Foreword, when is a homeland not a homeland?

[s~Z]

>>>All I've said is that the contemporary reader would be expected to pick
up on it as an allusion.
But that allusion is one of many and comes in a passage designed to
generalise.<<<

And to read it as generalisation requires zero speculation. Speculation on
allusions and expectations of the reader are fine, but unverifiable. They
just don't seem necessary here. The general point is applicable to 9/11 and
beyond, without having to pick out code words as specifiers of 9/11. Plus,
jbor's analysis, as usual, is pretty clear without straying from the text or
requiring speculation. He is a master at such which is why it is fun to
argue with him in the rare instances when I disagree.