On Sun, Jan 27, 2002 at 02:52:42PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Of course,
To me, not of course. Would you care to elaborate? > (why am i joining this misbegotten discussion?) I don't know. Are you feeling misbegotten? > in the Israeli-Palestinian situation, it's the *Israelis* who are > the equivalent of the Native Americans. Just imagine if somehow, a > millennia from now, the Native Americans decide that they want some > of their land back in order to revive a country of their own. I'd > support giving it back to them. Exactly which land region(s) are you referring to, and at what exact time period was this land uncontestedly in the hands of a group who are the ancestors of modern day Israelis, and can you prove that no one else had any valid claim to the land during or before this time? To me, your analogy seems a stretch. I think the old cliche, "posession is 9 tenths of the law" is relevant here. In both cases (Native Americans, Palesitinians) land that had been under a group's posession for quite some time (i.e., their homes, for more than a few generations) was taken away from them. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.com/
