HHW's notion that "Transfer is central to Zionism"
dsharavi
>Your REFUSAL to acknowledge that "transfer" was
>(and apparently still is) central to Zionism is
>something I can't let pass. I have had a long time
>interest in 19th and 20th Century political ideologies
>and Zionism appears to be the last of the high profile
>examples still standing. I do want to understand this
>correctly.
>
>Clip
>
On Jan 25, 9:56 pm, Cazador <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>The concept of "transferring" European Jews to
>>Palestine and "transferring" the Palestinian people
>>out is central to Zionism.
>
>The sentence above comes from Palestine Remembered.
>It is obviously dead-on accurate.
....The notion of "transfer" was commonly accepted in the period
between the two world wars to designate population exchanges such as
occurred between Turkey and Greece in the 1920s. "Transfer" became a
code word in contemporary Israeli politics after the emergence of the
far right radical party Moledet (Homeland) in the 1980s, led by
Rehavam Zeevi. Moledet advanced the idea of transfer, or the removal
of the Palestinians from the West Bank, as part of its party platform;
and in order to gain legitimacy for himself and his party, Zeevi
declared that he was following in the footsteps of the founders of the
labor movement from its very inception, that "transfer" was vintage
Zionist thinking.
The attempt to attribute the sins of the present to Zionism's founding
fathers is a hallmark of the politics of the Israeli right: thus the
members of Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful) present themselves as
the rightful heirs to the pioneer heritage in the pre-state period.
Zeevi seized on statements on transfer from the 1930s, articulated in
substantially different circumstances, in order to justify such
repulsive actions in our own time. And in this matter, it would seem,
the interests of the Israeli right and the "new historians" dovetail.
It is no coincidence that revisionist ideas were sympathetically
received in the ranks of the right. The "new historians" are intent on
demonstrating that there was never a golden age of simplicity and
innocence in the Zionist movement, and that its founders were full of
guilt and guile from the start; and those on the right are keen to
show that what is repudiated today as immoral was not an idea that
they invented, but rather a part of the Zionist heritage. In both
cases, the result is the libeling of Zionism and the undermining of
its moral foundations.
Morris addressed the question of transfer after he had published his
important study on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem in
1948. His book's much-cited conclusion states that
"[t]he Palestinian refugee problem was born of war, not by design,
Jewish or Arab. It was largely a by-product of Jewish and Arab fears
and of the protracted, bitter fighting that characterized the first
Arab-Israeli war; in smaller part, it was the deliberate creation of
Jewish and Arab military commanders and politicians."
This is a balanced assessment that is corroborated by the evidence.
But Morris was attacked by Arab historians, notably Nur Masalha, and
even by his colleagues Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappe, who argued that his
own documentation justified a harsher verdict. Perhaps as a
consequence of these criticisms, Morris undertook a partial revision
of his findings. What in his earlier book was an ugly but unintended
and even unanticipated by-product of war becomes in his new book one
of the foundations of Zionism:
"The transfer idea goes back to the fathers of modern Zionism and,
while rarely given a public airing before 1937, was one of the main
currents in Zionist ideology from the movement's inception."
According to Morris's new version, just as the idea of transfer
attended Zionism from its inception, so did Arab fears of precisely
such a scheme. The inference from this line of reasoning is that the
Arabs resisted Jewish settlement not because they regarded themselves
as Palestine's rightful owners and did not wish to share the land with
a people whom they perceived as a foreign invader; nor because they
were opposed to transforming Palestine from a land with a
predominantly Muslim culture into a non-Muslim country steeped in
Western culture. No, their motive was well-founded fear: they knew
that the Jews intended in due time to expel them. As Morris writes,
"the fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the
chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism down to 1948 (and indeed
after 1967 as well)." In this way history is spun on its head, and the
effect is made into the cause, and the result of war is promoted into
the paradigm for the entire complex of relations between Arabs and
Jews over several decades.
Zionist leaders always believed that the hoped-for Jewish majority in
Palestine would materialize by means of massive Jewish immigration. It
should not be forgotten that in 1920 the Arab population of Palestine
numbered only some 600,000. The Zionist premise--which history has
proven right--was that there was land aplenty in western Palestine for
millions of Jews and Arabs. All the Zionist plans at the end of the
1930s envisioned the influx of a million Jews to Palestine within a
decade. That magical number was geared to guaranteeing a Jewish
majority, which is why the Arabs were so hostile to immigration: not
because they were afraid of expulsion, but because they wished to
prevent a demographic transformation.
Zionism has been one of the best documented and the most talkative of
national movements. Its records are not limited to the sphere of
political activity and diplomacy, on which Morris and the "new
historians" tend to focus; they include also all the educational and
propagandistic work over many years within all the warring fractions
and currents that comprised the movement. Despite all this
documentation, however, all the efforts by Morris and others to dig up
actual evidence of the early roots of the "transfer" idea have
unearthed only isolated and fragmentary statements--secret thoughts
and wishes, but nothing remotely resembling a program.
The idea of transfer was broached in serious discussion for the first
time in 1937, when the Peel Commission proposed to transfer the large
Arab minority from the territory designated for the tiny Jewish state
as part of the package deal that envisioned a partitioning of western
Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab. In accordance with the
Commission's proposals, the British were to carry out the transfer.
Morris declares that "it is reasonable to assume that the Zionist
leaders played a role in persuading the Peel Commission to adopt the
transfer solution." There is not even a sliver of evidence to support
such a claim, which is very far removed from what any credible
historian may reasonably assume. It is perfectly legitimate for Morris
to surmise that the Zionists did not lament the Peel Commission
proposal, and even rejoiced at it. But such gladness is a long way
from the unsubstantiated presumption that they were implicated in its
formulation.
It is also true that Ben-Gurion and his associates welcomed the
British idea to transfer Arabs from the small area set aside for the
Jewish state. In Ben-Gurion's efforts at the Twentieth Zionist
Congress in 1937 to drum up support for adoption of the partition
plan, he made use of the concept of transfer in order to persuade his
comrades to accept the tiny state proposed by the Commission, since
the Jews would be a large majority there. The idea of transfer was a
lure designed to convince Zionists to swallow the bitter pill of
partition. In later years, Ben-Gurion warned of the dangers inherent
in embracing the idea of transfer as a Zionist program, even after the
British Labour Party had chosen to incorporate it in its platform.
Morris recalls that, over a prolonged period, Arab leaders declared
that the true aim of Zionism was to uproot and to expel the Arabs,
while the Zionists claimed there was ample room in Palestine for both
peoples. But, as Morris adds,
"the stark realities of the 1930s, with wholesale persecution in
Central and Eastern Europe and with Britain closing the gates to
Jewish immigration, seems to prove the Arabs right. Palestine would
not be transformed into a Jewish state unless all or much of the Arab
population was expelled."
Otherwise, Morris explains, a Jewish majority could not be achieved.
This argument boggles the mind. If we are speaking about the mandatory
period, then the British, who did not permit Jewish immigration, most
certainly would not have endorsed any plan of Arab transfer. If we are
speaking about a future with Palestine under Jewish rule, then the
Jewish authorities would have been able to bring in millions of Jews
unhindered and thereby to resolve the question of the dominant
majority without resorting to expulsion. What had fueled a massive
wish to leave Europe was the calamitous situation of the Jews there,
the "wholesale persecution" mentioned by Morris.
However you interpret it, in other words, there is not a shred of
evidence that Zionist ideology changed in the 1930s; not a shred of
evidence that the transfer idea supplanted the idea of immigration as
a means to achieve a Jewish majority in Palestine. But still Morris
claims that, starting with the Peel Commission, the idea of transfer
enjoyed a general consensus in virtually all the Zionist bodies. His
book lacks any notes indicating which deliberations (and how many
deliberations) he is referring to, and it is thus impossible to
determine whether the sources corroborate his contention.
In the same manner, Morris links the broaching of transfer within the
context of the discussions on partition in 1937 with the creation of
the refugee problem in 1948: "The idea was in the air from 1937 onward
and without doubt contributed in various ways to the transfer that
eventually took place, in 1948." Morris presents the expulsion as if
it were the outcome of some Zionist master plan. There is no hard
evidence for the existence of such a master plan, but never mind. The
idea, "without doubt," was "in the air."
The Israeli-Arab conflict was not born as a consequence of anxieties
about expulsion. It was born as a consequence of Arab resistance to
the settlement of a foreign element in their land. The feeling of
power among the Palestinian Arabs, who believed they were the rightful
proprietors of Palestine and were unwilling to enter into any sort of
compromise agreement with the Jews, contradicts the argument based on
their alleged fears about eviction. The Palestinians did not go to war
in 1948 because they were afraid the Jews would oust them; they went
to war because they were not prepared to make their peace with the
idea of a Jewish state in Palestine.
The Palestinian Arabs also believed that they would emerge the
victors. The question of what they intended to do with the Jews in
Palestine after a Jewish defeat on the battlefield is, of course,
hypothetical. After the defeat, the flight, and the expulsion of the
Palestinians, moreover, the subject is unmentionable: such questions
are raised only about the victors. When the peace process comes to a
conclusion, documents may be disclosed that shed valuable light on
this point; but in the meantime the issue can be examined only in
terms of the historical facts that we possess. And those facts, alas,
are unequivocal: in all areas where the Jews went down to defeat at
the hands of the Arabs, not a single Jew was allowed to return.
On both sides, Arab and Jewish, there was a composite of flight and
expulsion. Jews fled in fear from mixed neighborhoods such as the
border areas between Jaffa and Tel Aviv, and even from Jaffa itself.
There were some 10,000 Jewish refugees in the early stages of the war.
Gush Etzion, on the road between Bethlehem and Hebron, was captured by
the Arab Legion and local Palestinian forces: the inhabitants were
killed or taken prisoner and carried across the Jordan. Their
settlements were completely demolished. The settlements Neveh Ya'akov
and Atarot north of Jerusalem, also captured, were totally
obliterated. All the residents of the Jewish quarter in the Old City
in Jerusalem, conquered by local forces with the aid of the Arab
Legion, were taken captive. No Jew was allowed to return to settle in
the Old City--not even the ultra-Orthodox who detested Zionism and
were prepared to live under Arab rule.
With the heightening of the national conflict between the two peoples,
the prospect of living together one under the rule of the other became
less and less palatable. Propaganda stoked mutual fears. The Jews were
convinced that the Arabs were going to throw them into the sea,
because that is what the Arabs said that they would do. The Arabs
feared what the Israeli army might do to them, since Arab opinion-
makers had painted the Israeli army in devilish colors.
The Arab panic led to exodus, and to the collapse of the institutions
of Palestinian society. The more the magnitude of the exodus became
clear, the more admissible and attractive the idea seemed to Israeli
leaders and military commanders--not because the Zionist movement had
been planning such an evacuation all along, but because a remote
option (even if there were some who harbored such hankerings) gained
acceptance in the context of the behavior of both sides during the
war.
The process of Jewish-Palestinian reconciliation has been bound up
with a readiness for mutual recognition, and for mutual assent to the
co-existence of two states in western Palestine. Both sides found it
difficult to recognize the existence and the legitimacy of the other.
And historians also have their difficulties coming to terms with that
reality. From the post-Oslo perspective, the question arises whether
there could have been shortcuts in that process, as suggested by the
allegation of the "new historians" that Israel missed various
opportunities for peace in the past.
We must be careful not to view the outcomes of events as inevitable;
but we must also not trivialize the conflict. It is doubtful whether a
confrontation of such emotional and psychological depth as the Israeli-
Arab dispute can be resolved solely by rational means, by appealing to
the disadvantages that war entails for both parties. History shows
that such conflicts usually have not been ended by reason and good
will. They have usually been ended by weariness, as both sides were
ground down by the death and the bitterness, and both sides came to
realize that victory is unattainable. In a discussion of the
development of Zionism since Herzl, the Israeli historian Jacob Talmon
once adduced this observation by Friedrich Engels:
"History is perhaps the cruelest goddess of all, and she drives her
victorious chariot upon heaps and heaps of bodies, not just in time of
war, but also during peaceful economic development. And alas, we men
and women are such fools that we never dare to venture out for any
real progress unless impelled to do so as a result of boundless
suffering."
That is exactly the prospect today.
And so the dialogue between history and historiography will continue.
If it turns out that the hopes for an Israeli-Arab peace were
premature, then the picture of the past will also be soured, and the
currents critical of Israel will almost certainly be strengthened. If
the peace process is carried forward to a successful conclusion, and
Israel is welcomed as a fully recognized polity among the states of
the Middle East, then a perspective on the past will be reinforced
whose rudiments are already evident, though only intermittently in the
writings of Avi Shlaim and Benny Morris: the perspective of realism.
When reality comes more closely to approximate our moral ideals,
moralism will become redundant. We will see this thick and twisted
conflict more accurately and more humanely. And the power of discourse
may succeed where the power of arms has failed.
--Translated by William Templer
ANITA SHAPIRA, the Ruben Merenfeld Professor of the Study of Zionism
at Tel Aviv University, is the author of Land and Power: The Zionist
Resort to Force, 1881-1948 (Stanford University Press).
--Anita Shapira, The Past Is Not a Foreign Country: The Failure of
Israel's "New Historian: to Explain War and Peace", Post date 12.01.00
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/courses01/rrtw/Shapira.htm
"Anita Shapira must be taken seriously"
--From: "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:19:54 -0800 (PST)
"By the way, sincere thanks for introducing me to Anita Shapira. I
respect her but I think you have problems ahead of you given what she
says."
--From: "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:02:26 -0800 (PST)
lol
Deborah
mirjam
Thank you for an interesting article , i think you have overlooked one
very interesting fact That the British brought in Arabs from All over
the Middle East to either work in their service or fill in so called
empty places .
http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/return.html
Many of the Arab People who live and work in Haifa and the North of
Israel tell me they or their parents Originally came from , Syria,
Lebanon , Egypt , Saudi Arabia etc.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Britain's role in bringing in illegal Arabs and keeping out Jews,
trying to create an artificial Arab majority in Palestine 1920-1948
For many who aren't familiar with the background of the "Palestinian
Right to Return" claim here are some facts.
The League of Nations set up the Palestinian Mandate to provide a home
for the Jewish people, approximately 12 million people in 1900s.1
In "recognition to the historical connection of the Jewish people with
Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in
that country", land was chosen to accommodate a "Jewish National
Homeland". This land included what is now Israel and Jordan. 2
The entire area of both Israel [West Palestine] and Jordan [East
Palestine] had a relatively stable population at around 600,000 people
for the entire duration of the Ottoman empire.3
It was thought that 12,000,000 Jews would fill up this area (East and
West Palestine) while being sensitive to the rights of the 550,000 non-
Jews and 50,000 Jews already living there.4,5
In the late 1880s, tremendous amounts of money were invested in
purchasing land for new settlements along the coast of Israel. These
settlements were in addition to the long time existing Jewish
communities of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jericho, Tiberias, Safed, and Gaza.
6
Massive numbers of Syrian, Egyptians, Trans-Jordanian and Iraqi
migrant Arabs workers set up camps around the Jewish settlements to
work in the new orchards to seek a better standard of living. In some
places (Rishon LeTzion for example) there were as many as 10 Arab
settlers to 1 Jewish settler.7,8
The British published the Balfour Declaration in 1917, and after the
fall of the Ottoman Empire was given responsibility "facilitating
Jewish Immigration for the establishment of a Jewish National Home"
under the supervision of the Palestinian Mandate Council.9
In 1920 the British set Jewish Immigration quotas, restricting Jewish
immigration. The British requested the French to STOP monitoring
illegal Arab immigration along the border of Lebanon and Syria with
West Palestine (Israel) allowing free immigration of Arabs into
Western Palestine [Israel].10
Britain's first High Commissioner to Palestine, Herbert Samuel reports
"There are now [in 1921] in the whole of Palestine [Israel+Jordan]
hardly 700,000 people". He also questions the propriety of a "Jewish
Majority" in Palestine.
In 1921, T. E. Lawrence informed Churchill that Emir Feisal
(Abdullah's brother, and Lawrence "of Arabia's" choice to lead the
Arab revolt) had "agreed to abandon all claim of his father to
[Western] Palestine [=Israel]," if Feisal got in return Iraq and
Eastern Palestine [=Jordan] as Arab territories.11
In 1922 Churchill White Paper limits Jewish immigration to "capacity
to absorb new arrivals" - absorptive capacity.12
In 1928 Eastern Palestine [Jordan] was closed to Jewish settlement,
and the Arab Legion was placed in charge for monitoring illegal Arab
immigration from Eastern Palestine [Jordan] into Western Palestine
[Israel] 13
From the years from 1890 to 1945 about 500,000 Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi
and Eastern Palestine [Jordan] Arabs settled into West Palestine,
later in 1939 Winston Churchill said "So far from being persecuted,
the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their
population has increased more than even all world Jewry could lift up
the Jewish population." 14
In 1929 British Shaw Commission finds Jewish immigration of 1925-26
was "excessive" and recommends restriction of Jewish immigration and
land sales.
1930 Passfield White Paper restricts Jewish immigration and land
acquisition, based on "absorptive capacity."
Cultivators' Ordinance of 1933 replaces earlier laws, institutes
giving free land from Western Palestine to Arab "statutory tenants"
that is Arab settlers or nomadic Bedouin who had not "grossly
neglecting" areas of grazing or occasional presence 15
In 1934 Government institutes practice of deducting their estimated
numbers of illegal Jewish immigrants from Jewish immigration quotas
16
In 1936, The Conference of Protestant and Catholics in America
published "It is the profound conviction of Christian America that
[the British Government] rescind its illegal, unjust, and indefensible
partition of Palestine, to restore Trans-Jordania [Jordan] to its
proper place as part of Palestine territory, and throw it open to
Jewish Settlement" 17
Also in 1936 the Arabs riot with funds supplied by the Nazi's 18
In 1937 Palestine Royal commission, recognizing that Arab majority was
building, they recommends partition Western Palestine a second time
into two states one Jewish, one Arab, state. After the violent
rejection by Arab leaders of the Palestine Royal Commission Report's
recommendation, British Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Anthony Eden,
then aimed for another plan, "which would not give Jews any territory
exclusively for their own use." 19 There was little attention to
inherent "justice" in Government's in an artificially created Arab
majority as Eden later wrote to his private secretary, "If we must
have preferences, let me murmur in your ear that I prefer Arabs to
Jews." 20
"I can only hope and expect that the other world, which has such deep
sympathy for these criminals [the Jews], will at least be generous
enough to convert this sympathy into practical aid. We, on our part,
are ready to put all these criminals at the disposal of these
countries, for all I care, even on luxury ships" 21 Adolf Hitler
offered to allow the Jews to emigrate from Europe in 1938, if anyone
would take them. 22
1939 British Government White Paper enforces new, rigidly pro-Arab,
anti-Mandate policy: restricting Jewish immigration to a token number
for five years, and afterwards at the discretion of "Arabs of
Palestine."
In 1939 The Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations
protested the Britain's "White Paper" in August. Four out of the seven
members intended to strike down the restrictive White Paper as a
violation of the Mandate of Palestine. But WWII intervened in the few
days before the League was to review the matter. The meeting was to
have taken place on September 8; Germany marched on Poland September
1, and Britain declared war on Germany September 3.23
1940 Britain Prohibits transfers of most land in Western Palestine
"except to a Palestinian Arab".24 Neville Chamberlain, Britain's
Prime Minister in that most pivotal period of the shaping of British
policy, 1937-1940. Chamberlain told his cabinet that "If we must
offend one side, let us offend the Jews rather than the Arabs". 25
In 1941 the Mufti of Jerusalem (Arafat's 'Uncle'26) relocated his
headquarters to Berlin to maintain closer connection with the Nazi
government. 27
In 1944, Henry Morgenthau, United States Secretary of the Treasury to
President Roosevelt said "The British were apparently prepared to
accept the probable death of thousands of Jews in enemy territory
because of "the difficulties of disposing of any considerable number
of Jews should they be rescued." 28
As the war progressed, Jewish "restraint" was strained thin. While the
doomed Jews were frantically fighting to get into substandard ships
surreptitiously headed for the Jewish National Home, Palestine
officials were devising additional measures to keep Jewish refugees
out. Jews were "only racial refugees," one British officer decided.
The White Paper was stringently enforced with no modification despite
the news of wholesale persecution and slaughter of the Jews. 29
The British Army brings in 30,000 foreign Arab workers to help in the
war effort, to work and eventually settle in Western Palestine.30
In 1949 Ernest Bevin, then Britsh Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, says "It would be too high a price to pay for the friendship
of Israel to jeopardize, by estranging the Arabs, either the base in
Egypt or the Middle Eastern oil." 30s
In the end, during WWII, six million Jews are killed. At the end of
the war instead of A Jewish National Home
12,000,000 Jews settling in "Palestine" (what is now Israel+Jordan),
together with 600,000 Arabs --
We have
6,000,000 Jews dead
5,000,000 Jews living outside of Israel
1,200,000 Jews living in 1/3 of the original "Jewish National Home"
1,500,000 Arabs living in Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza (Jordan today
is over 60% Palestinian) 32
600,000 Arabs fled the fledgling state
Of the 600,000 Arabs fled the fledgling state, 70% left without seeing
an Israeli soldier 34,35 because they had not lived there very long,
they were migrant families, and many had fled back to Eastern
Palestine [Jordan] where they had come from originally.
The Arab League forbid any Arab country from accepting these
"refugees" and the U.N. declared that any Arab who had lived for TWO
YEARS 36 in Western Palestine before 1948 "He and his descendants
could claim the right of return". Now 3,000,000 Arabs, without proof
or document are claiming to be descendants of these original refugees
and are claiming the "right of return".
1. The Standard Jewish Encyclopedia, (Doubleday & Company, 1959), p.
1754
2. League of Nations, Mandate for Palestine, Preamble, 1922
3. Carl Hermann Voss, Answers on the Palestine Question (Boston:
1949), p. 17.
4. E.C. Blech to Sir Nicholas O'Conor, Jerusalem, 16 November 1907, FO
371/356 No 40321 (No. 62), cited by Farhi, "Documents," in Ma'oz,
Studies, p. 190.
5. Vital, The Origins of Zionism, p. 196.
6. Y. Ben-Zvi, The Land of Israel and Its Settlements During the
Turkish Regime, pp. 205-206, cited by David Ben-Gurion, Israel, A
Personal History (Tel Aviv, 1971), p. 15.
7. Ketavim, vol. 111, December 18, 1889, p. 66. From letter written
by Y. Grazavsky
to Y. Eisenstadt.
8 Simon Schama, Two Rothschilds, p. 156, quoting Emile Meyerson
report, La Colonisation Juivre en Palestine, December 13, 1914, p. 4.
9. League of Nations, Mandate for Palestine, Command #1785, Article 6,
1922.
10. Public Record Office, Kew Gardens, Foreign Office, Great Britain
371/20819; see also interview between the officer administering the
Government (OAG) and Shertok, October 16, 1937.
11. Letter from Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill from T. E.
Lawrence, January 1921
12. Anglo-American Committee, Survey, 1945-1956, vol. I, p. 20
13. Annual report on the Administration for 1936, p. 324.
14. Martin Gilbert, Churchill, vol. 5, p. 1072.
15. Cultivators' Ordinance of 1933, Drayton, vol. 1, p. 506, cited in
Survey, pp. 290-291
16. Report for the year 1934, p. 28; Report for the Year 1.935, p. 13;
Report, Department of Migration, 1935, p. 19
17. Conference of Protestant and Catholic Leaders, New York, December
1936, reported in Palestine, January 13, 1937, vol. XII, no. 2.
18. Arab Higher Committee - Its Origins, Personnel and Purposes: The
Documentary Record submitted to the United Nations, May 1947 by Nation
Associates of New York p. 5; a documentary record of the Mufti's and
other Arab notables' pro-Nazi activities.
19. Public Record Office, Kew Gardens, Foreign Office, Great Britain
371/20821; Nov. 26, 1937, Eden to Lindsay, British Ambassador to the
United States. Cited in Gilbert, Exile, pp. 193-194.
20. Eden to Harvey, 7 September 195 1, BL 56402. Cited in Wasserstein,
Britain, p. 34.
21. Speech at Konigsberg, April 1938. Cited in Avriel, Open, p. 21.
22. "Undersecretary of State, Sumner Welles, had devised the idea of
an international conference," believing that the calling of the
conference and its related commotion "would in themselves act as an
indicator of the American Government's stand and perhaps influence the
Nazis." Ehud Avriel, Open, pp. 20-2 1; also see Arthur Morse, While
Six Million Died (New York: Hart Publishing Co.; 1967), p. 60; also
see Joint Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on
Immigration, United States Senate, and a Subcommittee of the Committee
on Immigration and Naturalization' House of Representatives, 16th
Congress, Ist Session, April 20, 21, and 24, 1939, p. 160ff.
23. Bethell, Palestine Triangle, pp. 69-71.
24. Great Britain, Palestine Land Transfer Regulations, Command Paper
6180, 1940; see Esco-Yale, p. 933 ff.
25. Cabinet Committee Minutes: Cabinet Papers 24/285, April 20, 1939.
Cited in Gilbert, Exile, p. 226; also see correspondence to Winston
Churchill reporting of British officials who were "strongly anti-
Semite" in Bucharest and Prague, despite the "persecution" of Jews
there. Cited in Gilbert, Exile, p. 226.
26. The Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini was later the
notorious Nazi who mixed Nazi propaganda and Islam. He was wanted for
war crimes and the slaughter of Jews in Bosnia by Yugoslavia. His mix
of militant propagandizing Islam was an inspriation for both Yasser
Arafat and Saddam Husein: He was also a close relative of Yasser
Arafat and grandfather of the current Temple Mount Mufti. "Arafat's
actual name was Abd al-Rahman abd al-Bauf Arafat al-Qud al-Husseini.
He shortened it to obscure his kinship with the notorious Nazi and ex-
Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini." Howard M. Sachar,
A HISTORY OF ISRAEL (New York: Knopf, 1976). The Bet Agron
International Center in Jerusalem interviewed Arafat's brother and
sister, who described the Mufti as a cousin (family member) with
tremendous influence on young Yassir after the Mufti returned from
Berlin to Cairo. Yasser Arafat himself keeps his exact lineage and
birthplace secret. Saddam Hussein was raised in the house of his
uncle Khayrallah Tulfah, who was a leader in the Mufti's pro-Nazi coup
in Iraq in May 1941.
27. Arab Higher Committee, p. 7; Diary of Major General Erwin
LaHousen, of German Abwehr, September 3, 1941: ". . . Mufti ... is
currently in connection with Abwehr II [Sabotage division of Nazi
intelligence]"; June 2, 1942: ". . . utilization of the connections
with the Grand Mufti for the purpose of Abwehr "... to demonstrate the
solidarity of the Axis powers"; July 13, 1942: "I took part in
discussion" with the Mufti and Hitler's representative-"chief of the
Abwehr" Canaris concerning "Arabian Freedom Movement ... .. The Mufti
made an offer ... that followers of the ... movement led by him, as
well as the followers of former Iraq Prime Minister, Kailani [leader
of Iraqi revolt against Britain] were to be used for purposes of
sabotage and sedition in the Near East in accordance with purposes of
the Abwehr Il." Secret Diary, cited in The Arab Higher Committee.
Among many documents included are photocopies of originals and
translations of Hitler's "secret pledges to the Mufti for Revolt
against British"; of Italy's "promise" to the Mufti to "aid in revolt
against British"; "of Mufti's handwritten diary entries recording
Hitler's "words of the Fuehrer on Nov. 21, 1941, Berlin, Friday from
4:30 P.m. till a few minutes after 6." The following is an extract of
the November 1941 meeting between Hitler and the Mufti, with the Mufti
quoting Hitler: ". . . It is clear that the Jews have accomplished
nothing in Palestine and their claims are lies. All the
accomplishments in Palestine are due to the Arabs and not to the Jews.
I am resolved to find a solution for the Jewish problem, progressing
step by step without cessation." In reply to the Mufti's demand for an
"Axis declaration to the Arabs," Hitler assured that, "Only if we win
the war will the hour of deliverance also be the hour of fulfillment
of Arab aspirations.... If the declaration is issued now, difficulties
will arise .... Now I am going to tell you something I would like you
to keep secret. First, I will ... fight until the complete destruction
of the Judeo-Bolshevik rule has been accomplished. Second ... we will
reach the Southern Caucasus. Third, then I would like to issue a
declaration; for then the hour of liberation of the Arabs will have
arrived. Germany has no ambitions in this area but cares only to
annihilate the power which produces the Jews. Fourth, I am happy that
you have escaped and that you are now with the Axis powers ... You
will be the man to direct the Arab force. ... I understand the Arab
desire for this (declaration-Ed.) but his Excellency the Mufti must
understand that only five years after I became President of the German
Government and Fuehrer of the German people, was I able to get such a
declaration (the Austrian Union-Ed.) ... you can rely on my word. "We
were troubled about you. I know your life history ... I am happy that
you are with us now ... to add your strength to the common cause." The
full text of Mufti's diary entries paraphrasing Hitler are found in
Arab Higher Committee
28. Morgenthau to Roosevelt, January 16, 1944, in Michael Mashberg,
"Documents," cited in Wasserstein, Britain, p. 248.
29. Palestine Statement of Policy, Command #6019, The White Paper of
May 1939, para. 14.
30. Anglo-American Committee, Survey, vol. 1, p. 212.
31. Cabinet Middle East Policy Note by Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs Ernest Bevin, on Israel: Bevin's report reviewing meetings
with England's representatives in the Middle East, to Cabinet, August
25, 1949, PRO CAB 129/2 (CP/49 183).
32. Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics for Palestinians in WB/
Gaza. The Jordanian Governenment has never allowed publication of the
number of Palestinians in Jordan
33. According to various estimates, the accurate number of Arab
refugees who left Israel in 1948 was somewhere between 430,000 and
650,000. An oft-cited study that used official records of the League
of Nations' mandate and Arab census figures determined that there were
539,000 Arab refugees in May 1948.
34. Peter Dodd and Halim Barakat, River Without Bridges.- A Study of
the Exodus of the 1967Arab Palestinian Refugees (Beirut: Institute for
Palestine Studies, 1969), p. 43; on April 27, 1950, the Arab National
Committee of Haifa stated in a memorandum to the Arab States: "The
removal of the Arab inhabitants ... was voluntary and was carried out
at our request ... The Arab delegation proudly asked for the
evacuation of the Arabs and their removal to the neighboring Arab
countries.... We are very glad to state that the Arabs guarded their
honour and traditions with pride and greatness." Cited by J.B.
Schechtman, The Arab Refugee Problem (New York: Philosophical Library,
1952), pp. 8-9; also see Al-Zaman, Baghdad journal, April 27, 1950.
35. Near East Arabic Radio, April 3, 1948: "It must not be forgotten
that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees to flee from
their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem, and that certain
leaders . . . make political capital out of their miserable
situation . . ." Cited by Anderson et al., "The Arab Refugee Problem
and How It Can Be Solved," p. 22; for more regarding Arab
responsibility, see Sir Alexander Cadogan, Ambassador of Great Britain
to the United Nations, speech to the Security Council, S.C., O.R.,
287th meeting, April 23, 1948; also see Harry Stebbens, British Port
Officer stationed in Haifa, letter in Evening Standard (London),
January 10, 1969.
36. Special Report of the Director, UNRWA, 1954-55, UN Document A/
2717.
This page was produced by Joseph E. Katz
Middle Eastern Political and Religious History Analyst
Brooklyn, New York
E-mail to a friend
Source: "From Time Immemorial" by Joan Peters, 1984
SPECIAL OFFER Purchase this national bestseller available at
WorldNetDaily
http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=36
Portions Copyright © 1984 Joan Peters, Portions Copyright © 2001
Joseph Katz
All Rights Reserved
The Revd
wrote:
>Deborah
>Thank you for an interesting article , i think you have overlooked one
>very interesting fact That the British brought in Arabs from All over
>the Middle East to either work in their service or fill in so called
>empty places .
>http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/return.html
>
>Many of the Arab People who live and work in Haifa and the North of
>Israel tell me they or their parents Originally came from , Syria,
>Lebanon , Egypt , Saudi Arabia etc.....
Shabbat shalom, jew cunt. Many of the jews who live and work in Haifa
and the North of 'Israel' tell me they or their parents originally
came from Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Hungary etc.....
<b'rissed>
The Peeler
Name ONE Jew who is talking to you in real life, you hilarious housebound
sexual cripple!
Actually: name ONE person who is talking to you in real life (apart from
your social worker)!
Life can be such a bitch for a bleeding psychopath like you, can't it! LOL
cornholio
I'm sure "many of the jews" who talk to the good Revd/Ali Al Grabarse
only did so in his own delusions.
drahcir
The difference arises when you go back 100 generations or so.
>
> <b'rissed>
The Revd
<justrich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 30, 5:36=A0am, ffor...@smythe.com (The Revd) wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:47:29 -0800 (PST), mirjam <mir...@actcom.co.il>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Deborah
>> >Thank you for an interesting article , i think you have overlooked one
>> >very interesting fact That the British brought in Arabs from All over
>> >the Middle East to either work in their service or fill in so called
>> >empty places .
>> >http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/return.html
>>
>> >Many of the Arab People who live and work in Haifa and the North of
>> >Israel tell me they or their parents Originally came from , Syria,
>> >Lebanon , Egypt , Saudi Arabia etc.....
>>
>> Shabbat shalom, jew cunt. =A0Many of the jews who live and work in Haifa
>> and the North of 'Israel' tell me they or their parents originally
>> came from Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Hungary etc.....
>
>The difference arises when you go back 100 generations or so.
And how many can trace their ancestry that far back?
The Peeler
Yeah, Jews are "talking" to him constantly, night and day. They are the
reason he can't sleep. First thing he thinks of when he wakes up in the
morning is "The Jews". Last thing he thinks of before going to bed is "The
Jews". You can bet that the last thing he will think of on his deathbed will
be "The Jews".
He can't get them out of his system anymore. No wonder he hates them so much
and keeps displaying his lunacy in these groups the way he does. "The Jews"
control him. They are his entire "life". LOL
The Peeler
Well, they'd only have to ask you! YOU can trace people's ancestry that far
back. You know you can! You are, after all, a deranged hallucinating
bleeding psychopath! Does that answer your question, deranged psycho? Any
other question? LMAO!
drahcir
none. But there are other ways of forming an educated hypothesis. DNA,
archaeology, and history combine to provide a most likely scenario
that suggests that Jews from many places have their roots in Israel.
drahcir
It was a valid question. It seems to me you should drink less coffee.
The Peeler
There is nothing ever valid about The Retd!
The Revd
<justrich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 30, 12:10=A0pm, ffor...@smythe.com (The Revd) wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:04:49 -0800 (PST), drahcir
>>
>>
>>
>> <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 30, 5:36=3DA0am, ffor...@smythe.com (The Revd) wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:47:29 -0800 (PST), mirjam <mir...@actcom.co.il>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Deborah
>> >> >Thank you for an interesting article , i think you have overlooked on=
>e
>> >> >very interesting fact That the British brought in Arabs from All over
>> >> >the Middle East to either work in their service or fill in so called
>> >> >empty places .
>> >> >http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/return.html
>>
>> >> >Many of the Arab People who live and work in Haifa and the North of
>> >> >Israel tell me they or their parents Originally came from , Syria,
>> >> >Lebanon , Egypt , Saudi Arabia etc.....
>>
>> >> Shabbat shalom, jew cunt. =3DA0Many of the jews who live and work in H=
>aifa
>> >> and the North of 'Israel' tell me they or their parents originally
>> >> came from Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Hungary etc.....
>>
>> >The difference arises when you go back 100 generations or so.
>>
>> And how many can trace their ancestry that far back?
>
>none. But there are other ways of forming an educated hypothesis. DNA,
>archaeology, and history combine to provide a most likely scenario
>that suggests that Jews from many places have their roots in Israel.
Or somewhere in that general region. But given the proximity of
Syria, Lebanon, Egypt etc to what is now Palestine, is it not possible
that many of the people "mirjam" mentioned could also have come from
the same region?
drahcir
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:18:00 -0800 (PST), drahcir
>
>
>
Although there are Palestinian Muslims who share the "Jewish genes" -
how could it be otherwise, when arabs arrived over 14 centuries ago -
my understanding is that arabs from Egypt, Syria, etc, and Lebanese
(phoenician) have DNA that lacks this haplotype.
The Revd
<justrich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 30, 4:09=A0pm, ffor...@smythe.com (The Revd) wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:18:00 -0800 (PST), drahcir
>>
>>
>>
>> <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 30, 12:10=3DA0pm, ffor...@smythe.com (The Revd) wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:04:49 -0800 (PST), drahcir
>>
>> >> <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Jan 30, 5:36=3D3DA0am, ffor...@smythe.com (The Revd) wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:47:29 -0800 (PST), mirjam <mir...@actcom.co.=
>il>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >Deborah
>> >> >> >Thank you for an interesting article , i think you have overlooked=
> on=3D
>> >e
>> >> >> >very interesting fact That the British brought in Arabs from All o=
>ver
>> >> >> >the Middle East to either work in their service or fill in so call=
>ed
>> >> >> >empty places .
>> >> >> >http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/return.html
>>
>> >> >> >Many of the Arab People who live and work in Haifa and the North o=
>f
>> >> >> >Israel tell me they or their parents Originally came from , Syria,
>> >> >> >Lebanon , Egypt , Saudi Arabia etc.....
>>
>> >> >> Shabbat shalom, jew cunt. =3D3DA0Many of the jews who live and work=
> in H=3D
>> >aifa
>> >> >> and the North of 'Israel' tell me they or their parents originally
>> >> >> came from Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Hungary etc.....
>>
>> >> >The difference arises when you go back 100 generations or so.
>>
>> >> And how many can trace their ancestry that far back?
>>
>> >none. But there are other ways of forming an educated hypothesis. DNA,
>> >archaeology, and history combine to provide a most likely scenario
>> >that suggests that Jews from many places have their roots in Israel.
>>
>> Or somewhere in that general region. =A0But given the proximity of
>> Syria, Lebanon, Egypt etc to what is now Palestine, is it not possible
>> that many of the people "mirjam" mentioned could also have come from
>> the same region?
>
>Although there are Palestinian Muslims who share the "Jewish genes" -
>how could it be otherwise, when arabs arrived over 14 centuries ago -
>my understanding is that arabs from Egypt, Syria, etc, and Lebanese
>(phoenician) have DNA that lacks this haplotype.
Quite possibly, but my understanding is that these Jewish genes were
spread over an area much larger than what is now Palestine. As were
the Arab genes.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> Deborah
> Thank you for an interesting article , i think you have overlooked one
> very interesting fact That the British brought in Arabs from All over
> the Middle East to either work in their service or fill in so called
>
> Many of the Arab People who live and work in Haifa and the North of
> Israel tell me they or their parents Originally came from , Syria,
> Lebanon , Egypt , Saudi Arabia etc.....
Clip to the source of this information:
>
> This page was produced by Joseph E. Katz
> Middle Eastern Political and Religious History Analyst
> Brooklyn, New York
> E-mail to a friend
>
> Source: "From Time Immemorial" by Joan Peters, 1984
> SPECIAL OFFER Purchase this national bestseller available at
> WorldNetDailyhttp://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=36
>
> Portions Copyright © 1984 Joan Peters, Portions Copyright © 2001
> Joseph Katz
> All Rights Reserved
The Joan Peters book, "From Time Immemorial," has been completely de-
legitimized. It is a fraud and no one in his right mind cites it
today. If you would like to know why you can search her name or the
title on Norman Finkelstein's blog. I assure you she will come up.
coaste...@yahoo.com
icono...@yahoo.com
View profile
More options Jan 30, 2:27 am
HHW said
> > "Anita Shapira must be taken seriously"
> > --From: "iconoclast @yahoo.com" <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>
> > Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:19:54 -0800 (PST)
> > "By the way, sincere thanks for introducing me to Anita Shapira. I
> > respect her but I think you have problems ahead of you given what she
> > says."
> > --From: "iconoclast @yahoo.com" <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>
> > Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:02:26 -0800 (PST)
And just as we are about to get into the Shapira problems, Deborah
said:
> > lol
> > Deborah
And HHW said:
> What are you laughing at. I do take her seriously. She quotes Benny
> Morris:
> "The transfer idea goes back to the fathers of modern Zionism and,
> while rarely given a public airing before 1937, was one of the main
> currents in Zionist ideology from the movement's inception."
And don't forget you got yourself into this mess by claiming:
> > Transfer isn't at issue, nor is this phoney claim from the Abu Shitta
> > site. Transfer was NEVER "central to Zionism", and, in fact, the first
> > to broach the notion seriously were the British. Neither is H's paste
> > job from Abu-Shitta's site. Tthe phoney out of context "quotes" which
> > H repastes here -- after having previously repasted them -- have
> > already been refuted a number of times....
First you say "Transfer isn't an issue...." That's in the present
tense. As the right of Palestinian return is an issue whether you
like
it or not, transfer obviously is. You will have to pay off the
claimants based on the FACT that they were ethnically cleansed.
Then you say: "Transfer was NEVER 'central to ZIonism". Didn't ya
just
love Benny Morris? And Ilan Pappe, and Avi Shlaim who forced him to
go
over his own findings again and to say, oops, sorry but I made a
mistake:
> "The transfer idea goes back to the fathers of modern Zionism and,
> while rarely given a public airing before 1937, was one of the main
> currents in Zionist ideology from the movement's inception."
And then you said:
" the first to broach the notion seriously were the British."
And now I've given you a systematic historical study written by a
British Rabbi which destroys that naive (as kind as I can be in the
circumstances) claim by showing that "the notion" goes all the way
back to the founder of modern Zionism and that Morris is now
correct.
And finally you say that you have in the past "refuted" the quotes
compiled at Palestine Remembered from founding generation Zionists,
something like ten of them, which show that transfer was one of the
main currents in Zionist ideology from the movements inception.
The problem with that is that you simply have not done it. You can
not
do it. But now you hope that the estimable Professor of Zionist
History can do it for you, but she knows better than to try to do so.
So she takes a different approach. We'll take a respectful look at
her
later. In the meantime I'll work at getting you some more quotes from
the good Rabbi's exhaustive study which is featured on Palestine
Remembered.
BTW, don't you just love the fact that Benny Morris got right to the
nub of the issue when he admitted that without transfer, read ethnic
cleansing, the Zionist project was doomed ab initio.?
Do the right thing, Deborah. Do what's good for America and good for
the Jews. Join me in urging your people to get the hell out of the
West Bank.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Nonsense. A gene or two common to the rest of the Middle-East. Don't
you remember your Israelite genes fiasco?
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:20:35 -0800 (PST), drahcir
>
>
>
>
>
There simply are no specifically "Jewish" genes.
dsharavi
> Deborah
> Thank you for an interesting article , i think you have overlooked one
> very interesting fact That the British brought in Arabs from All over
> the Middle East to either work in their service or fill in so called
> empty places .http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/return.html
Thanks for the interesting article, mirjam, but I don't think I
overlooked it in the context of the "transfer" nonsense H posted. It
didn't seem relevant to the "transfer" nonsense posted by H.
Certainly Arabs from all over the ME were immigrating to Israel to
take advantage of the increased opportunities afforded them by the
"Zionist Enterprise". I recall reading somewhere that the actual
figure for legal Arab residents at the end of the Mandate was a little
over 900,000; the rest were temporary workers, or non-legal residents.
The Arab refugee figure reached 700,000 ONLY after UNRWA began
receiving beaucoup bucks from the US and the UK -- and even then, the
UNRWA director admitted that tens of thousands of "refugees" were
bogus.
> Many of the Arab People who live and work in Haifa and the North of
> Israel tell me they or their parents Originally came from , Syria,
> Lebanon , Egypt , Saudi Arabia etc.....
I found something similar in a book, Jerusalem Mosaic, which was a
series of interviews conducted with teens in in the Jerusalem area. Of
the Arab teens interviewed, only one had grandparents who had lived
there. The grandparents of all the others had immigrated from
surrounding Arab countries.
Good article.
Deborah
> 5. Vital, The Origins of Zionism, p. 196....
>
> read more »
dsharavi
wrote:
> Clip
> iconocl...@yahoo.com
> View profile
> More options Jan 30, 2:27 am
> HHW said
>
<coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>HHW said
>
>>>"Anita Shapira must be taken seriously"
>>>--From: "iconoclast @yahoo.com" <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>
>>>Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:19:54 -0800 (PST)
>
>>>"By the way, sincere thanks for introducing me to Anita Shapira. I
>>>respect her but I think you have problems ahead of you given what she
>>>says."
>>>--From: "iconoclast @yahoo.com" <coaster132000 @yahoo.com>
>>>Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:02:26 -0800 (PST)
>
>And just as we are about to get into the Shapira problems,
H "getting into" any discussion is typically limited to H lying,
backpedaling, lying, sidedodging, going off on unrelated tangents,
and, generally, lying. That's how H "gets into" any issue.
>Deborah said:
>>>lol
>>>Deborah
That's right, Deborah "said" that. Deborah "said" that just after
Deborah posted the Shapira article -- snipped in its entirety by H, in
his first hysterical response to it -- because it showed that H lied
about transfer being "central to Zionism".
This post is now H's THIRD hysterical response to the Shapira article,
and it's even lamer than his first two. Naturally, none of H's posts
addresses the substance of the Shapira article, just as none of H's
hysterical responses to Seth Frantzman's article addressed the
substance of that article.
>And HHW said:
>>What are you laughing at. I do take her seriously. She quotes Benny
>>Morris:
>>"The transfer idea goes back to the fathers of modern Zionism and,
>>while rarely given a public airing before 1937, was one of the main
>>currents in Zionist ideology from the movement's inception."
That bit of H's characteristic mendacity has already been corrected.
>And don't forget you got yourself into this mess by claiming:
>
>>>Transfer isn't at issue, nor is this phoney claim from the Abu Shitta
>>>site. Transfer was NEVER "central to Zionism", and, in fact, the first
>>>to broach the notion seriously were the British. Neither is H's paste
>>>job from Abu-Shitta's site. Tthe phoney out of context "quotes" which
>>>H repastes here -- after having previously repasted them -- have
>>>already been refuted a number of times....
The foregoing was in response to H's lies that:
""transfer" was (and apparently still is) central to Zionism" and "The
concept of "transferring" European Jews to Palestine and
"transferring" the Palestinian people out is central to Zionism."
This is, of course, as the Shapira article shows, utter rubbish.
>First you say "Transfer isn't an issue...."
>That's in the present tense.
In the quote H provided immediately above, I wrote: "Transfer isn't AT
ISSUE". I did NOT write "Transfer isn't AN ISSUE." In any case, the
transfer business is merely another tangential sidedodge of H to avoid
facing the fact that he lied again, and was caught at it.
>As the right of Palestinian return is an issue whether you like
>it or not, transfer obviously is.
Neither were at issue vis a vis the subject H is sidedodging, which is
his having been caught in another of his lies. This "right of
Palestinian return" is yet another characteristic tangential
sidedodge, now that H has been caught - and massively - in his lies
about transfer being "central to Zionism". It wasn't, of course, as
the link H provided proved.
>Then you say: "Transfer was NEVER 'central to ZIonism".
It wasn't, as the Shapira article -- and the source you provided --
proved.
>Didn't ya just love Benny Morris?
H asks that so often one begins to suppose Morris exercises some sort
of sexual attraction for H. Of course, H can hardly be attracted to
the facts Morris presents, which underscore H's lies, such as:
"Neither Ben-Gurion nor the Zionist movement "planned" the
displacement of the 700,000-odd Arabs who moved or were removed from
their homes in 1948. There was no such plan or blanket policy.
Transfer was never adopted by the Zionist movement as part of its
platform; on the contrary, the movement always accepted that the
Jewish state that arose would contain a sizeable Arab minority."
and
"Morris quotes Ben-Gurion from the Twentieth Zionist Congress of Aug.
7, 1937: 'We must carefully examine the question whether transfer is
possible, whether it is necessary, whether it is moral, and will it
bring benefit. We do not want to dispossess.You must remember, that
this method contains an important humane and Zionist idea, to shift
parts of a people [i.e., Palestine Arabs] to their own country and to
settle empty lands.'"
>And Ilan Pappe, and Avi Shlaim who forced him to go
>over his own findings again and to say, oops, sorry but I made a
>mistake:
>>"The transfer idea goes back to the fathers of modern Zionism and,
>>while rarely given a public airing before 1937, was one of the main
>>currents in Zionist ideology from the movement's inception."
Once more unto the breach, dear friends. Correction to the out of
context quote:
H fails to read for context -- or else H is deliberately falsifying
the context. Shapira was critcising Morris. Read again, slowly,
carefully, and in context:
Morris addressed the question of transfer after he had published his
important study on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem in
1948. His book's much-cited conclusion states that
"'[t]he Palestinian refugee problem was born of war, not by design,
Jewish or Arab. It was largely a by-product of Jewish and Arab fears
and of the protracted, bitter fighting that characterized the first
Arab-Israeli war; in smaller part, it was the deliberate creation of
Jewish and Arab military commanders and politicians.'
This is a balanced assessment that is corroborated by the evidence.
But Morris was attacked by Arab historians, notably Nur Masalha, and
even by his colleagues Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappe, who argued that his
own documentation justified a harsher verdict. Perhaps as a
consequence of these criticisms, Morris undertook a partial revision
of his findings. What in his earlier book was an ugly but unintended
and even unanticipated by-product of war becomes in his new book one
of the foundations of Zionism:
"The transfer idea goes back to the fathers of modern Zionism and,
while rarely given a public airing before 1937, was one of the main
currents in Zionist ideology from the movement's inception."
According to Morris's new version, just as the idea of transfer
attended Zionism from its inception, so did Arab fears of precisely
such a scheme. The inference from this line of reasoning is that the
Arabs resisted Jewish settlement not because they regarded themselves
as Palestine's rightful owners and did not wish to share the land with
a people whom they perceived as a foreign invader; nor because they
were opposed to transforming Palestine from a land with a
predominantly Muslim culture into a non-Muslim country steeped in
Western culture. No, their motive was well-founded fear: they knew
that the Jews intended in due time to expel them. As Morris writes,
"the fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the
chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism down to 1948 (and indeed
after 1967 as well)." In this way history is spun on its head, and the
effect is made into the cause, and the result of war is promoted into
the paradigm for the entire complex of relations between Arabs and
Jews over several decades.
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/courses01/rrtw/Shapira.htm
Too bad that seems too much for H's coprolitic brain to absorb.
>And then you said:
>" the first to broach the notion seriously were the British."
That is, in fact, corroborated by the source H himself previously
provided -- ostensibly in support f=of H's lies about the centrality
of the transfer concept. All H did, however, was underscore the fact
that H lied again. And H is still lying.
>And now I've given you a systematic historical study written by a
>British Rabbi which destroys that naive (as kind as I can be in the
>circumstances) claim by showing that "the notion" goes all the way
>back to the founder of modern Zionism and that Morris is now correct.
ROTFLOL!!! The only "systematic" anything H has given is more of his
systematic bullshit.
As I showed previously, said "British Rabbi" is a far right wing UO
right-winger, who made aliya in 1968, was one of Moshe Levinger's
fellow settlers in Hebron in 1968, currently lives in a religious West
Bank settlement, and is one of the Gush Emunim. Rabbi Simon's'
"systematic historical study", to which H provided a link, serves to
underscore Anita Shapira's thesis that the transfer brouhaha is an
invention of the Israeli far right. His transfer quotes relate mostly
to the 1937 Peel Report -- which H claimed was published in 1922 --
while the statements the rabbi presents, which favour transfer of
Arabs AND JEWS, were made by a British officer and advisor to King
Saud in 1939, and FDR in 1944.
None of it supports H's phoney claim that "transfer" was ever "central
to Zionism, and is not now.
>And finally you say that you have in the past "refuted" the quotes
>compiled at Palestine Remembered from founding generation Zionists,
>something like ten of them, which show that transfer was one of the
>main currents in Zionist ideology from the movements inception.
I just did it again. A pity H is too thick to realise it.
>The problem with that is that you simply have not done it.
Add delusional to thick.
>You can not do it.
I can and I have.
>But now you hope that the estimable Professor of Zionist
>History can do it for you, but she knows better than to try to do so.
The estimable Professor of History just did it.
>So she takes a different approach.
She just shot it down, too.
>We'll take a respectful look at her later.
I just bet H will.
>In the meantime I'll work at getting you some more quotes from
>the good Rabbi's exhaustive study which is featured on Palestine
>Remembered.
I already picked up on them -- and corrected them.
>BTW, don't you just love the fact that Benny Morris got right to the
>nub of the issue when he admitted that without transfer, read ethnic
>cleansing, the Zionist project was doomed ab initio.?
See above.
>Do the right thing, Deborah. Do what's good for America and good for
>the Jews. Join me in urging your people to get the hell out of the
>West Bank.
H is not getting away with his typical lie, sidedodge, lie, dosey-do.
As for the rest of it, all I have to say to el maldito mentiroso
sucio y viego -- chingala tu mamma.
Deborah
dsharavi
> > Deborah
> > Thank you for an interesting article , i think you have overlooked one
> > very interesting fact That the British brought in Arabs from All over
> > the Middle East to either work in their service or fill in so called
> > empty places .http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/return.html
>
> > Many of the Arab People who live and work in Haifa and the North of
> > Israel tell me they or their parents Originally came from , Syria,
> > Lebanon , Egypt , Saudi Arabia etc.....
>
wrote:
> Clip to the source of this information:
> > This page was produced by Joseph E. Katz
> > Middle Eastern Political and Religious History Analyst
> > Brooklyn, New York
> > E-mail to a friend
>
> > SPECIAL OFFER Purchase this national bestseller available at
> > WorldNetDailyhttp://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=36
>
> > Joseph Katz
> > All Rights Reserved
>
> legitimized. It is a fraud and no one in his right mind cites it
> today.
Translation: H's impotency in dealing with facts isn't because facts
make H wilt. In H's view, it's REALLY because facts have been
"delegitimized".
Say hello to H's newest excuse: same as H's old excuses.
Deborah
The Peeler
I bet you got some strong Jewish genes active in you, The Retd! The way you
keep obsessing about Jews from early in the morning till late at night,
unable to get them out of your system, trying, in vain, to fight what is in
you, is typical for an insecure, pathological person with conflicting
genetic material.
drahcir
> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:20:35 -0800 (PST), drahcir
>
>
>
Of course they were, since Palestine encompassed an area much larger
than what is now Palestine. But that does not include Egypt or SA or
the majority of Syria and Lebanon. Due to conquest, Arab genes are
spread all over the place.
drahcir
wrote:
Yes, there are. However, they are carried by people who intermarried
with Jews or converted from Judaism. Most Ashkenazim carry Eastern
European genes for the same reason, but only an idiot such as yourself
would claim that that means that there are no specifically Eastern
European genes.
drahcir
wrote:
LOL! This coming from the ignoramus who probably didn't know what a
gene was a few months ago and who got himself so confused that he
actually accused me of plagiarizing an article that I clearly cited as
unreliable.
The Revd
<justrich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 30, 11:35=A0pm, ffor...@smythe.com (The Revd) wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:20:35 -0800 (PST), drahcir
>>
>>
>>
>> <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 30, 4:09=3DA0pm, ffor...@smythe.com (The Revd) wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:18:00 -0800 (PST), drahcir
>>
>> >> <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Jan 30, 12:10=3D3DA0pm, ffor...@smythe.com (The Revd) wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:04:49 -0800 (PST), drahcir
>>
>> >> >> <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Jan 30, 5:36=3D3D3DA0am, ffor...@smythe.com (The Revd) wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:47:29 -0800 (PST), mirjam <mir...@actcom.=
>co.=3D
>> >il>
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >Deborah
>> >> >> >> >Thank you for an interesting article , i think you have overloo=
>ked=3D
>> > on=3D3D
>> >> >e
>> >> >> >> >very interesting fact That the British brought in Arabs from Al=
>l o=3D
>> >ver
>> >> >> >> >the Middle East to either work in their service or fill in so c=
>all=3D
>> >ed
>> >> >> >> >empty places .
>> >> >> >> >http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/return.html
>>
>> >> >> >> >Many of the Arab People who live and work in Haifa and the Nort=
>h o=3D
>> >f
>> >> >> >> >Israel tell me they or their parents Originally came from , Syr=
>ia,
>> >> >> >> >Lebanon , Egypt , Saudi Arabia etc.....
>>
>> >> >> >> Shabbat shalom, jew cunt. =3D3D3DA0Many of the jews who live and=
> work=3D
>> > in H=3D3D
>> >> >aifa
>> >> >> >> and the North of 'Israel' tell me they or their parents original=
>ly
>> >> >> >> came from Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Hungary etc.....
>>
>> >> >> >The difference arises when you go back 100 generations or so.
>>
>> >> >> And how many can trace their ancestry that far back?
>>
>> >> >none. But there are other ways of forming an educated hypothesis. DNA=
>,
>> >> >archaeology, and history combine to provide a most likely scenario
>> >> >that suggests that Jews from many places have their roots in Israel.
>>
>> >> Or somewhere in that general region. =3DA0But given the proximity of
>> >> Syria, Lebanon, Egypt etc to what is now Palestine, is it not possible
>> >> that many of the people "mirjam" mentioned could also have come from
>> >> the same region?
>>
>> >Although there are Palestinian Muslims who share the "Jewish genes" -
>> >how could it be otherwise, when arabs arrived over 14 centuries ago -
>> >my understanding is that arabs from Egypt, Syria, etc, =A0and Lebanese
>> >(phoenician) have DNA that lacks this haplotype.
>>
>> Quite possibly, but my understanding is that these Jewish genes were
>> spread over an area much larger than what is now Palestine. =A0As were
>> the Arab genes.
>
>Of course they were, since Palestine encompassed an area much larger
>than what is now Palestine. But that does not include Egypt or SA or
>the majority of Syria and Lebanon. Due to conquest, Arab genes are
>spread all over the place.
It seems we're in agreement then. Aren't we?
The Peeler
>>> >Although there are Palestinian Muslims who share the "Jewish genes" -
>>> >how could it be otherwise, when arabs arrived over 14 centuries ago -
>>> >my understanding is that arabs from Egypt, Syria, etc, =A0and Lebanese
>>> >(phoenician) have DNA that lacks this haplotype.
>>>
>>> Quite possibly, but my understanding is that these Jewish genes were
>>> spread over an area much larger than what is now Palestine. =A0As were
>>> the Arab genes.
>>
>>Of course they were, since Palestine encompassed an area much larger
>>than what is now Palestine. But that does not include Egypt or SA or
>>the majority of Syria and Lebanon. Due to conquest, Arab genes are
>>spread all over the place.
>
> It seems we're in agreement then. Aren't we?
I strongly doubt he would be in agreement with your psychopathy, Retd! <G>
drahcir
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 05:31:40 -0800 (PST), drahcir
>
>
>
Dunno. Are we?
coaste...@yahoo.com
Ah, you plagiarized it because it was unreliable. Thanks for admitting
that. Your motivation was pretty mysterious but you've now cleared it
up.
"Israelite genes" was your scam. The term is patently ridiculous. You
picked it up from your favorite amateur Jewish geneticist who just
happens to be a Zionist. Frankly it was one of the most pleasant
dismantlings of your lies and bullshit I've yet experienced. So yes,
it was a fiasco, yours.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Well said, Professor Morris, and here is more support for it:
In 1895, Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote in his diary:
"We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned
to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the
border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while
denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come
over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of
the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the
owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us,
selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going
to sell them anything back." (America And The Founding Of Israel, p.
49 & Righteous Victims, p. 21-22)
Just prior to the British conquest of Palestine, Chaim Weizmann wrote
describing the indigenous Palestinians:
"[the indigenous population was akin to] the rocks of Judea, as
obstacles that had to be cleared on a difficult path." (Expulsion Of
The Palestinians, p. 17)
By war's end in 1949, Chaim Weizmann commented on the EXODUS of the
Palestinian Arabs out of their homes, farms, and businesses:
" a miraculous clearing of the land: the miraculous simplification of
Israel's task." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 175)
Ze'ev Jabotinsky stated in a letter to one of his Revisionist
colleagues in the United States dated November 1939:
"There is no choice: the Arabs must make room for the Jews of Eretz
Israel. If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples, it is also
possible to move the Palestinian Arabs." (Expulsion Of The
Palestinians, p. 29)
Israel Zangwill, who had visited Palestine in 1897 and came face-to-
face with the demographic reality, stated :
"Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of
Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States,
having fifty-two souls to the square mile, and not 25% of them
Jews ..... [We] must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the
[Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with
the problem of a large alien population, mostly Mohammedan and
accustomed for centuries to despise us." (Expulsion Of The
Palestinians, p. 7- 10, and Righteous Victims, p. 140)
The socialist Zionist Hahman Syrkin, the ideological founder of
Socialist Zionism, proposed in pamphlet entitled "The Jewish Question
and the Socialist Jewish State" which was published in 1898 that:
"Palestine thinly populated, in which the Jews constituted today 10
percent of the population, must be evacuated for the Jews." (Expulsion
Of The Palestinians, p. 11)
In October 1882, Validimir Dubnow, one of the earliest Zionist
pioneers in Palestine, wrote to his brother articulating the ultimate
goals of the Zionist movement:
"The ultimate goal . . . is, in time, to take over the Land of Israel
and to restore to the Jews the political independence they have been
deprived of for these two thousand years. . . . The Jews will yet
arise and, arms in hand (if need be), declare that they are the
masters of their ancient homeland." (Righteous Victims, p. 49)
In October 1882 Ben-Yehuda and Yehiel Michal Pines, few of the
earliest Zionist pioneers in Palestine, wrote describing the
indigenous Palestinians:
". . . There are now only five hundred [thousand] Arabs, who are not
very strong, and from whom we shall easily take away the country if
only we do it through stratagems [and] without drawing upon us their
hostility before we become a the strong and papules ones." (Righteous
Victims, p. 49)
While the Zionist leadership was discussing the morality of
"transferring" the Palestinian people in December 1918, Yitzhak
Avigdor Wilkansky, an agronomist and advisor at the Palestine Office
in JAFFA, felt that, for practical reasons, it was:
"impossible to evict the fellahin [Palestinian Arab peasants], even if
we wanted to. Nevertheless, if it were possible, I would commit an
injustice towards the [Palestinian] Arabs. There are those among us
who are opposed to this form the point of view of supreme
righteousness and morality. . . .[But] when you enter into the midst
of the Arab nation and do not allow it to unit, here too you are
taking its life. . . . Why don't our moralists dwell on this point? We
must be either complete vegetarians or meat eaters: not one-half, one-
third, or one-quarter vegetarian." (Righteous Victims, p. 140-141 &
America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 71)
In 1919 Lord Balfour, the father of the Balfour Declaration, justified
the usurpation of Palestinians right of self determination as the
following:
"Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-old
traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder
important then the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 [Palestinian]
Arabs who now inhabit the ancient land." (Righteous Victims, p. 75)
As early as October 25, 1919 Winston Churchill predicted that Zionism
implied the clearing of the indigenous population, he wrote:
"there are the Jews, whom we are pledged to introduce into Palestine,
and who take it for granted the the local [Palestinian] population
will be cleared out to suit their convenience." (Expulsion Of The
Palestinians, p. 15)
In 1938 Berl Katzneslon, the influential Mapai leader, stated his
opinion of the demographic make up of the Jewish states upon the
implementation of the partition proposed by the Peel Commission:
"There is the question of how the army, the police, and the civil
service will function and how a state can be run if part of its
population is disloyal .....[and the Palestinian Arabs will get equal
rights as Jews] ... only a small minority of [the Palestinian] Arabs
will remain in the country." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 115)
Chaim Weizmann wrote in a letter dated April 28, 1939 to the American
Zionist leader Solomon Goldman about the possibility of acquisition of
a large tract of land belonging to the Palestinian Arab Druze in the
Galilee and eastern Carmel:
"The realization of this project would mean the emigration of 10,000
[Palestinian] Arabs [to Jabal al-Druze in Syria], the acquisition of
300,000 dunums. . . . It would also create a significant precedent if
10,000 [Palestinian] Arabs were to emigrate peacefully of their own
volition, which no doubt would be followed by others." (Expulsion Of
The Palestinians, p. 167) Ironically, what actually happened during
the 1948 war was almost the complete opposite. The Palestinian Druze
Arabs were the ones who were permitted to stay (among other minorities
too like Shi'ites and Maronite Christians), especially in and around
the Haifa and al-Carmel area.
This was seconded by Avraham Katznelson, another influential Mapai
leader, who also said:
"more moral, from the viewpoint of universal human ethics, than the
emptying of the Jewish state of the [Palestinian] Arabs and their
transfer elsewhere .... This requires [the use of] force." (Expulsion
Of The Palestinians, p. 192)
The following is a discussion between MAPAI secretariat regarding
demographic make up of the "Jewish state" soon after the 1948 war:
Shlomo Levi, MK: " . . . The large number of [Palestinian] Arabs in
the country worries me. The time come when we will be the minority in
the State of Israel. There are now 170,000 [Palestinian] Arabs in the
country, including 22,000 school-age children. The natural increase
among [Palestinians] Arabs is high and keeps growing, especially if we
give them all the economic advantages which we are intending to give:
health, education and big benefits. There is no such rate of natural
increase anywhere in the world, and we have to give careful thought to
this imminent danger. Such an increase could match our
immigration. . . . We may reach the point when the interests of
[Palestinian] Arabs rather than of the Jews will determine the
character of the country. . . ."
Eliyahu Camreli, MK: "I'm not willing to accept a single [Palestinian]
Arab, and not only an Arab but any gentile. I want the State of Israel
to be entirety Jewish, the descendents of Abraham, Issac, and
Jacob. . . ."
Yehiel Duvdenvany, MK: "If there was any way of solving the problem
way of transfer [the Israeli propaganda term for ethnic cleansing] of
the remaining 170,000 [Palestinian] Arabs we would do so. . . ."
David Hakohen, MK: "We didn't plan the departure of the [Palestinian]
Arabs. It was a miracle. . . ."
Z. Onn: "The landscape is more beautiful----I enjoy it, especially,
when traveling between Haifa and Tel Aviv, and there is not a single
[Palestinian] Arab to be seen." (1949, The First Israelis, p. 46-47)
On August 14, 1948 Yigael Yadin (1917-1985, he was one of the founding
members of the Haganah and Israel's chief of staff between 1948-1951)
wrote Moshe Sharett advocating a non-return policy for the Palestinian
refugees based on political and military reasons, he wrote:
"Because of the spread of diseases among the [Palestinian] Arab
refugees, I propose that [we] declare a quarantine on all our
conquered areas. We will thus be able to more strongly oppose the
demand for the return of the [Palestinian] Arab refugees and all
infiltration by [Palestinian] Arabs [back] into the abandoned
villages---in addition to our opposition [to the return] on
understandable military and political ground." (Benny Morris, p.
139-140)
At the start of the First Truce (June 11 - July 8) during the 1948
war, the Israeli Foreign Ministry's Middle East Department noted the
Arab leaders' calls for the return to Palestine of 300,000 Palestinian
refugees. It also noted the trickle of Palestinian refugees
"infiltrating" back to their villages. The Department conjectured that
a major reason for this return of Palestinians was their desire:
"to harvest the [summer] crops. . . The [Palestinian] Arabs in their
places of wandering are suffering from real hunger." But this harvest-
geared return, the department warned, could "in time bring in its wake
[Palestinian Arab re-]settlement in the villages, something which
might seriously endanger many of the achievements we accomplished
during the first six months of the war. It is not for nothing that
Arabs spokesmen are . . . demanding the return . . . [of the
Palestinian refugees], because this would not only ease their burden
but would weigh us down considerably." (Benny Morris, p. 140)
Prior to the start of Operation Hiram in northern Palestine in October
1948, the Foreign Ministry advised the Israeli Army to make sure that
the Galilee should be as clear as possible of Palestinian Arabs, and
Christian Palestinians should be favored upon deciding whether to
expel or not to expel Palestinians from the area, the report stated:
"to try during conquest [to make sure] that no [Palestinian] Arabs
inhabitants remain in the Galilee and certainly that no refugees from
other places remains there. Truth to tell, concerning the attitude to
the Christian [Palestinian Arabs] and the problem of whether to
discriminate in their favor and to leave them in their villages, clear
instructions were not given [by us?] and we did not express an
opinion." (Benny Morris, p. 226)
As Operation Hiram was being concluded in late October 1948, some
internal Palestinian refugees remained in al-Rama, east of Acre. A
former resident of Ghuwayr Abu Shusha (north of Tiberias) described
his experience of being ethnically cleansed to Lebanon as the
following:
"The people in Ar Rama were ordered to assemble at the centre of the
village. A Jewish soldier stood on top of a rise and addressed us. He
ordered the [Palestinian] Druze present . . . to go back to their
homes. . . . Then he ordered the rest of us to leave to Lebanon . . .
Although I was given a permission to stay by my friend, Abu Musa [a
Local Israeli Jewish officer], I could not remain without the rest of
my tribe [or hamula in Arabic] who were forced to flee." Unlike the Ar
Rama Palestinian Christian community, these non-resident did not
remain but moved off to Lebanon. (Benny Morris, p. 227)
Similarly, a Palestinian refugee from Sha'ab (east of Acre) described
his experience as the following:
"The Jews grouped us with the other [Palestinian Arab] villagers,
separating us from women. We remained all day in the village [al-
Bi'na] courtyard . . . we were thirsty and hungry." Two Palestinian
villagers, he recalled, were taken aside and shot dead, and the other
Palestinian refugees were robbed from their valuables. Some "200" men
were selected and driven off, presumably to a POW camp. The refugee
went on to say:
"It was almost night . . . [The] al-Bi'na mukhtar asked the Jews to
permit us to stay overnight . . . rather then travel [northwards] at
night with our old men, women, and children. The Jews rejected the
mukhtar's request and gave us [i.e., the refugees] half an hour to
leave . . . When half an hour passed, the Jews began to shoot in the
air . . . they injured my nine-year old son in the knee. We walked a
few hours until we reached Sajur . . . We were terrified, the road was
full of people in every direction you looked . . . all in a hurry to
get to Lebanon." A few days later, after a brief stay in the
Palestinian Druze village of Beit Jann, they reached Lebanon. (Benny
Morris, p. 227-8)
As the Israeli Army was entering Eilabun (Palestinian Maronite
Christian village) on October 30, 1948, the soldiers went on rampage
in the village looting Palestinians properties. In a letter dated
January 21st, 1949 sent to the Israeli Minority Affair Ministry by
Faraj Diab Surur, the Eilabun's Mukhtar, along with other village
notables described the looting and the ethnic cleansing of their
village by the Israeli soldiers as the following:
"When the [Israeli] commander selected 12 youngsters (shabab) and sent
them to another place, then he ordered that the assembled inhabitants
to be led to [al-]Maghar and the priest asked him to leave the women
and babies and to take only men, but he refused, and led the assembled
inhabitants---some 800 in number--- to [al-]Maghar preceded by
military vehicles. . . . He himself stayed on with another two
soldiers until they killed the 12 youngsters in the streets of the
village and then they joined the army going to [al-]Maghar. He led
them to [al-]Frarradiya. When they reached Kafr 'Inan they were joined
by an armored car that fired upon them [refugees] . . . killing one of
the old men, Sam'an ash Shufani, 60 years old, and injured three
women . . . At [al-]Frarradiya [the Israeli soldiers] robbed the
inhabitants of IL 500 and the women of their Jewelry, and took 42
youngsters and sent them to a detention camp, and the rest the next
day were led to Meirun, and afterward to the Lebanon borders. During
this whole time they were given food only once. Imagine then how the
babies screamed and the cries of the pregnant and weaning mothers."
Subsequently, the Israeli Army looted the Palestinian Maronite village
of Eilabun. In early 1949, many of these refugees were allowed back to
their homes after relentless lobbying by Aharon Cizling (the Israeli
Agriculture Minister) in the Israeli Cabinet. It is worth noting that
these returnees were among the few hundreds to be allowed back to
their homes, farms, and businesses, however, the mass majority of the
Palestinian people are still dispossessed and homeless since the 1948
war. (Benny Morris, p. 229-230)
As the Israelis rampaged the friendly Palestinian village of Huj
(northeast of Gaza), Yitzhak Avira (an old-time Haganah Intelligence
Service officer) registered a complained against the continued
destruction of the village. He wrote Ezra Danin (a member of the 1st
and 2nd Transfer Committees and a Haganah Intelligence Officer) on
August 16, 1948 that:
"recently a view has come to prevail among us that the [Palestinian]
Arabs are nothing. Every [Palestinian] Arab is a murderer, all of them
should be slaughtered, all the [Palestinian] villages that are
conquered should be burned . . . I . . . see a danger in the
prevalence of an attitude that everything of theirs should be
murdered, destroyed, and made to vanish."
Danin Answered: "War is complicated and lacking in sentimentality. If
the commanders believe that by destruction, murder, and human
suffering they will reach their goal more quickly---I would not stand
in their way. If we do not hurry up and do [things]---our enemies will
do these things to us." (Benny Morris, p. 167)
It is worth noting that Palestinian inhabitants of Huj had
collaborated openly with the Haganah and the Israeli Army before and
during the 1948 war, however, such good will did not save them from
being ethnically cleansed. Similarly, Zarnuqa (the hometown of the
Islamic Jihad founder Fathi al-Shikaki) inhabitants had a comparable
experience with the Israelis, and paid the price of their
collaboration by being driven out of their village under the threat of
the gun towards neighboring Yibna. Sadly, Yibna's people, who were not
yet occupied, drove them back to Israeli occupied Zarnuqa, so they
became unwanted people by both sides camping in the wadis between the
two towns. This is a typical story of collaborators who outlive their
usefulness. (Benny Morris, p. 127)
As the Israeli soldiers were occupying the al-Dawayima (northwest of
Hebron), the solders perpetrated a mostly unknown massacre on October
28-29, 1948. According the Shabtai Kaplan, a MAPAM party member, and
eyewitness accounts, he describe the atrocity to Al Hamishmar editor
as the following:
"The first wave of conquerors [89th Battalion of the 8th Brigade]
killed about 80-100 [male Palestinian] Arabs, women and children. The
children they killed by breaking their heads with sticks. There was no
a house without dead," Kaplan wrote. Kaplan's informant , who arrived
immediately afterwards in the second wave, reported that the
[Palestinian] Arab men and women who remained were then closed off in
the houses "without food and water." Sappers arrived to blow up the
the houses. "One commander ordered a sapper to put two old women in a
certain house . . . and to blow up the house with them. The sapper
refused . . . The commander then ordered his men to put in the old
women and the evil deed was done. One soldier boasted that he had
raped a [Palestinian] woman and then shot her. One woman, with a
newborn baby in her arms, was employed to clean the courtyard where
the soldiers ate. She worked a day or two. In the end they shot her
and her baby." The soldier witness, according to Kaplan, said that
"cultured officers . . . had turned into base murderers and this not
in the heat of the battle . . . but out of system of expulsion and
destruction. The lest [Palestinian] Arabs remained---the better. This
principle is the political motor of the expulsion and atrocities."
Kaplan under stood that MAPAM in this respect was in bind. The matter
could not be publicized; it would harm the State and MAPAM would
lambasted for it. (Benny Morris, p. 222-3)
The Israeli Operation Command for the Northern Front Carmel described
the flight of the Palestinian refugees into Lebanon (soon after the
concluding of Operation Hiram) as the following:
"They abandoned the villages of their birth and that of their
ancestors an go into exile . . . Women, children, babies, donkeys --
everything moves, in silence and grief, northwards, without looking to
right or left. Wife does not find her husband and child does not find
his father . . . no one knows the goal of his trek. Many possessions
are scattered by the paths; the more the refugees walk, the more tired
they grow --- and they throw away what they had tried to save on their
way into exile. Suddenly, every object seems to them petty,
superfluous, unimportant as against chasing fear and the urge to save
life and limb. [click here for a picture depicting the scene]
I saw a boy aged eight walking northwards pushing along two assess in
front of him. His father and brother had died in the battle and his
mother was lost. I saw a woman holding a two-week-old baby in her arm
and a baby two years old in her left arm and a four-year-old girl
following in her wake, clutching at her dress [click here for a
picture depicting the scene].
[Near Sa'sa' northwest of Safad,] I saw suddenly by the roadside a
tall man, bent over, scarping with his fingernails in the hard, rocky
soil. I stopped. I saw a small hollow in the ground, dug out by hand,
with fingernails, under an olive tree. The man laid down the body of a
baby who had died in the arms of his mother, and covered it with soil
and small stones." Near Tarshiha [northeast of Acre], Carmel saw a 16-
year-old youth "sitting by the roadside, naked as the day he was born
and smiling at our passing car." Carmel described how some of the
Israeli soldiers, regarding the [Palestinian] refugee columns with
astonishment and shock and "with great sadness," went down into the
wadis and gave the [Palestinian] refugees bread and tea. " I knew [of]
a unit in which no soldier ate anything that day because all [the
food] sent it by the company kitchen was taken down to the
wadi." (Benny Morris, p. 231-2)
An officer of the police national headquarters, who had visited the
villages of Elabun and Mrar (in the Galilee) in November 1948,
reported:
"All the inhabitants of Elabun were deported, except for four
villagers who are Greek Orthodox, and a small number of old people and
children. The total number of inhabitants left in the village is 52.
The priests complained bitterly about the expulsion of the villagers
and demanded their return. . . . In Mrar, most of the inhabitants
remained, except for many of the Muslims." (1949, The First Israelis,
p. 28)
On May 10, 1948, Aharon Cohen, the director during the war of the Arab
Department of the newly formed MAPAM party, wrote in a memorandum to
the party's Political Committee:
"There is a reason to believe that what is being done . . . is being
done out of certain political objectives and not only out of military
necessities, as they claim sometimes. In fact, the transfer of the
[Palestinian] Arabs from the boundaries of the Jewish state is being
implemented . . . the evacuation/clearing out of [Palestinian] Arab
villages is not always done out of military necessity. The complete
destruction of the villages is not always done only because there are
no sufficient forces to maintain a garrison." (Expulsion Of The
Palestinians, p. 181)
On July 24 the Mapai Center held a full-scale debate regarding the
Palestinian Arab question against the background of the ethnic
cleansing of Ramla and Lydda. The majority apparently backed Ben-
Gurion's policies of population transfer or ethnic cleansing. Shlomo
Lavi, one of the influential leaders of the Mapai party, said that:
"the ... transfer of the [Palestinian] Arabs out of the country in my
eyes is one of the moss just, moral and correct that can be done. I
have thought of this for many years." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians,
p. 192)
This was seconded by Avraham Katznelson, another influential Mapai
leader, who also said:
"more moral, from the viewpoint of universal human ethics, than the
emptying of the Jewish state of the [Palestinian] Arabs and their
transfer elsewhere .... This requires [the use of] force." (Expulsion
Of The Palestinians, p. 192)
In an interview with the Sunday Times Golda Meir, Israel's Prime
Minister between 1969-1974, stated in June 1969:
"It is not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine
considering itself as Palestinian people and we came and threw them
out and took their country away from them, they did not exist." (Iron
Wall, p. 311)
>
> According to Morris's new version, just as the idea of transfer
> attended Zionism from its inception, so did Arab fears of precisely
> such a scheme. The inference from this line of reasoning is that the
> Arabs resisted Jewish settlement not because they regarded themselves
> as Palestine's rightful owners and did not wish to share the land with
> a people whom they perceived as a foreign invader; nor because they
> were opposed to transforming Palestine from a land with a
> predominantly Muslim culture into a non-Muslim country steeped in
> Western culture. No, their motive was well-founded fear: they knew
> that the Jews intended in due time to expel them. As Morris writes,
> "the fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the
> chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism down to 1948 (and indeed
> after 1967 as well)." In this way history is spun on its head, and the
> effect is made into the cause, and the result of war is promoted into
> the paradigm for the entire complex of relations between Arabs and
> Jews over several decades.http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/courses01/rrtw/Shapira.htm
drahcir
It seems you are a bit confused, H. That should surprise no one here.
Your motivation was pretty mysterious but you've now cleared it
> up.
H is attempting to avoid bad memories with humor. Sorry, H, won't
work.
>
> "Israelite genes" was your scam.
Um, no. Along with your confusion, your memory is unfortunately
typical of an alzheimer's patient. The term "israelite" as applied to
DNA was quoted by me - my cite was Kevin Brook at http://www.khazaria.com.
Perhaps you had better review the thread before you say more stupid
things.
The term is patently ridiculous. You
> picked it up from your favorite amateur Jewish geneticist who just
> happens to be a Zionist.
Do you have any evidence that Kevin Brook is Jewish or a zionist,
because he is certainly not a geneticist. He simply understands how
DNA works, which is one whole helluva lot more than can be said for
you.
Frankly it was one of the most pleasant
> dismantlings of your lies and bullshit I've yet experienced. So yes,
> it was a fiasco, yours.
I'm so happy to see that you're having fun in your fantasy world where
you dismantle, H. All of that dismantling is probably what made you so
confused you thought I was claiming authorship of an article I clearly
stated was unreliable.
Let's revisit your ridiculous plagiarism accusation, shall we?
*********
> > Amazing, here you've admitted another lie, appropriating Ellen Levy-
> > Coffman's work as your own. It's called plagiarism.
> LOL! Oh, I get it now. You are simply, completely out of your mind.
> Forgive me, I didn't catch on at first, but I don't play with crazies.
> Go take your meds, and get back to me when you are feeling better.
> I've got better things to do than try to reason with a loon.
Fleeing are you, Ratner? Fleeing the more difficult stuff below? The
very next paragraph was too embarrassing for you?
*********
To this, I replied:
Here's your chance, H.
PROVE the plagiarism you accuse me of, right here, right now. I say
you won't do it because you can't do it because it didn't happen.
PROVE me wrong - WITH CITES.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/0f75b933bca906a8
********
That was it. As soon as he was asked to prove the plagiarism, H fled
the thread. The entire thread can be read from the above link.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Jan 27, 10:17 pm, Cazador <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>Your REFUSAL to acknowledge that "transfer" was
> >(and apparently still is) central to Zionism is
> >something I can't let pass.
Clip
> On Jan 25, 9:56 pm, Cazador <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> >>>The concept of "transferring" European Jews to
> >>Palestine and "transferring" the Palestinian people
> >>out is central to Zionism.
>
> >The sentence above comes from Palestine Remembered.
> >It is obviously dead-on accurate.
Why below do you clip part of Shapira's article? Why has it no date
and venue information? What's going on, Deborah? Anyway, esteemed
readers, what Deborah wants us to see of the Shapira article begins
here:
> ....The notion of "transfer" was commonly accepted in the period
> between the two world wars to designate population exchanges such as
> occurred between Turkey and Greece in the 1920s.
Exchanges? Is this meant to sound voluntary? The Greeks were expelled
from Turkey by force.
"Transfer" became a
> code word in contemporary Israeli politics after the emergence of the
> far right radical party Moledet (Homeland) in the 1980s, led by
> Rehavam Zeevi.
The concept of transfer was introduced by Herzl himself over eighty-
five years earlier. Transfer was already a Zionist code word among the
first generation of Zionist leaders.
Moledet advanced the idea of transfer, or the removal
> of the Palestinians from the West Bank, as part of its party platform;
> and in order to gain legitimacy for himself and his party, Zeevi
> declared that he was following in the footsteps of the founders of the
> labor movement from its very inception, that "transfer" was vintage
> Zionist thinking.
And Zeevi was absolutely correct as is proved beyond doubt by the
quotations collected at Palestine Remembered and by Dr. Chaim Simons
with whom you are now acquainted.
>
> The attempt to attribute the sins of the present to Zionism's founding
> fathers is a hallmark of the politics of the Israeli right: thus the
> members of Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful) present themselves as
> the rightful heirs to the pioneer heritage in the pre-state period.
It was a copiously fulfilled attribution of the doctrine of transfer
to Zionism's founding fathers. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
> Zeevi seized on statements on transfer from the 1930s, articulated in
> substantially different circumstances, in order to justify such
> repulsive actions in our own time.
I'm pleased to see Shapira describe the concept of transfer, which was
common to the founding generation, as "repulsive" at least since the
1980s, but if it was repulsive from then forward was it less so in the
1930s, 1920s and in 1895? I am less pleased to see Shapira attempting
to paint the modern religious right as the bad guys when transfer was
Zionist doctrine ab initio. Those rightists are simply frightening the
horses by telling the truth in public.
And in this matter, it would seem,
> the interests of the Israeli right and the "new historians" dovetail.
Shapira is set upon depicting her academic/political opponents, the
new historians, as mounting a repulsive and unjustified effort to
shame both ZIONISM and ISRAEL'S ZIONIST FOUNDING GENERATION for
clearing the Yishuv's path to the Naqba, one of the 20th Century's
great crimes against humanity and the source of the most intractable
regional crisis of modern history. She would prefer that these facts
not be talked abou. Yet ethnic cleansing in Zionist theory was in fact
a main current from the beginning. It was a half century old by the
time the crime was finally perpetrated in the period 1947-1949. It is
impossible to understand the Naqba period except in the context of the
central role of Zionist cleansing theory. All such events have context
and intellectual histories. That was true of the "lethal politics" of
Europe's 20th Century totalitarian regimes too. For the Nazis it was
based on racial ideology. For the Soviets it was based on an ideology
of class. For the Zionists it had historical, cultural and religious
bases. In each case ideology served as the justification for crimes
against entire population categories. The point is that political
ideologies are force multipliers when it comes to criminal acts. While
in a Shakespeare tragedy the sword play might result in a half dozen
bodies strewn about the stage, the scope of it all seemed somehow to
remain human. That's because the protagonists had no ideology.
(Apologies to Solzhenitsyn)
> It is no coincidence that revisionist ideas were sympathetically
> received in the ranks of the right. The "new historians" are intent on
> demonstrating that there was never a golden age of simplicity and
> innocence in the Zionist movement, and that its founders were full of
> guilt and guile from the start; and those on the right are keen to
> show that what is repudiated today as immoral was not an idea that
> they invented, but rather a part of the Zionist heritage. In both
> cases, the result is the libeling of Zionism and the undermining of
> its moral foundations.
That has been clearly the result, but this is no academic squabble.
There are millions of refugees, war has been almost a constant and the
situation of Israel deteriorates year by year. It cries out not just
for a solution but for justice. The men and women who have the grit to
face the problem despite the opprobrium heaped upon them are Israeli
patriots, not enemies of the Jewish State.
> Morris addressed the question of transfer after he had published his
> important study on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem in
> 1948. His book's much-cited conclusion states that
>
> "[t]he Palestinian refugee problem was born of war, not by design,
> Jewish or Arab. It was largely a by-product of Jewish and Arab fears
> and of the protracted, bitter fighting that characterized the first
> Arab-Israeli war; in smaller part, it was the deliberate creation of
> Jewish and Arab military commanders and politicians."
You see, Deborah, why at the end of the day I admire Shapira. She
wants to defend Israel without misrepresenting the history. She wants
to protect her professional reputation too. She goes on:
> This is a balanced assessment that is corroborated by the evidence.
When she says this is corroborated by the evidence, she demolishes
you, the denier. She does it in one simple declarative sentence, not
with four page cut and paste jobs.
> But Morris was attacked by Arab historians, notably Nur Masalha, and
> even by his colleagues Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappe, who argued that his
> own documentation justified a harsher verdict. Perhaps as a
> consequence of these criticisms, Morris undertook a partial revision
> of his findings. What in his earlier book was an ugly but unintended
> and even unanticipated by-product of war becomes in his new book one
> of the foundations of Zionism:
>
> "The transfer idea goes back to the fathers of modern Zionism and,
> while rarely given a public airing before 1937, was one of the main
> currents in Zionist ideology from the movement's inception."
Her field is the history of Zionism. This issue is absolutely central
to her discipline. You can see her struggling with the devil here, or
perhaps with that camel which has gotten its nose into the tent..
> According to Morris's new version, just as the idea of transfer
> attended Zionism from its inception, so did Arab fears of precisely
> such a scheme.
But this judgment is not just Morris'. It's also Shlaim's and Pappe's,
both specialists in the period. The revisionist literature on it is
expanding rapidly.
The inference from this line of reasoning is that the
> Arabs resisted Jewish settlement not because they regarded themselves
> as Palestine's rightful owners and did not wish to share the land with
> a people whom they perceived as a foreign invader; nor because they
> were opposed to transforming Palestine from a land with a
> predominantly Muslim culture into a non-Muslim country steeped in
> Western culture. No, their motive was well-founded fear: they knew
> that the Jews intended in due time to expel them.
How could it not have been for *all* of these reasons? In any event,
Pappe describes the gradual awakening among the Palestinians to the
underlying logic of Zionism. Would they not also have seen the flaw in
the theory which made transfer a necessity to the success of the
project? A Jewish State with a Muslim majority was and remains
impossible. As a matter of democratic politics they are mutually
exclusive, and the Jews wanted a liberal democracy for themselves at
least.
As Morris writes,
> "the fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the
> chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism down to 1948 (and indeed
> after 1967 as well)." In this way history is spun on its head, and the
> effect is made into the cause, and the result of war is promoted into
> the paradigm for the entire complex of relations between Arabs and
> Jews over several decades.
She prepared her exit earlier by saying that the ethnic cleansing was
the result of war, not ideology and careful planning.
Pappe doesn't permit this claim to be self-validating. The war (and
the departure of the British) were the *occasion,* the opportunity for
the ethnic cleansing of Palestine which the leadership had waited for
while preparing for it for a decade.
> Zionist leaders always believed that the hoped-for Jewish majority in
> Palestine would materialize by means of massive Jewish immigration. It
> should not be forgotten that in 1920 the Arab population of Palestine
> numbered only some 600,000. The Zionist premise--which history has
> proven right--was that there was land aplenty in western Palestine for
> millions of Jews and Arabs. All the Zionist plans at the end of the
> 1930s envisioned the influx of a million Jews to Palestine within a
> decade. That magical number was geared to guaranteeing a Jewish
> majority, which is why the Arabs were so hostile to immigration: not
> because they were afraid of expulsion, but because they wished to
> prevent a demographic transformation.
That too, of course. Everyone was looking into the future. As always
it was unclear. And when one thinks about it both sides must have
feared the demographic challenges. For the Jews the cleansing was what
was left to ensure a favorable outcome.
>
> Zionism has been one of the best documented and the most talkative of
> national movements. Its records are not limited to the sphere of
> political activity and diplomacy, on which Morris and the "new
> historians" tend to focus; they include also all the educational and
> propagandistic work over many years within all the warring fractions
> and currents that comprised the movement. Despite all this
> documentation, however, all the efforts by Morris and others to dig up
> actual evidence of the early roots of the "transfer" idea have
> unearthed only isolated and fragmentary statements--secret thoughts
> and wishes, but nothing remotely resembling a program.
It's true that the concrete plans and procedures did not begin to show
signs of forming until the late thirties and it was not finalized
until 1948, but during that ten year period it morphed four times and
as Shapira suggests there was a transfer committee working on it.
There was also a large effort made to prepare the intelligence, the
"village files," which would be needed if the effort were to go
smoothly..
> The idea of transfer was broached in serious discussion for the first
> time in 1937, when the Peel Commission proposed to transfer the large
> Arab minority from the territory designated for the tiny Jewish state
> as part of the package deal that envisioned a partitioning of western
> Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab.
In accordance with the
> Commission's proposals, the British were to carry out the transfer.
Somewhat like the US attacking Iran on behalf of Israel
> Morris declares that "it is reasonable to assume that the Zionist
> leaders played a role in persuading the Peel Commission to adopt the
> transfer solution." There is not even a sliver of evidence to support
> such a claim, which is very far removed from what any credible
> historian may reasonably assume.
Nothing Shapira says in this paragraph about evidence renders it any
the less "reasonable to assume" that Zionist leaders played that role.
They had been talking about it for fifty years.
It is perfectly legitimate for Morris
> to surmise that the Zionists did not lament the Peel Commission
> proposal, and even rejoiced at it. But such gladness is a long way
> from the unsubstantiated presumption that they were implicated in its
> formulation.
It is substantiated circumstantially by the very intellectual history
we have been discussing in this thread. Morris is correct here.
> It is also true that Ben-Gurion and his associates welcomed the
> British idea to transfer Arabs from the small area set aside for the
> Jewish state. In Ben-Gurion's efforts at the Twentieth Zionist
> Congress in 1937 to drum up support for adoption of the partition
> plan, he made use of the concept of transfer in order to persuade his
> comrades to accept the tiny state proposed by the Commission, since
> the Jews would be a large majority there. The idea of transfer was a
> lure designed to convince Zionists to swallow the bitter pill of
> partition. In later years, Ben-Gurion warned of the dangers inherent
> in embracing the idea of transfer as a Zionist program, even after the
> British Labour Party had chosen to incorporate it in its platform.
Of course. It could not be formally incorporated into a "platform". It
was criminal by nature.
>
> Morris recalls that, over a prolonged period, Arab leaders declared
> that the true aim of Zionism was to uproot and to expel the Arabs,
> while the Zionists claimed there was ample room in Palestine for both
> peoples. But, as Morris adds,
>
> "the stark realities of the 1930s, with wholesale persecution in
> Central and Eastern Europe and with Britain closing the gates to
> Jewish immigration, seems to prove the Arabs right. Palestine would
> not be transformed into a Jewish state unless all or much of the Arab
> population was expelled."
>
> Otherwise, Morris explains, a Jewish majority could not be achieved.
>
> This argument boggles the mind. If we are speaking about the mandatory
> period, then the British, who did not permit Jewish immigration, most
> certainly would not have endorsed any plan of Arab transfer. If we are
> speaking about a future with Palestine under Jewish rule, then the
> Jewish authorities would have been able to bring in millions of Jews
> unhindered and thereby to resolve the question of the dominant
> majority without resorting to expulsion.
But how does Shapira get to the possibility of "Palestine under Jewish
Rule"? We have experience with that and it of necessity involved
occupation and mass expulsions. I don't see any peaceful route to it.
The doctrine of expulsion reflected the determination by the Jews not
to share Palestine, not to live in a single state with the Palestinian
people. The present 20% Arab population in Israel are merely the
inadvertent crumbs left over after two major campaigns of conquest cum
cleansing, a process which is usually rather untidy.
What had fueled a massive
> wish to leave Europe was the calamitous situation of the Jews there,
> the "wholesale persecution" mentioned by Morris.
>
> However you interpret it, in other words, there is not a shred of
> evidence that Zionist ideology changed in the 1930s; not a shred of
> evidence that the transfer idea supplanted the idea of immigration as
> a means to achieve a Jewish majority in Palestine. But still Morris
> claims that, starting with the Peel Commission, the idea of transfer
> enjoyed a general consensus in virtually all the Zionist bodies. His
> book lacks any notes indicating which deliberations (and how many
> deliberations) he is referring to, and it is thus impossible to
> determine whether the sources corroborate his contention.
Why should Morris replicate Pappe's book? And who is saying here that
Zionist ideology changed in the thirties? Morris and the other new
historians say it remained expulsionist from 1895 forward. They agree
I suspect with the Palestinian historians.
>
> In the same manner, Morris links the broaching of transfer within the
> context of the discussions on partition in 1937 with the creation of
> the refugee problem in 1948: "The idea was in the air from 1937 onward
> and without doubt contributed in various ways to the transfer that
> eventually took place, in 1948." Morris presents the expulsion as if
> it were the outcome of some Zionist master plan. There is no hard
> evidence for the existence of such a master plan, but never mind. The
> idea, "without doubt," was "in the air."
Transfer was first "broached" in 1895, not in the late thirties.
> The Israeli-Arab conflict was not born as a consequence of anxieties
> about expulsion. It was born as a consequence of Arab resistance to
> the settlement of a foreign element in their land. The feeling of
> power among the Palestinian Arabs, who believed they were the rightful
> proprietors of Palestine and were unwilling to enter into any sort of
> compromise agreement with the Jews, contradicts the argument based on
> their alleged fears about eviction.
This is untrue. There is no contradiction because fears of expulsion
and resistance to foreign elements settling in the land were not
mutually exclusive. Shapira struggles near the end of her essay. She
obviously wants forceful exposition but her materials don't support
it.
The Palestinians did not go to war
> in 1948 because they were afraid the Jews would oust them; they went
> to war because they were not prepared to make their peace with the
> idea of a Jewish state in Palestine.
The Palestinians did not "go to war" against the Jews in 1948. On the
contrary from 1947 they became the victims of a concerted Jewish
ethnic cleansing campaign. It was *Arab States* who went to war
against Israel to stop the cleansing in May of 1948. That was a
separate campaign in the operational sense. Most of the cleansing
efforts took place far from the conventional fighting of the first
Arab-Israeli War.
>
> The Palestinian Arabs also believed that they would emerge the
> victors. The question of what they intended to do with the Jews in
> Palestine after a Jewish defeat on the battlefield is, of course,
> hypothetical. After the defeat, the flight, and the expulsion of the
> Palestinians, moreover, the subject is unmentionable: such questions
> are raised only about the victors.
Here they are being raised BY the victors in the form of Professor
Shapira who plays the Holocaust card.
When the peace process comes to a
> conclusion, documents may be disclosed that shed valuable light on
> this point; but in the meantime the issue can be examined only in
> terms of the historical facts that we possess. And those facts, alas,
> are unequivocal: in all areas where the Jews went down to defeat at
> the hands of the Arabs, not a single Jew was allowed to return.
Can anyone tell me the events to which she refers?
>
> On both sides, Arab and Jewish, there was a composite of flight and
> expulsion. Jews fled in fear from mixed neighborhoods such as the
> border areas between Jaffa and Tel Aviv, and even from Jaffa itself.
> There were some 10,000 Jewish refugees in the early stages of the war.
> Gush Etzion, on the road between Bethlehem and Hebron, was captured by
> the Arab Legion and local Palestinian forces: the inhabitants were
> killed or taken prisoner and carried across the Jordan. Their
> settlements were completely demolished. The settlements Neveh Ya'akov
> and Atarot north of Jerusalem, also captured, were totally
> obliterated. All the residents of the Jewish quarter in the Old City
> in Jerusalem, conquered by local forces with the aid of the Arab
> Legion, were taken captive. No Jew was allowed to return to settle in
> the Old City--not even the ultra-Orthodox who detested Zionism and
> were prepared to live under Arab rule.
>
> With the heightening of the national conflict between the two peoples,
> the prospect of living together one under the rule of the other became
> less and less palatable. Propaganda stoked mutual fears. The Jews were
> convinced that the Arabs were going to throw them into the sea,
> because that is what the Arabs said that they would do. The Arabs
> feared what the Israeli army might do to them, since Arab opinion-
> makers had painted the Israeli army in devilish colors.
>
> The Arab panic led to exodus, and to the collapse of the institutions
> of Palestinian society. The more the magnitude of the exodus became
> clear, the more admissible and attractive the idea seemed to Israeli
> leaders and military commanders--not because the Zionist movement had
> been planning such an evacuation all along, but because a remote
> option (even if there were some who harbored such hankerings) gained
> acceptance in the context of the behavior of both sides during the
> war.
The chaos associated with the ethnic cleansing was primarily the
result of Jewish troops showing up and assaulting the cities and town
from three sides, leaving an avenue of escape out of the country. Just
read Pappe's book. You'll finally see how it was done, what tactics
were used, refined and then used again.
>
> The process of Jewish-Palestinian reconciliation has been bound up
> with a readiness for mutual recognition, and for mutual assent to the
> co-existence of two states in western Palestine. Both sides found it
> difficult to recognize the existence and the legitimacy of the other.
> And historians also have their difficulties coming to terms with that
> reality. From the post-Oslo perspective, the question arises whether
> there could have been shortcuts in that process, as suggested by the
> allegation of the "new historians" that Israel missed various
> opportunities for peace in the past.
>
> We must be careful not to view the outcomes of events as inevitable;
> but we must also not trivialize the conflict. It is doubtful whether a
> confrontation of such emotional and psychological depth as the Israeli-
> Arab dispute can be resolved solely by rational means, by appealing to
> the disadvantages that war entails for both parties. History shows
> that such conflicts usually have not been ended by reason and good
> will. They have usually been ended by weariness, as both sides were
> ground down by the death and the bitterness, and both sides came to
> realize that victory is unattainable. In a discussion of the
> development of Zionism since Herzl, the Israeli historian Jacob Talmon
> once adduced this observation by Friedrich Engels:
>
> "History is perhaps the cruelest goddess of all, and she drives her
> victorious chariot upon heaps and heaps of bodies, not just in time of
> war, but also during peaceful economic development. And alas, we men
> and women are such fools that we never dare to venture out for any
> real progress unless impelled to do so as a result of boundless
> suffering."
>
> That is exactly the prospect today.
>
> And so the dialogue between history and historiography will continue.
> If it turns out that the hopes for an Israeli-Arab peace were
> premature, then the picture of the past will also be soured, and the
> currents critical of Israel will almost certainly be strengthened. If
> the peace process is carried forward to a successful conclusion, and
> Israel is welcomed as a fully recognized polity among the states of
> the Middle East, then a perspective on the past will be reinforced
> whose rudiments are already evident, though only intermittently in the
> writings of Avi Shlaim and Benny Morris: the perspective of realism.
> When reality comes more closely to approximate our moral ideals,
> moralism will become redundant. We will see this thick and twisted
> conflict more accurately and more humanely. And the power of discourse
> may succeed where the power of arms has failed.
> --Translated by William Templer
As I say, Deb, you've got to respect Anita Shapira even if you don't
always agree.
>
> ANITA SHAPIRA, the Ruben Merenfeld Professor of the Study of Zionism
> at Tel Aviv University, is the author of Land and Power: The Zionist
> Resort to Force, 1881-1948 (Stanford University Press).
> --Anita Shapira, The Past Is Not a Foreign Country: The Failure of
> Israel's "New Historian: to Explain War and Peace", Post date 12.01.00http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/courses01/rrtw/Shapira.htm
>
> "Anita Shapira must be taken seriously"
> --From: "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:19:54 -0800 (PST)
>
> "By the way, sincere thanks for introducing me to Anita Shapira. I
> respect her but I think you have problems ahead of you given what she
> says."
> --From: "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:02:26 -0800 (PST)
>
> lol
>
> Deborah
coaste...@yahoo.com
Not in the sense that you began with in the other thread. You naively
believed that there are presently identifiable "Israelite genes" which
identify *Jewish people* and tie them specifically to Palestine. That
was your single most profound stupidity here, and there have been
scores of them.. I knew it to be bullshit at first sight without
having read any of the literature, and finally beat you into
submission.
However, they are carried by people who intermarried
> with Jews or converted from Judaism.
So Eastern European genes are diagnostic to land titles in the Middle-
East now too, eh? Dumb as a post, Missy.
Most Ashkenazim carry Eastern
> European genes for the same reason, but only an idiot such as yourself
> would claim that that means that there are no specifically Eastern
> European genes.
There are genes presently common to Eastern Europe, but no Eastern
European genes. Eastern Europe doesn't have genes, fool. And no
Israelite genes survive. And even if you could study them in a time
capsule there would be no way to tie them meaningfully to Palestinian
real estate. The distribution was regional, not exclusive to ancient
Israel. Genes don't respect national boundaries. There is no gene for
Jewishness, You don't have a claim to Palestine based on genetics. Get
over it.
Okay, Missy, do you deny that you thought you could establish a Jewish
right to Palestine by way of tracking "Israelite genes?" That was
obviously ridiculous and I immediately called you on it. You gradually
abandoned that idea because you couldn't defend it. It had come from
some Zionist running a Khazar web site who is a liar but not a
geneticist. You naively swallowed it and tried to sell it to me of all
people. Face it Ratner, if any people have a hope of establishing a
claim via genetics its the Palestinians.
coaste...@yahoo.com
And they're found in quantity in you fat arse.
The Revd
I strongly doubt you even understand what we're talking about, Pants,
you rheitarded Grik asshole! <Bugger Grease>
The Revd
<justrich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 31, 11:04=A0am, ffor...@smythe.com (The Revd) wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 05:31:40 -0800 (PST), drahcir
>>
>>
>>
>> <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Jan 30, 11:35=3DA0pm, ffor...@smythe.com (The Revd) wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:20:35 -0800 (PST), drahcir
>>
>> >> <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Jan 30, 4:09=3D3DA0pm, ffor...@smythe.com (The Revd) wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:18:00 -0800 (PST), drahcir
>>
>> >> >> <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Jan 30, 12:10=3D3D3DA0pm, ffor...@smythe.com (The Revd) wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:04:49 -0800 (PST), drahcir
>>
>> >> >> >> <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Jan 30, 5:36=3D3D3D3DA0am, ffor...@smythe.com (The Revd) wro=
>te:
>> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:47:29 -0800 (PST), mirjam <mir...@actc=
>om.=3D
>> >co.=3D3D
>> >> >il>
>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Deborah
>> >> >> >> >> >Thank you for an interesting article , i think you have over=
>loo=3D
>> >ked=3D3D
>> >> > on=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >e
>> >> >> >> >> >very interesting fact That the British brought in Arabs from=
> Al=3D
>> >l o=3D3D
>> >> >ver
>> >> >> >> >> >the Middle East to either work in their service or fill in s=
>o c=3D
>> >all=3D3D
>> >> >ed
>> >> >> >> >> >empty places .
>> >> >> >> >> >http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~jkatz/return.html
>>
>> >> >> >> >> >Many of the Arab People who live and work in Haifa and the N=
>ort=3D
>> >h o=3D3D
>> >> >f
>> >> >> >> >> >Israel tell me they or their parents Originally came from , =
>Syr=3D
>> >ia,
>> >> >> >> >> >Lebanon , Egypt , Saudi Arabia etc.....
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Shabbat shalom, jew cunt. =3D3D3D3DA0Many of the jews who liv=
>e and=3D
>> > work=3D3D
>> >> > in H=3D3D3D
>> >> >> >aifa
>> >> >> >> >> and the North of 'Israel' tell me they or their parents origi=
>nal=3D
>> >ly
>> >> >> >> >> came from Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Hungary etc.....
>>
>> >> >> >> >The difference arises when you go back 100 generations or so.
>>
>> >> >> >> And how many can trace their ancestry that far back?
>>
>> >> >> >none. But there are other ways of forming an educated hypothesis. =
>DNA=3D
>> >,
>> >> >> >archaeology, and history combine to provide a most likely scenario
>> >> >> >that suggests that Jews from many places have their roots in Israe=
>l.
>>
>> >> >> Or somewhere in that general region. =3D3DA0But given the proximity=
> of
>> >> >> Syria, Lebanon, Egypt etc to what is now Palestine, is it not possi=
>ble
>> >> >> that many of the people "mirjam" mentioned could also have come fro=
>m
>> >> >> the same region?
>>
>> >> >Although there are Palestinian Muslims who share the "Jewish genes" -
>> >> >how could it be otherwise, when arabs arrived over 14 centuries ago -
>> >> >my understanding is that arabs from Egypt, Syria, etc, =3DA0and Leban=
>ese
>> >> >(phoenician) have DNA that lacks this haplotype.
>>
>> >> Quite possibly, but my understanding is that these Jewish genes were
>> >> spread over an area much larger than what is now Palestine. =3DA0As we=
>re
>> >> the Arab genes.
>>
>> >Of course they were, since Palestine encompassed an area much larger
>> >than what is now Palestine. But that does not include Egypt or SA or
>> >the majority of Syria and Lebanon. Due to conquest, Arab genes are
>> >spread all over the place.
>>
>> It seems we're in agreement then. =A0Aren't we?
>
>Dunno. Are we?
I think so...the idea being that both jews and assorted Arabs
originated in a part of the Middle East which we may, for convenience,
call Greater Palestine.
The Peeler
>>>
>>> It seems we're in agreement then. Aren't we?
>>
>>I strongly doubt he would be in agreement with your psychopathy, Retd! <G>
>
> I strongly doubt you even understand what we're talking about, Pants,
> you rheitarded Grik asshole! <Bugger Grease>
Nobody really cares what a perverted, degenerate, full-blown psychopath like
you keeps blathering about. You'll get punched in your vile mouth anytime
you subnormal pervert dare to open it.
The Peeler
>>> >> the Arab genes.
>>>
>>> >Of course they were, since Palestine encompassed an area much larger
>>> >than what is now Palestine. But that does not include Egypt or SA or
>>> >the majority of Syria and Lebanon. Due to conquest, Arab genes are
>>> >spread all over the place.
>>>
>>> It seems we're in agreement then. =A0Aren't we?
>>
>>Dunno. Are we?
>
> I think so...the idea being that both jews and assorted Arabs
> originated in a part of the Middle East which we may, for convenience,
> call Greater Palestine.
So what's your psychopathic point, you psychopathic swine?
The Revd
So why don't you go greek yourself, you degenerate Grik asshole?
<Bugger Grease>
drahcir
Oy, here we go. When H starts to talk about "senses", one thing is for
sure - there's some obfuscation in the offing.
You naively
> believed that there are presently identifiable "Israelite genes" which
> identify *Jewish people* and tie them specifically to Palestine.
H, please, you comprehend NOTHING about genetics.
"In the 1990s, a team of scientists (including the geneticist Michael
Hammer, the nephrologist Karl Skorecki, and their colleagues in
England) discovered the existence of a haplotype which they termed the
"Cohen modal haplotype" (abbreviated as CMH). Cohen is the Hebrew word
for "priest", and designates descendants of Judean priests from two
thousand years ago. Initial research indicated that while only about 3
percent of general Jews have this haplotype, 45 percent of Ashkenazic
Cohens have it, while 56 percent of Sephardic Cohens have it. David
Goldstein, an evolutionary geneticist at Oxford University, said: "It
looks like this chromosomal type was a constituent of the ancestral
Hebrew population.""
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1626606/posts
Yet, HHW the ignoramus who practically didn't know what a gene was a
few months ago disagrees. The fact that this haplotype is present in
other areas of the middle east means that by genetics ALONE,
Ashkenazim cannot be definitely said to have originated in Palestine.
But your "brain" is missing the logic - DNA brings them to the Middle
East from all parts of the world, and, as I told you in the original
thread, archaeology, culture and history add to the PREPONDERANCE OF
THE EVIDENCE suggesting that most Jews today are descended from the
ancient Israelites. The simple truth is that you don't want to believe
it because it is inconvenient for you, but that's just tough. The
convergence of genetic, archaeological, cultural, and historical facts
suggests a likely truth, and you don't like it so you flaunt your
unbelievable ignorance shamelessly to try to contravene it.
That
> was your single most profound stupidity here, and there have been
> scores of them.. I knew it to be bullshit at first sight without
> having read any of the literature, and finally beat you into
> submission.
LOL! Here H admits that he is a total ignoramus, having read none of
the literature. Nothing more needs to be said.
>
> However, they are carried by people who intermarried
>
> > with Jews or converted from Judaism.
>
> So Eastern European genes are diagnostic to land titles in the Middle-
> East now too, eh? Dumb as a post, Missy.
You had better look up big words like "diagnostic" before misusing
them. That is besides the point that the above makes no sense.
>
> Most Ashkenazim carry Eastern
>
> > European genes for the same reason, but only an idiot such as yourself
> > would claim that that means that there are no specifically Eastern
> > European genes.
>
> There are genes presently common to Eastern Europe, but no Eastern
> European genes. Eastern Europe doesn't have genes, fool.
If there is a soul left here who believes HHW is anything but a
windbag, the above should dispel that notion.
And no
> Israelite genes survive.
So long as there is one living descendant of one ancient Israelite,
Israelite genes survive. Go ask any fifth grader.
And even if you could study them in a time
> capsule there would be no way to tie them meaningfully to Palestinian
> real estate. The distribution was regional, not exclusive to ancient
> Israel. Genes don't respect national boundaries. There is no gene for
> Jewishness, You don't have a claim to Palestine based on genetics. Get
> over it.
See above.
>
> Okay, Missy, do you deny that you thought you could establish a Jewish
> right to Palestine by way of tracking "Israelite genes?"
Here is a quote by me from the original thread:
"Regarding Ashkenazim, there is ZERO DOUBT that a significant majority
have DNA of middle east origin. Attributing the term "Israelite" to it
is not genetics, since we don't have ancient Israelites to test - it
is archaeology coupled with genetics. "
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/msg/a1e57e856eccb4aa
Elsewhere in the thread I refer to culture and history as well as
archaeology to add to genetics to present a case of overwhelming
evidence that most modern Jews are descendants of the ancient
Israelites. It's the only scenario that explains all four factors. but
H won't hear of it due to his political agenda.
BTW, nice try at lying about the previous thread. You should take care
there - I can find links to any discussion we have had, and you can't.
That was
> obviously ridiculous and I immediately called you on it. You gradually
> abandoned that idea because you couldn't defend it. It had come from
> some Zionist running a Khazar web site who is a liar but not a
> geneticist. You naively swallowed it and tried to sell it to me of all
> people. Face it Ratner, if any people have a hope of establishing a
> claim via genetics its the Palestinians.
Um, see above. The proof is provided that your memory is faulty.
drahcir
Oy, here we go. When H starts to talk about "senses", one thing is for
sure - there's some obfuscation in the offing.
You naively
> believed that there are presently identifiable "Israelite genes" which
> identify *Jewish people* and tie them specifically to Palestine.
H, please, you comprehend NOTHING about genetics.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1626606/posts
That
> was your single most profound stupidity here, and there have been
> scores of them.. I knew it to be bullshit at first sight without
> having read any of the literature, and finally beat you into
> submission.
LOL! Here H admits that he is a total ignoramus, having read none of
the literature. Nothing more needs to be said.
>
> However, they are carried by people who intermarried
>
> > with Jews or converted from Judaism.
>
> So Eastern European genes are diagnostic to land titles in the Middle-
> East now too, eh? Dumb as a post, Missy.
You had better look up big words like "diagnostic" before misusing
them. That is besides the point that the above makes no sense.
>
> Most Ashkenazim carry Eastern
>
> > European genes for the same reason, but only an idiot such as yourself
> > would claim that that means that there are no specifically Eastern
> > European genes.
>
> There are genes presently common to Eastern Europe, but no Eastern
> European genes. Eastern Europe doesn't have genes, fool.
If there is a soul left here who believes HHW is anything but a
windbag, the above should dispel that notion.
And no
> Israelite genes survive.
So long as there is one living descendant of one ancient Israelite,
Israelite genes survive. Go ask any fifth grader.
And even if you could study them in a time
> capsule there would be no way to tie them meaningfully to Palestinian
> real estate. The distribution was regional, not exclusive to ancient
> Israel. Genes don't respect national boundaries. There is no gene for
> Jewishness, You don't have a claim to Palestine based on genetics. Get
> over it.
See above.
>
> Okay, Missy, do you deny that you thought you could establish a Jewish
> right to Palestine by way of tracking "Israelite genes?"
Here is a quote by me from the original thread:
"Regarding Ashkenazim, there is ZERO DOUBT that a significant majority
have DNA of middle east origin. Attributing the term "Israelite" to it
is not genetics, since we don't have ancient Israelites to test - it
is archaeology coupled with genetics. "
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/msg/a1e57e856eccb4aa
Elsewhere in the thread I refer to culture and history as well as
archaeology to add to genetics to present a case of overwhelming
evidence that most modern Jews are descendants of the ancient
Israelites. It's the only scenario that explains all four factors. but
H won't hear of it due to his political agenda.
BTW, nice try at lying about the previous thread. You should take care
there - I can find links to any discussion we have had, and you can't.
That was
> obviously ridiculous and I immediately called you on it. You gradually
> abandoned that idea because you couldn't defend it. It had come from
> some Zionist running a Khazar web site who is a liar but not a
> geneticist. You naively swallowed it and tried to sell it to me of all
> people. Face it Ratner, if any people have a hope of establishing a
> claim via genetics its the Palestinians.
Um, see above. The proof is provided that your memory is faulty.
tdny
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 1, 1:30 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote
HHW wrote:
> >You naively believed that there are presently identifiable "Israelite genes" which
> > identify *Jewish people* and tie them specifically to Palestine.
This is the crux of it. It's far more political than genetic. Focus
now. Do you claim that genetics supports present day Zionist claims to
Palestine? If so point to the actual scientific studies which
accomplish this and show us how they do it.
If you can't do this then perhaps you should go back to the denial of
Israeli war crimes.
drahcir
wrote:
> On Feb 1, 9:40 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 1:30 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote
> HHW wrote:
> > >You naively believed that there are presently identifiable "Israelite genes" which
> > > identify *Jewish people* and tie them specifically to Palestine.
>
> This is the crux of it.
H, cut the shit about cruxes. You snipped my entire reply. BTW, I must
apologize for replying twice to your previous post - in the midst of
the first, the one you completely snipped, my computer froze. I
assumed it was lost and then made the second one.
It's far more political than genetic. Focus
> now.
Ah, I should "focus now" on the crap that you post after you snip my
entire reply because you don't have the balls to respond to it. Yes,
I'll really have to focus....
Do you claim that genetics supports present day Zionist claims to
> Palestine?
My claim was made clear in the first DNA thread, from which I posted
cites in this thread. If you can't comprehend those posts, find a
fifth grader to explain them to you.
If so point to the actual scientific studies which
> accomplish this and show us how they do it.
What's the point? I cited numerous studies in the first thread, yet
you admitted above that you didn't read any of them
"I knew it to be bullshit at first sight without
having read any of the literature"
>
> If you can't do this then perhaps you should go back to the denial of
> Israeli war crimes.
You are a coward so silly that you think the group will somehow
magically overlook the fact that you snipped my entire post and then
pretended to reply. You deceive yourself much more readily than you do
others.
drahcir
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6edg7OjLyw
Do you do anything all day long but watch videos? I find your
intrusions into a discussion with irrelevant links annoying. If you
wish to contribute to a discussion with your thoughts, I and everyone
I am sure would welcome you, but your videos without comment are only
distractions.
The Peeler
>>>>Dunno. Are we?
>>>
>>> I think so...the idea being that both jews and assorted Arabs
>>> originated in a part of the Middle East which we may, for convenience,
>>> call Greater Palestine.
>>
>>So what's your psychopathic point, you psychopathic swine?
>
> So why don't you go greek yourself, you degenerate Grik asshole?
>
> <Bugger Grease>
The lonely housebound sexual cripple just can't ever hide what the matter is
with him, right, you abnormal little fool? LMAO!
dsharavi
wrote:
> Well said, Professor Morris, and here is more support for it:
This is the Shapira article, as snipped by H immediately following
Shapira's quote of Morris, which Shapira goes on to prove is wrong.
H simply isn't man enough to own up when he's wrong.
H's snippage restored:
[snip 11 pages of edited and irrelevant "quotes" from the Abu Shitta
site]
Deborah
dsharavi
wrote:
> There simply are no specifically "Jewish" genes.
Ah, but there are Yiddishekops, and Hunter proves, time and again, he
hasn't got one.
Deborah
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 1, 12:12 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
I'm going to snip everything which is not responsive to my question
below:
> > > On Feb 1, 1:30 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com wrote
> > > >You naively believed that there are presently identifiable "Israelite genes" which
> > > > identify *Jewish people* and tie them specifically to Palestine.
HERE IS MY QUESTION:
> > This is the crux of it. It's far more political than genetic. Focus now. Do you claim that genetics supports present day Zionist claims to Palestine? If so point to the actual scientific studies which accomplish this and show us how they do it.
Clip non-responsive comment.
> "I knew it to be bullshit at first sight without having read any of the literature"
> > If you can't do this then perhaps you should go back to the denial of
> > Israeli war crimes.
Clip non-responsive comment.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Not from the truth they aren't. TDNY displays a discriminating
political sense and his posts here are ALWAYS worth following-up.
dsharavi
wrote:
> I'm going to snip everything which is not responsive to my question
> below:
This is Hunter's typical response to all facts that contradict his
received dogma.
> HERE IS MY QUESTION:
>Do you claim that genetics supports present day Zionist claims to Palestine?
> Clip non-responsive comment.
> Clip non-responsive comment.
Is this a question, or Hunter's idea of a comedy routine?
Deborah
coaste...@yahoo.com
I invite every Zionist here to answer this question. Same rules. I'll
clip what's non-responsive.
drahcir
> On Feb 1, 12:36 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 12:12 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> I'm going to snip everything which is not responsive to my question
> below:
LOL!! Can't you just picture H with his arms in front of his chest,
lips pursed, foot tapping as he says the above? Hey H, how about you
snip everything I post, and I'll snip everything you post. That way at
least you have a possibility of working out a tie!!! BWAHAHAHA!!! Poor
idiot has to masturbate about "routing" me in his subject. A new
usenet tactic - routing by "clippage". How pathetic can a person be?
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 1:30 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com wrote
> > > > >You naively believed that there are presently identifiable "Israelite genes" which
> > > > > identify *Jewish people* and tie them specifically to Palestine.
>
> HERE IS MY QUESTION:
>
> > > This is the crux of it. It's far more political than genetic. Focus now. Do you claim that genetics supports present day Zionist claims to Palestine? If so point to the actual scientific studies which accomplish this and show us how they do it.
This is the funniest thing I've experienced all day. Would someone
kindly tell this pitiful excuse for a person that this amazing
question has been answered twice, once in the original thread, and
once in the material from this thread THAT HE SNIPPED. WHAT A BLOODY
FOOL YOU ARE, H!!!!!!!! If the material were "non-responsive", YOU
WOULDN'T HAVE FELT COMPELLED TO SNIP IT!!
>
> Clip non-responsive comment.
BWAHAHAHA!!! ONCE AGAIN, if the response were non-responsive, YOU
WOULDN'T FEEL COMPELLED TO "CLIP" IT!!!! You'd DEMONSTRATE its "non-
responsiveness" - but you CAN'T - all you can do is CLIP CLIP CLIP
what you have no answer for!
This is the FUCKING FUNNIEST thing you have done in quite a while, H.
Thanks!!
drahcir
I am telling you, in the entire history of HHW's posts, this may be
the most hilarious. I can barely believe my eyes.
coaste...@yahoo.com
drahcir
wrote:
For once, an accurate observation from a guy who manages to get it
wrong nearly always. Mazel tov.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Aw, Deb didn't think it was funny. You could have answered it
anyway.
Here's something for you, news of the Israel Lobby in Britain.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH BY GILAD ATZMON
SATURDAY, JANUARY 30, 2010 AT 6:31PM GILAD ATZMON
The UK Jewish Chronicle is apparently stupid enough to unveil the
ferocity of Zionist lobbying within the British Government and its
corridors of power. The Jewish weekly is happy to outline the
relentless measures that are being taken by Jewish lobbyists in order
to Zionise the British legal system and its value system.
As one may assume the supporters of Israel in Britain are far from
happy about Britain’s magistrates being able to implement ‘universal
jurisdiction’ laws, laws that allow local magistrates to issue arrest
warrants for high profile foreign visitors accused of war crimes. The
rabid Zionist Jewish Chronicle is obviously outraged because universal
jurisdiction puts most of the Israeli political and military echelon
at a severe risk. Last month ex Israeli Foreign minister Mrs. Tzipi
Livini cancelled her visit to Britain over fears that arrest warrants
would be issued in connection with accusations of war crimes under
laws of universal jurisdiction.
Surely universal jurisdiction is not a bad thing. It is actually an
ethically orientated idea that is there to prevent world leaders from
abusing their powers and committing crimes against humanity. It is
also there to chase war criminals and to stop them from celebrating
their freedom. Yet, it is not very surprising that the only political
lobby in Britain that acts against such a set of universal laws is the
Zionist lobby.
While in the past Zionist activists tried to hide their conspiratorial
actions, JC political editor Martin Bright and Chief editor Stephen
Pollard are providing us with a glimpse into the Jewish relentless
political activity here. “Will the government ever act?” they ask in
their latest editorial as if the British government has to act in
order to satisfy the Zionist will.
Interestingly enough, the JC editors do not offer a single
ideological, ethical or legal argument suggesting what is wrong with
laws of universal jurisdiction except suggesting that it is not good
for the Jews or Israel.
The JC is rather outraged with Justice Secretary Jack Straw who
apparently fails to bow to Israeli pressure. Considering Jack Straw is
of Jewish descent, the JC must believe that it is entitled to use
some measures to put him in the line of fire. In spite of the fact
that Straw is known in Britain for his notorious call for Muslim women
to remove their veils and also as a backer of the illegal invasion of
Iraq. The JC blames Straw for being too friendly with Muslims. “Mr
Straw is known to be highly sensitive to the views of his Muslim
constituents in Blackburn and is close to the Muslim Council of
Britain, which opposes a change to the law.”
The JC should have also accepted the fact that, bearing in mind
Straw’s Jewish origin, it is just natural for him to be reluctant to
put a change into British law that is there to solely to serve Israeli
interests and stands in total opposition to every universal and
ethical value.
According to the JC, the Jews of Britain should not be too worried.
The Shadow Middle East minister David Lidington is already in their
pockets. ”This has to be sorted and quickly”, says the shadow man. “It
is very clear to me that this issue is doing serious damage to
relations with Israel”.
The JC also assures its Zionist readers that they have a man within
the government who is working hard serving their interests willingly
and even enthusiastically. David Miliband, the British foreign
minister who is also listed as an “Israeli Propaganda (Hasbara)
author’ on an Israeli official Hasbara site already announced his
intention to change the law late last year. According to the JC he is
“pushing hard within Whitehall for a solution”. Earlier this month,
says the JC “the Foreign Office briefed that an announcement of the
law change was imminent”. I wouldn’t except less from a listed
‘Hasbara author’
But the JC is taking it even further. In its JC Opinion editorial it
says it is “Crystal clear who is to blame” referring to Justice
Secretary Straw and PM Brown
“The time for excuses is over”, says the paper. “For weeks the
government has been giving every possible off-the-record promise that
it would change the law on universal jurisdiction. No longer would
unsuitable magistrates be able to issue warrants for the arrest of
some of our closest allies”. One may wonder why exactly ‘on the
record’ genocidal murderers such as Livni, Barak or Olmert should be
considered as ‘Britain closest allies’. In fact these people are
primary enemies of humanity and as such they are also the enemy of
Britain and any other nation.
Seemingly, the JC, doesn’t just talk on behalf of its editors. For
some reason it prefers to talk in the name of the ‘Jewish community’.
“Mr Straw must take the Jewish community for mugs if he thinks his
behaviour is not transparent”. The only possible interpretation of
this statement is that British Jewry wants Britain to give up on
universal Jurisdiction just to appease its Zionists.
In case PM Brown is slightly confused and doesn’t know how to react,
the JC is there to tell him how he should run Britain just to keep the
Jewish community happy. “As for the Prime Minister: all he has ever
needed to do is make clear that he backs Mr Miliband, and the issue
would have been over”. Considering Miliband is listed as an ‘Israeli
Propaganda author’ the message here is clear. Britain better start to
work for Israel and even change its laws accordingly so it can easily
comply with Israeli unethical conduct.
Britain is heading towards election, and the JC is advising PM Brown
that he is about to pay the ultimate political price for his
unwillingness to succumb to the Zionist will. “That he (PM Brown) has
done precisely nothing since promising action speaks volumes about his
own bona fides. If - and now it looks like when - the deadline for
action passes and nothing is done, it will be crystal clear who is to
blame.”
In plain language the JC is suggesting that PM Brown as far as the
Jews are concerned, is basically finished. I wonder how long it will
take for British people to wake up and say enough is enough. How long
will it take before they say NO to Israeli and Zionist infiltration
into their politics, laws and value system.
DoD
wrote:
> On Feb 1, 6:56 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 4:41 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I'm going to snip everything which is not responsive to my question
> > > below:
>
> > This is Hunter's typical response to all facts that contradict his
> > received dogma.
>
> > > HERE IS MY QUESTION:
> > >Do you claim that genetics supports present day Zionist claims to Palestine?
> > > Clip non-responsive comment.
> > > Clip non-responsive comment.
>
> > Is this a question, or Hunter's idea of a comedy routine?
>
> > Deborah
>
> Aw, Deb didn't think it was funny. You could have answered it
> anyway.
>
> Here's something for you, news of the Israel Lobby in Britain.
>
> ENOUGH IS ENOUGH BY GILAD ATZMON
> SATURDAY, JANUARY 30, 2010 AT 6:31PM GILAD ATZMON
> The UK Jewish Chronicle is apparently stupid enough to unveil the
> ferocity of Zionist lobbying within the British Government and its
> corridors of power. The Jewish weekly is happy to outline the
> relentless measures that are being taken by Jewish lobbyists in order
> to Zionise the British legal system and its value system.
Featured prominently on lovely blogs such as
http://www.davidicke.com/content/blogcategory/30/48/
and
http://www.theprogressivemind.info/?p=29285
The Progressive Mind is a collection of articles and annotated links
to sites, articles, publications and editorials expressing progressive
and humanistic viewpoints. The editor is an active supporter of
efforts to uncover the truth about the horrible events on Sep 11, 2001
I shouldn't do that too much in front of you, because it is apparent
that you don't a give a fuck where
your "information" comes from...... As long as it bashes Israel and or
Jews, it is a diamond in your eye.
God only knows where you found your copy of this "information".
Coupled with your
"I'm going to snip everything which is not responsive to my question
below: "
line, you have been a barrel of laughs....
Zev
wrote:
Hunter, it's not that much of an issue.
It's meaningful only to Bible fundamentalists concerned
with the question of to whom belongs the land promised
to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Accepting this as the “crux”,
Then even according to the most extreme interpretation of
"The land of Israel belongs to the Children of Israel",
if there is just one Jew out there who is a 100% "Child of Israel",
the land of Israel belongs to him.
The rest of us will take it up with him,
that's not your concern.
drahcir
wrote:
> On Feb 1, 6:56 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 4:41 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > I'm going to snip everything which is not responsive to my question
> > > below:
>
> > This is Hunter's typical response to all facts that contradict his
> > received dogma.
>
> > > HERE IS MY QUESTION:
> > >Do you claim that genetics supports present day Zionist claims to Palestine?
> > > Clip non-responsive comment.
> > > Clip non-responsive comment.
>
> > Is this a question, or Hunter's idea of a comedy routine?
>
> > Deborah
>
> Aw, Deb didn't think it was funny. You could have answered it
> anyway.
>
> Here's something for you, news of the Israel Lobby in Britain.
LOL! The way HHW cries "uncle" is by pretending that we're done with a
topic and suddenly shifting to something irrelevant. In this case he
has posted not only something irrelevant, but something written by the
PROVEN LIAR atzmon. What a waste of bandwidth.
drahcir
> On Feb 1, 7:12 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 9:40 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 1, 1:30 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote
> > HHW wrote:
> > > >You naively believed that there are presently identifiable "Israelite
> > > >genes" which
> > > > identify *Jewish people* and tie them specifically to Palestine.
>
> > This is the crux of it. It's far more political than genetic. Focus
> > now. Do you claim that genetics supports present day Zionist claims to
> > Palestine? If so point to the actual scientific studies which
> > accomplish this and show us how they do it.
>
> > If you can't do this then perhaps you should go back to the denial of
> > Israeli war crimes.
>
> Hunter, it's not that much of an issue.
> It's meaningful only to Bible fundamentalists concerned
> with the question of to whom belongs the land promised
> to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Exactly wrong. Genetics, archaeology, culture, and history establish a
jewish tie to the land irrespective of the bible. That's the whole
point.
Zev
The question refers to Genetics.
I responded to that issue only.
I certainly didn't mean to argue about
the other issues you bring up here.
In that sense, my point is the same as yours.
drahcir
Genetics is one of a few areas by which a jewish tie to israel can be
established without reference to the bible. Therefore, your statement
that genetics should be of interest only to bible fundamentalists
makes no sense.
dsharavi
>>Your REFUSAL to acknowledge that "transfer" was
>>>(and apparently still is) central to Zionism is
>>>something I can't let pass.
[snip by H of the Shapira article on transfer, which refutes H's
assertion]
On Jan 31, 10:57 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
<coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>Clip
"Clip" being H's stock response to facts he doesn't want to face,
especially when they prove his assertions wrong.
>>On Jan 25, 9:56 pm, Cazador <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>>>The concept of "transferring" European Jews to
>>>>Palestine and "transferring" the Palestinian people
>>>>out is central to Zionism.
>>>The sentence above comes from Palestine Remembered.
>>>It is obviously dead-on accurate.
Obviously, it is not.
On Jan 31, 10:57 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
<coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>Why below do you clip part of Shapira's article?
Why have YOU snipped the ENTIRE article several times?
>Why has it no date and venue information?
You snipped it.
>What's going on, Deborah?
Your usual insistence on your Masalha-Pappé nonsense is what's going
on. Along with your usual shyness in facing facts, too, of course.
>Anyway, esteemed readers, what Deborah wants us to see
>of the Shapira article begins here:
If I'd wanted only that, I wouldn't have given the link--something you
usually omit.
>>....The notion of "transfer" was commonly accepted in the period
>>between the two world wars to designate population exchanges such as
>>occurred between Turkey and Greece in the 1920s.
>Exchanges? Is this meant to sound voluntary? The Greeks were expelled
>from Turkey by force.
The Greeks had invaded Turkey, presumably "by force"; their offensive
commenced 22 June 1920; the Turkish counteroffensive commenced 18
August 1922, both also, presumably, "by force". Constantine I, upon
his restoration, announced continuance of the war. The Treaty of
Lausanne between the warring parties (24 June 1923) provided for
"Exchange of populations": Turks out of Greek lands, Greeks out of
Turkish lands.
>> "Transfer" became a
>>code word in contemporary Israeli politics after the emergence of the
>>far right radical party Moledet (Homeland) in the 1980s, led by
>>Rehavam Zeevi.
>The concept of transfer was introduced by Herzl himself over eighty-
>five years earlier. Transfer was already a Zionist code word among the
>first generation of Zionist leaders.
Your borrowed Pappé-via- Masalha-based notion is false. The
suppositious transfer "discussions" Masalha -- and Pappé, copying him
-- expounds on were never part of mainstream Zionist political
discourse or policy. Their claim that Herzl seriously discussed
transfer is likewise false. Herzl discussed plans to buy land, and
transfer it LEGALLY from Arab to Jewish owners in accordance with the
Ottoman Land Law of 1858. Herzl saw this as a moral course. Herzl
planned to pay fair market value--and that's almost what happened. In
fact, Jews usually paid far more than fair market value. And it was
the Ottoman government who owned more than 80 percent of the land,
anyway.
>>Moledet advanced the idea of transfer, or the removal
>>of the Palestinians from the West Bank, as part of its party platform;
>>and in order to gain legitimacy for himself and his party, Zeevi
>>declared that he was following in the footsteps of the founders of the
>>labor movement from its very inception, that "transfer" was vintage
>>Zionist thinking.
>And Zeevi was absolutely correct as is proved beyond doubt by the
>quotations collected at Palestine Remembered and by Dr. Chaim Simons
>with whom you are now acquainted.
Rabbi Simons is a member of the Gush Emunim, as well as Moledet. I
refuted some of his claims, in case you didn't notice. Here they are
again. Do try to read them through this time, instead of indulging
your usual penchant for snipping before reading:
Simons's history on transfer proposals asks four questions: "Who said
the following?
"1) I favour compulsory transfer (of Arabs). I see nothing unethical
in it.
"2) The Jews ... will help in getting Arabs out of Galilee.
"3) Palestine should be for the Jews and no Arabs should be in it.
"4) Western Palestine should be handed over completely to the Jews,
clear of Arab population.
"FOR THE ANSWERS, READ THIS BOOK... YOU WILL GET SOME SURPRISES!!"
---
In answer to Simon's four questions (or should that be Four
Questions?) above:
1) Simons says: Ben Gurion.
But Simons doesn't back his claim, anywhere.
What Ben-Gurion actually said was:
"I saw in the Peel Plan two positive things: the ideas of state and
compulsory transfer. I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see in it
anything immoral, but compulsory transfer can only be effected by
England and not by the Jews... Not only is it inconceivable for us to
carry it out, but it is also inconceivable for us to propose it."
When Ben-Gurion received an initial summary of the Peel Report on 3
July 1937, he wrote to Shertok, regarding the Report's proposal of
transfer of Arabs and transfer of Jews: "Is the proposal a voluntary
one or a compulsory one? It is difficult for me to believe in a
compulsory transfer, and it is difficult for me to believe in a
transfer by agreement." Later, in his diary, Ben-Gurion wrote, "If we
are not able to remove the Arabs from our midst now and transfer them
to the Arab area as the British Royal commission has suggested to
England, then we will not be able to do it easily (if at all) after
the establishment of the State." A few weeks later, Ben-Gurion wrote,
"In my opinion, the suggestion of the Peel Commission was on the whole
good, provided that they were also to implement the transfer (of
Arabs) from all the Plains as the 'Royal Commission' suggested."
At the 20th Zionist Congress of 7 August 1937, a month after the Peel
Report, Ben-Gurion stated:
"We must carefully examine the question whether transfer is possible,
whether it is necessary, whether it is moral, and will it bring
benefit. We do not want to dispossess.You must remember, that this
method contains an important humane and Zionist idea, to shift parts
of a people [i.e., Palestine Arabs] to their own country and to settle
empty lands." Benny Morris, Refabricating 1948, Journal of Palestine
Studies, Winter 1998
Simons also misquotes Ben-Gurion: "We must expel Arabs and take their
place." What Ben-Gurion actually wrote was: "We do not wish, we do not
need to expel the Arabs and take their place. All our aspirations are
built upon the assumption — proven throughout all our activity in the
Land — that there is enough room in the country for ourselves and the
Arabs."
2) Simons says: Weizmann.
Simons bases this on notes Ormesby-Gore made of a meeting of 19 July
1937, published 10 September 1937 in the Jewish Chronicle. Ormsby-Gore
had noted that Weizmann made it clear "he was going to do his best to
get the Zionist Congress to accept partition." With regard to the Peel
Report's recommendation on transferring Arabs from Galilee to
Transjordan, Ormsby-Gore also noted that Weizmann said, "The Jews
can't take active part though they will help in getting Arabs out of
Galilee into Trans-Jordan - e.g. places like the Zerka Valley - but
some transfer is vital to the success of the scheme.
So, no, Weizmann did NOT say that Jews will help get Arabs out of
Galilee.
3) Simons says: FDR
In December 1942, Roosevelt told Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau,
"I actually would put a barbed wire around Palestine, and I would
begin to move the Arabs out of Palestine.. I would provide land for
the Arabs in some other part of the Middle East.. Each time we move
out an Arab we would bring in another Jewish family...But I don't want
to bring in more than they can economically support... There are lots
of places to which you could move the Arabs. All you have to do is
drill a well because there is a large underground water supply, and we
can move the Arabs to places where they can really live." Morganthau
Presidential Diary, 3 December 1942, pp 519-20.
In November 1944, FDR discussed the Palestine situation with the
Undersecretary of State, Edward Stettinius. Stettinius wrote in his
diary that FDR "thinks Palestine should be for the Jews and no Arabs
should be in it, and he has definite ideas on the subject. It should
be exclusive Jewish territory." Diaries of Edward R. Stettinius Jr., p
170.
4) Simons says: Harry St John Philby, British officer and
archaeologist, Arab Information Office in Cairo, advisor and confidant
of King Ibn Saud.
"The whole of Palestine should be left to the Jews. All Arabs
displaced therefrom should be resettled elsewhere at the expense of
the Jews, who would place a sum of 20 million pounds sterling at the
disposal of King Ibn Saud for this purpose. All other Asiatic Arab
countries, with the sole exception of Aden, should be formally
recognised as completely independent in the proper sense of the
term."
Philby's account is corroborrated by no less a distinguished figure
than Professor Namier, who kept a record of the discussions that took
place on October 6, 1939 between Philby, Weizmann, Sharett and
himself. Namier recorded Philby's proposal at the discussion:
"Philby's idea was that Western Palestine should be handed over
completely to the Jews, clear of Arab population except for a `Vatican
City' in the old city of Jerusalem." H Grief, The Foundation and
Borders of Israel Under International Law, p 586
>>The attempt to attribute the sins of the present to Zionism's founding
>>fathers is a hallmark of the politics of the Israeli right: thus the
>>members of Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful) present themselves as
>>the rightful heirs to the pioneer heritage in the pre-state period.
>It was a copiously fulfilled attribution of the doctrine of transfer
>to Zionism's founding fathers. It is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
All you've managed to prove is that Shapira's thesis that the transfer
ideology was an invention of the far Israeli right is correct. Rabbi
Simons happens to be a member of the far Israeli right. An early
follower of Moshe Levinger could hardly be anything else.
>>Zeevi seized on statements on transfer from the 1930s, articulated in
>>substantially different circumstances, in order to justify such
>>repulsive actions in our own time.
>I'm pleased to see Shapira describe the concept of transfer, which was
>common to the founding generation,
You're persisting in your lies. It was not "common to the founding
generation". In fact, none of the "founding generation" mentioned it.
>as "repulsive" at least since the
>1980s, but if it was repulsive from then forward was it less so in the
>1930s, 1920s and in 1895?
Apparently it wasn't repulsive to the British, who made it a part of
the recommendations of the Royal Commission in 1937.
>I am less pleased to see Shapira attempting
>to paint the modern religious right as the bad guys when transfer was
>Zionist doctrine ab initio.
As has been amply proven, it wasn't.
>Those rightists are simply frightening the
>horses by telling the truth in public.
One would think that if it had been part of Zionist doctrine, the
Arabs would have made hysterical mention of it long before the Jews
did. But they didn't. Can you guess why? Of course you can't. They
didn't mention it, because it didn't happen until the far right wing
said it happened. It is, as Ami Iseroff calls it, "an invented
ideology."
Of course, being an invention, it naturally caught the fancy of Nur
Masalha, who is highly esteemed by Pappé, for obvious reasons:
"Rabbi Simons preaches for the removal of the Palestinians
in Israel and the occupied territories, writing in both Hebrew and
English. He publishes regularly articles in this regard in the Hebrew
monthly Moledet, the organ of the far right party of Moledet. In 1988,
in a book entitled "International Proposals to Transfer Arabs from
Palestine 1895-1947 (Ktav Publishing House, New Jersey), written by
Simons, was published, which in spite of its dispassionate style and
camouflaged message, had the underlying assumption that the 'transfer'
of Arabs out of Palestine was legitimate because it was widely
supported by Zionist leaders and Western sympathisers."
Nur Masalha, Imperial Israel and the Palestinians: The Politics of
Expansion, p 141
>>And in this matter, it would seem,
>>the interests of the Israeli right and the "new historians" dovetail.
>Shapira is set upon depicting her academic/political opponents, the
>new historians, as mounting a repulsive and unjustified effort to
>shame both ZIONISM and ISRAEL'S ZIONIST FOUNDING GENERATION for
>clearing the Yishuv's path to the Naqba, one of the 20th Century's
>great crimes against humanity
Get a grip. Address the facts, and stop whinging about imaginary
motives. Shapira is blackwashing nothing, least of all what you
imagine her "academic/political opponents".
Now read again, slowly and carefully, from Rabbi Simon's site, to
which you provided the link, and the corrections I made thereto:
"Who said the following?
"1) 'I favour compulsory transfer (of Arabs). I see nothing unethical
in it.'"
Simons says: Ben-Gurion. But he failed to back his claim, since Ben-
Gurion never said it.
"2) 'The Jews ... will help in getting Arabs out of Galilee.'"
Simons says: Weizmann. What Weizmann said was based on Ormesby-Gore's
notes, published 10 September 1937, of a meeting held 19 July 1937.
What Weizmann said, according to Ormesby-Gore, was: "Weizmann said the
Jews can't take active part though they will help in getting Arabs out
of Galilee into Trans-Jordan - e.g. places like the Zerka Valley - but
some transfer is vital to the success of the scheme."
"3) 'Palestine should be for the Jews and no Arabs should be in it.'"
Simons says: FDR, according to Undersecretary of State, Edward
Stettinius, who wrote in his diary that FDR "thinks Palestine should
be for the Jews and no Arabs should be in it, and he has definite
ideas on the subject. It should be exclusive Jewish territory."
"4) 'Western Palestine should be handed over completely to the Jews,
clear of Arab population.'"
Simons says: Harry St John Philby, Briitish officer and archaeologist,
Arab Information Office in Cairo, advisor and confidant of King Ibn
Saud, according to notes made by Professor Namier concerning a
discussion of October 1939: ""Philby's idea was that Western Palestine
should be handed over completely to the Jews, clear of Arab population
except for a `Vatican City' in the old city of Jerusalem."
I provided these corrections before. Do they contain concepts too
complex for your understanding? I will explain: the earliest of these
statements dates from 1937, and the statement is false. Therefore,
your assertion that the transfer concept has been around since Herzl
is false.
[snip irrelevant spew]
>>It is no coincidence that revisionist ideas were sympathetically
>>received in the ranks of the right. The "new historians" are intent on
>>demonstrating that there was never a golden age of simplicity and
>>innocence in the Zionist movement, and that its founders were full of
>>guilt and guile from the start; and those on the right are keen to
>>show that what is repudiated today as immoral was not an idea that
>>they invented, but rather a part of the Zionist heritage. In both
>>cases, the result is the libeling of Zionism and the undermining of
>>its moral foundations.
>
>That has been clearly the result, but this is no academic squabble.
Yes, it is an academic squabble, and yes, it's a libeling of Zionism
and an undermining of its moral foundations. Make no mistake: its
foundations WERE moral.
>There are millions of refugees,
How, precisely, are there MILLIONS OF [Arab] REFUGEES today, when
there were approximately 600,000 or less in 1949? Little mention is
made of the over 900,000 Jewish refugees expelled from Arab countries.
>war has been almost a constant
Who do we have to thank for that, even before the no, no, no of the
Khartoum Declaration?
>and the situation of Israel deteriorates year by year.
That should cheer you.
>It cries out not just for a solution but for justice.
The "justice" you propose is suicide. Like the Arabs, you fail to see
that there is justice on both sides. But I've never seen any Arabs
advocating THAT.
>>Morris addressed the question of transfer after he had published his
>>important study on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem in
>>1948. His book's much-cited conclusion states that
>>"[t]he Palestinian refugee problem was born of war, not by design,
>>Jewish or Arab. It was largely a by-product of Jewish and Arab fears
>>and of the protracted, bitter fighting that characterized the first
>>Arab-Israeli war; in smaller part, it was the deliberate creation of
>>Jewish and Arab military commanders and politicians."
>You see, Deborah, why at the end of the day I admire Shapira. She
>wants to defend Israel without misrepresenting the history.
I deplore misrepresented history. That's why I'm taking you to task
for your continual misrepresentation of it. And no, I don't see that
you "admire Shapira", since you've insulted her several times, and
continue to insult her.
>She wants to protect her professional reputation too. She goes on:
>>This is a balanced assessment that is corroborated by the evidence.
>When she says this is corroborated by the evidence, she demolishes
>you, the denier. She does it in one simple declarative sentence, not
>with four page cut and paste jobs.
You're being silly. If I didn't agree with her thesis, I wouldn't have
posted it. And you have it bassackward: what she demolishes is YOUR
borrowed notion that transfer was always "central to Zionist
ideology". It wasn't, and Shapira proves it wasn't.
>>But Morris was attacked by Arab historians, notably Nur Masalha, and
>>even by his colleagues Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappé, who argued that his
>>own documentation justified a harsher verdict. Perhaps as a
>>consequence of these criticisms, Morris undertook a partial revision
>>of his findings. What in his earlier book was an ugly but unintended
>>and even unanticipated by-product of war becomes in his new book one
>>of the foundations of Zionism:
>
>>"The transfer idea goes back to the fathers of modern Zionism and,
>>while rarely given a public airing before 1937, was one of the main
>>currents in Zionist ideology from the movement's inception."
>
>Her field is the history of Zionism. This issue is absolutely central
>to her discipline. You can see her struggling with the devil here, or
>perhaps with that camel which has gotten its nose into the tent..
What ever THAT means. What I've seen is your continual snippage of her
article, so that you can continue your misrepresentations of history.
Walter Lacquer's field was also the history of Zionism. In his History
of Zionism, he wrote:
"[T]he idea of a population transfer was never official Zionist
policy. Ben-Gurion emphatically rejected it, saying that even if the
Jews were given the right to evict the Arabs, they would not make use
of it. Most thought at that time that there would be sufficient room
in Palestine for both Jews and Arabs following the industrialization
of the country and the introduction of intensive methods of
agriculture. Since no one before 1914 expected the disintegration of
the Turkish Empire … the question of political autonomy did not figure
in their thoughts. They were genuinely aggrieved that the Arabs were
not more grateful for the economic benefits that they had come to
enjoy as the result of Jewish immigration and settlement."
Lacquer, A History of Zionism, p 232
>>According to Morris's new version, just as the idea of transfer
>>attended Zionism from its inception, so did Arab fears of precisely
>>such a scheme.
>But this judgment is not just Morris'. It's also Shlaim's and Pappé's,
>both specialists in the period.
Pappé specializes in bullshit. And you treat his every utterance as if
it were carved in stone and handed down from Sinai. Shlaim makes his
goofs, but his agenda is political, and he's not an out-and-out
bullshitter like Pappé.
"Pappé believes that there is no such thing as historical truth, only
a collection of narratives as numerous as the participants in any
given event or process; and each narrative, each perspective, is as
valid and legitimate, as true, as the next....much of what Pappé tries
to sell his readers is complete fabrication...
"In Pappé's account, there is no faulting the Palestinians for
regularly assaulting the Zionist enterprise--in 1920, 1921, 1929,
1936-39, 1947-48, the late 1960s and early 1970s, 1987, and 2000--as
there can be no criticizing them for rejecting the various compromises
offered by the British, the Americans, the Jews, and the world
community in 1937, 1947, 1977- 1978, and 2000. The Palestinians are
forever victims, the Zionists are forever "brutal colonizers."...
"The multiplicity of mistakes on each page is a product of both
Pappé's historical methodology and his political proclivities. He
seems to admit as much when he writes early on that "my [pro-
Palestinian] bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I
stick to facts and the 'truth' when reconstructing past realities. I
view any such construction as vain and presumptuous."
"This truly is an appalling book. Anyone interested in the real
history of Palestine/Israel and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict would
do well to run vigorously in the opposite direction."
Benny Morris, Ilan Pappé's New Book Is Appalling, New Republic , March
22, 2004
>>The inference from this line of reasoning is that the
>>Arabs resisted Jewish settlement not because they regarded themselves
>>as Palestine's rightful owners and did not wish to share the land with
>>a people whom they perceived as a foreign invader; nor because they
>>were opposed to transforming Palestine from a land with a
>>predominantly Muslim culture into a non-Muslim country steeped in
>>Western culture. No, their motive was well-founded fear: they knew
>>that the Jews intended in due time to expel them.
>How could it not have been for *all* of these reasons? In any event,
>Pappé
Pappé's crappé is, as Benny Morris noted, "appalling". Try reading a
legitimate historian, for a change, rather than a publicity-seeking
Communist who believes that to "stick to facts and the 'truth' when
reconstructing past realities" is "vain and presumptuous."
>A Jewish State with a Muslim majority was and remains
>impossible. As a matter of democratic politics they are mutually
>exclusive,
As a matter of fact, democracy and Arab states are mutually exclusive,
and the Palestinian-run Territories are no exception. They're also
MCPs.
>> As Morris writes,
>>"the fear of territorial displacement and dispossession was to be the
>>chief motor of Arab antagonism to Zionism down to 1948 (and indeed
>>after 1967 as well)." In this way history is spun on its head, and the
>>effect is made into the cause, and the result of war is promoted into
>>the paradigm for the entire complex of relations between Arabs and
>>Jews over several decades.
>She prepared her exit earlier by saying that the ethnic cleansing was
>the result of war, not ideology and careful planning.
I skip your personal insult. Her statement is fact, and she's not the
only one making it:
"The Yishuv and its military forces did not enter the 1948 War, which
was initiated by the Arab side, with a policy or plan for expulsion."
Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refguee Problem Revisited,
p 60
>>Zionist leaders always believed that the hoped-for Jewish majority in
>>Palestine would materialize by means of massive Jewish immigration. It
>>should not be forgotten that in 1920 the Arab population of Palestine
>>numbered only some 600,000. The Zionist premise--which history has
>>proven right--was that there was land aplenty in western Palestine for
>>millions of Jews and Arabs. All the Zionist plans at the end of the
>>1930s envisioned the influx of a million Jews to Palestine within a
>>decade. That magical number was geared to guaranteeing a Jewish
>>majority, which is why the Arabs were so hostile to immigration: not
>>because they were afraid of expulsion, but because they wished to
>>prevent a demographic transformation.
>That too, of course. Everyone was looking into the future. As always
>it was unclear. And when one thinks about it both sides must have
>feared the demographic challenges. For the Jews the cleansing was what
>was left to ensure a favorable outcome.
Rubbish. What the Jews feared was being wiped out by the Arabs, as the
Arabs kept declaring.
"During the 1930s and 1940s, the espoused policy of the leader of the
Palestinian Arab national movement, the Muslim cleric Haj Amin al
Husseini, was frankly expulsionist about the Yishuv. He repeatedly
stated that he was willing, in his future Palestinian state, to
accommodate as citizens only those Jews who had been residents or
citizens of Palestine up to 1917--say, 60,000 to 80,000 in all. When
asked in 1937 by the Peel Commission what he intended to do with the
80 percent of the Jews who had been born in or come to Palestine after
that date, he responded that time will tell. The commissioners
understood him to mean that they were destined for expulsion or
worse.
"In other words, the surge in thinking about transfer in the late
1930s among mainstream Zionist leaders was in part a response to the
expulsionist mentality of the Palestinians, which was reinforced by
ongoing Arab violence and terrorism. The violence resulted in
Britain's severely curtailing immigration to Palestine, thus assuring
that many Jews who otherwise might have been saved were left stranded
in Europe (and consigned to death), while at the same time foreclosing
the traditional Zionist option and aim of achieving a Jewish majority
in Palestine through immigration."
Benny Morris, And Now For Some Facts, New Republic, 05.08.06
>>Zionism has been one of the best documented and the most talkative of
>>national movements. Its records are not limited to the sphere of
>>political activity and diplomacy, on which Morris and the "new
>>historians" tend to focus; they include also all the educational and
>>propagandistic work over many years within all the warring fractions
>>and currents that comprised the movement. Despite all this
>>documentation, however, all the efforts by Morris and others to dig up
>>actual evidence of the early roots of the "transfer" idea have
>>unearthed only isolated and fragmentary statements--secret thoughts
>>and wishes, but nothing remotely resembling a program.
>It's true that the concrete plans and procedures did not begin to show
>signs of forming until the late thirties
That's NOT what you've been claiming. You've been claiming that the
concept of transferring Arabs out of Palestine was "central to
Zionism". Despite the fact you've been shown otherwise, you continue
to recite this propaganda.
>and it was not finalized until 1948,
The Arabs themselves "finalized" it, by refusing every offer of
peaceful compromise from the start. They wanted the whole enchilada,
with a filling of dead Jews.
>but during that ten year period it morphed four times and
>as Shapira suggests there was a transfer committee working on it.
You're lying again. Shapira nowhere suggests the existence of any
"transfer committee", since one never existed.
>There was also a large effort made to prepare the intelligence, the
>"village files," which would be needed if the effort were to go
>smoothly..
More Pappé crappé. Try reading something else, for a change. Sachar,
for instance, unless the thickness of his tome frightens one
accustomed to the thinner offerings of Pappé.
>>The idea of transfer was broached in serious discussion for the first
>>time in 1937, when the Peel Commission proposed to transfer the large
>>Arab minority from the territory designated for the tiny Jewish state
>>as part of the package deal that envisioned a partitioning of western
>>Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab.
>>In accordance with the
>>Commission's proposals, the British were to carry out the transfer.
>Somewhat like the US attacking Iran on behalf of Israel.
You're so full of it, Hunter. Take some Ex-Lax. Saddam had to go. The
time to have ousted him was during the first Gulf War in 1991, rather
than pulling out and then having it to do all over again.
>>Morris declares that "it is reasonable to assume that the Zionist
>>leaders played a role in persuading the Peel Commission to adopt the
>>transfer solution." There is not even a sliver of evidence to support
>>such a claim, which is very far removed from what any credible
>>historian may reasonably assume.
>Nothing Shapira says in this paragraph about evidence renders it any
>the less "reasonable to assume" that Zionist leaders played that role.
>They had been talking about it for fifty years.
They hadn't, as the facts prove. And Morris is wrong; All of Ben-
Gurion's writings on the Peel partition scheme show that he was very
hesitant about the British proposal; what led him to support it was
the need to rescue the Jews of Europe, along with the explosive
resumption of Arab terrorism.
>> It is perfectly legitimate for Morris
>>to surmise that the Zionists did not lament the Peel Commission
>>proposal, and even rejoiced at it. But such gladness is a long way
>>from the unsubstantiated presumption that they were implicated in its
>>formulation.
>It is substantiated circumstantially by the very intellectual history
>we have been discussing in this thread.
The only "history" to which you've referred is Pappé's, which is
neither intellectual mpt history.
>Morris is correct here.
Morris's surmise is nothing more than outre speculation.
>>It is also true that Ben-Gurion and his associates welcomed the
>>British idea to transfer Arabs from the small area set aside for the
>>Jewish state. In Ben-Gurion's efforts at the Twentieth Zionist
>>Congress in 1937 to drum up support for adoption of the partition
>>plan, he made use of the concept of transfer in order to persuade his
>>comrades to accept the tiny state proposed by the Commission, since
>>the Jews would be a large majority there. The idea of transfer was a
>>lure designed to convince Zionists to swallow the bitter pill of
>>partition. In later years, Ben-Gurion warned of the dangers inherent
>>in embracing the idea of transfer as a Zionist program, even after the
>>British Labour Party had chosen to incorporate it in its platform.
>Of course. It could not be formally incorporated into a "platform". It
>was criminal by nature.
The British Labour Party incorporated it in its platform, along with
its support for a Jewish state in Palestine. Even then, Ben-Gurion
cautioned AGAINST " embracing the idea of transfer as a Zionist
program".
>>Morris recalls that, over a prolonged period, Arab leaders declared
>>that the true aim of Zionism was to uproot and to expel the Arabs,
>>while the Zionists claimed there was ample room in Palestine for both
>>peoples. But, as Morris adds,
>>"the stark realities of the 1930s, with wholesale persecution in
>>Central and Eastern Europe and with Britain closing the gates to
>>Jewish immigration, seems to prove the Arabs right. Palestine would
>>not be transformed into a Jewish state unless all or much of the Arab
>>population was expelled."
>>Otherwise, Morris explains, a Jewish majority could not be achieved.
>>This argument boggles the mind. If we are speaking about the mandatory
>>period, then the British, who did not permit Jewish immigration, most
>>certainly would not have endorsed any plan of Arab transfer. If we are
>>speaking about a future with Palestine under Jewish rule, then the
>>Jewish authorities would have been able to bring in millions of Jews
>>unhindered and thereby to resolve the question of the dominant
>>majority without resorting to expulsion.
>But how does Shapira get to the possibility of "Palestine under Jewish
>Rule"?
What an odd question.
>We have experience with that
YOU don't, that's obvious.
[snip H fantasy]
>> What had fueled a massive
>>wish to leave Europe was the calamitous situation of the Jews there,
>>the "wholesale persecution" mentioned by Morris.
>>However you interpret it, in other words, there is not a shred of
>>evidence that Zionist ideology changed in the 1930s; not a shred of
>>evidence that the transfer idea supplanted the idea of immigration as
>>a means to achieve a Jewish majority in Palestine. But still Morris
>>claims that, starting with the Peel Commission, the idea of transfer
>>enjoyed a general consensus in virtually all the Zionist bodies. His
>>book lacks any notes indicating which deliberations (and how many
>>deliberations) he is referring to, and it is thus impossible to
>>determine whether the sources corroborate his contention.
>Why should Morris replicate Pappé's book?
He wrote it before Pappé wrote his crappé. And considering how Morris
despises Pappé for the latter's falsification of history, it's not
likely Morris would want to replicate any of the crappé.
>And who is saying here that Zionist ideology changed in
>the thirties? Morris and the other new
>historians say it remained expulsionist from 1895 forward. They agree
>I suspect with the Palestinian historians.
You "suspect". You haven't read much, that's clear from your assertion
that "new historians" maintain that Zionist ideology "remained
expulsionist from 1895 forward". Despite all facts presented to the
contrary, you haven't learned a damned thing. You don't even think for
yourself. All you can manage is to parrot Pappé's crappé.
>>In the same manner, Morris links the broaching of transfer within the
>>context of the discussions on partition in 1937 with the creation of
>>the refugee problem in 1948: "The idea was in the air from 1937 onward
>>and without doubt contributed in various ways to the transfer that
>>eventually took place, in 1948." Morris presents the expulsion as if
>>it were the outcome of some Zionist master plan. There is no hard
>>evidence for the existence of such a master plan, but never mind. The
>>idea, "without doubt," was "in the air."
>
>Transfer was first "broached" in 1895, not in the late thirties.
It wasn't, as the facts previously posted show.
>>The Israeli-Arab conflict was not born as a consequence of anxieties
>>about expulsion. It was born as a consequence of Arab resistance to
>>the settlement of a foreign element in their land. The feeling of
>>power among the Palestinian Arabs, who believed they were the rightful
>>proprietors of Palestine and were unwilling to enter into any sort of
>>compromise agreement with the Jews, contradicts the argument based on
>>their alleged fears about eviction.
>
>This is untrue.
This is entirely true. And your personally attacking Shapira doesn't
negate it.
[snip]
>>The Palestinians did not go to war
>>in 1948 because they were afraid the Jews would oust them; they went
>>to war because they were not prepared to make their peace with the
>>idea of a Jewish state in Palestine.
>The Palestinians did not "go to war" against the Jews in 1948.
Of course. They started their war against Jewish Palestinians the day
following the UN partition vote.
>On the
>contrary from 1947 they became the victims of a concerted Jewish
>ethnic cleansing campaign.
And one supposes the hundreds of Jews they killed in the months
following the partition vote weren't REALLY killed by them. It was all
part of a Jewish Conspiracy(TM) to lay the blame on them.
>It was *Arab States* who went to war
>against Israel to stop the cleansing in May of 1948. That was a
>separate campaign in the operational sense. Most of the cleansing
>efforts took place far from the conventional fighting of the first
>Arab-Israeli War.
The Palestinian Arabs started the war against the Jews the day
following the partition vote, and escalated in the months that
followed. That's on record from British reports. The Arab STATES had
army units operating in Palestine well before May 1948--Jordan, Syria,
and Iraq in particular. The Arab STATES weren't concerned about any
alleged "ethnic cleansing" -- except as it pertained to Jews, of
course, whom they "ethnically cleansed" from the West Bank and other
regions.-- The Arab STATES had their own agendas: Jordan wanted to
prevent the creation of a second Arab state in Palestine; Iraq wanted
a corridor for its oil to the Haifa terminus; Syria and Egypt wanted
as much of the north and the south as they could seize. None of their
agendas including stopping any "cleansing". In fact, they participated
in some of it themselves.
>>The Palestinian Arabs also believed that they would emerge the
>>victors.
I disagree with Shapira on this. Some Palestinian Arabs did NOT
believe they would emerge victorious. Muhammad Nimr al-Hawari, a Jaffa
attorney and founder of the Najjada paramilitary organization under
the Mufti's aegis, grew so sick of the Mufti's brutal violence, that
he disengaged himself and tried to seek accommodation with the Jews
that would lead to peace. So did Tawfik Toubi, a leader of the Arab
Communist Party (and one of the first Arab MKs). "The question is, was
I a traitor in this struggle?" Hawari wrote. "Could I incite the
people of Palestine to engage in a war they could not fight?" The
answer, of course, was no, and he was convinced that the spread of
violence would end only in disaster. Brave man. In opting for peace,
he put his life on the line: the Mufti issued orders for his
assassination.
>>The question of what they intended to do with the Jews in
>>Palestine after a Jewish defeat on the battlefield is, of course,
>>hypothetical. After the defeat, the flight, and the expulsion of the
>>Palestinians, moreover, the subject is unmentionable: such questions
>>are raised only about the victors.
>
>Here they are being raised BY the victors in the form of Professor
>Shapira who plays the Holocaust card.
You think the Holocaust is some kind of card? If so, you're even
stupider than you've made yourself out to be. And so far, you've made
yourself out to be pretty bloody stupid.
>
>>When the peace process comes to a
>>conclusion, documents may be disclosed that shed valuable light on
>>this point; but in the meantime the issue can be examined only in
>>terms of the historical facts that we possess. And those facts, alas,
>>are unequivocal: in all areas where the Jews went down to defeat at
>>the hands of the Arabs, not a single Jew was allowed to return.
>
>Can anyone tell me the events to which she refers?
Doesn't Pappé relate them? Oh yeah, he doesn't bother with facts which
show the Palestinian Arabs as anything other than helpless victims.
>>On both sides, Arab and Jewish, there was a composite of flight and
>>expulsion. Jews fled in fear from mixed neighborhoods such as the
>>border areas between Jaffa and Tel Aviv, and even from Jaffa itself.
>>There were some 10,000 Jewish refugees in the early stages of the war.
>>Gush Etzion, on the road between Bethlehem and Hebron, was captured by
>>the Arab Legion and local Palestinian forces: the inhabitants were
>>killed or taken prisoner and carried across the Jordan. Their
>>settlements were completely demolished. The settlements Neveh Ya'akov
>>and Atarot north of Jerusalem, also captured, were totally
>>obliterated. All the residents of the Jewish quarter in the Old City
>>in Jerusalem, conquered by local forces with the aid of the Arab
>>Legion, were taken captive. No Jew was allowed to return to settle in
>>the Old City--not even the ultra-Orthodox who detested Zionism and
>>were prepared to live under Arab rule.
>
>>With the heightening of the national conflict between the two peoples,
>>the prospect of living together one under the rule of the other became
>>less and less palatable. Propaganda stoked mutual fears. The Jews were
>>convinced that the Arabs were going to throw them into the sea,
>>because that is what the Arabs said that they would do. The Arabs
>>feared what the Israeli army might do to them, since Arab opinion-
>>makers had painted the Israeli army in devilish colors.
>
>>The Arab panic led to exodus, and to the collapse of the institutions
>>of Palestinian society. The more the magnitude of the exodus became
>>clear, the more admissible and attractive the idea seemed to Israeli
>>leaders and military commanders--not because the Zionist movement had
>>been planning such an evacuation all along, but because a remote
>>option (even if there were some who harbored such hankerings) gained
>>acceptance in the context of the behavior of both sides during the
>>war.
>The chaos associated with the ethnic cleansing was primarily the
>result of Jewish troops showing up and assaulting the cities
Did you read none of the foregoing?
>Just read Pappé's book.
The one Benny Morris advised to "run vigorously in the opposite
direction," if one is "interested in the real history of Palestine/
Israel and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict"? Or do you refer to
another equally nonsensical book?
I suggest you try reading something OTHER than Pappé, for a change.
Try Connor Cruise O'Brien's The Siege. I would suggest Sachar's
History of Israel, as well, but you'd probably quail at the thought of
a 1,000 page history, being so accustomed to Pappé's very short novels
the same subject.
>>The process of Jewish-Palestinian reconciliation has been bound up
>>with a readiness for mutual recognition, and for mutual assent to the
>>co-existence of two states in western Palestine. Both sides found it
>>difficult to recognize the existence and the legitimacy of the other.
>>And historians also have their difficulties coming to terms with that
>>reality. From the post-Oslo perspective, the question arises whether
>>there could have been shortcuts in that process, as suggested by the
>>allegation of the "new historians" that Israel missed various
>>opportunities for peace in the past.
>>We must be careful not to view the outcomes of events as inevitable;
>>but we must also not trivialize the conflict. It is doubtful whether a
>>confrontation of such emotional and psychological depth as the Israeli-
>>Arab dispute can be resolved solely by rational means, by appealing to
>>the disadvantages that war entails for both parties. History shows
>>that such conflicts usually have not been ended by reason and good
>>will. They have usually been ended by weariness, as both sides were
>>ground down by the death and the bitterness, and both sides came to
>>realize that victory is unattainable. In a discussion of the
>>development of Zionism since Herzl, the Israeli historian Jacob Talmon
>>once adduced this observation by Friedrich Engels:
>>"History is perhaps the cruelest goddess of all, and she drives her
>>victorious chariot upon heaps and heaps of bodies, not just in time of
>>war, but also during peaceful economic development. And alas, we men
>>and women are such fools that we never dare to venture out for any
>>real progress unless impelled to do so as a result of boundless
>>suffering."
>>That is exactly the prospect today.
>>And so the dialogue between history and historiography will continue.
>>If it turns out that the hopes for an Israeli-Arab peace were
>>premature, then the picture of the past will also be soured, and the
>>currents critical of Israel will almost certainly be strengthened. If
>>the peace process is carried forward to a successful conclusion, and
>>Israel is welcomed as a fully recognized polity among the states of
>>the Middle East, then a perspective on the past will be reinforced
>>whose rudiments are already evident, though only intermittently in the
>>writings of Avi Shlaim and Benny Morris: the perspective of realism.
>>When reality comes more closely to approximate our moral ideals,
>>moralism will become redundant. We will see this thick and twisted
>>conflict more accurately and more humanely. And the power of discourse
>>may succeed where the power of arms has failed.
>>--Translated by William Templer
>
>As I say, Deb, you've got to respect Anita Shapira even if you don't
>always agree.
I disagree with one point, mentioned above, and that's the statement
that "Palestinian Arabs also believed that they would emerge the
victors." A number did not. Unfortunately, their voices of reason were
lost on the ex-Nazis of the Arab Higher Committee (later the PLO) who
were in charge. As Sachar noted (History, p 299):
"Left to their own devices, Arabs and Jews continued to live together
peacefully, if fearfully. The Higher Committee's violence alone would
not have precipitated a full-scale war between the two peoples. But
the Palestine Arabs and Jews were not left alone."
Deborah
coaste...@yahoo.com
A little mental health note: You should get your Atzmon directly from
the source, Atzmon himself. That's what I do. I'm even on his mailing
list. If you did that then you wouldn't be troubled by the fact that
he is republished all over the world
As for your "guilt by association" shtick, don't forget that your only
persona on the net is that of a slavish lap dog for ethnic cleansers
and mass murderers.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 9:40 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 1, 1:30 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote
> > HHW wrote:
> > > >You naively believed that there are presently identifiable "Israelite
> > > >genes" which
> > > > identify *Jewish people* and tie them specifically to Palestine.
>
> > This is the crux of it. It's far more political than genetic. Focus
> > now. Do you claim that genetics supports present day Zionist claims to
> > Palestine? If so point to the actual scientific studies which
> > accomplish this and show us how they do it.
>
> > If you can't do this then perhaps you should go back to the denial of
> > Israeli war crimes.
>
> Hunter, it's not that much of an issue.
Not objectively. But it is used in pro-Israeli propaganda and by
people such as sharavi and Ratner.
Frankly, Zev, I'd like to see you answer the question directly instead
of simply saying that it's "not much" of an issue.
> It's meaningful only to Bible fundamentalists concerned
> with the question of to whom belongs the land promised
> to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
It's meaningful to Zionists and Zionism pervades the consciousness of
the Israeli people.
> Accepting this as the “crux”,
> Then even according to the most extreme interpretation of
> "The land of Israel belongs to the Children of Israel",
> if there is just one Jew out there who is a 100% "Child of Israel",
> the land of Israel belongs to him.
> The rest of us will take it up with him,
> that's not your concern.
The *question posed* above goes to the heart (crux) of the issue's
political parameter. The argument from genetics is Zionist, i.e.,
political. It is used to justify Israeli policies which I oppose. Of
course I address it. As Ratner once admitted, talk of "Israelite
genes" doesn't come from genetics. Accordingly it comes from politics.
Would you please answer my question?
BTW, there are quite a few suppressed premises underlying "....the
land of Israel belongs to him." Another time.
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 1, 11:15 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 1, 6:56 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 4:41 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > I'm going to snip everything which is not responsive to my question
> > > > below:
>
> > > This is Hunter's typical response to all facts that contradict his
> > > received dogma.
>
> > > > HERE IS MY QUESTION:
> > > >Do you claim that genetics supports present day Zionist claims to Palestine?
> > > > Clip non-responsive comment.
> > > > Clip non-responsive comment.
>
> > > Is this a question, or Hunter's idea of a comedy routine?
>
> > > Deborah
>
> > Aw, Deb didn't think it was funny. You could have answered it
> > anyway.
>
> > Here's something for you, news of the Israel Lobby in Britain.
>
> LOL! The way HHW cries "uncle" is by pretending that we're done with a
> topic and suddenly shifting to something irrelevant. In this case he
> has posted not only something irrelevant, but something written by the
> PROVEN LIAR atzmon. What a waste of bandwidth.
>
apologetics for aggression and war crimes is off the table until the
IDF gets out of the West Bank and Israel settles with the
Palestinians. I can't force you to answer the question I posed but I
can certainly continue to harass you with it. You don't answer it
because you can't do it in a way advantageous to Zionism and you're
too committed to scamming the issues to admit it.
You raised the issue and now you run from it.
drahcir
You're done, asshole. You snipped everything in the discussion, that's
giving up. You suddenly switched topics. posting some bullshit by that
proven liar atzmon - that's giving up. You're done as dinner, schmuck.
Of course not. No Zionist
> apologetics for aggression and war crimes is off the table until the
> IDF gets out of the West Bank and Israel settles with the
> Palestinians. I can't force you to answer the question I posed but I
> can certainly continue to harass you with it. You don't answer it
> because you can't do it in a way advantageous to Zionism and you're
> too committed to scamming the issues to admit it.
> You raised the issue and now you run from it.
Hey folks, are my eyes deceiving me? Did this melonhead just write
what I think he wrote, after snipping his way into debate nirvana and
completely changing topics?? DID HE REALLY WRITE THE ABOVE?? H, YOU
ARE PRECIOUS. PRECIOUS, aaaaahahahahahahahaa PpppppPRECIOUS!!!!!!!
sheesh, somebody get me a handkerchief, my eyes are watering.
dsharavi
wrote:
> Not objectively. But it is used in pro-Israeli propaganda and by
> people such as sharavi and Ratner.
Typical Watson lie.
> It's meaningful to Zionists
It isn't.
> The *question posed* above goes to the heart (crux) of the issue's
> political parameter. The argument from genetics is Zionist, i.e.,
> political.
The argument from genetics is Palestinian Arabs, i.e, used to justify
their occupation of the land. They've been promulgating variations of
it for decades.
Deborah
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 2, 4:45 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 7:12 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 9:40 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 1, 1:30 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote
> > > HHW wrote:
> > > > >You naively believed that there are presently identifiable "Israelite
> > > > >genes" which
> > > > > identify *Jewish people* and tie them specifically to Palestine.
>
> > > This is the crux of it. It's far more political than genetic. Focus
> > > now. Do you claim that genetics supports present day Zionist claims to
> > > Palestine? If so point to the actual scientific studies which
> > > accomplish this and show us how they do it.
Note, Zev, that Ratner clipped the "If so point out the studies and
explain" line. You know what that means.
>
> > > If you can't do this then perhaps you should go back to the denial of
> > > Israeli war crimes.
>
> > Hunter, it's not that much of an issue.
> > It's meaningful only to Bible fundamentalists concerned
> > with the question of to whom belongs the land promised
> > to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
>
> Exactly wrong. Genetics, archaeology, culture, and history establish a
> jewish tie to the land irrespective of the bible. That's the whole
> point.
Presuming a tie "irrespective of the Bible," and I don't, like the
genetics bs that's all contestable, you still don't get to a right to
take the land from the Palestinians. These arguments are mere
apologetics for criminal behavior. They don't support claims to
present ownership or sovereign rights. These alleged ties don't even
come up in the litigation in international tribunals. I've never seen
any sign that they are even argued there. Did you see any of that
stuff in the Wall case? Ancient ties simply aren't germane.
Irredentism is outlawed in the UN Charter and Israel accepted that
principle by joining. There are communities all over the world with
ancient ties to other places. Ultimately we all have ties to Africa.
Only Zionist Jews have the chutzpah to try to oust others based on
such ties after thousands of years. Israel needs actual legitimacy.
She will only seize that prize through the international system as it
exists. There is no other path to the Zionist utopia.
Despite all this WE are to support at all hazards these cocameme and
unjust claims when they obviously conflict with our own interests? I'm
sorry, but no. We've seen the error of those ways. We were sympathetic
and generous but the price has been exacted from us, not freely given,
and has been exorbitant. Here's a way to think about it:
P. 1: Though separated from his earlier homeland by only 200 years,
not thousands, HHW is certified member of the Celtic/Anglo-Saxon
diaspora;
P. 2: He bases this fact on indisputable records which the Brit and
Irish government admit are authentic;
P. 3: HHW founds the Redemption Society, a political movement of
diasporeans in the US, and it demands but is refused both a *right* of
return and a fractional share of Irish and UK land for its members and
all others similarly situated.
THEREFORE, the Society's military wing, pursuant to its ideology,
REDEMPTIONISM, first infiltrates and then invades Ireland and the UK,
cleansing it of all "wogs," seizing all wog land and property,
destroying its government and institutions, undermining its culture
and generally making everyone miserable under military occupation on
the altar of Redemptionist ideology. When confronted with its obvious
crimes it cites the Irish Potato famine, the Enclosure Movement and
the right of self-defence, and brandishes the documents which prove
Diasporean "ties." Meanwhile the English, the Irish, the Scots and the
Wogs rally.... A hundred years latter the Diasporean State is still
hanging on but is a pariah and under threat of nuclear attack and the
leadership is reconsidering its rejection of an offer of the Hawaiian
Islands as a national home for the Diasporeans.
> > Accepting this as the “crux”,
> > Then even according to the most extreme interpretation of
> > "The land of Israel belongs to the Children of Israel",
> > if there is just one Jew out there who is a 100% "Child of Israel",
> > the land of Israel belongs to him.
> > The rest of us will take it up with him,
> > that's not your concern.
Start refunding the 3 bn. a year and revivifying our dead and wounded
and we'll consider ignoring you.
BTW, would you be willing to pick up the cudgels which were dropped by
Deborah on the Anita Shapira article?
Otherwise I'll just have to keep posting it until some Zionist does.
I'd rather it be you.
coaste...@yahoo.com
You presume that most Jews see a Jewish tie and other such arguments
for continuation of Israeli expansion as necessary today. How can that
be when most of them apparently want to declare Zionism to have been
fulfilled, to settle and to get on with it. The Israeli's are't good
at democratic politics. They can't bring themselves to vote for
leadership which can help the country. That leaves us unpalatable
options. We have no negotiating partner in that government.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Refusal to answer the question is noted. Here it is again in case some
of the readers have lost track:
"Do you claim that genetics supports present day Zionist claims to
Palestine?" To that was appended the modest request for the genetics
articles you rely upon.
You respond with schmuck and asshole but that doesn't cover your
refusal to answer. You've been defeated in one line. You're naught but
filthy bluff.
> > Of course not. No Zionist apologetics for aggression and war crimes is off the table until the
> > IDF gets out of the West Bank and Israel settles with the
> > Palestinians. I can't force you to answer the question I posed but I
> > can certainly continue to harass you with it. You don't answer it
> > because you can't do it in a way advantageous to Zionism and you're
> > too committed to scamming the issues to admit it.
> > You raised the issue and now you run from it.
>
> Hey folks, are my eyes deceiving me? Did this melonhead just write
> what I think he wrote, after snipping his way into debate nirvana and
> completely changing topics?? DID HE REALLY WRITE THE ABOVE?? H, YOU
> ARE PRECIOUS. PRECIOUS, aaaaahahahahahahahaa PpppppPRECIOUS!!!!!!!
>
> sheesh, somebody get me a handkerchief, my eyes are watering.
Everyone who reads the question will know that you can not answer it
in a fashion which is advantageous to Zionism. You've been defeated in
nine or ten words.
In the meantime I'm not going to waste opportunities. Don't you just
love Gilad Atzmon?
> > > > ENOUGH IS ENOUGH BY GILAD ATZMON
>I > > > SATURDAY, JANUARY 30, 2010 AT 6:31PM GILAD ATZMON
coaste...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 2, 3:25 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Not objectively. But it is used in pro-Israeli propaganda and by
> > people such as sharavi and Ratner.
>
> Typical Watson lie.
Take it up with Ratner. He's a Zionist and uses "genetics" in pro-
Israeli propaganda right here. You've been supporting him.
>
> > It's meaningful to Zionists
>
> It isn't.
Ha, take that up with Ratner. He's picked a fight with Zev on that
very issue.
>
> > The *question posed* above goes to the heart (crux) of the issue's
> > political parameter. The argument from genetics is Zionist, i.e.,
> > political.
>
> The argument from genetics is Palestinian Arabs, i.e, used to justify
> their occupation of the land. They've been promulgating variations of
> it for decades.
And you've been arguing the opposing Zionist "interpretation" for just
as long. I'm interested in your use of it, not that of the
Palestinians.
drahcir
Note whatever you feel like - what's happened in this thread is clear.
Here it is again in case some
> of the readers have lost track:
>
> "Do you claim that genetics supports present day Zionist claims to
> Palestine?" To that was appended the modest request for the genetics
> articles you rely upon.
Answer is in what you snipped. Too late now - you lose, asshole.
> You respond with schmuck and asshole but that doesn't cover your
> refusal to answer. You've been defeated in one line. You're naught but
> filthy bluff.
Keep masturbating your schmuck, schmuck. When you decide to live in
reality, let me know.
>
> > > Of course not. No Zionist apologetics for aggression and war crimes is off the table until the
> > > IDF gets out of the West Bank and Israel settles with the
> > > Palestinians. I can't force you to answer the question I posed but I
> > > can certainly continue to harass you with it. You don't answer it
> > > because you can't do it in a way advantageous to Zionism and you're
> > > too committed to scamming the issues to admit it.
> > > You raised the issue and now you run from it.
>
> > Hey folks, are my eyes deceiving me? Did this melonhead just write
> > what I think he wrote, after snipping his way into debate nirvana and
> > completely changing topics?? DID HE REALLY WRITE THE ABOVE?? H, YOU
> > ARE PRECIOUS. PRECIOUS, aaaaahahahahahahahaa PpppppPRECIOUS!!!!!!!
>
> > sheesh, somebody get me a handkerchief, my eyes are watering.
>
> Everyone who reads the question will know that you can not answer it
> in a fashion which is advantageous to Zionism. You've been defeated in
> nine or ten words.
Yet more self-pleasuring having nothing to do with what has
transpired. H, it is really not healthy for an older person such as
yourself to indulge in fantasy to this extent. Your snippage of
everything I wrote is so silly, so desperate, so self-delusional, it's
truly difficult to believe.
>
> In the meantime I'm not going to waste opportunities. Don't you just
> love Gilad Atzmon?
I've proven him a liar, and I don't like liars.
> ...
>
> read more »
coaste...@yahoo.com
> >>On Jan 27, 10:17 pm, Cazador <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> >>Your REFUSAL to acknowledge that "transfer" was
> >>>(and apparently still is) central to Zionism is
> >>>something I can't let pass.
>
> [snip by H of the Shapira article on transfer, which refutes H's
> assertion]
I have answered your Shapira article comprehensively. Since then
you've been hiding. Unless you face it and reply I'll have to keep
posting it to remind one and all that it's an important failure on
your part..
drahcir
I don't presume anything. I state facts. Those facts make it crystal
clear that the jews have infinitely more right to be in Israel than
you have to be in the US.
coaste...@yahoo.com
Just what facts make this clear you are avoiding. That was the motive
for refusing to answer my genetics question. It would have been made
clear. You took counsel of your fears, Ratner.
drahcir
No avoidance - your cowardice is blinding you - the issues were dealt
with perfectly in what you snipped - snippage was your ONLY ESCAPE -
and of course, being the coward that you are, you took it. Now you
have to live with that choice.
That was the motive
> for refusing to answer my genetics question.
As many times as you refer to this fictional refusal, that's how many
times everyone in this group will think you're an idiot, since it
clearly was contained in what you snipped.
It would have been made
> clear. You took counsel of your fears, Ratner.
>
Sheesh, can you still see your palm skin?
drahcir
wrote:
> On Feb 2, 7:55 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 2, 4:45 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 1, 7:12 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 1, 9:40 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 1, 1:30 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > > > wrote
> > > > HHW wrote:
> > > > > >You naively believed that there are presently identifiable "Israelite
> > > > > >genes" which
> > > > > > identify *Jewish people* and tie them specifically to Palestine.
>
> > > > This is the crux of it. It's far more political than genetic. Focus
> > > > now. Do you claim that genetics supports present day Zionist claims to
> > > > Palestine? If so point to the actual scientific studies which
> > > > accomplish this and show us how they do it.
>
> Note, Zev, that Ratner clipped the "If so point out the studies and
> explain" line.
Maybe in your masturbatory fantasy world. In the real world I
"clipped" nothing.
DoD
wrote:
> As for your "guilt by association" shtick, don't forget that your only
> persona on the net is that of a slavish lap dog for ethnic cleansers
> and mass murderers.-
How can that be, when it is not true. OTOH it is proven that you are a
lying degenerate
of a hate filled old man that spends his time coming the internet for
any and everything
that is anti-Jewish. Remember the time you posted that video that
turned out to be PalArabs
fuckin themselves up and you said it was Jews. You just say lies about
me and pass it off as
truth like the lying bastard you are. The people you post for (the
ones that read your
pathetic crap) are a couple of juvenile trolls that have to name shift
even more than you because nobody
other than maybe you pay attention to them. I don't come here nearly
as much as I used to
because I know this place has turned into a run down shithole by you
and your companions who
are not interested in debate but only trolling. You are the reason the
definition troll exists. That is
you... You are a pathetic piece of dogshit... But you do make me smile
because I know I would have
to work real hard in life to become as big of a loser as you are.
Now... like clockwork your juvenile friends
will come along with their toilet humor to make stupid attempts at
jokes to lessen the blow to
your idiotic ego.
LOL...
Bolt Upright
illness. He never was the sharpest knife in the drawer, but previously I
never had grounds to question his sanity. Sadly, this is no longer the
case; he honestly seems to be going downhill at an accelerating rate.
I'm not looking to dump on Doodoo here, I'm asking an honest question;
Is David losing his sanity or is a delusion on my part?
>
>
DoD
"Bolt Upright" <Nob...@home.com> wrote in message
news:8287b$4b68f304$d8fe9cdd$17...@PRIMUS.CA...
Incredible... just as I predicted like clockwork... I can make the little
doggie bark on command...
Also I noted yesterday that the little bastard wop follows me around like a
puppy. This
freak wouldn't have a life without me. Now if I can just get the goddamn
thing toilet trained.
coaste...@yahoo.com
To "be in Israel" or to take it by force and and expel its
inhabitants? Is the latter the right the Jews have, to expel the
Palestinians?
> How can that
> > be when most of them apparently want to declare Zionism to have been
> > fulfilled, to settle and to get on with it. The Israeli's aren't good
> > at democratic politics. They can't bring themselves to vote for
> > leadership which can help the country. That leaves us unpalatable
> > options. We have no negotiating partner in that government.
>
> > > > > > Accepting this as the “crux”,
> > > > > > Then even according to the most extreme interpretation of
> > > > > > "The land of Israel belongs to the Children of Israel",
> > > > > > if there is just one Jew out there who is a 100% "Child of Israel",
> > > > > > the land of Israel belongs to him.
> > > > > > The rest of us will take it up with him,
> > > > > > that's not your concern.
You'll expel him if necessary?
coaste...@yahoo.com
I especially like his puffed up handle: DoD, the Department of Defense
for the Jewish People! He thinks statues are going to be raised in his
honor in Tel Aviv and in the annexed West Bank but what he's really
waiting for is tangible compensation for his labors in the Zionist
vinyard.....a pension perhaps.
Zev
wrote:
> On Feb 2, 4:45 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 7:12 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Feb 1, 9:40 am, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 1, 1:30 am, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > > > wrote
> > > HHW wrote:
> > > > >You naively believed that there are presently identifiable
> > > > >"Israelite
> > > > >genes" which
> > > > > identify *Jewish people* and tie them specifically to Palestine.
>
> > > This is the crux of it. It's far more political than genetic. Focus
> > > now. Do you claim that genetics supports present day Zionist claims to
> > > Palestine? If so point to the actual scientific studies which
> > > accomplish this and show us how they do it.
>
> > > If you can't do this then perhaps you should go back to the denial of
> > > Israeli war crimes.
>
> > Hunter, it's not that much of an issue.
>
> Not objectively. But it is used in pro-Israeli propaganda and by
> people such as sharavi and Ratner.
I haven't seen any pro-Israeli propaganda
based on the centrality of Jewish genes.
Maybe I missed something.
Joseph's children had an Egyptian mother.
Yet, Jacob said:
"Ephraim and Menasha are like Reuben and Simon to me".
Judah is also mentioned explicitly as having a non-Jewish wife,
yet, Jacob praised him especially (Genesis 49:8-12).
Apparently, all of Jacob's children had non-Jewish wives.
The wife of Moses himself was not Jewish.
And later, another very famous Jew
had a Moabite great-grandmother.
Despite a racial base, Jews are not a racial group.
But they are a reasonably well defined group,
with their own religion, language(s), culture and history.
Hunter, you can define a set and then insert
its members according to your rules,
but if you have an existing set
of many members, all slightly different,
you may have difficulty creating a discrete set of rules
which will define every member as 'in'
and every non-member as 'out'.
At the margins, there's always trouble.
But on the whole, Jews know
who they are, and so do non-Jews.
Reading the the Balfour Declaration and the
League of Nations Mandate which applied it,
do you get the feeling that their authors thought of the Jews
as an amorphous, indefinable group of people?
I didn't take part in the genes discussion,
except to comment on its importance.
Define Jews any way you like.
If it makes sense, I'll take it, certainly as a first draft.
> Frankly, Zev, I'd like to see you answer the question directly instead
> of simply saying that it's "not much" of an issue.
I know about Kevin Brook's work, and I know there are others.
None deny the correlation between certain genes
and the description of the genes' owners as "Jewish".
It's not 100% because of the "margin" problem I mentioned above.
> > It's meaningful only to Bible fundamentalists concerned
> > with the question of to whom belongs the land promised
> > to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
>
> It's meaningful to Zionists and Zionism pervades the consciousness of
> the Israeli people.
>
> > Accepting this as the “crux”,
> > Then even according to the most extreme interpretation of
> > "The land of Israel belongs to the Children of Israel",
> > if there is just one Jew out there who is a 100% "Child of Israel",
> > the land of Israel belongs to him.
> > The rest of us will take it up with him,
> > that's not your concern.
>
> The *question posed* above goes to the heart (crux) of the issue's
> political parameter. The argument from genetics is Zionist, i.e.,
> political. It is used to justify Israeli policies which I oppose. Of
> course I address it. As Ratner once admitted, talk of "Israelite
> genes" doesn't come from genetics. Accordingly it comes from politics.
>
> Would you please answer my question?
>
> BTW, there are quite a few suppressed premises underlying "....the
> land of Israel belongs to him." Another time.
Bible Fundamentalism.
Is that what you want to discuss?
Bolt Upright
an honest question, and Doodoo flips out. I think that he's suffering
from paranoid schizophrenia but I'm not a psychiatrist.
Doodoo, you are one sorry, sad little creature. Perhaps you should power
down your PC and actually get a life while you have some semblance of
humanity remaining.
drahcir
Perhaps you'd better look up the definition of "be".
>
> > How can that
> > > be when most of them apparently want to declare Zionism to have been
> > > fulfilled, to settle and to get on with it. The Israeli's aren't good
> > > at democratic politics. They can't bring themselves to vote for
> > > leadership which can help the country. That leaves us unpalatable
> > > options. We have no negotiating partner in that government.
>
> > > > > > > Accepting this as the “crux”,
> > > > > > > Then even according to the most extreme interpretation of
> > > > > > > "The land of Israel belongs to the Children of Israel",
> > > > > > > if there is just one Jew out there who is a 100% "Child of Israel",
> > > > > > > the land of Israel belongs to him.
> > > > > > > The rest of us will take it up with him,
> > > > > > > that's not your concern.
>
> You'll expel him if necessary?
You alzheimic oaf, you're replying to another poster. Not only that,
based on your nonsensical reply, you apparently cannot comprehend what
he posted.
drahcir
You are injecting biblical stories into a discussion of scientific
fact for some reason. You apparently just don't get it.
Zev
I'm obviously not relating to any scientific discussion,
and I don't see one here.
My POV is explicit.
I don't believe in the importance of genes
in the issue under discussion.
It may be important to fundamentalists.
I said that in my first post in this thread
and in this last one.
I'm sorry you didn't read my comments
to the end before responding.
drahcir
The topic is about consistency of a certain haplotype amongst jews
worldwide. How except via "science" do you see that being determined
and confirmed?
> My POV is explicit.
> I don't believe in the importance of genes
> in the issue under discussion.
Your beliefs are not my concern. Genes ARE the topic of discussion. If
it's your contribution, that you don't see any importance in this
discussion, that's fine, your contribution is noted, however, what you
have expressed before and again now makes no sense. The geneticists
who have analyzed "jewish genes" have no religious motivation, it is
purely scientific. How do I know? I know because most have done other
studies on other groups of people.
> It may be important to fundamentalists.
> I said that in my first post in this thread
> and in this last one.
I'm sorry, zev, but you make no more sense now than you did a few days
ago. Genetic consistency is irrelevant to religion - it's
determination is the result of scientific inquiry and analysis, so if
by "fundamentalists" you mean religious fundamentalists, you have it
exactly wrong - they don't care about science, because they have no
question about the word of God, and conversely, science doesn't care
about them, and neither does this discussion. There's a disconnect
here, zev, and I really and truly wish we could get past it, because
honestly, I'm beginning to find it irritating.
> I'm sorry you didn't read my comments
> to the end before responding.
Perhaps you can explain why I should have any interest in bible
stories or how they are relevant to a discussion about DNA. If you can
demonstrate relevance to the topic at hand, I'd be happy to read your
fairy tales, but until you demonstrate it, I don't see the point,
sorry.
Zev
I related to Hunter's challenge "Do you claim that genetics....".
I saw it in his post of Feb. 1, in this thread, without the "science"
(he snipped it in that post, that's why I didn't see it).
The topic I'm addressing is *not* "consistency of...."
This is the third time I'm making this point.
Is it really necessary?
I hope you finally understand that I'm not discussing DNA,
but you'll have trouble having anything demonstrated to you
if you won't go past the first paragraph.
drahcir
Genetics IS a science, zev. If I had hair, I'd be pulling it out now.
> The topic I'm addressing is *not* "consistency of...."
> This is the third time I'm making this point.
> Is it really necessary?
No. Thankfully, we can just skip it.
Then I don't know what the hell you're discussing. You said HHW's
question was about genetics, and that that's what you are replying to.
Genetics does not exist without DNA any more than chemistry exists
without chemicals. So how you can discuss HHW's question, which you
yourself have stated is about genetics, without discussing DNA is
anyone's guess.
> but you'll have trouble having anything demonstrated to you
> if you won't go past the first paragraph.
Your first paragraph was not about the topic of the discussion,
genetics; it was about the bible. WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING THE FRIGGIN
BIBLE. I don't give a shit about what Jacob said any more than what
Santa Claus said, and I don't care who Moses married any more than I
care about who Han Solo married, because that's all fairy tales. If
your first paragraph had been about soybean production in Madagascar
or the sexual rituals of shrimp, I would have ignored them just as
easily. As you yourself have stated, we are discussing genetics here,
zev, THE SCIENCE OF GENETICS, and that is a science that is IRRELEVANT
to any stories in the bible, so why you feel compelled to keep
referring to these biblical intrusions you so generously contributed
is beyond me.
dsharavi
> > >>Your REFUSAL to acknowledge that "transfer" was
> > >>>(and apparently still is) central to Zionism is
> > >>>something I can't let pass.
>
> On Feb 2, 5:55 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > [snip by H of the Shapira article on transfer, which refutes H's
> > assertion]
On Feb 2, 5:56 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> I have answered your Shapira article comprehensively. Since then
> you've been hiding.
What are you babbling about now? Hiding? WTF does THAT mean?
I made several responses to your nonsense. If what you called your
"comprehensive answer" is the best you can do, you'd better take up
horseshoes instead. It consisted of little more than repeatedly
snipping the Shapira article -- which refutes your assertion that
"transfer is central to Zionism" -- then pasting irrelevant fake
"quotes" from the Abu Shitta site; pasting a link to a right-wing UO
Israeli rabbi's site, which only confirms Shapira's thesis; refusing
to face facts, and merely bleating your borrowed and unexamined Pappé/
Masalha-notions; producing your usual ridiculous lies, such as "The
Palestinians[SIC] did not "go to war" against the Jews in 1948";
tossing off sexist and insulting comments about the author, whinging
about about the imaginary motives you attributed to her, and falsely
accusing her of "playing the Holocaust card"; backpedaling on your
original erroneous assertion; going off on any number of your
irrelevant, sanctimonious. and hypocritical tangential spews; and
generally, as usual, trying to bury under your patented meaningless
verbosity the fact that you haven't a clue what you're babbling
about -- and you're too lazy to learn.
Your notion of a “comprehensive answer” is as poor as your grasp of
facts, and almost as low as your sense of honesty.
>Unless you face it and reply I'll have to keep
> posting it to remind one and all that it's an important failure on
> your part..
Presumably so; you've proven yourself time and again a liar. "Fuck the
facts" is your only guideline. I'm betting you'll keep it in mind,
however, that there was a discussion won and lost on the subject of
transfer -- and you lost. Time to pack it in, Old Dad.
Deborah
dsharavi
Not as much as Hunter Watson missed, like facts.
Deborah
Zev
The best you'll get from me is a paragraph you may have missed,
because you didn't read that far.
It was in response to Hunter's respectful request for an answer
more in line with what he was expecting.
quote:
> > > > > > I know about Kevin Brook's work, and I know there are others.
> > > > > > None deny the correlation between certain genes
> > > > > > and the description of the genes' owners as "Jewish".
end quote
If you know something about statistics
you'll know that this is not a trivial statement.
Unless you're willing to go to the raw data,
set your confidence levels,
and do your "hypothesis testing" yourself,
I doubt if you're going to get more "scientific"
than that, on this topic, in Usenet.
But my point is that even if this statement were not true,
the legality and morality of the current Jewish presence
in the M.E. would not be affected.
My posts in this thread are a response to Hunter's question,
not to a scientist's request for evidence.
Dick, I've been reading your posts for years
and I'll continue to read them because I enjoy them,
but your brusque attempt to dictate to me what I can write about
in a post which wasn't even addressed to you,
is something even Hunter hasn't done.
You may consider growing a beard.
> > The topic I'm addressing is *not* "consistency of...."
> > This is the third time I'm making this point.
> > Is it really necessary?
>
> No. Thankfully, we can just skip it.
Great, but now I've had to do it a fourth time.
It's a pity your prejudices prevented you
from reading the SECOND paragraph.
> > > > > > Yet, Jacob said:
> > > > > > "Ephraim and Menasha are like Reuben and Simon to me".
> > > > > > Judah is also mentioned explicitly as having a non-Jewish wife,
> > > > > > yet, Jacob praised him especially (Genesis 49:8-12).
> > > > > > Apparently, all of Jacob's children had non-Jewish wives.
> > > > > > The wife of Moses himself was not Jewish.
> > > > > > And later, another very famous Jew
> > > > > > had a Moabite great-grandmother.
>
> > > > > > Despite a racial base, Jews are not a racial group.
> > > > > > But they are a reasonably well defined group,
> > > > > > with their own religion, language(s), culture and history.
>
> > > > > > Hunter, you can define a set and then insert
> > > > > > its members according to your rules,
> > > > > > but if you have an existing set
> > > > > > of many members, all slightly different,
> > > > > > you may have difficulty creating a discrete set of rules
> > > > > > which will define every member as 'in'
> > > > > > and every non-member as 'out'.
> > > > > > At the margins, there's always trouble.
>
> > > > > > But on the whole, Jews know
> > > > > > who they are, and so do non-Jews.
> > > > > > Reading the Balfour Declaration and the
drahcir
<snip>
>
> > > I related to Hunter's challenge "Do you claim that genetics....".
> > > I saw it in his post of Feb. 1, in this thread, without the "science"
> > > (he snipped it in that post, that's why I didn't see it).
>
> > Genetics IS a science, zev. If I had hair, I'd be pulling it out now.
>
> The best you'll get from me is a paragraph you may have missed,
> because you didn't read that far.
> It was in response to Hunter's respectful request for an answer
> more in line with what he was expecting.
> quote:> > > > > > I know about Kevin Brook's work, and I know there are others.
> > > > > > > None deny the correlation between certain genes
> > > > > > > and the description of the genes' owners as "Jewish".
>
> end quote
> If you know something about statistics
> you'll know that this is not a trivial statement.
> Unless you're willing to go to the raw data,
> set your confidence levels,
> and do your "hypothesis testing" yourself,
> I doubt if you're going to get more "scientific"
> than that, on this topic, in Usenet.
>
> But my point is that even if this statement were not true,
> the legality and morality of the current Jewish presence
> in the M.E. would not be affected.
THAT is a good point. The entire point of genetics, archeology,
history, and culture is to negate the arguments of the antisemites who
say that the jews could have made their homeland in uganda or
wherever.
> My posts in this thread are a response to Hunter's question,
> not to a scientist's request for evidence.
You yourself said H's question was about genetics. That is very true,
and his question was on topic, in the stream of discussion. In answer
to that question you started spewing biblical genealogical trivia for
some reason. How you see bible stories as a response to a discussion
about genetics and DNA is still beyond me.
>
> Dick, I've been reading your posts for years
> and I'll continue to read them because I enjoy them,
> but your brusque attempt to dictate to me what I can write about
> in a post which wasn't even addressed to you,
> is something even Hunter hasn't done.
Whom it was addressed to is irrelevant - we were in the midst of
"discussion", if it can be called that when the idiot snipped my
entire posts, and you came in with some totally irrelevant stuff. If
you were talking to someone at a party, and someone butted in with
irrelevant stuff, would it really matter whether they butted in
addressing you or your discussion partner? I'm sorry, I don't see how
your addressing H made your reply any less intrusive.
> You may consider growing a beard.
Done already. Keep this up and I'll have to go to work on it.
<snip>
>
> It's a pity your prejudices prevented you
> from reading the SECOND paragraph
The first paragraph in any expository work, be it an essay, a piece of
music, whatever, is generally accepted as the most important by
definition. It's the way things generally proceed in western culture.
When your first paragraph starts with bible trivia injected into a
conversation about genetics and dna, a normal person will discount the
importance of the remaining paragraphs, for the simple reason that
they cannot be of import to the topic because their author introduced
them with something irrelevant. You began traveling the wrong fork in
the road, I knew it was the wrong fork, and thus had no interest in
following you further. This is all besides the crucial misapprehension
you tried to foist off on me and other readers, namely that only bible
fundamentalists would be interested in a discussion of dna as it
relates to worldwide jewry. How on earth you came to such a ridiculous
conclusion I cannot even begin to fathom.
Zev
> On Feb 4, 6:29 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Dick, I've been reading your posts for years
> > and I'll continue to read them because I enjoy them,
> > but your brusque attempt to dictate to me what I can write about
> > in a post which wasn't even addressed to you,
> > is something even Hunter hasn't done.
>
> Whom it was addressed to is irrelevant - we were in the midst of
> "discussion", if it can be called that when the idiot snipped my
> entire posts, and you came in with some totally irrelevant stuff. If
> you were talking to someone at a party, and someone butted in with
> irrelevant stuff, would it really matter whether they butted in
> addressing you or your discussion partner? I'm sorry, I don't see how
> your addressing H made your reply any less intrusive.
*I* wasn't in the midst of anything.
I saw a question and I responded to it.
I didn't see any "scientific" stuff.
You know that, and you know why.
The Usenet is public, there's no such thing as "butting in",
but if that's the way you see it,
a better response would have been to ignore my post altogether.
> > It's a pity your prejudices prevented you
> > from reading the SECOND paragraph
>
> The first paragraph in any expository work, be it an essay, a piece of
> music, whatever, is generally accepted as the most important by
> definition. It's the way things generally proceed in western culture.
> When your first paragraph starts with bible trivia injected into a
> conversation about genetics and dna, a normal person will discount the
> importance of the remaining paragraphs, for the simple reason that
> they cannot be of import to the topic because their author introduced
> them with something irrelevant. You began traveling the wrong fork in
> the road, I knew it was the wrong fork, and thus had no interest in
> following you further. This is all besides the crucial misapprehension
> you tried to foist off on me and other readers, namely that only bible
> fundamentalists would be interested in a discussion of dna as it
> relates to worldwide jewry. How on earth you came to such a ridiculous
> conclusion I cannot even begin to fathom.
Hunter's question:
Do you claim that genetics supports present day
Zionist claims to Palestine?
Zev's response:
Hunter, it's not that much of an issue.
It's meaningful only to Bible fundamentalists concerned
with the question of to whom belongs the land promised
to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Zev's question to "drahcir":
What importance do you attach to dna
as it relates to worldwide jewry
in a discussion concerning Hunter's question here?
drahcir
> On Feb 4, 2:46 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 4, 6:29 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Dick, I've been reading your posts for years
> > > and I'll continue to read them because I enjoy them,
> > > but your brusque attempt to dictate to me what I can write about
> > > in a post which wasn't even addressed to you,
> > > is something even Hunter hasn't done.
>
> > Whom it was addressed to is irrelevant - we were in the midst of
> > "discussion", if it can be called that when the idiot snipped my
> > entire posts, and you came in with some totally irrelevant stuff. If
> > you were talking to someone at a party, and someone butted in with
> > irrelevant stuff, would it really matter whether they butted in
> > addressing you or your discussion partner? I'm sorry, I don't see how
> > your addressing H made your reply any less intrusive.
>
> *I* wasn't in the midst of anything.
> I saw a question and I responded to it.
> I didn't see any "scientific" stuff.
> You know that, and you know why.
This is simply unbelievable. One of us is out to lunch. You yourself
said the question you were replying to was about genetics. Genetics is
defined as the SCIENCE of heredity. So how you could see that the
question was about a science, but didn't see any scientific stuff is
baffling me. Then you have the temerity to say "I know that and I know
why". I know and understand NOTHING about what you are saying - you'll
have me climbing the walls shortly.
>
> The Usenet is public, there's no such thing as "butting in",
> but if that's the way you see it,
> a better response would have been to ignore my post altogether.
ZEV, IT IS YOU WHO JUST ABOVE SAID I REPLIED TO A POST THAT "WASN'T
EVEN ADDRESSED TO" ME.
>
>
> > > It's a pity your prejudices prevented you
> > > from reading the SECOND paragraph
>
> > The first paragraph in any expository work, be it an essay, a piece of
> > music, whatever, is generally accepted as the most important by
> > definition. It's the way things generally proceed in western culture.
> > When your first paragraph starts with bible trivia injected into a
> > conversation about genetics and dna, a normal person will discount the
> > importance of the remaining paragraphs, for the simple reason that
> > they cannot be of import to the topic because their author introduced
> > them with something irrelevant. You began traveling the wrong fork in
> > the road, I knew it was the wrong fork, and thus had no interest in
> > following you further. This is all besides the crucial misapprehension
> > you tried to foist off on me and other readers, namely that only bible
> > fundamentalists would be interested in a discussion of dna as it
> > relates to worldwide jewry. How on earth you came to such a ridiculous
> > conclusion I cannot even begin to fathom.
>
> Hunter's question:
> Do you claim that genetics supports present day
> Zionist claims to Palestine?
>
> Zev's response:
> Hunter, it's not that much of an issue.
> It's meaningful only to Bible fundamentalists concerned
> with the question of to whom belongs the land promised
> to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Everyone who has read this thread knows your contribution, so
repeating it is of no value. You make the ridiculous claim that
genetics is meaningful only to bible fundamentalists when in fact,
insofar as I can see, they have no reason to be interested in it or
any other science. Genetics has NOTHING to do with "whom the land
belongs to". You can repeat it as many times as you care to, but, at
least to me, it will remain totally, completely incomprehensible.
>
> Zev's question to "drahcir":
> What importance do you attach to dna
> as it relates to worldwide jewry
> in a discussion concerning Hunter's question here?
Zev, I am getting to the point where I will accede to your wish and
ignore you. You snipped the answer to your above question from my
previous post. Before you read the below, please remember that
genetics is the SCIENCE of heredity, and the mechanism of heredity is
DNA, thus genetics cannot exist without DNA. I will copy and paste the
aforementioned answer below, and then I'm sorry to say I'm done with
you:
"The entire point of genetics, archaeology,
coaste...@yahoo.com
Here's an article by a scientist who summarizes the data. In the body
of it are references to the misuse of genetic findings for political
purposes. Unlike Richard, I'm no geneticist. But Dr. Levy-Coffman's
survey of the literature seems to this layman to meet even the test of
common sense.
A MOSAIC OF PEOPLE: THE JEWISH STORY AND A REASSESSMENT OF THE DNA
EVIDENCE
Ellen Levy-Coffman
The Jewish community has been the focus of extensive genetic study
over the past decade in an attempt to better understand the origins of
this group. In particular, those descended from Northwestern and
Eastern European Jewish groups, known as “Ashkenazim,” have been the
subject of numerous DNA studies examining both the Y chromosome and
mitochondrial genetic evidence.
The focus of the present study is to analyze and reassess Ashkenazi
results obtained by DNA researchers and synthesize them into a
coherent picture of Jewish genetics, interweaving historical evidence
in order to obtain a more accurate depiction of the complex genetic
history of this group. Many of the DNA studies on Ashkenazim fail to
adequately address the complexity of the genetic evidence, in
particular, the significant genetic contribution of European and
Central Asian peoples in the makeup of the contemporary Ashkenazi
population. One important contribution to Ashkenazi DNA appears to
have originated with the Khazars, an ancient people of probable
Central Asian stock that lived in southern Russia during the 8th-12th
centuries CE. Significant inflow of genes from European host
populations over the centuries is also supported by the DNA evidence.
The present study analyzes not only the Middle Eastern component of
Ashkenazi ancestry, but also the genetic contribution from European
and Central Asian sources that appear to have had an important impact
on Ashkenazi ancestry.
Introduction
The word “Jew” has a mosaic of meanings: it defines a follower of the
Jewish faith, a person who has at least one Jewish parent, or a member
of a particular ethnic group (“Jewish”). There are many Jews who do
not practice Judaism as a religion but define themselves as “Jewish”
by virtue of their family’s heritage and identification with the
culture and history of the Jewish people.
Thus, Judaism is a mosaic of culture, religion, ethnicity, and for
some, a way of life. It is an identity that is not quite a
nationality, but neither is it a simple ethnic or cultural phenomenon
either. This unusual combination of characteristics, coupled with
Jewish resistance over the centuries to assimilation and strong
adherence to their religious faith, has contributed to the intense
feelings of curiosity, hatred, admiration, attraction and hostility by
the rest of the world.
Received: February 15, 2005
Address for correspondence: Ellen Coffman, Ellen...@yahoo.com
Early on, the unique history of the Jews attracted DNA researchers who
sought to solve the mystery of the origins of the Jewish people.
Researchers had previously relied on linguistic, anthropological and
archaeological evidence to try to address this question; genetic
genealogical research has opened up a new area for researchers to
explore.
One question the DNA studies sought to answer was whether the genetic
ancestry of contemporary Jewish populations demonstrated, to any
degree, their supposed descent from the ancient Israelites of the
Middle East of three thousand years ago. Or rather, did the DNA
evidence indicate that Jews were simply a people who came into being
in Europe during the Diaspora years, being mainly comprised of those
descended from European ancestors? Or, as some historical researchers
suggested, did the DNA of Jews mainly reflect ancestry from the
Khazars, an ancient tribal people with roots in both Central Asia and
Russia who converted to Judaism in the 8th century?
This paper represents a new examination and reassessment of the Jewish
DNA studies to date, presenting possible alternative explanations for
the origins and distribution of certain genetic markers among Jewish
populations, and in particular, among the group of Jews known as
“Ashkenazim.”
Recent genetic research has greatly expanded our understanding of the
probable origins and distinct geographic patterns of certain groups of
people, including Jews. This recent research has superceded some of
the earlier studies on Jewish DNA, allowing a reassessment of the
theories of Jewish origins in light of this new research.
The new analysis shows that Jewish ancestry reflects a mosaic of
genetic sources. While earlier studies focused on the Middle Eastern
component of Jewish DNA, new research has revealed that both Europeans
and Central Asians also made significant genetic contributions to
Jewish ancestry. Moreover, while the DNA studies have confirmed the
close genetic interrelatedness of many Jewish communities, they have
also confirmed what many suspected all along: Jews do not constitute a
single group distinct from all others. Rather, modern Jews exhibit a
diversity of genetic profiles, some reflective of their Semitic/
Mediterranean ancestry, but others suggesting an origin in European
and Central Asian groups. The blending of European, Semitic, Central
Asian and Mediterranean heritage over the centuries has led to today’s
Jewish populations.
In examining Y chromosomal diversity in this review, two types of data
are considered: Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs), and Short
Tandem Repeat Loci (STRs). STR markers are characterized by mutation
rates much higher than those seen with SNPs. SNPs, on the other hand,
are derived from rare nucleotide changes along the Y chromosome, so-
called unique event polymorphisms (UEP). These UEPs represent a
single historical mutational event, occurring only once in the course
of human evolution. UEPs have been given a unified nomenclature
system by the Y Chromosome Consortium (2002), resulting in the
identification of each UEP with a particular haplogroup.
While I examine both types of Y chromosome data, I rely primarily on
SNP data due to its increasing use by researchers as a tool in
reconstructing the peopling of the world. Research on the diversity
and geographic patterns of haplogroups have provided researchers with
a greatly expanded understanding of prehistoric movements of people
and a means of better understanding the present-day genetic variation
among populations. Research with STR “haplotypes” is also
occasionally discussed in this paper, particularly in light of its
ability to demonstrate a high rate of endogamy, genetic drift, and
founder effects among Jewish populations.
Examination of mitochondrial DNA, on the other hand, is based on the
combined polymorphisms of the control region (hypervariable segments I
and II, or HVSI and HVSII) along with specific SNPs in the coding
regions of DNA found in the mitochondria. Both males and females have
mtDNA, which they have inherited from their mothers, whereas Y
chromosome DNA is found only in males and is inherited directly from
their fathers.
Like the Y chromosome data, mtDNA sequences are sorted into major
phylogenetic haplogroups as well. Recent analysis on both mtDNA and Y
chromosome SNPs have allowed researchers to further divide many
haplogroups into sub-branches, known in the DNA literature as “sub-
clades.” The geographic distribution of mtDNA haplogroups and their
sub-clades also adds to our understanding of relationships of groups
of people, including Jewish populations.
The Birth of European Judaism
This section is intended to provide the reader with a brief history of
the Jews in Europe as well as define terms used frequently in the
Jewish DNA studies, such as “Diaspora,” “Sephardim,” and
“Ashkenazim.” Furthermore, since Jews appear to have both Israelite/
Middle Eastern and European genetic ancestry, an understanding of the
Jewish experience in Europe is important in explaining how European
ancestry became an integral part of the Jewish genetic makeup.
However, this section is not intended to be an extensive recounting of
the history of the Ashkenazi people.
The birth of European Judaism begins with the Diaspora. “Diaspora” is
a term derived from the Greek work meaning “scattering.” While the
word was originally used by ancient peoples to identify any group that
was exiled or resettled from their homeland, the term has now become
particularly associated with the Jewish exile from ancient Israel and
resettlement elsewhere.
The Jews resettled in many distant lands, even as far as China. This
work, however, focuses specifically on the Ashkenazi Jewish
experience. Jews were subdivided into groups depending on where they
resettled. Ashkenazi Jews are the Jews of France, Germany, and
Eastern Europe. Sephardic Jews are the Jews of Spain, Portugal and
North Africa. Mizrachi/Oriental Jews are the Jews of the Middle
East. Certain Jewish communities do not fit into these distinctive
groupings – in particular, the Falasha Jews of Ethiopia and the
Chinese Jews.
Contemporary Jewry is comprised of approximately 13 million people, of
whom 5.7 million live in the United States, 4.7 million live in
Israel, and the remainder resides throughout the world (Ostrer 2001).
Approximately 90% of the Jews of the U.S. are of Ashkenazi origin,
while among the Jews of Israel, 47% are Ashkenazi, 30% are Sephardic,
and 23% are of Mizrachi/Oriental origin (Ostrer 2001). Within Jewish
groups, membership in three male castes (Cohen, Levi, and Israelite)
is determined by paternal descent (Behar et al. 2003).
The history and genetic ancestry of Sephardic Jews is dealt with in
only a cursory fashion here. There have been only very limited
genetic studies on Jews of Sephardic descent, while in contrast, many
DNA studies have explored the genetic ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews.
Thus, the primary focus of this work is on Ashkenazim DNA results, but
also included is a comparison of Sephardic and Ashkenazi results
pertaining to Y chromosome haplogroups J and E.
The word “Ashkenazi” is derived from the Hebrew word for Germany,
while “Sephardic” is derived form the Hebrew word for Spain. The word
“Ashkenazi” was first used in medieval rabbinical literature to define
western European Jews. An interesting story was related by author
Arthur Koestler, who noted that the term “Ashkenaz” is also mentioned
in the Hebrew bible, referring to a people living somewhere in the
vicinity of Armenia. Probably for this reason, the Khazars, a people
who lived in and around this area in ancient times and converted to
Judaism in the 7th- 8th centuries, came to believe they were the
descendants of these biblical people. Some scholars argue that they
began to call themselves “Ashkenazim” when they migrated to Poland in
the 13th century. Eventually, perhaps, the term came to describe the
community as a whole, not just the Khazarian immigrants (Koestler
1976, pp. 181-182).
While the Jews of today are connected historically and religiously to
the Jews of ancient Israel, the DNA evidence also indicates that a
significant amount of Jewish ancestry can be traced directly back to
their Israelite/Middle Eastern ancestors. However, these ancestors
represented a heterogeneous mix of Semitic and Mediterranean groups,
even at their very beginnings.
The Israelite Kingdom arose in the 11th century BCE in an area between
modern-day Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Current archaeological
evidence indicates that the Israelite kingdom arose out of the
earlier, Bronze Age Canaanite culture of that region, and displayed
significant continuity with the Canaanites in culture, technology,
language and ethnicity (Dever 2003, pp. 153-154).
While the Canaanites were a Western Semitic people indigenous to the
area, they appear to have consisted of a diverse ethno-cultural mix
from the earliest times. It is from this diverse group that the
evolution of the Israelites occurred. Although little is known about
these groups, they probably included some of the following
populations:
Amorites: Western Semites like the Canaanites. They were probably the
pastoral nomadic component of the Canaanite people.
Hittites: A non-Semitic people from Anatolia and Northern Syria.
Hurrians (Horites): A non-Semitic people who inhabited parts of Syria
and Mesopotamia. Many kings of the early Canaanite city-states had
Hurrian names.
Amalekites: Nomads from southern Transjordan. Even inimical references
to this group in the Hebrew Bible “tacitly” acknowledge that the
Israelites and Amalekites shared a common ancestry.
Philistines: Referred to in ancient texts as “Sea Peoples.” They
invaded and settled along the coasts of ancient Canaan. Their culture
appears to stem from that of Mycenae.
(Dever 2003, pp. 219-220).
While the Israelite kingdom clashed with a number of world powers over
the centuries, including Egypt, Babylon, and Persia, it was the Romans
who would destroy the Second Temple in 70 CE, violently sacking
Jerusalem and scattering the Israelite population from their
homeland. Many Jews were taken as slaves to Rome and its colonies
(Konner 2003, p. 86). This watershed moment in the history of the
Jewish people is often considered by many researchers to represent the
true beginnings of the Jewish Diaspora.
Ironically, however, many scholars believe the Ashkenazi population
probably had its earliest roots in Rome, where Jews began to establish
communities as early as the second century B.C. While some of these
Jews were brought to Rome as slaves, others settled there
voluntarily. There were as many as 50,000 Jews in and around Rome by
the first century CE, most who were “poor, Greek-speaking foreigners”
scorned for their poverty and slave status (Konner 2003, p. 86).
Eventually, however, many of these slaves gained their freedom,
continuing to live in and around Rome.
By the first century, however, the Jewish Diaspora had already spread
to a number of regions of the world, many of which may have
contributed to the make-up of the early Ashkenazi Jewish community.
These include the Aegean Island of Delos, Ostia (a main port of Rome),
Alexandria, and other places in Macedonia and Asia Minor (Konner 2003,
p. 83). Jews also began to migrate north of the Alps, probably from
Italy (Ostrer 2001).
By 600 CE, Jews were present in many parts of Europe, with small
settlements in Germany, France and Spain. More to the east, there
were also small Jewish settlements along the Black Sea, as well as
larger communities in Greece and the Balkans (Konner 2003, p. 110).
By the 12th-13th centuries CE, Jews were expelled from many countries
of Western Europe, but were granted charters to settle in Poland and
Lithuania (Ostrer 2001). The Ashkenazi Jewish population expanded
rapidly in Eastern Europe, growing from an estimated 15,000-25,000
people in the 13th-15th centuries, to two million by 1800 and eight
million in 1939 (Ostrer 2001, Behar 2004b). Thus, Jewish settlement
in Eastern Europe became the dominant culture of the European Jews,
and then of most Jews throughout the world.
The DNA Evidence for Israelite Ancestry: The Jewish Priests and
Cohanim DNA Study
The search for Israelite/Middle Eastern DNA among contemporary Jewish
populations properly begins with Dr. Karl Skorecki’s landmark genetic
study of the Cohanim, the priests of the Jewish religion. The study
came about based on the following story:
Dr. Skorecki, a Cohen of Eastern European descent (Ashkenazim), was
attending synagogue one morning. During the service, a Cohen of
Sephardic descent from North Africa was reading from the Hebrew
bible. According to Jewish tradition, all Cohanim (plural of “Cohan”
or “Cohen”) are direct descendants of Aaron, the brother of Moses, and
serve important priestly functions within the Jewish religion. The
line of the Cohanim is patrilineal, allegedly being passed from father
to son without interruption from Aaron, for 3,300 years, or more than
100 generations. Dr. Skorecki wondered if this claim could actually
be tested. Could he find scientific evidence to support the oral
tradition of an ancient priestly lineage? Did he and the Sephardic
Cohen possess a set of common genetic markers indicating they shared a
common ancestor?
Dr. Skorecki, a nephrologist already involved in molecular genetic
research, contacted Dr. Michael Hammer of the University of Arizona, a
pioneer in Y chromosome research, and the Cohanim DNA study was born.
Their findings clearly indicated that the Cohanim did indeed share a
common ancestor. They discovered that a particular haplotype was
found in 97 out of the 106 participants tested. This haplotype has
come to be known as the “Cohen Modal Haplotype” or “CMH”. According
to the study, calculations for dating the CMH yielded a time frame of
106 generations from the ancestral founder of the lineage –
approximately 3,300 years ago (Thomas et al. 1998).
Not only did the genetic researchers corroborate the oral history of
an ancient Jewish priestly caste, but they also confirmed the genetic
link between both Sephardic and Ashkenazi populations, indicating that
before the two populations separated, those who shared the CMH also
shared common Israelite ancestry. Today, the CMH is considered not
only the standard genetic signature of the priestly Cohanim, but also
the yardstick by which all Jewish DNA is compared for determination of
Israelite genetic ancestry. Thus, if a haplogroup is not shared by
both Sephardim and Ashkenazim at a similar frequency, then it is
generally not considered to be of Israelite origin.
Skorecki and Hammer reported that the CMH occurred within Y chromosome
haplogroup J (Skorecki et al. 1997). We now know significantly more
about haplogroup J than when these studies were originally published.
Haplogroup J consists of an ancestral form (J*) and two subgroups – J1
and J2. Although you can have the CMH in either J1 or J2, it is the
genetic signature in J1 that is considered the Jewish priestly
signature.
What is not widely reported is that only 48% of Ashkenazi Cohanim and
58% of Sephardic Cohanim have the J1 Cohen Modal Haplotype (Skorecki
et al. 1997). So nearly half of the Ashkenazi Cohanim results are in
haplogroups other than J1. Overall, J1 constitutes 14.6% of the
Ashkenazim results and 11.9% of the Sephardic results (Semino et al.
2004). Nor is Cohanim status dependent on a finding of haplogroup J1.
Additionally, many other haplogroups among the Ashkenazim, and among
the Cohanim in particular, appear to be of Israelite/Middle Eastern
origin. According to Behar (2003), the Cohanim possess an unusually
high frequency of haplogroup J in general, reported to comprise nearly
87% of the total Cohanim results. Among the Sephardim, the frequency
of 75% is also notably high (Behar 2003). Both groups have
dramatically lower percentages of other haplogroups, including
haplogroup E. Given the high frequency of haplogroup J among
Ashkenazi Cohanim, it appears that J2 may be only slightly less common
than J1, perhaps indicating multiple J lineages among the priestly
Cohanim dating back to the ancient Israelite kingdom.
However, J1 is the only haplogroup that researchers consider “Semitic”
in origin because it is restricted almost completely to Middle Eastern
populations, with a very low frequency in Italy and Greece as well
(Semino et al. 2004). The group’s origins are thought to be in the
southern Levant. Its presence among contemporary Sephardic and
Ashkenazi populations indicates the preservation of Israelite Semitic
ancestry, despite their long settlement in Europe and North Africa.
Further, the CMH is considered the putative ancestral haplotype of
haplogroup J1 (Di Giacomo et al. 2004).
Table 1 compares the Jewish J1 CMH to the J1 modal haplotypes of other
Middle Eastern populations:
Table 1
Modal Haplotypes* in J1 Populations
J1
GROUPS
D
Y
S
0
1
9
D
Y
S
3
8
8
D
Y
S
3
9
0
D
Y
S
3
9
1
D
Y
S
3
9
2
D
Y
S
3
9
3
CMH
14
16
23
10
11
12
Bedouin
14
15
23
10
11
13
Palestinian
14
17
22
11
11
13
*6-Locus Haplotype.
Researchers believe that marker 388=17 is linked with the later
expansion of Arabian tribes in the southern Levant and northern Africa
(Di Giacomo et al. 2004). There were two migrations of J1, the first
occurring in the Neolithic period, spreading J1 to Ethiopia and Europe
(Semino et al. 2004). A second wave of J1 occurred in the 7th
century, spread by Arab expansion from the southern Levant into North
Africa. This secondary migration is also distinguished by a
mutational event at marker YCAII—YCAIIa=22 and YCAIIb=22 (Semino et
al. 2004).
The Cohanim study was widely misinterpreted by the public as
indicating that all Jews were in haplogroup J and had the CMH.
Furthermore, many non-Jews in haplogroup J mistakenly believed that
they must have some Jewish ancestry hidden in their past to explain
their DNA results. As it turned out, most non-Jews were in subgroup
J2 rather than J1 (Semino et al. 2004). Interestingly, Jews were
later found to have as much J2 ancestry as J1.
The misinterpretation of the Cohanim results was damaging in some ways
to the wider understanding of Jewish genetic ancestry. For example,
one widely published media quote went like this: “This genetic
research has clearly refuted the once-current libel that Ashkenazi
Jews are not related to the ancient Hebrews, but are descendants of
the Kuzar (sic) tribe – a pre-10th century Turko-Asian empire which
reportedly converted en masse to Judaism.” Further, it was claimed
that “[r]esearchers compared the DNA signature of the Ashkenazi Jews
against those of Turkish-derived people, and found no
correspondence” (Kleinman 1999).
However, it would soon become very clear that Jewish DNA was much more
complicated than was presented by the media in their reporting of the
Cohanim data. And Jewish Khazarian ancestry would come to the
public’s attention yet again when another DNA study was conducted,
this time on the Jewish priestly group known as the Levites.
The Khazars: A Jewish Kingdom in Europe
Author Arthur Koestler (1976) is generally credited for bringing the
unique history of the Khazars to the attention of the public. The
decades that have past since the publication of his book have not
dampened its highly controversial nature.
The country of the Khazars lay in the area between the Black and
Caspian Seas, between the Caucasus Mountains and the Volga River.
There, between the ever-invading Muslim Arabs and the Christian
Byzantine Empire, a peculiar thing occurred – a Jewish empire arose.
In 740 CE, the Khazarian King, his court and military ruling class all
embraced the Jewish faith. This large scale official conversion of an
ethnically non-Jewish people is well attested to in Arab, Byzantine,
Russian and Hebrew sources (Koestler 1976, pp.13-15).
The rationale behind such conversion continues to both puzzle and
fascinate historians – why would a people, despite political pressure
from two great powers, chose a religion which had no support from any
political power, but was rather persecuted by all? Whatever the
reason, the Jewish Khazars continued to rule their kingdom until the
12th-13th century, when their empire finally dissolved. The fate of
the Khazars after the fall of their empire remains a subject of great
controversy among researchers.
The Khazars are often described as “a people of Turkish stock,”
although such description is misleading (Koestler 1976, p. 13).
Although the Khazars spoke a Turkish dialect believed to be related to
that spoken today by the peoples of the Chuvash Soviet Republic, their
ethnic origins remains a matter of debate. Many of the Eurasian
tribes driven westward by the Chinese, including the Huns, were
labeled under the generic term of “Turk.” The origin of the word
“Khazar” most likely derives from the Turkish root “gaz,” meaning “to
wander” or simply “nomad.” (Koestler 1976, p. 21).
Given that the Khazarian kingdom arose in the area of today’s Ukraine,
it is likely that there was a significant amount of indigenous Eastern
European ancestry among this group. And, in fact, the various
descriptions of the Khazars provided by ancient writers attest to the
probable heterogeneous ethnic mixture in this group.
According to an 11th century Arab chronicler Ibn-al-Balkhi, the
Khazars are
. . . to the north of the inhabited earth towards the 7th clime,
having over their heads the constellation of the Plough. Their land
is cold and wet. Accordingly their complexions are white, their eyes
blue, their hair flowing and predominately reddish, their bodies large
and their natures cold. Their general aspect is wild” (Koestler 1976,
p. 19). An Armenian writer described them as having “insolent, broad,
lashless faces and long falling hair, like women. (Koestler 1976, p.
20).
A slightly more flattering picture is provided by Arab geographer
Istakhri:
The Khazars do not resemble the Turks. They are black-haired, and are
of two kinds, one called the Kara-Khazars [Black Khazars] who are
swarthy verging on deep black as if they were kind of Indian, and a
white kind [Ak-Khazars], who are strikingly handsome. (Koestler 1976,
p. 20)
However, Koestler (1976, p. 22) cautions the reader not to place too
much weight on this description, since it was customary among Turkish
peoples to refer to the ruling classes as “white” and the lower clans
as “black.”
It is clear that the Khazars were closely connected to the Huns, who
themselves are an ethnic mystery. The Byzantine rhetorician Priscus,
who was part of an embassy to Attila the Hun’s court in 448 CE,
reported that a people known as the “Akatzirs” or “White Khazars” were
subjects of the Huns. According to Koestler (1976, p. 23), “Priscus’s
chronicle confirms that the Khazars appeared on the European scene
about the middle of the fifth century as a people under Hunnish
sovereignty, and may be regarded, together with the Magyars and other
tribes, as a later offspring of Attila’s horde.” After the collapse
of the Hunnish Empire following Attila’s death, the confederation of
tribes known as the Khazars eventually gained supremacy in the
southern half of Eastern Europe, retaining control of this region for
nearly four centuries.
What became a matter of dispute among historians was the fate of the
Jewish Khazars after the destruction of their empire in the 12th- 13th
centuries. Koestler argued that remnants of the Khazar tribes
migrated into regions of Eastern Europe where the greatest
concentrations of Jews were found, eventually merging with those pre-
existing communities. In fact, Koestler’s controversial argument was
that the Khazars emigrated in substantial enough numbers to have had a
significant genetic impact on contemporary Jewish ancestry.
With the advent of DNA studies, the question of whether contemporary
Jews could trace any part of their ancestry back to the Khazars became
a tantalizing mystery to try to solve. While the Cohanim DNA writers
attempted to close the book on this question, evidence from another
important genetic study, that of the Jewish Levite priests, made it
apparent that the Khazarian debate was far from over.
The Levites: The DNA of the Jewish Khazarian Priests
The other Jewish priestly caste is known as the “Levites.” Like the
Cohanim, Levites are recorded in the Hebrew Bible as direct
descendants of Aaron, Israel’s first High Priest. In fact, the
Cohanim are actually a special subsection of the Levites (Telushkin
1997, p. 125).
In the second study published on the Cohanim, researchers reported
that despite a priori expectations, Jews who identified themselves as
Levites did not share a common set of markers with the Cohanim (Thomas
et al. 1998). Unfortunately, the reporting that the Levites did not
share a genetic signature from a common patrilineal ancestor with the
Cohanim flew in the face of Jewish tradition. This led to some rather
bizarre and disparaging explanations, like the following from Rabbi
Yaakov Kleiman (1999) in Jewish Action:
It is interesting to note that the tribe of Levi has a history of lack
of quantity…After the Babylonian exile, the Levi’im (plural) failed to
return en masse to Jerusalem, though urged by Ezra the Scribe to do so
(They were therefore fined by losing their exclusive rights to
maser.). Though statistically, the Levi’im should be more numerous
than Cohanim, in synagogues today it is not unusual to have a minyan
with a surplus of Cohanim, yet not one Levi.
In point of fact, the Levites were shown to have a common set of
genetic markers – just not the CMH. These markers were not even part
of the same J1 haplogroup as found in the Cohanim. The majority of
Levites shared a common haplotype, indicating a shared common ancestor
among them, but this haplotype occurred within haplogroup R1a and,
more specifically, within subgroup R1a1. Furthermore, this haplogroup
was found only in the Ashkenazi Levites; it was not shared with the
Sephardic Levite population in the same fashion as the CMH. Given the
fact that the Ashkenazi Levites did not share R1a with their Sephardic
counterparts, it appeared that this haplogroup had entered the Jewish
population sometime during the Diaspora.
In one of the first studies to closely examine the high levels of R1a
among Levites, researchers found that R1al formed a “tight cluster”
within the Ashkenazi Levites (Behar et al. 2003). This suggested to
the researchers a very recent origin of this group from a single
common ancestor (Behar et al. 2003).
In a subsequent Levite study, the modal haplotype reported for
Ashkenazi R1a1, known as “H6,” was reported to occur twice as often as
the second most common R1a1 haplotype among Ashkenazim, known as
“H10” (Nebel et al. 2005). Out of a sample of 55 individuals, 25 had
haplotype “H6” and 12 had haplotype “H10” (Nebel et al. 2005,
Supplementary Material).
Table 2
Haplotypes* for Ashkenazi R-M17
HAPLOTYPE
D
Y
S
0
1
9
D
Y
S
3
8
8
D
Y
S
3
9
0
D
Y
S
3
9
1
D
Y
S
3
9
2
D
Y
S
3
9
3
H6
16
12
25
10
11
13
H10
15
12
25
10
11
13
*6-Locus Haplotype
Behar believed that among Ashkenazi Jews, R1a1 was essentially
restricted to Levites. However, we know from subsequent research that
R1a1 comprises nearly 12% of Ashkenazi results, while the Levites only
make up about 4-5 % of the Jewish people (Nebel et al. 2005). Thus,
these results extend well beyond the Levite priestly class to
approximately 5-8% of the Cohanim and Israelites (the non-priestly
Jewish population) as well.
Haplogroup R1a1 is relatively rare within Middle Eastern populations,
but very common among Eastern European and Scandinavian populations
(Behar et al. 2003). It is found at a frequency of 7% in some Near
Eastern groups (Behar et al. 2004b). However, given that Sephardic
groups did not share R1a1 frequencies with the Ashkenazim, it was
apparent that Jewish R1a1 was probably not of ancient Israelite
origin.
Confirmation of the high frequency of Haplogroup R1a1 among Ashkenazim
as compared to other Jewish and non-Jewish Middle Eastern populations
was found in a genetic study on Samaritan and Israeli groups (Shen et
al. 2004). Although population samples were small, consisting of
twenty participants from Ashkenazi Jewish groups, all were Eastern
Ashkenazim of Polish ancestry. Ashkenazi results were compared to
other Jewish groups from Iraq, Libya, Morocco, Ethiopia and Yemen, as
well as to non-Jewish Samaritan, Druze and Palestinian populations.
Shen found that haplogroup R was found in 10-30% of all the groups,
with the exception of Palestinians and Ethiopian Jews, though the
majority belonged to R1b and R*. In contrast, the Ashkenazim had the
highest percentage of haplogroup R (30%), with two-thirds of those
results found in haplogroup R1a (Shen et al. 2004).
As for when R1a1 first entered the Jewish community, Behar (2003)
estimated a mean TMRCA (time to the most recent common ancestor) of
663 years before the present using the Simple Stepwise Mutation Model
and a mean time of 1,000 years before present under the Linear Length-
Dependent Stepwise Mutational Model. This calculation was striking
because it fit precisely within the time period that Koestler believed
the mass migration and absorption of the Khazars by the larger Eastern
European Jewish communities occurred.
R1a1 is found in very high frequencies not only in the area of Eastern
Europe where the Khazarian kingdom is reported to have existed, but
also in many Central Asian populations as well, where some of the
Khazarian population may have originated (Nebel et al. 2005).
Furthermore, the most common Ashkenazi haplotype, H6, is identical to
the most common haplotype found among European R1a1 (YHRD 2003).
Ashkenazi H10 is identical to the fifth most common European R1a1
haplotype.[1]
Behar (2003) noted that Ashkenazi R1a1 haplotypes clustered closely
with those seen in Sorbian and Belarusian groups in Eastern Europe,
yet the haplotypes were dissimilar enough to convince him that these
groups were not the original source population for Ashkenazi R1a1.
While the Ashkenazi H6 haplotype is also one of the most common
haplotypes among the Sorbian and Belarusian populations, the modal
haplotypes found among these two Eastern European groups do not appear
among Ashkenazim (Behar, 2003). However, it is possible that genetic
drift could have led to the loss of other Jewish R1a1 lineages (Behar,
2003).
Nebel (2005) emphasized that the R1a1 haplogroup must have entered the
Jewish gene pool from outside sources because the ancestral haplotype
(H6) is almost completely absent in Sephardic Jews, Kurdish Jews and
Palestinian population samples. He suggested that R1a1 in Ashkenazim
“may represent vestiges of the mysterious Khazars.” However, he also
argued for a single founder event early on in the Jewish Diaspora,
proposing that the TMRCA for R1a1 among Ashkenazi was approximately
62.7 generations ago, or 1567 years ago.
However, the proposal that R1a1 originated with a single founder event
early in the Diaspora has become increasingly unlikely as research on
Jewish DNA progresses. Since R1a1 is spread fairly evenly in
haplotype distribution and frequency throughout the Ashkenazi
populations from various countries (Germany, Lithuania,
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Russia and the Ukraine),
then the founders must have entered the community either before it
expanded and spread to Eastern Europe, or merged separately into both
eastern and western Ashkenazi groups. However, Nebel (2005) is forced
to assert an extremely early TMRCA due to his belief that R1a1 must
have originated with a single founder or very small group of
founders. In order for R1a1 to reach its high frequency (12%) among
the Ashkenazim from a single founder, a very early date must be
proposed for the introgression of this haplogroup. Under this
scenario, R1a1 entered the Jewish community when it was extremely
small and in its formative stage. Gene flow from a single R1a founder
at this early stage would likely have a huge impact on the expanding
Ashkenazi population.
However, it appears that the most recently revised mutational dating
techniques lend support to Behar’s (2003) later date when applied to
Jewish R1a1 haplotypes. If we assume that R1a1 entered the Jewish
community around 1300 CE, then there would need to be enough founders
to leave a 12% genetic impact on the population. Given that the
Ashkenazi population at that time is estimated to be approximately
25,000 persons, it would be nearly impossible for a single founder to
make such a significant genetic impact (Behar et al. 2004b). Adopting
this conservative estimate of 25,000 persons, approximately two to
three thousand R1a1 males probably entered the Ashkenazi community
between the 12th-13th centuries.
Interestingly, there are no historical accounts of any large scale
conversions or Eastern European groups entering the Jewish community
at this time – except the Khazars.
Additionally, given the relatively late date of introgression and the
large number of founders, these males must have already been very
closely related to each other, sharing the R1a1 haplotypes that are
later reflected in the Levite results. Behar (2003) noted that the
lack of Levite R1a1 haplotype diversity suggested that all the
founding lineages were very closely related to each other if, in fact,
a large number of founding lineages contributed to the Levite R1a1
gene pool. The ancient reports on the Khazars indicate that the
majority of the Jewish converts were from the Khazarian royalty and
ruling classes (Koestler 1976, p.15). Although speculative, it seems
likely this group would have intermarried heavily amongst itself,
helping to preserve the group’s elite status. Thus, it is probable
that they would have already possessed a set of closely related R1a1
haplotypes which they simply passed on to their Levite descendants.
Most importantly, the fact that these R1a1 founders were endowed with
Levite status is highly revealing. Behar (2003), in fact, argues
against the possibility of a large number of R1a founders because it
would involve a breach of “a well-regulated rabbinically controlled
barrier” and would “most likely leave some prominent trace in the
historical record – which it has not.” However, he then suggests that
the R1a introgression may indicate a lesser degree of stringency for
the assumption of Levite status than for the assumption of Cohen
status. He points to a passage in the Talmud involving a debate over
whether Levite status should be accorded to a man whose father was a
non-Jew and who mother was the daughter of a Levite. This suggests
that assignment of Levite status other than through patrilineal
descent could have been sanctioned by the rabbinical authorities.
However, the Khazars were already Jewish, having converted hundreds of
years before. Although of a different ethnic make-up than the
Ashkenazim of the 13th century, they were not “non-Jews.” They
probably already had their own Levite caste in place who may have
simply continued their priestly functions among the Ashkenazim.
Integration into the Levite priesthood would have secured for the
Khazarian immigrants a place in their new community while helping them
maintain a sense of elite status among a new people. Yet it is clear
that the Khazars had become Jews long before they became part of the
larger Ashkenazi community. Thus, it should not be surprising that
six hundred years after their reported conversion, the Ashkenazim may
have accorded them a special role among their Levite priesthood.
The Khazars and the Smoking Gun of Haplogroup Q
With the discovery of haplogroup Q among Ashkenazi Jews, DNA
researchers may have found the “smoking gun” of Khazarian ancestry.
In one of the few DNA studies to examine haplogroup Q among Jews,
researchers made the surprising declaration that only 5-8% of the
Ashkenazi gene pool is comprised of Y chromosomes that originated from
non-Jewish European populations (Behar et al. 2004b). But since
subsequent research has confirmed that R1a1 alone comprises nearly 12%
of the Ashkenazi gene pool, it now appears that Behar’s estimate is
much too low. Additionally, Behar’s (2004b, Supplementary Material)
own data indicate that haplogroups R1b, R1a and I comprise more than a
quarter of Ashkenazi DNA results.
As for haplogroup Q, Behar (2004b) states that it is a “minor founding
lineage” among the Ashkenazim, but does not discuss it any further in
the study. Haplogroup Q appears in 23 out of 442 Ashkenazi results in
Behar’s study, or approximately 5% of the total results (Behar et al.
2004b, Supplementary Material). Interestingly, out of 50 non-Jewish
Hungarian results also appearing in this study, haplogroup Q did not
appear at all (Behar et al. 2004b, Supplementary Material).
The modal haplotype for Ashkenazi Q is shown in Table 3:
Table 3
Ashkenazi Q-P36 Modal Haplotype*
D
Y
S
0
1
9
D
Y
S
3
8
8
D
Y
S
3
8
9
i
D
Y
S
3
8
9
ii
D
Y
S
3
9
0
D
Y
S
3
9
1
D
Y
S
3
9
2
D
Y
S
3
9
3
D
Y
S
4
2
6
D
Y
S
4
3
9
13
12
13
16
22
10
15
13
12
16
* 10-Locus Haplotype
Approximately 19 out of the 23 Q results exhibited the above
haplotype, with 3 additional results being a single step mutation away
on DYS marker #393 (Behar et al. 2004b, Supplementary Material). In
fact, so many identical haplotypes makes it difficult to accurately
date Ashkenazi Q, since using a TMRCA calculation indicates these
Ashkenazim, both eastern and western groups, could be related within
the last hundred years. This, however, seems highly unlikely, given
the separation between these populations over the last few hundred
years.
By designating Q a “minor founding lineage,” Behar (2004b) places this
group among “those haplogroups likely to be present in the founding
Ashkenazi population.” However, given that Haplogroup Q is rarely
found in Middle Eastern populations in DNA studies, the likelihood
that Q can be attributed to Israelite ancestry seems remote. The
presence of Haplogroup Q among all Ashkenazi groups indicates the
founders of this group either mixed with a number of separate
Ashkenazi populations or, more likely, entered to the Ashkenazi
population in western Europe in a similar fashion to Haplogroup R1a1,
before the Ashkenazi migrated in large numbers eastward in the
13th-14th centuries.
The extremely low haplotype diversity of Ashkenazi Q supports the
argument of a small number of closely-related founders merging with
the Ashkenazim while they still resided primarily in Western Europe,
but not significantly earlier in their formation, since a longer time
span would result in more haplotype diversity. It does not support
the contention that Q is Israelite in origin, or that the founders
merged into the Jewish population much earlier in the Diaspora.
Assuming the Ashkenazi population consisted of approximately 25,000
individuals around 1200-1300 CE, then approximately 1000-1500 Q
individuals became part of the Ashkenazi population at that time.
Haplogroup Q is rare in European populations as well. It occurs in
low percentages in Hungary (2.6%) and much higher percentages in
Siberia (Tambets et al. 2004). It can be found among populations in
Norway and the Shetland Islands of Scotland where many Norwegian
Vikings settled. The frequency of Haplogroup Q among Scandinavians
is comparable to that found in Ashkenazim (Faux, private
correspondence). It appears that Norwegians/Shetlanders and Ashkenazi
Jews possess the highest percentages of haplogroup Q of any
populations in Europe – a rare link between two very different
populations who may share a common ancestor from Central Asia or
Eastern Europe. Interestingly, Scandinavians and Shetlanders also
possess high levels of haplogroup R1a1 as well, perhaps some of it
originating from Central Asian sources (Faux, private correspondence).
David Faux, a researcher examining the Shetlander’s DNA and possible
Central Asian links, notes the following:
The best evidence we have to date is that, although not investigated
scientifically, that Q and K* arrived with R1a from the same
population source in the Altai region of Russian Siberia. It is
likely that what we are seeing with Q and K are very rare Scandinavian
haplogroups whose origins were long ago in Asia. If this is true,
then it is very unusual that there does not seem to be any Q or K
along the overland pathways to Norway (e.g., in Western Russia) – but
there is Q, along with R1a, in the region of Kurdistan, and among a
significant percentage of Ashkenazi Jews.
Faux further hypothesized that the homeland of Norse Q lies somewhere
in the populations of Siberia, such as with the Selkups (66.4% Q and
19.1% R1a) or the Kets (93.7% Q), or among the populations of the
Altai mountain system extending through Mongolia, Kazakhstan and
Russia (Tambets et al. 2004).
Haplogroup K* also appears among Ashkenazim, though this group is
rarely discussed in the DNA literature. Behar (2004b, Supplementary
Infor-mation) found 2-3% among Ashkenazi Jews. Behar identifies this
group as K*-M9, though they may, in fact, be within Haplogroup K2,
since they closely match the K2 haplotypes reported among Turkish
groups (Cinnioglu 2004). The appearance of Haplogroup K* only among
eastern Ashkenazim may be attributable to Eastern European or
Khazarian admixture (Behar 2004b, Supplementary Material).
Interestingly, Ashkenazi K* exhibits more haplotype diversity than
haplogroup Q results, perhaps indicating a larger percentage of
unrelated K* founders or genetic drift.
However, Behar (2003) reports finding a significantly higher frequency
of haplogroup K* among Sephardic Levites (23%) and Sephardic
Israelites (13%), perhaps the highest frequency of K* found among any
European population. This may indicate that some of Ashkenazi K* is,
in fact, of Israelite origin. Its absence among western Ashkenazim
and very low frequency among eastern Ashkenazim suggests that the high
frequency of Sephardic K* may be due to pronounced genetic drift or
significantly more K* founders as part of the original Sephardic
population. However, it is also possible that Sephardic K* is the
result of admixture with African or Mediterranean groups. Haplogroup
K* is known to reach a frequency of 10% in Cabo Verbe, an east
Atlantic island population with ties to Jewish founders from Spain and
Portugal (Goncalves et al. 2003).
A comparison of haplogroup Q among Altaians and Ashkenazi Jews was
undertaken by Dienekes Pontikos (2004), who operates a respected
website dedicated to the examination of anthropological,
archaeological and genetic research. He compared the frequency of
haplogroups R1a and Q among Altaian Turkic speakers and Ashkenazi
Jews. For Altaians, the percentages are 46/17, or a ratio of about
2.7, while in Ashkenazim it is 12/5, or a ratio of about 2.4.
Dienekes writes:
If Proto-Khazars were similar to present-day Altaians minus haplogroup
C, then they would have a frequency of about 59% R1a and 22% Q.
Therefore, it seems reasonable that an overall 5/22=22% of such Proto-
Khazar elements into the Ashkenazi Jewish populations may be likely.
But, the Khazars of Khazaria may themselves have been somewhat mixed
with Western Eurasian elements, which would decrease their frequency
of haplogroup Q.
Dienekes (2004) also wrote that he found the continued silence of
researchers about the presence of haplogroup Q among Ashkenazim
“puzzling.”
Haplogroup Q is found in high frequencies in only a few regions of the
world. Native American’s possess very high percentages of Q,
particularly a sub-group known as “Q3” (Zegura et al. 2004). But
haplogroup Q did not originate among the Native Americans, nor did
this population obtain their Q ancestry from Jewish or Scandinavian
ancestors. As previously noted by Faux, its origins probably lie
somewhere in northern Eurasia, in Siberia or the Altai, where Q
continues to be a common Y chromosome haplogroup. It is from this
group after migration to the New World that Native American Haplogroup
Q3 originated.
Genetic analysis has allowed researchers to trace Native American
haplogroup Q to its probable ancestral homeland – the Altai Mountains
of Southwest Siberia (Zegura et al. 2004). The researchers have also
pointed out that the Kets and Sekups, who currently inhabit the
eastern part of Western Siberia and the Yenisey River Valley, can
trace their origin homeland further south, on the slopes of the Altai
mountains (Zegura et al. 2004). This region is, of course, where Faux
postulated that Scandinavia’s Q and K* ancestors originated. It may
also be the homeland of Khazarian Q ancestors whose descendants are
found today among Ashkenazi Jewish groups.
In conclusion, it appears that some members of three very distinct
populations—Scandinavian-Shetlanders, Native Americans and Ashkenazi
Jews–may share common ancestors originating from the Altai regions of
southern Siberia. However, the Q ancestors of the Native Americans
appears to have departed from their Altai homeland much earlier than
the other two groups, migrating to the New World sometime between
10,000 to 17,000 years ago, providing sufficient time for the Native
Americans to develop their own unique subgroup of Q, known as Q3
(Zegura et al. 2004).
The migration of R1a and Q groups into Scandinavia is presently
unknown, though Faux postulates a group from Central Asia may have
moved up into Scandinavia sometime around 400 CE. Only a few hundred
years later, the Khazars of southern Russia make their first
appearance in the historical record. And it is to the Khazars, who
undoubtedly possessed a high frequency of this haplogroup, to which
the Jews most likely owe their unique Q ancestry.
Possible Other Israelite Y-Haplogroups: J, E and G
Previously, the presence of Haplogroups J, E3b, and G among Jews was
interpreted as additional evidence of Middle Eastern or Israelite
ancestry in much the same fashion as the Cohanim Modal Haplotype.
However, recent studies demonstrate that their origin is uncertain.
Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to
pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly
described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin
and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously
discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as
“Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a
variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European
populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its
origin and distribution remain poorly understood.
Haplogroup G Among Jews
Lack of reported data regarding haplogroup G is surprising given that
it is found in approximately 9% of Ashkenazi Jews, with G-M201*
consisting of the great majority of those results (Behar et al. 2004b,
Supplementary Material). Behar (2004b) considers G-M201* a “minor
founder haplogroup” likely to have been present in the founding
Ashkenazi population due to its very low frequency among non-Jewish
Europeans. It is unclear whether Behar’s G-M201* indicates G* results
rather than sub-group G1, though this seems unlikely given the lack of
G* reported in the Middle East and southern Europe (Cinnioglu et al.
2004). Haplogroup G-M201* is distributed among both western and
eastern Ashkenazi groups (Behar et al. 2004b, Supplementary
Material). Unfortunately, so little has been reported about the
distribution of this haplogroup among European and Middle Eastern
populations that its origins among the Ashkenazim remain unclear.
Haplogroup G-M201 is found at high frequencies among populations of
the Caucasus and Georgia and may have originated in that region
(Cinnioglu et al. 2004). The modal haplotype shown in Table 4 was
found in 14 out of 34 Ashkenazi results, with an additional 5 results
only a single-step mutation away:
Table 4
Modal Haplotype* of Ashkenazi G-M201*
D
Y
S
0
1
9
D
Y
S
3
8
8
D
Y
S
3
8
9
i
D
Y
S
3
8
9
ii
D
Y
S
3
9
0
D
Y
S
3
9
1
D
Y
S
3
9
2
D
Y
S
3
9
3
D
Y
S
4
2
6
D
Y
S
4
3
9
15
12
14
18
23
10
11
13
11
15
* 10-Locus Haplotype (Behar et al. 2004b, Supplementary Material)
Haplogroup G2 (G-P15) is present in both Jewish and non-Jewish
European groups (Behar et al. 2004b). Although G2 is found in Turkey,
it may be less common in Middle Eastern populations as compared to
European groups. Haplogroup G2 appears almost exclusively in eastern
Ashkenazim, comprising approximately 2% of the results (Behar et al.
2004b, Supplementary Material). The restriction to eastern Ashkenazim
argues in favor of admixture with Eastern European or Khazarian
ancestors. This group also exhibits high diversity and lack of a
dominant modal haplotype, indicative of multiple founders or genetic
drift.
Haplogroup E3b Among Jews
An examination of recent DNA studies clarifies the probable origins
and history of Haplogroup E3b among Jewish populations. One important
study by Cruciani explores and refines the origins and distribution
patterns not only of E3b, but of the entire E haplogroup (Cruciani et
al. 2004).
Researchers discovered that various branches and sub-branches of
haplogroup E had very different evolutionary histories and distinct
migration patterns (Cruciani et al. 2004). Two branches, E1 and E2,
are found predominately in Africa. The third branch, E3, is further
divided into E3a and E3b. Haplogroup E3b can be further broken down
into a number of sub-clades, including E-M78, E-M81, E-M123, E-M281,
and E-V6. If an individual does not fall into any of these sub-clades
but still has the defining mutations for E3b, he is then in the
ancestral group, E-M35* (Cruciani et al. 2004).
Although E3b arose in East Africa approximately 25,000 years ago,
certain sub-clades appear to have been present in Europe and Asia for
thousands of years (Cruciani et al. 2004). For example, although E-
M78 occurs in about 30-20% of north and east African populations, it
also occurs in 4.7% of French, 11.2% of Central Italians and 2.6% of
Polish samples (Cruciani et al. 2004). It is particularly high in
the Balkans, with some population having a frequency of 25% or more
(Cruciani et al. 2004).
It appears that E-M78 migrated from the Middle East to Europe during
the Neolithic period. Once it reached the Balkans, a distinctive
cluster formed which Cruciani (2004) refers to as the “alpha
cluster.” The majority of European E-M78 appears to have originated
from this cluster.
However, another cluster of E-M78, known as the “delta cluster,”
appears to have migrated to Europe from North Africa or the Middle
East with a distinctive haplotype already formed (Cruciani et al.
2004). It is found in low frequency among Spanish, French, Basque and
Italian groups (Cruciani et al. 2004). In North Africa, it is also
prevalent among Moroccan Arab, Berber and Egyptian groups. Among
Middle Eastern groups, it is found in Turkish, Druze Arab and
Palestinian populations (Cruciani et al. 2004). This cluster is
distinguishable from the Balkan form by distinctive STR haplotype
differences.
In a study that presented frequencies of haplogroups J and E among
various groups, including both Ashkenazi and Sephardic populations,
researchers found 14 out of 77 Ashkenazim (18.2%) were E3b, while 12
out of 40 Sephardim were E3b (30%). (Semino et al. 2004). Ashkenazim
were also reported to have a frequency of 5.2% of E-M78, while
Sephardim had 12.5%. Yet the providence of this sub-clade among Jews
continues to remain unresolved. It is possible that Ashkenazi E-M78
is the result of multiple sources. Only further testing of E-M78
among Sephardic and Ashkenazi groups will determine which of
Cruciani’s clusters Jewish groups belong to and whether Ashkenazi and
Sephardic groups share similar E-M78 ancestry. However, the fact that
Behar (2004b, Supplementary Material) found E-M78 to be much more
prevalent among eastern versus western Ashkenazim (10 out of 12
results) argues in favor of admixture with Greek, Italian, Balkan or
Eastern European populations. It is also possible that the origin of
this sub-clade among Ashkenazim is attributable to Khazarian
ancestors.
The higher frequency of E-M78 among Sephardic groups may be the result
of pronounced genetic drift, or more likely, gene flow from North
African and Spanish populations. The likelihood of European and North
African gene flow is further supported by the fact that another sub-
clade, E-M81, occurs only among Sephardim (Semino et al. 2004). It is
also found in very high percentages among North Africans. Its
frequency among the Sephardim at 5% is comparable to that seen in
Spanish populations, again suggesting possible gene flow from Spanish
and Berber populations into Sephardic groups.
Behar (2004b) deemed sub-clade E-M35* a “major founding lineage” among
Ashkenazim. But according to Semino (2004), E-M35* only occurs among
1.3% of Ashkenazim and among 2.5% of Sephardim. Behar, on the other
hand, reports finding E-35 at a frequency of 7.1% among Eastern
European Ashkenazim, versus 19.1% among Ashkenazim in the west. Not
only do Behar’s figures contrast sharply with that found by Semino,
but Behar also apparently discovered a significant difference in the
frequency of this sub-group between eastern and western Jews. The
discrepancy between Behar and Semino’s results may be attributable to
Behar including sub-clade E-M123 results within his larger E-M35
category. The fact that E-M123 does not appear separately as part of
Behar’s data suggests that he did, in fact, combine these sub-clades
into a single category.
In fact, the best candidate for possible E3b Israelite ancestry among
Jews is E-M123. This sub-clade occurs in almost the same proportions
(approximately 10-12%) among both Ashkenazim and Sephardim (Semino et
al. 2004). According to Cruciani (2004), E-M123 probably originated
in the Middle East, since it is found in a large majority of the
populations from that area, and then back migrated to Ethiopia. He
further notes that this sub-clade may have been spread to Europe
during the Neolithic agricultural expansion out of the Middle East.
However, because E-M123 is also found in low percentages (1-3%) in
many southern European and Balkan populations, its origin among Jewish
groups remains uncertain (Semino et al. 2004). Yet the fact that both
Sephardim and Ashkenazim possess this sub-clade in similar high
frequency supports an Israelite/Middle Eastern origin.
As for E-M35*, Semino (2004) did not find this group in either the
Lebanese or Iraqi samples. Nor did Cruciani (2004) find it in any of
his Middle Eastern samples. It is present, however, in East and North
African samples; for example, it occurs in about 7.9% of Berber
tribesmen from north-central Morocco (Semino et al. 2004). It also
occurs in 2.7% of Andalusians in Spain, 5.5% of Sardinians and 1.5%
Italian populations (Semino et al. 2004). It appears that the most
likely explanation for Jewish E-M35* is that it represents gene flow
from North African populations into Spain, Italy, and Sardinia, and
hence, gene flow from these European populations into Jewish groups.
Haplogroup J2 Among Jews
Haplogroup J2 among Jews has been erroneously interpreted in the past
as exclusively “Israelite” or “Middle Eastern” in origin. Among
Ashkenazim, J2 occurs among 23.2% of the population, while Sephardim
have 28.6% (Semino et al. 2004). While these percentages are nearly
identical to Iraqi (22.4%) and Lebanese (25%) groups, they are also
comparable to Greek (20.6%), Georgian (26.7%), Albanian (19.6%),
Italian (20-29%), and to a lesser extent, French Basque (13.6%)
populations (Semino et al. 2004).
Although J2 is a close cousin to J1, it is characterized by the M172
mutation, while J1 is characterized by the M267 mutation. These two
branches of haplogroup J formed in neighboring but different regions
of the world. The ancestral J group (J*) is very rare and has only
been observed in small numbers in the Balkans, Crete, Greece, and Oman
(Di Giacomo et al. 2004). A recent DNA study on Turkish populations
also discovered a very low frequency of J* (Cinnioglu et al. 2004).
One of the first DNA studies exploring haplogroup J among Jewish
groups found the following:
The investigation of the genetic relationship among three Jewish
communities revealed that Kurdish and Sephardic Jews were
indistinguishable from one another, whereas both differed slightly,
yet significantly, from Ashkenazi Jews. The differences among
Ashkenazim may be a result of low-level gene flow from European
populations and /or genetic drift during isolation…Jews were found to
be more closely related to groups in the north of the Fertile Crescent
(Kurds, Turks, and Armenians) than to their Arab neighbors. (Nebel et
al. 2001)
According to the researchers, J1 originated in the southern part of
the Middle East while J2 originated in the northern part (Nebel et al.
2001). Because Jewish populations possess approximately twice as much
J2 as they do J1, their ancestry more closely matches that of Turkish
and Transcaucasian populations. This may indicate that some of the
genetic ancestry of the ancient Israelites may have closely resembled
groups living in the Caucasus and the northern Levant rather than
groups from the southern Levant. Additionally, it may also indicate
that there were multiple waves of J1 migrating northward into the
Middle East, some after the Jewish Diaspora. This is supported by the
findings of Di Giacomo (2004) regarding a secondary expansion of
haplogroup J1 out of the southern Levant and North Africa with Arabian
tribes.
According to Di Giacomo’s (2004) study, the high diversity of
haplogroup J2 in Turkish and southern European populations suggests
that this branch of haplogroup J originated around the Aegean, not the
Middle East. Additionally, it appears that much of J2 was confined to
the coastal Mediterranean areas, indicating that maritime trade,
rather than earlier Neolithic agricultural expansions, may have helped
spread J2 throughout the Mediterranean world.
This conclusion, however, contradicts an earlier study in which the
researchers argued that certain elements of Neolithic material culture
– painted pottery and figurines in particular – emanating out of the
northern Levant and Anatolia during the Neolithic could be correlated
with the distribution of certain Y haplogroups, including haplogroup J
(Underhill and King 2002). In fact, the authors of that study
concluded that the “Eu 9 (Haplogroup J2) haplogroup is the best
genetic predictor of the appearance of Neolithic painted pottery and
figurines at various European sites,” first spreading from the regions
of Anatolia and the Levant into the Balkans, Greece and the Danube
basin, then subsequently into the rest of Europe.
Di Giacomo’s (2004) study emphasized that J2 is “Mediterranean” or
“Aegean” rather than “Semitic” in character. It is found
predominately in northern Mediterranean and Turkish populations,
differentiating the Aegean area from the Middle East in its haplogroup
J results. Going further, the researchers maintained that certain sub-
clades of J2 appear to have originated well after the beginning of the
Neolithic revolution and around the Aegean, spreading out to the rest
of Europe during the expansion of the Greek world.
It is this final idea – that much of J2 is European in origin rather
than Middle Eastern – that complicates the interpretation of Jewish J2
results. Sub-clade J-M102* originated in the southern part of the
Balkans and is generally absent in Middle Eastern populations (Semino
et al. 2004). Ashkenazim have a 1.2% frequency of J-M102 and
Sephardim have 2.4%. These results argue in favor of European gene
flow into the Jewish community.
Three other sub-clades appear in Jewish populations and invite further
examination of their origins. Sub-clade J-M92* appears only in
Ashkenazi populations at a frequency of 4.9%. The fact that it is
absent in Sephardim indicates that the origin of this group among
Ashkenazim may be attributed to European gene flow. While J-M92*
appears in small percentages among Iraqi (1.3%) and Lebanese (2.5%)
groups, it occurs in higher frequencies and is much more diversified
in Turkish, Balkan and Italian populations (Semino et al. 2004).
Sub-clade J-M67* presents an equally complex picture among Jewish
populations. Ashkenazi Jews have 4.9% and Sephardim have 2.4% (Semino
et al. 2004). Again, J-67* is present among populations in the
northern Levant (Iraqis have 4.5% and Lebanese have 2.5%), but
frequency and variance is significantly greater in Europe and Turkey
than in the Middle East (Semino et al. 2004). Thus, whether Jews
obtained their J-M67* ancestry from Israelite, European, or a mixture
of ancestors remains unknown at this point in time.
Semino (2004) reports the following regarding the origins of J-M67*
and J-M92*:
…J-M67* and J-M92 could have arrived in Europe from Anatolia via the
Bosporus isthmus, as well as by seafaring Neolithic populations who
reached southern Italy. J-M67* and J-M92 could represent, at least in
part, the Y-chromosome component that King and Underhill (2002) found
to correlate with the distribution, from Anatolia toward Europe, of
archaeological painted pottery and anthropomorphic figurines .
Thus, Semino has expertly merged the findings of both Di Giacomo and
King/Underhill regarding the origin and expansions of J2 (Neolithic
versus Post-Neolithic Aegean/Greek) into a cohesive interpretation
regarding the multiple migrations of J2 throughout the Mediterranean
world.
The final sub-clade of J2 found among Jews is J-M172*. While 12.2% of
Ashkenazim are in this sub-clade, Sephardim have a frequency nearly
twice as high (Semino et al. 2004). This sub-clade appears in high
percentages among Lebanese and Iraqi populations (20% and 10.2%,
respectively) and its presence in this region can probably be
attributed to J-M172* migrations out of Anatolia into the northern
areas of the Levant (Semino et al. 2004). J-M172* is also found in a
number of European populations, particularly among French Basque and
Italian groups. Thus, its origin among Jewish populations remains
unclear, though its absence among Spanish populations, but presence in
Sephardic groups, supports the theory that at least some of Jewish J-
M172* may be of Israelite origin. Behar (2004b) also acknowledges
that J-M172* among the Ashkenazim may have originated with multiple
ancestral sources.
European Admixture Among the Ashkenazi
Although there has been strenuous opposition to intermarriage with non-
Jews since biblical times, including biblical prohibitions, bans,
warnings, rules and laws- law is one thing, practice often another.
It should be stressed that it was not only the Jewish communities that
opposed such intermarriage. According to author Raphael Patai, the
Christian authorities in Europe outlawed not only “Christian-Jewish
sexual relations but also all kinds of social contact between members
of the two religions, and backed up their injunctions with generally
severe penalties, including the death penalty, imposed on both the
Jewish and Christian partners to the crime. However, the very
frequency and repetitiousness of the promulgation of such laws are …
indications of their ineffectiveness” (Patai 1989, p. 105). Unfor-
tunately, we do not have an accurate picture of the frequency of such
sexual contact between Jews and Christians, since only those
relatively few cases which led to criminal prosecution are known. How-
ever, Patai believes the number was significantly higher than that
reported by the authorities.
Such prohibitions did not prevent such sexual contact among Christians
and Jews; nor did it prevent Christians from converting to Judaism,
individually and in groups, though it was probably much more common
for Jews to convert or simply leave the Jewish community, given the
significant oppression they faced in Europe. The word “proselyte”
originally designated a Greek person who had converted to Judaism,
indicating that conversion among Greek populations must have been
common enough at one time to have led to the creation of this
descriptive word.
Frankly, the fact that Jews have substantial European ancestry is
obvious to most onlookers – many Jews look like Europeans. The
question for DNA researchers was: How much of that European appearance
actually translates into European genetic ancestry?
Patai (1989, pp. 16-17) argues that the Jews had never lived in
sufficient reproductive isolation to have developed distinctive
genetic features. Rather, he states that “all the available evidence
indicates that throughout their history the Jews continually received
an inflow of genes from neighboring populations as a result of
proselytism, intermarriage, rape, the birth of illegitimate children
fathered by Gentiles, and so on.” In addition, the ancient Israelites
themselves were formed from a heterogeneous mix of tribal and ethnic
groups, both Semite and non-Semitic in origin. Thus, heterogeneity
was there from the very beginning.
Behar (2004b) argues for an extremely low admixture rate of 8.1% to
11.4% among the Y chromosome results. He further reduces this figure
to an unlikely 5% if the Jewish Dutch results are excluded due to
suspected high admixture rates. However, Behar’s own reported R1b (R-
P25), R1a (R-M17) and I (I-P19) haplogroup frequencies indicate that
these groups comprise approximately one-quarter to one-third of the
Ashkenazi Y chromosomes. Furthermore, Behar acknowledges that these
haplogroups are probably indicative of European admixture with
Ashkenazi populations.
According to the findings of Behar (2004b, Supplementary Material),
R1b comprises 44 out of 442 results, or nearly 10% of Ashkenazi
results. Additionally, Behar (2004b) reports that the highly-admixed
Dutch Jews have 26.1% R1b results. Haplogroup I (I-P19) comprises 18
out of 442 results, or approximately 4% of the Ashkenazi results.
Thus, haplogroups R1b and I among Ashkenazi Jews comprise almost 15%
of the DNA results.
Patai (1989, p. 41) provides an example of the cumulative effects of
admixture within the Ashkenazi population:
Let us assume that there was a Jewish community somewhere in the
Rhineland which in the year [CE] 800 numbered 100 souls, and that it
maintained the same number until [CE] 1600. If, in this community,
one case of interbreeding occurred once every ten years, then, after
100 years, there were in it 95 per cent Jewish and 5 per cent Gentile
genes; after 200 years, the ratio was 90.5 to 9.5; after 400 years, 82
to 18; and after 800 years, 67.1 to 32.9. In other words, after 800
years about one-third of the genes of the community would be of
Gentile origin.
There are clearly some problems with Patai’s hypothetical scenario.
It is unlikely, for instance, that the Ashkenazi population size
remained completely static during an eight hundred year period.
However, it is clear that the Jewish population grew very slowly
during this time period and that the huge Ashkenazi population
explosion did not happen until after 1300 CE. Ashkenazi population
size remained much reduced for generations due to a history of
dispersal, genetic bottlenecks and a high rate of endogamy. Further,
it is unlikely that there was a constant rate of gene flow from
European groups into the Ashkenazi population. Rather, such
introgression probably occurred at an irregular rate, with occasional
large groups like the Khazars integrating into the Jewish community
and adding their genetic legacy to the already diverse gene pool of
the Ashkenazim.
Patai’s ultimate conclusion regarding admixture is particularly
intriguing given the lack of DNA data available when he wrote his
book. He relied heavily on other genetic data, including blood
groups, fingerprint patterns, and genetic diseases, to reach his
conclusions. Despite these limitations, Patai (1989, p. 294)
concluded that while Jewish populations retain evidence of their
Mediterranean and Middle Eastern origins, they have clearly
experienced extensive admixture with their European neighbors. He
cites various authors, including Cavalli-Sforza and Carmelli, who
estimate such admixture rates to be approximately 40% for Ashkenazi
Jews.
Jewish mtDNA Results
A Few Founding Mothers
Jewish maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) results are
examined in depth in only two published DNA studies. In the first
study, researchers examined nine different Jewish groups and compared
their mtDNA to eight non-Jewish groups as well as an Israeli Arab/
Palestinian population (Thomas et al. 2002).
Thomas discovered a common characteristic to almost all Jewish mtDNA –
the high frequency of particular mtDNA haplotypes within the Jewish
populations. In addition, Jewish mtDNA results displayed
significantly lower diversity than any non-Jewish population tested as
part of the study, yet was also characterized by greater
differentiation between the Jewish groups as well as their hosts.
These unusual results suggested to the researchers that an extreme
female-specific founder effect had occurred in the genetic histories
of most Jewish populations. The founder effects had, in fact, been so
severe that mtDNA frequencies in Jewish groups differed significantly
from those seen in any of the non-Jewish populations.
As to the origin of these maternal founders, Thomas (2002)
acknowledged that “in many cases, it is not possible to infer the
geographic origin of the founding mtDNAs within the different Jewish
groups with any confidence.” One thing, however, was clear to the
researchers: the Jewish groups formed independently from each other
around a small group of maternal founders. In other words, many of
the Jewish groups did not share the same female ancestors.
Furthermore, it appeared to Thomas that the founding of these maternal
lineages occurred “immediately after the establishment of the
communities or over a longer period of time.” Since haplogroup
diversity was so low, female-specific gene flow from the surrounding
non-Jewish community must have been limited once the original
community was established.
Finally, Thomas (2002) noted that although Ashkenazi Jews were
commonly believed to have suffered a sharp founder effect, the group
had a modal haplotype frequency similar to their non-Jewish host
populations (9% vs. 6.9%). While this could be evidence that no such
founder events had occurred in this population, it could also indicate
“that present-day Ashkenazic Jews may represent a mosaic group that is
descended on the maternal side from several independent founding
events.”
In the second Ashkenazi mtDNA study, Behar (2004a) attempted to answer
the question of founder events among Ashkenazim posed by Thomas.
Unfortunately, it could be argued that this entire study is directed
at convincing the reader that “Ashkenazi populations as a whole are
genetically more similar to Near Eastern non-Jewish populations than
to European non-Jewish populations.”
In order to prove this, a complex analysis regarding “mismatch
distributions” between Jewish and non-Jewish populations is
performed. A careful reading, however, indicates that these mismatch
calculations are based on a number of unfounded assumptions, including
a shared common history of Pleistocene population growth between
Jewish and Middle Eastern groups. However, since only a small
percentage (10% - 20%) of the Jewish mtDNA is definitively stated to
be of Middle Eastern origin in the study, calculations based on this
assumption are questionable (Behar et al. 2004a).
Behar (2004a) attributes the obvious peculiarity of Ashkenazi mtDNA,
namely reduced mtDNA diversity coupled with usually high frequencies
of particular mtDNA haplotypes, to strong genetic drift rather than to
independent founder events. Furthermore, Behar suggests the unusual
Ashkenazi mtDNA results are due to a Jewish population bottleneck
that occurred in the Near East. According to the study,
[o]ur computer simulations confirm that the frequencies of the zero
and one class of the Ashkenazi mismatch distribution are significantly
elevated over that observed for the sequences sampled from Near
Eastern populations. This is a strong indication of a recent
population bottleneck and further simulations suggest the data best
fit a 200-fold reduction in size approximately 150 generations ago.
Behar (2004a) acknowledges that the rationale for such a bottleneck
can be sustained only if supported by two major assumptions: “the
Ashkenazim have not admixed with European host populations and that
the mutation rate is 1.2 x 10-3 per sequence per generation.”
However, postulating no admixture between Jewish and non-Jewish
European host populations is both historically and scientifically
untenable, particularly in light of Behar’s own Y chromosome results
indicating extensive admixture.
A close inspection of Jewish mtDNA results refutes any argument for
lack of maternal admixture with European populations. According to
Behar (2004a), only four mtDNA groups account for approximately 70% of
Ashkenazi mtDNA results. These haplogroups are K (32%), H (21%), N1b
(10%) and J1 (7%). However, Behar indicates the origins of three out
the four groups (H, K and J) are unknown. More importantly, he
acknowledges that certain other haplogroups among the Ashkenazi – V
and U5 in particular – appear to be of European origin, thereby
negating altogether the assumption of no admixture. Finally, the slow
mutational changes that occur within mtDNA are unlikely to be strongly
influenced by population isolation and genetic drift occurring over a
very short time span, as is the case with the Jewish Diaspora. Thus,
there is a much greater probability that independent founder events
occurring during the Jewish Diaspora rather than genetic drift are the
cause of Jewish mtDNA variability and lower haplogroup diversity.
However, it is also possible that both factors had an effect on Jewish
mtDNA.
The origin of Jewish mtDNA Haplogroup K is unclear at this time. The
most common haplotypes, as distinguished by HVR1 mutations, are as
follows: 223T-224C-234T-311C (33%); 224T-234C-311C (24%);
093C-224C-311C (19%); and 224C-311C (16%). The first two haplotypes
are almost completely restricted to Ashkenazi populations, perhaps an
indicator of pronounced genetic drift (Behar et al. 2004a). Shen
(2004) found that the majority of Ashkenazi K lineages also shared
transitions at nucleotide positions 11470 and 11914, which are
specific to clade K1a. Except for the Ashkenazi, this particular K1a
motif has only been reported in one Palestinian, one Romanian, one
Czech, and one Basque (Shen, et al. 2004). Because of their near
absence in non-Jewish populations, the most common Ashkenazi K1a
haplotypes can be used as indicators of Ashkenazi ancestry.
Behar (2004a) noted that mtDNA haplogroup N1b exhibits a significant
lack of haplotype diversity, indicating a probable common ancestral
origin for this group. Additionally, Ashkenazim results display only
a single transition from the putative ancestral HVR1 haplotype
(145A-176G-223T) which Behar (2004a) reports is almost completely
restricted to Middle Eastern populations. The inference that N1b is
of Israelite origin is further supported by the fact that this group
appears to be spread throughout eastern and western Ashkenazim at
almost equal frequencies (Behar et al. 2004a, Supplementary Material).
Behar (2004a) does state that certain other haplogroups – L2, pre-HV,
U7, M1, and U1b- which appear at very low frequencies among
Ashkenazim, may have either a Middle Eastern, African, or
Mediterranean origin. Unfortunately, this does little to clarify the
probable origins of these groups among Ashkenazim.
The haplogroups that comprise the remaining 30% of Ashkenazim mtDNA
including the following: J (J*, J1, J2), T (T*, T1-T5), HV1, U6
(U6a*, U6a1, U6b), HV*, W, X, I, M*, U4, U1a/U1b, U2/U2e, U3, R (R*,
R1, R2). Behar (2004a) lists their provenance as unknown. However, a
close examination of mtDNA haplogroups J1 and J2, which comprise 7% of
Ashkenazi results, reveal that they are common only among Eastern
Ashkenazim (Behar et al. 2004a, Supplementary Material). Therefore,
Ashkenazi mtDNA J can probably be attributed to Eastern European
admixture. In fact, Shen (2004) notes that Ashkenazi J1 and T2b
haplotypes have exact HVS1 matches with European groups, suggesting
admixture.
Although it may initially appear that Ashkenazi mtDNA groups such as
HV* and HV1 are Middle Eastern/Israelite in origin, the fact that both
mtDNA groups are found almost exclusively among Eastern European Jews
points to admixture as a more likely source of this ancestry. On the
other hand, pre-HV1 and L2a are found in low frequency among both
eastern and western groups and are more likely to be of Israelite
origin (Behar et al. 2004, Supplementary Material).
Haplogroup U among Ashkenazim comprises 32 out 565 results, with U7
comprising 8 out of the 32 results (Behar et al. 2004, Supplementary
Material). In a study on mtDNA in the Volga-Ural region, researchers
found U7 to be typical of Middle Eastern populations, including
Jordan, Kuwait, Iran and Saudi Arabia (Bermisheva et al. 2002). This
lends support to Behar’s theory that U7 among Ashkenazi Jews. is of
probable Middle Eastern origin. Shen (2004), however, is less certain
about its origins, stating that “it is difficult to assess whether
Haplogroups U7 and HV, as well as HVS-I haplotypes of the Ashkenazi
K2, I, W, and U2 lineage, represent the original gene pool of the
Jewish founders or are due to admixture with European populations.”
U2 among Ashkenazim appears to be of European origin, since the common
haplotype resembles that seen in European populations (HVR1 motif
051G, 129C, 189C) (Behar et al. 2004a, Supplementary Material).
Although Behar (2004a, Supplementary Material) suggested that
Ashkenazi U1b was “Middle Eastern, African, or Mediterranean” in
origin, this sub-clade is found at a low frequency only among Polish
and Russian Jews; thus, European admixture is probably the source of
this group among Ashkenazim. U3 among the Ashkenazi (2 out of 32)
could be a genetic inheritance from Khazarian ancestors, given that
the highest diversity of this subgroup is found in the Caucasus
(Ossetia, Georgia, Armenia) and in Turkey (Bermisheva et al. 2002).
U4 is also probably European (1 out of 32), though the distribution of
U5 is more complex, given that it occurs not only in European groups,
but also in the Middle East and Central Asia. The fact that Behar
(2004a) identifies Ashkenazi U5 as European in origin may indicate
that the Jewish haplotypes more closely resemble those seen in Eastern
European populations.
Bermisheva (2002) also explored haplogroup T, noting certain HVR1
haplotypes that are common among Finno-Ugric and Udmurt populations of
the Ural region (126, 294; 126, 294, 296, 304; T1: 126, 294, 163, 186,
189). Ashkenazi T1-T5 (excluding T*) comprise 21 individuals out of
565 in Behar’s (2004a) study, some of which have identical or similar
haplotypes to those found in Bermisheva’s samples.
Eastern vs. Western Ashkenazim
One important discovery made in Behar’s (2004a) study is the apparent
differences in mtDNA haplogroup frequency between various Ashkenazi
populations, particularly between eastern and western Ashkenazim.
Behar divides the various Ashkenazi populations as follows: French
Jews, German Jews, Austrian Jews, Lithuanian Jews, Polish Jews,
Romanian Jews, Russian Jews, and Ukrainian Jews.
One apparent difference is that eastern Ashkenazim, particularly
Polish Jews, appear to have as great a diversity of mtDNA haplotypes
as Middle Eastern and European populations. Thomas (2002) had noted
this feature in the Ashkenazi results in his own study. Some of these
haplotypes do not appear at all among the western Ashkenazim. In
fact, the western Ashkenazim display a remarkably low diversity of
haplogroups and haplotypes, much lower than that seen in either
eastern Ashkenazim or non-Jewish European/Middle Eastern groups.
Haplogroups that appear in eastern Ashkenazi, but are rare to absent
in western Jewish groups, include HV*, HV1, pre-HV1, J1, J2, U1-6, W,
V, and certain sub-clades of H (Behar et al; 2004a, Supplementary
Material).
This would strongly favor an independent founder hypothesis among
these populations. It would appear that the Ashkenazim share a common
set of founders of both European and Middle Eastern origin, while a
separate group of maternal founders entered the population of eastern
Ashkenazi communities sometime during the Diaspora.
The fact that some of these mtDNA groups are rare to absent in western
Ashkenazi populations argues in favor of a post-Diaspora European
origin. Furthermore, many scholars believe that Eastern European
Jewry has its genetic basis among the western Ashkenazim; Eastern
communities were founded when Jews migrated from Germany and France
after the 12th-13th centuries. Certain mtDNA haplogroups shared
between the two populations, for example N1b and K, indicate that the
eastern Ashkenazi communities do indeed share some common mtDNA
genetic history with western groups, some of probable Middle Eastern
origin. Yet it also appears that eastward moving Ashkenazim absorbed
a number of separate European maternal founders once they settled in
Eastern Europe. This absorption would explain a number of mtDNA
haplotypes that Behar identifies as European in origin and are
restricted primarily to eastern Ashkenazim, in particular, U5 and V.
It may also explain the high frequency of mtDNA haplogroup J, as well
as a number of H sub-clades, that are not present in the western
groups.
Exploration of Ashkenazi mtDNA Haplogroup H
The frequencies of mtDNA Haplogroup H sub-clades among Ashkenazim are
shown in Table 5 (Pereira et al. 2005, Table 1)
Table 5
Frequency of Haplogroup H Sub-clades in Ashkenazim
H Sub-Clade
Frequency
H1
0.051
H2
0
H3
0.44
H4
0.007
H5a
0
H6
0.028
H7
0
H13
0.028
H*
0.052
Total (All H)
0.21
Pereira (2005) also listed sub-clade frequencies for a number of
European and Middle Eastern populations, thereby allowing comparison
to Ashkenazi results. However, it should be noted that Pereira relied
exclusively on Behar’s samples for his Ashkenazi results and only
subtyped 29 out of 119 H mtDNA results. Forty (40) individuals out
of the 119 had the CRS (Cambridge Reference Sequence) (Behar et al.
2004a, Supplementary Material).
In regards to H1, Pereira (2005) states the following:
H1 is almost exclusively European, with its only incursion into the
Near East being a few Palestinian individuals bearing the most common
haplotype. This absence of derived lineages in the Near East sample
suggests that the H1 sub-clade had its origin in Europe.
Therefore, while it appears the H1 among Ashkenazim is of probable
European origin, the possibility of a Middle Eastern origin based on
the Palestinian findings remains unresolved. However, given that H1
does not occur in other reported Middle Eastern groups (Gulf States,
Kurds) and in only low percentages in the Caucasus, a European origin
for Ashkenazi H1 seems probable (Pereira et al. 2005).
As to H3 among Ashkenazim, its provenance is almost certainly
European, given that it occurs in none of the Middle Eastern groups,
including Palestinians. In fact, Pereira (2005) deemed H3
“exclusively European.”
Sub-clades H4 and H13 are found in Europe, the Caucasus and the Middle
East; therefore, the origins of these groups among Ashkenazim remain
unresolved. The same can be stated for H*, which began in the Middle
East, but is found at its highest frequency in east-central Europe and
the Balkans, as well as along the Atlantic fringes of Europe, such as
Spain and Ireland (Pereira et al. 2005).
Sub-clade H6 is identified as Eastern European and Trancaucasian in
origin and distribution (Pereira et al. 2005). The description is in
agreement with findings from another mtDNA study which located H6 and
its sub-groups almost exclusively within in Slavic and Turkish groups
(Loogvali et al. 2004). However, there are hints in both studies that
H6 and its sub-clades may also be found in low frequencies among some
western European groups, such as the French and Irish (Loogvali et al
2004; Pereira et al. 2005). In fact, Pereira suggests that H6 may
have its earliest roots in Western Europe, and Loogvali indicates the
precursor mutation to H6 (16362C) is found primarily in the Balkans.
Thus, it appears that Ashkenazim obtained their H6 ancestry from
European maternal founders, possibly Slavic or Khazarian in origin.
The argument for a Khazarian origin for this sub-clade is strengthened
by the fact that the highest frequency of H6 is found among the
peoples of Chuvash, Russia (Pereira et al. 2005). The Khazar language
is believed to have been a Chuvash dialect of Turkish (Koestler 1976,
p. 21).
In conclusion, it appears that much of Ashkenazi H can be attributed
to European founding mothers, though the origin of certain sub-clades,
in particular H4, H13 and H*, remain unresolved.
Conclusion: Future Jewish DNA Studies
The DNA studies have revealed a high degree of genetic
interrelatedness among Ashkenazi groups, particularly among those of
Eastern Europe. This common ancestry can be attributed to a small
founding population, coupled with rapid population growth and a high
rate of endogamy over the past 500 years. The studies also indicate a
sharing of genetic ancestry between eastern and western Ashkenazim,
supporting the view that some portion of Eastern European Jewry was
founded by western Ashkenazim.
DNA research has also revealed significant genetic links between
Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jewish populations, despite their separation
for generations. With the Cohanim study, researchers found a clear
genetic connection between the Jewish priests and a shared Israelite
ancestor from the past. Additional genetic results suggest that the
Ashkenazim can trace at least part of their ancestry to their
Israelite forbearers.
But Jewish DNA presents a picture that is far more complex than just
the Cohanim results. This picture is also far more diverse than what
many genetic studies on Ashkenazi Jews would suggest. Instead, many
of those studies have focused heavily on the Israelite DNA results,
often downplaying the significant contribution of European and
Khazarian ancestors. The examination of only a single component of
Jewish ancestry has resulted in an incomplete and, to a certain
extent, distorted presentation of the Jewish genetic picture.
Diversity was present from Jewish beginnings, when various Semitic and
Mediterranean peoples came together to form the Israelites of long
ago. The genetic picture was clearly enriched during the Diaspora,
when Jews spread far and wide across Europe, attracting converts and
intermarrying over time with their European hosts. The most recent
DNA evidence indicates that from this blending of Middle Eastern and
European ancestors, the diverse DNA ancestry of the Ashkenazi Jews
emerged.
Although the debate over the fate of the Khazars is far from over, DNA
research suggests that remnants of these mysterious people continue to
exist within the genetic makeup of Ashkenazi Jews. In fact, the
Levite results indicate that the Khazars became fully integrated into
the Ashkenazi communities and came to play an important role within
the Jewish priesthood.
The Cohanim results do not disprove the genetic contribution of the
Khazars. Rather, the DNA studies indicate that Jews are not entirely
Khazarian, Israelite or European in genetic makeup, but a complex and
unique mixture of all these peoples.
Genetic studies of the future will hopefully clarify many of the
remaining mysteries surrounding the origins and formation of the
Ashkenazi communities. For instance, the origins and distribution of
the most common mtDNA haplogroup among Ashkenazim – haplogroup K –
remains unexplored. Additionally, tantalizing differences in the
genetic makeup of western and eastern Ashkenazi populations remain to
be fully investigated by DNA researchers.
In addition to the Ashkenazim, many other Jewish groups are ripe for
study by genetic researchers. Examination of these groups will no
doubt help illuminate their common genetic bonds as well as their
differences with other Jewish populations. Groups such as the
Sephardic and Mizrachi Jews await study of their own unique DNA
makeup.
In conclusion, much remains to be explored regarding the DNA of
various Jewish populations. Future DNA studies will undoubtedly
provide a clearer picture of the various heterogeneous peoples who
came together over time to form the Jewish people of today.
Acknowledgments
I wish to express my gratitude to the individuals who kindly assisted
me in my research. I thank Whit Athey and the other JOGG editors for
editing my work; David Faux, Adam Brown, Jeff Schweitzer, and Bennett
Greenspan for helpful input; and Dienekes Pontikos for generously
providing permission to use data from his website.
My lay impression is that there is no unambiguous genetic connection
specifically to present day Palestine/Israel.
All ancient Israelite dna has perished with time. And it was widely
mixed ab initio.
I also gather that as the studies progress, what's demonstrated is
greater and greater complexity in the genetic inheritance of
"diaspora" Jews despite a tendency toward endogamy. All of this
appeals to my sense of history.
I don't think that the present genetic findings can candidly be
politicized by Zionists in justification of Israeli aggression. In
sum, even if the studies en masse did show an overpowering connection
of the Ashkenazi to present day Palestine it would be irrelevant.
After 2,000 years no group on earth has a claim to territory X simply
from having inhabited it once upon a time. Irredentism has been
declared to be against global public policy. Every country which joins
the UN gives up irredentist claims.
> > > It's meaningful only to Bible fundamentalists concerned
> > > with the question of to whom belongs the land promised
> > > to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
>
> > It's meaningful to Zionists and Zionism pervades the consciousness of
> > the Israeli people.
>
> > > Accepting this as the “crux”,
> > > Then even according to the most extreme interpretation of
> > > "The land of Israel belongs to the Children of Israel",
> > > if there is just one Jew out there who is a 100% "Child of Israel",
> > > the land of Israel belongs to him.
> > > The rest of us will take it up with him,
> > > that's not your concern.
>
> > The *question posed* above goes to the heart (crux) of the issue's
> > political parameter. The argument from genetics is Zionist, i.e.,
> > political. It is used to justify Israeli policies which I oppose. Of
> > course I address it. As Ratner once admitted, talk of "Israelite
> > dna" doesn't come from genetics. Accordingly it comes from politics.
>
> > Would you please answer my question?
>
> > BTW, there are quite a few suppressed premises underlying "....the
> > land of Israel belongs to him." Another time.
>
> Bible Fundamentalism.
> Is that what you want to discuss?
I don't relish it. It shouldn't have to be part of this. But it is, it
certainly is. Our problem with it is mostly in our sun belt where Old
Testament thumping Christians become ecstatic every Sunday at 11:OO
a.m. Your problem lies mostly in Brooklyn, Jerusalem and the West
Bank. Ours are nuts. They include mystical rattle snake handlers and
those who "speak in tongues." Your's seem pretty strange too, what
with the helicoptering of chickens above people's heads, men given
over to the full time study of pre-medieval lore to the age of forty
and women's menstrual cycles being intimately monitored by Rabbis.
What with the costumes, strange haircuts, etc., and the xenophobia,
they are very foreign to my cultural inheritance. Neither of these
other-worldly groups ought to have more influence on policy than they
deserve in the objective sense but we're democrats, no? How are we to
shunt them aside legtitimately, i.e., to minimize their influence on
foreign policy?