Ben Hubbard of the New York Times is very worried. You see he is right. He wrote today that he fears that pro-US peaceful and democratic leaders of the Gulf may get ideas that violence works, given its use by Bashshar Al-Asad. Hubbard added that those potentates have been ruling by peace all their lives and the violence in Syria shook them to the core. Worse, he said that Obama hurt the feelings of Saudi peaceful ruler--the horrors. But worse: Hubbard is also deeply disturbed that Obama promised but did not bomb Syria: "Mr. Obama did not bomb Syria, angering the opposition and allies like Saudi Arabia, who felt he had further empowered Mr. Assad." In the article somewhere, Hubbard said this: "Many Syrians, including in government-held parts of Aleppo, will be happy when Mr. Assad takes back the whole city because they see him as a symbol of a unified state or because they distrust the rebels for accepting support from foreign powers. Others will just be glad the fighting has stopped." Wait: so you are conceding that there is more than one side and yet every single person you cite in this long article belong to one side? Was this taught in journalism 101? Or was that in Zionism 101?