Pete Vincent wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Christoph Reuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Interesting. So the Kingdom of Israel existed only in a very short > >period some 3000 years ago. Hmm, what does this say about the > >legitimacy of the "law of return"...? > > You will notice that in all that time, the Kurds never had self-rule, > let alone an empire. Does that mean we should decide they don't > exist, and have no right to a contiguous homeland?
I was talking about the "law of return", not a "right to a contiguous homeland". Very different things. The "law of return" is unique to Israel, world-wide. It means that someone from New York, or anywhere else in the world, can come to Palestine, settle there and send the people who have lived there all their lives, to hell (often literally), destroy their houses and fields, take their water, etc. You see, the right to a contiguous homeland does not mean the right to genocide. One would think that Israelis know this best from history, of all people(s), but alas, they seem to know this the least. Btw, since you mentioned the Kurds, this is a good example of the absurdity of Israeli double standards: In Iraq, Israel supported the Kurds as "freedom fighters" legitimately fighting for independence, but on the other side of the border, Israel agrees with its ally Turkey that the Kurds are terrorists which the Turkish state can kill "by the village" in "national self-defence", and deny the Kurds basic human rights. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
