When did Palestine exist as more than a map notation?

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I presented a DNA scientific article from a JEWISH scientist that knows what he is talking about. You know nothing but hatred, your whole heart is so full of it, it has rotted your every thought and action.

You and many others need turn to God.

No thanks.

Now tell us, do you really think that by linking to a scientific article about shared DNA you can claim a territory? Just like Hitler wanted to do with his Third Reich.

It is 2014 in case you've forgot. My people are also scientifically matched to some haplogroups from Iran meaning we share old Persian blood which in turn means absolutely nothing to us. We live on another continent for thousands of years, have a different religion, been fighting our own battles, have our own culture and we would never dream of claiming the territory of old Persia.

On the other hand you have your God and your fairytales which you prefer over sanity and logic. So go on, tell us more about your similarity to Arabs

I've been saying it for ages that Islam+Judaism go hand in hand, both barbaric and extreme, not something we need in our modern world.

a reply to: Exitt

Even if todays Jews were related by blood to the original tribes they should never have been permitted land on the basis of borders that have long been redrawn. Zionist position becomes even weaker when DNA proves that majority of people now living in Israel have no blood ties to the original Jews but are a Turkic race that converted to Judaism in 13AD.

So who owned Palestine in past centuries is mute. It was never owned by Turkic race.

My fight is against Zionist that believe they have the right to murder Palestinian children.

originally posted by: babloyi
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes

So the argument is that the land belongs to the Israelis because evidence shows that they share DNA with the people who are native to that land, and were living there before immigrant jews from europe showed up?

...that's just messed up confusing.

I agree. The anti-Israel crowd is using the argument not me. They say they do NOT share DNA, so the land is not theirs. I am merely disproving the messed up confusing anti-Israel argument. As to the rest, I am happy to see a source showing a Palestinian state.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I presented a DNA scientific article from a JEWISH scientist that knows what he is talking about. You know nothing but hatred, your whole heart is so full of it, it has rotted your every thought and action.

You and many others need turn to God.

Except there is a HUGE flaw with his theory, which I proved to you numerous times. Show me his DNA analysis of the ancient Khazars. If you can't because we have no Khazar DNA, how is he comparing them?

The only one with hatred is you, and it's evident in your hate filled vitriol and the fact you post known lies over and over as long as it supports your cause. Keep lying, I will keep posting the truth. Oh and the JEWISH scientist you love to source says they came from the Levant and are Semitic. Keep lying.

originally posted by: Exitt

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I presented a DNA scientific article from a JEWISH scientist that knows what he is talking about. You know nothing but hatred, your whole heart is so full of it, it has rotted your every thought and action.

You and many others need turn to God.

No thanks.

Now tell us, do you really think that by linking to a scientific article about shared DNA you can claim a territory? Just like Hitler wanted to do with his Third Reich.

It is 2014 in case you've forgot. My people are also scientifically matched to some haplogroups from Iran meaning we share old Persian blood which in turn means absolutely nothing to us. We live on another continent for thousands of years, have a different religion, been fighting our own battles, have our own culture and we would never dream of claiming the territory of old Persia.

On the other hand you have your God and your fairytales which you prefer over sanity and logic. So go on, tell us more about your similarity to Arabs

I've been saying it for ages that Islam+Judaism go hand in hand, both barbaric and extreme, not something we need in our modern world.

Your post is literally wrong on ever single point.
I am not Jewish nor living in Israel. I do not really care about either group, I have no horse in this race. The only thing that draws me to the topic is the blatant hate filled lies spewed.
I am not arguing DNA is relevant, that is being done by your fellow haters. I am merely showing them their posts are lies, which they are. The basis for Israel's existence has nothing to do with DNA. The reason the Palestinians are in the position they are in has nothing to do with DNA.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Exitt

Even if todays Jews were related by blood to the original tribes they should never have been permitted land on the basis of borders that have long been redrawn. Zionist position becomes even weaker when DNA proves that majority of people now living in Israel have no blood ties to the original Jews but are a Turkic race that converted to Judaism in 13AD.

So who owned Palestine in past centuries is mute. It was never owned by Turkic race.

My fight is against Zionist that believe they have the right to murder Palestinian children.

I already proved even Ashkenazi Jews have a Semitic origin. More lies from you. YOUR source says they have a Semitic origin.

I am glad you agree Palestinians never owned the land. However, you are absolutely 100% false in your statement it was never owned by Turks.



It was owned by the Ottomans. Guess who Ottomans were .. DING DING DING .. Turks. So I guess the people with the greatest claim are the Israelis after all! Thank you for this.

a reply to: MrCynic

I see a lot of smoke screens and dead end arguments in the replies to this thread. Like 99% of the counties of the world Israel is occupied by people who occupied and held the land thru the law of conquest. What country on earth is occupied by its original people? As the centuries fall away people come and displace prior occupants. The strong overcome the weak. The Israelis occupied the land and hold it thru strength. Pure and simple.

If someone believes that the law of conquest has ended I ask them to explain Crimea. Should the law of conquest end? Sure it would be very civilized of we humans, however, I'm waiting to see unicorns also.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I agree. The anti-Israel crowd is using the argument not me. They say they do NOT share DNA, so the land is not theirs. I am merely disproving the messed up confusing anti-Israel argument.

But the only reason the argument that the immigrant jews do not share the DNA of the locals ever came up was because it was being used by supporters of Israel as a justification of its existence as a jewish state.
"Jews have a right to the land because they have a historic and genetic connection to it".

Which is BS in every sense, so I kinda agree that it is meaningless for anyone to be drawn into it. Instead of responding with "No they don't" (which they may or may not), the response should be "Your premise is wrong".

originally posted by: babloyi
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I agree. The anti-Israel crowd is using the argument not me. They say they do NOT share DNA, so the land is not theirs. I am merely disproving the messed up confusing anti-Israel argument.

But the only reason the argument that the immigrant jews do not share the DNA of the locals ever came up was because it was being used by supporters of Israel as a justification of its existence as a jewish state.
"Jews have a right to the land because they have a historic and genetic connection to it".

Which is BS in every sense, so I kinda agree that it is meaningless for anyone to be drawn into it. Instead of responding with "No they don't" (which they may or may not), the response should be "Your premise is wrong".

Premise is wrong is an opinion. Why would I argue against a person's opinion when the evidence they use to support that opinion is plain wrong? If they refuse to address actual scientific facts what makes you think attacking an opinion would do anything?

All you need to do is look at this post where I prove them wrong with scientific facts that are not debatable and they cling to their beliefs .. attacking an opinion is meaningless with someone that invested.