Khazars and Jews

[Matthew Cline]

There are some people out there (not including myself) who claim that most/all modern day Jews are descended from Khazars who moved to Europe in the 9th century, and that few/none of them are descended from the ancient Israelites. Some question about that theory (or collection of theories):


So far as I can tell, the importance of this idea has to those that claim it is supposed to be that:
The modern day Jews have no rightful claim to Israel.
The prophecies in the Bible about the descendants of Abraham and/or David don't apply to the modern day Jews.
Is there any other significance that I'm missing?
If most/all modern day Jews are descended from Khazars, what happened to to the descendants of the ancient Israelis? Christian Identity sects claim that the Saxons and Britains (and maybe other Norther Europeans) are the true descendants of the Israelis, and thats where all the Israelis went, but I don't think that all people who subscribe to the "modern day Jews are Khazars" are Christian Identitists.
Of those who claim that modern day Jews are "fake" Jews, is it because they believe that you can't convert to Judaism, and can only be born to it? Or do they consider Jewishness and Judaism to be entirely, 100% unrelated?
Of those who claim that modern day Jews are "fake" Jews, do they think that the 9th Khazars only pretended to convert to Judaism? If so
Why would have the Khazars engaged in a mass pretend conversion?
Are the modern day Jews claimed to practice the same religion as the 9th century Khazars?
Are the any variants of the "Jews Run The World" CT that make use of the "modern day Jews are Khazars" theory? (As opposed to here merely being people who believe both?)
Thanks.

[Uninvolved]

[list=1]
So far as I can tell, the importance of this idea is supposed to be that:

The modern day Jews have no rightful claim to Israel.



I can't say anything to the other points, but

why would modern day Jews have a rightful claim to Israel if they are/were descended from the ancient Israelites?

Rumanians claim to be the descendents of the Romans. What about the English getting out of England, so that Rumanians can take the country of their ascendents?

[Tyooby]

Could you give any evidence for the claim that "most/all modern day Jews are descended from Khazars"?

When I was in Israel I noticed many Israelis look very middle eastern/mediterranean. I honestly couldn't tell any difference between Arabs and many jews. I seem to remember reading part of the jewish population doesn't have semitic background, many new converts from different regions have joined since the diaspora, I think. I think that's the opinion of some professor I read here (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966952.html). Been a while since I read that though, so I could be misrepresenting his opinion. Anyway, opinions don't really matter in this case, only genetic evidence does.

Would this mean that "The modern day Jews have no rightful claim to Israel"? Well, there's no objective answer to that question, or to the question if they would have a rightful claim even if every Israeli jew was semitic. Do the non-native Americans have a rightful claim to the USA? The Homo Sapiens to Europe (after possibly wiping out the Neanderthals)? Those are useless questions. The fact is that almost 6 million jews live in Israel and they're not going anywhere, so the better question is how to co-exist peacefully, but I believe there's already a lengthy discussion about that on somewhere on this forum.

[Matthew Cline]

why would modern day Jews have a rightful claim to Israel if they are/were descended from the ancient Israelites?

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I wasn't trying to say that the descendants of the ancient Israelis would have a definite claim on the land of Israel because of their ancestors, but rather that some of the "Jews = Khazars" theorists say that because the modern day Jews aren't descendants of the ancient Israelis that their claim to Israel is invalid. I am, in this thread, not attempting to make any claims for the validity or invalidity of the Israelis' claim to Israel.

[Doctor Evil]

This theory is factually wrong. It is promoted for political reasons. This has came up before
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3869276&postcount=22
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4139134&postcount=73

[Uninvolved]

I wasn't trying to say that the descendants of the ancient Israelis would have a definite claim on the land of Israel because of their ancestors


I was not debating your statement but one interpretation of it, which is quite wide spread.

Some of those, who are claiming some legitimacy of Israel and its expansion, base that on God's "promice", but those being immune against Judaism attribute a higher value to Balfour's promice, backed by Lloyd George.

Others are basing their claim on the fact, that the region, which is now called Palestine, had been the home land for Jews for a long while ago. This is religion-safe, i.e. it works secular as well. My admittadly not very good but analogy with the Romans was intended to show, that the presence of Jews for fifteen hundred years ago (?) is not enough, and it does not matter if the Jews had been driven out or had chosen to go elsewhere (I think it was a combination). They too took the land from others, and later they became a tiny minority; that's no basis to lay claim on the land.

[Thunder]

#1. Much genetic research has been done which finds that genetically speaking, Ashkenazi Jews have more in common with folks around the Mediteranean then the Caucuses region.

#2. Throughout the Bible, there are countless examples of individuals and whole tribes of people who became Hebrew/Israelites/Jews. So even if no Ashkenazi Jews had any Israelite ancestry, the fact that they have followed Israelite religious and cultural pracistices for more then a thousand years (if they are descended from the Khazars) makes them as Jewish as Moses.

#3. There is ZERO evidence that the peoples of Britain or Western Europe are descended from the Israelites. Ive heard the story about the Stone of Destiny, and it is very dumb.

#4. What about all the Sephardic, Maghrebi, Ethiopian, and other Jews? They make up more then 50% of the Jews in Israel. The focus on Ashkanzis as if they are the only Jews is very unintelligent.

#5. This whole argument is led by anti-Semites. Arthur Kunstler was not one of them, but today it is very clear from their arguments that the folks who lead the charge hate Jews.

[hgc]

When I was in Israel I noticed many Israelis look very middle eastern/mediterranean. I honestly couldn't tell any difference between Arabs and many jews.


That's because, until the Russian influx over the last 20 years, most Israeli Jews were middle eastern/mediterranean.

[Thunder]

That's because, until the Russian influx over the last 20 years, most Israeli Jews were middle eastern/mediterranean.

very much not true. most Zionist immigrants to Palestine between 1900 and 1948 were European Jews. And European immigrants to Israel between 1948 and 2009 outnumber Middle Eastern immigrants 2 to 1.

Jews from Middle Eastern countries make up about 1/3rd of Israeli Jews.

a very sizeable minority, but still..a minority.

[Doctor Evil]

very much not true. most Zionist immigrants to Palestine between 1900 and 1948 were European Jews. And European immigrants to Israel between 1948 and 2009 outnumber Middle Eastern immigrants 2 to 1.

Jews from Middle Eastern countries make up about 1/3rd of Israeli Jews.

a very sizeable minority, but still..a minority.

Actually, I am not sure that the statistics you give are accurate, and anyway, they are misleading in the following sense. The middle eastern Jews all have had to leave their countries in the years 1948-1967. Most in the early 50's. They were the majority of immigrants in those years. They had kid. The end result is that as far as one can actually determine that*, middle eastern Jews and their descendants consist of about a half of the Jewish population of Israel.


* It is a rather pointless statistics, due to mixed marriages.

[gtc]

Realistically, I'm not sure it really matters if they make up 1/3 or 2/3 of the total.

[JJM 777]

Is their any people that ever in known history "rightfully possessed" a land, without a shady and bloody conqueror background somewhere back in history?

I have allowed myself to understand that humans are mostly descendants of conqueror peoples, and the conquered victims are mostly extinct.

[Thunder]

The end result is that as far as one can actually determine that*, middle eastern Jews and their descendants consist of about a half of the Jewish population of Israel.


no. this is not true. middle eastern jews and their descendants make up about 1/3rd....maybe up to 40% of Israel. they are not even close to 50%.

[hgc]

very much not true. most Zionist immigrants to Palestine between 1900 and 1948 were European Jews. And European immigrants to Israel between 1948 and 2009 outnumber Middle Eastern immigrants 2 to 1.

Jews from Middle Eastern countries make up about 1/3rd of Israeli Jews.

a very sizeable minority, but still..a minority.


You may refer to this --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Statistics

It shows 49% for Mizrahi and Saphardic Jews. If you pull out the Caucuses, Central Asia and India/Pakistan, you still have nearly half from Mid-East/Med. That's after the Russian influx.

Consider the birthrate differential.

[Thunder]

You may refer to this --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Statistics

It shows 49% for Mizrahi and Saphardic Jews. If you pull out the Caucuses, Central Asia and India/Pakistan, you still have nearly half from Mid-East/Med. That's after the Russian influx.

Consider the birthrate differential.

whatever

[marksman]

Classy, Parky.

[Skeptic]

Is their any people that ever in known history "rightfully possessed" a land?

Why, the Palestinians, of course!

Right?

[Cleon]

This theory is factually wrong. It is promoted for political reasons. This has came up before
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3869276&postcount=22
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4139134&postcount=73

I would comment, but this two posts do such a wonderful job debunking the Khazar nonsense that there's no need.

[Damien Evans]

I would comment, but this two posts do such a wonderful job debunking the Khazar nonsense that there's no need.

And yet, you did.:D

[Darat]

Unless someone can provide the deeds to a particular piece of land signed by "A God, Inc. - Low Cost Biospheres a Speciality" then who your great-great-great-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-grandfather was and where he lived has no relevance to any claim to land today.

[hgc]

whatever


Really, was that better than not answering at all? ;)

[Thunder]

Unless someone can provide the deeds to a particular piece of land signed by "A God, Inc. - Low Cost Biospheres a Speciality" then who your great-great-great-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-grandfather was and where he lived has no relevance to any claim to land today.

Listen, God Almighty gave the Land of Canaan to the Jewish people. It says it right there in Genesis.

Who are you to argue with God? Do you think your views are more important then God's?

Do you really want to be hit by lightning?

:D

[Simon39759]

Didn't the Khazars convert to Judaism?
My understanding is that they contributed in a small fashion to the origin of the Ashkenazi Jews, but I am no expert and might be misrememebering

[Thunder]

Didn't the Khazars convert to Judaism?
My understanding is that they contributed in a small fashion to the origin of the Ashkenazi Jews, but I am no expert and might be misrememebering

i read that only the royal family and a few thousand of the upper class converted...but the every day Khazar did not.

though, keep in mind, the German word for heretic is "Ketzer".

The theory that the majority of Ashkenazic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazic) Jews are the descendants of the non-Semitic converted Khazars was advocated by various racial theorists[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#cite_note-14)[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#cite_note-Goodrick-Clarke-15) and antisemitic sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism)[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#cite_note-Goodrick-Clarke-15)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#cite_note-Paul_F._Boller_1992.2C_pp._5-6-16)[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#cite_note-17)[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#cite_note-18) in the 20th century, especially following the publication of Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Tribe). Despite recent genetic evidence to the contrary,[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#cite_note-behar-19) and a lack of any real mainstream scholarly support, this belief is still popular among groups such as the Christian Identity Movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity), Black Hebrews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hebrew_Israelites), British Israelitists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Israelism) and others (particularly Arabs[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#cite_note-Lewis-20)[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#cite_note-21)[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#cite_note-22)) who claim that they, rather than Jews, are the true descendants of the Israelites, or who seek to usurp the connection between Ashkenazi Jews and Israel in favor of their own.

[Doctor Evil]

Didn't the Khazars convert to Judaism?
My understanding is that they contributed in a small fashion to the origin of the Ashkenazi Jews, but I am no expert and might be misrememebering

It is not clear how many converted, and then it is not clear how many remained Jewish when the Khazar kingdom fell. There is not enough evidence.

The evidence I brought points out that Ashkenazi Jews are closer to other Jews than to other population. That does not exclude the possibility of some contribution from people of Khazar origin, as well as from intermarriage with non Jews/converts to Judaism.

IMO, it is possible that some Ashkenazi Jews have Khazar ancestry, but they would be a small minority of the community. Perhaps some researcher would find a genetic marker which would allow to study this question. It will be something like this (http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-diaspora.html):
The population geneticist Nathaniel Michael Pearson worked with the Human Genome Project a few years ago and helped to collect DNA samples from North Caucasians, Turks, Sino-Tibetans, and other groups. Pearson is of Ukrainian Jewish background and compared his paternal Y-chromosome sample to those of men from other groups. His DNA matched with an Uzbekistani Uzbek, an Uzbekistani Tajik, and two men from New Delhi in northern India. Pearson believes that the Central Asian haplotype he has could be connected to the Khazar Turks. However, he told me that this haplotype "appears at only a couple percent frequency in a large Ashkenazi sample (and strangely shows a slightly higher, but still very low, frequency among Moroccan Jews)". In other words, this particular possibly-Khazar ancestral strain represents a minority rather than a majority of Eastern European Jews. And while maternal DNA (mtDNA) studies have shown substantial links between Ashkenazi Jews and the peoples of Europe, these non-Israelite inputs into the Ashkenazi genepool still do not represent the majority of total maternal and paternal Ashkenazi ancestry, and probably only some of these European inputs come from Khazar women.
(Though it seems to me that the connection above to Khazars is very tenuous. People move, and it is unclear that Pearsons ancestors did not move to the Ukraine at a later time, etc.)

Until better evidence presents itself, all that is left is just speculation.

[Thunder]

"And while maternal DNA (mtDNA) studies have shown substantial links between Ashkenazi Jews and the peoples of Europe, these non-Israelite inputs into the Ashkenazi genepool still do not represent the majority of total maternal and paternal Ashkenazi ancestry, and probably only some of these European inputs come from Khazar women."

does this mean that there is a higher frequency of non-Jewish women in the Ashkenazi bloodline then non-Jewish men?

I would have thought it to be the opposite. The whole reason Jews are descended from the mother and NOT the father, was due to all the rapes that were going on. that suggests to me that if Judaism was passed on by the father (as it was throughout all of the Bible) there would have been a significant decrease in the Jewish population.

[ddt]

"And while maternal DNA (mtDNA) studies have shown substantial links between Ashkenazi Jews and the peoples of Europe, these non-Israelite inputs into the Ashkenazi genepool still do not represent the majority of total maternal and paternal Ashkenazi ancestry, and probably only some of these European inputs come from Khazar women."

does this mean that there is a higher frequency of non-Jewish women in the Ashkenazi bloodline then non-Jewish men?

I would have thought it to be the opposite. The whole reason Jews are descended from the mother and NOT the father, was due to all the rapes that were going on. that suggests to me that if Judaism was passed on by the father (as it was throughout all of the Bible) there would have been a significant decrease in the Jewish population.

IIRC, the matrilineal tradition dates back to around 1000 CE. The explanation I remember reading somewhere of the above is that the first Ashkenazi settlements in Western Europe were predominantly male and the males indeed married indigenous women.

[Simon39759]

Could it be the culture being less forceful on the guy? And so the prejudice against marrying out being less severe?

[Thunder]

Could it be the culture being less forceful on the guy? And so the prejudice against marrying out being less severe?

perhaps.

[Liszt]

#5. This whole argument is led by anti-Semites. Arthur Kunstler was not one of them, but today it is very clear from their arguments that the folks who lead the charge hate Jews.

lol. Naughty!

Koestler was also a part of the terrible CCF group.

A more recent version...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invention_of_the_Jewish_People

by Shlomo Sand, history prof. at Tel Aviv

[Thunder]

IIRC, the matrilineal tradition dates back to around 1000 CE. The explanation I remember reading somewhere of the above is that the first Ashkenazi settlements in Western Europe were predominantly male and the males indeed married indigenous women.

id love to see an article about that. please search for it if you can.