It tells me you have dredged up no specific examples from Khalidi's work, which is voluminous.

Is the new catchphrase "hypotheticals"? I quoted academic works. You did read them did you not? (I know you are very busy)

Other user? What are you on about?

Oh sweet G-d ... The examples all refer to Palestinian identity?

I was referring to Sam, SD.

The works you cited comprised an assertion without logical justification.

I may as easily assert that the sky is purple.

"Examples"? Oh, sweet G-d. There were no examples, only statements. HOW is there a distinct identity? What does it comprise? What elements of sociality, politics and culture make up this unique Palestinian identity? And so forth.

My friend, you need to read the link. What I extracted was the juicy bits.

Shalom

I may read the link, but if those were the juiciest bits then the article could stand some watering.

Shalom dog.

Who would even suggest such a preposterous definition of "homeland?" Are we to consider you and the other residents of your house as a "nation?"

Your homeland, if indeed you have one, is India. And not necessarily just the land controlled by the state called "India," either.

Indeed, Khalidi is not exactly what you'd call a "juicy" author. He's extremely measured and obsessive about citation. His works tend to proceed almost glacially, building up large points through a waterfall of tiny facts. The result is technically impressive, although very poor fodder for message board hysterics. Which is exactly the point: you don't retain a prestigious tenure at Columbia by being a hack polemicist. Let alone have any measurable impact on popular understanding.

And this, of course, is exactly why he's valuable. He's the foremost authority on Palestinian history in the United States, and his stances on various contentious issues in that subject are broadly in alignment with what Palestinian internet partisans want to talk about. So, he's a desirable enough authority that they are sure to want to cite him, but his work is so dense, measured and resistant to reduction that they cannot do so without doing a lot of reading and thinking, and hopefully a little learning.

Sorry, just saw this now. I don`t consider you to be Jewish. You sometimes use the sig "Peace, Geoff". Have you ever considered any other possibilities?

Sorry, meant to write back sooner.

You citation lays down - as quad cites above - some possibilities, but no explicit logical approach to actual evidence. Unfortunately I'd have to wade through the entirety of Khalidi's work to be sure. I don't have the time. How about a juicy, watered-down article?

Oh, and as for "Peace", I used to use it because it's my native tongue. Why do you pick "Shalom"? Are you Jewish?

He is right, its a slow read, but the case is plainly made. I will work on some juice.

Ahhh.

A MOSAIC OF PEOPLE: THE JEWISH STORY AND A REASSESSMENT OF THE DNA EVIDENCE


http://www.jogg.info/11/coffman.htm

This paper would be more interesting if they changed the focus and included the non-Jews in their interpretation.

e.g. the Cohanim marker is widespread in Arab non-Jews, which is a slightly different picture from it being prominent in the Jewish priestly class among the Jewish community.

I think the issue is misrepresented in the narrow focus of such studies.

You have changed your tune?