Germanic peoples come from ancient Israel. They were displaced in two movements...

>israel population density : 1 000 000

Remember, I said there were two separate movements at two different times.

Germans developed runes several centuries AFTER Christ from a variant of the Phoenician alphabet such as Etruscan or Archaic Latin (like all other ancient Europeans, I might add.) Of course the Hebrew alphabet also developed from the Phoenician.

>I mean, we really have no idea what the ancient Germanics spoke
Because apparently they forgot how to write anything in their own language until the Roman Imperial period or so.
Unlike actual Israelites, who wrote profusely.

Why did pre-Christian Germanics have names like Gunthar, Brynhildr and Snorri instead of Moshe, Shlomo and Sarah? Why are you so fucking stupid?

I might also point out that you could "prove" literally anyone in Europe, North Africa and the Near East wuz Israelites with such sloppy thinking, since everyone in the area adopted Phoenician-derived alphabets and quickly converted to Christianity.

Is it really that farfetched to believe that runes derive from paleo-hebrew compared to old italic alphabets? If Germanics had contact with Rome, why wouldn't they just use Latin as their main language? (Maybe they did?)

>Unlike actual Israelites, who wrote profusely.
If you were forced into exile to be a travelling nomad you wouldn't have the means to write and preserve texts.

We learn from official sources that the symbols found throughout Western countries - on flags and state regalia, etc - come from spurious migrating "Semitic" tribes. We are told that the symbolism originates with these tribes and goes back to the dawn of time.

We also know what "dawn of time" means officially. We know it refers to the period between 7,000 and 11,000 years BC. However, as we are now beginning to realize, these dates do not mark the beginnings of mankind's cultural and technical history.

Although equally magnificent temples and megaliths exist in Ireland, Scandinavia, North America and Mexico; although entire lost cities are found beneath the oceans, and though the vast majority of words, place and personal names in the Bible are of Irish origin, we rather live with mysteries and unsolvable conundrums than face the truth. In almost every case where a major site exists, or where a great civilization existed, we find the same refrain from the modern inhabitants. Either we are told that "godlike strangers" erected the sites, or that technically superior semi-divine ancestors, of whom we now suspiciously find no trace, did it. Archaeologists refuse to explain who these mysterious ancestors were. The world over, legends affirm that indigenous forebears were not the builders, astronomers and healers. Investigators habitually look to every country except Ireland for their answers. It is almost comical to say that we can be certain that Ireland played a seminal role merely because the laws of exclusion are in its favor. All other countries have been studied and can be struck off as originators of civilization. So dare we now, at long last, face the truth that has lain in plain sight for so long? Dare we examine the evidence for the Irish origins of civilization and have done with the damnable conundrums?

>Why did pre-Christian Germanics have names like Gunthar, Brynhildr and Snorri instead of Moshe, Shlomo and Sarah?
A name pronounced in English and spelt in English is completely different to a name spelt and pronounced in a different language.

WE WUZ" CANAANITES N" SHIEET

>Is it really that farfetched to believe that runes derive from paleo-hebrew
"Paleo-Hebrew" script was just Phoenician script, it's not even clear if the couple of stylistic differences from standard Phoenician were actually Hebrew inventions or if they just copied a variant of Phoenician. There were more differences between the alphabets of the various Greek polities than between Paleo-Hebrew and Phoenician.

>If Germanics had contact with Rome, why wouldn't they just use Latin as their main language?
You're confusing language and alphabets. If you're asking why they used Old Italic instead of classic Latin script, it's probably because the northern regions of the Roman empire still used Old Italic around this time. Or Western Greek, which fits runes just as well.

>If you were forced into exile to be a travelling nomad you wouldn't have the means to write and preserve texts.
Yet the Hebrews-Israelites-Jews did that wherever they went. They're rather infamous for that.
Even the Ethiopian Beta Israel are better for Wewuzing than Germanic spear-chuckers.

It's not just pronunciation and sounds that are different. Germanic and Semitic are two different language families altogether. Some difference aren't just the result of "kek they moved". Syntax, grammar, root systems, these all show them to be intrinsically different to anyone with any knowledge of either language.