|
Post by k5125 on May 8, 2005 21:13:27 GMT -5
That makes sense. North African Jews have always struck me as the best representation of what the israelites originally looked like. I am not surprised that Moroccans have the most Israelite blood.
I think Iraqi (baghdadi) Jews look very similar to Moroccans too. I am surprised they were not mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 8, 2005 22:38:17 GMT -5
Key findings: # 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 haplogroups J and E. # Ashkenazim also descend, in a smaller way, from European peoples such as Slavs and Khazars. The non-Israelite haplogroups 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. # Georgian Jews (Gruzim) are a mix of Georgians and Israelites. # Yemenite Jews (Temanim) are a mix of Yemenite Arabs and Israelites. # Moroccan Jews, Algerian Jews, and Tunisian Jews are mainly Israelites. # Libyan Jews are mainly Berbers. # Ethiopian Jews are almost exclusively Ethiopian, with little or no Israelite ancestry. # Palestinian Arabs are probably partly Israelite. [/i][/quote] Good info. It's cool to see all the Jewish groups broken down genetically.
|
|
|
Post by yigal on May 17, 2005 23:35:10 GMT -5
well paul newman looks about as "middle easterner" as Bashar,Al Douri and Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, actually probably more than that last guy, face it mate in a contest of Middle eastern looks ude loose to SHel Silverstine,Jeff Goldblum and Eugene Levi all ashkenazim and as they say in mother syria Kus ya rabak mo7amed
|
|
Sandwich
Full Member
La pens?e d'un homme est avant tout sa nostalgie
Posts: 208
|
Post by Sandwich on May 21, 2005 19:08:30 GMT -5
There are lots of questions here; political, moral, historical and scientific. It might be a good idea to separate them out a bit first.
The original issue is political, concerning the policy of the Brits in mandate Palestine. The Balfour Declaration had specified the setting-up of a Jewish National Home in the territory, on the precondition that this would not be detrimental to the interests of the Arab population. This was part of a British Imperial project. “A little Jewish Ulster in the Middle East” as the future Governor of Jerusalem, Sir Ronald Storrs, enthused.
The practices of the early Zionists were clearly resented by the local Arabs, who felt that their enjoyment of the fruits of their forefathers’ labour on the land was being taken from them, through purchases from Ottoman and other landlords, through the practices of the Zionist settlers of buying only Jewish produce and employing only Jewish labour, and so on. The more Jews came in, the more the Arabs would be excluded from the agriculture-based economic life of the area. British policy was designed to abate that resentment. It was an interpretation of the original Balfour Declaration, if you want.
Then there’s a moral issue: the highland clearances in Scotland were broadly legal, and it was to the economic interest of great landlords to replace tenants with sheep. But just because something is legal doesn’t make it morally right. The expropriation of the Jews in Germany was legal too. I certainly see that as a morally wrong form of theft, and look on the highland clearances as an abuse of legal power. Similarly, the Zionists buying up the land that had been cultivated for centuries by fellahin famillies, with the express intention of evicting them as tenants, was abusive – but inevitable, given the Zionist project. The Israeli settlements were all built on sites of Arab cultivation. A land without people for a people without land was a wonderful phrase that the early Zionists soon discovered, often to their surprise, was complete nonsense. It was not a desert that was made to bloom but Arab orange and olive groves. However, such abuse was perfectly normal at the time. It was simply a late instance of the colonialism that was so fundamental a part of Western European policy until after WW2.
And after WW2, the moral picture starts looking rather different. Europe and America were seized with a terrible guilt at what their civilized European cousins, the Germans, had done to the Jews. Personally, I think it might have been better if they had given the Jews Bavaria, but it’s always easier to give away somebody else’s land. The feeling that such murderous persecution should never be allowed to happen again, the European need to atone for it, even the feeling of guilt of the Jewish survivors at having survived when others perished, all gave Zionism a huge boost. Until the Holocaust, Zionism had been a minority movement even among Jews. Now it became simple common sense. The right to a Jewish National Home became the right to build a fortress where the interests of the persecuted Jews would be paramount, where they alone would have the power to legislate for their own defence and welfare.
The Arabs of Palestine bore no responsibility for the Shoa, despite the Nazi leanings of the Mufti of Jerusalem. Yet the world decided, in establishing an independent Jewish state which was predicated on a Germanic conception of racial citizenship rights, that these Arabs would bear the cost.
The historical issues concern the extent of the massacres at Deir Yassin and elsewhere, and their influence in causing the Arabs to flee, as opposed to that of radio broadcasts from Cairo. Of course, the Arabs had no idea that Israel would come up with the bizarre idea that if you fled, you would thereby lose all rights to live in the country. It seems pretty clear that the massacres were not arbitrary madness and cruelty, like My Lai, but a calculated policy of engendering terror to get the Arabs to leave. By the standards of the time, even by those of British counter-insurgency in say, Malaya, these Jewish terror operations were very limited in scope. But they worked rather well.
It was as refugees that the displaced Arab peasants became Palestinians. Until then, their elite had been part of a network of trading families that covered Syria and Lebanon as well as Palestine. The fellahin had been Arab Muslims and Christians, not particularly involved in any specific assertion of a Palestinian identity. The main achievement of the otherwise rather hopeless PLO leadership is to have turned these dispossessed people into a nation in exile.
The scientific issues are simply not that relevant to this discussion. Herzl was not originally committed to the idea of a return to the Holy Land. Other candidate territories, in Africa and Latin America, were considered. But the idea of the land of one’s forefathers, however distant, is a good selling point, and was indeed one of the things that had maintained Jewish identity over the centuries. Where it becomes problematic is when one starts defining a political entity as linked to a religion which has a genealogical component. Who is a Jew, in Israel? If the Palestinians all simply converted to Judaism, Israel would face a demographic nightmare far worse than the one that already makes another mass expulsion the only real Zionist alternative to withdrawal from the West Bank.
|
|
|
Post by elizabeth2 on Dec 28, 2005 13:31:22 GMT -5
Besides a religion and "middle eastern Dna" i dont see it possible how anyone could have proof of Israelite lineage. If a Spaniard converted to Juadism he has about as much "proof' or "Right" to claim israeliness and their for palestinian land right? just seems wrong
|
|
|
Post by syriano on Dec 29, 2005 12:23:43 GMT -5
you always hear how the jews didn't mix, but today everyother person in the west is part Jew
even if Jewish blood is used as a reason to come back to the region, what about all the 100%palestinian refugees that are not allowed to come back to Palestine now?
actually I like yigal because he is honest even he -a convert- stated that Israel is the promised land to him.
anyways, the Palestine-Israel problem will never be solved by the current mentality (from both parts)
|
|
|
Post by Yankel on Dec 29, 2005 23:37:18 GMT -5
Who says Jews didn't mix? Everything out there on Jewish genetics mentions how Jews have mixed with their (former) host populations. The point is that their primary roots are in the Near East.
There aren't that many part-Jews in the West, and most of them are goyim, anyway. Most Jews in the West have no desire to move to Israel, let alone halfies who know nothing about Jewish culture.
'Middle Eastern DNA' is diverse enough that it's possible.
On a religious basis. It's no different than a Muslim moving to a Muslim country.
|
|