For the moment, let’s assume that the Palestinian people undergo a mass conversion to Judaism, do you think that would put an end to the conflict? or do you think the Israeli government would be forced to revise its definition of “WHO IS A JEW”?
According to a Ha’aretz newspaper (An Israeli newspaper) reported in March 2001 that half of the Russian Jews who immigrated to Israel in the 1990s belong to mothers who recently converted to Judaism, Do you still believe that these people are connected to “Eretz Yisrael” via the Biblical prophecy? the “Jewish Agency” stating that the true number is closer to 70%.
https://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/General/Story8625.html
Another Survey: Record Number of Israeli Jews Believe in God. First comprehensive study in a decade also shows that 70 percent of Israelis believe the Jews are the ‘Chosen People.’
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.haaretz.com/amp/jewish/1.5175991
Finally, the exact borders of the “Promised Land” have not been geographically defined. The Biblical “Promise”, which “God had granted to Abraham’s descendants”, covered the areas between the Nile River in Egypt and the Euphrates River in Iraq. Does that imply that Israel’s future borders eventually will span the borders of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Southern Turkey? Could that explain why Israel has neither a constitution nor a properly defined borders? Some Israelis would argue that Eretz Israel is this:
According to the Bible , it contains three geographical definitions of the Land of Israel. The first, found in Genesis 15:18–21, seems to define the land that was given to all of the children of Abraham, including Ishmael, Zimran, Jokshan, Midian, etc. It describes a large territory, “from the brook of Egypt to the Euphrates”.
Early Revisionist Zionist groups such as Betar and Irgun Zvai-Leumi regarded as Greater Israel the territory of the Mandate of Palestine including Transjordan. Yitzhak Shamir was a dedicated proponent of Greater Israel and as Israeli Prime Minister gave the settler movement funding and Israeli governmental legitimisation.
In his Complete Diaries, Vol. II. p. 711, Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, says that the area of the Jewish State stretches: “From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.”
Rabbi Fischmann, member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, declared in his testimony to the U.N. Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.”
In that regard, it is worth sharing the following encounter between Pinhas Rozen (Israel’s first Justice Minister) and Ben-Gurion (Israel’s 1st Prime Minister). Rozen demanded that Israel’s Declaration of Independence should cite the country’s borders. Ben Gurion objected, and both exchanged the following:
ROZEN: “There’s the question of the borders, and it cannot be ignored.”
BEN-GURION: “Anything is possible. If we decide here that there’s to be no mention of borders, then we won’t mention them. Nothing is a priori [imperative].”
ROZEN: “It’s not a priori, but it is a legal issue.” BEN-GURION: “The law is whatever people determine it to be.”(1949, The First Israelis, p. xviii)
If “Eretz Yisrael” would encompass these vast borders, does that imply the Biblical prophecy? Does that explain why Israel has invaded and occupied neighboring states ?Since the “Promised Land” includes southern Lebanon, was invading and occupying Lebanon part of this prophecy? If the invasion of Lebanon was a fulfillment of this ancient Biblical prophecy, then was it a prophecy, or a negation of this prophecy, to withdraw from Lebanon?
Currently, the most common definition of the land encompassed by the term is the territory of the State of Israel together with the Palestinian territories. However,It is worth emphasizing that the “Jewish state” was founded on the basis of an ancient Biblical map, and to this date the “Jewish state” still refuses to declare its borders in favor of future expansion. There is nothing like this Biblical map below to send shivers among Arabs and Muslims, since its borders spans the occupied West Bank (including occupied East Jerusalem), occupied Gaza Strip, southern Lebanon, the western parts of Jordan, and southern Syria including the occupied Golan Heights. This deep fear was also one of the prime motives behind the Palestinian and Arab rejection of the U.N. GA proposed partition plan in 1947. Map of Greater Israeli as submitted by the Word Zionist Organization soon after the end of WWI:
As WWI was ending, Ben Gurion went on to draw a map of the “Jewish state” to be. This map clearly excluded Damascus (although it was part of Biblical “Eretz Yisrael”), and limited the “Jewish state’s” future northern borders to 20 km south of the Syrian Capital. He rationalized this decision as follows:
“It is unthinkable that the Jewish state, in our day and age, could include the city of Damascus. . . . This is a large Arab city, and one of the four centers of Islam. The Jewish community there is small. The Arabs will never allow Damascus, their pride, to come under Jewish control, and there can be no doubt that the English, even were it in their power, would agree to such a thing.” (ShabtaiTeveth, p.34)
If these are all sound reasons to exclude Damascus from being under Jewish control, then what makes Zionists think that occupied Jerusalem is any different? Although Damascus was never occupied by the Christian Crusaders, Jerusalem was occupied and pillaged, and to liberate it almost a million Muslim and Arab were martyred! Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims often wonder where the Zionist Jews were when their “Promised Land” needed them during the Crusaders’ genocide!
From the beginning, Zionists advocated a “Jewish State” not just in Palestine, but also in Jordan, southern Lebanon, and the Golan Heights as well. In 1918 Ben-Gurion described the future “Jewish state’s” frontiers in details as follows:
“to the north, the Litani river [in southern Lebanon], to the northeast, the Wadi ‘Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus; the southern border will be mobile and pushed into Sinai at least up to Wadi al-‘Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan”(Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 87)
In the mid-1930s, Ben-Gurion met George Antonius (an advisor to al-Mufti, Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was one of the few Palestinians whom Ben Gurion had contacts with), and blatantly suggested that Palestinians should help the Zionists to expand the borders of their future “Jewish state” to include areas under French control, such as southern Lebanon and the Golan Heights. In response, Mr. Antonius burst laughing and answered:
“So, you propose that what England did not give you [as stated in the Balfour Declaration), you will get from us.” (Shabtai Teveth, p. 162)
According to Ben-Gurion, Antonius had complained about Zionists who “want to bring to Palestine the largest number of Jews possible, without taking [the Palestinian] Arabs into consideration at all. With this type,” said Antonius,
“it is impossible to come to an understanding. They want a 100% Jewish state, and the [Palestinian] Arabs will remain in their shadow.” By the end of their talk, Antonius could, with reason, conclude that Ben Gurion belonged precisely to this category of Zionists. (Shabtai Teveth, p. 163)
According to Ben-Gurion, Palestine was a
“matter of life and death” for the Jews. “Even pogroms in Germany or Poland, and in Palestine, we prefer the pogroms here.”(Shabtai Teveth, p. 163)
On July 29, 1937, Ben-Gurion stated to the World Convention of Ihud Po’alei Tzion in Zurich that Maronite ruled Lebanon would serve the Christian minority better if it allied itself with the future “Jewish state.” He said:
“Having Lebanon as a neighbor ensures the Jewish state of a faithful ally from the first day of its establishment. It is not, also, unavoidable that across the northern side of the Jewish state border in southern Lebanon the first possibility of our expansion will come up through agreement, in good will, with our neighbors who need us.”(Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p.88)
Ben-Gurion was enchanted that Jerusalem’s neighboring Palestinian communities had been emptied and predicted ethnic cleansing. He stated to the Mapai Council on February 8, 1948:
“From your entry into Jerusalem, through Lifta, Romema [East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhood]. . . there are no [Palestinian] Arab. One hundred percent Jews. Since Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, it has not been Jewish as it is now. In many [Palestinian] Arab neighborhoods in the west one sees not a single [Palestinian] Arab. I do not assume that this will change. . . . What had happened in Jerusalem. . . . is likely to happen in many parts of the country. . . in the six, eight, or ten months of the campaign there will certainly be great changes in the composition of the population in the country.”(Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 180-181)
Ben-Gurion “had a dream” to annex southern Lebanon to the “Jewish state”, and to establish a Christian state north of the Litani River. At the beginning of the 1948 war, he stated:
‘The Muslims rule of Lebanon is artificial and easily undermined. A Christian state ought to be set up whose southern borders would be Litani River. Then we’ll form an alliance with it.”
In the coming years he repeated this idea, and according to Moshe Sharett, Moshe Dayan (who was Israeli’s chief of staff in the early 1950s) responded favorably to this idea and who according to Sharett said:
“In his [Dayan] view, all we need to do is to find a Christian Lebanese officer, perhaps no higher than a captain, and win him over or buy him with money, so that he would declare himself the savior of Maronite population. Then the Israel army would enter Lebanon, occupy the territory in question and establish a Christian government which would form an alliance with Israel.” Sharett himself considered this an “awful” idea. (1949, The First Israelis, p. 10 & Righteous Victims, p. 497)
What’s ironic that this “awful” idea was precisely executed thirty years later by Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon during the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon between 1982-2000.
In a letter Chaim Weizmann sent to the Palestine-British high Commissioner while the Peel Commission was convening in 1937, he wrote:
“We Shall spread in the whole country in the course of time ….. this is only an arrangement for the next 25 to 30 years.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 62)
In 1938,Ben-Gurion made it clear of his support for the establishment of a Jewish state on parts of Palestine ONLY as an intermediary stage, he wrote:
“[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state–we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel.”(Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 107, One Palestine Complete,p. 403)
Ben-Gurion emphasized that the acceptance of the Peel Commission would not imply static borders for the future “Jewish state”. In a letter Ben Gurion sent to his son in 1937, he wrote:
“No Zionist can forgo the smallest portion of the Land Of Israel. [A] Jewish state in part [of Palestine] is not an end, but a beginning ….. Our possession is important not only for itself … through this we increase our power, and every increase in power facilitates getting hold of the country in its entirety.Establishing a [small] state …. will serve as a very potent lever in our historical effort to redeem the whole country.”(Righteous Victims,p. 138)
In August 1937, the 20th Zionist Congress rejected the Peel Commission proposed partition plan because the area allotted to the “Jewish state” was smaller than expected. On the other hand, the concept of partitioning Palestine into two states was accepted as a launching pad for future Zionist expansions, and to secure unlimited Jewish immigrations. In September 1938, Ben-Gurion explained why he advocated partitioning the country NOW, and to accept the Peel Commission’s proposal:
“The ONLY reason that we agreed to discuss the [Peel commission proposed] partition plan,” Ben-Gurion wrote Moshe Sharett, “is mass immigration. Not in the future, and not according to abstract formula, but large immigration now.” (Shabtai Teveth, p. 184)
And in October 1938, he wrote to his children that:
“I don’t regard a state in part of Palestine as the final aim of Zionism, but as a mean toward that aim.” (Shabtai Teveth, p. 188)
In September 1937, he stated to a group of American Jewish labor leaders in New York:
“the borders [of the Jewish state] will not be fixed for eternity.” (Shabtai Teveth, p. 188)
On July 30, 1937 Yosef Bankover, a founding member and leader of Kibbutz Hameuhad movement and a member of Haganah’s regional command of the coastal and central districts, stated that Ben Gurion would accept the proposed Peel Commission partition plan under two conditions: 1) unlimited Jewish immigration 2)Compulsory population transfer for Palestinians. He stated that:
“Ben-Gurion said yesterday that he was prepared to accept the [Peel partition] proposal of the Royal commission but on two conditions: [Jewish] sovereignty and compulsory transfer ….. As for the compulsory transfer– as a member of Kibbutz Ramat Hakovsh [founded in 1932 in central Palestine] I would be very pleased if it would be possible to be rid of the pleasant neighborliness of the people of Miski, Tirah, and Qalqilyah.”(Expulsion Of The m Palestinians,p. 70)
Similarly, he also stated to his son Amos in October 1937 that a “Jewish state” in part of Palestine was:
“not the end, but only the beginning.” Its establishment would give a “powerful boost to our historic efforts to redeem the country in its entirety.” For the “Jewish state” would have “outstanding army– I have no doubt that our army will be among the world’s outstanding–and so I am certain that we won’t be constrained from settling in the rest of the country, either by mutual agreement and understanding with our Arab neighbors, or by some other way. . . . I still believe . . . . that after we become numerous and strong, the Arabs will understand that it is best for them to strike an alliance with us, and to benefit from our help, providing they allow us by their good will to settle in all parts of Palestine.”(Shabtai Teveth, p. 188)
Regarding settling the Negev desert, which was allotted to the Palestinian state according to the Peel Commission, Ben-Gurion stated:
“It is very possible that in exchange for our financial, military, organizational and scientific assistance, the [Palestinian] Arabs will agree that we develop and build the Negev [which as of 2002, the Negev is still mostly populated by Palestinian-Israeli citizens]. It is also possible that they won’t agree. No people always behaves according to logic, common sense, and best interests.”If the Palestinian Arabs “act according to sterile nationalist emotion,” and reject the idea of Jewish settlement, preferring that the Negev remain barren, then the Jewish army would act.“Because we cannot stand to see large areas of unsettled land capable of absorbing thousands of Jews remain empty, or to see Jews not return to their country because the [Palestinian] Arabs say that there is not enough room for them and us.” (Shabtai Teveth, p. 188-189)
It is worth noting that the Negev is still a barren desert, and under populated by Israeli Jews.
During a lecture in Tel-Aviv in front of Mapai activists in 1938, Ben-Gurion divided the realization of the “historic aim of the Jewish state” into two stages: The first stage, which would last ten to fifteen years, he called “the period of building and laying foundations.” This would prepare the state for the second stage,”the period of expansion.” The goal of both stages was the “gathering of the exiles in all of Palestine.” And so “from the moment the state is established, it must calculate its actions with an eye toward this distant goal.”
When Zionists were debating the Peel Commission’s partition plan, Ben-Gurion advised his colleges to accept the concept of partitioning ONLY as a first stage of a complete conquest. He stated in 1937:
“Just as I do not see the proposed Jewish state as a final solution to the problems of the Jewish people, so I do now see partition as the final solution of the Palestine question.Those who reject partition are right in their claim that this country cannot be partitioned because it constitute one unit, not only from a historical point of view but also from that of nature and economy”(Simha Flapan, p. 22)
and while addressing the Zionist executive, he again emphasized the tactical nature of his support for partition and his assumption that:
“after the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the [Jewish] state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of the Palestine” (Simha Flapan, p. 22)
Similarly he also stated:
“The acceptance of partition does not commit us to renounce Transjordan. One does not demand from anybody to give up his vision.We shall accept a state in the boundaries fixed today–but the boundaries of the Zionist aspirations are the concern of the Jewish people and no external factor will be able to limit them.” By 1949 and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians,Ben Gurion had proved that he was as good as his word.(Simha Flapan, p. 52-53)
Soon after the Biltmore conference in New York in May 1942, Ben-Gurion reiterated his commitment for a “Jewish state” in all of historic Palestine, he explained in a meeting of Histadrut Counsel:
“this is why we formulated our demand not as a Jewish state in Palestine but Palestine as a Jewish state” and he advised “not to identify the Biltmore Program with a Jewish state in part of Palestine.”(Simha Flapan, p. 23-24)
Ben-Gurion wrote in his dairy on November 30, 1947 after the UN vote to partition Palestine into two states:
“In my heart, there was joy mixed with sadness: joy that the nations at last acknowledged that we are a nation with a state, and SADNESS that we LOST half of the country, Judea and Samaria, and , in addition, that we [would] have [in our state] 400,000 Arabs.”(Righteous Victims, p. 190)
Soon after the U.N. Proposed Partitioning Palestinian in November 1947, Ben-Gurion urged his party to accept the partition because it will never be final:
“not with regard to the regime, not with regard to borders, and not with regard to international agreements.”(Simha Flapan, p. 32)
Similarly, even most left wing parties reaffirmed their commitment to the complete redemption of Biblical “Eretz Yisrael,” the United Hebrew Labor (Ahdut Haavodah) stated:
“partition is the best or shortest way of realizing greater Zionism” and declared that its members would “not cease to strive for the integrity of the homeland.”(Simha Flapan, p. 33)
As a follow up to this section:
Ben-Gurion clearly never believed in static borders, but dynamic ones as described in the Bible. He stated during a discussion with his aides:
“Before the founding of the state, on the eve of its creation, our main interests was self-defense. To a large extent, the creation of the state was an act of self-defense. . . . Many think that we’re still at the same stage. But now the issue at hand is conquest, not self-defense. As for setting the borders— it’s an open-ended matter. In the Bible as well as in our history, there all kinds of definitions of the country’s borders, so there’s no real limit. No border is absolute. If it’s a desert— it could just as well be the other side. If it’s sea, it could also be across the sea. The world has always been this way. Only the terms have changed. If they should find a way of reaching other stars, well then, perhaps the whole earth will no longer suffice.” (1949,The First Israelis, p.6)
It has been customary among all Zionists leaders to use the Bible to justify perpetrating WAR CRIMES. Regardless of the methods used to build the “Jewish state”, the quote above is a classical example how the Bible and the great and ancient religion of Judaism 
is used to achieve political objectives.
During the course of the 1948 war, Yigal Allon submitted detailed plan to Ben-Gurion for the military conquest of the West Bank, arguing that the Jordan River would provide the best strategic border. He believed that a substantial part of the Palestinian population would flee east because of the military operations, he stated:
“Our offensive has to leave the way open for the army and the refugees to retreat. We shall easily find the reason or, to be more accurate, the pretexts, to justify our offensive, as we did up to now”(Simha Flapan, p. 114)
When Israel signed the armistice agreements with Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, Ben-Gurion stated:
“The November 29[, 1947 U.N.] decision had given the Jewish state 14,920,000 dunums; now we have 20,662,000 dunums in our control. While the UN has not yet recognized our borders, Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, and Lebanon have done so.” (Simha Flapan, p. 49)
In other words, Israel managed to expand its borders 38% more than the area allotted to the “Jewish state” by 1947 UN GA partition plan. It should be noted that 60% of the Israelis soldiers were killed in action, were killed in offensive actions in the areas conquered beyond areas allotted by the UN to the “Jewish state.” (Simha Flapan,p. 198-199)
One day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine, Menachem Begin, the commander of the terrorist Jewish organization , Irgun and Israel’s future Prime Minster between 1977-1983, proclaimed:
“The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized …. Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever.” (Avi Shlaim, Iron Wall, p.25)
Yigal Allon wrote in an article published just before the outbreak of the 1967 war:
“In. . .a new war, we must avoid the historic mistake of the War of Independence [the 1948 war]. . . and MUST NOT cease fighting until we achieve total victory, the territorial fulfillment of the Land Of Israel.”(Righteous Victims, p. 321)
In 1934 Ze’ev Jabotinsky introduced for his youth movement followers the Betar Oath:
“I devote my life to the rebirth of the Jewish State, with a Jewish majority, on both sides of the Jordan.” (Israel: A History, p. 76)
As a follow up to this section:
We went on in discussing colonial and ethnic cleansing quotes , that were being propagated and used by Zionists for their expansionism. Disgustingly and in a very bad taste , they used the Bible to commit such atrocities , and fulfill such racist political aims. Since the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a conflict in which both sides have some justice on their side (as once put by Ze’ev Jabotinsky and Chaim Weizmann), the Zionists propagandists resorted to extreme measures to demonize the Palestinian people. In their quest to demonize the Palestinian people, the Bible & the Holocaust have been cited to achieve the following:
1-To obscure facts and to deflect the core issues of the conflict
2-To gain a world wide sympathy for the Zionist enterprise. Chief among these propaganda (or demonizing) tactics is the cite al-Hajj Amin al-Husseini’s collaboration with the Nazis during WW II to prevent Zionist colonialism of his homeland, while obscuring the fact that the Stern Terror Gang (once lead by Yitzhak Shamir) collaborated with the Nazis against the British Mandate during the same period (Israel: A History, p. 111-112). It is worth pointing out, also, that the Irgun(once led by Menachem Begin) attacked the British war machine and terrorized Palestinians while the Holocaust was in progress in Europe’s concentration camps. Such facts are often hidden and purposely suppressed in most Jewish communities around the world, and for fairness sake, they must be debated. Briefly, the Zionist enterprise will use all possible means to achieve its goals, including the exploitation of the Holocaust to portray Palestinians as Nazis, that they had nothing to do with, and citing the Bible to paint the “Jewish state” as a divine prophecy, and above all using Hollywood’s resources to demonize Arabs and Muslims. Ironically, the Bible was not used them to mobilize the world Jewish community to “redeem Eretz Yisrael” during the Crusades’ genocide!
Getting back on the original topic of God promising the land to the descendants of Ibrahim , According to an article published at the World Zionist Organization’s (WZO) website: “REMARKABLY, the Khazars, a people of Turkic origin, converted to the Jewish religion sometime in the 9th century, beginning with the royal house and spreading gradually among the general populace. Judaism is now known to have been more widespread among the Khazar inhabitants of the Khazar kingdom than was previously thought. In 1999, Russian archaeologists announced that they had successfully reconstructed a Khazarian vessel from the Don River region, revealing 4 inscriptions of the word “Israel” in Hebrew lettering. It is now the accepted opinion among most scholars in the field that the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism was widespread, and not limited merely to the royal house and nobility. Ibn al-Faqih, in fact, wrote “All of the Khazars are Jews.” Christian of Stavelot wrote in 864 that “all of them profess the Jewish faith in its entirety.” One would argue such hypothesis is not right, including many scholars who did so as well.However, others like Eran Elhaik Supports the hypothesis or similar concepts and ideas. We are not supporting the hypothesis , we are saying that there have been converts. It is worth mentioning that there were thousands of Jews all over the world that converted to other religions through the course of many rules , dynasties and eras. Many famous Jewish tribes in Arabia, Yemen, Palestine, and Iraq had converted to Christianity and Islam. Other people converted to Judaism. It’s natural , human beings are not static , they are dynamic.
We hope you will excuse our sense of humor, but we feel it’s important to ask the following questions: How god promised Jewish converts this land , those converts with no connection whatsoever to Israelites? Does this “unique and special connection” transfer to other humans upon their conversion to Judaism? In other words, assuming that thousands of people converted to Judaism (which already occurred) Did these new converts magically overnight develop a “unique and special connection” to “Eretz Yisrael”? If the answer is yes, could Palestinians reclaim their looted homes if they all made a mass conversion to Judaism? Are you aware that it’s against the Israeli Law to pretend to be Jewish? This is actually punishable with up to a year’s imprisonment, and many such cases have been successfully prosecuted in the “only democracy in the Middle East”. (Fateful Triangle, p. 158)
There is no question that some of present day Jews are definitely descendants of the prophet Isaac and the prophet Abraham. However, to claim that other people, inclusive of the Palestinian people and in the same argument to not be descendants of Isaac or Abraham is ridiculous.
Either through voluntary or involuntary conversion, many Semitic Jews had converted, over time, to other religions, such as Christianity and Islam. Results of a DNA study by geneticist Ariella Oppenheim (a famous Israeli geneticist) appears to match historical accounts that Arab Israelis and Palestinians, together as the one same population, represent modern “descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times”, albeit religiously first Christianized then largely Islamized, and all eventually culturally Arabized. Referring to those of the Muslim faith more specifically, it reaffirmed that Palestinian “Muslim Arabs are descendants from Christians and Jews who lived in the southern Levant, a region that includes Israel, Sinai and part of Jordan.” Geneticist Michael Hammer praised “the study for ‘focusing in detail on the Jewish and Palestinian populations.'” It should be noted that this is true for some Palestinians , but definitely not all.
The core of Israel’s future problems lies in its crippled democracy (since it empowers people based on their religion/ethnicity/race). In order for it to survive, Israel has to continuously redefine its definition of “who is a Jew.” Its current definition of “who is a Jew” is fluid-since it has been written to suit its domestic political agenda. This racist and crippled “Zionist Jewish Democracy” won’t last. So if you agree with Israel’s current status, then enjoy it while it lasts. Any civilization that bases itself on exclusion, rather than inclusion, sooner or later will self-destruct.
Finally, The idea that God’s covenant with Abraham can be used as a religious justification for the usurpation of Palestinian land and ethnic cleansing of it’s people is not an argument that can accepted on religious grounds – where commentators have pointed out there is nothing in the promise to indicate God intended it be applied to Abraham’s physical descendants unconditionally, exclusively (to nobody but these descendants), exhaustively (to all of them) or in perpetuity, putting aside the question of defining who exactly these physical descendants even are, given the related ancestry of Palestinian people today to those same descendants of Abraham.
Nor is it one that can be accepted on moral grounds, where the idea that God covenant provides justification to establish a nation that enshrines the supremacy of one racial group over every other, is clearly a racist interpretation of religion and should be vehemently rejected by all people. The question which begs to be asked is this: Is it possible that, at one point in history, God made a racist promise?
- Palestinians are an indigenous people who either live in, or originate from historical Palestine.Although the Muslims guaranteed security and allowed religious freedom to all inhabitants of the region, the majority converted to Islam and adopted Arab culture.’ Bassam Abu-Libdeh, Peter D. Turnpenny, and Ahmed Teebi, ‘Genetic Disease in Palestine and Palestinians,’ in Dhavendra Kumar (ed.) Genomics and Health in the Developing World, OUP(Oxford University press) 2012 pp.700-711, p.700.
- The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler
- Highlight: Out of Khazaria—Evidence for “Jewish Genome” Lacking by Danielle Venton“There is no Jewish genome and certainly no Jewish gene, says the Israeli-born Elhaik. Instead, all humans are a mix of the same building blocks, built with slightly different architectures. “The confusion about European Jews results from their tragic history of persecutions and deportations, creating multiple links between ancestry and geography. By dismantling our notions of genetically distinct populations and understanding our kinship, we can better appreciate our common history, and more importantly, our shared future”\
- Shattering a ‘National Mythology’ by Ofir Ilany
- Scholar claims to find medieval Jewish capital by The Israeli media (Jpost)
- Interview with a Holocaust survival, Dina Peleg .The interview was extracted from Occupied Minds By Arthur Nelsen
- “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses” by Dr. Eran Elhaik/ John Hopkins University. Elhaik argues that the European Jewish genome is a mosaic of Caucasus, European, and Semitic ancestries, setting to rest previous contradictory reports of Jewish ancestry. Elhaik’s findings strongly support the Khazarian Hypothesis (It should be noted that many, but not all scholars dismiss it) as opposed to the Rhineland Hypothesis, of European Jewish origins. It has also been found that their DNA only has 3% ancient ancestry which links them with the Middle East,namely Israel, Lebanon, parts of Syria, and western Jordan. This is the part of the world Jewish people are said to have originally come from – according to the Old Testament. But 3% is a minuscule amount, and similar to what modern Europeans as a whole share with Neanderthals. So given that the genetic ancestry link is so low, Ashkenazic Jews’ most recent ancestors must be from elsewhere. https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/5/1/61/728117; https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130116195333.htm; https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/ashkenazic-jews-mysterious-origins-unravelled-by-scientists-thanks-to-ancient-dna-97962
- “A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages”by Dr.Martin B. Richards of the University of Huddersfield in the UK : The European Jews primarily descend from European converts (on the maternal side) which he traces to Roman Empire era conversions in Southern Europe (specifically Italy). Other researchers: like Dr. Avshalom Zoossmann Diskin, Steven M. Bray et al. 2010, and even Harry Ostrer have argued similar reasoning.https://www.the-scientist.com/daily-news/genetic-roots-of-the-ashkenazi-jews-38580/amp; https://www.livescience.com/40247-ashkenazi-jews-have-european-genes.html
- Signatures of founder effects, admixture, and selection in the Ashkenazi Jewish population by Steven M Bray (Department of Human Genetics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, USA.):Our analysis indeed revealed higher European admixture than predicted from previous Y-chromosome analyses.
- “The origin of Eastern European Jews revealed by autosomal, sex chromosomal and mtDNA polymorphisms” by Dr. Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin. According to the autosomal polymorphisms the investigated Jewish populations do not share a common origin, and EEJ (Easter European Jews) are closer to Italians in particular and to Europeans in general than to the other Jewish populations. The close genetic resemblance to Italians accords with the historical presumption that Ashkenazi Jews started their migrations across Europe in Italy and with historical evidence that conversion to Judaism was common in ancient Rome. Contrary to this study, It should be noted that a common origin between Jewish people is present in other studies
- Israel deliberately forgets its history, An Israeli historian suggests the diaspora was the consequence, not of the expulsion of the Hebrews from Palestine, but of proselytising across north Africa, southern Europe and the Middle East , by Shlomo sand
- Exile, A Myth Unearthed : A film by Ilan Ziv. According to archaeologist Zeev Weiss, who began the excavations in 1985, the evidence here doesn’t point to exile, but to growth and expansion after the destruction of Jerusalem. Sepphoris, and most of the Galilee’s, refusal to join the rebellion testifies, according to Columbia University Prof. Seth Schwartz, to a politically and culturally divided society, rather than the image portrayed over centuries of a “national” Jewish uprising.
- The Myth of the Jewish Exile from the Land of Israel: A Demonstration of Irenic Scholarship by Israel Jacob yuval. Prof.Yuval notes and demonstrates in his scholarly writing that the myth of a supposed “Jewish exile” (whether it is claimed to have been by the Romans in after either 70 CE or by the Romans after the Bar Kokhba rebellion of 132 CE- 135 CE) is merely a myth that was actually started by Christians (chiefly in Europe to try “explain” the presence of followers of the religion of Judaism with them in Europe) and which from there LATER entered (via Christian thinking) into Jewish thinking and in modern times of course meshed very well with Zionist ideology (of supposedly “returning” or making “aliyah” to the alleged “long lost homeland”).
- The invention of the Jewish people by Israeli historian , Shlomo Sand. Like Prof.yuval, Prof.Sand argues in a similar way in his book ,and explains in Chapter 3: The Invention of the Exile: Proselytism and Conversion:
The myth of uprooting and exile was fostered by the Christian tradition, from which it flowed into Jewish tradition and grew to be the truth engraved in history, both the general and the national. The Romans never deported entire peoples , Nowhere in the abundant Roman documentation is there any mention of a deportation from Judea. Nor have any traces been found of large refugee populations around the borders of Judea after the uprising, as there would have been if a mass flight had taken place. Roman rulers could be utterly ruthless in suppressing rebellious subject populations : they executed fighters, took captives and sold them into slavery, and sometimes exiled kings and princes. But they definitely did not deport whole populations in the countries they conquered in the East, nor did they have the means to do so—none of the trucks, trains or great ships available in the modern world. The name Provincia Judea was changed to Provincia Syria Palaestina (later Palestine), but its population in the second century CE remained predominantly Judeans and Samaritans, and it continued to flourish for one or two generations after the end of the revolt.
Unfortunately, professor sand suffered severe criticism and attempts to nullify his work in the Zionist sector , to which he replied:
This attempt to justify Zionism through genetics is reminiscent of the procedures of late nineteenth-century anthropologists who very scientifically set out to discover the specific characteristics of Europeans. As of today, no study based on anonymous DNA samples has succeeded in identifying a genetic marker specific to Jews, and it is not likely that any study ever will. It is a bitter irony to see the descendants of Holocaust survivors set out to find a biological Jewish identity: Hitler would certainly have been very pleased! And it is all the more repulsive that this kind of research should be conducted in a state that has waged for years a declared policy of “Judaization of the country” in which even today a Jew is not allowed to marry a non-Jew.
On the publication of Elhaik’s study, Haaretz reported comments by Sand, who took Elhaik’s paper as a vindication of his ideas and seized the opportunity to criticize again “geneticists looking for Jewish genes”, expressing the suspicion that the findings of prior geneticists may have been “adapted” for political reasons.
The invention of the Jewish People by Shlomo Sand
- Prior, Michael. 1999. Zionism and the State of Israel: A Moral Inquiry. Psychology Press. p. 201: “While population transfers were effected in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian periods, most of the indigenous population remained in place. Moreover, after Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70 the population by and large remained in situ, and did so again after Bar Kochba’s revolt in AD 135. When the vast majority of the population became Christian during the Byzantine period, no vast number were driven out, and similarly in the seventh century, when the vast majority became Muslim, few were driven from the land. Palestine has been multi-cultural and multi ethnic from the beginning, as one can read between the lines even in the biblical narrative. Many Palestinian Jews became Christians, and in turn Muslims. Ironically, many of the forebears of Palestinian Arab refugees may well have been Jewish.”
- Dowty, Alan (2008). Israel/Palestine. London, UK: Polity. p. 221. Palestinians are the descendants of all the indigenous peoples who lived in Palestine over the centuries; since the seventh century, they have been predominantly Muslim in religion and almost completely Arab in language and culture.
- Regardless of the outcome of genetics , it should be noted that it’s not a legal or moral argument for the perpetuation of a virtual apartheid state or justification of colonialism or imperialism . Imagine if Sweden began colonizing Finland, because during the 14th century, ethnic Swedes had lived there.We would all regard it as illegal.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,except Palestinians.
