Re: Shlomo Sand predicts the Jewish past and pastes the Zionists
dsharavi
>>>The Khazars were a Turkic people. Turkic people are not "Israelite".
>
>On Nov 17, 11:00 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>LOL! Very astute observation, H!! ROFLMAO!!! What a MORON!! You are
>>quite correct, senor!! We are in complete agreement, in fact, perhaps
>>for the very first time!!! OH THIS IS RICH!!!!
>
On Nov 19, 9:56 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
<coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>Don't pretend that you didn't need it to be dumbed down, Richard. The
>Kazars were Turkic converts to Judaism. Their descendants have no
>connection to Palestine beyond religion. If you're going to make
>irredentist claims on religious bases you'll be in over your tiny
>little head.
H would do well to take his own advice. At the time the Khazars of
Northern Caucasus converted to Judaism, there were major Jewish
population centers throughout Mediterranean Europe, and had been since
the 1stC BCE. Those Jewish population centers were still in existence
when the Khazar Khaganate was annihilated in the 10th/11thC.
>
>>>There is no "Israelite" category in DNAstudies.
>>Oh, there's no Israelite "category", eh?
>Correct. None. No Israelite DNA survives.
"Israelite DNA" survives, all right, whenever H and his ilk want to
assert that today's "Palestinians" are descended from ancient
Israelites.
>>Why don't you elaborate a bit
>>for the group, H. What precisely do you mean by "category"?
>
>It's a dimwitted question but we'll dumb it down for you to prevent
>further squirming. The Israelites were members of the dominant tribal
>grouping in ancient Israel. To use modern parlance they were citizen-
>Jews, an identifiable category of humans resident there.
"Modern parlance" here is ludicrously anachronistic, while "citizen-
Jews" is simply grotesque.
Ancient Israel was Yehud to the Achaemenids, Iudaia to the Greeks, and
Iudaea to the Romans. The reason is obvious.
>It is their
>specific ancient Jewish, i.e., "Israelite," DNA you struggle to find
>today in "the diaspora" in order to show a direct connection between
>modern Jewry and the ancient Israelites AND thus to their former real
>estate, Palestine.
That direct connection has already been established by numerous
genetic studies.
>You also need it to support your Zionist doctrine.
Whatever "Zionist doctrine" means.
>Now this category comprised of Israelites must be distinguished for
>purposes of your analysis from other categories, undocumented aliens
>for example, and from Japanese tourists. You must also distinguish
>them from non-Jewish tribals resident there.
>Unfortunately, Israelite DNA no longer exists. It has perished in the
>mists of time. It neither has nor can be studied
Tell that to the geneticists who can and do study it.
> and if it were it
>still would not be sufficient to tie modern Jews to a specific piece
>of real estate in that vast region.
Already been done. And, of course, H and his crew repeatedly do that
whenever they want to tie today's "Palestinians" to that specific
piece of real estate.
>One of the studies acknowledges
>that in its executive summary.
Unless H cares to drop his coyness about identifying the study he
alleges, its source will have to be presumed to exist only between H's
ears.
>The labeling of the DNA found in modern Jews as "Israelite" so as to
>seem to create a special connection with Palestine is a polemical
>distortion of the data. It wasn't done by the scholars. I'm virtually
>certain of that.
H is certain of lots of things. H is certain that scholars and
geneticists have labeled as "Israelite" DNA found in today's
"Palestinians", which, H is certain, is incontrovertible "proof" of
their special connection with that certain piece of real estate.
> One can't reason backward in such matters,
Geneticists do just that.
>i.e., you
>can't say that modern Jews have x, y and z genetic characteristics and
>therefore the Israelites did too. That presumes what you set out to
>prove. That's a fallacy.
Tell it to the geneticists whose findings indicate just that.
Genetic studies indicate various lineages found in modern Jewish
populations, however, most of these populations share a lineage in
common, traceable to an ancient population that underwent geographic
branching and subsequent independent evolutions.
The findings lend support to traditional Jewish accounts accrediting
their founding to exiled Israelite populations, and counters theories
that many or most of the world's Jewish populations were founded
entirely by local populations that adopted the Jewish faith, devoid of
any actual Israelite genetic input.
Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool
of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/12/6769.long
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1202742130771&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
While DNA tests have demonstrated inter-marriage in all of the various
Jewish ethnic divisions over the last 3,000 years, it was
substantially less than in other populations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/09/science/y-chromosome-bears-witness-to-story-of-the-jewish-diaspora.html
DNA analysis further determined that modern Jews of the priesthood
tribe—"Kohanim"—share an ancestor dating back about 3,000 years. This
result is consistent for all Jewish populations around the world. The
researchers estimated that the most recent common ancestor of modern
Kohanim lived between 1000 BCE (roughly the time of the Biblical
Exodus) and 586 BCE, when the Babylonians destroyed the First Temple.
They found similar results analyzing DNA from Ashkenazi and Sephardi
Jews. The scientists estimated the date of the original priest based
on genetic mutations, which indicated that the priest lived roughly
106 generations ago, between 2,650 and 3,180 years ago depending
whether one counts a generation as 25 or 30 years.
Science Daily Science News
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/07/980714071409.htm
Although individual and groups of converts to Judaism have
historically been absorbed into contemporary Jewish populations — in
the Khazars' case, absorbed into the Ashkenazim — it is unlikely that
they formed a large percentage of the ancestors of modern Jewish
groups, and much less that they represented their genesis as Jewish
communities.
The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the
Middle East
American Journal of Human Genetics
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1274378/?tool=pmcentrez
>Now, if you want to argue that the present
>day Palestinians who've never been in the diaspora represent the
>Israelite gene pool it would be pretty interesting at the political,
>i.e., Zionist, level. What do you say we look at that?
QED - "Israelite DNA" survives whenever H and his ilk want to assert
that today's "Palestinians" are descended from ancient Israelites,
rather than invading Arabs and Europeans.
>>>We resolved that earlier,Ratner.
>>Good. Resolve this:
>You mean further resolve. Okay, I will.
>>Studies of Jewish Populations
>>Advanced genetic testing, including Y-DNAand mtDNA haplotyping, of
>>modern Jewish communities around the world, has helped to determine
>>which of the communities are likely to descend from the Israelites and
>>which are not, as well as to establish the degrees of separation
>>between the groups.
>"Liikely to descend" from the category of "Israelites"? Balderdash.
>This material of yours is from Brooks, the Khazar web site guy, not
>from the scholars who did the "important (genetic) studies" cited
>below. In fact at the beginning of one of the studies is a disclaimer
>to the effect that nothing in the article can identify Palestine as
>the specific origin of any of the modern Jewish DNA studied, which Mr.
>Brooks, but not the scholars, wants to call "Israelite."
Actually, Brooks doesn't call it "Israelite" DNA. But H never lets
facts bother him.
>>> Important studies archived here include the
>>University College London study of 2002, Ariella Oppenheim's study of
>>2001, Ariella Oppenheim's study of 2000, Michael Hammer's study of
>>2000, Doron Behar's study of 2008, and others.
>>Key findings:
>
>Note in the key findings immediately below there are no quotation
>marks. Thus these are the words of Mr. Brooks.
Of course. That's why Brooks notes it as an ABSTRACT. Elsewhere,
Brooks gives the links to the full texts -- not that H would ever
trouble himself to read them. FWIW, here are a few of them:
"The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of
the Middle East."
The American Journal of Human Genetics 69:5 (November 2001)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1274378/
High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian
Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with
haplotypes of Jews
Nebel A, Filon D, Weiss DA, Weale M, Faerman M, Oppenheim A, Thomas
MG.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153918
Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool
of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes
M. F. Hammer, A. J. Redd, E. T. Wood, M. R. Bonner, et al
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/12/6769.full
Counting the Founders: The Matrilineal Genetic Ancestry of the Jewish
Diaspora
Doron M. Behar, Ene Metspalu, Toomas Kivisild, et al
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002062
>># The main ethnic element of Ashkenazim (German and Eastern European
>>Jews), Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), Mizrakhim (Middle
>>Eastern Jews), Juhurim (Mountain Jews of the Caucasus), Italqim
>>(Italian Jews), and most other modern Jewish populations of the world
>>is Israelite. The Israelite haplotypes fall into Y-DNAhaplogroups J
>>and E.
>
>Note the use of the term "Israelite haplotypes." Unfortunately we have
>no Israelite DNA to study. It has perished with time. Accordingly it
>is impossible to conclude that modern Jewish DNA is Israelite.
>Mediterranean to some extent, perhaps, but not Israelite. In my
>reading I saw no sign that the actual scientists used this language.
>It is quite clearly misleading.
H "saw no sign that the actual scientists used this language" for one
reason: H didn't read what the scientists wrote.
>># Ashkenazim also descend, in a smaller way, from European peoples
>>such as Slavs and Khazars.
>>The non-Israelite Y-DNAhaplogroups include
>>Q (typically Central Asian) and R1a1 (typically Eastern European).
>># Dutch Jews from the Netherlands also descend from northwestern
>>Europeans.
>># Sephardim also descend, in a smaller way, from various non-Israelite
>>peoples.
>
>Such as North African Berbers who had been converted to Judaism.
H mistakes North African (Muslim) Berbers for the Lembas.
>Where did you find a meaningful difference between Israelite and Arab
>genes? Two thousand years ago these semitic people lived cheek by
>jowl.
Amazing how ancient writers never noticed Arabs living "cheek by jowl"
with Jews two thousand years ago in Israel.
>># Moroccan Jews, Algerian Jews, and Tunisian Jews are mainly
>>Israelites.
>
>No Berber blood in there? Don't forget the great Jewish-Berber queen
>who drove back the first onslaught of Muslim conquerers. She was a
>convert.
What Jewish Berber queen was that?
>># Libyan Jews are mainly Israelites who may have mixed somewhat with
>>Berbers.
>Libyan Jews were most probably converts.
>># Ethiopian Jews are almost exclusively Ethiopian, with little or no
>>Israelite ancestry.
>Well, it is a religion, right? What would you expect?
That they would have converts. (HInt: H is shooting himself in the
foot again.)
>
>># Bene Israel Jews and Cochin Jews of India have much Indian ancestry
>>in their mtDNA.
>
>Converts too?
>
>And then there is the new Shlomo Sand historical study showing that
>the Palestinians are probably Israelites in drag.
A study by a professor of film history, lol.
>When I looked into this matter months ago the strong impression I came
>away with is that what YOU and BROOKS are calling "Israelite DNA" is
>simply DNA which is generally Mediterranean in nature and is not more
>uniquely characteristic of Jews than it is of others in or from the
>region.
Which proves that H's "look" into the matter did NOT include looking
at the various genetic studies on that matter.
>The difficulty with that is
>that it does not support the Zionist claim that a religious group of
>Europeans who have some genetic connection with the Mediterranean
>region as a whole have a right to dispossess Palestinian Arabs who in
>any event are probably in fact the descendants of the Jews of the time
>of Christ, the real Israelites.
Based on those genetic studies, of course, which H just trashed above.
>># The Cohen Modal Haplotype is found among many Jewish populations of
>>the world, including Ashkenazim, Sephardim, and the Bene Israel of
>>India.
>
>So what? Jews moved all over the Mediterranean BEFORE the so-called
>Roman diaspora, an event which did not in fact take place.
What "Roman diaspora" was that? The diaspora began before Rome had
kings, when Rome was nothing more than a village of Latins under
Etruscan control.
>># The Cohen Modal Haplotype, which belongs to haplogroup J, was a
>>component of the ancient Israelite population,
>
>Impossible to know! And not unique anyway.
No, not impossible to know, and yes, unique - according to the genetic
studies which show today's "Palestinians" as sharing in an admixture
of "Israelite DNA" -- which studies H, of course, trashed.
>>and especially common
>>among the Cohens (priests of the Temple in Jerusalem).
>># The Cohen Modal Haplotype is not exclusively found among Jews, but
>>rather is also found among Kurds, Armenians, Italians, Palestinian
>>Arabs, and a few other peoples.
>
>Why did you copy that part?
Because the genetic studies found that while the Cohen Modal Haplotype
is most common amongst Jews, it's also found among Palestinian Arabs.
But H, of course, dismisses those findings as Zionist propaganda.
>>Studies on Jewish Genetic Diseases
>
>Did the studies show that Israelites two thousand years ago had these
>genetic diseases?
Why would it, since it's not relevant?
>>Learn about their geographical and ethnic diffusion, and
>>what this often tells us about the degree of closeness between Jews
>>and certain non-Jewish ethnic groups like Iranians, Anatolian Turks,
>>and Palestinian Arabs.
H is not interested in learning anything that would upset his personal
apple cart.
>But Moroccan Jews descend from Berber converts who have not even an
>irredentist claim to Palestine.
QED. Jews from Israel established communities in Mauretania and
elsewhere in North Africa in the 1stC CE. There is no evidence that
Moroccan Jews descend from alleged "Berber converts" to Judaism. In
any case, the predominant ancestry of Berbers is sub-Saharan.
>># A mutation causing Factor XI Deficiency is found among both
>>Ashkenazim and Iraqi Jews.
>
>Iraq is not Palestine.
Babylon is in Iraq. Need I explain the significance of Babylon?
>Is Iraq the next irredentist claim?
Since today's Palestinians are touting themselves as the genetic
descendants of ancient Israelites, based on the genetic studies which
H has already trashed, it's not impossible that they might get around
to claiming ancient Babylon and the surrounding environs as
"Palestinian" territory.
>Why don't you call it the Khazar population? There is as much ground
>for it. See Arthur Koestler.
ROTFLOL! Koestler was a journalist-cum-novelist and parapsychologist
-- not a scholar.
>That's actually interesting.
Of course H finds the musings of a novelist more interesting that
actual scientific studies. One has only to look at the content of his
posts to discern that.
To sum up H's position:
Genetic studies indicating descent of today's "Palestinians" from
ancient Israelites = GOOD!
Genetic studies indicating descent of today's Jews from ancient
Israelites = BAD! BAD! BAD!
Deborah
coaste...@yahoo.com
On Nov 20, 1:50 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>On Nov 17, 10:35 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> >>>The Khazars were a Turkic people. Turkic people are not "Israelite".
>
> >On Nov 17, 11:00 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> >>LOL! Very astute observation, H!! ROFLMAO!!! What a MORON!! You are
> >>quite correct, senor!! We are in complete agreement, in fact, perhaps
> >>for the very first time!!! OH THIS IS RICH!!!!
>
> On Nov 19, 9:56 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
> <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> >Don't pretend that you didn't need it to be dumbed down, Richard. The
> >Kazars were Turkic converts to Judaism. Their descendants have no
> >connection to Palestine beyond religion. If you're going to make
> >irredentist claims on religious bases you'll be in over your tiny
> >little head.
>
> H would do well to take his own advice. At the time the Khazars of
> Northern Caucasus converted to Judaism, there were major Jewish
> population centers throughout Mediterranean Europe, and had been since
> the 1stC BCE. Those Jewish population centers were still in existence
> when the Khazar Khaganate was annihilated in the 10th/11thC.
>
Correct, as to the sequence. I thank you for acknowledging this.
However, those Mediterranean Jewish communities can hardly be said to
have been major. I say that because the Jewish population in Palestine
was never "major." These Jewish communities in Mediterranean Europe
seem to have been the result of natural and voluntary emigration from
Palestine. They were thus not "exilic." And finally, the Khazar
Khanate was conquered. You give the impression that the entire Khazar
population was annihilated. I've seen no evidence of that although you
can perhaps support your position. I'm ready to learn from you. 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.
>
> >>>There is no "Israelite" category in DNAstudies.
> >>Oh, there's no Israelite "category", eh?
> >Correct. None. No Israelite DNA survives.
>
> "Israelite DNA" survives, all right, whenever H and his ilk want to
> assert that today's "Palestinians" are descended from ancient
> Israelites.
>
Don't do violence to the word Israelite. You know what it means, a
citizen of ancient Israel. We have no benchmark for that DNA of two
thousand and more years ago as it has perished. This is a simple fact.
It doesn't exist. We do have modern Palestinian DNA. Do you accept
that as a benchmark for determining Israeli claims to Palestine?
> >>Why don't you elaborate a bit
> >>for the group, H. What precisely do you mean by "category"?
>
> >It's a dimwitted question but we'll dumb it down for you to prevent
> >further squirming. The Israelites were members of the dominant tribal
> >grouping in ancient Israel. To use modern parlance they were citizen-
> >Jews, an identifiable category of humans resident there.
>
> "Modern parlance" here is ludicrously anachronistic, while "citizen-
> Jews" is simply grotesque.
Try dismantling it.
> Ancient Israel was Yehud to the Achaemenids, Iudaia to the Greeks, and
> Iudaea to the Romans. The reason is obvious.
Sure, different languages render things differently.
> >It is their
> >specific ancient Jewish, i.e., "Israelite," DNA you struggle to find
> >today in "the diaspora" in order to show a direct connection between
> >modern Jewry and the ancient Israelites AND thus to their former real
> >estate, Palestine.
>
> That direct connection has already been established by numerous
> genetic studies.
Not to Palestine in particular it hasn't. Scientists doing the studies
say the connection to particular real estate can not be made. And of
course that's true. There has been a great deal of churning of DNA in
the last two thousand years. Shapira acknowledges it. Come on, Deb.
Find some arguments for grabbing Palestine which mean something in
terms of European Jewish right and title. A partial genetic match
between modern Jews and and the Mediterranean/Central Asia/North
Africa/'Southern Europe simply fails to support the legitimacy of
Zionist claims. What's especially sad about what you're struggling to
do here is that it is unnecessary and delays the Israeli transit to
full and unquestioned international legitimacy supported, inter alia,
by the entire Muslim world. Your ideological rigidity is not working
in Israel's best interest. Reconsider and the whole world will sign-
off on it. All you have to do is get out of the West Bank and Golan.
It is that refusal which is at the center of this ever more dangerous
crisis. Only with a settlement can you legitimize the gains of the
Nakba and get it all over with. You create your own problems by
expanding the settlement program. You run greater and greater dangers.
And even the AMERICAN people are getting disgusted with Israeli
behavior.
>
> >You also need it to support your Zionist doctrine.
>
> Whatever "Zionist doctrine" means.
It means an ideology which justifies the richest and must successful
minority in the world in grabbing a country in the Middle East from
its inhabitants because of things done to Jews by Romans and Europeans
over two thousand or more years. How's that? Just one sentence. That's
the operational definition. Nothing else matters at the international
level. Hey, you are the most aggressive exponent of that grabbing on
these boards. You're too coarse to be credible regardless of your
arguments and you have other problems intellectually and morally, but
who cares? From my point of view anyway. You make it easy for me to be
dominant here.
> >Now this category comprised of Israelites must be distinguished for
> >purposes of your analysis from other categories, undocumented aliens
> >for example, and from Japanese tourists. You must also distinguish
> >them from non-Jewish tribals resident there.
> >Unfortunately, Israelite DNA no longer exists. It has perished in the
> >mists of time. It neither has nor can be studied
>
> Tell that to the geneticists who can and do study it.
They don't claim to study it. Richard admits that they don't even use
the term. And Shapira admits that there has been great churning of the
blood line over the millenia.
> > and if it were it
> >still would not be sufficient to tie modern Jews to a specific piece
> >of real estate in that vast region.
>
> Already been done.
Yes, by conquest but Israel still lacks full internation legitimacy.
She can attain it through something like the Congress of Vienna
presided over by all the signigicant world powers. But she can't gain
it by continuing to pound Palestinians.
And, of course, H and his crew repeatedly do that
> whenever they want to tie today's "Palestinians" to that specific
> piece of real estate.
Buy the Sand book. You'll never sell that attitude. You've never even
supported it, just asserted it.
> >One of the studies acknowledges
> >that in its executive summary.
>
> Unless H cares to drop his coyness about identifying the study he
> alleges, its source will have to be presumed to exist only between H's
> ears.
You can find it. I must have posted it the first time around. Get the
abstracts from the studies Richard pointed to. I think that's where
you'll find it.
> >The labeling of the DNA found in modern Jews as "Israelite" so as to
> >seem to create a special connection with Palestine is a polemical
> >distortion of the data. It wasn't done by the scholars. I'm virtually
> >certain of that.
>
> H is certain of lots of things.
Disprove it with any legitiimate DNA study. I don't think you will
find these scientists presuming results in advance.
H is certain that scholars and
> geneticists have labeled as "Israelite" DNA found in today's
> "Palestinians", which, H is certain, is incontrovertible "proof" of
> their special connection with that certain piece of real estate.
I'd welcome a study comparing modern Palestinian DNA with that of
modern Eastern European Jews. I'd bet on the predominant Semitism of
the Palestinians. They stayed home. You see, genetics is a dead end
for Zionists. The answer is political. You can't always have what you
want in this life. To get what you need you must BE political and
embrace compromisee.
> > One can't reason backward in such matters,
>
> Geneticists do just that.
Within very strict limits which do not permit them to support a
European claime to Palestine. But you can get that by agreement. Just
settle for 78% of it. We lawyers settle lawsuits like that all the
time. And yes, Jewish lawyers do it too.
> >i.e., you
> >can't say that modern Jews have x, y and z genetic characteristics and
> >therefore the Israelites did too. That presumes what you set out to
> >prove. That's a fallacy.
>
> Tell it to the geneticists whose findings indicate just that.
Well, presuming the geneticists with one blood sample can trace to a
single ancestor 3,000 years ago, what has this to do with the right to
drive the Palestinians out of Palestine? Presumable the geneticists
could do the same thing with one Palestinian blood sample.
> Genetic studies indicate various lineages found in modern Jewish
> populations, however, most of these populations share a lineage in
> common, traceable to an ancient population that underwent geographic
> branching and subsequent independent evolutions.
Which ancient population? Be careful now. This is a dangerous
question.
> The findings lend support to traditional Jewish accounts accrediting
> their founding to exiled Israelite populations,
What "exiles"? Will the world give over the Palestinian homeland to
you guys based on your internal mythology?
and counters theories
> that many or most of the world's Jewish populations were founded
> entirely by local populations that adopted the Jewish faith, devoid of
> any actual Israelite genetic input.
Entirely? Who but you are saying that?
> Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool
> of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypeshttp://www.pnas.org/content/97/12/6769.longhttp://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1202742130771&page...
Como no? But to what comparative degree do they share it and what
political conclusions do you believe you can draw from that sharing?
>
> While DNA tests have demonstrated inter-marriage in all of the various
> Jewish ethnic divisions over the last 3,000 years, it was
> substantially less than in other populations.http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/09/science/y-chromosome-bears-witness-
Less than the Palestinians?
>
> DNA analysis further determined that modern Jews of the priesthood
> tribe—"Kohanim"—share an ancestor dating back about 3,000 years. This
> result is consistent for all Jewish populations around the world.
What conclusion do you draw from this relative to title to Palestine?
The
> researchers estimated that the most recent common ancestor of modern
> Kohanim lived between 1000 BCE (roughly the time of the Biblical
> Exodus) and 586 BCE, when the Babylonians destroyed the First Temple.
> They found similar results analyzing DNA from Ashkenazi and Sephardi
> Jews. The scientists estimated the date of the original priest based
> on genetic mutations, which indicated that the priest lived roughly
> 106 generations ago, between 2,650 and 3,180 years ago depending
> whether one counts a generation as 25 or 30 years.
> Science Daily Science Newshttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/07/980714071409.htm
>
> Although individual and groups of converts to Judaism have
> historically been absorbed into contemporary Jewish populations — in
> the Khazars' case, absorbed into the Ashkenazim — it is unlikely that
> they formed a large percentage of the ancestors of modern Jewish
> groups, and much less that they represented their genesis as Jewish
> communities.
Why? the Jews were not numerous in the grand scheme of things.
> The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the
> Middle East
> American Journal of Human Geneticshttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1274378/?tool=pmcentrez
>
> >Now, if you want to argue that the present
> >day Palestinians who've never been in the diaspora represent the
> >Israelite gene pool it would be pretty interesting at the political,
> >i.e., Zionist, level. What do you say we look at that?
>
> QED - "Israelite DNA" survives whenever H and his ilk want to assert?
> that today's "Palestinians" are descended from ancient Israelites,
> rather than invading Arabs and Europeans.
Who is arguing it, you or me? It's an interesting hypothetical
question. "At stake is Palestine. We're going to decide who gets it it
by purity of blood. We draw blood from a selection of Jews living in
Denmark and from a selection Palestinians living in the West Bank.
We're going to give Palestine to the group with the highest admixture
of Middle-Eastern halotypes. Who gets Palestine?
Do you have some basis for thinking the Israelite DNA differed much
from "Arab" DNA? Weren't they the same people, the same Semitic
people?
> >>>We resolved that earlier,Ratner.
> >>Good. Resolve this:
> >You mean further resolve. Okay, I will.
> >>Studies of Jewish Populations
> >>Advanced genetic testing, including Y-DNAand mtDNA haplotyping, of
> >>modern Jewish communities around the world, has helped to determine
> >>which of the communities are likely to descend from the Israelites and
> >>which are not, as well as to establish the degrees of separation
> >>between the groups.
> >"Liikely to descend" from the category of "Israelites"? Balderdash.
> >This material of yours is from Brook, the Khazar web site guy, not
> >from the scholars who did the "important (genetic) studies" cited
> >below. In fact at the beginning of one of the studies is a disclaimer
> >to the effect that nothing in the article can identify Palestine as
> >the specific origin of any of the modern Jewish DNA studied, which Mr.
> >Brooks, but not the scholars, wants to call "Israelite."
>
> Actually, Brooks doesn't call it "Israelite" DNA. But H never lets
> facts bother him.
Its Brook. And he uses the word Israelite over and over. You've
deleted it. There is no Israelite category in the studies. That's a
Brook invention. Richard has admitted it. Take it up with him.
>
> >>> Important studies archived here include the
> >>University College London study of 2002, Ariella Oppenheim's study of
> >>2001, Ariella Oppenheim's study of 2000, Michael Hammer's study of
> >>2000, Doron Behar's study of 2008, and others.
> >>Key findings:
>
> >Note in the key findings immediately below there are no quotation
> >marks. Thus these are the words of Mr. Brooks.
>
> Of course. That's why Brooks notes it as an ABSTRACT. Elsewhere,
> Brooks gives the links to the full texts -- not that H would ever
> trouble himself to read them. FWIW, here are a few of them:
>
> "The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of
> the Middle East."
> The American Journal of Human Genetics 69:5 (November 2001)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1274378/
> High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian
> Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with
> haplotypes of Jews
Who gets Palestine?
> Nebel A, Filon D, Weiss DA, Weale M, Faerman M, Oppenheim A, Thomas
> MG.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153918
>
> Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool
> of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes
> M. F. Hammer, A. J. Redd, E. T. Wood, M. R. Bonner, et alhttp://www.pnas.org/content/97/12/6769.full
>
> Counting the Founders: The Matrilineal Genetic Ancestry of the Jewish
> Diaspora
> Doron M. Behar, Ene Metspalu, Toomas Kivisild, et alhttp://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0002062
>
> >># The main ethnic element of Ashkenazim (German and Eastern European
> >>Jews), Sephardim (Spanish and Portuguese Jews), Mizrakhim (Middle
> >>Eastern Jews), Juhurim (Mountain Jews of the Caucasus), Italqim
> >>(Italian Jews), and most other modern Jewish populations of the world
> >>is Israelite. The Israelite haplotypes fall into Y-DNAhaplogroups J
> >>and E.
>
> >Note the use of the term "Israelite haplotypes." Unfortunately we have
> >no Israelite DNA to study. It has perished with time. Accordingly it
> >is impossible to conclude that modern Jewish DNA is Israelite.
> >Mediterranean to some extent, perhaps, but not Israelite. In my
> >reading I saw no sign that the actual scientists used this language.
> >It is quite clearly misleading.
>
> H "saw no sign that the actual scientists used this language" for one
> reason: H didn't read what the scientists wrote.
You can refute me but only by showing the scientists using this
language.
>
> >># Ashkenazim also descend, in a smaller way, from European peoples
> >>such as Slavs and Khazars.
> >>The non-Israelite Y-DNAhaplogroups include
> >>Q (typically Central Asian) and R1a1 (typically Eastern European).
> >># Dutch Jews from the Netherlands also descend from northwestern
> >>Europeans.
> >># Sephardim also descend, in a smaller way, from various non-Israelite
> >>peoples.
>
> >Such as North African Berbers who had been converted to Judaism.
>
> H mistakes North African (Muslim) Berbers for the Lembas.
You don't like having a Berber course in your DNA?
>
> >Where did you find a meaningful difference between Israelite and Arab
> >genes? Two thousand years ago these semitic people lived cheek by
> >jowl.
>
> Amazing how ancient writers never noticed Arabs living "cheek by jowl"
> with Jews two thousand years ago in Israel.
Oh, we're back to a people without a land migrating to a land without
a people?
>
> >># Moroccan Jews, Algerian Jews, and Tunisian Jews are mainly
> >>Israelites.
>
> >No Berber blood in there? Don't forget the great Jewish-Berber queen
> >who drove back the first onslaught of Muslim conquerers. She was a
> >convert.
>
> What Jewish Berber queen was that?
The one who fought off the initial Arab onslaught in N. Africa.
> >># Libyan Jews are mainly Israelites who may have mixed somewhat with
> >>Berbers.
> >Libyan Jews were most probably converts.
> >># Ethiopian Jews are almost exclusively Ethiopian, with little or no
> >>Israelite ancestry.
> >Well, it is a religion, right? What would you expect?
>
> That they would have converts. (HInt: H is shooting himself in the
> foot again.)
Who is they?
>
>
>
> >># Bene Israel Jews and Cochin Jews of India have much Indian ancestry
> >>in their mtDNA.
>
> >Converts too?
>
> >And then there is the new Shlomo Sand historical study showing that
> >the Palestinians are probably Israelites in drag.
>
> A study by a professor of film history, lol.
>
> >When I looked into this matter months ago the strong impression I came
> >away with is that what YOU and BROOKS are calling "Israelite DNA" is
> >simply DNA which is generally Mediterranean in nature and is not more
> >uniquely characteristic of Jews than it is of others in or from the
> >region.
>
> Which proves that H's "look" into the matter did NOT include looking
> at the various genetic studies on that matter.
YOU simply can not read the literature of genetic research. I looked
at what was accessable. That's all you can do.
The rest later.
drahcir
wrote:
> On Nov 20, 1:50 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>On Nov 17, 10:35 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com" <coaster132...@yahoo.com>
> > >>>The Khazars were a Turkic people. Turkic people are not "Israelite".
>
> > >On Nov 17, 11:00 pm, drahcir <justrichardsmu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > >>LOL! Very astute observation, H!! ROFLMAO!!! What a MORON!! You are
> > >>quite correct, senor!! We are in complete agreement, in fact, perhaps
> > >>for the very first time!!! OH THIS IS RICH!!!!
>
> > On Nov 19, 9:56 pm, "iconocl...@yahoo.com"
> > <coaster132...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
> > >Don't pretend that you didn't need it to be dumbed down, Richard. The
> > >Kazars were Turkic converts to Judaism. Their descendants have no
> > >connection to Palestine beyond religion. If you're going to make
> > >irredentist claims on religious bases you'll be in over your tiny
> > >little head.
>
> > H would do well to take his own advice. At the time the Khazars of
> > Northern Caucasus converted to Judaism, there were major Jewish
> > population centers throughout Mediterranean Europe, and had been since
> > the 1stC BCE. Those Jewish population centers were still in existence
> > when the Khazar Khaganate was annihilated in the 10th/11thC.
>
> Correct, as to the sequence. I thank you for acknowledging this.
> However, those Mediterranean Jewish communities can hardly be said to
> have been major. I say that because the Jewish population in Palestine
> was never "major."
Hmm, what does "major" mean, H?
These Jewish communities in Mediterranean Europe
> seem to have been the result of natural and voluntary emigration from
> Palestine. They were thus not "exilic."
Um, she never said they were.
Depends what you mean by "particular real estate". If you mean
Palestine, you are correct. However, one can conclude that if nearly
all Jews share DNA originating somewhere in the Fertile Crescent, it
doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to come up with the most likely scenario.
Here's the conclusion of the Nebel report:
In conclusion, the present study shows that the Middle Eastern
populations we analyzed are closely related and that their Y
chromosome pool is distinct from that of Europeans. Genetic dating
performed in the present study, together with age estimates reported
elsewhere (reviewed by Bosch et al. 1999), suggests that the major
haplogroups observed in our sample are much older than the populations
in which they are found. Thus, the common genetic Middle Eastern
background predates the ethnogenesis in the region. The study
demonstrates that the Y chromosome pool of Jews is an integral part of
the genetic landscape of the region and, in particular, that Jews
exhibit a high degree of genetic affinity to populations living in the
north of the Fertile Crescent.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1274378/
and yes, he does use the word "Israelite".
> ...
>
> read more »
dsharavi
>>>>>The Khazars were a Turkic people. Turkic people are not "Israelite".
>
>>>>LOL! Very astute observation, H!! ROFLMAO!!! What a MORON!! You are
>>>>quite correct, senor!! We are in complete agreement, in fact, perhaps
>>>>for the very first time!!! OH THIS IS RICH!!!!
>
>>>Don't pretend that you didn't need it to be dumbed down, Richard. The
>>>Kazars were Turkic converts to Judaism. Their descendants have no
>>>connection to Palestine beyond religion. If you're going to make
>>>irredentist claims on religious bases you'll be in over your tiny
>>>little head.
>On Nov 20, 1:50 pm, dsharavi wrote:
>>H would do well to take his own advice. At the time the Khazars of
>>Northern Caucasus converted to Judaism, there were major Jewish
>>population centers throughout Mediterranean Europe, and had been since
>>the 1stC BCE. Those Jewish population centers were still in existence
>>when the Khazar Khaganate was annihilated in the 10th/11thC.
On Nov 21, 3:02 pm, iconoclast @yahoo.com wrote:
>Correct, as to the sequence. I thank you for acknowledging this.
I'm "acknowledging" nothing. I'm educating you.
>However, those Mediterranean Jewish communities can hardly be said to
>have been major. I say that because the Jewish population in Palestine
>was never "major."
The Mediterranean Jewish communities were major communities. In the
1stC CE, in fact, more Jews lived outside Israel than in Israel. (I
use "Israel" because the Romans hadn't yet invented "Syria-Palestine"
for the territory encompassing today's Israel, western Jordan,
southern Lebanon, and southwestern Syria.) The largest Jewish
communities were in Alexandria, Rome, Antioch, Babylon, Cyrene, Sidon,
Apamea, Damascus, Nisibis, Caesarea Mazaca, Ephesus, Sardis, Smyrna,
Pergamum, and Laodicea, among others; with smaller communities in
Northern Africa, along the Hispanian and Gallian littoral, northern
Italy, Greece, and at Panticapaeum and Gorgippia on the Black Sea
(just across the Sea of Azov, where the Khazars would set up their
Khagante some six centuries later),
>These Jewish communities in Mediterranean Europe
>seem to have been the result of natural and voluntary emigration from
>Palestine. They were thus not "exilic."
Has anybody ever said they were? Not to my knowledge. The "exilic"
community was in Babylon, once the largest Jewish community in the
ancient world; the rest were Diaspora communities. Jewish communities
appeared outside Israel in the late 8thc/7thC BCE after the fall of
the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. There was also a garrison of Jewish
soldiers at Elephantine in Egypt in the 5thC BCE. It was after the
conquests of Alexander that the Diaspora expanded. Some of it was
involuntary, Jews being carried off as war captives; most was
voluntary, since Israel was frequently an arena of war between the
Seleucids and the Ptolomies, and Alexander's conquets had opened more
opportunities aboard. By the end of the 1stC BCE, Jews were involved
in long-distance trade along the coast of the Mediterrean.
>And finally, the Khazar
>Khanate was conquered. You give the impression that the entire Khazar
>population was annihilated. I've seen no evidence of that although you
>can perhaps support your position. I'm ready to learn from you.
Perhaps "eradicated" is more appropriate than "annihilated". In any
case, the khanate ceased to exist around the time the "Golden Age" of
Spanish Jewry was approaching its end. Long-established Jewish
communities elsewhere in the world went on.
>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.
How so? She's on the mark with her analysis of the Sand book, AFAIK,
it's one of only two peer-reviewed assessments, and both are
dismissive.
>>>>>There is no "Israelite" category in DNAstudies.
>>>>Oh, there's no Israelite "category", eh?
>>>Correct. None. No Israelite DNA survives.
>>"Israelite DNA" survives, all right, whenever H and his ilk want to
>>assert that today's "Palestinians" are descended from ancient
>>Israelites.
>Don't do violence to the word Israelite. You know what it means, a
>citizen of ancient Israel.
I know that there was no such thing as a "citizen of ancient Israel"
any more than there were "citizens of ancient Egypt" or "citizens" of
the Persian/Seleucid/Parthian empires.
>We have no benchmark for that DNA of two
>thousand and more years ago as it has perished. This is a simple fact.
>It doesn't exist.
Geneticists think otherwise.
>We do have modern Palestinian DNA. Do you accept
>that as a benchmark for determining Israeli claims to Palestine?
I accept no DNA as a "benchmark" for determining land claims -- unlike
today's "Palestinians", who are vociferous about their "right" to
"Palestine" based on their imagined descent from ancient Israelites
(or Canaanites or Philistines).
>>>>Why don't you elaborate a bit
>>>>for the group, H. What precisely do you mean by "category"?
>>>It's a dimwitted question but we'll dumb it down for you to prevent
>>>further squirming. The Israelites were members of the dominant tribal
>>>grouping in ancient Israel. To use modern parlance they were citizen-
>>>Jews, an identifiable category of humans resident there.
>>"Modern parlance" here is ludicrously anachronistic, while "citizen-
>>Jews" is simply grotesque.
>Try dismantling it.
You coined it, you try explaining it.
>>Ancient Israel was Yehud to the Achaemenids, Iudaia to the Greeks, and
>>Iudaea to the Romans. The reason is obvious.
>Sure, different languages render things differently.
Yehud, Iudaia, and Iudaea are cognates of the same word from which
modern "Jew" derives its origin, and all three mean the same: land of
the Jews.
>>>It is their
>>>specific ancient Jewish, i.e., "Israelite," DNA you struggle to find
>>>today in "the diaspora" in order to show a direct connection between
>>>modern Jewry and the ancient Israelites AND thus to their former real
>>>estate, Palestine.
>
>>That direct connection has already been established by numerous
>>genetic studies.
>
>Not to Palestine in particular it hasn't.
Sure it has.
>Scientists doing the studies say the connection to particular
>real estate can not be made. And of
>course that's true.
Produce the quote of the scientists who stated that.
>There has been a great deal of churning of DNA in
>the last two thousand years. Shapira acknowledges it. Come on, Deb.
She sure does, and she applies it to Sand's borrowed Khazar fantazia:
"The history of ethnic groups is very difficult to map. The thirteenth-
century Mongol expeditions decimated populations, caused mass flight,
laid waste entire regions. The fourteenth-century Black Plague
destroyed at least a third of Europe’s population. What happened to
the local population in the land of Israel to which Sand attributes
Jewish beginnings – did it not endure conquests, expulsion, plagues
etc.? The same applies to the Khazars: how many of them retained their
Judaism or survived the Mongols, and how far afield did they migrate?
All these questions cannot be easily answered by the research today.
To be sure, it is known that Jews settled in southern Russia at the
start of the second millennium, and they apparently were Khazars. But
there is a missing link between them and the Jews who began to arrive
in the kingdom of Poland from the thirteenth century on, for whom
there has been continuous documentation ever since. According to the
mapping of Jewish communities in the fifteenth century, it is clear
that the great majority of Jews lived then in western Poland, and
during the next two centuries gradually spread over eastern Poland and
the Ukraine.10 How many of the Khazars joined them? How many Spanish
exiles reached Poland? How much intermarriage was there? How many
conversions or mass rapes took place in this space, diversifying the
genetic pool of these Jews? There is no way of knowing."
>Find some arguments for grabbing Palestine which mean something in
>terms of European Jewish right and title.
Find some arguments for Arabs grabbing "Palestine" which mean
anything.
>A partial genetic match
>between modern Jews and and the Mediterranean/Central Asia/North
>Africa/'Southern Europe simply fails to support the legitimacy of
>Zionist claims.
Jewish claims to the land of Israel never rested on genetics. Today's
"Palestinians" seem to think their claim to the land is based on their
suppositious descent from ancient Israelites (or Canaanites or
Philistines).
>What's especially sad about what you're struggling to
>do here is that it is unnecessary and delays the Israeli transit to
>full and unquestioned international legitimacy supported, inter alia,
>by the entire Muslim world. Your ideological rigidity is not working
>in Israel's best interest.
For the "entire Muslim world", at least the most vociferous part of
it, the only "unquestioned international legitimacy" for Israel is its
demise. (They also claim Spain as Muslim land.)
>Reconsider and the whole world will sign-
>off on it. All you have to do is get out of the West Bank and Golan.
Oh, the Golan too, now, is it? "Palestinians" claim that too?
>It is that refusal which is at the center of this ever more dangerous
>crisis.
If giving up the so-called "West Bank" resulted in a legitimate peace,
I'd be all for it. But the "Palestinians" have proven time and again
that any written agreement with them has all the validity of used
toilet paper. Give them southern California, and let them call that
their "Palestine".
>Only with a settlement can you legitimize the gains of the
>Nakba and get it all over with. You create your own problems by
>expanding the settlement program. You run greater and greater dangers.
>And even the AMERICAN people are getting disgusted with Israeli
>behavior.
Hate to rain on your parade, but most AMERICAN people have more
pressing concerns, like feeding their families and keeping a roof over
their heads.
>>>You also need it to support your Zionist doctrine.
>
>>Whatever "Zionist doctrine" means.
>
>It means an ideology which justifies the richest and must successful
>minority in the world in grabbing a country in the Middle East from
>its inhabitants because of things done to Jews by Romans and Europeans
>over two thousand or more years. How's that? Just one sentence. That's
>the operational definition.
Your definition is on a par with your claim that "The Israeli Rabbis
say it's okay to kill dangerous babies". Zionism, per se, has nothing
to do with the people who currently call themselves "Palestinians", a
name given to European Jews in 1798 by Immanuel Kant. I told you that
back in February. Need I post the definitions given by Albert
Einstein, Chaim Herzog, Yisrael Galili, Yigal Alon, and Yitzhak Rabin
again? They referred, of course, to political Zionism, as you think
you do, not to the various conflicting strains of Zionism, such as
Territorial Zionism, which sought to re-establish the Jewish State in
any region except Ottoman Palestine. But even political Zionism
considered South America, Argentina, the Sinai, along with Ottoman
Palestine, for the Jewish State. The Colonial Office was interested in
a Jewish enclave in Sinai, to guard passage through the Suez.
Ever hear of Mordechai Manuel Noah? Back in 1844, he envisioned the re-
establishment of the Jewish State in Ottoman Syria. Of course, MM Noah
was only an American solider, and Americans didn't count for much back
then, so he was ignored. Incidentally, my father's favorite uncle had
a variant of of Noah's opinion that American Indians might have
descended from one or another of the Lost Tribes of Israel, although
I'm sure he never read MM Noah's treatise on the subject. My great-
uncle's (tongue in cheek) opinion was that Jews might descend from a
Lost Tribe of Paiutes, and therefore, by extension, the land of Israel
is Paiute territory.
>Nothing else matters at the international level.
lol
Oil matters. Oil matters very much.
>Hey, you are the most aggressive exponent of that grabbing on
>these boards. You're too coarse to be credible regardless of your
>arguments and you have other problems intellectually and morally, but
>who cares? From my point of view anyway. You make it easy for me to be
>dominant here.
You've lost the thread, old man, and your hysteria proves it.
>>>Now this category comprised of Israelites must be distinguished for
>>>purposes of your analysis from other categories, undocumented aliens
>>>for example, and from Japanese tourists. You must also distinguish
>>>them from non-Jewish tribals resident there.
>>>Unfortunately, Israelite DNA no longer exists. It has perished in the
>>>mists of time. It neither has nor can be studied
>
>>Tell that to the geneticists who can and do study it.
>
>They don't claim to study it.
Oh no?
> Richard admits that they don't even use the term.
Semantics.
>And Shapira admits that there has been great churning of the
>blood line over the millenia.
I provided the quote above, which was in the context of Sand's
fantazia, borrowed from a parapsychologist-cum-novelist, that European
Jews descend from 8thC-9thC Khazar converts. Naturally, neither bother
to explain how the ancient Jewish communities of Greece, Italy,
France, and Spain managed to leave no descendants.
>>>and if it were it
>>>still would not be sufficient to tie modern Jews to a specific piece
>>>of real estate in that vast region.
>
>>Already been done.
>
>Yes, by conquest but Israel still lacks full internation legitimacy.
You're shifting the thread to your major bete noire again.
>She can attain it through something like the Congress of Vienna
>presided over by all the signigicant world powers. But she can't gain
>it by continuing to pound Palestinians.
There is no reason why Israel, alone among the nations, should have to
attain "full 'internation' legitimacy" through something like the
Congress of Vienna. Lebanon lacks recognition as a sovereign state
from Syria; how about a Congress of Vienna for Lebanon's "full
'internation' legitimacy? Nationalist groups in Wales and Scotland --
and amongst Native Americans in the good ole USofA -- would love that
one.
>>And, of course, H and his crew repeatedly do that
>>whenever they want to tie today's "Palestinians" to that specific
>>piece of real estate.
>
>Buy the Sand book.
I don't have money to waste on 300 pages of bullshit.
>You'll never sell that attitude. You've never even
>supported it, just asserted it.
>
>>>One of the studies acknowledges
>>>that in its executive summary.
>
>>Unless H cares to drop his coyness about identifying the study he
>>alleges, its source will have to be presumed to exist only between H's
>>ears.
>
>You can find it. I must have posted it the first time around.
Probably you must not have.
>Get the abstracts from the studies Richard pointed to. I think
>that's where you'll find it.
Already read some of the studies - and I don't mean just the
abstracts. In fact, I included links to some in previous posts.
>>>The labeling of the DNA found in modern Jews as "Israelite" so as to
>>>seem to create a special connection with Palestine is a polemical
>>>distortion of the data. It wasn't done by the scholars. I'm virtually
>>>certain of that.
>
>>H is certain of lots of things.
>
>Disprove it with any legitiimate DNA study. I don't think you will
>find these scientists presuming results in advance.
Disprove what?
>>H is certain that scholars and
>>geneticists have labeled as "Israelite" DNA found in today's
>>"Palestinians", which, H is certain, is incontrovertible "proof" of
>>their special connection with that certain piece of real estate.
>
>I'd welcome a study comparing modern Palestinian DNA with that of
>modern Eastern European Jews. I'd bet on the predominant Semitism of
>the Palestinians. They stayed home. You see, genetics is a dead end
>for Zionists. The answer is political. You can't always have what you
>want in this life. To get what you need you must BE political and
>embrace compromisee.
Translation:
DNA analyses showing probably Jewish connection with Israel BAD.
DNA analyses showing probably "Palestinian" connection with Israel
GOOD!
>>>One can't reason backward in such matters,
>
>>Geneticists do just that.
>
>Within very strict limits which do not permit them to support a
>European claime to Palestine.
Europeans aren't claiming "Palestine" based on DNA analyses. They
didn't when they incorporated it into the Roman Empire, or the
Byzantine Empire, or when they established the Latin Kingdoms.
>But you can get that by agreement. Just
>settle for 78% of it. We lawyers settle lawsuits like that all the
>time. And yes, Jewish lawyers do it too.
No, really? Imagine that.
>>>i.e., you
>>>can't say that modern Jews have x, y and z genetic characteristics and
>>>therefore the Israelites did too. That presumes what you set out to
>>>prove. That's a fallacy.
>>Tell it to the geneticists whose findings indicate just that.
>Well, presuming the geneticists with one blood sample can trace to a
>single ancestor 3,000 years ago, what has this to do with the right to
>drive the Palestinians out of Palestine? Presumable the geneticists
>could do the same thing with one Palestinian blood sample.
This is simply silly.
>>Genetic studies indicate various lineages found in modern Jewish
>>populations, however, most of these populations share a lineage in
>>common, traceable to an ancient population that underwent geographic
>>branching and subsequent independent evolutions.
>
>Which ancient population? Be careful now. This is a dangerous
>question.
What question? It's a quote.
>>The findings lend support to traditional Jewish accounts accrediting
>>their founding to exiled Israelite populations,
>
>What "exiles"? Will the world give over the Palestinian homeland to
>you guys based on your internal mythology?
And base it instead on "Palestinian" internal mythology, no doubt. In
the late 60s and early 70s, the "Palestinian homeland" encompassed
Jordan, too -- until the late King Hussein's troops quashed that, and
sent them packing to Lebanon.
>>and counters theories
>>that many or most of the world's Jewish populations were founded
>>entirely by local populations that adopted the Jewish faith, devoid of
>>any actual Israelite genetic input.
>
>Entirely? Who but you are saying that?
The sources to which I previously gave the links are saying that.
>>Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool
>>of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes http://www.pnas.org/content/97/12/6769.longhttp://www.jpost.com/servl......
>Como no? But to what comparative degree do they share it and what
>political conclusions do you believe you can draw from that sharing?
I draw no political conclusions from DNA analyses. I find them quite
interesting.
>>While DNA tests have demonstrated inter-marriage in all of the various
>>Jewish ethnic divisions over the last 3,000 years, it was
>>substantially less than in other populations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/09/science/y-chromosome-bears-witness-
>
>Less than the Palestinians?
>
If today's "Palestinians" are, as they claim, descendants of the
ancient Jews who populated Israel, their DNA should show an admixture
of all invaders of Israel over the past two thousand years, but
especially from the Egyptians who conquered Israel (then Syria) in the
1830s, depopulated entire towns and villages, and repopulated them
with Egyptians forcibly relocated to the area.
>>DNA analysis further determined that modern Jews of the priesthood
>>tribe—"Kohanim"—share an ancestor dating back about 3,000 years. This
>>result is consistent for all Jewish populations around the world.
>
>What conclusion do you draw from this relative to title to Palestine?
It has little bearing on the politics of the matter.
>>The
>>researchers estimated that the most recent common ancestor of modern
>>Kohanim lived between 1000 BCE (roughly the time of the Biblical
>>Exodus) and 586 BCE, when the Babylonians destroyed the First Temple.
>>They found similar results analyzing DNA from Ashkenazi and Sephardi
>>Jews. The scientists estimated the date of the original priest based
>>on genetic mutations, which indicated that the priest lived roughly
>>106 generations ago, between 2,650 and 3,180 years ago depending
>>whether one counts a generation as 25 or 30 years.
>>Science Daily Science News
>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/07/980714071409.htm
>
>>Although individual and groups of converts to Judaism have
>>historically been absorbed into contemporary Jewish populations — in
>>the Khazars' case, absorbed into the Ashkenazim — it is unlikely that
>>they formed a large percentage of the ancestors of modern Jewish
>>groups, and much less that they represented their genesis as Jewish
>>communities.
>Why? the Jews were not numerous in the grand scheme of things.
The above reference is to the Khazar fantazia that European Jews
descend solely from Khazar converts. A simple historical analysis
gives the lie to that.
>>The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the
>>Middle East
>>American Journal of Human Genetics >>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1274378/?tool=pmcentrez
>
>>>Now, if you want to argue that the present
>>>day Palestinians who've never been in the diaspora represent the
>>>Israelite gene pool it would be pretty interesting at the political,
>>>i.e., Zionist, level. What do you say we look at that?
>
>>QED - "Israelite DNA" survives whenever H and his ilk want to assert
>>that today's "Palestinians" are descended from ancient Israelites,
>>rather than invading Arabs and Europeans.
>Who is arguing it, you or me?
You.
>It's an interesting hypothetical
>question. "At stake is Palestine. We're going to decide who gets it it
>by purity of blood. We draw blood from a selection of Jews living in
>Denmark and from a selection Palestinians living in the West Bank.
>We're going to give Palestine to the group with the highest admixture
>of Middle-Eastern halotypes. Who gets Palestine?
Historically, whoever can take it and hold it. Presumably, this
applies to Jordan as well.
>Do you have some basis for thinking the Israelite DNA differed much
>from "Arab" DNA? Weren't they the same people, the same Semitic
>people?
"Semitic" is a linguistic definition.
>>>>>We resolved that earlier,Ratner.
>>>>Good. Resolve this:
>>>You mean further resolve. Okay, I will.
>>>>Studies of Jewish Populations
>>>>Advanced genetic testing, including Y-DNAand mtDNA haplotyping, of
>>>>modern Jewish communities around the world, has helped to determine
>>>>which of the communities are likely to descend from the Israelites and
>>>>which are not, as well as to establish the degrees of separation
>>>>between the groups.
>>>"Liikely to descend" from the category of "Israelites"? Balderdash.
>>>This material of yours is from Brook, the Khazar web site guy, not
>>>from the scholars who did the "important (genetic) studies" cited
>>>below. In fact at the beginning of one of the studies is a disclaimer
>>>to the effect that nothing in the article can identify Palestine as
>>>the specific origin of any of the modern Jewish DNA studied, which Mr.
>>>Brooks, but not the scholars, wants to call "Israelite."
>
>>Actually, Brooks doesn't call it "Israelite" DNA. But H never lets
>>facts bother him.
>
>Its Brook. And he uses the word Israelite over and over. You've
>deleted it. There is no Israelite category in the studies. That's a
>Brook invention. Richard has admitted it. Take it up with him.
You'll have to point out where Kevin uses "Israelite DNA". I missed
it.
>>>>Important studies archived here include the
>>>>University College London study of 2002, Ariella Oppenheim's study of
>>>>2001, Ariella Oppenheim's study of 2000, Michael Hammer's study of
>>>>2000, Doron Behar's study of 2008, and others.
>>>>Key findings:
>
>>>Note in the key findings immediately below there are no quotation
>>>marks. Thus these are the words of Mr. Brooks.
>
>>Of course. That's why Brooks notes it as an ABSTRACT. Elsewhere,
>>Brooks gives the links to the full texts -- not that H would ever
>>trouble himself to read them. FWIW, here are a few of them:
>
>> "The Y Chromosome Pool of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of
>>the Middle East."
>>The American Journal of Human Genetics 69:5 (November 2001)
>>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1274378/
>>High-resolution Y chromosome haplotypes of Israeli and Palestinian
>>Arabs reveal geographic substructure and substantial overlap with
>>haplotypes of Jews
>
>Who gets Palestine?
Who gets Wales and Scotland and England?
Read the links I gave.
>>>># Ashkenazim also descend, in a smaller way, from European peoples
>>>>such as Slavs and Khazars.
>>>>The non-Israelite Y-DNAhaplogroups include
>>>>Q (typically Central Asian) and R1a1 (typically Eastern European).
>>>># Dutch Jews from the Netherlands also descend from northwestern
>>>>Europeans.
>>>># Sephardim also descend, in a smaller way, from various non-Israelite
>>>>peoples.
>
>>>Such as North African Berbers who had been converted to Judaism.
>
>>H mistakes North African (Muslim) Berbers for the Lembas.
>
>You don't like having a Berber course in your DNA?
The significance of this reference eludes me.
>>>Where did you find a meaningful difference between Israelite and Arab
>>>genes? Two thousand years ago these semitic people lived cheek by
>>>jowl.
>
>>Amazing how ancient writers never noticed Arabs living "cheek by jowl"
>>with Jews two thousand years ago in Israel.
>
>Oh, we're back to a people without a land migrating to a land without
>a people?
You stated that "Two thousand years ago these semitic people
[Israelites and Arabs] lived cheek by
jowl." Ancient writers note Jews living "cheek by jowl" with ancient
(non-Arab) Egyptians, ancient Persians, ancient Greeks and
Macedonians, ancient Romans. They don't note them living "cheek by
jowl" with Arabs, except in Arabia, when Muhammad and his successor
Umar, obliterated their communities in the 7thC.
>>>># Moroccan Jews, Algerian Jews, and Tunisian Jews are mainly
>>>>Israelites.
>
>>>No Berber blood in there? Don't forget the great Jewish-Berber queen
>>>who drove back the first onslaught of Muslim conquerers. She was a
>>>convert.
>
>>What Jewish Berber queen was that?
>
>The one who fought off the initial Arab onslaught in N. Africa.
Azoy?
>>>># Libyan Jews are mainly Israelites who may have mixed somewhat with
>>>>Berbers.
>>>Libyan Jews were most probably converts.
>>>># Ethiopian Jews are almost exclusively Ethiopian, with little or no
>>>>Israelite ancestry.
>>>Well, it is a religion, right? What would you expect?
>
>>That they would have converts. (HInt: H is shooting himself in the
>>foot again.)
>
>Who is they?
Who is the topic of discussion here?
>>>># Bene Israel Jews and Cochin Jews of India have much Indian ancestry
>>>>in their mtDNA.
>
>>>Converts too?
>
>>>And then there is the new Shlomo Sand historical study showing that
>>>the Palestinians are probably Israelites in drag.
>
>>A study by a professor of film history, lol.
Didn't like the reference to Professor Sand's expertise in film
history, did you? I failed to omit, also, his expertise in French
intellectual history -- both excellent qualifications for rehashing
novelist/parapsychologist Koestler's Thirteenth Tribe mishegoss.
>>>don't care to
>>>When I looked into this matter months ago the strong impression I came
>>>away with is that what YOU and BROOKS are calling "Israelite DNA" is
>>>simply DNA which is generally Mediterranean in nature and is not more
>>>uniquely characteristic of Jews than it is of others in or from the
>>>region.
>
>>Which proves that H's "look" into the matter did NOT include looking
>>at the various genetic studies on that matter.
>
>YOU simply can not read the literature of genetic research. I looked
>at what was accessable. That's all you can do.
What I did was read the literature of the genetic research I
referenced. Clearly, as usual, you did not.
>The rest later.
Here's a radical suggestion: how about addressing the points Shapira
raised in her review?
Deborah
dsharavi
>>On Nov 20, 1:00 pm, iconoclast @yahoo.com wrote:
>>>Too rattled to write anything, Richard?
>On Nov 17, 11:00 pm, drahcir wrote:
>>Pushed send instead of discard by mistake. See, unlike you, I'm strong
>>enough to admit error. I don't cower in a corner like you do. I also
>>don't latch onto a minor error to try to convince myself of my
>>superiority. Finally, you fool, if you had looked below, you'd have
>>noticed a reply, so your question is stupid.
On Nov 21, 11:12 am, iconoclast @yahoo.com wrote:
>Where are we on the genetics issue?
Kevin Brooks heading for the finish line, drahcir a few furlongs away,
and HHW still at the starting gate, trying to figure out which way is
the track.
>Do I owe you a reply or are you at
>the end of your tether on that issue since the Shapira review was
>posted?
?
Why would drahcir be at the end of his tether since I posted Dr
Shapira's review, from which points H has apparently shied?
Deborah
dsharavi
>>>>>On Nov 17, 10:35 pm, iconoclast @yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>The Khazars were a Turkic people. Turkic people are not "Israelite".
>
>>>>On Nov 17, 11:00 pm, drahcir wrote:
>>>>>LOL! Very astute observation, H!! ROFLMAO!!! What a MORON!!Youare
>>>>>quite correct, senor!! We are in complete agreement, in fact, perhaps
>>>>>for the very first time!!! OH THIS IS RICH!!!!
>
>>>On Nov 19, 9:56 pm, iconoclast @yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>Kazars were Turkic converts to Judaism. Their descendants have no
>>>>irredentist claims on religious basesyou'll be in over your tiny
>>>>little head.
>>On Nov 20, 1:50 pm, dsharavi wrote:
>>>H would do well to take his own advice. At the time the Khazars of
>>>Northern Caucasus converted to Judaism, there were major Jewish
>>>population centers throughout Mediterranean Europe, and had been since
>>>the 1stC BCE. Those Jewish population centers were still in existence
>>>when the Khazar Khaganate was annihilated in the 10th/11thC.
>
>On Nov 21, 3:02 pm, iconoclast @yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>population was annihilated. I've seen no evidence of that althoughyou
>>can perhaps support your position. I'm ready to learn fromyou.
>
>Perhaps "eradicated" is more appropriate than "annihilated". In any
>case, the khanate ceased to exist around the time the "Golden Age" of
>Spanish Jewry was approaching its end. Long-established Jewish
>communities elsewhere in the world went on.
>
>>By the
>>way, sincere thanks for introducing me to Anita Shapira. I respect her
>
>How so? She's on the mark with her analysis of the Sand book, AFAIK,
>it's one of only two peer-reviewed assessments, and both are
>dismissive.
>
>>>>>>There is no "Israelite" category in DNAstudies.
>>>>>Oh, there's no Israelite "category", eh?
>>>>Correct. None. No Israelite DNA survives.
>>>"Israelite DNA" survives, all right, whenever H and his ilk want to
>>>assert that today's "Palestinians" are descended from ancient
>>>Israelites.
>>citizen of ancient Israel.
>
>I know that there was no such thing as a "citizen of ancient Israel"
>any more than there were "citizens of ancient Egypt" or "citizens" of
>the Persian/Seleucid/Parthian empires.
>
>>We have no benchmark for that DNA of two
>>thousand and more years ago as it has perished. This is a simple fact.
>>It doesn't exist.
>
>Geneticists think otherwise.
>
>>We do have modern Palestinian DNA. Doyouaccept
>>that as a benchmark for determining Israeli claims to Palestine?
>
>I accept no DNA as a "benchmark" for determining land claims -- unlike
>today's "Palestinians", who are vociferous about their "right" to
>"Palestine" based on their imagined descent from ancient Israelites
>(or Canaanites or Philistines).
>
>>>>>for the group, H. What precisely doyoumean by "category"?
>>>>It's a dimwitted question but we'll dumb it down foryouto prevent
>>>>further squirming. The Israelites were members of the dominant tribal
>>>>grouping in ancient Israel. To use modern parlance they were citizen-
>>>>Jews, an identifiable category of humans resident there.
>>>"Modern parlance" here is ludicrously anachronistic, while "citizen-
>>>Jews" is simply grotesque.
>>Try dismantling it.
>
>
>>>Ancient Israel was Yehud to the Achaemenids, Iudaia to the Greeks, and
>>>Iudaea to the Romans. The reason is obvious.
>>Sure, different languages render things differently.
>
>Yehud, Iudaia, and Iudaea are cognates of the same word from which
>modern "Jew" derives its origin, and all three mean the same: land of
>the Jews.
>
>>>>It is their
>>do here is that it is unnecessary and delays the Israeli transit to
>>full and unquestioned international legitimacy supported, inter alia,
>>by the entire Muslim world. Your ideological rigidity is not working
>>in Israel's best interest.
>
>For the "entire Muslim world", at least the most vociferous part of
>it, the only "unquestioned international legitimacy" for Israel is its
>demise. (They also claim Spain as Muslim land.)
>
>>Reconsider and the whole world will sign-
>
>Oh, the Golan too, now, is it? "Palestinians" claim that too?
>
>>It is that refusal which is at the center of this ever more dangerous
>>crisis.
>
>If giving up the so-called "West Bank" resulted in a legitimate peace,
>I'd be all for it. But the "Palestinians" have proven time and again
>that any written agreement with them has all the validity of used
>toilet paper. Give them southern California, and let them call that
>their "Palestine".
>
>>Nakba and get it all over with.Youcreate your own problems by
>>expanding the settlement program.Yourun greater and greater dangers.
>>And even the AMERICAN people are getting disgusted with Israeli
>>behavior.
>
>Hate to rain on your parade, but most AMERICAN people have more
>pressing concerns, like feeding their families and keeping a roof over
>their heads.
>
>
>>>Whatever "Zionist doctrine" means.
>
>>It means an ideology which justifies the richest and must successful
>>minority in the world in grabbing a country in the Middle East from
>>its inhabitants because of things done to Jews by Romans and Europeans
>>over two thousand or more years. How's that? Just one sentence. That's
>>the operational definition.
>
>Your definition is on a par with your claim that "The Israeli Rabbis
>say it's okay to kill dangerous babies". Zionism, per se, has nothing
>to do with the people who currently call themselves "Palestinians", a
>name given to European Jews in 1798 by Immanuel Kant. I toldyouthat
>back in February. Need I post the definitions given by Albert
>Einstein, Chaim Herzog, Yisrael Galili, Yigal Alon, and Yitzhak Rabin
>Territorial Zionism, which sought to re-establish the Jewish State in
>any region except Ottoman Palestine. But even political Zionism
>considered South America, Argentina, the Sinai, along with Ottoman
>Palestine, for the Jewish State. The Colonial Office was interested in
>a Jewish enclave in Sinai, to guard passage through the Suez.
>
>Ever hear of Mordechai Manuel Noah? Back in 1844, he envisioned the re-
>establishment of the Jewish State in Ottoman Syria. Of course, MM Noah
>was only an American solider, and Americans didn't count for much back
>then, so he was ignored. Incidentally, my father's favorite uncle had
>a variant of of Noah's opinion that American Indians might have
>descended from one or another of the Lost Tribes of Israel, although
>I'm sure he never read MM Noah's treatise on the subject. My great-
>uncle's (tongue in cheek) opinion was that Jews might descend from a
>Lost Tribe of Paiutes, and therefore, by extension, the land of Israel
>is Paiute territory.
>
>>Nothing else matters at the international level.
>
>lol
>Oil matters. Oil matters very much.
>
>>these boards.You're too coarse to be credible regardless of your
>>arguments andyouhave other problems intellectually and morally, but
>>who cares? From my point of view anyway.Youmake it easy for me to be
>>dominant here.
>
>You've lost the thread, old man, and your hysteria proves it.
>
>>>>Now this category comprised of Israelites must be distinguished for
>>>>purposes of your analysis from other categories, undocumented aliens
>>supported it, just asserted it.
>
>>>>One of the studies acknowledges
>>>>that in its executive summary.
>
>>>Unless H cares to drop his coyness about identifying the study he
>>>alleges, its source will have to be presumed to exist only between H's
>>>ears.
>
>
>Probablyyoumust not have.
>
>>Get the abstracts from the studies Richard pointed to. I think
>
>Already read some of the studies - and I don't mean just the
>abstracts. In fact, I included links to some in previous posts.
>
>>>>The labeling of the DNA found in modern Jews as "Israelite" so as to
>>>>seem to create a special connection with Palestine is a polemical
>>>>distortion of the data. It wasn't done by the scholars. I'm virtually
>>>>certain of that.
>
>>>H is certain of lots of things.
>
>>Disprove it with any legitiimate DNA study. I don't thinkyouwill
>>find these scientists presuming results in advance.
>
>Disprove what?
>
>>>H is certain that scholars and
>>>geneticists have labeled as "Israelite" DNA found in today's
>>>"Palestinians", which, H is certain, is incontrovertible "proof" of
>>>their special connection with that certain piece of real estate.
>
>>I'd welcome a study comparing modern Palestinian DNA with that of
>>modern Eastern European Jews. I'd bet on the predominant Semitism of
>>for Zionists. The answer is political.Youcan't always have whatyou
>>embrace compromisee.
>
>Translation:
>DNA analyses showing probably Jewish connection with Israel BAD.
>DNA analyses showing probably "Palestinian" connection with Israel
>GOOD!
>
>>>>One can't reason backward in such matters,
>
>>>Geneticists do just that.
>
>>Within very strict limits which do not permit them to support a
>>European claime to Palestine.
>
>Europeans aren't claiming "Palestine" based on DNA analyses. They
>didn't when they incorporated it into the Roman Empire, or the
>Byzantine Empire, or when they established the Latin Kingdoms.
>
>>settle for 78% of it. We lawyers settle lawsuits like that all the
>>time. And yes, Jewish lawyers do it too.
>
>No, really? Imagine that.
>
>>>>i.e.,you
>>>>can't say that modern Jews have x, y and z genetic characteristics and
>>>>prove. That's a fallacy.
>>>Tell it to the geneticists whose findings indicate just that.
>>Well, presuming the geneticists with one blood sample can trace to a
>>single ancestor 3,000 years ago, what has this to do with the right to
>>drive the Palestinians out of Palestine? Presumable the geneticists
>>could do the same thing with one Palestinian blood sample.
>
>This is simply silly.
>
>>>Genetic studies indicate various lineages found in modern Jewish
>>>populations, however, most of these populations share a lineage in
>>>common, traceable to an ancient population that underwent geographic
>>>branching and subsequent independent evolutions.
>
>>Which ancient population? Be careful now. This is a dangerous
>>question.
>
>What question? It's a quote.
>
>>>The findings lend support to traditional Jewish accounts accrediting
>>>their founding to exiled Israelite populations,
>
>>What "exiles"? Will the world give over the Palestinian homeland to
>
>And base it instead on "Palestinian" internal mythology, no doubt. In
>the late 60s and early 70s, the "Palestinian homeland" encompassed
>Jordan, too -- until the late King Hussein's troops quashed that, and
>sent them packing to Lebanon.
>
>>>and counters theories
>>>that many or most of the world's Jewish populations were founded
>>>entirely by local populations that adopted the Jewish faith, devoid of
>>>any actual Israelite genetic input.
>
>
>The sources to which I previously gave the links are saying that.
>
>>>Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool
>>Como no? But to what comparative degree do they share it and what
>
>I draw no political conclusions from DNA analyses. I find them quite
>interesting.
>
>>>While DNA tests have demonstrated inter-marriage in all of the various
>>>Jewish ethnic divisions over the last 3,000 years, it was
>>>substantially less than in other populations.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/09/science/y-chromosome-bears-witness-
>
>>Less than the Palestinians?
>
>If today's "Palestinians" are, as they claim, descendants of the
>ancient Jews who populated Israel, their DNA should show an admixture
>of all invaders of Israel over the past two thousand years, but
>especially from the Egyptians who conquered Israel (then Syria) in the
>1830s, depopulated entire towns and villages, and repopulated them
>with Egyptians forcibly relocated to the area.
>
>>>DNA analysis further determined that modern Jews of the priesthood
>>>tribe—"Kohanim"—share an ancestor dating back about 3,000 years. This
>>>result is consistent for all Jewish populations around the world.
>
>>>>day Palestinians who've never been in the diaspora represent the
>>>>Israelite gene pool it would be pretty interesting at the political,
>
>>>QED - "Israelite DNA" survives whenever H and his ilk want to assert
>>>that today's "Palestinians" are descended from ancient Israelites,
>>>rather than invading Arabs and Europeans.
>
>You.
>
>>It's an interesting hypothetical
>>question. "At stake is Palestine. We're going to decide who gets it it
>>by purity of blood. We draw blood from a selection of Jews living in
>>Denmark and from a selection Palestinians living in the West Bank.
>>We're going to give Palestine to the group with the highest admixture
>>of Middle-Eastern halotypes. Who gets Palestine?
>
>Historically, whoever can take it and hold it. Presumably, this
>applies to Jordan as well.
>
>>from "Arab" DNA? Weren't they the same people, the same Semitic
>>people?
>
>"Semitic" is a linguistic definition.
>
>>>>>>We resolved that earlier,Ratner.
>>>>>Good. Resolve this:
>>>>>Studies of Jewish Populations
>>>>>Advanced genetic testing, including Y-DNAand mtDNA haplotyping, of
>>>>>modern Jewish communities around the world, has helped to determine
>>>>>which of the communities are likely to descend from the Israelites and
>>>>>which are not, as well as to establish the degrees of separation
>>>>>between the groups.
>>>>"Liikely to descend" from the category of "Israelites"? Balderdash.
>>>>This material of yours is from Brook, the Khazar web site guy, not
>>>>from the scholars who did the "important (genetic) studies" cited
>>>>below. In fact at the beginning of one of the studies is a disclaimer
>>>>to the effect that nothing in the article can identify Palestine as
>>>>the specific origin of any of the modern Jewish DNA studied, which Mr.
>>>>Brooks, but not the scholars, wants to call "Israelite."
>
>>>Actually, Brooks doesn't call it "Israelite" DNA. But H never lets
>>>facts bother him.
>
>>language.
>
>Read the links I gave.
>
>>>>># Ashkenazim also descend, in a smaller way, from European peoples
>>>>>such as Slavs and Khazars.
>>>>>The non-Israelite Y-DNAhaplogroups include
>>>>>Q (typically Central Asian) and R1a1 (typically Eastern European).
>>>>># Dutch Jews from the Netherlands also descend from northwestern
>>>>>Europeans.
>>>>># Sephardim also descend, in a smaller way, from various non-Israelite
>>>>>peoples.
>
>>>>Such as North African Berbers who had been converted to Judaism.
>
>>>H mistakes North African (Muslim) Berbers for the Lembas.
>
>
>The significance of this reference eludes me.
>
>>>>genes? Two thousand years ago these semitic people lived cheek by
>>>>jowl.
>
>>>Amazing how ancient writers never noticed Arabs living "cheek by jowl"
>>>with Jews two thousand years ago in Israel.
>
>>Oh, we're back to a people without a land migrating to a land without
>>a people?
>
>intellectual history -- both excellent qualifications for rehashing
>novelist/parapsychologist Koestler's Thirteenth Tribe mishegoss.
>
>>>>don't care to
>>>>When I looked into this matter months ago the strong impression I came
>>>>simply DNA which is generally Mediterranean in nature and is not more
>>>>uniquely characteristic of Jews than it is of others in or from the
>>>>region.
>
>>>Which proves that H's "look" into the matter did NOT include looking
>>>at the various genetic studies on that matter.
>
>>at what was accessable. That's allyoucan do.
>
>What I did was read the literature of the genetic research I
>
>>The rest later.
>
>Here's a radical suggestion: how about addressing the points Shapira
>raised in her review?
>Deborah
Poor Hunter, he simply does not care to be educated – or to back his
claims, either.
Deborah