InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Jul, 2019 10:07 am
@hightor,
Well of course. What else could it possibly mean?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 26 Jul, 2019 11:00 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

The Thumber Brigade. Sheesh. You'd almost think God moulded some humans using silly putty.

You and Snood might have it right but I wouldn't make the charge because that particular gesture is so common. We understand that Trump wouldn't have much going on internally that would stop him from attempts to appeal to those lunatics but I would save my
indictments for those cases where his actions and speech are more clear.


I just mentioned it in a passing reference. I don't generally spend lots of time pointing out the man's flaws. Plenty of others do it as a full time occupation.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Jul, 2019 01:14 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Not wrong:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2009/01/shared-genetic-heritage-of-jews-and.html

Special thanks to maxdancona for originally posting this link.


From the study's abstract
Quote:
Some genetic studies suggest that Jewish populations show substantial non-Jewish admixture and the occurrence of mass conversion of non-Jews to Judaism (2, 3, 10, 12). In contrast, other research points to considerably greater genetic similarity among Jewish communities with only slight gene flow from their respective host populations (5, 7, 9, 11, 13). Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the degree of genetic similarity among Jewish communities and between Jewish and non-Jewish populations depends on the particular locus that is being investigated (4, 8, 11). This observation raises the possibility that variation associated with a given locus has been influenced by natural selection.

This is an older study, from 2000, based on Y-chromosome haplotypes.

A more recent study, from 2013 found that at least 80% of Ashkenazi MtDNA is of European origin.
Quote:
Overall, it seems that at least 80% of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry is due to the assimilation of mtDNAs indigenous to Europe, most likely through conversion. The phylogenetic nesting patterns suggest that the most frequent of the Ashkenazi mtDNA lineages were assimilated in Western Europe, ~2 ka or slightly earlier. Some in particular, including N1b2, M1a1b, K1a9 and perhaps even the major K1a1b1, point to a north Mediterranean source. It seems likely that the major founders were the result of the earliest and presumably most profound wave of founder effects, from the Mediterranean northwards into central Europe, and that most of the minor founders were assimilated in west/central Europe within the last 1,500 years. The sharing of rarer lineages with Eastern European populations may indicate further assimilation in some cases, but can often be explained by exchange via intermarriage in the reverse direction.

The Ashkenazim therefore resemble Jewish communities in Eastern Africa and India, and possibly also others across the Near East, Caucasus and Central Asia, which also carry a substantial fraction of maternal lineages from their ‘host’ communities.



A study from 2014 states in its abstract that
Quote:
Reconstruction of recent AJ history from such segments confirms a recent bottleneck of merely E350 individuals. Modelling of ancient histories for AJ and European populations using their joint allele frequency spectrum determines AJ to be an even admixture of European and likely Middle Eastern origins. We date the split between the two ancestral
populations to E12–25 Kyr, suggesting a predominantly Near Eastern source for the repopulation of Europe after the Last Glacial Maximum.

This suggests that the Middle Eastern portions of Ashkenazi genetics are largely prehistoric, before any kind of mythological disporas.
InfraBlue
 
  3  
Reply Fri 26 Jul, 2019 01:17 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
The only fact is the fact that you're merely voicing your opinion.

That is incorrect. I am posting facts and not opinions.

It is a fact that historians and archaeologists have established that the Israeli Jews are direct descendants of the original inhabitants of the West Bank region.

It is a fact that the world only asks Israel to give up land as part of a negotiated two-state solution where Israel receives peaceful acceptance as a Jewish state in exchange for giving up this land.

It is a fact that Israel has repeatedly offered to do this.

It is a fact that Israel is under no obligation to give up land under any other circumstances.

"I don't find the idea of a Jewish state to be at all oppressive," is a statement of opinion. The only fact here is the fact that you're stating an opinion, and that only by granting you the benefit of the doubt that you're expressing an opinion that you hold.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Jul, 2019 01:33 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
It's harmful to the Palestinians to deny them their Right of Return.

There would be no harm. The Palestinians would be able to live peacefully in a Palestinian state under a two-state solution.

Wrong.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Fri 26 Jul, 2019 01:34 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

I don't object to a Jewish homeland, but being a good neighbor ought to be a requirement.

Do you object to the Palestinians' Right of Return?
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Fri 26 Jul, 2019 06:52 pm
@InfraBlue,
I want the Palestinians have the land back that Israel took from them, from the war and subsequent confiscations.
edgarblythe
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 27 Jul, 2019 03:07 pm
MSNBC and other right wing voices try to lay a post mortem on Bernie's campaign. This is Santa Monica.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EAeilleXYAAvvWd?format=jpg&name=medium
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2019 10:31 am
Truthdig is one of the few media outlets not afraid to be truthful, not willing to be bought off.
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/trump-may-be-a-white-nationalist-but-american-racism-is-bipartisan/

The wealthy, white, establishment-Democrat Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives, had no choice but to outwardly defend the House’s four leftish first-term women of color against the nation’s white nationalist president. Donald Trump had just used his Twitter account to launch a vicious nativist assault on Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota. On the same day his administration had marked for a major round-up of undocumented immigrants, Boss Tweet weighed in on “the Squad’s” recent conflict with Pelosi over border security legislation:

“So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe … now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came? Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!”

This was worse than the usual eye-rolling filth out of the president’s Twitter feed. It was the malicious rant of a frothing white nationalist.

As liberals pointed out, with the exception of Omar, all the congresswomen were born and raised in the United States; Omar has lived here since age 10. Trump’s wife, Melania, who was born and raised in Slovenia, didn’t make it to the U.S. until her 26th year.


But the congresswomen’s lands of origin and naturalization were beside the point. For Trump and his supporters, the key facts are that, unlike Melania Trump, they aren’t white and are speaking up against racist, sexist and capitalist oppression in the United States. In the white nationalist worldview, the United States is a white country and citizenship here is a racial, not a civil, matter. People of nonwhite identity and ancestry are viewed as inherently broken and inadequate, incapable of civilized self-governance. If they want to be tolerated and taken seriously in “our country,” they need to play by rich and powerful white males’ rules and know their place. Those who get uppity need to “go back where they came from.” It’s a very old racist and nativist trope.

RELATED ARTICLES
Why I’m Glad About Trump's Latest Twitter Tirade
Why I’m Glad About Trump's Latest Twitter Tirade
BY SONALI KOLHATKAR
Never mind that North America’s original inhabitants were brown-skinned people who were almost completely wiped out by European invaders between 1500 and 1900. Or that the genocidal white (un-)settlers—those Native American writer and activist Ward Churchill understandably labeled simply as “Predator”—brought black slaves in chains from Africa—people who never chose to come here in the first place.

American leftists will recognize the notion that people who criticize social and political arrangements and oppressive policies in this country should leave the country, as in “go to Russia,” or Cuba, “if you don’t like it here.” For good measure on that score, Trump’s Senate pet and golf buddy Lindsey Graham joined many of his Republican colleagues in defending Trump’s racist tweets and then added his neo-John Bircher opinion that Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Pressley and Omar are “a bunch of communists.”

Pelosi was right to call Trump’s tirade “xenophobic” and, more importantly, to say something many of us have been saying since 2015: Trump’s slogan, “make America great again,” really means “make America white again.”

Of course, nobody who has followed Trump’s record over the years should have been surprised at the virulence of his outburst. His history as a vicious racist is well-documented, from his days as a discriminatory landlord through his opening campaign attacks on Mexicans as “rapists,” his embrace of the claim that Barack Obama was born outside the U.S., his vile mockery of Asians, his claim that a distinguished U.S.-born judge of Mexican ancestry could not be fair to him because of his ethnicity, his references to Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren as “Pocohantas,” his Muslim immigration ban, his reference to Haiti and some African nations as “shithole countries,” his defense of white supremacists in Charlottesville, Va., as “very fine people,” and his call for the execution of the falsely accused Central Park Five (whose exoneration he has disputed despite overwhelming evidence of their innocence). John O’Donnell, a former president of Trump Hotel and Casino, recently told The New York Times that Trump “has always been a racist,” adding that “anyone around him who denies it is lying.” White people, O’Donnell notes. “are Americans to Trump; everyone else is from somewhere else.”

At the same time, nobody who has paid attention to Trump’s Amerikaner base and his takeover of the Republican Party should be surprised that very few Republicans inside and outside of government have responded to his revolting harangue with the disgust it deserves. As Times columnist Charles Blow noted Monday: “We are watching a very dark chapter in this nation’s history unfold in real time. We are watching as a president returns naked racism to the White House. And we are watching as fellow citizens—possibly a third of them—reveal to us their open animus for [nonwhites] through their continued support of him.”

It may have been politically foolish for her to say it during her dismal and disastrous 2016 campaign, but Hillary Clinton was not wrong to call that third of the U.S. citizenry “deplorable.” Trump’s heartland base is a proto-fascistic cohort that poses grave threats to what’s left of democracy and decency in the U.S. today.

That said, what about the Democrats, the party Blow and his fellow Times and MSNBC liberals would have us support in 2020? It is worth recalling that many of the brown-skinned migrants and asylum-seekers currently penned up in Trump’s deadly concentration camps hail from Honduras, a Central American nation whose misery was deepened when the “liberal” Democratic president Barack Obama and Clinton, his secretary of state, aided and abetted a right-wing coup that removed Manuel Zelaya, the nation’s democratically elected, left-populist president, from power 10 years ago.

It is good that Pelosi and others atop her party had the elementary decency to uphold American civic nationalism in calling out the president and his party as racists. It’s good that Pelosi agreed to lead an unusual House vote condemning Trump for his racist comments. Still, the cold fact remains that Pelosi recently told the four assertive and proudly progressive first-term congresswomen of color to, essentially, keep their social media mouths shut after they had the greater decency to publicly oppose other House Democrats’ depressing, Pelosi-led vote to give Trump $450 billion for “border security,” even though the bill granting the White House the money contained no serious protections or high standards of care for detained migrants, including children in for-profit concentration camps—and despite the absence of any real way of stopping the Trump administration from diverting money marked for humanitarian aid to immigration enforcement.

The eloquent Omar found herself in Pelosi’s sights (not for the first time) after going on MSNBC, the Democrats’ cable news network, to tell some harsh truths about Pelosi’s deeply conservative party after the terrible vote:

“My colleagues decided that they were going to co-sign on this horrendous, cruel process that this administration has engaged in without really speaking on the kind of values that we have. … We said send [Democrats] into the majority so we can be a check and balance to the cruelty of this administration. Now that we are in the majority we are too busy appeasing this administration. …We have people in power who have forgotten the purpose and reason they were given that privilege. I am always surprised every time we are having a discussion in regard to policy how people will talk about the political reality and they don’t talk about the human reality of the policies that we are passing. We take an oath truly, to care for the American people and to make sure we are furthering policies that are in line with our values, and we often fall short. And I think with the Democratic Party we’re oftentimes so busy trying to appease everyone we end up appeasing no one.”

“Appeasement” was a widely used term to describe how much of the Western bourgeois establishment responded to the rise of the Nazi Third Reich in the 1930s. It is an appropriate description of how the Democratic Party—the organization that political theorist Sheldon Wolin aptly termed the “inauthentic opposition”—has responded to the pre-fascist Trump administration on numerous issues, from border security to the Pentagon budget, the surveillance state, the economic torture and demonization of Venezuela and Iran, the coddling of racist Israel and impeachment (or rather, the failure to undertake impeachment proceedings on any number of issues, including obstruction of justice, violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause, the abrogation of international human rights laws, the destruction of environmental protections and more). It has spent most of the last two and a half years going after Trump on the dubious and absurdly complicated charge of Russian collusion, rather than attacking his most egregious sins, including his vicious racism, nativism, sexism, classism, corruption and, last but not at all least, ecocidalism.

Now we see the Democratic Party establishment working with corporate funders and media to marginalize the candidate with the best chance of rallying the demobilized constituencies who need to be activated in order to defeat Trump in 2020. That candidate is Bernie Sanders, a sincerely and seriously antiracist (take it from author and activist Cornel West) democratic socialist who is unacceptable to the inauthentic opposition’s bankrollers, operatives, pundits and talking heads because he—alone among the party’s absurdly large candidate roster—is running in sincere, non-faked accord with the majority progressive, social-democratic public opinion.

Don’t like racial oppression? The establishment Democrats’ top contender to stop Sanders (the open aim of the party’s elite) is Joe Biden, a faltering and befuddled corporatist and imperialist who boasts of past legislative alliances with segregationist senators who “never called me [Biden] ‘boy’ ” (maybe because Biden is white?) and stood atop fascist Southern Jim Crow terror regimes.

The next Wall Street darling being promoted, in case Biden proves inadequate, is the fake-progressive Kamala Harris, a longtime prosecutor who went to the corporate Chicago Ideas conference six years ago to openly and viciously mock those who think the nation should pour less money into mass incarceration and more into education when it comes to dealing with poor people of color.

Next in line in “the Wall Street primary” is Pete Butiggieg of Indiana, a silver-tongued, Ivy League- and Oxford-vetted neoliberal mayor, a former military intelligence officer who worked for years for the corporate-globalist firm McKinsey & Co., which has been aptly described by one its former operatives as “the world’s most sinister and amoral management consulting company.” Buttigieg has spent years antagonizing South Bend’s extremely impoverished black community by advancing gentrification and backing a racist police department with an ongoing history of using excessive and deadly force against people of color. Butiggieg’s milquetoast Douglass Plan, offensively named after the great black civil rights and social justice champion, Frederick Douglass, is a tepid, technocratic scheme that promises to expand black entrepreneurship and minority business ownership while minimally reforming credit-scoring and lending practices in race-neutral ways.

The Republican Party is a horrific white nationalist, creeping fascist outfit at this point, but despite its rhetoric and appearance of diversity, the Democratic Party is heavily complicit in the nation’s deeply entrenched structural and institutional racism. Anyone who thinks that the not-so-leftmost of the two major parties offers any kind of meaningful solution to American racism is living in a dream world.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2019 10:39 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
I want the Palestinians have the land back that Israel took from them, from the war and subsequent confiscations.

Which war are you referring to?

Undoing the results of the 1967 war would allow two states to live side by side.

Undoing the results of the 1948 war would drive the Jews out of their native homeland.

Quite a big difference in policy hinges on which war you mean.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2019 10:40 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
From the study's abstract
Quote:
Some genetic studies suggest that Jewish populations show substantial non-Jewish admixture and the occurrence of mass conversion of non-Jews to Judaism (2, 3, 10, 12). In contrast, other research points to considerably greater genetic similarity among Jewish communities with only slight gene flow from their respective host populations (5, 7, 9, 11, 13). Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the degree of genetic similarity among Jewish communities and between Jewish and non-Jewish populations depends on the particular locus that is being investigated (4, 8, 11). This observation raises the possibility that variation associated with a given locus has been influenced by natural selection.

This is an older study, from 2000, based on Y-chromosome haplotypes.

A more recent study, from 2013 found that at least 80% of Ashkenazi MtDNA is of European origin.
Quote:
Overall, it seems that at least 80% of Ashkenazi maternal ancestry is due to the assimilation of mtDNAs indigenous to Europe, most likely through conversion. The phylogenetic nesting patterns suggest that the most frequent of the Ashkenazi mtDNA lineages were assimilated in Western Europe, ~2 ka or slightly earlier. Some in particular, including N1b2, M1a1b, K1a9 and perhaps even the major K1a1b1, point to a north Mediterranean source. It seems likely that the major founders were the result of the earliest and presumably most profound wave of founder effects, from the Mediterranean northwards into central Europe, and that most of the minor founders were assimilated in west/central Europe within the last 1,500 years. The sharing of rarer lineages with Eastern European populations may indicate further assimilation in some cases, but can often be explained by exchange via intermarriage in the reverse direction.

The Ashkenazim therefore resemble Jewish communities in Eastern Africa and India, and possibly also others across the Near East, Caucasus and Central Asia, which also carry a substantial fraction of maternal lineages from their ‘host’ communities.

This shows that non-Jewish women married into Jewish families.

This is understandable considering that these families were being forced to live amid a foreign population. It doesn't mean that these families are not descended from the ancient Israelites.



InfraBlue wrote:
A study from 2014 states in its abstract that
Quote:
Reconstruction of recent AJ history from such segments confirms a recent bottleneck of merely E350 individuals. Modelling of ancient histories for AJ and European populations using their joint allele frequency spectrum determines AJ to be an even admixture of European and likely Middle Eastern origins. We date the split between the two ancestral
populations to E12–25 Kyr, suggesting a predominantly Near Eastern source for the repopulation of Europe after the Last Glacial Maximum.

This suggests that the Middle Eastern portions of Ashkenazi genetics are largely prehistoric,

The estimate of 12-25 thousand years refers to when the European portion of Ashkenazi genetics separated from the Middle East and entered Europe.

The study estimates that the Middle Eastern portion of Ashkenazi genetics joined with the European portion around 600 to 800 years ago:

"According to the resulting model (Fig. 4, top; Supplementary Table 7; Supplementary Fig. 12), contemporary AJ formed 600–800 years (close to the time of the AJ bottleneck) as the fusion of two ancestral populations."



InfraBlue wrote:
before any kind of mythological disporas.

Hardly a myth. The Romans proudly recorded their expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem.

Plus, history and archaeology both attest to there being a strong Jewish community in Jerusalem before the Romans expelled them, and attest to there not being a strong Jewish community in Jerusalem after the Romans expelled them.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2019 10:44 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
oralloy wrote:
There would be no harm. The Palestinians would be able to live peacefully in a Palestinian state under a two-state solution.

Wrong.

It's not wrong. The essence of the two-state solution is that the Palestinians would get a state too.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2019 10:45 am
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
"I don't find the idea of a Jewish state to be at all oppressive," is a statement of opinion.

True.


InfraBlue wrote:
The only fact here is the fact that you're stating an opinion, and that only by granting you the benefit of the doubt that you're expressing an opinion that you hold.

That is incorrect.

It is a fact that historians and archaeologists have established that Israeli Jews are direct descendants of the original inhabitants of the West Bank region.

It is a fact that the world only asks Israel to give up land as part of a negotiated two-state solution where Israel receives peaceful acceptance as a Jewish state in exchange for giving up this land.

It is a fact that Israel has repeatedly offered to do this.

It is a fact that Israel is under no obligation to give up land under any other circumstances.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2019 11:34 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue, quoting a geneological study, wrote:

The Ashkenazim therefore resemble Jewish communities in Eastern Africa and India, and possibly also others across the Near East, Caucasus and Central Asia, which also carry a substantial fraction of maternal lineages from their ‘host’ communities.


This shows that non-Jewish women married into Jewish families.

This is understandable considering that these families were being forced to live amid a foreign population.


No one forced them to live amid a foreign population.

oralloy wrote:
It doesn't mean that these families are not descended from the ancient Israelites.


All that any genetic research shows is that Ashkenazim show some Middle Eastern genealogy. It doesn't show specific descent from Israelites.


oralloy wrote:
The estimate of 12-25 thousand years refers to when the European portion of Ashkenazi genetics separated from the Middle East and entered Europe.


That estimate is in reference to Middle East genes found in European populations which includes the Ashkenazim.

oralloy wrote:
The study estimates that the Middle Eastern portion of Ashkenazi genetics joined with the European portion around 600 to 800 years ago:

"According to the resulting model (Fig. 4, top; Supplementary Table 7; Supplementary Fig. 12), contemporary AJ formed 600–800 years (close to the time of the AJ bottleneck) as the fusion of two ancestral populations."


One ancestral population of which already included Middle Eastern genealogy.

oralloy wrote:
InfraBlue wrote:
before any kind of mythological disporas.

Hardly a myth. The Romans proudly recorded their expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem.


The Romans expelled Jewish Iudaeans from Jerusalem. The vast majority of Jews lived outside of Iudaea, let alone Jerusalem.

That all of the ancestors of the Ashkenazim were expelled from Iudaea, let alone Jerusalem is fanciful religious mythology.

oralloy wrote:
Plus, history and archaeology both attest to there being a strong Jewish community in Jerusalem before the Romans expelled them, and attest to there not being a strong Jewish community in Jerusalem after the Romans expelled them.


Right. There were Jews in Jerusalem.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2019 11:35 am
@oralloy,
Wrong.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2019 11:42 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
"I don't find the idea of a Jewish state to be at all oppressive," is a statement of opinion.

True.


InfraBlue wrote:
The only fact here is the fact that you're stating an opinion, and that only by granting you the benefit of the doubt that you're expressing an opinion that you hold.

That is incorrect.


I was responding specifically to that statement you had made.


Quote:
It is a fact that historians and archaeologists have established that Israeli Jews are direct descendants of the original inhabitants of the West Bank region.


No, it is not a fact. What is a fact is that what you wrote is a flight of your imaginative interpretation of what historians and archaeologists have established.

Quote:
It is a fact that the world only asks Israel to give up land as part of a negotiated two-state solution where Israel receives peaceful acceptance as a Jewish state in exchange for giving up this land.

It is a fact that Israel has repeatedly offered to do this.

It is a fact that Israel is under no obligation to give up land under any other circumstances.


No, these are not facts. What is a fact is that these are merely your take on what the world asks of Israel, of what Israel has repeatedly offered to do, and the obligations that Israel is under.
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2019 03:29 pm
Republicans: We don't need no electoral college to win
https://www.newsweek.com/mitch-mcconnell-robert-mueller-election-security-russia-1451361
MITCH MCCONNELL RECEIVED DONATIONS FROM VOTING MACHINE LOBBYISTS BEFORE BLOCKING ELECTION SECURITY BILLS

They just need these machines to count the selected votes.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2019 06:36 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
No one forced them to live amid a foreign population.

The ones who were forced to leave by the Romans were certainly forced. So were the ones who were forced to leave by the Neo-Babylonians. And so were the subjects of the northern kingdom who were forced to leave by the Neo-Assyrians.


InfraBlue wrote:
All that any genetic research shows is that Ashkenazim show some Middle Eastern genealogy. It doesn't show specific descent from Israelites.

The Y chromosome study shows a Bronze Age connection with the Palestinians.


InfraBlue wrote:
That estimate is in reference to Middle East genes found in European populations which includes the Ashkenazim.

They are Middle Eastern genes only in the sense that all non-African genes are Middle Eastern (as the ancestors of all non-Africans passed through the Middle East on their way out of Africa).

The estimate of 12-25 thousand years ago does not refer to the much-more-recent Middle Eastern genes that the Ashkenazim have as a result of their Israelite heritage.


InfraBlue wrote:
One ancestral population of which already included Middle Eastern genealogy.

Both ancestral populations included Middle Eastern genealogy.

The ancestral population that diverged from the Middle East 12-25 thousand years ago is "Middle Eastern" only in the sense that all non-African ancestral populations have Middle Eastern heritage.

The other ancestral population is Middle Eastern because they were the ancient Israelites.


InfraBlue wrote:
The Romans expelled Jewish Iudaeans from Jerusalem. The vast majority of Jews lived outside of Iudaea, let alone Jerusalem.
That all of the ancestors of the Ashkenazim were expelled from Iudaea, let alone Jerusalem is fanciful religious mythology.

Even if we assume (without evidence) that the Ashkenazim left Jerusalem voluntarily, they still retained their cultural ties to Jerusalem, and it remains the center of their identity. It never stopped being their ancient homeland.
oralloy
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2019 06:37 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
I was responding specifically to that statement you had made.

My mistake.


InfraBlue wrote:
No, it is not a fact. What is a fact is that what you wrote is a flight of your imaginative interpretation of what historians and archaeologists have established.

That is incorrect. Historians and archaeologists have established that the Canaanites were the original inhabitants of the West Bank region. They have likewise established that the Israelites were directly descended from the Canaanites.

And we know from the Y chromosome study that the Israeli Jews are directly descended from the ancient Israelites.


InfraBlue wrote:
No, these are not facts. What is a fact is that these are merely your take on what the world asks of Israel, of what Israel has repeatedly offered to do, and the obligations that Israel is under.

My take on the matter is accurate. That is indeed all that the world has asked of Israel.

Most of Israel's peace offers to the Palestinians are a matter of historical record. Only the 2012 offer from Netanyahu is shrouded in secrecy.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2019 06:39 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

Why don't you think a two-state solution would give the Palestinians their own state?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 12:23:53