PRESIDENT BUSH'S VISIT TO THE MIDDLE EAST:

SOME AFTERTHOUGHTS (Part 2)

President Bush's foreign policy, with particular reference to the Middle East, rests on two pillars: (1) his bold declaration of war - in the wake of the attack on the USA on September 11, 2001 - against global terror, as preached and practiced by radical Islam; and (2) his vision, enunciated on June 24, 2002, of "two states living side by side in peace and security" and, to that end, "the erection of a Palestinian state."

The President's visit to the Middle East last month was devoted largely to a concerted effort to launch an Israeli-Arab negotiating process designed to achieve the realization of that vision by the end of this year.

How does this "vision" square (1) with the vision proclaimed in the Bible? (2) with President Bush's own declaration of war on global terror? and (3) with the facts on the ground? Let us take up these three challenges, one at a time.

1. The Bible

"The Lord said to Abram.,, 'Lift up your eyes and look out from where you are, to the north and south, to the east and west: All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever.'" (Genesis 13:14,15)

"As for Ishmael - I have heeded you. I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and exceedingly numerous. He shall be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make of him a great nation. But my covenant I will maintain with Isaac."

(Genesis 17:20,21)

The Bible, in other words, gives cognizance to the basic human and national rights of Ishmael's descendants, the Arabs, who are to become "exceedingly numerous" (as indeed they have) and are to be governed by "twelve rulers" (there now are nearly twice that number in the Arab League). But it also insists on the faithful maintenance of the covenant that gave the land of Canaan to Isaac and his offspring. And the nations that "divided the land" would be severely punished (Joel 3:2).

2. The War on Terror

The further reduction of Israel's already limited area, as envisioned by Mr. Bush, in order to allow for the creation of yet another Arab state, at its expense, would cut down Israel's total width, in its sensitive "midriff" section, to a mere 9 or 10 miles, making most of its major cities easy targets for rocket attacks by Arab terrorist gangs that still have not been neutralized, and boosting the motivation of hostile Arab forces to take advantage of a truncated Israel to launch a military strike that could easily cut the country in two.

Israel's Palestinian Arab neighbors have yet to acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation. That is why they refuse adamantly, to this day, to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Their avowed ultimate aim is to eradicate Israel from the map of the region (indeed, in their school textbooks they have already done this!) and to establish their own state in ALL of what was once known as Palestine.

President Bush's two-state vision is surely not intended to make that task easier for Israel's enemies. But, just as surely, that is precisely the effect the realization of such a "vision" would have.

3. The Facts on the Ground

The geopolitical entity to which the Romans in the second century CE gave the name Palestina, in an attempt to eradicate the Jewish people's intimate connection with this land, entered history as the sovereign homeland of the Jewish nation more than 3,000 years ago. Thus, through the centuries, it became known in Jewish literature and tradition as Eretz Yisrael - the Land of Israel.

Since that time, Jews have always lived in the Land. People of other origins and faiths have also lived there, as the Land was conquered and re-conquered down through the ages. Among these conquerors were the Arabs. But they never made Palestine/Eretz Yisrael their nation-state - just as they never made Jerusalem their capital.

In all of these invasions and migrations, two salient facts stand out clearly:

1. For over 3,000 years, the one common demographic denominator in Palestine/Israel has been the Jews.
2. For over 3,000 years, neither Arabs nor any other ethnic or national community - except the Jews - related to or claimed Palestine/Israel as their distinctive homeland.

By the beginning of the 20^th century, two main ethnic groups, Arabs and Jews, were living in Palestine/Israel - a land area defined in the 1910/11 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica as follows:

PALESTINE... conventionally used as a name for the territory which, in the Old Testament, is claimed as the inheritance of the pre-exilic Hebrews... we may describe Palestine as the strip of land extending along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea... Eastward there is no such definite border. The River Jordan, it is true, marks a line of delimitation between western and eastern Palestine; but it is practically impossible to say where the latter ends and the Arabian desert begins.

At that time, in other words, Palestine was considered a geographic entity, covering an area both east and west of the Jordan River, whose historical significance it owes to the Jewish people. Thus, even if at that time the population was predominantly Arab, Palestine can by no means be regarded as an exclusively Arab concept. Indeed, in its original context, and both as a political entity and a national homeland, it is a Jewish concept.

After World War I

Political developments in the area after World War I did nothing to alter this perception of Palestine; in fact, they confirmed it. In 1922, the League of Nations, recognizing "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and "the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country," granted Britain a mandate over Palestine, pending the establishment there of such a national home.

Dr. Eugene V. Rostow, at the time Professor of Law and Public Affairs at Yale University, and former US Under-Secretary of State (1966-69), offered this definition of Palestine:

The only possible geographic, demographic and political definition of Palestine is that of the [League of Nations] Mandate, which included what are now Israel and Jordan as well as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The term "Palestine" applies to all the peoples who live or have a right to live in the territory: Jews, Christians and Moslems alike. Thus the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are not "Arab" in the legal sense, but territories of the Mandate which have been recognized as belonging to Israel or to Jordan.

(Yale Studies in World Public Order, Vol. 5, 1979)

Palestinian Statehood: Jordan and Israel

One of Britain's first acts as mandatory power was to turn over the great majority of Palestine - more than 77 percent - to the Arabs, leaving less than 23 percent, west of the River Jordan, for the Jews. Hence, the establishment in 1946 of the independent Palestinian state of Transjordan (later renamed "The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan") meant the realization of the Palestinian Arabs' right of self-determination in more than three-fourths of Palestine.

The Jews' right to self-determination in the small part of Palestine left to them was not to be granted so readily. Throughout the period between the two world wars, Arab militants in Palestine, under the rigid and ruthless leadership of Haj Amin al-Husseini, Mufti of Jerusalem, waged an uncompromising campaign of terror and intimidation designed to block the fulfillment of Jewish national aspirations in any part of Palestine whatsoever. In terms both of purpose and of method, this was the doctrine later to be taken up and pursued, with equal ruthlessness, by Yasser Arafat's PLO.

In 1947 the UN sought to settle the conflict by partitioning western Palestine into Jewish and Arab states (General Assembly Resolution 181 of Nov. 29, 1947). In the wake of that UN Resolution, Israel in May 1948 proclaimed its independence. The neighboring Arab states, however, unwilling to accept the very concept of Jewish statehood, joined in a massive invasion of Israel. Though greatly outnumbered and poorly equipped, Israel's defending forces repulsed the Arab attack, and the old-new state became a political fact, recognized by nearly all the countries in the world.

By mid-1948, two independent sovereign states existed in the area once known as Palestine: the Arab-Palestinian state of Jordan and the Jewish-Palestinian state of Israel. Ultimately, it is these two states that will have to serve as the backbone to the solution of the conflict.

Coming back now to the Bush Vision: What is the point, and where the logic, in trying to set up "a Palestinian state" in a region where two such states - one Arab and one Jewish - have already been in existence for over half a century?

Moshe Aumann (Mr. Aumann is a retired Israeli diplomat.)

__________________________________________________
D O T E A S Y - "Join the web hosting revolution!"
http://www.doteasy.com

THE BUSH VISIT TO THE MIDDLE EAST: SOME AFTERTHOUGHTS (Part 1)

When US President George W. Bush visited Israel recently, he received a warm welcome. This was, after all, his first visit to the country, as President, and Israelis appreciate his consistent friendship and support – in line, it needs to be said, with a long-standing record in Israel-US relations, based in no small part on a commonly held reverence for biblical values and traditions.

Moreover, Bush expressed himself very clearly, during his visit, on the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict and on the way to resolve it. Thus, on January 10 he declared that the agreement to be hammered out this year "must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people."

Two practical conclusions may be drawn from this declaration:

1. The first step on the road to a resolution of the conflict must be mutual recognition, by Palestinian Arabs and Israel, of each other's national rights.

2. If there is to be a "return" of Arab refugees, it must be to the Palestinian homeland, not the Jewish one.

Mutual (?) Recognition

With regard to Point No. 1, Israel has made it clear on many occasions – beginning as early as in the Camp David Agreements of 1978 – that it has no problem recognizing the Palestinian Arabs' right to national self-determination and statehood.

The Arabs, on the other hand, have persisted, for over 60 years now, in their denial of Israel's right to exist and in their refusal to recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. This was so in 1947, when the Arab world unanimously rejected the UN resolution calling for the partition of Palestine into two states – a Jewish one and an Arab one. And it is so today, when again we hear the Palestinian Arab leaders, from Mahmoud Abbas down, insisting that they will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state. In fact, the failure to resolve this conflict in all these years may be laid directly at the feet of this adamant refusal, by one side in the conflict, to acknowledge the other's most elementary existential rights.

In his weekly radio address, a few days after he made the above-cited statement, President Bush said that, in his visits to some of the Arab countries of the region, he would be pressing Arab leaders "to do their part" for peace. As the Jerusalem Post wrote in an editorial on January 13, "The Arab leaders could change the climate completely if they would do two things: meet Israeli leaders – and say, as Bush did, that the Jewish people has a right to a state just as the Palestinians do.
Such actions cannot wait for an agreement because, without them, there will be no agreement, only more stalemate and war."

Refugees

As for the second conclusion, regarding the Arab refugees, we must be clear, first of all, about one thing: There is no absolute or automatic "right of return," as the Arabs constantly claim. The 1948 UN resolution (General Assembly Resolution 194, of December 11, 1948) citing the possibility of a return of Arab refugees to their former homes hedges this point in a number of ways: First of all, it speaks of allowing such a return with respect to refugees "ready to live at peace with their neighbors." In addition, it also raises the option of resettlement in other countries, with compensation being paid to refugees opting for this solution.

Concerning the first point: The Arabs were not "ready to live at peace with their (Jewish) neighbors" back then in 1948. It certainly is highly doubtful – to put it mildly – that they would be willing to do so today, following a half-century of ceaseless hate propaganda and hate-education against Jews and Israel!

When the UN resolution cited resettlement as an option, it merely reflected the almost universal solution to refugee problems, involving many millions of people, that was then being applied, the world over, in the wake of World War II. Why does the Arab refugee problem have to be the only one to seek its resolution by repatriation rather than by resettlement with compensation? Could the reason be that this would be a "convenient" way to put an end, God forbid, to the Jewish state of Israel?

It is most unfortunate that a few days after his forthright statement about Israel as a Jewish state President Bush himself diluted this statement by naming "the right of return" as one of the "core issues" to be discussed by the Israeli and Palestinian Arab negotiators.

Two Refugee Problems

The Jerusalem Prayer Team is a group of more than 300 American Christian leaders. Here is what this team had to say on the subject in an internet message posted on January 17:

"In 1948, two refugee problems were created as a result of the Arab states' war against the newly established state of Israel: about 750,000 Palestinian Arabs and some 850,000 Jews from Arab countries. But while Jewish refugees were absorbed into Israel and granted citizenship, the Arab refugees were, with the exception of those in Jordan, forced to remain in camps, stateless, for the past 60 years by their host Arab countries, to cynically perpetuate their 'refugee' status and use this as a weapon against Israel. … The Jews who were forced out of their homes by Arab governments, which then confiscated their property, were the

victims of the same aggression carried out by the Arab states against the newly founded state of Israel. …

"When the Palestinian Authority claims a 'right of return' for Palestinian Arabs whose great-grandparents once lived in what has become Israel, it is only with the cynical intention of inundating the country with enough Arabs to eliminate it as the world's only Jewish state."

(The Jerusalem Prayer Team may be accessed at http://jerusalemprayerteam.org or: jpteam@sbcglobal.net )

Before returning to Washington, President Bush said that he would like to see an Israeli-Palestinian agreement signed by the end of this year. Needless to say, this is a hope shared by many. The question is whether we will witness the change of attitude – the "new spirit," perhaps, of which the Prophet Ezekiel (11:19) speaks – that needs to take place before this hope can be realized.

January 17, 2008 Moshe Aumann

(Mr. Aumann is a retired diplomat with Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.)

The Divergence of Ideas on the Question of Jerusalem

The question often asked is why is there controversy over Jerusalem? Jerusalem is described as a city built compact together, where the tribes go up, the tribes of the Lord. To the Testimony of Israel, to give thanks to the name of the Lord, for thrones are set there for judgement, the thrones of the house of David (Psalm 122: 3-5). By its very name Jerusalem is meant to be a city of peace though it will also be a place from which justice is administered. "To Christians and Moslems, Jerusalem is a place where extremely important things happened, long ago. To them, therefore, it is an object of pilgrimage. To Jews, on the other hand, it is the living centre of their faith or, if they have no faith, of their identity as a people. To them, it is a place to be possessed, today and forever. There is no essential incompatibility between these differing needs. Jewish political possession of Jerusalem and absolute freedom of access to it by Christians and Moslems – these have always been twin declared principles of the State of Israel" (The London Daily Telegraph of June 25, 1967).

Another question is how many countries can share in this city? The greatest difficulty facing Israelis in the 21st Century is the fact many of them want peace so badly that they have convinced themselves that their beloved city can be parted into small segments and that that partition will usher in the much talked about - elusive - peace. The Israelis have been on a quest for peace for six decades. Once the Jewish State was proclaimed, the enemies around about Israel have engaged this Sovereign nation in a battle over what is rightfully theirs. Never mind the historical account that Israel’s second King, David’s reign in Jerusalem lasted for 33 years (see 1 Chronicles 3:4). Under David, Jerusalem was a unified city designated for the praise of the King of kings, the Lord God Almighty… no other gods. There was no room for compromises. Jerusalem was at that time the capital of one State and it remained that way for centuries.

However, we live in an era of compromises. Consequently, the planned Middle East Peace Conference scheduled in November in the United States is designed to accomplish just that; compromises. Compromises where the United Nations have failed… ETGAR LEFKOVITS, in an article in The Jerusalem Post dated October 8, 2007 notes that a Minister in the Palestinian Authority demands that any solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will require the establishment of a Palestinian state with its capital in all of east Jerusalem, Palestinian Authority Minister for Jerusalem Affairs Adnan Husseini told The Jerusalem Post Monday. Furthermore, "The outline for Jerusalem is very clear," Husseini said. "East Jerusalem is for the Palestinians and west Jerusalem is for the Israelis." (Jerusalem Post, www.jpost.com, October 8, 2007).

The difference in opinion is so deep rooted that dividing up the city into many “halves” would not bring peace. There is enough evidence in the Scriptures to support this view. From the very beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1). This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens (Genesis 2:4). And the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die” (Genesis 3:4). And so from creation there is a serpent always seeking to challenge the Word and authority of God. Hence the conflict! However, God said in 2 Chronicles 6:6 But now I have chosen Jerusalem for my Name to be there, and I have chosen David to rule my people Israel.' Then Solomon began to build the temple of the LORD in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where the LORD had appeared to his father David. It was on the threshing floor of Araunah [Hebrew Ornan, a variant of Araunah ] the Jebusite, the place provided by David (2 Chronicles 3:1; www.bible.com). Today we have another temple on Mount Moriah. We have another people making claims to the city of God. Do you think that this is a coincidence? It is the serpent, the same one that deceived Eve, still on a rampage today deceiving billions into believing that the State of Israel has no right to exist and that the city, though small belong to three or possible more religions. When in fact it’s the city of God!

Now you might be asking the question, who is the serpent? He is that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world… (Revelation 12:9). Yes, it’s the devil who is seeking to undo all that God has done and that is why in the future there will be the ultimate battle between an angel of the Lord and the devil. John in Revelation 20: 1 & 2 notes that he saw an angel (note it just took one angel)coming down from heaven, having the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.

Beware, so that you would not be deceived by the old serpent. Jerusalem is the city of the Jewish State. The whole city, that means east and west, north and south the entire Jerusalem, because God says so. This God is the God who said of Himself, He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!

Cherub A. Nicholls
Monday October 8, 2007

References:
www.jpost.com
www.bible.com
The London Daily Telegraph of June 25, 1967
John C. Hagee, General Editor, Prophecy Study Bible, New King James Version (NKJV), (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997);
• Psalm 122: 3-5
• 1 Chronicles 3:4
• Genesis 1:1
• Genesis 2:4
• Genesis 3:4
• 2 Chronicles 6:6
• Revelation 12:9
• Revelation 20: 1 & 2

Israel’s Dispossession: US Bid to Create a Palestinian State

President George W. Bush on Tuesday November 27, 2007 hosted the US sponsored Mid East Peace Summit also known as the Annapolis Conference, named after the conference venue in Annapolis Maryland. In a declaration presented by President Bush at the opening of the Conference both the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Mahmoud Abbas, the chairman of the PLO executive committee and president of the Palestinian Authority agreed to a number of measures which they anticipate will help achieve a peaceful settlement in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is expected that the rigorous diplomatic process launched during the Conference will culminate with a Palestinian state by December 2008. Highlights of the Declaration are as follows:

• a) We express our determination to bring an end to bloodshed, suffering and decades of conflict between our peoples; to usher in a new era of peace, based on freedom, security, justice, dignity, respect and mutual recognition; to propagate a culture of peace and nonviolence; to confront terrorism and incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis.
• b) In furtherance of the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security, we agree to immediately launch good-faith bilateral in order to conclude a peace treaty resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues without exception, as specified in previous agreements.
• c) We agree to engage in vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations and shall make every effort to conclude an agreement before the end of 2008.
• d) i) For this purpose, a steering committee led jointly by the head of the delegation of each party will meet continuously as agreed.
  ii) The steering committee will develop a joint work plan and establish and oversee the work of negotiations teams to address all issues, to be headed by one lead representative from each party.
  iii) The first session of the steering committee will be held on 12 December, 2007.
• e) The parties also commit to immediately implement their respective obligations under the performance-based road map to a permanent two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict issued by the quartet on 30 April, 2003" - this is called the road map - "and agree to form an American, Palestinian and Israeli mechanism led by the United States to follow up on the implementation of the road map.1 Haaretz.Com http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/928652.html, Tuesday November 27, 2007 Kislev 17, 5768

Furthermore, President Bush in his address to the Conference which comprised 44 countries and several heads of international organizations such as the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and Middle East Envoy Tony Blair, stated “We meet to lay the foundation for the establishment of a new nation, a democratic Palestinian state that will live side by side with Israel in peace and security.”2 (Haaretz.Com, Thursday November 29, 2007 Kislev 19, 5768, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/928652.html). Additionally, Bush emphasized that “This settlement will establish Palestine as the Palestinian homeland, just as Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people. Israel must demonstrate it's support for the creation of a prosperous and successful Palestinian state by removing unauthorized outposts, ending settlement expansion, and finding other ways for the Palestinian Authority to exercise it's responsibilities without compromising Israel's security.”3 (Ibid)

The legitimacy of Israel’s ownership of the land called Palestine has been a source of conflict and diplomatic maneuverings for decades. Multiple peace accords and initiatives have been drawn up over the decades and the parties continue to base future negotiations on aspects of these failed instruments. A former Israeli Prime Minister who was also a former UN Ambassador argued in his book the following:

“Today, after five major wars, Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with Israel and some of the other Arab states are prepared to recognize Israel, but only in exchange for a Palestinian state bordering Tel Aviv that would obviously jeopardize Israel’s existence. This prerequisite, which is now demanded in nearly every corner of the Arab world, shows the distance that the Arabs must still travel in permanently reconciling themselves to the presence of a Jewish state in their midst.

This is not surprising if one considers the enormous anti-Israel propaganda that has been directed at the Arab and Moslem masses, in which 150 million people have been endlessly told that a tiny country in their midst has no place under the sun, that it must be “excised like a cancerous tumor” and “thrown into the dustbin of history,” as I heard my Iranian counterpart at the UN say in 1984. When this notion is repeated again and again, day in and day out, for half a century, there is no reason why the Arab masses should alter their hostility toward Israel”.4 (Benjamin Netanyahu, A Durable Peace, Israel and its Place Among Nations, Warner Books, A Time Warner Company, Copyright 2000, p.325)

The former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also opined “The Arabs often say that the wrong done to the Palestinians is so great that they cannot come to terms with Israel’s existence until it is set aright. But this argument, too, is intended only to confound the issue. The Palestinian Arabs were offered a state by the United Nations in 1947, and they rejected it. So did the Arab states, which did not only unanimously opposed Palestinian statehood but sent their armies into Palestine to grab whatever they could—for themselves. Further, when the West Bank and Gaza, which Jordan and Egypt captured in 1948, were in Arab hands, barely a whisper about Palestinian statehood was ever heard in either place. Thus, there is no shred of a historical connection linking the demand for Palestinian statehood to the Arab refusal to recognize Israel”. 5(Ibid, p. 324)

In assessing the new US proposal for Two Sovereign States, the Bush plan offers to the Arab Community a Palestinian State by the end of 2008 on land that is Biblically recognized as Israel’s. When Bush, Olmert and Abbas addressed the Delegates gathered they spoke of the fact that this was the right time, that there may not be another opportunity, the timing is now. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Olmert told Haaretz News on Wednesday November 28 (day two of the Conference) “If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished."6(Haaretz.Com, by Aluf Benn, David Landau, Shmuel Rosner and Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondents and AP Tags: Ehud Olmert, Annapolis summit Thu., November 29, 2007 Kislev 19, 5768)

In a related move the United States appointed General James Jones a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander who was based in Europe until 2006, as the U.S.'s new security coordinator in the territories. Jones will determine whether Israel and the Palestinians have met their commitments in accordance with the "road map" plan, and will draw up security plans for transferring responsibility for additional Palestinian cities from the Israel Defense Forces to Abbas'.7(Ibid)

What’s at stake for the United States? The instability in the region continues to be a matter of grave concern for America and her Western Allies. Similarly, the war in Iraq has undergone a paradigm shift given the fact the US military has moved beyond fighting the Iraqi army to military engagements against insurgents and terrorists in that country. Additionally, claims that Iran posses a nuclear threat to US interests; and a growing tolerance for radical Islamists movements have all played a critical role in influencing the Bush Administration’s determination to create a Palestinian state. Other factors include:

• • Higher oil prices which continues to give Arab states more leverage;
• • An emerging Iranian hegemony which is likely to threaten the state of Israel;
• • Dwindling Arab support for the US; and
• • Fear of Middle East terror networks achieving political clout.

Cogently, the relevance of a promise made by the Lord God Almighty to Israel still applies despite current geopolitical realties. In Deuteronomy 1:21 Moses told the children of Israel “Look, the Lord your God has set the land before you; go up and possess it, as the Lord God of your fathers has spoken to you; do not fear or be discouraged.” (Prophecy Study Bible, John C. Hagee, General Editor, New King James Version, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville). But the Lord told Israel not … meddle with Essau… because I have given Mount Seir to Essau as a possession (Deut2:5); do not harass Moab… because I have given Mount Ar to the descendants of Lot as a possession (Deut2: 9); do not harass or meddle with the people of Ammon… because I have given Ammon as a possession to the descendants of Lot. Nevertheless, to Joshua the Lord instructs him saying, Moses My servant is dead. Now therefore, arise, go over this Jordan, you and all this people, to the land which I am giving them---to the children of Israel (Joshua 1:2).

The Scriptures confirm that God did give land to the children of Israel. Land of their own… specifically located over the Jordan as far as the River Euphrates. Therefore, the peoples of this region have no right to lay claims to any portion of land belonging to the Israelis. Likewise, there is no account of Biblical instructions to given to any nation or government to participate in the “negotiated distribution or re-distribution” of land belonging to Israel, including Jerusalem. Consequently, the current US initiative can be described as one of “Dispossession” of the Israelis. Israel’s sole right to this specific Real Estate is well documented.

Cherub A. Nicholls
November 30, 2007