So why do people hate Israel?

[MontyB]

Yep, I reckon you have made a sensible choice.

I really wanted to get into some of this though but the upshot is the “Jewish people” were not building Jerusalem 3000 years ago, i.e. 1000 BCE. It is not clear when exactly Judaism as a religion centered on the worship of the one God took firm form. It appears to have been a late development since no evidence of worship of anything but ordinary Canaanite deities has been found in archeological sites through 1000 BCE.

There was no invasion of geographical Palestine from Egypt by former slaves in the 1200s BCE. The pyramids had been built much earlier and had not used slave labor. The chronicle of the events of the reign of Ramses II on the wall in Luxor does not know about any major slave revolts or flights by same into the Sinai peninsula. Egyptian sources never heard of Moses or the 10 plagues & etc. Jews and Judaism emerged from a certain social class of Canaanites over a period of centuries inside Palestine.

Archeology does not show the existence of a Jewish kingdom or kingdoms in the so-called First Temple Period, it is not clear when exactly the Jewish people would have ruled Jerusalem except for the Hasmonean Kingdom.

The Assyrians conquered Jerusalem in 722. The Babylonians took it in 597 and ruled it until they were themselves conquered in 539 BCE by the Achaemenids of ancient Iran, who ruled Jerusalem until Alexander the Great took the Levant in the 330s BCE. Alexander’s descendants, the Ptolemies ruled Jerusalem until 198 when Alexander’s other descendants, the Seleucids, took the city. With the Maccabean Revolt in 168 BCE, the Jewish Hasmonean kingdom did rule Jerusalem until 37 BCE, though Antigonus II Mattathias, the last Hasmonean, only took over Jerusalem with the help of the Parthian dynasty in 40 BCE. Herod ruled 37 BCE until the Romans conquered what they called Palestine in 6 CE.

The Romans and then the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium ruled Jerusalem from 6 CE until 614 CE when the Iranian Sasanian Empire Conquered it, ruling until 629 CE when the Byzantines took it back.

The Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 638 and ruled it until 1099 when the Crusaders conquered it. The Crusaders killed or expelled Jews and Muslims from the city. The Muslims under Saladin took it back in 1187 CE and allowed Jews to return, and Muslims ruled it until the end of World War I, or altogether for about 1200 years.

So basically if you accept that it wasnt Jews that built Jerusalem given that Jerusalem has been in existence about 3000 years longer than Judaism has I think this is a fairly obvious claim you have:
- Jewish rule of Jerusalem about 160-170 years
- Muslim rule for about 1200 years.
- Egyptian rule for and unknown period but certainly at least several hundred years.
- Greek/Byzantine rule for about 400 years.
- Roman rule for around 450 years.
- Iranian rule for about 220 years.
- Iraq for an unknown period due to Assyrian and Babylonian invasions.

I am also reading a couple of papers which claim Jerusalem was not inhabited between 1000 and 900 BCE which would indicate that Jerusalem can not be the city of David but I havent finished those yet.

But lets face it who needs archeology, research, peer review or fact when you can just make up a history, still I guess I should be thanking VD for keeping this topic alive as I have learned a lot about the region thanks to the fun in countering his arguments unfortunately nothing of what I have read seems to support his argument.

It would also seem that the regions of Israel and Judea were regions of Palestine comprising about one third of the land mass Israel covers currently and don't you think it is odd that we have dates, times and names of all these kingdoms, leaders, invasions and defeats yet we have nothing but a couple of religious books which themselves have no archeological or written validation to tell us of the great David and co.

 

[senojekips]

You have obviously been a lot more thorough than I ever have Monty.

I could never see the value in delving deeper, when even the most superficial and obvious evidence is more than enough to disprove 99.9% of the Great Zionist lie.

Such simple things as, the followers of a delusional Russian nut job, who considered himself to be an Atheist, basing their claims to this so called "Homeland" on an alleged religious "Right". The left hand has no idea of what the right hand is doing.

 

[MontyB]

You have obviously been a lot more thorough than I ever have Monty.

I could never see the value in delving deeper, when even the most superficial and obvious evidence is more than enough to disprove 99.9% of the Great Zionist lie.

Such simple things as, the followers of a delusional Russian nut job, who considered himself to be an Atheist, basing their claims to this so called "Homeland" on an alleged religious "Right". The left hand has no idea of what the right hand is doing.

That is possibly true but if you do not look at the problem in its entirety you can never fully understand it.

I am relatively fortunate that my job gives me access to many of the research libraries which makes it fairly easy to get information but for the most part I can't be arsed doing it however VD's persistence has made me arsed.

Take Exodus, just the knowledge that the time frame for building the pyramids being out destroys the validity of the book, back that with the now accepted fact that tradesmen built them not slaves and it really is a "hit and sunk" case and without Exodus where does that put Israeli history?

Reinforce that with the fact that no where is Moses listed as an Egyptian Prince in a world where they recorded everything down to the last detail and things grow even more shaky. The destruction of the biblical narrative is imperative to bringing about change in the way the two sides are seen in this conflict.

Basically I think if this fairy tale is to be destroyed we now have not just a realistic vision to do it from but actual archeological proof to aid in its destruction and if there is one thing I love doing it is ferreting out fact from fiction.

In the end the only defense left will be "faith" based and faith is something you cling to in the absence of empirical evidence which does not stand up in court.

 

[senojekips]

I dunno who said it, but someone once supposedly stated that "Faith is what we fall back on when the facts and logic fail to provide the answer we want",... or words to that effect.

To me (as you well realise), the truth about the whole matter is so glaringly obvious that I find "deep research" to be just an exercise in time wasting and over kill. At some stage or another I have read most of the pertinent evidence and can't be bothered looking for it again merely to quote it verbatim. Also by giving Hasbara Trolls like VD too much detail, they merely fcuk you about with semantics and endless disputes over the meaning of every single word and phrase, hoping that they can avoid admitting you are correct, and will eventually forget what your original point was, and that you had the obvious answer to the whole issue in a nut shell.

This then allows them the opportunity to re-present their point hoping your answer may be different,... the old "Merry Go Round Principle" that all these nut cases seem to fall back on.

 

[MontyB]

I dunno who said it, but someone once supposedly stated that "Faith is what we fall back on when the facts and logic fail to provide the answer we want",... or words to that effect.

To me (as you well realise), the truth about the whole matter is so glaringly obvious that I find "deep research" to be just an exercise in time wasting and over kill. At some stage or another I have read most of the pertinent evidence and can't be bothered looking for it again merely to quote it verbatim. Also by giving Hasbara Trolls like VD too much detail, they merely fcuk you about with semantics and endless disputes over the meaning of every single word and phrase, hoping that they can avoid admitting you are correct, and will eventually forget what your original point was, and that you had the obvious answer to the whole issue in a nut shell.

This then allows them the opportunity to re-present their point hoping your answer may be different,... the old "Merry Go Round Principle" that all these nut cases seem to fall back on.

hehe I am a very pedantic person and not easily dragged off target something that used to irratate the hell out of my math teachers.

Basiclly the one thing I have learned (although don't always follow) is that when you have to repeat yourself, don't and then you can not be dragged down dead end alleys.

The advantage of "deep research" may not always be apparent as nothing anyone says here will change the other sides mind, I know that, you know that and VD knows that but it may affect others looking for answers and if you are the one with the better facts then it may sway them.

I suspect this is what you alluded to earlier?
Highlight: Out of Khazaria—Evidence for “Jewish Genome” Lacking

Hebrew language and Jewish culture have been around for thousands of years. For much of that history, the Jews managed to maintain their heritage and cultural identity in the absence of a geographical state. Wanderings, settlements, and dispersal were thus a big part of their history. Is evidence for that history preserved in genome data?
Eran Elhaik, a geneticist at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, thinks so. In a recently published study in Genome Biology Evolution (Elhaik 2012), he is calling for a rewrite of commonly held assumptions about Jewish ancestry. Instead of being primarily the descendants of the 12 tribes of Israel, present-day Jewish populations are, finds Elhaik, primarily the children of a Turkish people who lived in what is now Russia, north of Georgia, east of Ukraine. This civilization, the Khazars, converted from tribal religions to Judaism between the 7th and 9th centuries.
The controversy cut into by Elhaik's work runs deep, far past the lab bench. Among some circles, his conclusions are bound to be unpopular. “This is the first scientific paper to prove the Khazarian Hypothesis and reject the Rhineland Hypothesis,” he says, “and with it about 40 years of research.” Although his findings will not be welcome in all circles, Elhaik's interest is more medical than political.
“All I want is to help my colleagues who are studying genetic disorders,” he says. “I hope this work will open up a new era in genetic studies where population stratification will be used more correctly.”
Jewish populations are used in many disease studies because of their presumed genetic homogeny. Some conditions, such as Tay–Sachs disease, are more common among select Jewish populations than other populations. However, Elhaik says, the acceptance of a flawed origin narrative is hampering the best science.
For several decades, two hypothetical backgrounds of present-day European Jews have seemed plausible to historians and geneticists. In the favored “Rhineland Hypothesis,” Jews descended from Israelite–Canaanite tribes who left the Holy Land for Europe in the seventh century, following the Muslim conquest of Palestine. Then, in the beginning of the 15th century, a group of approximately 50,000 left Germany, the Rhineland, for the east. There they reproduced rapidly, in a kind of “hyper–baby boom.” Their breeding outpaced their non-Jewish neighbors by an order of magnitude—despite disease, persecutions, wars, and economic hardship—ballooning to approximately 8 million strong by the 20th century. Under this history, European Jews would be very similar to each other and would have Middle Eastern ancestry.
Several scholars prefer the “Khazarian Hypothesis,” Elhaik included. This suggests the Jewish-convert Khazars, with reinforcements from Mesopotamian and Greco-Roman Jews, formed the basis of Eastern Europe's Jewish population when they fled northeast, following the collapse of their empire at the 13th century.
Elhaik first became fascinated by this idea 10 years ago when reading Arthur Koestler best-selling book The Thirteenth Tribe, published in 1976. Koestler calculated that Jews could not have numbered 8 million in Eastern Europe without the Khazar contribution. Upon reading his ideas, “I couldn’t wait for genetic data that would allow someone to publish an evaluation of this hypothesis,” says Elhaik.
When Behar et al. published “The genome-wide structure of the Jewish people” in 2010, Elhaik decided to investigate the question that had intrigued him for so long. Using data published by Behar, he calculated seven measures of ancestry, relatedness, and geographical origin. Though he used some of the same statistical tests as prior studies, he chose different comparisons.
“Results in the current literature are tangled,” Elhaik says. “Everyone is basically following the same assumption: Ashkenazi Jews are a population isolate, so they are all similar to one another, and this is completely incorrect.”
Previous studies had, for example, combined the question of similarity among and between Jewish populations and the question of ancestry and relatedness to non-Jewish populations. Elhaik viewed these questions separately. Jewish communities are less homogeneous than is popularly thought, he says, with Jewish communities along the former Khazarian border showing the most heterogeneity.
His second question centered on ancestry: When comparing Jewish communities to their non-Jewish neighbors, Caucasus or Levant (Middle Eastern) populations—which is the closest to Jews? “All Eurasian Jewish communities are closer to Caucasus populations,” he writes, with Central European Jews closer to Italian non-Jews as the exception. Not one of the eight evaluated Jewish populations were closer to Levant populations.
“I had the hardest time clearing myself from the mindset (of previous work),” Elhaik says. “I was on the train, thinking hard, when it came to me how to separate the questions. It was a great moment.” However, it would be a mistake, Elhaik says, to conclude present-day Jews have nothing to do with the ancient Judeans. “I found a signature of the Middle East. I’m not certain whether it suggests Judean or Iranian ancestry, but it's there.” Iranian, as well as Judean, Jews began joining the Khazarian empire as early as the 5th century B.C.E. “It might be strange given today's political situation, but it makes a lot of historical sense.”
For Shlomo Sand, history professor at Tel Aviv University and author of the controversial book The Invention of the Jewish People, Elhaik's paper was a vindication of his long-held ideas.
"It's so obvious for me," says Sand. “Some people, historians and even scientists, turn a blind eye to the truth. Once to say Jews were a race was anti-Semitic, now to say they're not a race is anti-Semitic. It's crazy how history plays with us.“
“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.“

http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/5/1/75.full

 

[senojekips]

Yep, that's a small part of it I tried to read the whole report and must admit that much of the deeper material went right over my head,... even though references to other supporting works were there. The fact being that I never had the time nor inclination to read them as with the work having had a number of favourable peer reviews by persons and groups much more knowledgeable than I am, I accepted that what was said was the truth or as near to it as one could get.

The Addendum with all of the diagrams and graphical representations took more time than enough.

Perhaps had I have been one of those knowledgeable enough in their respective fields to make a valued judgement I would have followed up all the links and references. In short there was plenty of easily available and understandable info there to make it more than credible.

I did particularly like the fact that it vindicated virtually all of the earlier work by Shlomo Sand, whose book was very controversial, but in fact no one had been able to significantly disprove. My main reason for liking that book was that unlike so much other research, it's findings were logical and debunked the religious claptrap.

 

[MontyB]

Having read some of his paper I am not entirely convinced primarily because he makes an assumption that isn't proven in that Armenians can be substituted for Khazars by virtue of geographic location and that is a fairly big leap to make without proof (I am not saying it can not be proven just that he hasn't proven it).

However his biggest critic is Harry Ostrer who has written papers validating the Jewish narrative but Ostrer has problems as well in that he has not released his data just his findings which from a scientific point of view is a big red flag where as Elhaik has made his data available.

I havent read anything of Shlomo Sand in fact this is the first I have heard of him but it may be worth looking into.

 

[senojekips]

From what I can understand, Shlomo Sand as a Professor of History at Tel Aviv's went to print because in his research he just kept running into details relating to the "Jewish people" that were often illogical and usually totally unsupported by any credible research.

The resulting book is recognised as a Historical work and is the most translated Jewish Historical work ever printed. Although it is much debated, none of his detractors have really dented the intent of the narrative. It opens up a whole new can of worms regarding the alleged and very contentious "Jewish gene". Sand himself remains an avid supporter of Israel and as such has no personal axe to grind.

The fact that this latest work by Elhaik supports much of Sands findings only adds strength to both findings.

 

[VDKMS]

You never answered my post, instead jumping to an entirely different subject, which as usual has been dealt with on several earlier occasions.

There is no need to provide evidence of an earlier Palestinian State as it has no bearing on this matter. If you are after answers regarding this subject I suggest that you re-read all of the earlier material already discussed regarding this deliberate repetition.

Again the usual BS. Lots of empty words and no facts. It's the same as saying blablablabla.

The reason why you avoid giving facts is because you don't have them. They don't exist!

And why must the Jews give proof of their historical claim (which they have BTW and which is endorsed by the international community - see the Palestine mandate which does not mention Palestinians at all) and your beloved "Palestinians" not, which they don't have BTW.
Jerusalem never has been a capital od any Arab state, let alone a "Palestinian" one.

So I take it from your reply that you can not disprove what I said?
Now on to Mohammads claims that he flew to Jerusalem in a night, nope don't believe that either (see when it comes to religion I am an equal opportunities hater) but the lunacy of his story doesn't make Jewish fairy tales anymore real does it.

So we are left with the same argument we started with, given that both you and I agree that those now calling themselves Palestinians were originally descendants of Canaanites as were the Jews (I assume we both agree on this as you posted the DNA evidence that proved it) we have to determine who has a priority in terms of legitimacy:

1) The descendants of the original population who stayed in the region and over time changed religions and now call themselves Palestinians.
or
2) The descendants of the original population who left the region for 2000 years mostly voluntarily as there is no tangible proof (archeological or physical) of the Romans marching off an entire population from anywhere and who now feel like they should be able to go back and evict population 1.

For the record I back group 1.

I fully agree with you on the religious part, but you cannot deny that the Jewish one was first and in that region while the Muslim one came last and was from another region.

But you forget one thing, "Palestinians" are overwhelmingly Arab. That's what they called themselves as witnessed by governors of the British mandate. Those same governors had to admit they had no clue about the Arab (illegal) immigration only than that it was underestimated.

The people you mention are not the Arab "Palestinians" but Greek Orthodox Christians of the Byzantine Empire, together with Jews and Samaritans as two minorities (the Jews were a minority because they were not allowed to practise their religion). When the Arabs invaded the Christian empire they did not bring along Arab settlers. The first Arab immigrants came after the crusades when the Mamluk army massacred many Christians and drove away the ones who were able to flee. The ones who stayed had to face the the Black Death, and the economic situation, severely minimising the population in the region. Most Arabs immigrated when the Turks started their Tanzimat period to enhance the economy of the region and that's when the Arabs started to immigrate into the region. And those Arabs are the ancestors of the "Palestinians". The "Palestinians" are NOT Christians and Jews who converted to Islam or do you think that the Arab armies were very friendly to the Christian survivors when they beat the crusaders who massacred both Muslims and Jews living in what used to be Christian and Jewish cities?

I really wanted to get into some of this though but the upshot is the “Jewish people” were not building Jerusalem 3000 years ago, i.e. 1000 BCE. First of all, it is not clear when exactly Judaism as a religion centered on the worship of the one God took firm form. It appears to have been a late development since no evidence of worship of anything but ordinary Canaanite deities has been found in archeological sites through 1000 BCE.

Nice copy and paste from Top Ten Reasons East Jerusalem does not belong to Jewish-Israelis

Are you saying that if the Jews cannot prove that they had a homeland 3000 years ago their historical claim to the land is invalid, while the ones you support cannot even prove their historical claim 200 years ago?
Was their ever evidence dug up from a lost "Palestinian" state?

There was no invasion of geographical Palestine from Egypt by former slaves in the 1200s BCE. The pyramids had been built much earlier and had not used slave labor. The chronicle of the events of the reign of Ramses II on the wall in Luxor does not know about any major slave revolts or flights by same into the Sinai peninsula. Egyptian sources never heard of Moses or the 10 plagues & etc. Jews and Judaism emerged from a certain social class of Canaanites over a period of centuries inside Palestine.

Nice copy and paste from Top Ten Reasons East Jerusalem does not belong to Jewish-Israelis

Of course there was no invasion of Palestine in the 1200 BCE's, it did not exist then. And when the Jews emerged there was no Palestine either. You should give the real name of the land around that time like the Levant or the land of Canaan.

Archeology does not show the existence of a Jewish kingdom or kingdoms in the so-called First Temple Period, it is not clear when exactly the Jewish people would have ruled Jerusalem except for the Hasmonean Kingdom.

Aha! The recognition of a Jewish homeland long before there was any talk of Palestinians. The Hasmonean Kingdom!

The Assyrians conquered Jerusalem in 722. The Babylonians took it in 597 and ruled it until they were themselves conquered in 539 BCE by the Achaemenids of ancient Iran, who ruled Jerusalem until Alexander the Great took the Levant in the 330s BCE. Alexander’s descendants, the Ptolemies ruled Jerusalem until 198 when Alexander’s other descendants, the Seleucids, took the city. With the Maccabean Revolt in 168 BCE, the Jewish Hasmonean kingdom did rule Jerusalem until 37 BCE, though Antigonus II Mattathias, the last Hasmonean, only took over Jerusalem with the help of the Parthian dynasty in 40 BCE. Herod ruled 37 BCE until the Romans conquered what they called Palestine in 6 CE (CE= ‘Common Era’ or what Christians call AD)

The Romans and then the Eastern Roman Empire of Byzantium ruled Jerusalem from 6 CE until 614 CE when the Iranian Sasanian Empire Conquered it, ruling until 629 CE when the Byzantines took it back.

.

Nice copy and paste from Top Ten Reasons East Jerusalem does not belong to Jewish-Israelis

Here is mine, but I include the link.

Judea (Iudaea) was the Roman name for the Land of Israel during the heyday of the Roman Empire. This meant not only the area called Judea in Israel today; it included the whole area ruled and/or chiefly inhabited by Jews. We can see this usage in various writers in Latin and Greek of that period. Consider Pliny, Suetonius, and Tacitus in Latin, and Plutarch as well as the geographers Strabo and Ptolemy in Greek. Judea stretched along both sides of the Jordan and included, besides Judea proper, most of the coastal plain, Samaria, most of the Galilee, the Golan Heights of today and considerable land to the east of there (areas called in Latin Gaulanitis [=Golan], Batanaea [=Bashan], Auranitis [=Hawran], and Trachonitis). The Romans called this land as a whole Iudaea (from the Greek Ioudaia). The land was mainly inhabited by Jews and was ruled by Jews. Therefore, Lord Robert Cecil, acting British foreign secretary, was right to use the name Judea for the whole land in his famous remark: "Our wish is that Arabian countries shall be for the Arabs, Armenia for the Armenians, and Judea for the Jews" (December 2, 1917).​

The Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 638 and ruled it until 1099 when the Crusaders conquered it. The Crusaders killed or expelled Jews and Muslims from the city. The Muslims under Saladin took it back in 1187 CE and allowed Jews to return, and Muslims ruled it until the end of World War I, or altogether for about 1200 years.

Well, the original text says 1192 years instead of 1200. But there's something that you , and the writer of the article, forgot to mention. Jewish presence from at least 116BCE until today, or more than 2000 years!
And in all of those 1192 years the Muslims neglected to give your beloved Palestinians a homeland! They had to wait until 4 May 1994 to get their first homeland, thanks to the Jews who liberated the land from the Jordanians.

 

[VDKMS]

Part two:

So basically if you accept that it wasnt Jews that built Jerusalem given that Jerusalem has been in existence about 3000 years longer than Judaism has I think this is a fairly obvious claim you have:
- Jewish rule of Jerusalem about 160-170 years
- Muslim rule for about 1200 years.
- Egyptian rule for and unknown period but certainly at least several hundred years.
- Greek/Byzantine rule for about 400 years.
- Roman rule for around 450 years.
- Iranian rule for about 220 years.
- Iraq for an unknown period due to Assyrian and Babylonian invasions.

Palestinian rule : O years.
You either divide the occupation years into religious rulers: Jewish, Muslim, Christian and Pagan, meaning the pagans win hands down.

Or you devide the occupation into societies or countries and you must split the Muslim rulers into Arabs, Kurds, Turks and others. Or you must admit that it IS about religion and then the Pagans were first, but they don't exist anymore. next are the Jews then the Christians and last the Muslims.

I am also reading a couple of papers which claim Jerusalem was not inhabited between 1000 and 900 BCE which would indicate that Jerusalem can not be the city of David but I havent finished those yet.

But lets face it who needs archeology, research, peer review or fact when you can just make up a history.

You made this up?

Anyway, when we are talking about who owns the house then it is definitely not the one who lived there the most but the one who lived there first. Since the original ones are gone, it's the next in line, the Jews.

I wish both of you a happy and healthy 2014!

 

[MontyB]

Part two:



Palestinian rule : O years.
You either divide the occupation years into religious rulers: Jewish, Muslim, Christian and Pagan, meaning the pagans win hands down.

Or you devide the occupation into societies or countries and you must split the Muslim rulers into Arabs, Kurds, Turks and others. Or you must admit that it IS about religion and then the Pagans were first, but they don't exist anymore. next are the Jews then the Christians and last the Muslims.

Well ok the Pagans can have it then, anyone have the email address for the Wiccans just incase the Pagans don't want it?

What a New Years gift, Palestine.
Maybe we could help out with transport, a few clapped out boats to take the Israelis back to Europe and sink themselves on the shoreline to prevent return that way they can say they came home the same way they left Europe by forcing themselves on a local population.


Modern Pagan Religions Now Over 80k in England and Wales

Jason Pitzl-Waters — December 11, 2012 — 14 Comments


When the religion data for the 2001 census of England and Wales was released, modern Pagans made news as their combined number (around 42,000) made them the seventh largest religious group in the UK. Since then, many, including historian Ronald Hutton, maintained that the number was potentially far larger than that.
Pagans at Stonehenge.

“Ten years ago 42,000 people declared themselves as Pagans – the seventh highest number for any UK religion – but some experts believe the true figure was nearer 250,000 – and is significantly higher now.”
​

So, Pagans in Britain launched the “Pagan-Dash” campaign to help unify the count in 2011, and encourage more Pagans to participate truthfully in the religion question. Now, initial 2011 religion figures for England and Wales have been released, and while the numbers haven’t exploded into the hundreds of thousands, adherents to some form of modern Paganism has nearly doubled in the last ten years. Depending on how forgiving you want to be as to which groups are “Pagan” in some form, they now number over 80,000. In addition, the base number of people identifying as “Pagan” shot up to nearly 60,000.
Here are the relevant raw numbers for England and Wales:
Animism: 541
Druid: 4,189
Heathen: 1,958
Occult: 502
Pagan: 56,620
Pantheism: 2,216
Reconstructionist: 251
Shamanism: 650
Thelemite: 184
Wicca:11,766
Witchcraft: 1,276
Bringing to just over 80,000 (or so) Pagans. That number doesn’t count how many Pagans there might be lurking within the category of “Mixed Religon” (23,566), “Own Belief System” (1,949), or “Spiritual” (13,832). Other figures of note in the “Other Religion” category include Vodoun at 208, Traditional African Religion at 588 (both numbers that I think are too low), and New Age at 698 adherents.
These figures point to some success for the Pagan Dash campaign, though they were not the far larger estimates many were hoping for. Still, this shows encouraging growth for modern Paganism in England and Wales in an increasing post-Christian Britain. According to the Office for National Statistics, Christianity in England and Wales has dropped considerably, while the number of people claiming “no religion” (the “nones”) have, just like their American cousins, grown considerably.

“Compared with the 2001 Census the most significant trends were an increase in the population reporting no religion – from 14.8 per cent of the population in 2001 to 25.1 per cent in 2011, a drop in the population reporting to be Christian – from 71.7 per cent in 2001 to 59.3 per cent in 2011, and an increase in all other main religions. The number of Muslims increased the most from 3.0 per cent in 2001 to 4.8 per cent in 2011.”
​

In short, every religion, and “no religion” are on the rise, while Christianity has dropped precipitously. At this rate, it’s very likely that Christianity could lose their majority over the next decade. What these demographic shifts mean for the UK, and for the modern Pagans living there, mean remains to be seen, but it will certainly become increasingly hard to ignore non-Christian voices if these trends continue. I hope to get comments from Pagan groups in the UK on these numbers soon.

http://wildhunt.org/2012/12/modern-pagan-religions-now-over-80k-in-england-and-wales.html

You made this up?

On the contrary while the comment was a bit obtuse the principle remains that they believe between 1000 and 900BCE Jerusalem was not a major centre in the region it was populated but it was far from a the capital of an empire but rather a back water settlement.

Here is what Israel Finkelstein has to say on the matter:

During David's time, as Finkelstein casts it, Jerusalem was little more than a "hill-country village," David himself a raggedy upstart akin to Pancho Villa, and his legion of followers more like "500 people with sticks in their hands shouting and cursing and spitting—not the stuff of great armies of chariots described in the text.

Anyway, when we are talking about who owns the house then it is definitely not the one who lived there the most but the one who lived there first. Since the original ones are gone, it's the next in line, the Jews.

I wish both of you a happy and healthy 2014!

Ah yes that old argument who says the original owners are gone certainly not your DNA evidence as that says Palestinians were descended from same lines as the Jews, therefore the argument remains:
Who owns the house:
A) The ones that lived in it for 3000+ years and remained in it the entire time despite changing faiths at least a couple of times.
B) Those who never lived in it at all but who's distant ancestors "may" have and figured that by manufacting an unverifiable history gives them squatters rights.

Given that your evidence justifies group A as does the archeological evidence I can only assume it is only personal or financial biases leading you to back group B.

So do you have any other arguments or are you going to stick to biblical fairy stories and ignore the physical realities of scientific evidence?

 

[senojekips]

And why must the Jews give proof of their historical claim

For someone who allegedly "talks a lot of rubbish blahblahblah",... I see you still haven't been able to disprove what I've said.

The Israelis don't have to prove their "Historical" claim, they my wish they could, but that is impossible for a number of reasons, for a start the people we are dealing with today have no claim to anything they are Europeans of Khazar descendancy. Just because the adherents of religion that they adopted falsely claimed to have been told by "their" god that they had a claim to a land. It has all the legality and logic of the Pope's decree that I will go to hell because I'm not a christian

Had these people actually been the genuine descendants of the Israelites they still would have had no claim just as I have no claim to the places my ancestors lived 2000 years ago, or even 30 years ago if it comes to that.

So far, your alleged argument is dead and buried, with your so called religious "evidence" now busily digging it's grave even deeper. All that remains of it, is your obstinacy to admit the truth, as a result of which I come to the conclusion that you are no more than an Israeli shill desperate to lay claim to something even you know you have no right to. Or are you one of those Hasbara Trolls who is actually paid?

 

[MontyB]

Yep, that's a small part of it I tried to read the whole report and must admit that much of the deeper material went right over my head,... even though references to other supporting works were there. The fact being that I never had the time nor inclination to read them as with the work having had a number of favourable peer reviews by persons and groups much more knowledgeable than I am, I accepted that what was said was the truth or as near to it as one could get.

The Addendum with all of the diagrams and graphical representations took more time than enough.

Perhaps had I have been one of those knowledgeable enough in their respective fields to make a valued judgement I would have followed up all the links and references. In short there was plenty of easily available and understandable info there to make it more than credible.

I did particularly like the fact that it vindicated virtually all of the earlier work by Shlomo Sand, whose book was very controversial, but in fact no one had been able to significantly disprove. My main reason for liking that book was that unlike so much other research, it's findings were logical and debunked the religious claptrap.

Well having finally read the paper it is hard to fault his methodology obviously I know nothing of the technical aspects of his work so I can't comment on it but I can comment on methodology which is robust and to his credit he does point out his weak points primarily that there are no ancient Judeans or Khazars to draw DNA from so it works against both sides of the argument.

The interesting thing is that he has said that his sample pool was too small and as such has begun the Jewish Genome Challenge to expand his work and give him the data he needs.

 

[senojekips]

To me one of the more interesting parts of this shitefite is that Elhaik's major detractors have denied the legitimacy of Elhaiks work, yet refused to be interviewed, and Ostrer himself has refused to allow others to view his work.

An Israeli researcher alleges that a Yeshiva University professor manipulated data to reach the “false” conclusion that Ashkenazi Jews have a predominantly Middle Eastern genetic origin when in fact their genetic signature is predominantly from the Caucus region of northeast Asia. And even though this Israeli researcher published his study debunking Ostrer and other geneticists more than 6 months ago, none of them will respond to the questions about their work.


The Forward has a report on Israeli researcher Eran Elhaik's 2012 study, “The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the Khazarian Hypotheses,” on the origin of Ashkenazi Jews. Elhaik found that previous studies were flawed and contradicted each other and was able to use their data and create a hypothesis that rectified them, and only then the data matched.

Unfortunately for many of us, what Elhaik may have proved is that most Ashkenazi Jews are descended from converts to Judaism – the Khazars.

Elhaik also believes that some of these earlier studies were conducted by scientists who intentionally cooked the books to get the results they wanted – that Ashkenazi Jews predominantly have a Middle Eastern origin – rather than the results that are actually true – that we do not.
Most prominent among those scientists Elhaik believes to be dishonest is Harry Ostrer is a professor of pathology and genetics at Yeshiva University’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the author of “Legacy: A Genetic History of the Jewish People,” which was published last year.
But Ostrer and other geneticists refused to talk on the record about Elhaik or his study, and none of them responded in peer reviewed academic journals where letters and brief comments are published without having to go through the time-consuming peer review process.
Now, more six months after Elhaik's study was first published (the official publication date was in December, but the paper was released in digital form before that), Ostrer is still refusing to talk and has not answer Elhaik's paper or Elhaik's allegations. And this, published in the Forward today, may be why:

…But opponents of the Rhineland Hypothesis also have a political agenda, [Eran Elhaik] said, claiming they “were motivated to justify the Zionist narrative.”
To illustrate his point, Elhaik swivels his chair around to face his computer and calls up a 2010 email exchange with Ostrer.
“It was a great pleasure reading your group’s recent paper, ‘Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era,’ that illuminate the history of our people,” Elhaik wrote to Ostrer. “Is it possible to see the data used for the study?”
Ostrer replied that the data are not publicly available. “It is possible to collaborate with the team by writing a brief proposal that outlines what you plan to do,” he wrote. “Criteria for reviewing include novelty and strength of the proposal, non-overlap with current or planned activities, and non-defamatory nature toward the Jewish people.” That last requirement, Elhaik argues, reveals the bias of Ostrer and his collaborators.
Allowing scientists access to data only if their research will not defame Jews is “peculiar,” said Catherine DeAngelis, who edited the Journal of the American Medical Association for a decade. “What he does is set himself up for criticism: What’s this guy trying to hide?”…​

 

[MontyB]

As I said previously the part about not releasing his data is a big red flag, I am not going to defend Ostrer's work but I do think it fair to say that Elhaik's work is not complete either.

I notice his Jewish Genome Challenge ended on the 1st of November so the updated report should be available in a few months.

 

[senojekips]

As I said previously the part about not releasing his data is a big red flag, I am not going to defend Ostrer's work but I do think it fair to say that Elhaik's work is not complete either.

Most certainly this work is not complete, and could go on for many years, but at least I feel that it is now headed in the right direction with several major works that have been approached from completely different angles and without collaboration, having mutually supporting outcomes.

I notice his Jewish Genome Challenge ended on the 1st of November so the updated report should be available in a few months.

With the so called major "researchers" that oppose Elhaik's finding not willing to open their work for public or private scrutiny he may have had great difficulty in finding a credible challenger.

 

[MontyB]

Most certainly this work is not complete, and could go on for many years, but at least I feel that it is now headed in the right direction with several major works that have been approached from completely different angles and without collaboration, the findings of which are for the most part mutually supporting.

The problem is that even if he does prove his point what does it solve?
I tend to feel that all of this work to prove something that should have been determined 70 years will come too late to solve the problem especially in the case of the Palestinians and in essence it plays into the hands of Zionist aims 50 years from now I would hate to be in a position where you have Israel admitting that they really have no justification for their actions but since the Palestinians have been wiped out we will just have to live with the guilt oh and by the way I think I remember god promising us half of Jordan as well.

Despite what VD says this is not about religion it is about lebensraum and it wont end at the Jordanian borders.

With the so called major "researchers" that oppose Elhaik's finding not willing to open their work for public or private scrutiny he may have had difficulty in finding a credible challenger.

Credible challengers maybe but there will still be challengers because no matter how much proof you roll out or how inane the opposing claims may be people will still believe what they want to believe especially if it is in their own best interests to do so.

Religion is a classic example of this as it has infected the world for thousands of years despite being based on little more than dreams, fairy tales, fear and xenophobia, it is clearly the man made construct of power hungry minds yet the world is still inflicted by those too weak to stand on their own two feet and dispose of the dogma in promotes and it doesn't matter what you show them or how ludicrous the belief they carry on hiding behind faith.

 

[senojekips]

The problem is that even if he does prove his point what does it solve?

It might save "history" from propagating a lie for a start, that would be good, and although it may be too late for the Palestinian cause, their plight may lead to Israel being made an official Pariah state and left to wither on the vine. Trying to foresee the future and second guess it is even more futile than ignoring the past and present.

Despite what VD says this is not about religion it is about lebensraum and it wont end at the Jordanian borders.

There is little doubt that you are correct, but so long as US taxpayers refuse to open their eyes to the facts and allow US politicians to bought off by organisations like AIPAC. The other thing is the US power of Veto in the UN must be removed. The single largest problem is worldwide public apathy for the whole issue.

Credible challengers maybe but there will still be challengers because no matter how much proof you roll out or how inane the opposing claims may be people will still believe what they want to believe especially if it is in their own best interests to do so.

People like VD and his Hasbara Troll mates would deny their own existence if it suited them, and as a result not a word they say can be believed

Religion is a classic example of this as it has infected the world for thousands of years despite being based on little more than dreams, fairy tales, fear and xenophobia, it is clearly the man made construct of power hungry minds yet the world is still inflicted by those too weak to stand on their own two feet and dispose of the dogma in promotes and it doesn't matter what you show them or how ludicrous the belief they carry on hiding behind faith.

Yep,... as I quoted earlier, "Faith is what remains when all the facts and logic fail to support your views".

 

[MontyB]

There is little doubt that you are correct, but so long as US taxpayers refuse to open their eyes to the facts and allow US politicians to bought off by organisations like AIPAC. The other thing is the US power of Veto in the UN must be removed. The single largest problem is worldwide public apathy for the whole issue.

To be fair it isn't just the US power of veto that needs to be removed but the ability to veto full stop.

I am still convinced that the key is to remove veto and expand the security council, add to this the abilty of the General Assembly to over ride the security council with a two thirds majority and I think you would see a more representitive UN.

I am not so sure it is worldwide public apathy that is the problem either as up until recent years the western world has been indoctrinated into believing that western=better, Middle Eastern=terrorist and before someone jumps up and down saying it is Muslim=terrorist it isn't as no one is thinking of an Asian when they refer to Islamic terrorism they see an Arab.

It has only been in the last few years that this view has begun to change as the general public of western nations have begun to realise the effects of meddling in the affairs of those we believe we are better than.

 

[Yossarian]

Or that Israel = Good guys who are our friends.

So obviously it makes sense to "donate" 20 Stealth fighters to an nation who uses white phosphorus at will.

Apathy in this case of our citizenry is deadly.