Language families and ancestry/genetics are two completely different things. An Arab and a Afro-Arab might both speak Arabic but ones ancestry is Middle Eastern/Arabic while the others is Sub-Saharan or from the Horn of Africa or a mixture. Likewise with the Greeks and Southern Italians who in look are quite similar to many Arabs and also in terms of genetics not to say geographical proximity. Phoenicians founded many Southern European cities even.
Phoenicians traveled to many regions, but they predominantly migrated to North Africa. The city of Carthage & the Carthaginian empire were of Phoenician origin. Queen Elissar or Dido, the found of Carthage is Phoenician. I agree, that language families & ancestry are separate, but languages are often used to track down the origins of different ancient populations, & there is no point denying their importance in that regard. Afro-Arabs are generally considered to be mixed with Arabs as in the case of the Sudanese people, am I correct? In that case, their origins will naturally differ. As far as Greeks & Italians go, I already explained that there was extensive miscegenation at those times & many Arabs married Southern Italians during the rules of Arab Caliphates. The ancient Greeks & Romans are Europeans.
Lastly a Portuguese and Italian have close to no ties if any at all with an Northern Indian, Iranian, Pakistani, Bengali etc. despite both speaking Indo-European (false actually since there is a difference between Indo-European and Indo-Iranian) be it culture, religion, physical appearance and ancestry/genetics.
In modern times, Indo-Aryan languages have spread all over the Sub-Continent, but genetic studies indicate that the Vedic Aryans's upper castes are indeed related to other Europeans, especially Eastern Europeans. My ancestors at the time of their arrival in the Indus Valley were pure Indo-Aryans, that is a sub-group of Indo-European tribes. Of course, they did mix with local women because the migrants were mostly male, but women were obviously present as well. I can post lots of genetic studies on this if you wish for further clarification. You may consider reading
this article for now.
You are correct that I can't use Indo-Aryan languages to point out origins because many non-Indo-Aryan groups speak those languages today. However, you do not know the history of the ancient Sub-Continent too well. It's a well know fact that the Aryans predominantly settled in the north western regions of the Sub-Continent. Genetic studies prove that apart from historical documentation written by those people themselves, including the Vedic scriptures. I can post lots of genetic studies if you are interested & please check my previous post where I posted one extremely detailed study for you to check out. An Italian would have ties with Indo-Iranian & Aryan ethnicities like Pasthuns, Balochis, Kashmiris, etc. These ethnic groups are known descendants of Indo-European tribes or more precisely Indo-Iranians/Aryans.
Besides Semites are Caucasiod races too.
Of course, I never claimed that Semitic people aren't Caucasian.
Most importantly most Southern Europeans trace their ancestry to the Near East and not the Indo-Iranian homeland on the Central Asian Steppe.
Farming was spread to Europe from the Near East.
Those facts do not really harmonize with a so-called common Indo-Iranian ancestry let alone origin on the Central Asian Steppe where proto Indo-Iranians came from. See language and origin/ancestry are complete opposites very often. Two very distinct things.
You can see here below that both Greeks and Italians have approximately half of their ancestry originating from haplogroups commonly found/native to the Middle East and Near East:
Y-DNA haplogroups in European populations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lastly farming was introduced to Europe by Near Eastern (Middle Eastern) people during Neolithic times. That is a fact as well.
I think the sources you have read have misled you. No one ever claimed that all Indo-European people migrated from Central Asia. That is not true at all. Indo-Iranians & Indo-Aryans however did migrate from Central Asia. The ancient Greek language, Sanskrit, & Avestan are well known sister languages & their original speakers were related Indo-European tribes. Speakers of Uralic languages in Europe for instance claim to have not migrated from Central Asia at any point whatsoever. They aren't wrong either. You may want to check out
this map. It shows the spread of Indo-European tribes along with their languages combined. Remember that a language never spreads without its native speakers going along with. I agree that we can't look at modern day language speakers to trace origins, but it's undeniable that original speakers of sister languages are related. Genetic studies prove my point anyway, & the one I posted in post
#106 elucidates that. I already clarified that Italians & Greeks are Indo-European people with admixture in post
#140, & the link I provided in regards to them earlier proves their DNA is mostly European in origin. The map I referred you to in this paragraph will shed light in to near Eastern origins of certain European ethnic groups.
I am a Kashmiri.