meantime, though, the number of deaths rises every day, mostly at the direct and indirect hands of Americans and Israelis. In the meantime, I will continue to express my reluctant love for Hizbullah even as I mourn the deaths on both sides of the border. <http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0724-22.htm> Don't Want to Love You, But I Do by Cecilia Lucas You were born out of death to a life in a cage Where bombs are not the only reason people die Fed by the violence of hunger and homelessness Raised by colonialism Your heart and your will still grew strong You scare me Not just because they tell me to be scared Not just because they repeat, repeat, repeat The story of 1983 Begging me to understand Americans are worth more than Lebanese Why do they never tell me about Jihad al Bina That you have created so much Saved so many lives Improved so many more It scares me When I admit to myself That I would be more scared without you If I still took the time to see To see the violence that does not just fall from the skies that exists in hunger and homelessness in colonialism It scares me That my hope is tangled up In actions I would never want to commit But I don't sleep much these days And I've tried hard But I haven't found Anything to give me hope that they will listen They repeat, repeat, repeat The story of Gaza withdrawal Hoping we won't see The violence that continues That kills in so many ways Hoping we will now support it Or at least stop looking They insist talk does not work When there is no one to talk to It is hard to find an interlocutor When you're not willing to listen To see To feel How do you keep faith that talk will work When even they are insisting it won't? I am learning to have hope in you I am learning to see you as so much more Than those actions I would never want to commit You amaze me. Born out of death to a life in a cage Raised by colonialism You did not accept imprisonment as natural You did not accept hunger as justice You did not accept the ceaseless killing in so many ways Of those next to you Or those farther away I love you But I will never be yours I don't want you inside me You are too male for me And I cannot, gratefully, fully silence the voice that insists: Some deaths you did accept Including of some who were listening That is why the full statement that the question-marks pry me with reads: It is sad, but I'm learning to have hope in Hizbulla Maybe it is the naivety of one whose life has never been directly threatened I still believe: Be the change you want to see in the world. -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>
