Why Don’t Anti-Semites Ever Talk About Galileans?

Illustration: Galileans in Jerusalem
Public Domain

If you ever go to an anti-Jewish or anti-Israel website or read the comments on YouTube, Al Jazeera or even, sometimes, in the Jerusalem Post; basically there are two common themes when discussing the “purity of the religion” in regards to God’s promise to Abraham.
1)   During the Maccabee/Hasmonean period Jews forcibly converted Edomites to Judaism and then these Edomite converts went on to constitute a major portion of the survivors of the Roman Wars who were dispersed from the land. Thus, their theory is, of the Jews who immigrated to Europe, MOST were the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Esau and NOT the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
2)    The Jews who immigrated to Europe were able to convince a large part of the Khazar community to convert to Judaism, therefore, these “Jewish Khazars” have no right to claim they are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
What is NEVER mentioned, however, is that the Maccabees, at the same time they converted the Edomites, ALSO converted the Galilean people to Judaism.
In other words: Anti-Semites will say again and again and again that Jews/Israelis are not “real Jews” because they are Edomites. Or: Jews/Israelis are not “real Jews” because they are Khazars.
You will never hear an anti-Semite say that Jews/Israelis are not real Jews because they are Galileans.
Why not ???
First off: Who exactly were the Galileans is less clear then who were the Edomites or the Khazars. Some people think that after the Assyrians took away the ten tribes of Israel, they re-settled the land with various peoples from their empire. Others think that the land was left empty and thus “gentiles” from the north, east and south settled in the Galilee.
Three things most people seem to agree on is:
1)    The Galileans had a heavy accent which made it easy to distinguish them from Jews in Judea.
2)    A famous rabbi said that they were not too interested in rabbinical customs and procedures and usually did not come to him very often for clarifications of the law as regular Jews did.
3)    In the New Testament it says the rabbis claimed that “no prophet ever came from Galilee" (i.e. all prophets were pure-blood Jews and a prophet could not be the descendant of a convert).
One other thing we know about the Galileans is that, together with the converted Edomites, they formed a radical faction known as: “The Zealots” and it was these radical converts who were responsible for the “fight to the death” philosophy which resulted in the complete destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
So, let’s take for example the story of Masada. According to tradition, although this now has been called into question by some authorities, a group of Zealots took refuge in King Herod’s “winter fortress” near the Dead Sea and made a last stand against the Romans. The story goes on to say that “the Jews” made a suicide pack and when the Romans finally succeeded in breaking into the fortress all they found were dead bodies.
What is of interest here is that these people were: “Zealots” and, as we previously noted, the Zealots were made up of Edomite and Galilean converts. Since King Herod himself was an Edomite convert, it would seem only natural that the Edomites among the Zealots would know of and seek out refuge in their brethren’s fortress.
So, let’s just recall what we said about the Galilean converts not fully living the lifestyle of a Jew. Logic would suggest that Edomite converts would also maintain some of their old characteristics, among them being the willingness to kill one’s self. In other words: Jews usually don’t commit suicide. The fact, that the Zealots who were in Masada did commit suicide, mass suicide, tends to confirm the assertion that they were not really Jews, but rather Edomite converts.
Returning to the issue of Galileans, one of the great debates in academia is not only: “Was Jesus the messiah?” but sometimes conversations even venture into the realm of: “Was Jesus even a real person?”
A very interesting perspective on this point was put forth by the late Christopher Hitchens who felt that there was indeed a real person by the name of Jesus, but that he was not the son of God or the messiah.
The logic he used to prove his point was “unique”. Basically, he felt that the stories of Jesus being born in Bethlehem, which are found only in one Gospel, clearly were not true and in some places (for example: the part about the census), can even be proven to be false since no such census ever took place.
Thus, his argument was that since the author of the Gospel had gone to such great lengths to establish that Jesus was a Jew born in Bethlehem, the actual person he was describing was probably a real live person who most people believed to be a Galilean born in Nazareth.
Put another way: If the entire story was fake, they just could have said Jesus was born in Bethlehem and not even mentioned Nazareth, but because everyone knew Jesus was a real person who came from Nazareth, they had to invent the story of his birth in Bethlehem in order to establish his credentials as: “an actual descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob”.  
An interesting sideline to this story, which we shall not discuss in detail here, is that NONE of the disciples of Jesus were Edomites. Thus, when you read the New Testament what you will begin to see is a struggle of the Galileans against a coalition of Pharisees, Edomites/Herodians, and Sadducees. Accordingly, when it is suggested that Jesus is a prophet, the Pharisees argued that “no prophet has ever come from the Galilee” (i.e. Jesus was a Galilean convert”).
So then, you can begin to see the dilemma for the anti-Semite, especially the Christian anti-Semite.
If Jesus and the disciples were Galileans and Galileans were not: “real Jews”, then Jesus cannot be a: “Son of David” nor a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In fact, the ONLY true Jew amongst the early followers of Jesus would have been Paul of Tarsus who is clearly identified as being of the Tribe of Benjamin.
Since it is clearly ridiculous for an anti-Semite to say that a Galilean convert who was expelled by the Romans and wandered into Europe is: “a real Jew”, but an Edomite convert who wandered into Europe is: “a fake Jew”; they just don’t mention Galileans and hope nobody will notice.
Nevertheless, according to anti-Semitic logic, one thing becomes abundantly clear:
If a converted Edomite is NOT a real Jew, then the converted Galilean disciples of Jesus were also NOT real Jews.
If Galilean converts are indeed: “real Jews”, then this means that Edomite converts must also be: “real Jews”, as well as the Khazars…which they, of course, don't want to admit.
If, however, one simply reads: "The Parable of the Sower" in the New Testament, you can easily begin to appreciate that Jesus himself did not consider his disciples to be: "real Jews". Jesus explains to his disciples that "the Jews" (who he refers to as: "they"), had not been given the ability to understand the parable; while, on the other hand, his disciples: the Galileans, were given the ability to understand via his interpretation.
Why? Because the disciples of Jesus were not Jews.... 
My personal opinion is:
Neither the Edomites or the Galileans were Jews and that all conversions are illegal according to the 5 Books of Moses; but as Rudyard Kipling once said:
"That is another story….."