Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Monday, September 18, 2006

PalArabs blame - who else? - the Joooos for church bombings

I'm surprised it took this long. Because everyone knows that Muslims just don't do anything wrong, ever, and they are always being framed by those sly Joooooos.

Palestinian nationalist and Islamic leaders on Sunday strongly condemned fire-bombing attacks against a few churches in the West Bank, calling the incidents “suspicious” and “incompatible with Palestinian and Islamic culture.” Three churches in Nablus, Tulkarm and Tubas in the northern West Bank have been attacked with fire-bombs by unknown perpetrators resulting in minor damage.
The mayor of Tubas, where a small Greek Orthodox Church was attacked, accused “suspicious elements,” a reference to Israeli Shin Bet (Israel’s chief domestic intelligence agency) agents of “ having embarked on this ugly act and criminal act.”

“It is either Israeli collaborators or some overzealous fools upset by the remarks of the Pope,” said Iqab Darghmeh (Abu Ahmed), in a telephone interview.
Sheikh Muhammed Hussein, the highest-ranking Muslim clergyman in East Jerusalem described the bombing as “immoral, unethical and injurious to Palestinian unity.”
“Those who perpetrated these acts don’t represent the Palestinian people. They are a gang of ignoramuses and fanatics, or suspicious elements.” In the Palestinian political lexicon, “suspicious elements” is an allusion to Israeli collaborators and informers.
Meanwhile, the Islamic Resistance group, Hamas, strongly condemned attacks on churches in parts of the West Bank, calling such attacks “criminal and harmful to the Palestinian cause.”
“I am sure that Israel is enjoying this. Israel always wants to create problems and divisions between Muslims and Christians. And those who committed these acts are only serving Zionist propaganda and goals,” said Yousuf Ibrahim, a Hamas spokesperson in the Bethlehem region.

“I am nearly certain that at least some of the perpetrators are Israeli agents.”

By the way, the "reporter" of this article accuses the English Al-Jazeera channel of being a Zionist enterprise and routinely compares Israel to Nazi Germany.

So his objectivity is beyond reproach.

The banner from a Jordan rally says:

Islam drove people from the darkness and into the light

Here are examples of that light.

From Pakistan:

From Iraq:

Iraqis set fire to an effigy of Pope Benedict XVI during a protest in the southern city of Basra.

I see the light!

And finally, here's an example of the "dialogue" that Muslims want to have in order to calm the situation, from our "moderate" Muslim friends in Indonesia:

Activists and supporters of militant Indonesian Muslim group Front for Defenders of Islam (FPI) shout slogans against Pope Benedict XVI during a demonstration in front of the Holy See embassy in Jakarta.

I'm not quite sure if the reasonable-looking Muslim holding this sign is completely aware of the subtleties of the Pope's speech.

Mere Rhetoric

Omri's blog is so damned good, it makes me want to pack up and leave the 'sphere. I have nothing original to add after reading him.

I don't even have time to read all of his posts. When does he find the time to write them?

Shana Tova wishes for the captives

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.

Religion of Peace damage report

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.

An object lesson in Islamic paranoia

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.

Insane Muslims Protestors of the Day (9/16)

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?

Insane Muslim Protesters of the Day 9/15 - The Hump of Islam

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!

Diary of this week's PalArab self-violence

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.

No Jews, dogs (or cats) allowed

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!

Hezbollah rejects Amnesty report. It also admits it targeted civilians.

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?

Everyone is biased

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.

13th Anniversary of Arafat's greatest victory

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.

Arab hate and the zero-sum game

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.

The Saratoga incident, 1877

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.