But it was love, too.

Getaway

Please consider increasing your contribution to The Sameer Project. They have several campaigns on Chuffed that support different areas across Gaza. I encourage you to choose any campaign and contribute regularly, increasing your donation whenever you are able to.

To sum up the answer: Che died a revolutionary, Fidel lived as a head of state

That is a reductive summary, but it is at the core of why Che is popularised and Fidel is not. I'm not even talking about the commodification of Che's image and reputation, because this issue goes beyond ignorant tourists who buy t-shirts with his face on it

It is very easy to relate to the ideals that both Che and Fidel fought for, it would be a challenge trying to find someone that says it's a bad thing to feed and house a people who have been brutalised by a dictator

But Che was a martyr, he died in the early years of the revolution and he was never a head of state like Fidel. The repressive measures taken to protect the Cuban revolution and the collective rights it gave to the Cuban people were never assigned to him, he never had to face that

But Fidel? He was the one who lived, who authorised the imprisonment of dissidents; he oversaw crackdowns like the Black Spring, he kept a tight control over the press and the media. When people see Fidel, they see policies. When they see Che, they see ideals

And most people do not want to confront what it takes to protect the ideals that Che died for. It's a pretty horrible world that we live in, because it is true that expansive political plurality is incompatible with workers' liberation. A common thing I've noticed is a tendency to criticise Fidel's "human rights record" without ever offering alternatives to his policies. The principle I abide by is that if you cannot suggest a feasible alternative, you don't have the right to condemn the decision that was made, although most people aren't quite that reflective or harsh (whichever way you see it)

If Che had lived, if he was head of state instead, I do believe he would have been as harsh, if not harsher, than Fidel. He was not cruel, in fact I do love him and look up to him as one of my biggest role models, but he openly admired Stalin. He always advocated for press control, he was determined that political opposition be banned, and he was upset when Fidel ended the revolutionary executions to appease the US. But the memory of Che is not that, the memory of Che is one of romantic sacrifice and heroism

The survivor (in this case, Fidel) does not have that same privilege. The good of the revolution is assigned to Che because it allows people to avoid a reality that is violently contrary to what they've grown up with, whereas all the bad is assigned to Fidel

Plus a part of it is just indicative of a very reductive way of viewing history. The Cuban revolution is often represented as if it was "corrupted" by communism, by Fidel. That is a much more simplistic version of history, and thus easier to teach people. It's also more compatible with the individualism of the capitalist world, great man theory and all that

The reason their relationship is portrayed as negative is similar I think, but there's probably several reasons for it. A big one is that it helps to reinforce the aforementioned "Che good, Fidel bad" binary that dominates discourse about the revolution. But there were also rumours at the time of Che's death, and even before, about Fidel betraying Che. Maybe they were propagated by the US? I don't know, but they existed either way. A similar thing happened with Camilo's death, where the revolutionary government was blamed. Anti-communist rhetoric certainly had a lot to do with it, and the demonisation of Fidel

Both of these resistance groups are a response to Israel's violent occupation and invasions in the region. Hezbollah emerged in 1982 after Israel invaded Lebanon. Hamas was created after the first Intifada in 87.