That's fair, I guess. But here's how I see it.
Let's say someone of purely Irish descent is living in America right now, and for the next 1000 years (assuming the Earth isn't a lifeless furnace by then) he and his descendants intermarry exclusively with other American citizens of purely Irish descent. Does this mean that his distant relative living 1000 years in the future is now a Native American? No, he's still an American citizen of Irish descent whose ancestors settled in America long ago.
On another note, if I am to use my own family as a possible reflection of the overall Jewish mindset at the time, it's probable that a good many Jews back then saw the return to their native land and adoption of Hebraic names as a wholesale rejection of Europe or any identity they may have had in common with native Europeans. In other words, a straight up "fuck you" to their European oppressors. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is how many Palestinian Arabs feel right now, hence why many of them refuse to see the Israelis as anything other than foreigners. However, this is simply conjecture based on personal experiences.
I think posters such as Instigator and a few others seem to have misread my arguments as "I hate Arabs, this is Jewish land, so get the fuck out!", whereas all I'm really arguing for is:
1. The right of Israel to exist, albeit not as an exclusively Jewish state.
2. Jewish right to self-determination, independence, and dignity.
3. The right of European Jews to identify themselves as Middle Easterners, regardless of the countries their ancestors recently inhabited, or whether or not they made Aliyah (aka returning to Israel/Palestine). Your post that I'm quoting implies that you agree with me, somewhat.
That is all.
First of all, if the Ashkenazi Jews of Europe intermarried exclusively with other Jews, they would look more like the Sephardic Jews than Europeans. As it stands, Ashkenazi Jews have more in common racially with Europeans than they do with the Middle Easterners. That indicates thousands of years of intermarriage with the native Europeans, making them European. If there is no statute of limitation on ancestry, then we're all Africans who deserve to have a homeland in Africa. My issue is with any claim that says a Jew whose only connection to the land is through biblical stories has more of a right to that land than the Palestinian whose entire lineage can be traced back to the same olive grove. Any state that believes the former trumps the latter is a state that cannot morally be supported.
To follow your points:
1. The right of Israel to exist, albeit not as an exclusively Jewish state.
In this case, you can't support Israel in its current form, because it's designed to be an exclusively Jewish state. That's why the only two options are apartheid, or a one-state solution. Two states is off the table, nor should it have ever been on the table. By saying Israel should not be exclusively a Jewish state, you've already rejected Israel's #1 demand for negotiations.
2. Jewish right to self-determination, independence, and dignity.
Why single out Jewish? Shouldn't we desire all people to have self-determination, independence, and dignity? Singling out Jews just reeks of racism to me.
3. The right of European Jews to identify themselves as Middle Easterners, regardless of the countries their ancestors
recently inhabited, or whether or not they made Aliyah (aka returning to Israel/Palestine). Your post that I'm quoting implies that you agree with me, somewhat.
Again, this just sounds like classic 20th century European anti-Semitism to me. The entire basis for that movement was linked to the fact that the Jews of Europe were "other" and genetically unclean. Saying that they belong to the region where they hadn't lived for millennia just sounds wrong to me. Europe was their home, and their community. It was anti-Semitism that first singled them out as Middle Eastern, and Zionism that picked it up and ran with it. I can't be comfortable with that type of thinking.