Since the conquest of wealthy Kheibar, the center of Jewish power in Arabia, Mohammed imposed political subjection and economic exploitation upon the Jews, who then continued to exist throughout Islam within self-administering religious communities, called “millets,” until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The Jew’s position as a tolerated group of outsiders was extremely vulnerable, and even exposure to the modern West did not affect Muslim treatment of Jews for the better, since Western maltreatment of Jews fitted with old Muslim practice. 

George Sale, the English translator of the Koran, wrote one hundred and twenty years ago that Muslims then treated the Jews “as the most abject and contemptible people on earth.” This attitude existed long before the term "Zionism" was coined. The contempt of Jews pervaded everyday behavior. An Arab who felt he was being treated with contempt by another would say: "Am I a Jew to you?", just as his Western counterpart, who feels cheated in a business transaction, says: “I was ‘Jewed.’” That this most abject, Jewish "millet" should presume to rule over Muslims in the Arab heartland is a particularly unbearable thought, and is probably sufficient reason why it is NOT the shape or extent, but rather the FACT of Jewish STATEHOOD, that most disturbs the Arabs.

Wherefore Umar Rushdi, lecturer in National Guidance at the Egyptian Military Academy, wrote in his book, “Zionism and its Protegé Israel,” pp. 61: “As we have said and will always say, there is no possibility that Israel shall live in the middle of an environment that loathes and despises her; not only is this the Arab feeling, but they [the Arabs] are profoundly convinced that their existence is a constant danger to the security and integrity of the region, and that Israel does not represent a State but the focus of imperialist plots and intrigues against this region. It is obvious that the absorption of Israel in the Arab homeland is impossible in any shape or form."

The Seventh chapter of the Egyptian National Covenant states: “Imperialistic Intrigue went to the extent of seizing a part of Arab territory of Palestine, in the heart of the Arab Motherland, and usurping it without any justification or right of law, the aim being to establish a military fascist regime, which cannot live except by military threats. The real danger of this threat emulates from the fact that Israel is the tool of imperialism.” 

Anwar Gamal Abdul Nasser, Egyptian President before Anwar Sadat, often declared that the establishment of Israel was the “greatest crime in history” (July 9, 1955), and of Ben Gurion, Israel’s "great old man" and first Prime-Minister, that he, not Hitler, was the greatest criminal in this century. “To the disaster of Palestine there is no parallel in human history,” he declared on December 23rd, 1953, disregarding the murder of six million Jews.
 
 

Yet another feature figures prominently in the categorical rejection of Israel and any peace- settlement with her, this being the wounded pride and self-esteem of the Arabs, sustained after their defeat by Israel. The Muslim heritage and tradition lean heavily upon the idea that war is a particularly appropriate and successful manner of Muslim assertiveness, while the Jews are naturally defenseless and unmanly. Repeated defeat at the hands of those "defenseless and unmanly creatures” has created for the Arabs an emotional-ideological dead-lock that no Western diplomacy nor Israeli compromise can undo. Arabs, as admitted by foreign observers, are a fiercely vengeful people. "With the Arabs, to be implacable and revengeful is the sign of a proud and noble man. 'He who takes revenge after forty years is in a hurry,' says a Beduin proverb. Even today, blood feuds and honor codes have profound implications for manhood and self-worth among these people."

Since the creation and subsequent defense of the Jewish State has entailed both humiliation and casualties for the Arabs, wounded pride and vengefulness has aggravated Arab hostility to Israel. Because this attitude is foreign to the West, the fierce blood curdling threats of vengeance toward Israel unfortunately have been overlooked and been portrayed as a somewhat theatrical “save Face" conduct, not to be taken seriously. Therefore, this total lack of understanding blinds the West to the real Arab intentions and aspirations, which is not the restoration of the territories to the Palestinians, nor the solution to the refugee problem, but: the liquidation and utter elimination of the state of Israel.

Although it is common knowledge that hypocrisy and deception are especially prominent in Arab life, Western interviewers of Arab leaders do not allow this characteristic feature to intrude upon their intimate appraisal of the latter, nor is any clarification given to typical Arab terminology in relation to the Israeli-Palestinian “conflict.” It is a whole coded language, and unless one carefully listens and reads their repeated rhetoric, one will be fooled by the harmless enough sounding vocabulary. For instance, a "just and comprehensive solution" to the Palestine problem does not mean some negotiable compromise, but the destruction of the State of Israel. 

Former king Hussein of Jordan asserted "that Jordan was never reconciled to the creation of Israel, imposed de facto on the Arab states in 1948. Jordan and the other Arab states firmly believe, as they do today, that a situation so starkly unjust could never last - and believe passionately that the world's conscience would sooner or later rectify the wrong by a just and satisfactory solution." ⁴⁷ Since the creation of Israel is regarded as the greatest crime and starkest injustice in all of human history, the only "just and satisfactory" solution is, of course, the elimination of this injustice. As a Damascus Radio commentator said on August 6, 1964: "…There is no way to stability in this region except by the liquidation of the causes of the instability, which constitute the cancer - Israel."

Time and space do not permit me in this letter to adequately list and quote the repeated rhetoric of Arab leaders, which has by no means decreased but rather heavily intensified. Please note that the terminology of Arabic nationalism and hate-rhetoric differs between that meant for home consumption and that fed to the West. The latter, made to manipulate public opinion, has the Westerners believing in Arab moderation, which results in pressuring for Israeli concessions on any issue with the Arabs as a matter of course. But let me touch on some more historical facts, to provide you with yet a clearer picture.

In reaction to the establishment of the Jewish Homeland, the Arabs founded “The Arab League” on March 22, 1945 with a signing of a pact in Cairo⁴⁸ by Syria, [Trans]Jordan, Iraq, Saudi-Arabia, Lebanon, Egypt and Yemen⁴⁹. The principal objective of the League (which almost became the main justification for its existence) was the political, propaganda, economic, and military offensive against Israel, popularly referred to as “the struggle for the liberation of Palestine,” i.e. the liquidation of Israel. Explicitly prohibited was any acquiescence to Israel’s existence or the making of separate arrangements with her⁵⁰  (Resolution of April 1950).

* See also page 7 regarding size difference