Sunday, September 17, 2006



Meitav Regev, niece of abducted Israeli soldier Eldad Regev, holds a greeting card for the Jewish New Year that reads in Hebrew 'Happy New Year Gilad Shalit, Eldad Regev, Ehud Goldwasser' before handing it over to a representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross, in Tel Aviv September 17, 2006.
  • Sunday, September 17, 2006
  • Elder of Ziyon
So far, since Friday, there have been ten different attacks against six churches in the Palestinian Arab territories:
At approximately 05:40 on Friday, 15 September 2006, a bomb exploded in the Orthodox Church in al-Zayoun neighborhood near Omar al-Mukhtar Street in the center of Gaza City. The explosion destroyed the door of the Orthodox Youth Center inside the Church and a number of windows were broken. At approximately 14:00 and 15:30 on the same day, unknown persons threw two home-made grenade at the Church.

At approximately 12:00 on Saturday, 16 September 2006, 5 unknown persons threw a Molotov Cocktail bottle at the Biblical Church in Rafidya neighborhood in Nablus. Doors and stores were burnt, and walls were damaged. The same persons then fired another Molotov Cocktail bottle at the New Orthodox Church, causing similar damage.

At approximately 15:30 also on Saturday, a number of unknown persons fired a number of gunshots and then threw a Molotov Cocktail bottle at the wooden door of the Royal Church in Rafidya neighborhood in Nablus. The door was burnt.

At approximately 16:00 also on Saturday, 3 masked gunmen traveling in a civilian car fired at the office of the Council of Church Agents in the Orthodox Church in Gaza City. No casualties were reported.

At the same time, unknown persons threw a number of Molotov Cocktail bottles at the Latin Church in Rafidya neighborhood in Nablus.

At approximately 03:00 on Sunday, 17 September 2006, a number of persons broke the locks of the external gate of the Orthodox Church in the center of Tulkarm, and then broke the lock of the internal door leading into the Church. Soon after, they set fire inside the church, burning all of its contents. According to Daoud Metri Khar’ouba, the servant of the Church, the attackers stole some of the Church’s contents. The Church is the only one in Tulkarm, and only a 15-member Christian family lives in the town.

At the same time, unknown persons broke the northern window of the Orthodox Church in Tubas village, southeast of Jenin. They then set fire inside the Church. The northern part of the church was burnt, before firemen were able to extinguish fire.

Also, a 70-year old nun was shot and killed in Somalia, after a Somali Muslim leader called on the pope to be killed.

And a Christian was reportedly killed in Baghdad, where Muslim groups have threatened all Christians in the country.

This will cause the Christians to think twice before saying anything bad about Muslims!

Oh wait - it already has:
Father George Awwad, Greek Orthodox priest in the village condemned the attack and slammed the remarks of Pope Benedict XVI about Islam.

Awwad added that the Pope does not represent all Christians and called on the Palestinians to remain unity.

Several churches in Palestine also slammed the Pope's statement, Father Awwad said that “the Palestinians are brothers and sisters during bad and good times, tolerance in the common oxygen Christians and Muslims breathe here in Palestine. "
Just keep paying the Jizya and they'll be nice to you, Father Awwad.
  • Sunday, September 17, 2006
  • Elder of Ziyon
Iran's Mehr News has a hilarious editorial about the Pope kerfuffle complete with wacky conspiracy theories and a prime example of the Muslim tendency to equate free speech with a well-planned war on Islam.

Of course, if a pontiff declares war, then Islam is justified in killing a few dozen/hundred/million to defend itself, right?

Hat tip to Judeopundit.
The Pope’s new crusade
TEHRAN, Sept. 16 (MNA) -- Pope Benedict XVI’s recent irresponsible remarks about Islam and his apparent affront to Prophet Muhammad (S) indicate that the drum of the Crusades against Islam is being beaten again.

The increasing wave of Western offensives against Muslims, which began with U.S. President George W. Bush’s remarks and continued with the publication of disrespectful cartoons in a Danish newspaper, is part of a plot to start a new crusade against Muslims.

Undoubtedly, this propaganda is not accidental and purposeless, but rather within the framework of a comprehensive strategy to implement the theory of clash of civilizations put forward by U.S. theorist Samuel P. Huntington. [Yes, Huntington is the true evil force behind this war on Islam! - EoZ]

Regrettably, following the suspicious 9/11 attacks, the West is increasing the psychological and propagandistic pressure on Muslims to prepare the ground for the expulsion of Muslims from the United States and European countries. [A classic case of projection - because this is how Muslim nations would prepeare the ground for expulsion of infidels. - EoZ]

The Pope’s rude remarks are actually code words for the start of a new crusade, heralding a dark future in relations between Islam and Christianity.

Although the remarks show the Pope’s ignorance of the sublime tenets of Islam, it seems unlikely that the leader of the world’s Catholics would make such sensitive comments without consulting with cardinals at the Vatican who are experts in Islam.

If Islamic countries’ leaders had responded wisely to Bush’s repeated insulting remarks, such statements definitely would not have been repeated by Christian leaders. [I presume "wisely" means "with deadly actions like the cartoon riots, which will ensure that newspapers think twice before doing that again. -EoZ]

Meanwhile, soon after the Pope’s scurrilous remarks, Britain’s Daily Telegraph published outrageous insults directed at Prophet Muhammad (S) and Muslims.

The newspaper claimed that Muslim soldiers in the early days of Islam used to behead prisoners of war.

All this shows that some Christian leaders are still angry about the Christian defeat in the Crusades for Bait-ul-Moqaddas and are seeking to pit Islam against Christianity again. [News flash: Muslims don't control Jerusalem! -EoZ]

These provocations are meant to pave the way for the neocolonial powers to regain dominance over the oil-rich Middle East.

If this situation continues, the world will witness the mass expulsion of Muslims from Western countries under the pretext of the campaign against terrorism.

Another aim of such propaganda is to facilitate the implementation of the new Middle East plan so that the Zionist regime can become the Hong Kong of the Middle East and fill Islamic countries’ markets with Israeli goods.

This is the same new Middle East plan that former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Perez discussed with U.S. leaders after Israel and Palestine signed the Oslo Accords in 1993. Perez published his theories in a book with the same name. [Of course! The connection between the Pope talking about Islam and Israel sellings its Zionist goods to Islamic countries so so obvious in retrospect! Thank Allah that the Muslim nations are vigilant against this nefarious plan! -EoZ]

Although it seems that this plan cannot be implemented easily due to the vigilance of Muslims, the level of such offensives meant to force Muslims out of Western countries will increase, creating the prelude for a clash of civilizations. [It is equally obvious how Israeli goods in Muslim countries force Muslims out of Western countries! -EoZ]

Indeed, in view of the fact that religious wars have always kept nations in a state backwardness over the centuries, such a clash of civilizations would not benefit Christians or Muslims.

At this juncture, initiating a dialogue between the religious leaders of the West and the East is the only way to prevent a religious confrontation.

And as we have seen countless times, "dialogue" means "Muslims teach the world about Islam and don't listen to a word that anyone else has to say."

Also, the peculiarity of today's Muslims means that there would be extreme reluctance for any intelligent Muslim to rebut this absurd editorial or similar ones, because he would invariably be labeled a Zionist and someone who does not defend the honor of Islam and Mohammed adequately.

So if the "vast majority" of moderate Muslims indeed exist, they are as useless as if they didn't exist, because they will not lift a finger to stop the intentional escalating of rhetoric that their erstwhile coreligionists pretend to be railing against - out of fear.

Saturday, September 16, 2006

  • Saturday, September 16, 2006
  • Elder of Ziyon
This peaceful Hamas "activist" disagrees with the Pope:


"Islam is not spread by sowrd," we are informed.

Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigades agree in this anti-pope rally:



Nowadays, it is spread by submachine gun.

More peaceful signs, as this Pakistani woman interprets his comments as a call for war:


Any predictions as to when one of these protests will turn deadly?

Friday, September 15, 2006

  • Friday, September 15, 2006
  • Elder of Ziyon
I really missed this feature.




Muslim students burn an effigy of Pope Benedict XVI at a protest rally in Allahabad, India, Friday, Sept. 15, 2006

That'll show the world that Islam is a religion of peace!



  • Friday, September 15, 2006
  • Elder of Ziyon
Monday:
Two bystanders were killed and 2 others were injured on Monday, 11 September 2006, when they were located in an area where armed clashes broke out between members of Fayyad clan and the Executive Force in Deir El-Balah refugee camp in the center of the Gaza Strip.

Tuesday:
Nuha Ismail Saleh, a 30-year old resident of Tal El-Hawa Quarter in Gaza City, was killed this morning by a bullet accidentally fired from a firearm mishandled by her husband... She is a mother of 3 children, and was killed by a bullet to the head accidentally fired from her husband's firearm. The incident took place at home as the husband, who is an officer in the Preventive Security Apparatus, mishandled his firearm.
Wednesday:
Maher Tawfiq Abu Salha, a 22-year old resident of Nablus, was killed by the explosion of a bomb he was preparing in Nablus. Maher Abu Salha, an activist in Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, was killed by the premature explosion of a bomb he was preparing in the Qeisareyya area in the old city in Nablus. Salha's body was torn to pieces by the explosion.
Four lawyers came under fire from gunmen on the backdrop of clan disputes in gaza City. Two lawyers were seriously injures in the incident. A resident of Rafah was injured in a clan dispute in the city. There were three other lawyers in the jeep. The gunmen got out of their vehicles and fired heavily at the jeep, especially at the back seat where the lawyers Samer Mustafa Ahmad (31) and Shadi Rabah Abed (25) were sitting. Shubair and the lawyer Ahmad Abu Aqlein were in the front seats. The shooting resulted in the injury of Samer Ahmad with two bullets in the head and mouth. Shadi Abed was injured by two bullets in the left shoulder and left foot. The injured lawyers are residents of Gaza City.

When Shubair tried to take the injured lawyers to the hospital in the jeep, the gunmen fired several bullets at the tires and punctured them. The injured were later taken to Shifa Hospital, where their injuries were listed as serious.

Shubair informed PCHR's fieldworker that the incident occurred on the backdrop of a clan dispute between members of Abed clan. He indicated that the target of the attack was Shadi Abed.
Thursday:
Mohammad Nour Methlej (55, from Gaza), a colonel in the General Intelligence Apparatus, and the child Mohammad Kamal Weshah (13, from El-Bureij) were brought to Al-Aqsa Martyrs Hospital in Deir El-Balah. Methlej was suffering from a bullet wound in the back; and Weshah was injured by a bullet in the right hand. Methlej later died of his wound; while Weshah's condition remains moderate. Both were attending a wedding celebration in Bloc 10 in El-Bureij refugee camp. A young man started to fire during the celebration. He pulled the trigger before aiming in the air; and hit the victims.

A day earlier, the child Mona Mohammad Mohammad El-Astal (8, from Khan Yunis) was injured by a bullet in the abdomen as she was in her home. The injury occurred as gunshots were fired in a wedding celebration in a nearby house. The child was taken to Naser Hospital in Khan Yunis, where here injury was listed as moderate.
Friday:
Palestinian gunmen opened fire on a car in Gaza City in a drive by shooting that killed a top Palestinian security officer and four of his bodyguards, senior Palestinian security officials said.

The gunmen, driving a sports utility vehicle, targeted a gray Audi belonging to Brig. Gen. Jad Tayeh, the head of international coordination in the Palestinian intelligence service, spraying dozens of bullets into the car, said Khaled Abu Hilal, interior ministry spokesman. Tayeh was killed along with four bodyguards.

The motive for the attack was not immediately clear, though officials speculated that it could be an internal feud within the intelligence service. Security officials said the attackers took a black briefcase Tayeh was carrying.
That's at least ten dead this week. apparently, when they are deprived of the opportunity to kill Jews, they decide to kill each other.

But that shouldn't stop them from having their own state - nosireebob. They are a peace-loving people who just happen to shoot each other at weddings and in drive-by's. This is part of their culture and that culture should be celebrated.

Yippee!

We now know of 80 PalArabs killed by other PalArabs since late June, and who knows how many of the injured have succumbed in the interim.
  • Friday, September 15, 2006
  • Elder of Ziyon
Gotta love the Saudis:
Saudi Arabia's Religious Police Issue Ban on Pet Cats, Dogs

JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia — Saudi Arabia's religious police, normally tasked with chiding women to cover themselves and ensuring men attend mosque prayers, are turning to a new target: cats and dogs.

The police have issued a decree banning the sale of the pets, seen as a sign of Western influence.

The prohibition on dogs may be less of a surprise, since conservative Muslims despise dogs as unclean. But the cat ban befuddled many, since Islamic tradition holds that the Prophet Muhammad loved cats — even in one instance letting a cat drink from his ablutions water before washing himself for prayers.
I always knew cats were evil!

Thursday, September 14, 2006

  • Thursday, September 14, 2006
  • Elder of Ziyon
It is always fun to see terrorists try to justify their actions:
On Thursday, Amnesty International accused Hezbollah militants of breaking international humanitarian law by firing thousands of rockets into Israel and killing dozens of civilians during the war.
Hezbollah rejected Amnesty's charges.
However, Hezbollah legislator Hassan Fadlallah acknowledged his group targeted civilians in Israeli cities, saying it was a response to Israeli attacks in Lebanon.
"We do not deny that we have bombarded Israeli cities, settlements and infrastructure. But this was always a reaction," he said in an interview by telephone with Al-Jazeera. "It was a natural reaction. When a state is invaded, it must defend itself."

Fadlallah said Amnesty International probably came under American and Israeli pressure to issue a report critical of Hezbollah 's actions during the 34-day war, after issuing a similar report against Israel last month.
The firing of rockets into urban areas in northern Israel violated international laws that call for distinction between civilian and military targets, Amnesty said.
"Targeting civilians is a war crime. There's no gray area," said Larry Cox, Amnesty's executive director in the United States.
But Fadlallah rejected the charges.
"The act was begun by Israel," he said. "How could we confront the Israeli aggression? With roses? The resistance (Hezbollah) said that the bombardment of Haifa was in response to the bombardment of Dahiyeh (Beirut's southern suburbs)."

First of all, Fadlallah is considering Hezbollah a part and parcel of Lebanon's defenses, or else his statement "when a state is invaded, it must defend itself" makes no sense.
Secondly, by his logic, one is allowed to target civilians in reaction to an aggressive act. By that logic, Israel would have been perfectly justified in killing many, many more civilians, since they were reactiong to an attack on their territory.
Thirdly, it is interesting to note that he feels that the only reason that Amnesty International would dare to write a report critical of Hezbollah is because of pressure from America. And he is right! AI wrote scathing condemnations of Israel immediately after (and during) the war, and waited a full month before releasing a report on the most obvious Hezbollah violation of international law (they haven't yet found the time to write a report on using civilians as human shields.) So his anger that AI, normally in league with the terrorists, would dare to criticize the freedom-fighting darlings of the Left is quite consistent.
The Boston Herald notices Amnesty's reluctant condemnation of terror as well:
Does AI now recognize that, if it is going to be taken seriously, and hopes not be to broomed out of the room with its upcoming report on Israeli actions, there is no way it can ignore that blatant and purposeful crimes of Hezbollah?Is this the result of earnest introspection and a sense of proportionality or is it a matter of angling for position and credibility?

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

  • Wednesday, September 13, 2006
  • Elder of Ziyon
I have spent a lot of time since the beginning of the Lebanon war posting about media bias. It is a topic that needs to be emphasized, and very often the biases of the reporters and editors and photographers and videographers will seriously color the news in a certain way.

The problem is that this is unavoidable. The very fact that newspapers have front pages make it unavoidable that someone needs to decide what the top story is, how the headline is written so it fits in a certain space, which picture to use to illustrate the story - all of a myriad of decisions that will, inevitably, end up exposing the subconscious or conscious biases of the editor.

As I have pointed out previously, pictures can show bias by how they are framed, how they are chosen, how the captions are written and even whether they are taken to begin with.

On the flip side, I can well understand how Fox News' claims of being "fair and balanced" is treated with derision by liberals. Of course it isn't. I believe that it is an important counterweight to the vast majority of left-leaning media, but to pretend that it is unbiased is absurd.

To give another example from the "other side" - I just read an Arab News editorial from a woman who wrote two articles, in Arabic, about the sources of Islamic terror. The first one said "Britain’s discrimination and sidelining of immigrant Muslims has been one of the main causes of creating a culture of extremism among Muslims in Britain. " The second said that "certain expressions of extremism among young British Muslims were mainly caused by certain “fatwas” or religious edicts issued by some of our (Saudi) scholars."

The author, Hatoon Al-Fassi, points out that only one of those articles was translated by MEMRI - the second. She is concerned that because people in the West only saw her second article, then the points made in the first are not noticed by anyone except people who read Arabic.

MEMRI has to pick and choose what to publish just like any other media outlet (or blog, for that matter.) It has a bias too.

(The author seems quite comfortable writing in English and I don't see what is stopping her from publishing her own translation about Britain's discriminatory policies - she strikes me as a pretty honest writer and it is all too rare to see well thought out articles in English from the Arab world. From what I can tell, it is a pretty good bet that much of European Muslim extremism comes from the fact that Muslims are not assimilated into society nearly as much as they are in the USA.

(Of course, her comparatively reasoned approach doesn't stop her from saying that MEMRI is "a right-wing organization which supports the Zionist, Israeli enemy." At least she has the honesty to say right afterwards "I am not denying the fact that MEMRI’s translation of my article was accurate and beautifully written." I would much rather hear her opinions than those of most of the hypocritical Arab writers I usually find.)

I strive for truth and accuracy on this blog, but my choice of topics shows my clear biases. Yesterday I had a cordial exchange with a moderator at MideastYouth.com, which appears to be a bastion of free speech forArabs. He mildly criticized one of my articles and pointed out my own inaccuracies and biases, which I was happy to discuss. And I will be thrilled if he finds me examples of moderate Muslims that are overlooked by the mainstream media (which is also a bias.) From thousands of miles away, I only have a limited amount of information to form my opinions, and most of it is from the MSM, directly or indirectly.

This is the greatest promise of the Internet - the ability to gather and report information from sources that are outside the traditional media. Just like cable news has supplanted network news over the past two decades, the Internet has the potential to do the same to the MSM.

The flipside, of course, is that much of the Internet is filled with half-truths and outright lies, and people do not read as critically as they should. Stupidities like 9/11 conspiracy theories can travel over the Internet much faster than the truth can. Just like reporters have biases, so do the consumers who are willing to believe things that jive with their prebaked opinions and ignore any facts that don't fit.

It gets frustrating, but we can only do what we can.
  • Wednesday, September 13, 2006
  • Elder of Ziyon
13 years ago today, the Oslo Accords were signed on the White House Lawn. It is worthwhile to recall exactly what the Palestinian Arabs promised on that day, and to remind the world how well they have implemented their initial promises:
September 9, 1993

Yitzhak Rabin

Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.

The PLO considers that the signing of the Declaration of Principles constitutes a historic event, inaugurating a new epoch of peaceful coexistence, free from violence and all other acts which endanger peace and stability. Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.

In view of the promise of a new era and the signing of the Declaration of Principles and based on Palestinian acceptance of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the PLO affirms that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.

Sincerely,

Yasser Arafat
Chairman
The Palestine Liberation Organization
Every single agreement and "peace" initiative taken since then has been based on this set of five false promises.

And practically no one nowadays holds the Palestinian Arabs to this original agreement, as they keep on pressuring Israel to make concession after concession in the pursuit of a illusory peace - while the PalArabs never got past their initial obligations of thirteen years ago.
  • Wednesday, September 13, 2006
  • Elder of Ziyon
A very interesting editorial in the Gulf News illustrates Arab mentality. Here are some excerpts:
Arabs are better off now
By Abdulkhaleq Abdullah, Special to Gulf News
professor of Political Science at UAE University, Al Ain.


It is time to examine the outcome of the war on Lebanon after Israel lifted its aerial and naval siege, and the commitment of the concerned parties to the UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

This raises a question: Are Arabs better off or worse than they were before the war? There are four reasons why Arab governments and peoples are relatively in a better condition than they were before the war.

The first reason is attributed to Hezbollah's fierce and valiant resistance against the bad Israeli performance in the 33-day war. It boosted the confidence of the Arabs after they realised they have a significant source of potential power.

On the other side, the Israelis have lost faith in their government and army.

The controversial discussion about the quality and significance of the victory and the size of destruction caused by the war is legitimate and healthy. But, despite the massive destruction in Lebanon, the Arabs seem to be better off after the war.

Logically, when Israel is in a worse condition, which is the case now, Arabs are definitely better off.

Although Israel was not routed in the battle, it surely seems defeated and frustrated. It is also living in a state of doubt and comprehensive review of its military and political performance during the war.

The equation of victory and defeat between the Arabs and the Zionist state has always been and will remain zero equation. This means that when Israel is defeated, Arabs have the right to celebrate victory.
The idea that a conflict is a zero-sum game is not only laughably simplistic, it is wrong - unless one side wants it to be that way. Which shows very nicely how interested the Arabs are in ever reaching a peaceful solution with Israel, under any circumstances.

Israel looks at the conflict and says, "How can we improve the entire situation? What solutions can be advantageous to both us and our enemies?"

Real peace is not a zero-sum conclusion to a conflict - it is a win-win. This should be obvious to anyone besides UAE political science professors. If two nations are at peace, they save huge amounts of money for defense, money that can be used for constructive purposes. They can pool resources and help each other out. They can grow their economies together.

Westerners naturally look at problems and try to find win-win solutions. This article shows that such a thought is utterly foreign to articulate, seemingly moderate Arabs.

His point is so ludicrous - if Israel had killed a million Lebanese rather than a thousand, but still felt "defeated and frustrated," then his absurd logic would still consider this a victory for the Arabs.

Nice of him to think so highly of the Lebanese that he is willing to sacrifice them all to gain the illusion of victory.
The second reason can be attributed to the state of unity that dominated the Arab street in their reaction to the Israeli aggression. Arabs have become more unified in the face of the Israeli aggression.
[...]
Hatred of Israel can be found in the genes of all Arabs. Although it is hereditary, its intensity varies from time to time. All facts on the ground indicate that the Arab rejection of the Zionist entity reached its peak after the aggression.

The unification of Arabs in their deep enmity against Israel is a positive matter, but such feelings will not last forever, since they are influenced by the progress of the peace process in the region.
"We hate, and that's great!"

This is not a wild-eyed fanatic, a Muslim extremist, a Kalashnikov-toting terrorist. This is the professor of a university for a nation that has close ties with the West and is considered an ally.

And his words are pure hate.

How can anyone reasonably talk about a peace treaty when the Arab world is, by its own admission, consumed with a "hereditary" hate for Israel (which means, of course, a hatred that predates Israel.) This hatred is carried even to distant Arab countries that have nothing to gain from Israel's destruction - and it is considered a desirable character trait!

For such a people, peace is not an end state, but at best a tactic on the way to total victory. Until the Arab people stop their puerile 15th century thinking, there is absolutely no chance that Israel will live in peace and security, no matter how many concessions she makes.
  • Wednesday, September 13, 2006
  • Elder of Ziyon
In 1877, a wealthy Jewish banker named Joseph Seligman tried to book a room at the Grand Union Hotel in Saratoga, NY and was told that he cannot be admitted - because he was Jewish. This was an edict devised by the hotel's manager, an ex-judge named Henry Hilton (no relation to the Hilton hotel family.)

This article in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle describes what happened, and while it tries hard to be as liberal as one could expect a newspaper to be in 1877, it ends up adding its own slightly more subtle anti-semitism to its analysis of the situation.

The newspaper, while disagreeing with Hilton's logic that Jews were uncivil, ends up siding with Hilton that if Israelites cause the Christians to be unhappy, then it is proper for them to be banned - as unfortunate as that may be.

The subtext in this and all similar articles from the time period is that Jews are not Americans, that they are at best some sort of exotic aliens with different manners and habits, but in no way would they be included in the same circle of coworkers or friends of the reporters.



Hilton expanded on his bigoted logic, saying that he had no problem with Hebrews (meaning Sephardic Jews) but he disliked "Jews", meaning Ashkenazic Jews like Seligman:



This was followed two years later by banning of Jews in a hotel in Coney Island, which received a great deal of coverage in the Eagle, including interviews with society ladies who agreed with the ban, rabbis who disagreed, and a lawyer who felt that the ban might not be technically illegal because summer beach hotels might not be considered "hotels" in the legal sense.

Editorial cartoonists at the time evidently enjoyed lampooning Jews. Harper's had an article that was supposedly against the ban, but the cartoonist seemed to think otherwise:

(This Harper's article is mistaken that Hilton and the Coney Island manager started an organization called "The American Society for the Suppression of the Jews." It appears that this was part of a satirical article printed in a Jewish newspaper about the incidents at the time.)

Another cartoonist, Puck, had his own solution to the problem:


Did Hilton's bigoted business decision pay off? Apparently not, according to this article from 1883. Hilton is sarcastically described as a "genius" in so thoroughly managing to ruin a beautiful hotel that was run profitably and successfully for decades before he became manager:


And how did the Jews react to this banishment? By beating Hilton at his own game. This article from ten years after the initial banning shows that Jews took Puck's tongue-in-cheek advice and ended up buying many hotels as well as presumably ruining Saratoga with their uncivilized presence. The article also relishes the possibility that a Jew might even buy the Grand Union and kick Hilton out.


That did not ever happen, and Judge Hilton died in the late 1890s, but not until after enduring the embarrassment of his son carrying on publicly with a mistress, a comic opera singer.

Discrimination against Jews in hotels continued, however, with a similar case in Providence and a hotel owned by the ex-governor of Rhode Island in 1897. The "Hebrew" sued for $50,000 in damages, but I could not find out the outcome of the case.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

  • Tuesday, September 12, 2006
  • Elder of Ziyon
Ralph Peters, whom I generally like, wrote an op-ed last week accusing some unnamed people in America of being "Islam-haters."
The most repugnant trend in the American shouting match that passes for a debate on the struggle with Islamist terrorism isn't the irresponsible nonsense on the left - destructive though that is. The really ugly "domestic insurgency" is among right-wing extremists bent on discrediting honorable conservatism.

How? By insisting that Islam can never reform, that the violent conquest and subjugation of unbelievers is the faith's primary agenda - and, when you read between the lines, that all Muslims are evil and subhuman.

I've received no end of e-mails and letters seeking to "enlighten" me about the insidious nature of Islam. Convinced that I'm naive because I defend American Muslims and refuse to "see" that Islam is 100 percent evil, the writers warn that I'm a foolish "dhimmi," blind to the conspiratorial nature of Islam.

Web sites list no end of extracts from historical documents and Islamic jurisprudence "proving" that holy war against Christians and Jews is the alpha and omega of the Muslim faith. The message between the lines: Muslims are Untermenschen.

We've been here before, folks. Bigotry is bigotry - even when disguised as patriotism. And, invariably, the haters fantasizing about a merciless Crusade never bothered to serve in our military (Hey, guys, there's still time to join. Lay your backsides on the line - and send your kids!).

It's time for our own fanatics to look in the mirror. Hard. (And stop sending me your trash. I'll never sign up for your "Protocols of the Elders of Mecca." You're just the Ku Klux Klan with higher-thread-count sheets.)

Another trait common among those warning us that Islam is innately evil is that few have spent any time in the Muslim world. Well, I have. While the Middle East leaves me ever more despairing of its future, elsewhere, from Senegal to Sulawesi, from Delhi to Dearborn, I've seen no end of vibrant, humane, hopeful currents in the Muslim faith.

I'm no Pollyanna. I'm all for killing terrorists, rather than taking them prisoner. I know we're in a fight for our civilization. But the fight is with the fanatics - a minority of a minority - not with those who simply worship differently than those of us who grew up with the Little Brown Church in the Vale.

Nidra Poller wrote an interesting response that was quoted in Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch site.

As a person who may or may not qualify as an Islam-hater in Peters' estimation, I am somewhat offended at potentially being labeled a bigot.

I have mentioned before that I have no real problem with Islam as a personal belief system, and in fact I find much of it admirable. In my estimation, the danger is not from individuals practicing their faith privately or communally; it is from them using Islam as a political ideology.

Political Islam is, from everything I can see, essentially equivalent to fascism. And opposing it is not being bigoted any more than opposing any other ideology from communism to Nazism. A political movement that aims to literally take over the world and subjugate non-members under its control is a pretty good definition of evil.

Peters then brings up massive strawmen - that these unnamed bigots want to kill a billion Muslims, that none of the millions of American Muslims have ever strapped a bomb and attacked a Wal-Mart.

But it is possible to ask questions about Islam and how it is practiced by today's Muslims - whether by the majority, a significant minority or even the 0.1% that still represent over a million potential terrorists - without being bigoted. In fact, not asking these questions would be foolhardy.

I have one basic question that I would like Peters to answer. This question is, I believe, the key to knowing whether Peters is right that we do not have to worry about the vast majority of Muslims or not. I know how Jihad Watch would answer, but if Jihad Watch is being tarred with the "bigot" brush by Peters, then I'd like to know what he thinks:

Is it an important tenet of Islam to establish a worldwide Islamic 'ummah, using jihad as the method?

It is easy to say that the extremists are "hijacking" the religion. But it seems to be exceedingly difficult to define the religion in a way that proves that the extremists' interpretations of the Koran are wrong.

I am not aware of any "reform" Islam that interprets the Koran in any way that is not literal. Perhaps many Muslims are not religious, perhaps many Muslims are liberal. But if they cannot argue with the mullahs and sheikhs on their own turf, if they do not have a strong liberal philosophy that can stand on its own and remain within the tradition of Islam, then they are worthless to fight Islamism. So many people say that "moderate Islam" is the solution, but this is a theoretical construct - there may be Shiites and Sunnis and Salafists, but there are no identifiable Reformers or Liberals within the Muslim religion that have made any inroads.

Peters is right when he points out that American Muslims are far more liberal then their Middle East counterparts, and less likely to gravitate to terror. But one must ask - is this because they interpret Islam in a liberal fashion, or because they are a minority and only act towards the jihad of political Islam when they reach a critical mass?

Dearborn has the greatest concentration of Muslims in the US. When they enjoy a greater measure of political power and cohesiveness, do they remain as liberal as the Muslims elsewhere in America, or do they become more intolerant? From what I am reading, they are the biggest supporters of the Hezbollah terror group in the US, and their size makes them unafraid to say it out loud.

If Muslims as a whole embrace and agree with the philosophy of jihad, of a reconstituted caliphate, of reconquering Spain, of killing all infidels and extracting the jizya tax from the dhimmis - then we have a major problem. If, on the other hand, most Muslims reject these goals as irrelevant in today's world - where are their voices and articles saying that? Even when a brave Muslim speaks up, he does not do it from within the parameters of Islam.

All apologetics aside, we have seen the polls where Muslims in most nations (Western and Eastern) do support terror in large numbers. Sometimes they are the majority, sometimes not. Sometimes they go through mental gymnastics to justify only certain kinds of terror (Jewish kids in Tel Aviv are legitimate targets, but not in New York.) What is clear is that the "tiny minority" is not tiny, and pointing this out is not bigoted - it is a necessary step in identifying the scope of the problem, and in finding a real solution.

If you are relying on moderate Muslims to solve the problem, you had better identify their leaders. By any reasonable Western standard, practically all "moderate" Muslims have said things that would be considered outside the pale had a Jew or Christian said something similar.

Answer the question - if people who are identified as "Islam-haters" are such bigots, find a recognized strain of Islam that does not accept the political components of the religion and publicize it. This should be easy if, as Peters say, so many Muslims worldwide "are struggling to move their faith forward in constructive ways."

I haven't been able to find it during the past five years, and I would be thrilled to see it.
  • Tuesday, September 12, 2006
  • Elder of Ziyon
I just read the rambling letter that Iran's president sent to Germany's Angela Merkel, and it is remarkable in its subconcious evocations of Hitler in the 1930s.

Essentially, Ahmadinejad is appealing to Germany's sense of nationalism and patriotism, arguing that the US is subjugating Germany as the loser of World War II. Just as Hitler used extreme nationalism to fire up Germans after the defeat of World War II, Ahmadinejad tries to do the same, blaming America - and the Jews:
Sixty years have passed since the end of the war. But, regrettably the entire world and some nations in particular are still facing its consequences. Even now the conduct of some bullying powers and power-seeking and aggressive groups is the conduct of victors with the vanquished.

The extortion and blackmail continue, and people are not allowed to think about or even question the source of this extortion, otherwise they face imprisonment. When will this situation end? Sixty years, one hundred years or one thousand years, when? I am sorry to remind you that today the perpetual claimants against the great people of Germany are the bullying powers and the Zionists that founded the Al-Qods Occupying Regime with the force of bayonets in the Middle East.
He goes on to compliment Germany's success in rebuilding after the war - but asks Merkel to imagine how much greater it could have been had Germany not bothered to pay reparations to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust:
We need to ask ourselves that for what purposes the millions of dollars that the Zionists receive from the treasury of some Western countries are spent for. Are they used for the promotion of peace and the well-being of the people? Or are they used for waging war against Palestinians and the neighboring countries. Are the nuclear arsenals of Israel intended to be used in defense of the survivors of the Holocaust or as a permanent thereat against nations of the region and as an instrument of coercion, and possibly to defend the interests of certain circles of power in the Western countries.

Regrettably, the influence of the Zionists in the economy, media and some centers of political power has endangered interests of the European nations and has robbed them of many opportunities. The main alibi for this approach is the extortion they exact from the Holocaust.

One can imagine what standing some European countries could have had and what global role they could have played, if it had not been for this sixty-year old imposition.

I believe we both share the view that the flourishing of nations and their role are directly related to freedom and sense of pride.

Fortunately, with all the pressures and limitations, the great nation of Germany has been able to take great strides toward advancement and has become a major economic powerhouse in Europe that also seeks to play a more effective role in international interactions. But just imagine where Germany would be today in terms of its eminence among the freedom-loving nations, Muslims of the world and peoples of Europe, if such a situation did not exist and the governments in power in Germany had said no to the extortions by the Zionists and had not supported the greatest enemy of mankind.
I'm not sure if the US or the Zionists are the "greatest enemy" he is referring to, but it seems that Ahmadinejad's strategy is to divide European opinion and effectively push it to the sidelines as Iran prepares for its leadership role to take on the US.

He goes on to compare Iran to Germany, as another nation whose natural progress was interfered with by the victors of World War II. He tries to point out the unfairness that the US (never mentioned) has veto power at the UN.

After his somewhat opaque call for Germany to accept Islam, he concludes:
Iran and Germany can play a more important role together in the international arena by relying on the noble and high values.

This cooperative relationship can also enhance the role of Europe on the global scene and serve as a model of cooperation between two governments and nations.

Without doubt, cooperation of two peace-loving, powerful and cultured nations of Germany and Iran will serve the interests of Europe as well. Together we must end the present abnormalities in international relations, the type of order and relations that are based on the impositions of the victors of the World War II on the defeated nations. Nations and many governments will be on our side on this path.

We must make the shadow of World War II disappear and help the international community to promote security, freedom and sense of tranquility.

The people of Iran and Germany are two great nations that have contributed to the making of our civilization. They have rich culture and have been in the forefront of science, literature, arts and philosophy. Both of our people have a strong faith in God and follow the teachings of divine prophets. They have also had long-lasting scientific, cultural and commercial relations and share many valuable mutual interests.

I have no doubt that with the cooperation of the two governments and the support of the two great nations we can take great strides forward in alleviating the problems and abnormalities of our world today.
With the exception of the religious component, Iran's aims are clear - achieving superpower status and leadership of the world, turning Europe against America and Jews. He doesn't expect Germany to join Iran, but he does expect to make enough of Europe sympathetic to his anti-US goals, effectively parroting the arguments of neo-Nazis that all of Europe's current problems are the result of the Jews. He explicitly tries to point out how the Muslim world would help Europe economically, implying that the Jews couldn't do as much.

Meanwhile, while he writes about the importance of freedom, he shut down two opposition newspapers in Iran - one of them because of a cartoon lampooning him.

This has been his strategy for over a year now - divide the West, unify Muslim states under his leadership, become a nuclear power and ultimately defeat the US. In some ways, because of the 1.5 billion Muslims who are all potential allies, the millions of European liberals who hate the US with a passion, and the Third World, he may be in better position now towards his genocidal goals then Hitler was after two years in office.
  • Tuesday, September 12, 2006
  • Elder of Ziyon
One cheer for Dick DeVos:
Republican gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos pulled out of a scheduled meeting this week with an Arab-American political group after pressure from some members of the Jewish community, who criticized comments made by the group's leaders about the Middle East.

Spokesman John Truscott said Monday that DeVos had a scheduling conflict, adding that DeVos was concerned about pro-Hizballah comments made by the group's leaders.
This was a remarkably wimpy statement, showing that DeVos is only doing this out of politics, not because he has a fundamental moral problem with speaking to an organization that explicitly and repeatedly supports Hezbollah. DeVos' statements to the Detroit Jewish News were more explicit but he needs to say those statements to the media at large.

The Dearborn-based Arab American Political Action Committee had planned to host DeVos at a "Dinner and Politics" meeting this week. The group has hosted other politicians, both Republican and Democrat, over the years and plans to continue inviting candidates from both parties.

But in an article published last week with the headline: "Don't Mainstream Extremists," Robert Sklar, editor of the Detroit Jewish News, said:

"No legitimate candidate for public office should go before the Dearborn-based Arab American Political Action Committee (AAPAC). That's because its leadership has defended Hezbollah, a virulently anti-Semitic terrorist group that calls for death to America and Israel, seeks an Islamist theocracy and instigated the devastating summertime war against Israel. There's something wrong about candidates for high office in Michigan accepting invitations to address any group that defends Hezbollah."

The article details comments made by AAPAC leaders Osama Siblani and others in recent months during the conflict between Israel and Lebanon.

In the article, Siblani is quoted as saying to the Christian Broadcasting Network that members of Hizballah are not terrorists, but freedom-fighters. The Detroit Jewish News article also quotes Siblani as saying during a rally that the U.S. government is being bought by the Zionist lobby, according to a Free Press article.

Another AAPAC leader is quoted as saying on National Public Radio that Israel is occupied Palestine.

On Monday, Truscott said, "We're concerned about any remarks that would support a terrorist organization."

Siblani said he and the group are "the victim of a smearing campaign in an attempt to stifle debate." He said his comments about Hizballah were made in the context of explaining the views of Arabs.

Many see Hizballah as a freedom-fighting organization, he said. And so his comments "reflect the Arab opinion," Siblani said.

As anyone who ever read the Arab American News can tell you, Siblani is a liar and his newspaper is consistently and vocally pro-Hezbollah. His Dearborn community is not just pro-terror but explicitly threatens Jews - and he is a leader of the organization that held rallies with those very threats. For Osama Siblani to pretend now that he himself doesn't hold these views and that his paper and own editorials are just meant to reflect opinions of others is laughable and remarkably cowardly. His own words, over years and still archived, show who is telling the truth.

Robert Sklar hit the nail on the head in his editorial, which is more damning than this watered-down Detroit Free Press article indicates. The Michigan Arab community is led by people who support terror, and while they have the right to choose their own leaders, Michigan politicians and all people of honor have the duty to call them what they are and refuse to pander to their immoral goals.

AddToAny

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive