Originally posted by living in a cave http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966952.html
only for a short time, for unfortuneatly we humans seem to have a need to argue about one thing or another.
why is it the grass in another mans field always looks better?
Originally posted by Hugh Glass only for a short time, for unfortuneatly we humans seem to have a need to argue about one thing or another.
why is it the grass in another mans field always looks better?
because it has your water supply too?
the article presents the posited academic theory that the Palestinians were originallyJewish and converted to Islam
The author suggests that there was no large-scale Diaspora out of Palestine -- that most Jews in Palestine necessarily remained in Palestine and over the centuries converted to Islam -- so their ancestors would today be known as 'Palestinians'.
He says that the presence of so many Jews in Eastern Europe and Spain is the result of the spread of Judaism in the 3rd and 4th centuries and so represent local conversions.
Therefore the notion of a 'return' to Israel by Jews who had no ancestral roots there is a mythology invented in Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries to justify the subsequent invasion.
Genetic studies could address the believability of some of this.
Let's move through a phase of worshipping a bearded woman first so that we can look upon the whole process as one of evolution and enlightened progress rather than merely a giant leap away from backwardness.
Originally posted by spruce112358 The author suggests that there was no large-scale Diaspora out of Palestine -- that most Jews in Palestine necessarily remained in Palestine and over the centuries converted to Islam -- so their ancestors would today be known as 'Palestinians'.
He says that the presence of so many Jews in Eastern Europe and Spain is the result of the spread of Judais ...[text shortened]... the subsequent invasion.
Genetic studies could address the believability of some of this.