[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 21 (Monday, March 4, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1427-S1430]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was interested the other day when I 
heard that the de facto ruler, Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Abdullah, 
made a statement which was received by many in this country as if it 
were a statement of fact, as if it were something new, a

[[Page S1428]]

concept for peace in the Middle East that no one had ever heard of 
before. I was kind of shocked that it was so well received by many 
people who had been down this road before.
  I suggest to you that what Crown Prince Abdullah talked about a few 
days ago was not new at all. He talked about the fact that under the 
Abdullah plan, Arabs would normalize relations with Israel in exchange 
for the Jewish state surrendering the territory it received after the 
1976 Six-Day War as if that were something new. He went on to talk 
about other land that had been acquired and had been taken by Israel.
  I remember so well on December 4 when we covered all of this and the 
fact that there isn't anything new about the prospect of giving up land 
that is rightfully Israel's land in order to have peace.
  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.
  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, 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 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.

  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

[[Page S1429]]

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.

[[Page S1430]]

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 mindset 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.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________