Guns, Roses, and Resistance: Feminism and the Nasrallah Debate
By: Nadia Ahmad
February 23rd, 2025
Hundreds of thousands of people from across Lebanon and the world descended on Beirut to pay their respects to Lebanese resistance leader Hassan Nasrallah. The air is heavy with grief, and I can’t help but feel a sense of loss. But why? As feminists, shouldn’t we be happy that we have one less religious leader enforcing patriarchal laws and practices on our women and girls? To answer this, I am forced to examine three fundamental questions: What are the principles of the Global South feminist movement? Does feminism support armed resistance? And does our support for the current forms of resistance movements negate our feminism?
For me, at its core, feminism is an anti-colonization movement. After all, women were the first and primary subjects of colonization. Our bodies were colonized by the patriarchy eras before western colonization, religions and socio-political structures of subjugation reinforced and institutionalized patriarchal violence. Women have never been strangers to colonial violence — historically the greatest perpetrator of human rights violations.
Moreover, colonial violence has always been gendered. A stark example: Israeli Occupation Forces once wore T-shirts featuring a pregnant woman with the slogan “1 Shot, 2 Kills,” highlighting the importance of targeting women and children in their mission to eliminate Palestinian life. The response to such colonial aggression was the formation of religiously affiliated armed resistance groups, like Hezbollah and Hamas, who represent a cross-section of our social fabric whether we like to admit it or not; unlike ISIS and Al-Qaeda which are western imperialist props created solely to feed extreme anti-Arab and anti-Muslim rhetoric for the purpose of manufacturing consent to commit atrocities against Arabs. These props were established specifically to conflate Islamic resistance with terrorism, and terrorism with Arab identity. A deliberate demonization of not only Hezbollah and Hamas, but Arabs in general; compounding intersectional suffering to Muslim women as a result of xenophobic discrimination on top of the existing gender discrimination they face in their communities.
The questions here are: what do we do about the community of women who are from the same cultural, social, and ideological background as these groups? Will we continue addressing them from a place of supremacy and privilege, hence excluding them completely from the rhetoric of our feminist movement and struggle? Is it appropriate to assume that all women who are members of armed resistance groups are completely stripped of their agency, and, in turn, give ourselves the agency to resist patriarchy on their behalf? Also, is our feminist agenda reduced to calling for sexual and reproductive rights, or are we willing to create space to include women’s right to be on the frontlines of resistance and be free of colonial aggression? For example, Zahraa Kobeisi from South Lebanon who steadfastly put her body in front of a Zionist occupation tank to defend her home. Is her act of resistance less feminist because she was resisting alongside Hezbullah? The struggle to decolonize our bodies, as women from the Global South, will continue far beyond the fall of western colonization. I specify women of the Global South because it is them that suffer the brunt of colonization; making resistance to colonial violence a squarely feminist issue and an unwavering principle in the Global South Feminist movement.
View this post on Instagram
We come to the question of armed resistance; as a Global South Feminist movement, do we believe in armed resistance? To many Global South activists, the answer is obvious. But for the others, let’s break it down. In the face of obscene colonial aggression, such as perpetual genocide, apartheid, military occupation, forced displacement, psychological warfare, and arbitrary violence being inflicted on a people based on race, and in the face of global apathy; it is very difficult to think of a situation where a people can successfully resist such enduring and grotesque colonial oppression by throwing flowers and organizing peace marches. Although both of these were tactics that the resistance in fact tried. Don’t take it from me, here’s a headline from The Nation: Palestinians Engaged in Nonviolent Protest, Israel Responded With a Massacre. And if we have learned anything from the pages of history, we have learned that the French never fulfilled their revolution against monarchal oppression until they made heads roll. Algerians never got their liberation from French colonialism until they pointed guns. Lebanon never got the South back until they blew up Merkava tanks. Che never became Guevara until he waged war. And Mandela, whose grandson was present at Nasrallah’s funeral, was prepared to die for the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities.
In the case of persistent colonization or apartheid, oppressed peoples are left with no choice other than armed resistance. And it is telling how Western nations can understand the principle of armed resistance but cannot justify it for the peoples of the Global South. America ratified the second amendment to the constitution in 1791, protecting citizens’ rights to bear and keep arms for the protection and defense of themselves, their rights, and their property. So, if someone tries to come onto your private property without your express permission, you have every right to shoot that person dead and the US Constitution will protect you. But somehow, Western policy cannot seem to allow that same basic human right of armed resistance for the protection of self, rights, and property, to anyone who is not white, regardless of how many UN resolutions justify it; thus the “terrorist” propaganda.
But there is a sense that the jig is surely up on that front. In a recent Global South Feminist conference with 40 feminist activists participating from across Latin America and the SWANA region, the most emotive moment of the conference was when the announcement was made of the martyrdom of Mohammad Deif, the revered Hamas resistance fighter. The conference hall broke out into a wake for Deif, with tears flowing and mournful embraces being shared by all. Feminists from Latin America were genuinely mourning the struggle of a Palestinian resistance fighter along with the Arab feminists in the hall. Somehow, feminists from the other side of the world understood and shared the feeling of loss that comes with the death of an icon of the resistance. They could understand that regardless of Mohammad Deif’s politics, his sacrifice in resistance was inspiring.
Finally, we come to our last question, does support for the current forms of resistance in our region negate our feminism? Does support for Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis in their resistance struggle against Zionism during an ongoing genocide and occupation against our peoples, mean that we are ideologically and politically aligned with these groups? Does it mean that, as feminists, we have forgotten their violations against us in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine…? Naïve to say the least. It feels absurd that these concerns are brought up by fellow feminists from the region who consider themselves the reference on deciding what school of thought is feminist and what is not, while they apply a one-size-fits-all analysis of armed resistance groups. Comical in fact.
Let’s take another lesson from the pages of history, women in the Black Panther Party during the civil rights movement often suffered from sexist and misogynistic practices by the organization. However, the practices never wavered the Pantherettes’ commitment to the principle that the BPP presented; their right to take up arms in self-defense in their struggle for civil rights. Did that make the Pantherettes any less feminist for choosing to continue to support the only party that championed armed resistance to police brutality? Of course it didn’t; they were never silent about the organization’s violations against them.
Similarly, here in Lebanon, and ironically, it was always that radical, intersectional feminist (whose feminist principles predicate support for the right of armed resistance in the face of colonization) who was the one brave enough to speak truth to power at every timely occasion. It was always that feminist who confronted the armed resistance groups, and their representatives,about their patriarchal violence; leading advocacy protests that resulted in the ratification of laws protecting women and girls. It is that feminist who truly grieves that the only form of armed resistance available to us at a time of genocide and occupation is non-secular. What intersectional feminist from the Global South does not dream of cultivating a feminist armed resistance that represents us ideologically and politically to confront the violators of our rights? I know I do. It is us intersectional feminists who understand and mourn the sacrifice given by those who took up arms against an all-powerful enemy and were martyred…because we would do the same for our cause.
In conclusion, I cannot escape comparing this ‘feminist’ interrogation to the kind we have seen thousands of times in Western media: “But do you condemn Khamas?” And the answer will always remain: “No, we do not condemn Khamas, Khezbollah, or the Khouthis for their acts of resistance.” And anyone who equates the most heinous occupier and apartheid system in the history of humanity to the freedom fighters born and raised off the land taking up arms to protect our very existence; well, you are no different from the people calling a genocide a conflict. Geopolitics will shift and the players of the game will change, but the right to resist oppression is a fundamental feminist principle regardless of how it comes about.
So, on this Sunday, in memory of Nasrallah, the loss I feel is for the resistance struggle he waged. The loss I feel is for what he represented to the Zionist occupier, the loss of a needle in the eye of Netanyahu. The loss of knowing that they enjoyed assassinating him and celebrated it. The joy of my enemy will never be a win to me. Just as Sinwar’s glorious martyrdom, flinging a stick at a military drone sent to kill him with the only arm he has left, moved millions around the world to honor him; Nasrallah’s funeral moved human rights activists from across the planet to come to Lebanon to honor his struggle; whether feminists want to admit it or not, he has become a global icon of anti-colonial resistance and it is his struggle in that resistance and the sacrifices he made for it that has inspired so many around the world. Nasrallah, may you and your martyred children see a free Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, and Sudan. And may you also see the outlawing of child marriages and the autonomy of our bodies and rights in all of them. Long Live Resistance in all its forms.
