Science refutes Zionism
Zionism is a mix of corrupted biology and mythic stories
As a holdover of 19th-century colonialism, Zionism is infused with that era’s mix of scientific formulae and classical mythology. Science has moved on from these outdated formulae; history has moved on from the literal interpretation of myth.
The outdated scientific argument underlying Zionism is that today’s Jewish Israeli colonists are the descendants of the ancient kingdoms of Judah and Israel described in biblical texts.
The notion that such descent could confer upon these colonists a right to steal others’ land today is a preposterous notion, but it has nothing to do with science, so science isn’t required to refute it - logic and ethical reasoning are sufficient.
To the scientific question: are today’s Jewish Israeli colonizers the descendents of the ancient kingdoms of Judah and Israel described in biblical texts? Does their claim to the land go back 3000 years?
Look at this claim in the light of combinatoric mathematics (specifically, powers-of-2).
Consider a Jewish colonizer living in a West Bank settlement. Can you visualize him assaulting his Palestinian neighbours, burning houses, stealing belongings, etc., as they do with impunity? This settler has two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, with the numbers of ancestors growing exponentially with each generation.
Going back 12 generations (less than 300 years ago), there were some 4096 people walking around (mostly) Europe, Africa, the Americas, perhaps even the Ottoman Empire, who each contributed 1/4096 (0.002%) to this man’s DNA.
Try it. Going back by powers of two, you fairly quickly reach a number of ancestors that exceeds the total population of planet earth at that time.
Going back 1000 years, we reach - for Europe - what’s called the genetic isopoint: the point when all people alive in that part of the world are related to all people alive from that region in the world today, contributing a tiny portion to each contemporary person from Europe’s DNA. Because today’s Israelis are basically Europeans, they fall into this genetic isopoint.
But suppose you disagree that Israelis are basically Europeans, even though they’re in Eurovision and claim to be a bastion of Western civilization. Suppose you instead believe the contradictory claim that their ancestry in Palestine goes back 3000 years. The global genetic isopoint was around 3400 years ago: if you look at the people today and the people 3400 years ago, every one of us is related to every one of them, with each of them contributing a tiny fraction of each of our DNA.
Leave aside the illogic of a claim that descent should confer a right to steal someone else’s land or commit genocide. The ancient Hebrews were no more related to today’s genocidal Israelis than they were to anyone else on planet earth.
This wasn’t easy for me to understand the first time I read it, so allow me to let Jonathan Marks, author of the book Is Science Racist?, explain it again:
“Let us say, for the sake of argument, that you claimed to be a direct descendant of George Washington, say ten generations ago. The biological question is, “How much of your DNA did you inherit from him?” That question can be answered by knowing how many other lineal ancestors you have ten generations ago. One generation ago, you had two parents, each of whom had two parents, and so on. Ten generations ago, you had 210 ancestors, or more than 1,000 lineal progenitors. While that number is an upper limit, assuming you are perfectly outbred, it nevertheless indicates that whatever DNA you may have inherited from George Washington is at best a minuscule proportion of your genome. Moreover, it is also a miniscule proportion of George Washington’s genome, and consequently the chance that what you happened to inherit actually represents George Washington’s best DNA is quite small. Clearly, then, being George Washington’s lineal descendant is biologically meaningless.”
Marks addresses Zionist claims to ancient rights to the Holy Land fairly explicitly, though he does so by discussing the Da Vinci Code (my emphases added):
“Consider the premise of The Da Vinci Code, that there might be people alive today who are descendants of Jesus. But biologically speaking, how many other people would they also be the descendants of? If we assume 25 years per generation, Jesus would have lived about 80 generations ago. And 280 ancestors in 30 ad works out to about a septillion (a number with 24 zeroes behind it) ancestors in that generation along with Jesus.
“But what a strange calculation – that anyone would have more ancestors than people alive at the time – in this case, by many orders of magnitude. This paradox is known as pedigree collapse, and it reveals the bio-cultural aspect of ancestry, retaining symbolic meaning in the face of effectively infinite genetic dilution, much as devotees of homeopathic medicines believe about their elixirs.
“Of course, you could have received a tiny chunk of DNA from that first-century ancestor, because that is what ancestry is, biologically – the transmission of DNA. But here is the kicker: any ancestor in your bloodline that far back is probably also in mine. Think about it. There are a septillion slots to fill in your first-century pedigree, and perhaps a few tens of millions of people alive back then to fill them. Anyone alive back then, who has anything represented in today’s human gene pool, is as likely to be among my septillion ancestors as to be among your septillion ancestors. There may be quantitative variation in our pedigrees – he may recur more times in my pedigree than in yours – but there isn’t mathematical room for there to be qualitative variation.”
What Marks is saying about pedigrees means that not even huge amounts of inbreeding can defeat this exponential growth. Even if you believe that Jewish Europeans are extremely inbred (they’re not), pedigree collapse still happens after a surprisingly small number of generations:
“There simply weren’t enough people alive, and everybody’s got to have two parents. We are all biological relatives, we are all inbred, and the farther back we go, the less meaning biological differences have, because for every generation that we retreat, the number of our ancestors doubles, yet the size of the human species diminishes. Each of us has a septillion ancestors being drawn from a much smaller pool of people who lived 80 generations ago.”
The biological claims collapse easily.
The archaeological claims are even worse.
Biblical archeology is basically a centuries-long project of Zionists to dig below the lands they occupy to find (or make) evidence to verify the mythic stories of their religious texts. Any dig that took place after the Balfour Declaration of 1917, when the British Empire awarded Palestine to the world Zionist movement, can be assumed to have been corrupted and to have found what imperialist and Zionist scholars were looking for to justify their conquests. A 2001 book like The Bible Unearthed doesn’t even begin to fulfill its promise of “setting apart facts and legend”. For the past century biblical archaeologists have gone and dug around in Occupied Palestine looking for proof of conclusions they had already decided based on their religious texts and their colonial plans. There’s nothing more to this field than the brandishing of ancient objects to fulfill insidious agendas.
With biology and archeology refuted, what’s left is trying to make a claim based on the texts themselves. The logic there is both simple and repugnant: ancient myths state that today’s colonists had ancestors who committed genocide to take that land from its inhabitants thousands of years ago, and today’s Israelis have to re-enact those genocides today. That’s not history, and it’s not science. It’s an evil to be stopped.
Jewish Professor Michael Neumann - 'The Case Against Israel' (2006)
'In the case of a Jewish claim to Palestine, the claims are themselves dubious. Here it is not necessary to have decided on a truth, which may elude researchers forever. It is enough to show that there is serious controversy, and that is easily done.
One account of recent findings can be found in 'The Bible Unearthed: Archeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the origin of Its sacred Texts'. Its authors are Israel Finkelstein, director of an archeological institute at Tel Aviv University, and Neil Asher Silberman, director of a Belgian archeological institute and a contributing editor to 'Archeology' magazine. These writers display no political agenda and repeat to the point of saturation their admiration and respect for the Bible.
Asher and Silberman introduce their work with the claim that:
"The historical saga contained in the Bible - from Abraham's encounter with God and his journey to Canaan, to Moses's deliverance of the children of Israel from bondage, to the rise and fall of the Kingdom of Israel and Judah - was not a miraculous revelation, but a brilliant product of the human imagination."
This is the authors' exceedingly polite way of saying that the Biblical accounts are sometimes nonsense, sometimes deliberate lies, exaggerations, and distortions. The status of the Biblical Kingdom is particularly relevant to the Jewish claims to Palestine. One of Asher and Silberman's more devastating findings is that:
"The Biblical borders of the land of Israel as outlined in the book of Joshua had seemingly assumed a sacred inviolability...the Bible pictures a stormy but basically continuous Israelite occupation of the land of Israel all the way to the Assyrian conquest. But a reexamination of the archeological evidence...points to a period of a few decades [in which Israel existed], between around 835-800B.C.E..."
In other words, they find that the "Great" Jewish Kingdom existed in something like its fabled extent for a tiny fraction of the period traditionally alleged. Even then, their boundaries never came close to the "Greater Israel" of contemporary Jewish fundamentalism. The rest of the time. Judah and Israel are thought to have been, for the most part, very primitive entities, devoid of literate culture or substantial administrative structure, extending to only a small, landlocked part of what is now called Palestine. The great structures of the Biblical era are, all of them, attributed to Canaanite cultures.
Moreover, the inhabitants of Biblical Israel and Judah seem to have been, for most of the time and for the most part, practitioners of Canaanite religions rather than Judaism, or of various syncretic cults. These "Israelites" were not, that is, "Jewish" in one important sense of the term. The authors refer to the Biblical Kingdom as it existed as a "a multi-ethnic society." The idea that such a past could validate a Jewish historical claim to Palestine is simply ludicrous, even if it could be shown - which it cannot - that today's Jews are in some legal sense, heirs to the ancient Israelite Kingdoms.'
Like most religion It's a mix of greed and self-justification needing something to keep the sheeple lining up when more and more of the cream goes to the top, but it's good to have more interesting facts to drive my relatives in various racist Christian sects nuts.