7 Reasons Why Israel is Entitled to The Land

A speech by Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican Senator from Oklahoma, March 4, 2002

I will discuss seven reasons, which I mentioned once before, why Israel is entitled to the land they have and that it should not be a part of the peace process.

If this is something that Israel wants to do, it is their business to do it. But anyone who has tried to put the pressure on Israel to do this is wrong.

We are going to be hit by skeptics who are going to say we will be attacked because of our support for Israel, and if we get out of the Middle East-that is us-all the problems will go away. That is just not true. If we withdraw, all of these problems will again come to our door.

I have some observations to make about that. 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,

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 1, had control. Then the land was conquered by the British. The Turks entered World War 1 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 1 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 Weizmann, 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 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: "The road leading from Gaza to the north was only a summer track, suitable for transport by camels or carts. No orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached the Yavnev village. Houses were mud. Schools did not exist. The western part toward the sea was almost a desert. The villages in this area were few and thinly populated. Many villages were deserted by their inhabitants."

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.

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 six million Jews slaughtered in Europe in World War 2. 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 deterrent, 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. Israel is 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 with pressure, that she not 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, when Egypt and Syria [attacked] on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year.

You have to understand that in all four cases, Israel was attacked. They were not the aggressors. 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 two to one. There were 39 Scud missiles that landed on Israeli soil during the Gulf War [1991]. 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 on 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 gun ships 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.

Number Seven, I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that she 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'' - [including] 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.

Well, I think that Israel has a right to the land by virtue of conquest, and that the U.S. has an interest in that by virture of Isreal being a democracy, anti-terrorist, etc.

I will say, however, that I think reasons #1 and #2 are totally bogus.

What Inhofe says is true, I just don't think it matters who left a scroll in a cave 3,000 years ago. Every nation on earth has changed owners since then. Are we to re-draw the boundaries of every nation based upon 3,000 year old borders?

Also, it takes a lot of chutzpah for someone who owns property in Oklahoma to make such a claim. The Indians were on his land only 150 years ago.

Anyway, this is not meant to be a swipe at Inhofe or Israel, it is a refelction of my beleif that the whole who was and wasn't there crapping in the bushes 3,000 years ago is so silly, that it really doesn't advance our cause.

The cause is this: God created us as individuals with inalienable rights. Freedom is the natural state of mankind, which includes the right not to be blown to bits by a bunch of warped individuals with completely irrational minds.

Under the view that we were all created equal, it is in the interest of all free men to promote freedom around the world, recognizing that the slavery or oppression of any individual is neccessarily a threat to our own freedom.

The Israelis sought freedom in a largely abandoned desert. They are surrounded by nations of murderous thugs, who oppress hundreds of millions. It is in our interest to defend Israel, and to bring down the murderous regiemes of Israel's enemies.

The Arab's are fanatics and are totally warped. But they are not neccessarily anymore warped then the Hitler Youth or the Japs who embraced freedom when they tasted it. It is therefore worth our while to promote freedom in the middle east.

I couldn't care less who took a wiz on a tree in Nazareth 3,000 years ago, and it has no effect on who I think should occupy that land now.

Look, I'm sorry, but while I am no grand supporter of the Arabs or the French or the U.N. or any other group that opposes the U.S. on a regular basis, I see no reason why we should be worried about or backing up Israel. We simply have no real policy reason to back them up, unless it's to irritate the heck out of every Arab nation around Israel--as if we need to frost the few 'friendly' nations that have the engine of our industrial base, oil.

In fact, most of Inhofe's logic can be used to justify a certain other group's claims:

Why Native Americans Are Entitled To The U.S.

Number One: All the archeological evidence supports it.
The second proof of Native Americans' right to the land is the historic right. History supports it totally and completely. We know there were Native Americans up until the time of the United States. The Colonists conquered the land. Natives had no homeland. They were driven from the land in multiple dispersions.
But there was always a Native American presence in the land, in city and county and state names, and the names of myriad other places.
The fourth reason I believe Native Americans have the right to the land is on the grounds of humanitarian concern. You see, there were innumerable Native Americans slaughtered or killed from epidemics introduced by colonists in the territory that is now the United States both before and during the majority of the colonists' arrival.
These Native American people have a right to their homeland. If we are not going to allow them a homeland of the United States, 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 continental United States would fit into Russia and Canada umpteen times.

I can't even start to twist Inhofe's 3rd, 5th and 6th comments in favor of Native Americans, but as to #7, if you want to tell me that God says any nation gets the so-called 'holy land,' why doesn't he give it to them? Why did he let the Romans take it, and why does the U.S. have to prop up Israel to the tune of billions of bucks in subsidies if God wants it? Surely He, in his omnipotent might, can handle it himself.

We have enough problems with the cursed Arab dictatorships that we don't need to go out of our way to create more. I don't dispute that they're more democratic than their neighbors or that there are a thousand reasons they are better than their neighbors, but I do seriously dispute the notion that we MUST do a darned thing for the people of any nation but our own.

Number Seven, I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that she has a right to the land. This is the most important reason: Because God said so.

Bogus reason...And one which will keep the Middle East the cess pool of violence for eternity. Different people have different Religions. That's why we have the "Freedom of Religion" in the United States Constitution. It's funny how all the fundies forget that little fact when it suits their needs.

But then again, I believe the fundies are pushing this line of thinking just to bring about what they call Armageddon. Unfortunately, the rest of the world is going to have to pay for THEIR religious beliefs. Ironic how the fundies are the first to call Islam a "Gutter Religion" isn't it?

Inhofe does not list the most important and obvious reason:: The right of conquest. Israel deserves the land because they have the power and the will to hold it.

No other right has anywhere near as much authority.

Agreed!!!

It's too bad the Israelis didn't just complete the sweep back when they took control of the West Bank and Gaza...Get rid of all non-Jews. Of course then, they would have been compared to the Nazis...Which would be hard to argue against.

It's just too bad all this didn't happen back in the 1700's. No one would care today.

Oh yes of course, Islam is the "Religion of Peace."

Now I get it.

Boy...That nifty catch-phrase sure does get a work-out around here. Too bad it means nothing due to overuse.

Israeli settlements in U.N Mandated Palestine are "Peaceful" gestures?

Don't get me wrong...I support Israel 100%, specifically because they are the best of allies in an area where we deperately need allies. But due to both "Religions", the rest of the world suffers from terrorist activity. I resent that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.