> From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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?
A good portion or Syria, Lebanon, jordan, Isreal/Palestine, etc. was controlled by the nation of Judah, some 1930 years ago. People called Cannanites once dwelt there but are now extinct (or assimilated). If you want to be technical, Syria sold vast tracts of the golan heights to the rothschilds in the 1800's and the rothchilds bequeathed them to Israel. Then syria took back the golan heights... > 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.
