Book by Israeli Historian Calls Jewish People an 'Invention"

[Valmy]

While I think the historical debate is fascinating, I don't think there is much of an impact on the current situation. The conflict's real origins date to the 19th and 20th centuries, not the 1st century.

Well...I think there is ample evidence of Jewish writers prior to the 19th century calling for a return to Jerusalem but yeah basically.  Maimonides was pretty obsessed with it IIRC.

[Malthus]

It's not exactly controversial that Jews are not all descended in unbroken line to the ancient people of Israel ... one only has to look at your average Polish Jew, beside your average Etheopian Jew, to realize than some conversion and/or intermarriage has occurred at some point in the past. 

What's less obvious is whether Palestinian arabs are descended in unbroken line from the ancient peoples of Israel. Strikes me as - equally, or even more, unlikely. Some tiny percentage of genetic ancestry maybe, but the population of Arabs who happen to live in what is now Israel were never isolated from the rest of the melting-pot of the ME and many are recent immigrants themselves; there have been centuries of invasions, migrations, massacres etc. over the last 2000 years. It is like saying your average Turk is a direct descendant of the people of ancient Troy.

Ethnic self-identification has never been about actual genetics, but rather centres on fictive kinship. This has always been true. An Etheopian Jew is Jewish because s/he thinks s/he is, and so do others; same with a Polish Jew. They may share much less genetic material in common than with their non-Jewish neighbours, but no-one cares.

In short, a non-story played up for controversy value.

[Admiral Yi]

PINA COLADAS?

PRAWNS?

[Valmy]

In short, a non-story played up for controversy value.

It is the same irrelevent canard the anti-Semitic crowd plays up with the Kazar connection.  I guess I fail to see how being descended from the Kazars makes you a false Jew or something...but they seem to think so.

[Warspite]

Every nation is an "invention", and most were invented in the 19th century.

Indeed.

If Jews or Israelis think themselves a nation, then they are one.

[Capetan Mihali]

Every nation is an "invention", and most were invented in the 19th century.

Indeed.

If Jews or Israelis or Palestinians think themselves a nation, then they are one.

[Warspite]

Yes.

ANd for that matter, Bosnians too.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Or Scots, a particularly interesting case in some ways.

[DGuller]

Regarding Jews, assuming generations of 25 years and no inbreeding (yes, I know...) a person of today would need to reach back in time only between 700 and 800 years to have one billion ancestors, Genetics and evolution do work like that. Asking for any kind of ethnic 'purity' preserved trough History is madness (and I would really prefer 'homogeneity' or 'uniformity' to a loaded word like 'purity').

That assumption is simplistic to the point of absurdity when you look that far back.  So if you look back another 200 years, you'll have 256 billion ancestors?  I'm pretty sure genetics and evolution don't work like that.

This assumption also fails when it comes specifically to Ashkenazi Jews as well.  Ashkenazi Jews are succeptible to a number of genetic conditions tracing back to lack of interbreeding, so the assumption of no inbreeding is also contradicted by history as well as mathematics.

[DGuller]

Ethnic self-identification has never been about actual genetics, but rather centres on fictive kinship. This has always been true. An Etheopian Jew is Jewish because s/he thinks s/he is, and so do others; same with a Polish Jew. They may share much less genetic material in common than with their non-Jewish neighbours, but no-one cares.

In short, a non-story played up for controversy value.

I think you are somewhat deliberately muddying the waters here.  Jews on the whole don't have a common genetic link, but subsets of Jews do, especially Ashkenazi Jews.  Ashkenazi Jews are not at increased risk of Tay-Sachs because of "fictive kinship".

[Malthus]

Ethnic self-identification has never been about actual genetics, but rather centres on fictive kinship. This has always been true. An Etheopian Jew is Jewish because s/he thinks s/he is, and so do others; same with a Polish Jew. They may share much less genetic material in common than with their non-Jewish neighbours, but no-one cares.

In short, a non-story played up for controversy value.

I think you are somewhat deliberately muddying the waters here.  Jews on the whole don't have a common genetic link, but subsets of Jews do, especially Ashkenazi Jews.  Ashkenazi Jews are not at increased risk of Tay-Sachs because of "fictive kinship".

Yes; my express point was that Jews as a whole don't have common genetic kinship. Certainly some sub-groups do, as they have been genetically isolated from their surrounding populations for a long time.

This doesn't of necessity mean that their genetic ancestry traces back to Biblical times of course, as their relative genetic isolation as a sub-population may be of more receint vintage, and probably is.

Consider that Jews formed a sizable percentage of the population in some parts of Eastern Europe, it seems to me pretty probable that, at some point, Judaism was able to attract converts and expand from its base of refugees - perhaps as a result of the Khazar empire.  Equally, for at least a few centuries, Jews have been relatively isolated in that part of the world.

There is also some remarkable genetic evidence concerning Jews from southern Africa, who allegedly have a rare genetic marker, indicating a line of descent from a common ancestor. But place such a Jew beside a Polish Jew, and their genetic differences are pretty clearly more significant than their similarities - one is Black and the other is White.

[The Minsky Moment]

Not to mention there is a LOT of variation even within relatively closed groupings like the Ashkhenaz.  Eg my grandmother had blue eyes.  I have green.

[Alatriste]

Regarding Jews, assuming generations of 25 years and no inbreeding (yes, I know...) a person of today would need to reach back in time only between 700 and 800 years to have one billion ancestors, Genetics and evolution do work like that. Asking for any kind of ethnic 'purity' preserved trough History is madness (and I would really prefer 'homogeneity' or 'uniformity' to a loaded word like 'purity').

That assumption is simplistic to the point of absurdity when you look that far back.  So if you look back another 200 years, you'll have 256 billion ancestors?  I'm pretty sure genetics and evolution don't work like that.

This assumption also fails when it comes specifically to Ashkenazi Jews as well.  Ashkenazi Jews are succeptible to a number of genetic conditions tracing back to lack of interbreeding, so the assumption of no inbreeding is also contradicted by history as well as mathematics.

And that's what the 'Yes, I know...' meant. When you get many generations back, some degree of inbreeding is of course unavoidable. But the existence of inbreeding doesn't negate the main point, IMHO: to expect the Jews of today to be exactly the same ethnic group that they were 2,000 years ago is madness.... in fact, if Ashkenazi do possess such susceptibility but Sefaradi don't, the division Ashkenazi/Sefaradi shows clearly that at least in Spain and Portugal interbreeding was common.

This applies to any human group (other than some very isolated groups like Amazonian and New Guinea aboriginals) but to Jews more than most due to their geographical dispersion.

[DGuller]

And that's what the 'Yes, I know...' meant. When you get many generations back, some degree of inbreeding is of course unavoidable. But the existence of inbreeding doesn't negate the main point, IMHO: to expect the Jews of today to be exactly the same ethnic group that they were 2,000 years ago is madness.... in fact, if Ashkenazi do possess such susceptibility but Sefaradi don't, the division Ashkenazi/Sefaradi shows clearly that at least in Spain and Portugal interbreeding was common.

This applies to any human group (other than some very isolated groups like Amazonian and New Guinea aboriginals) but to Jews more than most due to their geographical dispersion.

That would be quite a liberal "Yes, I know".  Inbreeding wouldn't just be an outlier, after a certain point pretty much everyone inside the isolated group would be inbreeding, so your figure is likely to be off by a huge factor.  Assumptions should simplify matters, not completely divorce them from reality.

[Siege]

Alatriste, if you go back far enough, your ancestors overlap in your family tree. The farther back you go, the more they overlap. If your dad and mom have the same ethnic background, chances are they are 6th , 7th or 8th cousins, from several sides of the family tree.