I'm not sure I understand the last comment directed at me. Looks to me like random shooting from the hip though.

However, let's dissect the comments previously made about my sources, now that I have a little time to do it...

The first comment is meaningless. It says that, first of all, I cannot determine the validity of my sources (this is a non-criticism that is more verbal sleight of hand than an actual argument, because it doesn't actually dispute any specifics or offer counter arguments about those specifics, it just generally smears the whole idea that I could even have any legitimate sources, based on arbitrary criteria that the person making the comment reserves the right to enforce), and it attempts to use this sort of blanket sliming as a way of invalidating every reference I ever supply, now and in the past and the future. I expect that someone who would make such an argument has such an exalted view of their own intellect, they can't even imagine that anyone not like them could possibly see through it. I would inform this person that their intellect is not as superior as they think, because anyone not sharing their world view can see arguments like this one for what it is... an attempt to manipulate peoples' perceptions using verbal sleight of hand. In other words, typical hasbara self-aggrandizing, bullshit.

Secondly, it attempts to suggest that there is not any first hand information or a background of study that would allow me to distinguish between bulk and bunk. If we were to follow these criteria every time we attempt to determine which arguments are valid and which are not, we would not ever be able to make any arguments at all, since no-one in the world has the first hand information or background of study to be able to rely entirely on these things. Every argument anyone ever makes on historical subjects relies on the work of others, and relies on making decisions about which other people's work can stand up to the rigors of critical examination. In other words, more typical hasbara self-aggrandizing bullshit.

Thirdly, this person's suggesting that since they are not aware of any assertion of a Roman exile of the Jews, that means that no-one in the history of this issue has ever made the assertion of a Roman exile of the Jews. There are two very serious flaws with this line of reasoning. The first is that this argument is incredibly solipsistic (ie: more typical hasbara self-aggrandizing bullshit), and secondly, the person making this argument has failed to specify what they mean by "Roman exile of the Jews". Do they mean Jews exiled from Rome, or do they mean Jews exiled from the holy land by Romans?

Then, they try to obfuscate by suggesting that there being historical evidence of Jews in the area of what is now Israel and Palestine somehow proves that the Ashkenazim are the descendents of the people whose suggested by this historical evidence. The point of the work described in the links I provided shows that, while such people did live in the area, 1. they are not the ancestors of the Ashkenazim, and 2. the biblical account of the history of the nature of their society and its size relative to other groups in the area, is false.

Not sure what point is being made in reference to the Babylonian exile.

Which Ha'aretz article is being criticized by this person? I posted links to two Ha'aretz articles.

Then this person attempts to obfuscate by saying that there is genetic research going on, and they even admit that there is no actual credibility to any theories that have so far been articulated based on this research, and tries to use this in a rather bizarre way to try to smear my use of material that is accepted as valid by the majorities of experts on these subjects. (In other words, more typical hasbara self-aggrandizing bullshit.)

They also try to smear my arguments by saying that I cite all arguments (a false assertion), that and that this weakens my arguments, and they further try to smear them by calling them 'partisan'. This one is a real gem. I would inform the person making this argument that their attempt to insult my intelligence with this one has backfired: it's an insult to their own intelligence for them to think that this sort of slimy attempt to manipulate the discussion would ever work. There is nothing wrong with any of the sources I've provided, other than the fact that person using these tactics finds it inconvenient that they effectively dismantle this person's arguments. If this person actually had any legitimate counter arguments for any of the specific information presented in my sources, they would provide those arguments. They have not done so - because they haven't got any. (In other words, more typical hasbara self-aggrandizing bullshit.)

This person then uses a straw man to try to invalidate my arguments. I have never said that modern Jews are not linked by ancestral habitation to the Mideast (and this person knows it). I have said that Ashkenazim and Sephardim are not linked by ancestral habitation to the Mideast. There is a very big difference between these two things (and this person knows it). And then they try to use this straw man as a springboard for introducing a new subject into the debate: the question of whether or not Israel has a right to defend itself against an antagonistic population which seeks to destroy them. This question is fallacious in several respects. First of all, Israel is not attempting to defend itself against an antagonistic population that is trying to destroy it. It is attempting to establish an ever growing empire in the Middle East, and waging serial wars of aggression as well as covert acts of aggression in service to this agenda. Secondly, under international law and agreements they have signed, they do not have the right to do this, nor do they have the right to make itself unique if doing so entails abridging the rights of the other peoples in the region.

I have already addressed the last comment.

As I have said several times before, these kinds of hasbara verbal sleight of hand manipulative smears and non-arguments do not work. People can see right through them. Obi-wan was a fictional character. It really is not possible to fool people by using the Jedi trick of telling them lies and expecting those lies to become the listener's inner truth.