.    .   .  . . The Ottoman Turks were defeated in World War I by the British, and Palestine subsequently came under British mandatory rule. Thus, the official decision by the British, ratified by the League of Nations, was to create a national home for Jews in Palestine. The mandate became effective in 1921. The extent of the territory designated for the Jewish state�their home�approximated, the proportions specified in the Bible. It extended from the Mediterranean to Iraq, including all of what is now the country of Jordan.

 The Shrinking State of Israel

Contrary to belief popularly propagated by anti-Semites, Arab apologists, and the majority of international news agencies, Israel has never fallen into the category of an expansionist state. In fact, from the days of the original land grant under the British Mandate, Jewry�s national homeland has continued to shrink rather than expand�a situation that continues to this day.

This shrinking began one year after the British Mandate went into effect. In 1922, the British arbitrarily partitioned the Jewish homeland into two separate entities. Everything east of the Jordan River, extending to the Iraqi desert, was ceded to an Arab sheik, the Emir Abdullah, the grandfather of the present ruler of Jordan, King Hussein. Thus, with the creation of the Palestinian state of Transjordan, Israel lost approximately 73 percent of the land that had been granted to the Jewish people.

By 1947, the borders of the Jewish national home had shrunk even further. In the aftermath of World War II and the decimation of European Jewry in the Holocaust, the matter of a Jewish state was thrown into the hands of the United Nations. Britain, through a succession of infamous "White Papers," had virtually closed Palestine to Jews desperate to escape Hitler�s "final solution," which, for Jewish people, meant death.

On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly decided to partition the remaining 27 percent of the mandated territory into three parcels.

1. The Jewish state would control the Negev to the south, a strip along the coastline running from near Rehovot to the Haifa area, and a parcel adjacent to Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan, which included the Sea of Galilee.

2. The Arab State was to be comprised of the Gaza Strip, the area now known as the West Bank, and a wedge of land in the north bordering Lebanon, between the Mediterranean and Israeli territory.

3. The third entity was Jerusalem, which was to be designated as an international zone. 

No Negotiations; No Recognition; No Peace--No Borders

A commonly held misconception is that Israel has violated the borders of Palestinian territory and, in effect, stolen Arab land. This unfortunate misinformation has caused monumental misunderstanding in attempts to negotiate a viable peace in the Middle East. From the standpoint of the Palestinians, and virtually the entire Arab world, there are no borders to be negotiated. In their view, the land, in its entirety, belongs to the Islamic people. Israel simply does not have a place on their map of the Middle East.

When the United Nations General Assembly voted on the U.N. partition plan, the Jews, their numbers and spirit ravaged by the Holocaust, complied with the resolution. As tiny as their thrice-torn piece of the homeland had become, they were willing to take anything that would promise a haven for their stricken people. The Arabs, however, were not willing to recognize Israel�s right to exist and rejected the plan. As far as the Arab and Islamic world was concerned, there was no legitimate Israel; therefore, there could be no talk of peace. The standard line of the Palestinians became, "No negotiations; no recognition; no peace." Therefore, when, on May 14, 1948, the State of Israel was established, five Arab armies swept down on the fledgling state with a ferocious determination to destroy the state along with its Jews.

On the way to what the Arab leadership, and most of the world, felt was certain victory, Arab leaders counseled Arab residents within the disputed areas to leave their homes. In a few days, the residents were assured, Allah�s armies would have done with the pestiferous Jews, and they could return in triumph to reclaim their properties and enjoy the spoil of what the Jewish people had held.

Arab leaders woefully underestimated the courage, determination, and ingenuity of a people who had been pressed against the wall before. This time, the Jewish people decided that they would not kneel to die�they would stand to fight. Fight they did, and, against all odds, they won. This victory created an imposing problem for the Arabs: Their leaders had encouraged a massive exodus from what was now, in fact, Israel. The Arabs became, and were for another half century, refugees.

During the fighting, the Jordanians crossed the Jordan River to occupy most of what was to have become a separate Arab state. They also laid siege to the Old City of Jerusalem, expelled the Jewish population, and razed all the ancient Jewish synagogues. Meanwhile, the Egyptians, attacking from the south, overran the Gaza Strip.

When, early in 1949, it became apparent that the Arab armies could not drive Israel into the sea, as they had promised to do, armistice agreements were signed. Those documents were meaningless. The Egyptians made it abundantly clear that they did not regard this arrangement as either satisfactory or permanent. "The armistice demarcation line is not to be construed in any sense as a political or territorial boundary and is delineated without prejudice as to rights, claims and positions of either party�" (Armistice Agreement, Article V.2).

In 1950, Transjordan, which had become the Kingdom of Jordan, annexed the territory taken in the War of Independence and announced that it was reserving its rights regarding the territorial development. In other words, both Egypt and Jordan held the territories they had seized by weight of arms�a situation that would prevail until the Arab states tried again, in 1967, to destroy Israel. Once again they failed and, in the process, lost Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Sinai, and Golan Heights to the Israel Defense Force.

Laying aside the rhetoric and irrational claims being made about essential territorial priorities, we can only conclude that by rejecting the reality of Israel and an Arab state in 1947, the Palestinians authored their own dilemma. They, therefore, have no basis for their claim that Israel sits on land inherently within the legitimate borders of Arab Palestine.

 The Population Exchange

One of the central issues in the haggling over Palestinian rights is the claim of the "right of return" by Palestinians displaced in 1948 and 1967. Their arguments are buttressed by images in the Western media showing the deplorable conditions endured by the "refugees" in other Arab countries. It must be emphasized that no right-thinking person takes pleasure in the self-inflicted plight of these people. Certainly a solution must be found. But, with this in mind, let�s consider relevant details about this situation.

Much of the world has chosen to forget the hundreds of thousands of Jewish "refugees" from Arab countries who arrived practically penniless in a land holding out a promise of only hard work and a daily struggle for survival. The number of Arab refugees coming from Israel during the 1948 War of Independence has been placed at approximately 500,000. The number of Jews expelled from Arab countries has been placed at roughly the same figure. Many of these people left their homes and businesses with little more than what they wore on their backs. For example, in March 1950, the Iraqi government announced a "Special Law Authorizing the Emigration of Jews." In order to qualify, Iraqi citizenship had to be renounced. Also, each person would be permitted to take no more than $16.00 out of the country�children were permitted even smaller amounts. At least 121,000 of the 130,000 Iraqi Jews chose to leave their possessions behind and leave the country.

It is extremely rare to hear any mention of the situation Jewish people encountered in exiting Arab countries because those who were forced out of Arab lands did not endure refugee status for an extended period of time. At great hardship to the country, Israel assimilated all sons and daughters of Abraham into the life of the nation as quickly as possible. So quickly, as a matter of fact, did that tiny nation�no larger than the state of New Jersey�settle within the ranks of its citizens so many people that the story endures as one of the great miracles of history.

For the Arabs, however, it was a far different story. Arab families whose leaders advised them to leave, along with the few who were forcibly evicted, did not receive the courtesy of a warm welcome from their kinsmen in other Arab countries. While they fled to Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, they found conditions in their host countries less than desirable. These unfortunate people immediately became pawns in a "maintain the problem" scenario that has lasted for decades. Although the oil-rich Arab nations had more than enough resources to settle their kinsmen into tolerable circumstances or assimilate them into their nations, they did not. Their failure was deliberate and, by any measurable standard, less than humane.

The thought behind this deplorable treatment was that if these displaced people were kept in squalid refugee camps, the problem would remain an issue in the international community. The Arab leaders were, of course, correct�the problem of what to do with these people has festered for decades. The tragedy is that Palestinian refugees were forced by their own leaders to live in pitiful circumstances. For callous radicals who pursued a "win at any price" strategy, poor and penned-up Palestinians�who were taught that Israel was the source of all evil�became perfect candidates to become terrorists and suicide bombers.

It is no secret that the oil-rich Arab nations have invested millions of dollars funding terrorists. When Hamas leader Sheik Yassin went on a fund-raising tour in the spring of 1998, it was reported that he raised $50 million to $300 million in support for Hamas from Arab Gulf states. He also received a pledge of $15 million a month from the Iranians. The stated purpose of the support was to aid Hamas in carrying out its terrorist designs against Israel and its allies. Meanwhile, their Muslim brethren in refugee camps live with inadequate housing and grinding poverty.

 The Map Tells the Story

Israel has repeatedly done something virtually unprecedented in the history of this planet: They have given back land. Consider the facts.

This tiny nation has been attacked repeatedly�surviving five major wars�by those intent on driving Jews and their state into the sea. Each time, the aggressors were defeated by numerically inferior forces and lost territory in the process. After these defeats, there were loud outcries from the aggressors, who accused Israel of stealing their land and demanded that every square inch be returned. We would expect Israel to do what other nations have done over the centuries�simply say, "You lost it; we have it; don�t try it again."

The Russians, who are now demanding that Israel return "occupied lands," think differently about their own self-proclaimed property rights. Their attitude is the norm for those who succeed in defeating their enemies�especially those who strike first. In a commentary in Pravda (September 2, 1964), the Russians stated their case.

The borders of the State have become sanctified in the efforts of the settlers in the border villages and by the streams of blood which they have had to shed in their defense. A people which has been attacked and which defended itself and emerged victorious has the sacred right of establishing for itself such a final political settlement as would permit it to liquidate the sources of aggression�a people which has acquired its security with such heavy sacrifice will never agree to restore the old borders.

But, what�s good for the Russians, in their view, is not good for Jews in the Middle East. Israel has returned land to its attackers, only to have them, in one way or another, attack again.

After the 1967 war, Israel turned control of their venerated Temple Mount over to the Jordanians and made the sacred hill off limits to religious Jews who wished to establish a presence there. The state was, of course, concerned over the possibility of a holy war erupting in the Arab world. In the intervening years between 1967 and the present, however, Israel�s sensitivity and deference to Muslims, save for rare exceptions, have not been returned in kind.

During negotiations for peace with Egypt, Israel agreed to return the Sinai, taken in 1967, to Egypt. For an agreement for a peace that has been rather cold�but nonetheless a peace with promises�Israel removed settlements, factories, hotels, and health facilities. A major sacrifice involved turning over the Alma oil fields, discovered and developed by Israel, which were supplying half the nation�s energy needs. Israel gave up its early warning facilities, strategically important airfields, and direct control of its shipping lanes to and from Eilat, thus limiting military capability.

In 1998, the Netanyahu government announced that it was prepared to withdraw from the "security zone" in southern Lebanon. Lebanon, prompted by Syria, nixed the deal, saying they had no interest in making life safer for Israelis in northern Israel and that they would be prepared to talk only when Israel was willing to return the entire Golan to Syria. It would have to be a package deal.

Hafez al-Assad, leader of Syria, is asking for everything before promising to give anything or even recognize Israel�s right to exist. This is the same Hafiz al-Assad who has occupied Lebanon, claimed it as part of Greater Syria, and harbored and trained a cadre of the world�s most violent terrorists. It is further reported that Assad�s brother controls the heroin trade from Lebanon�s Bekaa Valley, much of which finds its way to the streets of American towns and cities. At this writing, how much of the Golan will be returned is still an open question. There is a strong probability that if Syria becomes willing to negotiate seriously with Israel, at least a portion of the Golan Heights will be returned.

The Palestinians pose Israel�s greatest dilemma and potential threat. There are serious questions about a successor to Yasser Arafat. If�and it seems a distinct possibility�the Palestinians receive the mini-state Arafat pledged to announce in 1999, whoever follows him as leader of the Palestinian people will pose a serious problem for the Israelis.

Although Israel has stuck to the agreements forged under the Oslo Accords, Arafat and the Palestinians have been much less forthcoming. Their unwillingness to rescind elements in the Palestinian charter calling for the annihilation of Israel is a stark indicator of the fundamental attitude of a large and powerful segment of Israel�s "partners" in the peace process. Although many of the issues in the negotiations seem to be profoundly complicated, there is one simple indicator that reveals true intent at a level we all
can understand.

At this writing, no map produced in the Arab/Muslim world includes the State of Israel. Not the map on the wall of Chairman Arafat�s office. Not the maps hanging on the walls of schools where Palestinian children are taught. Not the map issued by the Palestinian Tourism Department. Certainly not the maps on the barracks walls of any Arab or Muslim nations� military installations. Every Arab map is marked only by the word Palestine. Israel simply does not exist in the minds of the overwhelming majority of the one billion Arab and Islamic people on the face of the earth.

Statements made repeatedly by Yasser Arafat and other Palestinian leaders make the ultimate goal very clear. It seems that the only people who do not take them seriously are Western political wishful thinkers, who naively insist on writing off bellicose speeches and statements as just rhetoric born out of to-be-expected "Palestinian rage."

Consider a few of these "rage" induced declarations.

"The struggle will continue until all Palestine is liberated" (Yasser Arafat, Voice of Palestine Radio, November 1995).

"When we stopped the Intifada, we did not stop the Jihad [Islamic holy war] to establish Palestine with Jerusalem as our capital.�We know only one word: Jihad, Jihad, Jihad.�We are in a conflict with the Zionist movement, the Balfour Declaration, and all imperialist activity�" (Yasser Arafat in a speech near Bethlehem in October 1996).

"Whoever has occupied part of Palestine or Jerusalem faces Jihad [holy war] until Judgment Day. Our destiny is Jihad" (Sheik Muhammad Hussein, in a sermon from the Al-Aksa Mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, May 15, 1998).

Survival Through Strength

Israelis are asking two things for themselves from the peace process. First, there is the matter of security. That is, they want secure and defensible borders as guaranteed in U.N. resolutions. To achieve this, Israeli governments led by both the Likud and Labor parties have been willing to concede lands and withdraw from territories that many feel are vital to Israel�s future security. At the present stage of the negotiations, approximately 95 percent of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza are under the control of the Palestinian Authority.

Second, there is the matter of reciprocity. That is, when Israel keeps a promise, the Palestinians should also adhere to what they have agreed to do. This has not been the case thus far. Therefore, the notion that the Israelis should keep making unilateral concessions in the hope that somewhere down the line the Palestinians will see the light and begin to respect agreements, is simply incorrect.

All parties attempting to contribute to a peaceful solution between Israel and its Palestinian neighbors should insist that these two vital elements be respected. Furthermore, in the hostile environment that will continue to be part and parcel of life in the Middle East, democratic nations�particularly the United States�must do all they can to assure that Israel remains strong. 

. . . . . when it gets right down to it, the land doesn't make that much difference because Yasser Arafat and others don't recognize Israel's right to any of the land. They do not recognize Israel's right to exist.

. . . . . But I would like to reemphasize once again the seven reasons that Israel has the right to their land. The first reason is that Israel has the right to the land because of all of the archeological evidence. That is reason, No. 1. All the archeological evidence supports it.

Every time there is a dig in Israel, it does nothing but support the fact that Israelis

have had a presence there for 3,000 years. They have been there for a long time.

The coins, the cities, the pottery, the culture--there are other people, groups that are there, but there is no mistaking the fact that Israelis have been present in that land for 3,000 years.
 

It predates any claims that other peoples in the regions may have. The ancient

Philistines are extinct. Many other ancient peoples are extinct. They do not have the

unbroken line to this date that the Israelis have.
 

Even the Egyptians of today are not racial Egyptians of 2,000, 3,000 years ago.

They are primarily an Arab people. The land is called Egypt, but they are not the

same racial and ethnic stock as the old Egyptians of the ancient world. The first

Israelis are in fact descended from the original Israelites. The first proof, then, is the archeology.
 

The second proof of Israel's right to the land is the historic right. History supports it totally and completely. We know there has been an Israel up until the time of the

Roman Empire. The Romans conquered the land. Israel had no homeland, although

Jews were allowed to live there. They were driven from the land in two dispersions:

One was in 70 A,.D. and the other was in 135 A.D. But there was always a Jewish

presence in the land.

The Turks, who took over about 700 years ago and ruled the land up until about

World War I, had control. Then the land was conquered by the British. The Turks

entered World War I on the side of Germany. The British knew they had to do

something to punish Turkey, and also to break up that empire that was going to be

a part of the whole effort of Germany in World War I. So the British sent troops

against the Turks in the Holy Land.

One of the generals who was leading the British armies was a man named Allenby.

Allenby was a Bible-believing Christian. He carried a Bible with him everywhere he

went and he knew the significance of Jerusalem.

The night before the attack against Jerusalem to drive out the Turks, Allenby

prayed that God would allow him to capture the city without doing damage to the

holy places.
 

That day, Allenby sent World War I biplanes over the city of Jerusalem to do a

reconnaissance mission. You have to understand that the Turks had at that time

never seen an airplane. So there they were, flying around. They looked in the sky

and saw these fascinating inventions and did not know what they were, and they

were terrified by them. Then they were told they were going to be opposed by a

man named Allenby the next day, which means, in their language, ``man sent from

God'' or ``prophet from God.'' They dared not fight against a prophet from God, so

the next morning, when Allenby went to take Jerusalem, he went in and captured it

without firing a single shot.
 

The British Government was grateful to Jewish people around the world,

particularly to one Jewish chemist who helped them manufacture niter. Niter is an

ingredient that was used in nitroglycerin which was sent over from the New World.

But they did not have a way of getting it to England. The German U-boats were

shooting on the boats, so most of the niter they were trying to import to make

nitroglycerin was at the bottom of the ocean. But a man named Weitzman, a Jewish

chemist, discovered a way to make it from materials that existed in England. As a

result, they were able to continue that supply.
 

The British at that time said they were going to give the Jewish people a homeland.

That is all a part of history. It is all written down in history. They were gratified that

the Jewish people, the bankers, came through and helped finance the war.
 

The homeland that Britain said it would set aside consisted of all of what is now

Israel and all of (what comprises Jordan today) was then the nation of Jordan--the whole thing. That was what Britain promised to give the Jews in 1917.

In the beginning, there was some Arab support for this action. There was not a

huge Arab population in the land at that time, and there is a reason for that. The

land was not able to sustain a large population of people. It just did not have the

development it needed to handle those people, and the land was not really wanted

by anybody. Nobody really wanted this land. It was considered to be worthless

land.
 

I want the Presiding Officer to hear what Mark Twain said. And, of course, you

may have read ``Huckleberry Finn'' and ``Tom Sawyer.'' Mark Twain--Samuel

Clemens--took a tour of Palestine in 1867. This is how he described that land. We

are talking about Israel now. He said:

"A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A

silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human being on the whole route. There

was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast

friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country. "

Where was this great Palestinian nation? It did not exist. It was not there.

Palestinians were not there. Palestine was a region named by the Romans, but at

that time it was under the control of Turkey, and there was no large mass of people

there because the land would not support them.

This is the report that the Palestinian Royal Commission, created by the British,

made. It quotes an account of the conditions on the coastal plain along the

Mediterranean Sea in 1913. This is the Palestinian Royal Commission. They said:
 

"1. The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track,   suitable for transport by camels or carts.

  2. No orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached the Yavnev village.

 3. Houses were mud.

 4. Schools did not exist.

 5. The western part toward the sea was almost a desert.

 6. The villages in this area were few and thinly populated.

 7.Many villages were deserted by their inhabitants."
 

That was 1913.

The French author Voltaire described Palestine as ``a hopeless, dreary place.''
 

In short, under the Turks the land suffered from neglect and low population. That

is a historic fact. The nation became populated by both Jews and Arabs because the

land came to prosper when Jews came back and began to reclaim it. Historically,

they began to reclaim it. If there had never been any archaeological evidence to

support the rights of the Israelis to the territory, it is also important to recognize that

other nations in the area have no longstanding claim to the country either.

Did you know that Saudi Arabia was not created until 1913, Lebanon until 1920?

Iraq did not exist as a nation until 1932, Syria until 1941; the borders of Jordan

were established in 1946 and Kuwait in 1961. Any of these nations that would say

Israel is only a recent arrival would have to deny their own rights as recent arrivals

as well. They did not exist as countries. They were all under the control of the

Turks.
 

Historically, Israel gained its independence in 1948.

The third reason that land belongs to Israel is the practical value of the Israelis being

there. Israel today is a modern marvel of agriculture. Israel is able to bring more

food out of a desert environment than any other country in the world. The Arab

nations ought to make Israel their friend and import technology from Israel that

would allow all the Middle East, not just Israel, to become an exporter of food.

Israel has unarguable success in its agriculture.

The fourth reason I believe Israel has the right to the land is on the grounds of

humanitarian concern. You see, there were 6 million Jews slaughtered in Europe in

World War II. The persecution against the Jews had been very strong in Russia

since the advent of communism. It was against them even before then under the

Czars.
 

These people have a right to their homeland. If we are not going to allow them a

homeland in the Middle East, then where? What other nation on Earth is going to

cede territory, is going to give up land?

They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel would fit into my

home State of Oklahoma seven times. It would fit into the Presiding Officer's State of Georgia seven times. They are not asking for a great deal. The whole nation of Israel is very small. It is a nation that, up until the time that claims started coming

in, was not desired by anybody.

The fifth reason Israel ought to have their land is that she is a strategic ally of the

United States. Whether we realize it or not, Israel is a detriment, an impediment, to

certain groups hostile to democracies and hostile to what we believe in, hostile to

that which makes us the greatest nation in the history of the world. They have kept

them from taking complete control of the Middle East. If it were not for Israel, they

would overrun the region. They are our strategic ally.

It is good to know we have a friend in the Middle East on whom we can count.

They vote with us in the United Nations more than England, more than Canada,

more than France, more than Germany--more than any other country in the world.

The sixth reason is that Israel is a roadblock to terrorism. The war we are now

facing is not against a sovereign nation; it is against a group of terrorists who are

very fluid, moving from one country to another. They are almost invisible. That is

whom we are fighting against today.
 

We need every ally we can get. If we do not stop terrorism in the Middle East, it

will be on our shores. We have said this again and again and again, and it is true.

One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the

United States of America is that the policy of our Government has been to ask the

Israelis, and demand it with pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the

terrorist strikes that have been launched against them.
 

Since its independence in 1948, Israel has fought four wars: The war in 1948 and

1949--that was the war for independence--the war in 1956, the Sinai campaign; the

Six-Day War in 1967; and in 1973, the Yom Kippur War, the holiest day of the

year, and that was with Egypt and Syria.

You have to understand that in all four cases, Israel was attacked. They were not

the aggressor. Some people may argue that this was not true because they went in

first in 1956, but they knew at that time that Egypt was building a huge military to

become the aggressor. Israel, in fact, was not the aggressor and has not been the

aggressor in any of the four wars.

Also, they won all four wars against impossible odds. They are great warriors. They

consider a level playing field being outnumbered 2 to 1.

There were 39 Scud missiles that landed on Israeli soil during the gulf war. Our

President asked Israel not to respond. In order to have the Arab nations on board,

we asked Israel not to participate in the war. They showed tremendous restraint

and did not. Now we have asked them to stand back and not do anything over

these last several attacks.
 

We have criticized them. We have criticized them in our media. Local people in

television and radio often criticize Israel, not knowing the true facts. We need to be

informed.

I was so thrilled when I heard a reporter pose a question to our Secretary of State,

Colin Powell. He said:

Mr. Powell, the United States has advocated a policy of restraint in the Middle

East. We have discouraged Israel from retaliation again and again and again because

we've said it leads to continued escalation--that it escalates the violence. Are we

going to follow that preaching ourselves?

Mr. Powell indicated we would strike back. In other words, we can tell Israel not to

do it, but when it hits us, we are going to do something.

But all that changed in December when the Israelis went into the Gaza with

gunships and into the West Bank with F-16s. With the exception of last May, the

Israelis had not used F-16s since the 1967 6-Day War. And I am so proud of them

because we have to stop terrorism. It is not going to go away. If Israel were driven

into the sea tomorrow, if every Jew in the Middle East were killed, terrorism would

not end. You know that in your heart. Terrorism would continue.

It is not just a matter of Israel in the Middle East. It is the heart of the very people

who are perpetrating this stuff. Should they be successful in overrunning

Israel--which they won't be--but should they be, it would not be enough. They will

never be satisfied.

No. 7, I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that it has a right to

the land. This is the most important reason: Because God said so. As I said a

minute ago, look it up in the book of Genesis. It is right up there on the desk.

In Genesis 13:14-17, the Bible says:

The Lord said to Abram, ``Lift up now your eyes, and look from the place where

you are northward, and southward, and eastward and westward: for all the land

which you see, to you will I give it, and to your seed forever. ..... Arise, walk

through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to thee.''

That is God talking.

The Bible says that Abram removed his tent and came and dwelt in the plain of

Mamre, which is in Hebron, and built there an altar before the Lord. Hebron is in

the West Bank. It is at this place where God appeared to Abram and said, ``I am

giving you this land,''--the West Bank.
 

This is not a political battle at all. It is a contest over whether or not the word of

God is true. The seven reasons, I am convinced, clearly establish that Israel has a

right to the land.
 

Eight years ago on the lawn of the White House, Yitzhak Rabin shook hands with

PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. It was a historic occasion. It was a tragic occasion.

At that time, the official policy of the Government of Israel began to be, ``Let us

appease the terrorists. Let us begin to trade the land for peace.'' This process

continued unabated up until last year. Here in our own Nation, at Camp David, in

the summer of 2000, then Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak offered the most

generous concessions to Yasser Arafat that had ever been laid on the table.
 

He offered him more than 90 percent of all the West Bank territory, sovereign

control of it. There were some parts he did not want to offer, but in exchange for

that he said he would give up land in Israel proper that the PLO had not even asked

for.

And he also did the unthinkable. He even spoke of dividing Jerusalem and allowing

the Palestinians to have their capital there in the East. Yasser Arafat stormed out of

the meeting. Why did he storm out of the meeting? Everything he had said he

wanted was offered there. It was put into his hands. Why did he storm out of the

meeting?
 

A couple of months later, there began to be riots, terrorism. The riots began when

now Prime Minister Ariel Sharon went to the Temple Mount. And this was used as

the thing that lit the fire and that caused the explosion.

Did you know that Sharon did not go unannounced and that he contacted the

Islamic authorities before he went and secured their permission and had permission

to be there? It was no surprise.

The response was very carefully calculated. They knew the world would not pay

attention to the details.

They would portray this in the Arab world as an attack upon the holy mosque.

They would portray it as an attack upon that mosque and use it as an excuse to riot.

Over the last 8 years, during this time of the peace process, where the Israeli public

has pressured its leaders to give up land for peace because they are tired of fighting,

there has been increased terror.

In fact, it has been greater in the last 8 years than any other time in Israel's history.

Showing restraint and giving in has not produced any kind of peace. It is so much

so that today the leftist peace movement in Israel does not exist because the people

feel they were deceived.
 

They did offer a hand of peace, and it was not taken. That is why the politics of

Israel have changed drastically over the past 12 months. The Israelis have come to

see that, ``No matter what we do, these people do not want to deal with us. .....

They want to destroy us.'' That is why even yet today the stationery of the PLO

still has upon it the map of the entire state of Israel, not just the tiny little part they

call the West Bank that they want. They want it all.

We have to get out of this mind set that somehow you can buy peace in the Middle

East by giving little plots of land. It has not worked before when it has been

offered.
 

These seven reasons show why Israel is entitled to that land.