Palestine: Myth of a State

Yes--this post's title does not follow the traditional titular style of those preceding it, yet this is all with good reason. Today's writing is not meant to be artful per say; only to send a direct message to the heart of the Israeli-Palestine conflict in light of the recent comments by President Barack Obama. As most already know, the president used his Arab Spring speech to call for an Israeli return to the borders of 1967, when the Zionist state was but a sliver of land surrounded by increasingly hostile neighbors. Obama's basis is the typical Arab argument, yet his position and that of the self-described Palestinians lacks an important factor to boost its credibility: historical facts.

(Photo credit goes to artstruck)

Over 2,500 years ago, the Jews escaped enslavement in Israel and moved to their Promised Land, conquering the pre-Arab tribes there who worshiped idols and establishing the Kingdom of Israel, which would eventually be split into Judah and Israel before its dismantling hundreds of years later. Although Muslims did come to the territory, this would be far into the future, and making up breaks from the Egyptian or Syrian ethnic groups which are more dominant even today.

As time went on, the Promised Land would be governed by Muslim Caliphates (not Palestinians), the Romans, Crusading legions from the Church, and finally, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following the First World War, the British. Under the Mandate of Palestine as it was titled, the British transferred numbers of Jews to the region to supplant the standing population, and eventually forged a two state solution, establishing Transjordan to the east, Syria and Lebanon to the north, and Israel to the south.

Furious about the prospects of sharing land with the Jewish People, the Arab nations banded together and forced Palestinians under Israeli protection to leave the land while distributing propaganda which accused the Jews of doing so. Though pummeled into submission four times during the 20th Century by Israel, the Arabs refuse to give up their pursuit of Israel's destruction, instead favoring a gradual process of elimination through terror strikes and concessions. As Zahir Muhsein once told a reporter "The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism. For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."


Muhsein's quote essentially proves what many pro-Zionists already suspect or know; that the Arabs want Israel destroyed, not simply sectioned off into a smaller portion of the map. To Muslims, it is an insult to be near a Jew or live on the territory of a Jewish State, thus complicating the issue. What is not acceptable however is the Arab refusal to allow the Jews control of Jerusalem, historically more important to the Christians and Jews than to the Muslims. While some may dispute this due to the presence of the Dome of Rock in Jerusalem, we should be sure all facts are considered. Adamant as they are on this impasse, would Muslims agree to a Christian or Jewish nation controlling Mecca? History suggests no.


Peace is something which must be accomplished in the Middle East, yet not without some reasonable preconditions. One, Israel must include Jerusalem and be allowed to exist without unnecessary threats to its security. Two, the PLO should disassociate itself from Hamas and Hizbollah, with policies to promote democracy rather than authoritarianism. Only then can Israel let its guard up and sue for peace in the Holy Land. 

Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

The Audacity of Hate: Helen Thomas

"Every journalist, no matter their network, has a personal agenda. It falls to the people to discover those views before they are consumed by them." ~Unknown. There is nothing magnificent about that old quote, but perhaps it does not truly need to be. After decades of the rise in cable personalities and newspaper columnists it seems fair to warrant consideration of their own views and personal ambitions. Last year in December Helen Thomas helped her viewers out, and in March 2011 she reaffirmed her commitment to personal ideology over objective coverage. Unfortunately hers is w worldview of categorical hate; a coalesced desire to harm and destroy an ethnic and religious group which stands persecuted throughout the world to this very day. Beyond the pretext of Thomas' statements there is however a more sinister shadow to analyze: the rising hate which can--and already has translated into violence against Jewish people.

(Photo credit goes to mediaite.com)

The 90-year old reporter's unremarkable statements echo the common shallow attack used by sore anti-Semites around the globe: Jews should leave the land they stole (Palestine), and Jews somehow control the presidency, congress, news media, and banking system. Perhaps Thomas would like to consider her own race (Arab) and its tendency to control and starve the world of oil for monetary gain. Or mayhaps the Saudi King's profiting like a Westernized playboy while his people have nothing and lie miles below the poverty line.

No, one must suppose these things must be excused because inexplicably they will be blamed on the Jews (funny enough, given that Israel allows considerable free speech rights to both Muslims and Christians, a virtuous policy not common in the surrounding countries of the Middle East).

But to address the initial argument from the haters of Jews, what is truly wrong with that? Have human rights suffered under the Jews controlling of J-Street, as their critics imply? Is the fact that an American Jewish male or female is a member of an elite institution or works on Wall Street the damning proof needed to indict them for figurative (or even literal) slaughter? Success is not guaranteed to anyone in this world; what if Jewish citizens tend to be part of an oligopoly of it? Anyone inevitably can join if they work hard enough, so that proclaimed view is harshly ridiculous by all considerations.

Notwithstanding prior commentary, how can the Jews be faulted for wanting a quick and sensitive response to anti-Semitism? Since their coming into existence Judaic peoples have been persecuted, and this is merely their attempt at protecting themselves after the events of the Holocaust.

Then the hateful ruffians conspire with their secondary line of attack: Jews stole Palestine from the Arab-Muslims. Anyone who has ventured into the colorful subject known as World History knows that the Jews arrived in Palestine (the Promised Land) decades before the Muslim Faith was at infantile stages. At that point listed as the Israelites, the newcomers swept in and conquered the territory (entirely legitimate in the B.C. era, as all nations would and did agree). Years later the Jews would offer to protect the remaining Arabs of Palestine once the State of Israel formed, yet Pan-Arabian influences told otherwise, forcing the majority of Arab citizens in the Gaza Strip and Palestine to flee. It was from this that they would fabricate the tale of evil Judaic conquest that tore them from their homeland.

Some may be quick to brush off this issue as irrelevant, yet it should not be treated so lightly. Adolf Hitler succeeded in his carnage because the Jewish people considered his schemes impossible on a larger scale, and yet his triumph came while they stayed unawares. The same logic must be applied to the present day situation, as incredulous as it may be for a 21st Century person (intellectual or plain) to fathom. Groups from the radicals of the Middle East like Al Qaeda and Western movements led by bigots like David Duke must be carefully monitored and discredited before they gain further steam. American Jews in particular must be certain not to fall for the same mistakes as their forefathers did in pre-World War II Germany. All that it will take for evil to triumph is if wise men turn their minds aside and ignore growing threats to long-term security.

In the name of freedom and the enduring legacy of the Jewish People, America and Europe must stand to quash anti-Semitism before it grows stronger and more prone to successful missions against democracy and a free society.



Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

The Dangers of Jones and Paul

If one message showed most clearly in the terrible events of the January 8th Tuscon tragedy it is that anti-antisemitism is alive and well in the modern world, continuing to pose a threat to the Jewish People even years after Hitler's defeat and the end of the Nazi Holocaust. Perhaps the most shocking element to it all is that political figureheads within the United States of America seem to be actively aiding the vile spread if such poisonous language through their masses of tangles conspiratorial theories about a so called New World Order and the part which Jewish individuals have to play in it. At the forefront are both Alex Jones and Ron Paul, two men whose views have begun to verge into a vitriolic hate which places Jewish Americans in particular in danger.

The basis of the arguments spun by both men is that Jews control too much power or fall under the greedy stereotype all too much of a regularity in classics by authors such as Charles Dickens and Oscar Wilde. They continually stipulate that Semitic persons are responsible for the financial meltdowns and control both the media and government through their elitist educational ties.

While these claims have been proven inaccurate time after time, the mere presence of the views as they sink into an implied conservative body has left many Americans believing them to be an integral part of the right-wing in this country. As anyone might expect, their views pollute the environment of political dialog by confusing people about where they should best stand on the issue. People who consider an elected official like Ron Paul to be above the fray so to speak may cave to his borderline anti-Semitism because they believe him to be a guru on all other issues and cannot bear to leave his side on this one.    

It is not to say that Congressman Paul has been as furiously anti-Jew as his talk show associate, yet his focusing on particular issues and lack of support for the state of Israel seem to betray a marked disinterest in firmly rejecting the notion that Jewish people should be spat upon or in any way harmed. More flauntingly, Paul and Jones are helping to stitch the far right and left fringes together in order to construct a united front of skepticism towards Jews and Israel in general that damages both American unity and encourages anger to be focused on the ethnic and religious group.

Ron Paul needs to come out and reject this vicious hate for Jews which is simmering up from among his support groups because it places the American mission to the Middle East in jeopardy. If we are to win a war against terrorism and alongside Israel then we cannot have citizens in large numbers who question the merits of our closest ally in the region, as well as our only true fellow democratic nation there.

In today's world, another Holocaust is only one oppressive mob away from occurring, and America needs to quash it before it grows more problematic than a simple fringe group. Even now a Jewish congresswoman may never recover because of the hateful attitude towards Jewish people and six others are dead. For their sake, this nation has a responsibility to reverse this trend towards violence targeting Jews and Israel.



Matthew Keller

National Alliance Vice President for Religion and Spirituality 

Whose Jerusalem?

Since its formation, the National Alliance Foundation has firmly held the view that Israel is a force of good within the Middle East which must be be both assisted and protected by America and its allies in order to preserve the greater security for the entire world, as well as the allowance of religious freedom in the zone. Thus it is in perfect character for us to step out and clearly differentiate between the arguments which Palestinian sympathizers and the pan-Arabian nations have tried to spin about the importance of the city of Jerusalem, and the truth.

For longer than most would care to consider, the State of Israel has been targeted by the Arabian states for absolute and total elimination from the face of the planet, despite of its relatively small size. Repeated attempts by the Egypt-Jordan-Syria alliance were met with considerable failure throughout much of the past 50 years, yet the bloc shows no desire of letting up its hopes. One might find it hard to explain, seeing as the country is a mere strip of life bordering the Mediterranean; not a massive threat to each of their security.

It's further intriguing that nowhere in the Qu'ran or other Islamic texts is Jerusalem mentioned as holding particular value as part of religious principles or doctrine. When Mohammed began his religious expansion years ago, he designated Mecca, Saudi Arabia as the religion's most important city, only turning his sights to Jerusalem once it was realized that the city harbored a large non-Muslim population that might be persuaded to convert and strengthen the fledgling faith.

Truthfully, it is not hard to see why Mohammed took this path. Despite the rest of the region's committal to idols beforehand, he managed to popularize and forcefully spread Islamicism across the breadth of the Middle East, Southern Russia, Southeast Asia, and most of Northern Africa. Yet in all this accomplishment, Jerusalem held out as the Jewish haven and citadel, making it a thorn to his plans for universal Muslim dominance in the world. Essentially, the Islamic argument is based on a desire to spread the religion, reject aggression or violence.

On another note, Jerusalem represents the last holdout of democracy in an almost entirely authoritarian Middle East. Try as they might to argue for freedom and a more united region, the pan-Arabian states largely ignore the fact that they are run by monarchs or puppet prime ministers, while Israel healthily exchanges power between both the right and left of their country, spiritual and moderate. In Israel's borders, average people are allowed to attend Islamic mosques or Jewish synagogues without persecution; the case is not the same for its neighbors, countries where other faiths are persecuted if they try to rebuild structures or expand into the government for influence.

Today's world is not a safe place for assumption; rather, the debate must be clear and without marring splotches about its coat. Israel is a necessary presence in the Middle East in order to preserve democratic ideals and religious freedom--Jerusalem being its heart and soul. Only consistent dedication and upholding of its security can help the world become a more united and free-expressing domain.

Ayla Samadi

National Alliance Vice President for Domestic Affairs