It is amazing that someone who's done a PhD is so criminally bad at making sense and writing in a logical fashion.

Let's start with something. Jews are the single biggest victims of hate crimes in the US per capita. That's the FBI's data. It's interesting that you are able to distinguish "valid" anti-Jewish hate from invalid ones, and I'm wondering - based on what data? Do you have the details of each FBI report and have you published this paper anywhere? Cool, I'll wait.

Now it sounds like you're saying that SOME Jews deserve to be hate-crimed . That's an interesting hot take. Want to elaborate? Should we do the analogies thing here, or are you going to back down before you sound even dumber?

And last, genomic data. Oh, dear sweet racist dummy. First off, there are several great genomic studies. But more to the point - what defined indigenaiety now? Ones genes? So should every Native American who claims lineage be forced to take a genomic test before being able to make the claim? What specific threshold would you like to use? And what, if any, evidence would you like to present that genetic indigenaiety is the standard by which the whole concept is measured anyway?

In the case of Jews, let's be super clear - at the DAWN OF UNBROKEN RECORDED HUMAN HISTORY, Jews were present in this region. What happened 20,000 years before, I can't quite tell you - but the record is the record. The Bible may be a myth, but she's old. And there is zero doubt that at the Roman conquest, Jews inhabited that land. So this perverted argument always ends up suggesting that SOMEHOW the Jews that existed then all died out and everyone ended up restarting in Europe.

Do you understand how inane this sounds? How it invalidates the Jewish lineage of all brown and black Jews? Or how it fails to explain anything known to be factually in the record?

No. Because it's just racist drivel.