"old evidence commonly known by scholars" This commends it as a scholarly work, it certainly doesn't detract from it. Were it simply a provocative hypothesis without any historical pedigree that would indeed detract from its claims. "Applied to today, that would mean we would expect inhabitants of modern day Israel to convert to the dominant group." Best not to extrapolate without good reason. Today the dominant group is exclusionary, unlike Judaism of the biblical era and somewhat later periods. Hence extrapolation would be a somewhat foolish enterprise. My comments were intended to be pertinent to the poster (not this discussion-whatever you think that is) who maintains Palestinians are Johnny come lateleys, he being the very antithesis of a historian who doesn't appreciate that most modern day Israelis and almost all early European Zionists have but a tenuous claim to ancestry in Roman ruled Israel. That is quite apart from the fact that his (the posters) claim of very late Palestinian migration was lifted from a Joan Peter's screed which was itself probably financed by an interested third party(not so unusual in matters of propaganda). She passed into a well deserved oblivion after that book, though her canards live on in cyber land.
Islamic State destroys part of Syria's Temple of Bel, monitoring group says (Reuters)
from the article: Comment / Settlers can stay, but only as citizens of Palestine