intelligence inverted

Submitted by Bob Gardner (United States), Dec 21, 2014 at 01:58

I'd love to see some sources myself for some of the claims you're making. "However, in 1948 a single digit percentile of land was under any private ownership, be it Arab or otherwise." That's sort of true, but it's after the forced confiscation of 11.4 dunams of palestinian arab owned land from 1945(in 1945 palestinian arabs owned 48% of the land, jewish people owned around 6%, public ownership was also around 6%, and 40% was desert claimed by nobody). The end result was a confiscation of 90% of the arab owned land. (Village Statistics of 1945: A Classification of Land and Area ownership in Palestine: http://www.palestineremembered.com/download/VillageStatistics/4-The%20Land%20And%20Its%20Ownership/Page-019.jpg) That gives evidence to some blatant cherry picking on your part.

Also give James a break, the video has Ariella Oppenheim in it--she worked with Nebel et al in at least one of the links that Jack provided. Also if you read the link from 2001 for Nebel et al it makes the very clear assertion that their research appears to confirm the historical belief that palestinians are descendents of Jews and Christians of hebrew ancestry that converted to Islam in the 7th century. In very simple terms it makes the same genetic argument that Jack is making. It doesn't sound like a misinterpretation to me. Also.. considering that a second article was also written by Almut Nebel's group--the assessment of Jack's sources in your Stupidity Squared comment is hard to decipher. I found no references to Hebron being the origin of DNA taken in any of those sources. Would the commenter consider providing information as to how she came to discover the regional origin of this palestinian data?

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".