>The flipside does the same.

... supported by historical and scientific evidence, as opposed to unsubstantiated speculation.

>Simple. The “so-called semetic folks are not from deep in the
>Arabian peninsula.

That still wouldn't explain how they're genetically related to European Jews, unless your arguing that the "so called semitic folk" all originate in Europe.

>First you did not read Zewari’s post that I referenced to.
>Secondly it doesn’t have to be a ethnic cleansing that took
>place. The Arabs could have simply move the indigenous
>Nubians further south in the country.

First, that is ethnic cleansing by definition. Second, the Nubians are indigenous to upper (south) Egypt, not lower (north) Egypt. Third, I read Zewari's post but I don't see what it has to do with your argument that "the Arabs of Egypt are not the original population of Egypt".

You seem to be saying that the Arabs of Egypt are pure Arabs and didn't intermingle with the native population of Egypt - if that were the case they'd be basically identical to the Saudis on that graph, instead of forming their own cluster with the other North African populations.

>Look at the Dhafur
>situation. They Arabs sure do have them on the run.

Those "Arabs" are of mostly African descent, they're really only "Arab" by culture... and that is exactly the point. Just because Arabs conquered a region does not mean they completely replaced the original population.

>I don’t know from where. Pakistan area, Afghanistan
>Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Turkey?? I don’t know, but it is
>possible. There is not enough data in that chart to refute
>that.

There is zero evidence of any kind to even suggest this, let alone support it as a viable theory.

>When? During invasions. Generally with invasions com a
>influx of new peoples to the area. Australia, America ring a
>bell? Not guaranteed but very probable and possible.

When did Uzbekistanians invade Europe and the Levant in the early first millenium AD? This just makes no sense whatsoever. Australia and America we know from history, not just totally unfounded speculation.

>Prove? Alone? Nothing. But the possibilities it presents
>are a different story.

Not the possibilities you are suggesting. There were no Central/South Asian empires formed in the Levant leading up to this era.

>I lean towards the Arabs not originating in the Arabian
>peninsula.

Based on what?

>The Saudis are in relation to their location on the map. The
>Turks are more closely related.

It's a multidimensional chart; the Saudis are far enough away on the X-axis to clearly seperate them from the European cluster. But yeah the Turks are closer.

> By the way what is a Near
>Eastern Jew, and where are they at?

Those are the Iraqi and Iranian Jews, they're abbreviated as Nea on the graph.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Nurse Roberts: She googled your ass.

Dr. Kelso: Don't you use your street lingo on me!