Catch-all Fascism?

Since the origin of fascist movements in Nazi Germany and the Kingdom of Italy it has become a custom fro historians to simply label the ideology of governance as right-wing totalitarianism opposite the force of communism, commonly viewed as the Left's own version of top-down control. Though many are happy to simply agree to this, there is reason to suggest that this general consensus needs to be more totally fleshed out.

(Image credit goes to www.JewishVirtualLibrary.org)

This is because labeling fascism as necessarily right-wing also demands the notion that the fascist dictatorships which endured so long without much opposition internally were not supported by at least a majority of the country's population. Both Augusto Pinochet and Francisco Franco could well be viewed as conservatives, yet their governments were largely powerless outside of the nation's confines, requiring focus almost exclusively on domestic policies due to a limited support base. The fact that strict ideologues have such a difficult time keeping control better gives them the association with authoritarianism, a style that desperately needs strong policing to prosper for more than a few years.

When history is taken into account, fascism would best be described as a populist, centrist, or generalist movement that has never truly been opposed by a simple majority of citizens underneath its government of operation. Mussolini is often attacked for his supposed anti-leftist policies, but in reality he held the support of numerous labor unions and implemented the establishment of public corporations to consolidate political power. Hitler was not very different, with the Nazis openly promoting socialism and expanding government services to accommodate even the poorest of citizenry.

Perhaps the best explanation for why fascism is at its core a populist movement is that most people under its girdle asked for its all-encompassing implementation. Mussolini's rise may seem anti-democratic in the eyes of today's scholars, but it was not so far removed from the Roman Empire's system of totalitarian monarchs dating back to the glory ages of previous decades. The National Fascists also offered order in a country torn by cultural divisions and a hate for a democratic voting system -- an emotion that translates into the lackluster turnouts of the present day. Even Hitler was hardly a loathed figure when he came to power, as he promised and delivered on restoring the country's economy for all Germans -- radical socialists and laborers included.

As far as the supposed international opposition to fascism, evidence would suggest to the contrary. Mussolini's policies of equality were immensely popular among Italian Jews during the early days of his rule, and across the English Channel even the heroic Winston Churchill looked to the Duce as a potential ally in the post World War anti-communist movement.

So is fascism of one strict ideology, or a melting pot of different beliefs? The conclusion is up for grabs.


Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

The Revolution: Only for Arabia?

As change-starved rebels begin the final stages of a coordinated NATO assault on the remnants of Libyan leader Gaddafi's 42-year reign and similar events are occurring in the coastal Syria, everything seems so grandiose and far off to the general media outlets of the United States. For them, the paramount events in Libya give them a great news story that fits a bill of perfected Western fascination; a ragtag team of rebellious citizens overthrow the tyranny of a faraway regime and institute an era of freedom and prosperity across the land. Difficult as it was to accomplish, they now have an opportunity to change the country -- nothing better to warm the American heart, right?

Still the question remains: is the revolution something only for backwater nations who desire to throw off dictators for life, or a universal action to be taken by all nations in defense of common liberty? Our founding document may be respected across the land, but repeatedly leaders in Washington have defied its rules, violated its tenets, a committed acts that earlier generations of Americans would certainly not stand for. And we sit on our hands, calling for a restorational election that has little hope of occurring as long as candidates and officials can spit on the only reason America is not an authoritarian power or the socialist's paradise.

When the current president makes a point of ignoring the necessity for a declaration of war, breaking the principles of the War Powers Act, and even disregarding a UN resolution by helping the Libyan rebels through the CIA, we as Americans must question how far the Constitution can be bent or dodged until liberty and individualism evaporates altogether. No matter how important it may seem to a power-hungry administration, dropping adherence to the swearing document of all federal officials in the name of security or national interests cannot continue to be center to presidential policy, for it risks undoing the nation altogether.

Americans struck a blow against unconstitutional behavior with the elections last year, and yet there is little evidence to suggest that even a plurality of the representatives have any interest is truly undermining the anti-founder mentality that permeates throughout Washington to this day. Both the president and the two leaders in the Senate took an extremely hands off approach to the budget debate several weeks ago, leaving many to wonder whether fundamental shifts in fiscal policy are of any interest to even the most ardent in opposition to "runaway spending," and "job-killing taxes." In short, those who speak the loudest have become hypocrites when it comes to practicing their rage, creating a masterful dilemma for citizens against oppressive, anti-Constitutional government.

(Photo credit goes to createyourownrealitynow.com)

Do we wait until perhaps a Constitution-abiding candidate is miraculously elected to office, or must we use the other more sinister option. Should we mount a revolution? Of course the entire suggestion seems radical to our supposedly modernized intellectual brains, but is it? The Constitution's second order of business was not to provide public access to weapons solely for the occasional hunting season, but for the common defense...and in case of a tyrannical government violating rights in the document. We may not have reached bedevilment from the capitol as extreme as that seen under Germany's once-powerful National Socialist Party or Kim Jong-il, but tossing aside blighting of the Constitution as irrelevant due to circumstance only gives those who would do away with liberty a stronger foothold in America. 

In no way does this mean we as the Alliance are calling for an armed revolution -- in fact, any actions taken should and likely would remain bloodless, but failing to elect a true believer in the Constitution in November 2012 may well necessitate a movement to install a person who does, while enforcing penalties against those who violated the founding document in the past. Were it pulled off correctly, such a change might pave the way for an economic revolution through policies which secure and preserve American liberty in the long-term.

No one desires conflict,  but no cause of man is more just than the eternal defense of freedom and individualism throughout the world. Tyrants will only triumph when those who claim to love patriotism and a liberal system refuse to answer the call in defense of the nation. 

Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

Title VII: Unconstitutional?

Heading into 1964, Barry Goldwater was all but set to win the GOP nomination and capture the White House from the hands of Texas' Lyndon Johnson. With waning popularity and a an administration tarnished due to hosts of scandals, the incumbent president needed a ploy to distract from his weaknesses and retain the American executive's chair for a bit longer, even if the price to pay was in absolute dishonesty. Behaving like a practical politician, Johnson took the plunge by spearheading the Civil Rights Act of 1964, his hopes high that this game-changer would cause the strict constitutionalist ego in Goldwater to overpower political instinct and create a problematic image in the public eye. Regrettably, he was precisely right, and the White House went to Johnson with 486 electoral votes and a 61% popular vote mandate, leaving Goldwater with defeat due to his upholding of the Constitution by opposing the bill. Few other breaches of  the nation's founding rules have been more easily adapted by an administration, and thus the impact of the bill must be considered beyond its initial negatives to demonstrate the dangers of the uneducated masses clinging to emotions rather than governmental knowledge.

 (Photo credit goes to knowledgerush.com)

While Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does establish some reasonable rules for service companies and larger, departmental stores, its more evident problems come in how the tenets included with its pages deliberately hijack the First Amendment when concerning market-specific businesses. Such an entity is one that primarily targets a certain age group or ethnic interest, generally vamping up tactics and promotions to get the greatest benefit from their customers by appealing to a specific desire or concern. Because the business may need to focus solely on a particular type of employee, the legislation creates conflict where it should not remain by undermining business sense.

Thus Title VII's inclusions end up forcing some businesses to make excuses or ridiculous concessions in order to pave the way for the acceptance of employees who may do nothing but detriment to their operating successes. At the most fundamental level, consider a Mexican-styled restaurant targeting both Mexicans and others who enjoy the cuisine and culture. The manager may choose to higher a stage with three guitar-strumming Mariachi, and perhaps a dashing Latino couple, dancing the salsa while the dinning guests look on with interest and wondrous appreciation. Nothing about this arrangement is unnatural for the owner, who wants to attract more customers, and yet a sinister element stands: the desired race. For what if an African-American woman (attractive and trained in dance) applies for the position?

Defenders of the act will argue that this situation is unlikely, yet we all know it is hardly impossible. Under these circumstances it seems natural that the manager-owner might desire a Latina woman instead, though Title VII ties his hands by implying he is a racist for refusing her application on the basis of race. It is doubtful that the man is in fact harboring racial hatred against the applicant, but the 1964 legislation essentially makes this his intent.  

Even on a more specific level, Title VII hurts some companies when marketing is concerned. In the case of the popular restaurant chain Hooters, customers could hardly be described as attending one of its locations simply to dine on mediocre burgers and fries--with all the options available in fast food, this motivation seems more like a pitiful excuse to spouse or girlfriend than anything else. In reality, most attending Hooters for what exactly? Perhaps the stunning women with frontal personality and strategically low-cut shorts? Though not entirely the highest form of marketing out there, the owners have a strategy and intend to follow it, yet once again the problems arise.

Assume for a moment that a Muslim woman wishes to apply not as a kitchen worker but as a waitress, serving food to the horny consumers who wait expectantly for servers in the sexually-charged atmosphere. Now further consider that this woman is prescribed religiously to wear a full body covering and hijab scarf whenever she is out and about or within the workplace. Obviously this does nothing to help Hooters, seeing as few men enter into the restaurant expecting to be served by a semi-ninja, so it seems reasonable that under the First Amendment the management would be justified by rejecting her on the basis of her religious practices in the workplace. Makes sense, right? Tell that to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission however, and Hooters gets smacked with a massive fine (this is adapted from an actual incident).

Civil rights will always remain a subject of controversy in America, yet tossing the Constitution out the window to make way for a neo-multiculturalist agenda is unacceptable and un-American. Businesses should not discriminate with hate towards any one religion, gender, or race, and yet a time must come when it is realized that some discrimination on these foundations is absolutely fundamental to freedom. 

Jessica Yui

National Alliance Vice Chairman

How to Save Italy

One need not be a follower of political philosophy to realize that Italy is in deep trouble. With an incompetent prime minister and corruption permeating both major parties in Rome's Chamber of Deputies, it seems inevitable that the country will fall back into the 50-year pattern of presidents on the council of ministers barely managing to hold 9-month mandates before collapsing or resigning in shame. In truth, the only periods of stability experienced by birthplace of the Roman Empire since the death of Mussolini have been the noble Alcide de Gasperi's 8-year mandate which ended in 1953, and Bettino Craxi's 48 months during the 1980s, known best for their fields of corruption and assistance in producing the clown prince of Rome who holds power today.

(Photo credit goes to GlobalFirepower.com)

With such a horrific record behind state, some might question why anyone would bother to consider the possibilities any longer, and yet the reality is that good reason remains in the interest of doing so. Europe is dying. In England, David Cameron's waffling on neo-multiculturalism is sealing his nation's twilight, and "economics only" policies have prevented needed changes to the countries of Germany as well as Spain. Under Nicholas Sarkozy, France has somewhat pulled itself back from the brink, yet the shadow of his defeat in next year's elections could well undermine this progress forever.   

And so we are left with Italy, a strong Roman Catholic nation that has the opportunity to be the equivalent of Britain during the Second World War, albeit in a different style. By adopting six key reforms to government, Rome may well be capable of turning back the dangerous lean towards Europe's general path, a road lined with destruction and undoing. Few of these changes would be easy to adopt, and some might even endanger the life of the leader to pursue them, but the interests of such a historic world power should not be dashed by fears of death--no matter how serious. Should such a commander arise, Italy may have golden years rather than a winter era in its future.

• Reformation of the Chamber

 Political power always begins or rest within a legislature, and so it is understandable that the heart of the Italian stability problem rests in the divisions of the lower house, which can make or break a prime ministers. More than 600 members currently serve in the house, which creates a singular problem when attempting to achieve a majority government or pass a referendum without needing the consultations of the people, who fail to turn out and render the tests invalid. In order to fix this demise, the number of deputies should be reduced to 533, thus reducing the number of swing blocs that often cripple executive decisions by withdrawing from a coalition. This will further prevent regionalism from continuing to undermine a firm national government, preventing the Party of Values and Lega Nord from winning no confidence votes whenever they please.

•  Reformation of the Senate

The purpose of any upper house is to give membership to a nation's oligarchy; the rich few who can deliberate and pass a resolution without the regional squabbling seen in its lower counterpart. As such the Senate should be made up of the wealthy few, not a colorful bloc of members who can undermine stability by             rejecting a government's formation.  Again, a change in numbers is needed to better the senate's stability. Rather than 315, the chamber should be reduced to 101, allowing for more decisive majorities than what is seen in Rome today.   Furthermore, lifetime senatorial positions must be abolished, eradicating an unneeded drain on the country's monetary supply to provide exorbitant salaries to former executives.

• A Stronger Presidency

The only European nation with as large of an assembly as Italy is France, yet this   reality is offset by the empowerment of the French President under the semi-presidential system. France's governmental structure allows the president to conduct foreign relations and hold certain basic legislative powers while serving    in an popularly chosen term of office. A prime minister is still employed, yet this position manages affairs of state and leads a majority to confirm the cabinet of the president by voting in approval. In short, the executive branch is independent enough that it can remain stable even when the legislative body is weak, thus         preventing the interruption of power that is very evident in Italian politics. Having an appointed president is not enough, as it is powerless in nature and serves little purpose other than to appoint the Council of Ministers.

• Privatization, Privatization, Privatization

 Italy currently struggles with debt making up 120% of GDP, a situation which could well lead to a Greek-style collapse if not adjusted. Instead of following this suicidal form of financial policy, the government should pass structural privatization laws, cutting down government spending and reducing the public workforce while attracting foreign companies to do business within its borders.This move could generationally impact the country, leading to a more motivated populace with less dependency on the government for employment.            Additionally, it would make the country more competitive in the EU race for economic supremacy, preventing its marginalization next to France and Germany in the coming future.

•  Island Security

Perhaps Silvio Berlusconi's greatest achievement during his years in office has been the imposition of harsh illegal immigration restrictions for violators who attempt to enter the country through its southern islands of Sicily and Lampedusa. Simply halting here is not enough, however. The Italian Navy should be moved to             create   a blockade around Lampedusa and its larger cousin, policing the waters and preventing smuggling vessels from dropping immigrants off without proper documentation. If necessary, the standing defense force would fire on ships from Tunisia or Morocco which have been known to transfer black market weapons and drugs into the Italian mainland.  

• Instating of Il Rosso Vento

 This is certainly not the first time when a call for the formation of a group such as Il Rosso Vento has been made, and common sense suggests it will not be the last.Why the title? Well, back in the day European nobles would hire mercenaries for the exact purpose of striking back at bandits and thieves without requiring the             constant use of their own judgment systems. These enforcers for hire were sometimes known as the "Red Wind," as they brought swift justice to lawbreakers without bothering the a lord beyond his money coffers.  

An Italian version of this system in the modern day could be equally as effective, trained by Russian or American private armies and tasked with the extrajudicial neutralization of Mafia members across Sicily and the mainland. With groups such as the Ndrangheta making up most of the South's import wealth, massive             tactical strikes without the interference of the justice system could absolutely undermine organized crime in the same way that Alberto Fujimori defeated the Shining Path terrorists in Peru. Other than being a quick method, the same groups would be able to find incriminating evidence regarding entrenched corruption in the government, handing this off to the authorities and resulting in a cleansing of the public sector.

Inaction has never produced freedom. Only courage can do so. Italy must have the strength to stand and do what is necessary to save itself from the future of Europe.

Nigel Garrison

National Alliance Vice President for European Affairs

Why Ron Paul Will Lose

In the wake of President Obama's bumbling policies related to the economy and the unconstitutional war currently being waged in Libya, many in the Paulist column have come out and openly argued for his election to be the nominee of the Republican Party in next year's critical presidential election. Without delving too much into it, there is some decent evidence that this may in fact be a viable consideration, especially when noting that one poll from Rasmussen showed the Texas congressman trailing Obama by a single percentage point 42-41%. Even when real estate mogul Donald Trump attempted to claim Paul could not win the 2012 race, the latter's supporters launched vitriolic responses across the internet, bashing the whole notion that he would not triumph.

(Photo credit goes to BusinessInsider.com)

Before this I have spoken at length about my disagreements with Mr. Paul on foreign policy in particular, but it would be wrong to solely use this as reason why Trump's assessment is correct. Instead, it is more important to analyze Paul's greatest thorn: the illusion of a national-regional movement.

Anyone understands Paul's history knows he is a prolific fundraiser with a network of support across the nation,  allowing him to raise funds of grandiose proportions in little time, yet this does not make up for the congressman's lack of pluralities in the regional arena. Regardless of how strong one's national visibility may be, without connections in the state committees or trusted presence there, winning a primary is essentially impossible. Mayor Giuliani discovered this in 2008, with his campaign crashing and burning throughout each state's convention as he failed to win over the regional voters. No one would deny Giuliani had a strong national profile, but his familiarity with the state-by-state process was so weak that it destroyed his chances at the nomination.

Beyond the simple issue of local support, the Campaign for Liberty's chairman faces a conundrum when considering the prospects of his fellow vying comrades in the quest for the GOP's banner. The congressman may like to rip them as "establishment picks," yet that exact factor is what will reliably lead to his loss next year. Given the building scenario of Romney-Bachmann-Cain-Palin, it is almost impossible to imagine the good doctor coming up on top without some serious dropouts across the GOP field. Assuming Palin does not run, with both Santorum and Johnson dropping out, Paul still faces a steep climb to cinching the nomination.

Taking Iowa or South Carolina into the discussion it is not hard to see the frustration of Paul's hopes. Given her flamboyant conservative rhetoric, let us speculate that Michele Bachmann wins 34% in Iowa, followed by Romney at 25%, and a third non-Constitutionalist taking about 9%. With these numbers, Paul has already lost a crucial primary that could well decide the two top candidates of the race, even if he manages to grab the remaining 32%.

But this model is flawed in an obvious way: it fails to consider more than three candidates on the ballot other than Paul. In a more liberal state like New Hampshire, Romney would likely win 35%, followed by Huntsman or Perry in the mid twenties and then a non-Paulist candidate with double digits, be it Bachmann or Cain. So even in the best case possible, Paul's chances of winning in such a crowded field are miniscule.

Unfazed by this, Paul's supporters will likely call for an independent or Libertarian Party run, effectively getting their message out there while reelecting Barack Obama to the White House. Even if the GOP nominated a flimsy candidate like Santorum or Pawlenty, the prevalence of the two-party system would cause the chosen Republican to take at least 6% of the vote, enough to return Obama to the Oval Office. Were we to guess that that Paul lone would take 52% of the vote, the inclusion of the GOP third-party would cause him to sink below Obama's popular vote total, likely bringing about his defeat.

Ron Paul may be an honorable man, but he will not win the presidency in 2012. 

Brandon Dawson

National Alliance Vice President for Elections

Separation of Myth and State

In the wake of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s 3-vote margin senate win to legalize gay marriage in his home state, many homosexual activists have been cheering. Flanked by a strong coalition of self-described “progressive socialists,” the once irrelevant Castro District Country Club is now promising to fight more openly and force every member state in the union to accept their definition of the family and sexual relations. In line with most debates in America, the progressives have chosen to hone in on a particular phrase which they find so imbued with intelligence that one can scarcely pass a moment in political discussion before it slips ever so quickly from their lips. The several letters, strung together in perfected Marxist glory with a hint of historical decency seem to them like the only rightful method of achieving their delusions of moral and rhetorical authority over the traditionalists that haunt their dreams of a secular, more exclusively leftist America.

(Credit for this photo goes to John H Armstrong Blog)

Yet the question remains, where did “Separation of Church and State” first issue forth from? In the mind of the progressive or homosexual, it is ingrained within the Constitution’s First Amendment. In the mind of the historical thinker, it is misunderstood and often ineptly adapted to fight for the dismantling of past societal pillars in order to pave way for a sinister modern agenda. Thus there is no better time than now to clearly explain just where the phrase originated from and why it is wrongly applied to our current scenarios of national struggle.

Back in the early 1940s, New Jersey resident Arch Everson filed suit against the local school board to overturn a policy that ordered funding for school transportation be picked up by the local educational committees, most of which were delivering it to Catholic high schools (at the time compromising 96% of educational institutions in the state). Despite being rejected by district courts and even New Jersey’s Court of Errors and Appeals (at the time its highest court), Everson toiled on and appealed to the United States Supreme Court, setting up a dramatic showdown that came to a climax with the verdict in 1947.

Led by Associate Justice Hugo Black, a well-known Democrat and member of the Klu Klux Klan, the court ruled in a decisive 5-4 conclusion that an invisible wall exists to separate Church from the State, thus making New Jersey’s assistance to Catholic schools a violation of its constitution. That might have been the end of the saga, yet it is prudent to pause in consideration of Black’s own personal motivations. For years, the first and second Klans had always maintained a virulent anti-Catholic streak, believing the Roman Catholic Church to be incompatible with American governments or the permeation of democracy throughout the land. Even the modern Third Klan that has operated since 1944 maintains an exclusively Protestant lean, espousing hate towards Catholics and the Jews.

So was Black’s stance truly motivated by a desire to advocate for secularist views, or only to safeguard the Klan’s interests in America’s Protestant-founded government? No one answer seems complete, yet it is worth including that none of the Founding Fathers advocated within the Constitution or in surrounding papers that they desired “Alienation of Church and State.” In truth, the Constitution’s only words regarding religion are “Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion.” Simply put, we are not to become a theocracy in which a given religious authority has domain and power over every function of government from economic policy to national security. This does not mean the Founders were in effect arguing that on matters of the family and society churches should have no input whatsoever; it just prevents Congress from creating a religious federal authority.

The Progressive-Homosexual Coalition will still argue that advocating protection of heterosexual marriage or even a constitutional amendment goes against the Jeffersonian state’s rights approach espoused by many traditionalists, yet they miss reality at two key points. First, marriage at the time of the Constitution’s adoption was a strictly religious ceremony that formed the backbone of society in America. Now that marriage holds legal standing in America, homosexuals have inadvertently revealed their conclusive goal by rejecting the compromise of civil unions and demanding official marriage recognition. In other words, they want forced acceptance of their lifestyles and definitions of the family, creating a fine line between their views and attacks on the country’s founding principles.

Additionally, the whole purpose of a national government was to keep the union intact despite state disagreements. This formed the backbone of America’s emergence from the Civil War, as Lincoln’s firm opposition to a splintered country prevented a “United States of the Union” and a United States of the Confederacy”  from materializing. Otherwise we would likely still live under the Articles of Confederation, a system giving states the individual power that Jefferson’s wilder dreams desired. On issues concerning fundamental generational principles such as the family, Hamiltonian ideology for the federal government is needed to produce a single system of unity for the future. Should this be ignored, we risk once more dividing as district judges and narrow-voting legislatures choose to make decisions by ignoring the concerns of the people.

Individuals might still ask though, “Why is an issue like marriage so important?” The answer heralds back to the 1960s, when America first dipped its toes into the waters of cultural Marxism following a similar movement across Europe. After realizing that America clung too closely to religion and mass defense to be overcome using force, Marxist thinkers devised a new plan of action: cultural infiltration. By penetrating the schools and the courts, far-left academics and civil servants have continued to press for an extreme secularist society, developing a pattern in their actions. At each turn and polarizing issue, they always stand against religion. Whether it is opposing the words “Under God,” or supporting gay marriage and abortion, the Marxists continue to scurry forth the minions of their revolution by suppressing and marginalizing religious influence wherever it may remain in society, knowing that once the State can define morality, it will become a stooge to their totalitarian ambitions.

Words can often confuse, and this is precisely what the movement for separation of Church and State has done. All Americans who understand what makes a nation’s society strong must stand firm and seek to end the perplexing aura that surrounds this core issue in our country.


Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy

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