At the end of the 18th century, Moslem power had fallen so low that a series of self-appointed Protectors of Islam appeared. One of the earliest was Napoleon, who, as governor of Egypt from 1799 to 1802, outdid the old Moslem rulers in celebrating Islamic festivals and reviving decadent customs.

Later, Great Britain assumed the role, but her efforts had small success because her Zionist policy antagonized the Arabs.

Then Mussolini and Hitler represented themselves as guardians of the Moslems. Axis money and intrigue proved effective in many instances, so that with the approach of war, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and Rashid Ali al-Gailani of Iraq, among others, were in the Axis camp. In Iran, a group of important persons was formed into a loose political party which favored the Axis, and in Egypt the British could trust neither the king nor the premier.

The most recent claimant as Protector of Islam is the Soviet Union, which before the war showed little interest in championing religion but now realizes the value of such a rule as an instrument of policy. Thus, while the London BBC and Delhi radio have recently broadcast recitations in Arabic from the Koran and admonished the faithful to continue their devotions, Radio Moscow has told of the facilities which the Soviet Union had made available to pilgrims for traveling by air to Mecca.

"German" and "Nazi" do not mean the same thing. Or rather, it was/is up to the German people to make sure they do not mean the same thing. "Islam" and "Islamofascism" only mean the same thing if Muslims make them identical. If they don't want that, they should appreciate Bush and others trying to accurately define the threatening ideology, as distinct from the religion. It gives Muslims room to say "That is not us." If that's what they want to say, that is.

« ok, I'm done now

Massoud began to engage in national politics while an engineering student in Kabul in the early 70s, joining with an Islamist group to oppose the local Communist government. He later distanced himself from extremist tactics, one of his many differences with his former comrade Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

After playing a large role in driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan, Massoud served as Afghanistan's defense minister from 1992 until the Taliban seized power in 1996, and then joined with other mujehadeen to depose the Taliban. But his goal of a free democratic Afghanistan was challenged by the remaining warlords, the Taliban, and the global chess games of nations.

Massood's men are . . . of Tajik, Uzbek or Mongol descent and largely Shia Muslim. For centuries the Shias have fought with the majority, Sunni, Pathan tribes of the South and East. It is from these tribes that the Taliban draw most of their support.

In recent years that emnity has been deepened both by atrocities on both sides and, most significantly, by the meddling of overseas powers. All the countries bordering Afghanistan, and others further afield, are pushing their own candidates in the war.

The Taliban owes much of its success to military support from Pakistan and financial aid from Saudi Arabia, both Sunni Muslim countries. Though relationships with the Saudis have chilled recently - not least because of the Taliban government's refusal to hand over Osama Bin Laden, the Saudi dissident and alleged master terrorist - private donations continue to pour in.

Massoud's movement had became better-known after a sympathetic portrait in National Geographic in 2000, by Sebastian Junger (author of A Perfect Storm), and - after two decades of funding and supporting radical Islamists - it seemed possible that the US would listen to Massoud's warnings against bin Laden and his ilk, and to support him as a moderate pro-democracy leader. But the Taliban had already grown strong, and bin Laden's planes did strike, and as the t-shirt says, we are all Massoud now - equally vulnerable to being murdered by suicide bombers, and more so each year: in office buildings, in subways, on airplanes, in schools. Massoud was widely respected as an excellent guerilla tactician, a charismatic leader, a lover of the arts, and an advocate of democracy and civil rights. He was called the "Lion of Panjshir" after his native valley and the home base of his operations. This transcript from a press conference in 2000 gives you a sense of his personality and values. He throws down the gauntlet to the other factions which claim that they represent the people.

. . . . the best way is to go toward elections, to go toward a democracy and to allow the people to determine their destiny. We told Hekmatyar on several occasions that if he really thought that he had influence and was effective, then fine, let's move toward elections and let the people legitimately, legally and formally elect you with their ballots. Now, our proposal is the same for the Taliban. On several occasions, I told the Taliban delegations that came here for talks with us in the Panjsher, that you claim to represent the Pashtun tribes - fine, we agree. You say that the majority of Afghanistan is under our control - we agree. You say that the people accept us - we agree. Fine, if there is such level of confidence - then let's go toward elections. You [the Taliban] claim to hold the majority backed by popular acceptance; then what are you worried about? In place of so much warfare and bloodshed, move toward elections and legitimately attain power.

His assassination

propelled an already legendary figure into one of mythic proportions. On April 25, [2002] he was officially proclaimed the national hero of Afghanistan. His portrait is in homes, in shops and on postage stamps. A committee is collecting signatures to have him awarded the Nobel Peace Prize posthumously. And every day, hundreds of admirers make the arduous trek to visit his grave.

He also inspired a symphony, The Lion of Panjir, by David Gaines, performed in 2004.

Beautiful Atrocities posted an appreciation of Massoud on the anniversary of his death in 2004.

Massoud's tombstone in his beloved Panjir valley:

In this place, the Lord of liberty sleeps. "My war was not to obtain the right to govern, but to safeguard the dignity and honor of Afghanistan and her people."

The tomb:

« ok, I'm done now

Liberals believe that societies have responsibilities to their members, and that government, as the main representative bodies of these societies, are empowered to address these responsibilities. Hence the wording in the Constitution authorizing the government to create laws for the “General Welfare”.

Liberal Hawks believe that one of the most important of these responsibilities is “keep the people safe from psychopaths with bombs”.

The LEFT, on the other hand, believes that the prime responsibility is to keep the psychopaths safe from the government.

Liberals believe that the government must provide a “level playing field” for the economic interactions between citizens, and that this word “level” means with respect to wealth- laws must balance the weakness of the poor in their dealings with the rich.

Liberal Hawks believe that this level playing field must not be so forcefully leveled so as to give no advantage to skill, patience, perseverance, and other qualities.

The LEFT believes that the playing field must be so totally level that differences in personal work habits, intelligence, skill, ambition, or hygiene mean nothing.

Liberals believe that the beginning and end of Human Life are slippery points, difficult to pin down, and require individual ethical decisions. Liberal Hawks generally concur. The LEFT, on the other hand, believes that Human Life begins when one donates to Move On. Or Greenpeace.

Liberals believe that our environment is a common trust of the people, a national treasure of great worth and beauty deserving of protection. Liberal Hawks add in a dose of consideration for the property rights and economic needs of people, and seek a balance. The LEFT believes that humanity, other than Approved Indigenous Peoples ™ (Generally defined as “Last successful conqueror before White Man arrived), is an affront to Mother Earth and ought to be removed from the environment.

Ben

« ok, I'm done now

Israel's frontier with Syria is relatively stable and secure, despite Syria's undisguised loathing for its neighbour. Why? Because Syria, as a sovereign state, will not tolerate uncontrolled militias within its borders. This places it in a different category from the Palestinian and Lebanese administrations, whose writ does not run throughout their own territories. . . . . A parallel can be drawn with the first government of the Irish Free State, which acted more brutally against the IRA than Britain has ever done. It did so not out of love for Britain, or enthusiasm for the existence of Northern Ireland, but because it was determined that there should be only one legitimate army in the state.

I posted on this three years ago, in connection to the then Palestinian government avoiding the challenge of confronting and disarming Hamas. (Ah, the days when anyone talked about disarming Hamas . . . )

It provoked some controversy, which I linked to in updates to my post. There are still many Jews who think Ben Gurion was traitorous to his own people to sink the Altalena.

I'm sure this kind of internal war was also controversial in Ireland, and will be so in Lebanon. But Imshin is right, and the consequences of letting independent militias roam free have been demonstrated repeatedly, in many national struggles. Even libertarians who aren't complete anarcho-capitalists understand that one of the few necessities of government is to have a monopoly on the use of force.

« ok, I'm done now

About three dozens of comments were made by Iraqis both inside Iraq and in exile and all these comments were supportive of Israel or at least against Hamas as far as the topic is concerned except for only three comments; that's a 10:1 ratio while as you probably have guesses, the opposite ratio is true about the comments by the rest of Arabs.

. . . . we in Iraq are evolving politically faster than we are doing when it comes to economy, security, etc. that we are even ahead of countries like Egypt or Kuwait in holding real elections and having a permanent constitution and fair representation of all the segments of the people. . . . Iraqis are beginning to distinguish between terrorism and rightful acts of resistance not only in Iraq but also on a global level and are showing decreasing tolerance for extremism. . . .

Check out the comments themselves.

Two years ago ITM translated comments from another BBC Arabic forum, which illustrated this bifurcation. The topic was Abu Ghraib. Most of the other Arabs in the forum saw Abu Ghraib as a convenient example of American depravity, but many Iraqis disagreed and said it was an abberation, and were impressed by how decisively the Americans were taking responsibility for fixing it, and pointed out that other Arabs didn't speak up when Saddam was really torturing Iraqis.

This also brings to mind an article I can't locate now, about all the phone and internet traffic (of which thse BBC forums are examples) between Iraqis and Arabs in other countries, where the reconstruction and the democracy project are discussed along with other news and personal chat. We think of Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya as the interlocutors of the Arab world, but they may be much less influential than the informal discussion in forums and blogs and talk among friends and relatives.

Meanwhile on the home front, M Simon notices a shift in sympathies:

I watched NBC news for the first time in a long time to catch the latest on Israel. The commentary at the end of segment went something like this: "Israel left Lebanon 6 years ago. They left Gaza a year ago. Why can't they leave Israel alone?" Which goes back to my previous points about Sharon. He has created a situation where even a weak leader can take strong measures.

I do not think [Olmert] would get serious complaints if he toppled Boy Assad.

More evidence that Bush's grand plan for democratizing the Middle East was the right one, and is working. As Asher says:

It is no longer the Israelis who are isolated, nor the freedom activists in the Arab world. It's the fascist regimes that are increasingly isolated and panicking.

And here's another angry Lebanese blog.

UPDATE: The times they must indeed be a-changing, because a news story about Arab bloggers and their dissatisfaction with the status quo appeared last week in the San Francisco Chronicle, not exactly a bastion of neo-con democracy promotion.

Augean Stables on the contrast I described above, which more and more Arabs can distinguish as the practice of representative government and the understanding of individual rights begins to take hold:

The Israelis care far more for the lives of their own citizens (including their Arab citizens) than the Arab regimes care for the lives of their own people (subjects). It is characteristic of elites in prime-divider societies to treat their commoners as so many beasts of burden (in the Middle Ages the comparison was between peasants and oxen), and, in time of war, cannon fodder. Look at the ways in which Iran and Iraq threw their own people into the killing fields for 8 years. This differential derives, among other things, from the high value that civil societies place on the voluntary adherence of its citizens to the social contract (from Sinai to the social contract theorists of modern democracies) and the way they empower individuals. Prime divider societies rule by fear and impostion, and not only do not value individuals, they fear them.

. . . . When Israel and Egypt signed the Camp David accords in 1979, I remember seeing a small news item about how the Syrian minister of Education declared darkly that it was only a matter of years now before the Israelis dominate the entire region culturally. At the time I smiled at the paranoia. Having better understood the Arab predicament and the cultural demands of economic development in the subsequent decades, I now realize that what he feared — and what these reformers no longer fear (or perhaps don’t fully understand) — is that in turning away from the prime divider politics of Arab political culture, they are indeed adopting the civic commitments that the Israelis have fostered from the earliest years of Zionism. In that sense, they are coming under Western, if not Zionist influence.

UPDATE: My co-blogger Asher has another Cedarsphere roundup.

« ok, I'm done now