LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksOriginally Posted by yanshuf
What about the Palestinian Christians, are you saying they also are just a bunch of wandering Bedouins?
As far as I know, there have been Christians in the Holy Land since the Roman Empire
What about the Palestinian Christians, are you saying they also are just a bunch of wandering Bedouins?
As far as I know, there have been Christians in the Holy Land since the Roman Empire
What about the Samaritans, Bahais and Qaraic Jews?
What about the Palestinian Christians, are you saying they also are just a bunch of wandering Bedouins?
As far as I know, there have been Christians in the Holy Land since the Roman Empire
It doesn't really matter.
What does matter is that the Arabs never claimed Jerusalem as the capital of any of their 22 nations.
Bíonn dhá insint ar scéal!
That is both logically and semantically impenetrable. Please rephrase!
I think, that in spite of my stammering, you understand quite well, that when and where the two peoples - Jews and Arabs - met is unknown.That is both logically and semantically impenetrable. Please rephrase!
If you are not a medium then I would expect that you too don't really know what happened back then.
The only thing I do know is that the Arab Muslims conquered Israel and never claimed it as their own, nor did they claim Jerusalem as their capital until it was Israeli.
Bíonn dhá insint ar scéal!
I honestly haven't a clue what you are saying. No, I'm not a medium, but I will adhere to certain principles when dealing with the past, one is evidence, the other is parsimony. Both these parameters seem to indicate that those Palestinian Arabs Christians Jews and Samaritans who are alive today are direct descendants from those inhabiting israel 2,000 years ago. If you are trying to deny this by saying that they met during another era, then I'd accuse you of trying to alter fact in order to fit it into your already well-established narrative. Using Science, historical comparable examples and ockham's razor, we come to the conclusion that rather than taking back land that was originally theirs, those returning Zionists are actually taking it from those who have always owned, and have always occupied that region. To suggest otherwise, is to hold an ideology in higher regard than truth. Unfortunately, you have proven on many occasion that in your opinion truth should be subverted to the will of the idealogue.
I'll try explaining it, yet again, shortly.I honestly haven't a clue what you are saying.
Which lacks here. You have gene samples, and they are hardly an evidence to the circumstances of early stages in the region.I'm not a medium, but I will adhere to certain principles when dealing with the past, one is evidence
[COLOR=#810081]http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1274378[/COLOR]
a quote:
According to that, Arabs might have met the Jews' ancestors in biblical times. Saying that, the Arabs - Ishmaelites - were not inhabiting Israel, but rather by-passers.The early lineages are part of the common chromosome pool shared with Jews
There's no narrative to fit into regarding genetics, yet. You invented your own narrative.If you are trying to deny this by saying that they met during another era, then I'd accuse you of trying to alter fact in order to fit it into your already well-established narrative.
The historical line you were drawing is a proposal, nothing more.
Those Jewish and Arab ancestors could have met early, and then seperated.
I quote my source, which I was never involved in composing:
In all my posts I always said the so called "Palestinians" are a part of the Arab world.We propose that the Y chromosomes in Palestinian Arabs and Bedouin represent, to a large extent, early lineages derived from the Neolithic inhabitants of the area and additional lineages from more-recent population movements.
The fact that Arabs and Jews might have had common forefathers, doesn't make them clean of conquest. It's like claiming that the Vikings and the Celts had common forefathers, a fact that might be true, but doesn't contradict the fact that they looted Celtic Ireland.
And as for the religious conversion thing, if we had common forefathers, cousins, then when they conquer us, they will stay our cousins!
You've proven not to be sitting on the fence in many occasions, that is, you're not neutral. So accusaing me of having ideology is empty words.To suggest otherwise, is to hold an ideology in higher regard than truth. Unfortunately, you have proven on many occasion that in your opinion truth should be subverted to the will of the idealogue.
Bíonn dhá insint ar scéal!
They are though, the best evidence available for population movements I would have thought, movements which were not necessarily reflected in historical documents in great detail.
Where does the article claim that?[COLOR=#810081]http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1274378[/COLOR]
a quote:
According to that, Arabs might have met the Jews' ancestors in biblical times. Saying that, the Arabs - Ishmaelites - were not inhabiting Israel, but rather by-passers.
There's no narrative to fit into regarding genetics, yet. You invented your own narrative.
Indeed, there isn't as yet. What is clear is that the narrative which states that the Jews unanimously evacuated Israel before or during the Muslim invasions, is not true.
They could have. Then again, the Irish could have left Ireland, went to Britain, Germany, Hungary Greece, Egypt, Libya Tunisia Algeria Morocco and Spain, and then came back to Ireland again. Or they may never have left. Which proposal makes more sense?The historical line you were drawing is a proposal, nothing more.
Those Jewish and Arab ancestors could have met early, and then seperated.
No but you put a slant on it don't you.I quote my source, which I was never involved in composing:
We're not discussing conquest. As your post shows, the Palestinians and even the Bedouin have strong genetic links to the earliest Neotlithic inhabitants of Israel, meaning that they share common ancestry with today's Jewish populations. This means that they are the original inhabitants of that area, a long with the Jews, merely that they were never involved in any diaspora and chose to admix with their Arab conquerors, and assimilate to their culture and religion. It doesn't mean the Arabs didn't conquer Israel, and trying to suggest I'm insinuating such, is engaging in a strawman argument.In all my posts I always said the so called "Palestinians" are a part of the Arab world.
The fact that Arabs and Jews might have had common forefathers, doesn't make them clean of conquest. It's like claiming that the Vikings and the Celts had common forefathers, a fact that might be true, but doesn't contradict the fact that they looted Celtic Ireland.
And as for the religious conversion thing, if we had common forefathers, cousins, then when they conquer us, they will stay our cousins!
Objectivity sometimes precludes neutrality!You've proven not to be sitting on the fence in many occasions, that is, you're not neutral. So accusaing me of having ideology is empty words.
Correction: this MIGHT mean...This means that they are the original inhabitants of that area, a long with the Jews, merely that they were never involved in any diaspora and chose to admix with their Arab conquerors, and assimilate to their culture and religion. It doesn't mean the Arabs didn't conquer Israel, and trying to suggest I'm insinuating such, is engaging in a strawman argument.
And again, it is just a blood or tissue sampling, nothing more.
There are so many Arabs in Israel who bear names that originate from surrounding Arab countries, Turkish names or African names, that your hypothesis is just that - and I reckon that the earlier chromosomes were carried by the conquerors, who brought those Arab-Jewish ancestoral genes into Israel.
Following this line, the so called "Palestinians" originate mostly from Arab countries from the area, not from Israel (I quote: additional lineages from more-recent population movements), and from Bedouin invasions during the last 1000 years.
Another factor, you just don't take into account is the hardship of living in Israel during the successive conquests from the Byzantines on.
I suspect the original inhabitants of the land wouldn't have managed to stay, and left the land.
I suspect that even if there were converters, what was left of them, if any, is marginal.
But, I would say this is my hypothesis, and I, unlike you, call it my hypothesis.
Bíonn dhá insint ar scéal!
Not when it is a selective objectivity.Objectivity sometimes precludes neutrality!
Bíonn dhá insint ar scéal!
Once again, this is hardly the simplest explanation. These early chromosomes exist in both the Palestinian populations and the Israeli populations, who are living in or can trace their ancestry geographically to the same area. The simplest explanation is that they are descended from the same people. You're ishmaelite explanation is extraordinarily complicated, and could not explain the fact that these genes are widespread amongst the Jewish population, and not widespread amongst Arab populations in general. Your theory is irrational both historically and scientifically. You're onomastic analysis proves nothing of the sort either, given that the population of Palestine would have adopted the names of their conquerors, be they Arab, Afro-Arab or Turk.
But I do. Only I compare it to similar populations under Byzantine rule at the time, such as those Christian heretics, i.e. monophysites and copts. However, it is not suggested that these groups left their homeland in any great number when the Arabs arrived (who they welcomed, as did the population of Jerusalem). Rather, to avoid the jizya and the punitive aspects of dhimmitude, they converted to the conquerors religion and adopted their language and culture. These managed to stay, yet the Jews didn't?
Another factor, you just don't take into account is the hardship of living in Israel during the successive conquests from the Byzantines on.
I suspect the original inhabitants of the land wouldn't have managed to stay, and left the land.
I suspect that even if there were converters, what was left of them, if any, is marginal.
But, I would say this is my hypothesis, and I, unlike you, call it my hypothesis.
You have no fear of calling it 'your hypothesis', after all no one would be crazy enough to accuse you of plagiarising them. However, what I assume to be true, is a position held my many geneticists and even historians. It's still a hypothesis, but a more likely one than what you have just spouted.
Reply With Quote