We have read, with interest, some of your past articles, and thru prayer, have appreciated the truth therein.
 
One of your latest articles, "Arabian Fables (I)" is being put on our website solely for teaching purposes, information attached. (We make no money from our teaching, neither do we solicit on our web-site. Thus, we are adhering strictly to the copyright law.)
 
GOD has made it very plain to us that the term "occupied territory" is very much a lie, even to the point where we have this incredible desire that the Israeli government would teach the world that these territories were stolen in 1948.
 
It is our belief that Israel must reoccupy their own territory that was given to them in 1948 to secure the settlements, bring a form of harmony and unity to the peaceful Arabs, and encourage the illegitimate-warlike inhabitants to depart.
 
GOD's testimony, thru His holy "Ark of the Covenant" earlier hidden by Jeremiah [2Macc2] in Mt. Moriah, and His witness to the world will be made plain when the tablets of Moses and Moses' original Torah scroll are put in public view.
 
Consequently, we are very interested in future articles you publish.
 
Alex Poole
 
P.S. The "Arabian Fables" article can be found on our site by going to the following link and scrolling down to item k).
https://www.cccinc-7candlesticks.org/CCCIncN+EGOD'sholyjudgement.html
 
P.P.S. Should you be interested in Biblical archeology, please visit www.anchorstone.com.
 

    In your Feb. 28 article "Saudi Leader Pushes His Peace Plan," one sentence demands rebuttal, the one about the disputed territories referred to variously as either "Judea and Samaria" or "Occupied West Bank." It reads: ". . . right wing politicians . . . believe Israel has a historic claim to the lands." This implies that only Israel's right-wing politicians think Israel has a right to be in those territories, as if no other Israeli, and/or no one outside Israel, might share that view.
 
    Let's set the record straight, once and for all: There is no debate, in Israel or in a single country with a Western legal system, as to Israel's legal and historical claim to the Land of Israel -- at least between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean Sea. What disagreement there is, involves if and when and how to pursue or waive this right.
 
    This claim, though of course influenced by biblical history and religious traditions, is fully based on legal and historical facts -- facts, not opinions or declarations. The last legal sovereign in the area was Britain, given a mandate over the land (including what is now Jordan) by the League of Nations. That mandate, and Britain's Balfour Declaration, followed by the U.N. and all Western states' acceptance of the establishment of the state of Israel, is the foundation of Israel's "claim" to the land.
 
    Judea and Samaria, the "occupied west bank of the Jordan river," has had no legal sovereign accepted by the U.N. or Western nations since 1947. Israel has at least as powerful a claim, if not stronger, than any "Palestinian" community, which did not exist as a separate "nation" until, if then, the founding of the PLO in 1964. There never has been a country called "Palestine," just an area in the eastern Mediterranean re-named by the Romans to attempt to erase the Jewish people's connection with the land after the Jewish revolt in 125 A.D., and governed by a succession of rulers until the founding of Israel. In fact, Britain's arbitrary carving "Trans-Jordan" out of Mandatory Palestine (70% of it) more than fulfills the "Arab state" called for by the U.N. in 1947.
 
    Furthermore, Israel's capture of the territories in 1967 occurred during a war of defense, and its right to remain in those territories until peace is brokered is enshrined in the U.N. charter. Moreover, U.N. Resolution 242 specifically refers to Israel's withdrawal from "territories" following a peace agreement -- not unilaterally -- and the definitive "the" describing "territories" was rejected by the framers of that resolution precisely as it was understood that Israel was not to be forced to retreat from strategically vital defensive positions following unprovoked attacks.
 
    What disagreement does exist, across the Western world and in Israel too, regards just what risks are worth taking in allowing Israel's rightful claim to be waived in favor of the establishment of a national home for the Palestinian people. Here, opinions do count. Israel's left and much of the Western world believe (or used to) that to give up the territories in return for even a cold "peace" is worth trying. Israel's right and center, and now more Western thinkers, hold that until attitudes change in the Arab world, until the Arabs and specifically the Palestinians accept Israel's existence as legitimate -- and truly pursue peace as an end in itself (rather than a means to weaken and destroy Israel) -- the risk to Israel, and as we've seen recently her individual citizens, is far too great.
 

    In response to your March 7 article "Palestinian Violence Has Forced Israel, U.S. to Face Tough Choice":
 
    Jerusalem has never been of any significant religious importance to Arabs or Muslims. It appears in the Jewish Bible 669 times and the Christian Bible 154 times. Jerusalem or its Arab variants appear as often in the original Koran as it does in the Buddhists' sacred text -- which is to say, not once.
 
    Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab political entity in recorded history. In fact, the only time the Arab nations cared about Jerusalem was after they lost the 1967 war and Jordan lost control over parts of eastern Jerusalem. The PLO's claims to Jerusalem are motivated not by religious concerns but by political ambitions. Let's keep that fact straight.
 
Mike Jackman
Mill Valley, Calif.