[flagged]
I won't be responding anymore to this thread since you're not arguing in good faith.
There are Native American reservations with the focus on a people and their relgion
There are Muslim nations and Christian nations.
Arab Muslims are genociding indigenous Blacks in Sudan, are you just as active/concerned?
If your only concern is what happens to be the only Jewish state, that also houses the majority of Jewish people on the planet, and you just want it to not exist, your anti-Zionist is anti-semetic. If you think that Israel has gone too far, that there needs to be a solution for the Palestinians, etc then no, that is not anti-semetic.
Your other point about Israel's actions leading to anti-semtism is no different than saying 'I'm not racist against Blacks, I just notice crime statistics'.
Ashkenazi Jews are descendant from ancient Israeli Jews, with European ancestry mixed in - because Judaism isn’t racist.
The majority of Israelis are from the region. Millions of Israelis are Arab.
The only ones to have actually done ethnic cleansing are the Muslim countries that have ethnically cleansed 100% of their Jews (and European countries historically, but many Muslim countries are still maintaining that ethnic purity to this day).
Wrong:
As the "A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages" title implies the European ancestry is in regards to the maternal line specifically.
The article itself in fact clearly supports a Near East paternal lineage:
> the MSY results interpreted plausibly to suggest an overwhelming majority of Near Eastern ancestry on the Ashkenazi male line of descent
> This has indeed been attempted, with the MSY results interpreted plausibly to suggest an overwhelming majority of Near Eastern ancestry on the Ashkenazi male line of descent11,18,19,20,21, albeit with much higher levels (>50%) of European (potentially east European) lineages in Ashkenazi Levites22, suggesting a possible Khazar source in that particular case.
This part of the quote appears to indicate an overwhelming majority of Near Eastern ancestry, the remaining part of the quote is simply adding more details/context:
> the MSY results interpreted plausibly to suggest an overwhelming majority of Near Eastern ancestry on the Ashkenazi male line of descent
Do you see those citation links associated with the lines you quoted in the article?
Lets follow one[0] and see what publication it is referencing[1] so we can be sure we are correctly understanding this section.
Next lets look at the referenced article[1] to get some more context.
The article being referenced by the citation also clearly supports a Near East paternal lineage(in addition to European Ancestries) from the title alone:
> Multiple Origins of Ashkenazi Levites: Y Chromosome Evidence for Both Near Eastern and European Ancestries
So it's clearly the case that Ashkenazi Jews have Near Eastern ancestry in addition to European.
I do have a bit of a background myself in biology but research papers like this shouldn't be that hard to follow even if you don't.
This is the paper you linked to btw, just absolute mythical nonsense:
> Cohanim (plural of “Cohen,” the Hebrew word for priest) are, in Biblical tradition, the descendants of Aaron the brother of Moses; Levites are, in that tradition, considered to be those male descendants of Levi, the third son of the patriarch Jacob and paternal ancestor of Aaron, who are not Cohanim. The Cohanim have both rights and duties in religious law, as well as being subject to restrictions that do not apply to the other castes.
The evidence for a Khazar origin is apparently quite weak, it's likely any Khazar link would be relatively minor if it even exists.[0] I think the Khazar's are more from the western Eurasian steppe region as opposed to near east(middle east). The original article I think was mentioning the Khazar hypothesis more as an alternative potential explanation that others have proposed.
The genetic links to the middle east are fairly strong on the paternal line.[1]
Obviously a lot of this is ongoing research of population genetics so our understanding of some of the details may change overtime but from the looks of it the paternal line ties to the middle east are strong enough that one can be fairly confident that the Ashkenazi have at minimum at least a partial middle eastern origin.
> This is the paper you linked to btw, just absolute mythical nonsense
This appears to be describing some of the tribal background that could potentially be relevant to researchers. Especially for cross referencing historical documents.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazar_hypothesis_of_Ashkenazi...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_of_Jews#Y-DNA_...
It's confusing because "Jewish" has both a religious and ethnic meaning depending on the context, while "Scientologist" would generally only have a religious meaning. This distinction is the source of a lot of confusion.
> they don't have a right to go genocide indigenous people to make one
I don't think anyone here is arguing that any group has the right to genocide any other group of people to create a new state, that is a straw man argument.
The actual arguments would be that war is not a genocide in addition to the fact that Jews are historically indigenous to the region. Israel also already exists so this isn't a matter of making a new state.