If Cecilia Lucas had been metaphorically sexualizing violence as such, she would have sexualized Tel Aviv and Washington, rather than Hizballah -- after all, the former is far more violent than the latter. What she is attracted to, despite her own commitment to non-violence, is, rather, effective resistance that has the power to push back the multinational empire and change the opinion of others (such as the opinion of Lebanese about Hizballah). That's a common feeling on the Left, perhaps the most significant source of solidarity across borders, for active resistance is always more interesting than suffering in itself*. Only a few women and gay men such as Jean Genet have had the courage to admit to that attraction, though. Most leftists are as fearful of eros as Ezekiel.
* For evidence that the scale of suffering alone never inspires others to take interest in the suffering, look at Congo:
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/22/EDG54AETFQ1.DTL> EDITORIAL 4 million dead in Congo
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
THE WORLD'S biggest war may be its most invisible. In 10 years, an estimated 4 million have died in eastern Congo. A maelstrom of invading forces, local militia, a central army and United Nations peacekeepers shoot their way across the landscape.
On 8/5/06, Marvin Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca> wrote:
> Seth Ackerman:
>
> > I'm on your side of this debate, Joel, but I don't quite agree here. Is
> > there really an emerging pro-violence consensus in the Western left? If
> > there was, you'd expect to see leftist groups taking up armed struggle or
> > trekking off to join the revolution, as in the 70's, but there's none of
> > that now. What there is is a despairing willingness to offer empty
> > "support" for violent resistance to Israel, given the impotence of the
> > alternatives - external mediation and internal non-violence. That's
> > obviously a childish response, but it arises from sincere frustration over
> > a genuine dilemma. What to do? It's not like chanting the magic word
> > "non-violence" helps things either....
<snip>
> If you want to consider the above "a despairing willingness to offer empty
> 'support' for violent resistance to Israel" and a "childish response arising
> from sincere frustration over a genuine dilemma", then I'll have to shoulder
> that burden. But the dilemma, as you put it, over "what to do?" is yours,
> not ours.
In terms of analysis, I agree more with you than Seth, but you evade the fundamental problem that Seth is willing to acknowledge: impotence* of leftists here in the West, regardless of our respective analyses, positions, willingness or refusal to wish Hizballah, et al. well, and so on.
We have to think about what makes sense for us to do, _given our impotence_. There is no clearly correct answer to this question. It depends on what we want to do, where we are at, etc., respectively.
One suggestion that I would make is that we consciously make room for "wrong" ideas. The dominant ideology is powerful not because it is coherent but because it isn't. We who seek to replace it by ours has to take a page from that.
* The impotence of leftsits in the West reminds me of a couple of Clerks II's taglines: "Standing For Truth. Standing For Justice. Standing Around." "With No Power Comes No Responsibility." -- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>