- Banned
- #41
As promised earlier, and after careful reading of proposed material, I intend to show a range of discrepancies and assumptions and biases in Elhaik's studies.
Because of the vast level of data gathered in relation and reference to this study, I'll post ig in separate parts, trying to summarize and simplify the points to a level of conversation, leaving conclusions to the end post.
Introduction
I must mention that as far as both German and Khazarian hypothesis' they have a varying level of discrepancies with the traditional Jewish historiography, with the Khazarian being the most biased case, due to lack of information and it's nature. Virtually all are coming from 3 exclusively Jewish sources. But even when using them to back up the hypothesis they virtually ignore all the history of Jewish migration, while choosing only those that back up their proposed model, assigning new values and inventing new histories for longstanding Jewish communities in the Turkey and Persia regions.
However none of those hypothesis actually claim what most of the anti-Zionists erroneously use them for – to deny Jews rights in Israel/Palestine. Neither does the German hypothesis confirms German ancestry as main source of AJ's, nor does the Khazarian hypothesis separates Jews from Israelites or ME/Levant in general. Neither of them conclude of exclusively single predominant surrogate group that magically exchanged the ancient Jews, while the original ones faded away with no wide documented references outside of modern-day political discourse.
While reading Dr Elhaik's studies, analyzing his conclusions in relation to other new studies on the subject by different geneticists I've paid attention to 7 problematic areas that must be addressed:
- Self contradictory methods and results.
- Static models of proposed surrogate populations based on modern-day demographics, in relation to ancient peoples with no substantial reference to real data on those peoples.
- Questionable references to historic data, from a handful of modern politicized works.
Virtual ignorance towards major events in Jewish history of Persia, Kushta, and Europe.
- Nature and volume of data in comparison
- Weak and controversial linguistic bias about Yiddish at the basis of the study (Wexler, Sand)
- Druze genetics
- All that is “believed” and widely“assumed” - that lay at the basis of this study.
Apparently you are confused about the criteria separating hasbara and legitimate refutations...none of the above refutes Elhaik's research.