in reply to Rachamim Dwek

Submitted by James Sutton (United States), Aug 7, 2013 at 19:56

I have concern with the writer of this comment's assertion that "if" the palestinians are in fact descendants of the hebrews, that their conversion to christianity and islam would remove their claim to the lands their ancestors allegedly inhabit, and that they themselves continue to inhabit. This argument is either purely religious or absurd. Rights to land are purely based on proof of ownership, and if Jack Gardner's claim was correct, the palestinians would not only hold rights to land due to proof of ownership, but their rights would extend 4,000 years or more into the past. I have huge qualms with this comment in that there are no citations, but the author is talking about specific scientific papers and the claims they supposedly make. I may even venture to say this is intentional. David Ben-Gurion himself alleged that the palestinians had jewish blood in their veins, according to the following documentary I found exploring a little of Dr. Oppenheim's PR history: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOolCRSf74I.

The statements regarding the sampling solely originating from the Hebron district are questionable, I would need to observe proof or a citation in order to know for certain. A citation that she has not provided. I will mention in my searches that I found what I believe to be the rescinded article the writer mentions: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11543891. The head author: Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, is a really famous immunologist. But it is important to mention the article was not rescinded due to it's research methods, but for offensive political remarks in the introduction. In fact, the article's removal has been significantly criticized.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".