Why Zionism is Uniquely Dangerous

A new commenter, a Zionist of uncertain heritage, has appeared on this anti-Zionist blog. I will first unveil his comments below, then I will explain how they encapsulate the unique menace of Zionist thinking.

Hi there.

Interesting set of comments; some intelligent, others less so.
I’m particularly interested in land claim rights, myself. The whole debate over “Ashkenazim Jews are fakes… they’re really Khazars” rests on it.

As you point out – and others have since – Ashkenazim Jews are most genetically identical with Palestinian Arabs and Kurds… and no-one is suggesting for one second that Arabs are Khazars!

But the Jewish claim that they have a right to return to Israel because of genetic descent is refuted because…well…because it’s been too long since they’ve been away.

Alright. What makes a fair and acceptable right to return to, control or own any bit of real estate on this ball of dirt?
Q: By what right did the Muslims conquer and thereafter rule Palestine in 638 AD? I mean, back then it was part of the Christendom empire of Byzantium (having previously been part of the Pagan empire of Rome… previously ruled by the Jewish Hasmoneans…)

A: Oh, that was ages ago! Why bring that up!? Palestine is Arab land, Palestine is Arab land, Palestine is Arab land… ‘cos, like, it was Arab before it was Jewish and I don’t like it being Jewish. So f*** off!


Okay. There are 300 million citizens of the USA. About 500,000 of them descend from First Nations.

Q: By what right did the Europeans effect a conquest upon the Americas and wipe out 95% of the indigenous population?
A: Oh come on! That was over 500 years ago! Why bring that up? This is totally irrelevant! Who cares what the Europeans did!? We’re criticising the Jews here ‘cos that way we don’t have to look at the sh** in our own history.

Let’s try one more time…?

Q: By what right do the Chinese invade and conquer Tibet – kick out its sacred ruler, the Dalai Lama, slaughter the people, destroy their culture…

A: The Chinese had always laid claim to Tibet, and were merely regaining a rebel province. They’d never rescinded that claim even though Tibet was partially or totally autonomous since 1350AD…like, over 600 years of “disputed territory” If China’s got it back, that’s okay. ‘Cos, like, there’s 1.3 billion Chinese and there’s only 13 million Jews…so it’s easier to shove Jews around…and, besides, China’s got a seat on the UN Security Council and Israel doesn’t.

All this is important because it sets a precedent for The United Nations to determine a new set of ‘rights’ – Rights of Land ownership, Rights of Possession, Rights of Return…that sort of thing.

To suggest that a two thousand year old Land Claim is somehow not valid because…because it’s, like really old…is logically indefensible and hypocritical in the extreme.

The Zionist claims are as honest or as fraudulent or as questionable as those of any other people.

In the Jewish case, it works like this:

1. Every other country we’ve ever lived in has hated us, persecuted us, been jealous of us and then kicked us out. They don’t want us to live anywhere. Frankly, they’d rather see us all just die out as a people to make a convenient solution to their Judenfrag. That ain’t gonna happen.

2. Israel is our ancient Land – we never gave it up. We’ve come back. Anyone wanting to stay has two choices – share or move out. You Arabs don’t seem to understand the meaning of the word “share”. (Remember 638AD… you know.. .that conquest thing…? “Once Islam, is always Islam”…? Yeah, right!)
2. You tried to wipe us out in 1948. You lost.
3. You tried to wipe us out in 1967. You lost.
4. You tried to wipe us out in 1973. You lost.
5. Anyone see a pattern here….?

This is a new commenter here. I haven’t the faintest idea if he’s Jewish or not. The arguments and the furious passion behind them are typical of Jewish Zionists, but Gentile Zionists often use these arguments too, and there are hundreds of millions of very dangerous Gentile Zionists on this planet too.

These ideas are so toxic that they demand to be confronted head-on and full-force every time they lift their heads out of the swamps where they reside.

This is typical Zionist crap, but it’s an exceptionally poisonous worldview.

The world has moved beyond the principle of conquering, annexing, ethnically cleansing and settling foreign lands via warfare, especially since the Geneva Conventions of 1947 and the establishment of the United Nations.

The fact that the Geneva Conventions and the UN threaten to end once and for all the principle of conquest, annexation, cleansing and settling of foreign lands via war is one reason that Zionists have singled out the UN and the Geneva Conventions for particular contempt. The Conventions and the UN stand in the way of their whole barbarian project.

The Zionist game says that this is the way it’s always been for humans (true) so this is the way it’s going to be. Further, as this fellow suggests, any and all aggrieved parties the world over now have a right to fight irredentist and revanchist wars to reclaim ancestral land that was stolen. Can you imagine the chaos?

Conquering and stealing land is the way that every nation on this Earth got formed. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the indigenous have renounced their rights to their land and agreed to share it with the invaders. The Arabs have not done this.

American Indians. Zionists always bring up the Indians. Americans acted like shits, so hey, Jews can be shits too. Anyone else can be shits to boot, forever and ever I guess.

Yes, in a less enlightened age, we conquered the Indians, they surrendered, and now we share the land with them. This is not a mirror of Israel – a State For the Non-Indians of the World. This is a state for all of us. The Indians can go anywhere in US, buy up any land, Hell, they can buy the whole place back if they want to. Indians are not second class citizens. In fact, they are super citizens. They have rights well above those of the rest of us. The comparison between Indians and Arabs is invalid.

As the boundaries of most nations are just lines drawn by invasion and ethnic cleansing, we have say that there is a time frame to get your land back, and once you renounce it, it is gone forever.

Otherwise, the Jews’ example means that everyone gets to go fight revanchist and irredentist wars all over the globe to reclaim all of their ancestral lands. No, the Jews do not get to go back to Palestine 2000 years after the fact and reconquer the land. Why? Because Arabs conquered it in 636? So? They didn’t even conquer it from Jews. Jews were long gone. They conquered it from Christians. Are Jews Christians? Didn’t think so.

Granted, the Jews are not the only such scumbags in the world today, but they are some of the worst.

That’s why there are so many UN resolutions against Israel. If you look at those UN resolutions, you will see that similar international outlaws as the Jews have also been slammed over and over by the UN on similar grounds.

The scofflaws: Indonesia over East Timor and West Papua. India over Kashmir. Turkey over Cyprus. Iraq over Kuwait. China over Tibet. Morocco over Spanish Sahara.

And Israel.

Notice anything about these outlaw countries? They all conquered other nations’ land in wars, annexed the territory to their state, and then conducted massacres and ethnic cleansing of the conquered peoples.

They are international outlaws, the state equivalent of the criminals you see on Wanted posters in the post office.

The Indians, the Indonesians, the Moroccans, the Jews, the Turks, the Chinese. All nationalist barbarians, every single nation. Twisted menace molded into state form.

China and Tibet? Most of us anti-Zionists also oppose China’s bullshit in Tibet too.

Anti-Semitism is a tragic thing, and it’s the cause of this whole mess. The anti-Semites created Israel. It’s their baby, they made it. The more anti-Semitism, the more the Jews cling to Israel and the last refuge in a murderous world. Obviously, more anti-Semitism is not the solution the mess in the Holy Land! The anti-Semites are as guilty in this outrage as the Jews. The Jews didn’t try to wipe themselves off the face of the Earth. The anti-Semites did.

The pogrom and persecution line of Jewish history is not very accurate. For one thing, Jews here in the West and the Anglosphere live extremely comfortable lives. There are some problems in France, but that’s all due to the Zionist Problem. There are problems in Russia, but Russians and Jews have never gotten along.

This group is .3% of the world’s population and they how much of the world’s wealth again? They control how much of the world’s media again? They even have the most powerful nation on Earth, with the biggest military, the US, utterly by the balls and totally controlled, no?

Oh, those poor, pitiful helpless Jews! Shivering in their hovels in the muddy streets of the Pale, waiting in terror for the Czar’s next pogrom! Please. Playing the pogrom and persecution “poor Jews” game with this elite of all elites ethnic group in 2010 is like sick comedy. Spare us.

Portraying this outrageously powerful group, which is now a major faction of the Oligarchy of the World, as latter day residents of the Warsaw Ghetto is ludicrous. Much worse: it’s a horrible insult to the starving, doomed Hebraic fighters in 1944 Poland.

One reason that the Jews are particularly dangerous with regard to Zionism, as opposed to the other barbarians who have been pursuing similar projects, namely Iraqis, Indonesians, Indians, Turks, Moroccans et al, is that those other primitives have no power in the world to speak of. They have little wealth, military power or media power. They’re flies in the Earth’s horse barn. They’re nothing.

So it is the power of the Jews combined with the menace of their barbaric conquest and annex project that makes them so uniquely dangerous.

Jewish minds sit in the world’s top think tanks, swarm the world’s weightiest corporations, fill the halls of law schools, crowd judges’ chambers and flood the Bar. They reign supreme in the most powerful government on Earth. They and their Gentile Zionist allies hold stupefying media power worldwide. None of that is necessarily a bad thing, except that they use this otherworldly power to push their Zionist project with Mach force.

And it’s not so much the project itself – a tussle of a tiny sliver of land – that is so nasty. It’s no worse than Morocco and Spanish Sahara. It’s more that the power of the Jews means that they have the potential to shred world governance and norms and the other scofflaws don’t. Further, if Zionism is ratified, as the poster above notes, logically, we have to open up the entire planet to a hornet’s nest of irredentism and revanchism based on claims going back at least 2000 years. How the Earth will be torn asunder!

But this is how it works. Jewish legal minds, the best on the Earth, pen brilliant defenses of the principles of conquest, annexation, ethnic cleansing and settlement of foreign lands via conquest and publish them in the world’s premiere legal journals.

Via their weighty think tanks, confetti of position papers and endless legal argumentation, they attack the UN and the principles of International Law like termites on speed. They’ve long ago set their scopes on the UN, the Geneva Conventions, the World Court, the whole thing. With their brains, power and money, they can blast holes in the Legal Fabric of the planet like no other group.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

18 thoughts on “Why Zionism is Uniquely Dangerous”

  1. I’m a bit disappointed by this post. There are some facts that are definitely incorrect, and there are a lot of prejudices put on the table.
    First of all: Israel is not a product of the Shoah. Yes it was founded after what happened with Germany and Nazis; but it’s not like that Jews – out of nowhere – went in the Middle East and started to kill the “poor Palestinians”.
    I’m asking myself right now if people who talk about Israel even knows who Theodor Herzl is. You cannot talk about Israel without knowing that this guy is the founder of Zionism. And he wasn’t there when Israel was founded. He wasn’t there when the Arabs attacked Israel over and over. He didn’t see Jerusalem annexed with Israel.
    No he died in 1904. This is 44 years before Israel even existed on anyone’s mouth.
    Herzl had a vision in mind, and it was that of Jews living freely in a country where no one would persecute them. At the end of the 19th century, antisemitism was pretty alive in Europe(the Dreyfus Affair being the tip of the iceberg), so Herzl analyzed the whole situation and decided that something had to be done. He started looking around for support and he found it. Everywhere in Europe Jews agreed with his ideas: they needed to get the hell out of there, because things weren’t working out.
    Herzl wrote a book, called Judenstaat, in which he declared the birth of Zionist movement, and stated clearly that Jews all over the world needed a new homeland, different from the ones they had in that time, since no one wanted them there.
    They started talking about Uganda, at the time a British colony. Herzl died before this project had been rejected.
    Things changed and Jews started looking at their “original homeland”: Palestine, Israel..call it whatever you want. But at the beginning of the 20th century, they actually started migrating there. Jews from all over the world, even before WWI had stared, were already living in Palestine. Arabs didn’t like their presence there, but at that time, Palestine was under a British Mandate. Jews that went there, went there with all they had. So they started buying the land from the Arabs, paying it up to 40 times what it was worth. But they didn’t care, as long as they could have a new and safe home. During WWI, the British couldn’t but recognize the big Jewish presence in Palestine, and with the Balfour Declaration in 1917, they stated that Palestine was a good candidate for a Jewish homeland.
    This is how it all started. Jews actually bought the land from the Arabs. And the Arabs SOLD IT. They weren’t against taking money from the Jews. They did take it and enjoy after all.
    But when David Ben Gurion in 1948 actually declared Israel as a state, the Arabs realized that something had happened, that they had lost control of the situation, and they flipped.
    Today, things are different and Israel is definitely behaving in a wrong way(even though I see that they feel threatened, but –still, it’s no excuse)
    But on both sides they have to understand that if war and guerrilla hasn’t done ANYTHING for peace or “justice”, there’s just something wrong in that, isn’t there?
    But talking about Zionism and anti-Zionism today, from my point of view, it makes no sense at all! Zionism is a movement that wanted to give Jews a homeland. Today, they do have a homeland. Therefore, Zionism has no reason the exist anymore.

  2. This stuff about the jewish genetic makeup is to be taken with a big pinch of salt. I came upon an interesting discussion of this recently, which pointed out that the claims for Ashkenazi affinity with the Kurds require some ‘creative’ use of the data which the zionist geneticists came up with. I can’t find my link to it, unfortunately; but I think it was part of a discussion of Shlomo Sand’s new much-praised book ‘the Invention of the Jewish People’ which seems to be a must-read. I became aware of this topic through reading Kevin Alan Brooks’ (otherwise) excellent book ‘the Jews of Khazaria’. His first edition of the book claimed that most E. European Jews were indeed descended from the Khazars, but he was confronted with this ‘genetic evidence’ and received a lot of flak, and brought out a second edition which is modified ‘in the light of these findings’, and in which he bends over backwards, it seems to me, to swing the other way. I think Shlomo Sand’s book discusses all this.

    I disagree about Tibet, by the way. Certainly there were no massacres of millions of Tibetans by the Chinese; and the lot of the average Tibetan certainly improved when the People’s Army removed their feudal overlords. And I’m not entirely convinced by the Free Tibet movement; there certainly seems to be a swamping of Tibet by the Han, but it’s not clear to me that there is evidence of support from the mass of the indigenous Tibetans (rather than exiled Tibetans) for independence from China – even the asshole Dalai Lama is only asking for autonomy now. A free Tibet isn’t an option anyway; if China moves out, the US will move in – look at Latvia and Estonia for instance to see how things would go for the Tibetans.

  3. Dear Robert
    It is a practice among historians to divide colonialism into settlement colonialism and administrative colonialism. The latter only wants to establish the rule of the colnialists over the natives but does not intend to disposses or displace them. The latter is much worse because its logical conclusion is the expulsion, extermination or total marginalization of the natives. British colonialism in India was more administrative colnialism while British colonialism in North America was settlement colonialism. Of course, those are pure types, while in practice all colonialism is a mixture of the two.

    Zionism is clearly an example of settlement colonialism. It has no desire to rule over the natives, but it wants to get rid of them. If getting rid of them is possible, Zionism wants to make them powerless, either by reducing them to a small minority, as in Israel proper, or by imposing military dictatorship over them. No doubt the Zionists would expel the Arabs of the West Bank if the world weren’t watching.

    What makes Zionism unique is its extreme aversion to assimilation. The Zionists don’t have the slightest intention of converting the Arabs in their domain to the Jewish religion or turn them into Hebrew-speakers. Even the Southern segregationists were assimilationists because they wanted the blacks in the South to be Christian and to speak English. They were what I call inegalitarian assimilationists.

    Comparing the Zionists in Palestine with the Chinese in Tibet is ridiculous. The Chinese don’t take the position that the Tibetans shouldn’t be there. They would love it if all the Tibetans were to become fully Chinese. If the Chinese send a lot of their own into their non-Chinese territory, it is to accelerate the assimilation of the natives, not to displace them or exploit them. The Chinese don’t think in terms of blood ties as the Zionists do. The Chinese don’t declare that China is the state for all those who have a Confucian mother, regardless of where they live and regardless of whether they actually believe in Confucianism.

    Conquest is usually bad for the conquered, but the degree of badness depends on what is done with the natives. The worst type of conquest is the one which claims that it isn’t even conquest but only reclamation and that it is the natives who are the intruders, the ones who shouldn’t be there. That’s what Zionism is.

    Zionists argue that Jews never gave up their claim to Israel. They are right, and that is because this claim is ultimate religious. It was God, not superior military force that gave Israel to the Jews. How can you question the legitimacy of God himself? Zionism is simply the secular version of Judaism and is ultimately dependent on it. Without the ideological underpinning of Judaism, Zionism is just another form of colonialism. With the support of Judaism, it is doing only God’s will. That’s probably why Israel can’t really become a secular state. Its legitimacy depends on Judaism. Zionism is simply Judaism without kosher and God.

    Regards. James

    1. “Zionism is simply the secular version of Judaism and is ultimately dependent on it,” you say.

      Doesn’t this depend on which religious Jews you consult?



    This isn’t the discussion I mentioned above, but I’ve seen it recommended. I must admit that it’s a bit above my head, but it at least shows that the zionist geneticists’ ‘findings’ are hardly the last word on the matter.

  5. Lafayette Sennacherib:
    Kevin Alan Brook pointed out that neither he nor Ellen Coffman Levy were affiliated with any university but both Paul Wexler and Shlomo Sand were tenured professors. What does that tell you about the value of an academic education?

  6. There are two trends worth noting:
    1) The political situation in Israel is becoming more extreme and belligerent. The more liberal Israelis are leaving the country. Soon only hard-right Zionist Israelis will have a voice. The army and the settlers are the vanguard de facto power, with the political class meekly following. This is fed by media support in the US, due to the power of the Jewish establishment in framing the story. (A parallel can be seen with the Boston and NY Irish mindlessly supporting the IRA due to ethno-religious loyalty). Polarisation is increasing in Israel/Palestine – as an example, younger Jewish Israelis rarely can speak Arabic, while with older ones it is not unusual.
    2) The younger generations of Europe and the US, including Jews, are becoming less tolerant of Israel’s shortcomings. Apartheid is being called apartheid.

    This is my prophecy: these two trends will collide at some point in the future.

    A great film to understand the current paranoid Zionist mentality is ‘Defamation’ by Yoav Shamir.

  7. ” Kevin Alan Brook pointed out that neither he nor Ellen Coffman Levy were affiliated with any university but both Paul Wexler and Shlomo Sand were tenured professors. What does that tell you about the value of an academic education? ” Olive.

    I don’t know. What does it tell YOU? But I imagine that Brook and Levy might feel it best to err on the side of caution (i.e. zionism) if they’re to have any hope of ever being tenured.

  8. “Anti-Semitism is a tragic thing, and it’s the cause of this whole mess.”

    Excellent point, and until you solve that Zionism is “uniquely” justified to exist.

  9. Dear Alpha
    Israel has always been occupied a central place in Judaism. “Next year in Jerusalem” is what Jews say at Passover. Some Jews objected to Zionism because they held that the “return” to Israel should follow the coming of the Messiah.

    Cher Vieux_Charles
    The argument that anti-Semitism justifies Zionism is uniquely false. Zionism is not about finding a safe have for any Jew in the world. It is about creating a Jewish state in the Holy Land of Israel.
    Let’s use an analogy. It is 2200, the Mormons are spread all over the world and they are often persecuted. By then the state of Utah has only a tiny minority of Mormons. Now a Mormon Zionist emerges who preaches that Utah should be made a Mormon sovereign state and that all Mormons in the world should have the right to return to it. The early Mormon Zionists get the foreign minister of China to issue a declaration which states that “the Chinese government views with favor the establishment of a Mormon homeland in the American state of Utah”.
    China, at that time being the strongest power in North America, then assigns to itself a mandate over Utah and allows Mormons to “return” to it. Would that be fair?

    If that doesn’t convince you, compare Jews to Gypsies. Gypsies are often hated in Europe, and they are a minority in each European country. They came from India in the 1400s. They also see themselves as a nation. Let’s assume that they came from the Indian province of Kerala. To escape from persecution, the Gypsies create a Zionist movement, which aims to establish a Gypsy state in Kerala. The current inhabitants of Kerala aren’t at all related to the Gypsies and have nothing to do with the persecution of Gypsies in Europe, but that doesn’t stop the Gypsy Zionists. They are adamant to take over Kerala. Would that be justified?

    I can understand that the Jews wanted a state of their own. However, they should have looked for a territory which was really empty, or nearly so. Such a territory could have been Western Australia, which had very few Brits in it at that time and where the small number of Abos had already been subjugated. If the British government had allocated Western Austrlia to the Jews, then it would have acted with some magnanimity. Instead, it decide to be generous with somebody else’s territory.

    Regards. James

    Of course, unlike the Jews, the Gypsies don’t have a blood and soil religion which tells them that they are God’s chosen people and that God granted Kerala to them. Such a Gypsy Zionist movement would therefore never come from the ground because everybody would dismiss it as absurd. The reason why Zionism was not laughed out of the world is that it makes sense in terms of Judaism and because Christianity, unlike Islam, has not fully emancipated itself from Judaism.

    1. James Schipper:”Zionism is not about finding a safe have for any Jew in the world. It is about creating a Jewish state in the Holy Land of Israel.”

      In the case of Israel, the two are mutually inclusive. Current Israeli immigration law, marked increases in Jewish immigration to Israel because of pre- and post-War European anti-Semitism, current foreign policy, intolerance of anti-Semitism abroad and outreach to non-Israeli Jews and Jewish issues are all testament to that fact.

      By your own admission your “Gypsy” analogy is a bad one. The term “Gypsies” represents various groups who do not share a distinct language, religion or definitive homeland. Indeed, until more modern linguistic and genetic research nobody was certain where they came from. So, go ahead and “assume” they came from “Kerala”.

      We know where the Jews came from. We also have a 2,500+ year contiguous written record of their claims to Israel. You can accept that or not, but equating it to any self-imagined Gypsy claims to Kerala is absurd.

      A couple of myths to dispel. First, there has always been a Jewish population in Israel. Second, Palestine has never been a nation, much less an Arab one. Third, a Jewish national homeland in Israel was supported first, by a League of Nations mandate and then a UN resolution. Like it or not, the Zionist state of Israel is officially endorsed by the UN.

      As for the reason “Christianity, unlike Islam, has not fully emancipated itself from Judaism”, this is because the earliest Christians regarded themselves as either Jews (in the case of early Jewish converts) or as having been grafted onto the promise of the God’s covenant with the Jews (in the case of Gentile converts). Islam was specifically created under the premise that Judaism and Christianity are based upon false teachings.

      In otherwords, Christianity “fully emancipated” from Judaism isn’t Christianity at all, and Islam not “fully emancipated” from Judaism isn’t Islam at all.


  10. ” I believe that Euro Jews are about 60% Middle Eastern, 20% European and 20% Khazarian. ”

    While jew-firsters have such a lockdown on international finance and therefore all governments and policies, I’m going to take with a big pinch of salt any ‘scientific’ research about them. But even if you accept the ‘genetic evidence’ favoured by the zionists i.e. the story that dna shows that most jews originated in the Mid E., that story also claims that they’re nearest genetic ‘cousins’ in the Mid E. are the Kurds; google Kurds! What do you find? A people believed to have originated in the steppes – like the Khazars! So THAT tells you precisely nothing.
    What should be blatantly obvious is that the zionists are really scraping the bucket to prove some jewish relationship with the Mid E. And again there is the even more obvious and oft-stated point that, even if there WAS evidence of some ancient origin in the Mid. E, SO WHAT?

    A thing that struck me about Brooks’ book was that his explanation for the sheer bulk of E. European/Russian jewry pre-nazi seemed a bit cursory. I’ve seen some discussions of Sands’ book ( I haven’t read it yet) which indicate that he addresses this rather glaring point. I would say at least that more evidence and discussion is required from those who want us to believe that the (what?) 6 to 8 million E. European Russian jews pre-Hitler were the result of the natural increase over 5 or 6 centuries of small trading communities moving East from Germany and North from Italy – and remember that the Black Death must have taken a toll at some point. It does seem more likely to me that this bulk started from a substantial base, which must be the Khazar kingdom.

    1. Kurdish – Armenian – Turkish DNA looks a lot different from Khazarian DNA.

      I happen to know Kevin Brook and that is a personal communication from him.

      Brook started out believing in the hard (Koestler) form of the Khazarian hypothesis. Like any good scientist, he backtracked when the DNA evidence hit him in the face. The Khazarian evidence just was not there.

      It’s not so hard to posit 8 million Jews in Europe in 1939. After all, around 300 AD or so, maybe 6% of the Roman Empire was practicing Judaism. Judaism had lots of converts back in those days, and it wasn’t such a codified religion anyway. Practice Judaism, become a Jew. Like magic.

      I think we anti-Zionists get caught up in this crap too much. So Jews used to live in Palestine 2000 fucking years ago? As you say in this post, so what!? Americans used to live in *Europe*, not even very long ago. Big deal! So we get to go back and reconquer the place and throw out the Europeans. I don’t thaaahnk so!

  11. Dear Lafayette and Robert
    I can’t think of a more futile discussion than the one about whether Jehova’s darlings descend from people in the Middle East or not. It can’t legitimate claims one way or another. Even if 90% of the genes of Ashkenazi Jews come from the people who were living in Palestine in the year 0, that does not in any way validate the Zionist claim to the “Holy” Land.
    People who make claims on the basis of what happened more than 100 years are a menace or nuisance. More than 100 years ago we were all dead. I don’t think, for instance, that the Spanish have any claim to Gibraltar. It became British in 1713, is populated entirely by Brits, the Spanish don’t need it, Britain and Spain are now both members of NATO and the EU, so what is it with the Spanish? Why do they insist on getting it back?
    It was recently published that, at least according to genetic research, 80% of the genes of the inhabitants of the British Isles come from people who were already living there before the Celts moved in. So what? The English, Scots, Welsh and Irish still are what they were before this research was published.
    As an ethnically Dutch person, I feel more affinity with the Germans that with the Italians, but that is because of language and culture, not because the Germans have DNA that resembles mine more closely than the DNA of the Italians does.
    Don’t waste time wondering what the DNA of the person in front of you is, unless you want to have children with him/her or need an organ from him.
    Regards. James

  12. @James Schipper
    Its too bad the Kimberly Plan didnt work out. Maybe its not too late.

    @Lafayette Sennacherib
    Obviously you missed the gist of what I said. Shlomo Sand wrote that book because he knew hed get a lot of attention.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)