It’s been 2000 years though. 2000 years of genetic mixing and cultural discontinuity isn’t nothing.
Calling Ashkenazi “indigenous” to Palestine is mostly a statement of ideology.
In terms of cultural continuity, well they haven’t been there for 2000 years.
In terms of genetics, something like 60-80% of mitochondrial DNA is of European origin.
Linguistically, the group mostly spoke Yiddish which is a Germanic language.
There certainly is a Semitic character to the Ashkenazi identity but they’re as indigenous to Palestine as the modern Turkish ethnicity is indigenous to the central Asian steppe.
In terms of genetics, something like 60-80% of mitochondrial DNA is of European origin.
Being from Germany I feel icky about claims that start in terms of genetics. They are not a good look for me (but the linked article is too long for me to read, maybe your source comes from it). Genetics are not a foundation for claims to land.
Quarter Jews, is a term Nazis used and which was as icky and based on scientific racist, eugenic völkisch thought and is close to that.
In terms of cultural continuity, well they haven’t been there for 2000 years.
I don’t know where you got your 2000 years from, I am not an expert on the area, but Ashkenazi diaspora didn’t properly form around the time of Jesus, but up to a thousand years later, with differentiation and influences into surrounding cultures and some Christian movements, too.
However I feel a danger lies in:
In terms of cultural continuity, well they haven’t been there
arguments, too. How long would an imperial power that deports people have to keep people away till they are deemed as without cultural continuity? Claims to land are social relations, which are not determined by objective measurements of DNA contribution, years and fictive locations. I wouldn’t agree with denying people with Palestinian heritage land cause they were in the European or American diaspora, either.
They, ideological Zionists, are the ones who insist the genetic contribution from 2000 years ago gives them a right to own Palestine. Not me. I’m denying that argument. I’m saying the fact that a part of their genetic ancestry is from Palestine isn’t sufficient to make a claim to rightful ownership of Palestine on the basis of being “indigenous”.
If we are discussing their “indigenous” character, then being genetically related to the earlier inhabitants is relevant though.
I am disputing their indigenous character.
They are not indigenous to Palestine.
The Ashkenazi are a mostly European culture and ethnicity and that’s true on genetic, cultural, linguistic grounds.
The idea that they are indigenous to palestine is a cultural tradition. A matter of ideology.
