Iran renews threat to "wipe Israel off the map" - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of the Middle East.

Moderator: PoFo Middle-East Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#14079330
Moshe wrote:Goldberk, you are so predictable in your anti-semitism


Can rational thinking and pointing out the obvious distortion of facts be anti- or pro-Semitic?

Truth is truth, but claiming that somebody is a "bad guy" because he is ready to retaliate a blatant aggression of a known rogue state that violates the international law is just a blatant hypocrisy.
#14079420
Honestly what do you know about it? Israel never attempted a fair, open hand - since the very first hours of zionism, these Arabs are despicted as lower form of parasitic life that infests the land God gave to you.


Really? then how come things were so fine and dandy back when the zionist first started settling here? It's a known fact that at the first twenty years of such when the first jew came here they had -fantastic- relationship with the arab villeges? please, check local history books at your lesuire. And you think -that's- how they were despicted?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_New_Land

Written by the founder of Zionsim himself. His vision, my vision, and many other Zionist's vision.

Yeah, but they're winning nonetheless. These people have a far longer view than our ready-to-consume societies. What would you do if you were in their place? Let Ehud Barak speak:

"I would have joined a terrorist organization."

And why would it be bad? From a Palestinian perspective, terrorism worked pretty well for the zionists.


You fail to give a single reason how they are -winning- your only -fact- is the hope they will just win some day.
The funny thing is -that's- what keeps them losing over and over, it's laughble thing really, for over 60 years the arab world always does what you are doing, proclaiming our time is at end, Israel will cease to excsist, blah blah...

And nothing happens O_o

Maybe it's because...they don't actully -do- anything meaningful?
But come on, give me a meaningful fact as to -why- the palistinans are winning.

I wouldn't deny that my goverement used Terrorism, for both good and bad.

The difference is that Israel is being pragmatic with it, it uses it when it has a clear defintion of achieving it's goals.
The Palistinans are made of dozens of so crack pot groups, lacking any sort of unity and by that, solid goals to which achieve their aims. The end result is that their glorious operation to free palastine is some kid sneaking into a jewish home and murdering all of the family whilst they sleep. Morality aside of the matter, but on a pure pragmatic aspect, I will ask you, what the -hell- does that achieve?


Arab nationalism would bad... if it happened in, say Europe. But there, on their turf, it's not only a whim, but a need in the face of all the abuses they endure.


Arab nationlism started mostly based on the aspect of pride, not abuse, the jews were much more funded, and thus able to buy more land, they also stopped hiring arabs as guards and workers, thus preventing arabs from economical oppertunities, in their shatterd pride they started trying to form their own national identity, a admirable prospect, but it was constently beast by extreme factions, that often led to clashes and violence between the two groups. Of course, same can be said about zionism.

In the end the jews won, we failed to share the country, we went to war, and we won, thus it's kinda obvious the loser will suffer more abuse, but don't sell me that cracked up tale that since the zionist first landed here the arabs were just victims here all around, Zionists made mistakes, the arabs made mistakes, move on.


Pretty much all of Iran's neighbours have been invaded so far - many of them wrongly. You can't blame Iran for wanting to arm itself - yes, conventional armement would be better, if Israel wasn't in possession of the bomb. As experience proved, when you have the bomb the US (and Israel) leave you alone.

In Israel's case, it's different; These weapons are a way to say "if you invade us we blow everything to pieces - you, us, them. Better death than no Israel".


But, you said a few posts back...

You are ready to march against Iran, who isn't even a neighbours, but would be weary of winning the hearts and minds in Syria? Figures. Israel isn't noted for its international implication.


So here you claimed israel has no need to worry about a country that they don't even share borders with, but Iran -can- worry? O_o abit hypocriitic, don't you think?

And I like how you just ignored my yom Kippur refrence as well regerding your instistence about our "trigger happy" nature, yes, we are sometimes abit too light on the nature, but you are just taking things to an extreme.


Dormin, the country that actively oppresses its people already does what it wants in the middle east. Be frank; would you rather be a Jew in Iran or a Palestinian in the Occupied Territories?


Only that you keep forgetting there's several hostile factions within the palistinan populace which sadly gives a reason for the opression, what did the Iranan deserved to be opressed?
Hell, look at the Israeli arabs, they are usually quiet, and whilst yes, there's prosecution, they are hardly opressed in any way.

Here! to make things simple!

Palistinans + terrorist acts = opression
Israeli arab + being peaceful = No opression
Iranan + being peaceful = Opression

:eh:



If we stop agressing it, Iran will re-embark in the league of "respectable nations" just like China did; It is a big country, full of young, progressive people that grew up using the world web. The Mullahs are on their last miles. [/quote]

If we will -stop-? dude! the reason we started to begin with was -because- they started throwing threats in the air, devloping their nuclear energy and funding terrorist, not the other way around. Hell, no one in israel didn't gave two shits about Iran before 2005

You patron nation did, the only one who did, twice, against an disarmed civilian population of a country that was on the verge of defeat. And they're quite proud of it. Isreal not only has nukes; The US Congress Office of Technology Assessment says Israel has undeclared chemical warfare capabilities, and an offensive biological warfare program.


What would be your reaction if one of Israel's neighbours had this? Once again walk a mile in their shoes.[/quote]

What hack of a way to divert the discussion. let me remind you

To the contrary, it would bring more stability in the M-East. Will that make Iran a leader among arab nations? Yes! And it's alright like that. Unification is an understandable, even vital processus in the face of the abuses these nations got. I am much more afraid about your nukes, that seem to exist solely as an "auto-destruct" switch.


It's about -you- accusing us of being trigger happy with the nukes, to which I showed you, that even when we were -sure- we were doomed in Yom kippur, we -didn't- used the nukes, and your answer is to suddenly bring up the united states? as though it's any sort of reasoning? give me a break.


Things change. People adapt. Look at Hizbollah. Look at Rome's downfall at the hands of barbarians, that yet adopted their enemies methods and equipement.

Yes, again absolutly not making any sense at all, -explain- with more detail because i'm not a mind reader. And you once again fail to bring any source of valid information to the table and just using ambigious wordings.


Why wouldn't they? Genetical inferiority?


Am I dead yet? O_o dear god, -read- the question. -read- what I said.

HOW. DO. THEY. WIN?


I don't believe you are a zionist - maybe along the pre-1948 sense of the word, but by 1948 this sense was fullfilled - you had your nation. No, for me, a XXIst century zionist is the one that wants more - like all of Eretz Yisrael. Your ultra-orthodox are pretty much the living image of these zionists. Many zionists do not live in Israel - some live in the West Bank and in occidental nation - and a lot of them are not even Jewish.

Don't let yourself be called a zionist - I believe you are much more worthy than that. You are no zionist, you are a patriot.


Don't define for us what a Zionist is, go read wiki or everywhere else to see what it stand and what it does'nt, you will see both the good and the bad it in it.

The sole fault of Zionism was it's naivety. It started as a dream turned to reality, but we failed to see the reality which was that -another- people were already living here.
If you will take your time to read what Zionism is about, you will see the problem, it clearly refers to the goals of the jewish people, but completely ignores the arabs. No clear goals about what the arabs will be, just the assumption they wouldn't mind living in Israel as much as they didn't mind living in the Otomanian empire.

It doesn't claim jews need to kick all the others out, or that the arabs are inferior, but just that it never occured to people back then the arabs would have that much problem, as I explained before, the arabs and jews did quite well at the first years.

Zionism is now comproised of two groups, post zionists like me, who believe our intial goal has been fulfiled and now we need to normalize our relations with our people, and set to it that there's no contrediction that the land of the jews, will be the land of the palistinans as well.

The other group you guys keep refering to are the neo zionist, who deems it necssry that Israel will be a country with only jew indenty, nutjobs who want to kick all the arabs out. So if you are so inclined to generlize, might as well call them "Neo zionists" instead.

But really, I don't need to bother much, you need this group to drop all these problems on right? makes things so much simple when there's this -evil- group that works around the clock to make the world a shittier place amirite? takes away all that annoying grey out of the way.

So yes, despite your claims and perceptions, factual wise I am a zionist for I -believe- Israel is the homeland of the jewish people. But besides that I also don't see why it can't be the palistinan's as well.

But please, don't let me get away with your generlization, hate, and wishing I will just die already.
#14079490
MVictorP wrote:Pf!


haha I was counting on that !

Vic makes some really good points Dormin.
Especially the last one which I happen to agree with.
Lehman is a "classical modern Zionist".
You my friend, are an Israeli patriot.
The difference?
You don't really see the Palestinians and Arabs as illiterates who are beneath contempt.
You want peace. And you want it on terms that satisfy everyone to some degree, yet you understand the need for compromise.
Ask Lehman how he feels about compromise with Arabs...

The dye was cast a long time ago Dormin.
None of us were even born yet.
This is not what we would have done nor how we would have done it.

PEACE and HARMONY Dormin.
PEACE and HARMONY...finally...



I respect your opinion about that but you must understand something : being a zionist isn't a bad thing.

The bottom line is : it doesn't matter who was here first, what does matter is what will happen between us and them.
Both of us seek to live in the same land, in reality we do it altough not perfect.

This conflict is way to complicated to analyze and to make a clear point. It's not black nor white , it's infinite grey!
#14079497
This conflict is way to complicated to analyze


A cursory analysis reveals very little disagreement about details, events or legal facts.
To call it 'complicated' is just an insult to everyone's intelligence. It's probably the most
UN-complicated conflict in history. There's a virtual consensus on the principles,
historical facts and settlement. There's no controversy, complication or difficulty
to understand it. That's just all contrived public extravaganza to confuse people
to ensure it persists.
#14079523
redcarpet wrote:A cursory analysis reveals very little disagreement about details, events or legal facts.
To call it 'complicated' is just an insult to everyone's intelligence. It's probably the most
UN-complicated conflict in history. There's a virtual consensus on the principles,
historical facts and settlement. There's no controversy, complication or difficulty
to understand it. That's just all contrived public extravaganza to confuse people
to ensure it persists.


I'll tell you what's complicated: We suck after what we consider sacred cows in the occident, these people having a heavy economical, mediatic and jurisdical hand in about everything about them, and being quick to use their martyr status to accuse us of being (finally) what they often are themselves - racists and supremacists.

That's what's complicated. Oh, and also, the emperor is naked.
#14079528
Wrath_014 wrote:I respect your opinion about that but you must understand something : being a zionist isn't a bad thing.

The bottom line is : it doesn't matter who was here first, what does matter is what will happen between us and them.
Both of us seek to live in the same land, in reality we do it altough not perfect.

This conflict is way to complicated to analyze and to make a clear point. It's not black nor white , it's infinite grey!

By definition a Zionist is one who wants the Jewish people to live again in the region of the Middle East known today as Israel.
And I have no issues with this. Most people don't.
This issue is that Zionists seem blinded by a singularity of desire.
They want Israel by hook or by crook, and don't seem to care who they have to shit upon to get it.
It doesn't even occur to most Zionists that it is their blind ambition that has caused this mess.
The general justification is usually, "It's our land! It always has been and it always will be!"
Yet that is false. The fact is, it WAS your land. Then the Romans conquered it and the Jews were expelled for causing problems.
By the time the Zionists re-focused on the land, a group of Arab people called the Palestinians had taken root there.
And although these Palestinians were not really in control of the land, it was called Palestine and was, for all intents and purposes, theirs.
Now, there were also Jewish Palestinians who had been there all along in small numbers.
And they got along quite merrily with their Arab neighbors. Until Herzl and Rothchild came along.
Herzl started the Zionist fervor about Palestine, and Rothchild bought it.
Shortly there after, Arab Nationalism began.
This was a natural response to a perceived threat from the Zionists.
Had Rothchild never managed to convince (read: purchase the Balfour Agreement) Balfour to pen that back-stabbing agreement, I don't think any of this would have happened.
Sure Jewish people may have moved to Palestine in droves and caused some friction.
But it was the Balfour Agreement that provided the Zionists with the justification they needed to embark on a path the was abusive and abrasive to the Palestinian Arabs.

This is not rocket science...and for all the subterfuge and BS that's gone on...it is rather black and white.
#14079541
Buzz62 wrote:The general justification is usually, "It's our land! It always has been and it always will be!"
Yet that is false. The fact is, it WAS your land. Then the Romans conquered it and the Jews were expelled for causing problems.


So if Israel expelled Palestinians for causing problems, when would they lose property to the land? Certainly if Jews could lose it, then Palestinians can lose it too - so how would this happen, according to you?

How much time shall we wait?
#14079550
wat0n wrote:So if Israel expelled Palestinians for causing problems, when would they lose property to the land? Certainly if Jews could lose it, then Palestinians can lose it too - so how would this happen, according to you?

How much time shall we wait?

Unfortunately that can't be done without a global backlash now.
The human race has developed tech that allows all of us to see what's going on in real time, and our civilization has softened to the ideas of conquest. In other words, it wouldn't be acceptable to anyone anymore. Had the Jews conquered Palestine 200 years ago...it would have been fine...not today though.

You can't impose the norms of centuries past on today.

Isn't that evident in the way the world has reacted to how the Zionists have treated the Palestinians so far?
Or are you just being a smart-ass...
#14079557
Buzz62 wrote:Unfortunately that can't be done without a global backlash now.
The human race has developed tech that allows all of us to see what's going on in real time, and our civilization has softened to the ideas of conquest. In other words, it wouldn't be acceptable to anyone anymore. Had the Jews conquered Palestine 200 years ago...it would have been fine...not today though.

You can't impose the norms of centuries past on today.

Isn't that evident in the way the world has reacted to how the Zionists have treated the Palestinians so far?
Or are you just being a smart-ass...


Just because there would be a global backlash, it doesn't really mean ethnic cleansing is more wrong today than it was 2000 years ago. It only means it is actually punished now - that is a practical argument, not a moral one: I don't think ethnic cleansing would suddenly be OK if future changes of international law legalized it, even more so considering international law itself is made by the old "might is right" realpolitik to an extent.

Why am I asking this, you may wonder? Because if we believe these rights can be extinguished over time then it is matter of time until most people will accept Israel has a right to stay. And if we believe that these rights cannot be extinguished over time, then you can't really deny these Zionists had a legitimate reason for wanting to set up a state in the region a century ago, can you?

This means, then, this conflict is grayer than you think as far as ethics goes (as opposed to, for example, history or legality which are different topics in my opinion).
#14079562
Buzz62 wrote:
By definition a Zionist is one who wants the Jewish people to live again in the region of the Middle East known today as Israel.


Zionists were the one that invented the "Jewish people", who were a heterogenous religious group. And they are the one who talk about "returning" to Palestine!

How can the descendants of Khazars (about 90% of today Jews) "return" to Palestine, if their ancestors were pagans who lived in South Russia and converted to Judaism only in the 10th century AD?

Buzz62 wrote:And I have no issues with this.


Would you have issues with somebody who claimed that your house does not belong to you, becaus is is built on a land that was promised to somebody else by his personal god?

Buzz62 wrote: Most people don't.


Honest people DO have issues with ethnic clensing and land theft.

Buzz62 wrote:The general justification is usually, "It's our land! It always has been and it always will be!"
Yet that is false. The fact is, it WAS your land.


Khazaria in South Russia was their land.
Most descendants of Hebrews converted to Christianity and Islam and never abandoned Palestine.

Buzz62 wrote:Then the Romans conquered it and the Jews were expelled for causing problems.


Only a handful of extremists were thrown out of Palestine, the majority remained on their land or the region and became Christians and later Muslims.

Buzz62 wrote:And although these Palestinians were not really in control of the land, it was called Palestine and was, for all intents and purposes, theirs.
Now, there were also Jewish Palestinians who had been there all along in small numbers.
And they got along quite merrily with their Arab neighbors.


Yes, Palestinians (be they Muslims, Christians or even Jews) never had any intention to give this land to migrants from South Russia who proclaimed that they are "returning" to "their land".


Buzz62 wrote: Until Herzl and Rothchild came along.
Herzl started the Zionist fervor about Palestine, and Rothchild bought it.


Herzl never talked about the "Jewish people", in his opinion Jews were just a "historical entity", and he wanted to create a "Jewish nation" (like American Nation) in some corner of the globe. He did not care about Palestine a lot.

Buzz62 wrote:Shortly there after, Arab Nationalism began.
This was a natural response to a perceived threat from the Zionists.


Yes, and this natural response was anticipated and used to justify further land theft, further expancion and further ethnic cleansing, and this tactic is used till today.

Buzz62 wrote:Had Rothchild never managed to convince (read: purchase the Balfour Agreement) Balfour to pen that back-stabbing agreement, I don't think any of this would have happened.


Well, the Brits had to sign this declaration, because leading Zionists promised to them to use their influence in the USA and convince Americans that they had to support UK in the WWI.

Without this Germany would not have been divided and there would be no WWII.

As we see, we would have a different world today, if some Jewish fanatics (and everything began with Benjamin Disraeli, who intended to "buy" Palestine and give it to Jews, and Moses Hess, who talked about the "race struggle" and the superiority of the "Jewish race") were not in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Buzz62 wrote:Sure Jewish people may have moved to Palestine in droves and caused some friction.


Jews had already a big land in Russia, called Birobidzhan.

There was enough water and land, and no native population.

Russia could sell this land to the Zionists, and everybody would be happy.

And the descendants of Khazars would have really returned to the homeland of their proto-Khazar ancestors, who stem from Central Asia.

:D
#14079597
wat0n wrote:Just because there would be a global backlash, it doesn't really mean ethnic cleansing is more wrong today than it was 2000 years ago. It only means it is actually punished now - that is a practical argument, not a moral one: I don't think ethnic cleansing would suddenly be OK if future changes of international law legalized it, even more so considering international law itself is made by the old "might is right" realpolitik to an extent.

Why am I asking this, you may wonder? Because if we believe these rights can be extinguished over time then it is matter of time until most people will accept Israel has a right to stay. And if we believe that these rights cannot be extinguished over time, then you can't really deny these Zionists had a legitimate reason for wanting to set up a state in the region a century ago, can you?

Nobody's questioning your right to stay. We're questioning your methods!
BTW...have you read the post above? Interesting eh? I hadn't known most Jews were Russians...sort of...

wat0n wrote:This means, then, this conflict is grayer than you think as far as ethics goes (as opposed to, for example, history or legality which are different topics in my opinion).

No wat0n...and please dispense with the subterfuge.
Ethnic cleansing is always not nice...and that is now magnified by the availability of news.
That's what makes it unacceptable globally now...we see it daily.
Were in not in the media all the time...nobody would really care.
The Jewish people in Israel have no claim to the land other than the fact that they are now there.
And as I said, the fact is they are there and will stay...that's not the issue.
The issue is the WAY they conduct themselves.
#14079606
Buzz62 wrote:Nobody's questioning your right to stay. We're questioning your methods!


OK, but that's different from what I quoted. In fact, very different.

Buzz62 wrote:BTW...have you read the post above? Interesting eh? I hadn't known most Jews were Russians...sort of...


He's just spouting nonsense that has been disproved by recent scientific research, ignore him.
#14079676
While I think there has been plenty of wrong on both sides, I do not see how the Jews can be faulted for returning top their homeland which, at the time of largescale Jewish return at the end of the 19th century, was virtually empty without and agriculture or industry.
True, there was the ocasional nomad passing through, but otherwise it was completely deserted
#14079805
Moshe wrote:While I think there has been plenty of wrong on both sides, I do not see how the Jews can be faulted for returning top their homeland which, at the time of largescale Jewish return at the end of the 19th century, was virtually empty without and agriculture or industry.
True, there was the ocasional nomad passing through, but otherwise it was completely deserted


That's bushwah. Type "census Palestine" on your research engine if you doubt it.

Is that what you were taught?
#14080112
wat0n wrote:He's just spouting nonsense that has been disproved by recent scientific research, ignore him.


Even Jewish scientists agree that Zionist's conclusions about the genetic research of Jews is wrong.

Most female and male ancestors of Ashkenazim Jews have the haplogroups that can be found in South Russia. On the other hand there are some ethnic groups that do not claim Palestinian ancestry, they live in Caucasus, Turkey or even South Africa, who have way more Semitic haplogroups than Ashkenazim do.

The Zionists just checked the genes of the Cohanim-Clan (about 3% of male Jews) and extended the results of this research on ALL Jews, and that was scientifically dishonest. This fraud was already debunked, the Levite-Clan does not have any oriental haplogroups at all.

Jews, like any other religious groups are a multiracial mosaic of many different people with different ancestry .

Some of Jews have oriental haplogroups, but the Orient is a very huge region, and Palestine Is hardly 1% of this huge territory.

So even oriental haplogroups that can be found in some male Ashkenazim do not prove their Palestinian ancestry. Jews with oriental haplogroups can also stem from some oriental people who converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages.

Here is a good summary done by a Jewish scientist about the multiracial mosaic of many very people, called Jews.

Genetics do not prove that any today Jews are descendants of ancient Hebrews!


A MOSAIC OF PEOPLE:
THE JEWISH STORY AND A
REASSESSMENT OF THE DNA EVIDENCE
Ellen Levy-Coffman

http://www.jogg.info/11/coffman.htm
#14080204
A cursory analysis reveals very little disagreement about details, events or legal facts.
To call it 'complicated' is just an insult to everyone's intelligence. It's probably the most
UN-complicated conflict in history. There's a virtual consensus on the principles,
historical facts and settlement. There's no controversy, complication or difficulty
to understand it. That's just all contrived public extravaganza to confuse people
to ensure it persists.


It's nice to have a discussion on "Lab" conditions...thats what you can't understand.
#14080209
Sorry for DP :) but i must..

The word Jews or Jewish came from the Judah Tribe or the Kingdom of Judah . After the "Break up" witihing the united israeli kingdom, two tribes remain "Faithful" to the House of David (Judah tribe and Benjamin tribe) . Those two tribes are the ancestors of the jews. (plus some migrants from the israeli kingdom).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Judah
#14080525
ArtAllm wrote:Even Jewish scientists agree that Zionist's conclusions about the genetic research of Jews is wrong.

Most female and male ancestors of Ashkenazim Jews have the haplogroups that can be found in South Russia. On the other hand there are some ethnic groups that do not claim Palestinian ancestry, they live in Caucasus, Turkey or even South Africa, who have way more Semitic haplogroups than Ashkenazim do.

The Zionists just checked the genes of the Cohanim-Clan (about 3% of male Jews) and extended the results of this research on ALL Jews, and that was scientifically dishonest. This fraud was already debunked, the Levite-Clan does not have any oriental haplogroups at all.

Jews, like any other religious groups are a multiracial mosaic of many different people with different ancestry .

Some of Jews have oriental haplogroups, but the Orient is a very huge region, and Palestine Is hardly 1% of this huge territory.

So even oriental haplogroups that can be found in some male Ashkenazim do not prove their Palestinian ancestry. Jews with oriental haplogroups can also stem from some oriental people who converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages.

Here is a good summary done by a Jewish scientist about the multiracial mosaic of many very people, called Jews.

Genetics do not prove that any today Jews are descendants of ancient Hebrews!


1) Only looking at mtDNA and Y-chromosome DNA haplotypes to deduce ancestry is like saying that only people with blue eyes can have Caucasian ancestry - you're just looking at a small part of a person's DNA that is not necessarily informative of anything (humans have after all 46 chromosomes).

2) As Smertios kindly explained in another thread, looking at Y-chromosome haplogroups and maternal mtDNA is not useful at all, because they are inherited by the father and mother respectively. As such, it can distort the analysis a lot as it can essentially erase the heritage from ancestors from 2 generations or above (i.e. grandparents, great-grandparents and so on).

For example, if my grandfather by my maternal line (i.e. my mother's father) has the Y-chromosome haplotype generally associated with Semitic populations (J1) and my mother's mother doesn't have the mtDNA haplotype generally associated with Semitic populations, my mother would appear as not having any Semitic ancestry at all even though her father does have the said ancestry, furthermore, if my father doesn't have the Y-chromosome DNA haplotype associated with Semitic populations and you look at both my Y-chromosome DNA and mtDNA haplotypes it would appear as if I had no Jewish ancestry at all, even though this certainly isn't the case.

3) To the above, one has to add that Semitic peoples are not defined by their genetics, but by whether the nation's language is a Semitic tongue or not - as such, the haplotypes associated with Semitic populations are, well, just that - a mere indicator correlated with being from a Semitic people. They are not a definite proof of whether a person is actually a descendant of a Semitic nation or not.

4) Furthermore, even if we are to accept your thesis that haplotypes are a good indicator of someone's ancestry (which as I said they aren't), actual Semitic populations can also vary on the prevalence of the haplotype generally associated with Semitic populations. In fact, for example, most Levantine Arab populations have a prevalence of the Y-chromosome DNA haplotype J1 below 50%, and it is lower than the prevalence of the J1 haplotype in the Arabian Peninsula. This makes sense, actually, as the Levant also had contact and was settled by populations that came from places such as present-day Turkey and Iraq, where the J1 Y-chromosome DNA haplotype is less frequent. From the author you cited, too:

Coffman (2005) wrote:While the Canaanites were a Western Semitic people indigenous to the area, they appear to have consisted of a diverse ethno-cultural mix from the earliest times. It is from this diverse group that the evolution of the Israelites occurred. Although little is known about these groups, they probably included some of the following populations:

Amorites: Western Semites like the Canaanites. They were probably the pastoral nomadic component of the Canaanite people.
Hittites: A non-Semitic people from Anatolia and Northern Syria.
Hurrians (Horites): A non-Semitic people who inhabited parts of Syria and Mesopotamia. Many kings of the early Canaanite city-states had Hurrian names.
Amalekites: Nomads from southern Transjordan. Even inimical references to this group in the Hebrew Bible “tacitly” acknowledge that the Israelites and Amalekites shared a common ancestry.
Philistines: Referred to in ancient texts as “Sea Peoples.” They invaded and settled along the coasts of ancient Canaan. Their culture appears to stem from that of Mycenae.

(Dever 2003, pp. 219-220).


5) Also, not even the author you cited says 90% of world Jewry or even Ashkenazi Jewry would be Khazar and not of Middle Eastern origin - you're lying. In fact, she actually quotes another author saying that around 22% of Ashkenazi Jews would have some Khazarian ancestry (again, based only on studying Y-chromosome DNA):

Coffman (2005) wrote:A comparison of haplogroup Q among Altaians and Ashkenazi Jews was undertaken by Dienekes Pontikos (2004), who operates a respected website dedicated to the examination of anthropological, archaeological and genetic research. He compared the frequency of haplogroups R1a and Q among Altaian Turkic speakers and Ashkenazi Jews. For Altaians, the percentages are 46/17, or a ratio of about 2.7, while in Ashkenazim it is 12/5, or a ratio of about 2.4. Dienekes writes:

If Proto-Khazars were similar to present-day Altaians minus haplogroup C, then they would have a frequency of about 59% R1a and 22% Q. Therefore, it seems reasonable that an overall 5/22=22% of such Proto-Khazar elements into the Ashkenazi Jewish populations may be likely. But, the Khazars of Khazaria may themselves have been somewhat mixed with Western Eurasian elements, which would decrease their frequency of haplogroup Q.

Dienekes (2004) also wrote that he found the continued silence of researchers about the presence of haplogroup Q among Ashkenazim “puzzling.”


6) As I stated in point 1), looking at Y-chromosome DNA or mtDNA provides us with an incomplete picture of this issue. What do genome-wide studies say? Let's see 3 I've been able to find (emphasis added in bold):

Need et. al. (2009) wrote:Abstract

Background: It was recently shown that the genetic distinction between self-identified Ashkenazi Jewish and non-Jewish individuals is a prominent component of genome-wide patterns of genetic variation in European Americans. No study however has yet assessed how accurately self-identified (Ashkenazi) Jewish ancestry can be inferred from genomic information, nor whether the degree of Jewish ancestry can be inferred among individuals with fewer than four Jewish grandparents.

Results: Using a principal components analysis, we found that the individuals with full Jewish ancestry formed a clearly distinct cluster from those individuals with no Jewish ancestry. Using the position on the first principal component axis, every single individual with self-reported full Jewish ancestry had a higher score than any individual with no Jewish ancestry.

Conclusions: Here we show that within Americans of European ancestry there is a perfect genetic corollary of Jewish ancestry which, in principle, would permit near perfect genetic inference of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry. In fact, even subjects with a single Jewish grandparent can be statistically distinguished from those without Jewish ancestry. We also found that subjects with Jewish ancestry were slightly more heterozygous than the subjects with no Jewish ancestry, suggesting that the genetic distinction between Jews and non-Jews may be more attributable to a Near-Eastern origin for Jewish populations than to population bottlenecks.


Kopelman et. al. (2009) wrote:Abstract

Background: Genetic studies have often produced conflicting results on the question of whether distant Jewish populations in different geographic locations share greater genetic similarity to each other or instead, to nearby non-Jewish populations. We perform a genome-wide population genetic study of Jewish populations, analyzing 678 autosomal microsatellite loci in 78 individuals from four Jewish groups together with similar data on 321 individuals from 12 non-Jewish Middle Eastern and European populations.

Results: We find that the Jewish populations show a high level of genetic similarity to each other, clustering together in several types of analysis of population structure. Further, Bayesian clustering, neighbor-joining trees, and multidimensional scaling place the Jewish populations as intermediate between the non-Jewish Middle Eastern and European populations.

Conclusion: These results support the view that the Jewish populations largely share a common Middle Eastern ancestry and that over their history they have undergone varying degrees of admixture with non-Jewish populations of European descent.


Atzmon et. al. (2010) wrote:For more than a century, Jews and non-Jews alike have tried to define the relatedness of contemporary Jewish people. Previous genetic studies of blood group and serum markers suggested that Jewish groups had Middle Eastern origin with greater genetic similarity between paired Jewish populations. However, these and successor studies of monoallelic Y chromosomal and mitochondrial genetic markers did not resolve the issues of within and between-group Jewish genetic identity. Here, genome-wide analysis of seven Jewish groups (Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Italian, Turkish, Greek, and Ashkenazi) and comparison with non-Jewish groups demonstrated distinctive Jewish population clusters, each with shared Middle Eastern ancestry, proximity to contemporary Middle Eastern populations, and variable degrees of European and North African admixture. Two major groups were identified by principal component, phylogenetic, and identity by descent (IBD) analysis: Middle Eastern Jews and European/Syrian Jews. The IBD segment sharing and the proximity of European Jews to each other and to southern European populations suggested similar origins for European Jewry and refuted large-scale genetic contributions of Central and Eastern European and Slavic populations to the formation of Ashkenazi Jewry. Rapid decay of IBD in Ashkenazi Jewish genomes was consistent with a severe bottleneck followed by large expansion, such as occurred with the so-called demographic miracle of population expansion from 50,000 people at the beginning of the 15th century to 5,000,000 people at the beginning of the 19th century. Thus, this study demonstrates that European/Syrian and Middle Eastern Jews represent a series of geographical isolates or clusters woven together by shared IBD genetic threads.


Atzmon et. al. (2010) wrote:...

Discussion

...

Besides Southern European groups, the closest genetic neighbors to most Jewish populations are the Palestinians, Bedouins, and Druze. The observed differentiation of these groups reflects their histories of within-group endogamy.39 Yet, their genetic proximity to one another and to European and Syrian Jews suggests a shared genetic history of related Middle Eastern and non-Semitic Mediterranean ancestors who chose different religious and tribal affiliations. These observations are supported by the significant overlap of Y chromosomal haplogroups between Israeli and Palestinian Arabs with Ashkenazi and non- Ashkenazi Jewish populations that has been described previously.37 Likewise, a study comparing 20 microsatellite markers in Israeli Jewish, Palestinian, and Druze populations demonstrated the proximity of these two non-Jewish populations to Ashkenazi and Iraqi Jews.40


Judging by these studies at least, it seems Jews share a common Middle Eastern ancestry and that the Jewish population has also mixed with non-Jewish populations over time. As such, it seems most Jews do have a Middle Eastern origin, even if they mixed with European populations such as the Khazars and others at some stage in time.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 17
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hamas are terrorist animals who started this and […]

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s)[…]

"Ukraine’s real losses should be counted i[…]