Ashkenazim among the Peoples
Jtest september 27 2012 entrance discusses a method to identify the frequency of Ashkenazi genes in different populations (see the lower map). As expected, the origin of the Ashkenazi (European) Jews is in Rome, Italy. In fact, there are no specifically Ashkenazi genes, Ashjenazi genotype is a peculiar mosaic of a strong North Middle East (Kurdish) base and various accretions incorporated along Ashkenazi migrations and settlements in their long and convoluted history. The map seems to indicate the frequency of the genes that make up Ashkenazi genotype, not Ashkenazi blood itself. For example, South Germany appears to have 10% Ashkenazi mix, but the interpretation is that Ashkenazi and South Germans share parts of their genotype. Since Yiddish is a South German dialect, extract your own conclusions. We are the product of the Roman Empire.
75 comments:
You're just a khazar J.
I wouldn't deny it, should it be true. Apparently we are just what history says.
Arabs seem to have much subsaharan intrusion, not that I care this way or the other. Be happy, go spam other blogs.
A khazar or a chazer?
K
jews have neanderthal blood, this is why they're attacking White people that have cro-magnon blood.
> this is why they're attacking White people that have cro-magnon blood.
And the noble indigenous Homo Erectus population.
Autochthonous European populations also have Neanderthal DNA, Anonymous 7:51 A.M. Apparently you don't keep up with the literature.
Why are you interested in that old post now, J? Did you purchase a genetic ancestry test?
The small amount of genetic overlap between south Germans and Ashkenazim could reflect Neolithic diffusion, Roman settlement (in which both populations are related through the Roman/Italian genetic introgression), Ashkenazi genetic influence on the south German population and south German influence on the Ashkenazi population. All of those probably play some role.
Does this mean that the Askenazim are not really the 'original' Jews?
Anon.
Presumably some of the "original" Jews moved to Rome and there intermarried with locals and there were local converts as well, so we probably have some "original" Jewish genes and a lot of European ones, which is why Ashkenazi Jews look more European than Middle Eastern.
K
The distribution of Y chromosome haplogroups among Ashkenazim shows strong evidence of Middle Eastern ancestry. In fact, when those early Y chromosome results came out between 1998 and 2004, it was assumed on that basis that Ashkenazim had undergone very little admixture. Then, starting in 2007 with a paper by Bauchet and culminating in the Atzmon and Behar papers in 2010, autosomal studies that analyzed far more of the genome were published showing evidence of significant southern European admixture. The Atzmon paper estimated a range of 30-60% European admixture for Syrian, Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews (Ashkenazim being the most admixed). Razib Khan has estimated that slightly less than half of the average Ashkenazi genome is of European origin (in a response in the coments of his blog).
However, it has proven difficult to ascertain with certainty what European population was the source of the introgression. In part, this is because Ashkenazim tend to form their own genetic cluster in the analyses, which masks admixture. A few months ago, Dieneks played around with a new program, ALDER, to try to unmask the admixture. The program can't say what is the definite source population for admixture. However, the analysis indicates that admixture likely occurred and estimates lower bound percentages of admixture if different populations are assumed to have been the primary source.
ALDER signal of admixture in Ashkenazi Jews
"which is why Ashkenazi Jews look more European than Middle Eastern."
This is surely untrue. I'm Ahskenazi Jewish and all my friends are as well, we all live in Brooklyn. I'm often struck by how most of my friends look almost completely Arab, with skin several shades darker than Europeans, and features to match. All these guys are Jews from Poland or Germany. When we go out, no one ever mistakes us for Europeans, but we often get mistaken for Middle Easterners or Turks or even Indians.
Now, there are some Ashkenazi Jews with very European features and light skin, but I would say probably the majority look like Arabs, Turks, and Indians. It has always seemed incredible to me that this should be so and an indication of just how little mixing Jews really did with Europeans.
The community I'm talking about is the Orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn, NY. I just finished a trip to Asia with a friend from this community, whose looks are very typical, and everyone thought he was either Indian or Arab. When I traveled to Israel, I thought nearly all the Jews were Sephardim, but I later realized that many, many Ahskenazim, perhaps most, look as Arab as the Sephardim.
The southern European populations with whom admixture most likely occuured were themselves strongly influenced by Neolithic demic diffusion from the Middle East. If modeled as roughly half-and-half mixtures of Middle Easterners and southern Europeans, it's not so surprising that most Ashkenazi Jews would seem more Middle Eastern than European when compared to northern European phenotypes.
Israel gets a lot of sun, and the people tend to be tan. Since a lot of your impressions seem based on skin color, you would need to control for that. I will say that your group of friends sounds darker than average compared to Jews that I've known (and I'm Jewish), but clearly there is some truth to the historic Jewish ethnic physical stereotypes.
We are the product of the Roman Empire.
Berlusconi and Monica Beluci are eligible to make Aliyah.
Melanie Laurent looks very European, is she really jewish?
Lauren Bacall looked very European and was definitely Jewish (Shimon Peres' cousin). That the average phenotype isn't European doesn't preclude some Jews from looking European.
Or behaving European.
Anon.
Melanie Laurent has Tunisian Jewish ancestry as well as Ashkenazi. Even Mizrahi have some Euro (Roman?) DNA if she's anything to go by.
That the average phenotype isn't European
Most Ashkenazi look European.
Anonymous 3:25 made the initial claim that most Ashkenazi don't look European. I agree with him, but in my experience most wouldn't be mistaken for Indians or southern Arabs. I could see some being mistaken for Turks, Syrians or Lebanese.
Southern Italians are pretty dark themselves and J says that our European admixture is Italian. I'd say the average Ashkenazi is actually fairer that the average Southern Italian, not to mention the Jews with blue or green eyes, red hair (which goes with very white skin), etc. I suppose if you put a beard on anyone they look a little more Arab, but the (non-Arab) Jews that I know don't look like typical Arabs, who have a little bit of African that Jews lack (this has effects on IQ also). I suppose they could pass for lighter skinned Lebanese Christians and vice versa but I suspect Lebanese Christians themselves are another group with a lot of European admixture.
On the other hand if you believe that "European" means "Nordic", then no, most Jews couldn't pass for Icelandic.
K
> the Orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn, NY
Which one? The Galician Jews are famously middle eastern-looking. On the other hand, if you go to Williamsburg, the Satmar Hasidim look very fair.
Some Hasidic communites import goy sperm in order to avoid genetic defects in their offspring. If you go to getty images and do a search, you can see the results of this quite clearly in some images, clusters of young hasid girls who wouldn't look out of place in the Norwegian figure skating team. We are constantly evolving.
the imported gentile sperm is only for the infertile in small subgroups. It is not a widespread or normative practice. Childhood blondism in Jews is fairly common. A study in Germany in the 1930's showed rates similar to ethnic Germans. However, retention of blond hair into adulthood is rare among Jews.
J is guessing Italian as the source of the admixture on the basis of the map and probably historical probability. I would tend to agree it is the most likely major source. There is evidence of small amounts of admixture from other sources (Northern Europe, East Asia, sub-Saharan Africa though at rates much lower than the Arabs).
> in order to avoid genetic defects in their offspring
Not quite. In order to avoid potential legal difficulties with the child's status as a mamzer (another reason we need a sanhedrin-there is no reason that in today's world halacha should not reflect reality.)
In any case, artificial insemination and sperm donation have only recently taken off, and are a small minority of cases, not enough to account for the European features. More likely culprits are 1) ancestral admixture, or 2) assortative mating causing the spread of particular sexually desirable traits from a small original infusion, similar to the spread of red hair in the Cherokees. There have always been gerim, even in the worst of times. Supposedly, under the Roman persecutions, the rates of giur reached an all-time high.
Some Hasidic communites import goy sperm in order to avoid genetic defects in their offspring. If you go to getty images and do a search, you can see the results of this quite clearly in some images, clusters of young hasid girls who wouldn't look out of place in the Norwegian figure skating team. We are constantly evolving.
There is a book written by American jew who lived in Israel saying that the Israeli government "imported" German children after WWII to strength the jewish race.
"Is it not a problem that the woman have a smaller brain than a man? The government scientist Dr. Yamuka has proved it is size of squirrel."
-Borat
Nordic women are generally flat chested, while Jewish girls have large breasts. The Nords don't assume all the desirable traits.
K
Surprisingly, Icelanders have a subsaharan stream flowing in their veins. One Caribbean fellow settled there 200 years ago and has 500 descendants.
More like asiatic stream. Check out Bjork.
According to the genetic studies I've read, European Jews are roughly 50% Middle Eastern, 40% Mediterranian (Northern Italian and French), and 10% Slavic.
"sub-Saharan Africa though at rates much lower than the Arabs"
Aside from the fact that all humans are ultimately sub-Saharan, I don't think that Ashkenazim have much in the way of sub-Saharan admixture, probably no more than other Europeans - very little.(Muslim) Arabs, due to their slaveholding practices, have quite a bit. The Jews group with the Europeans in terms of, for example, Nobel Prize winners or chess masters. The Arab fall in with the Africans (i.e. almost none). They don't seem to have picked up the African's athletic ability though. What ARE Arabs good at?
K
I am much more liberal than you, K. Human beings dont have to be good at anything to have the right to exist. Let Arabs smoke hashish, admire the beauty of young female camels, and be happy.
My only request is that stop throwing eggs at the cars near their villages. When mixed with water, eggs make a white sticky covering on the glass and it is impossible to go on driving. Then they come shouting and rob everything - sometimes the car too. May be it is the modern version of caravan raiding...? May be it is a cultural tradition we should respect and cultivate...?
I would be the last to advocate genocide. G-d in his wisdom made things that don't seem to be particularly good for anything - weeds and mosquitos and Arabs and such but they are all part of His creation and must not be destroyed (though that doesn't mean we want them in our garden either). Abraham did not kill Hagar and Ishmael, he just expelled them and G-d had mercy on them and provided them with water in the desert.
I was just wondering what Arabs are really good at in the modern world? One of the tenets of HBD is that each group is good at something - Jews at intellectual tasks, Africans at things requiring athletic or improvisational musical ability, Mexicans at cutting your lawn, etc. and we are all better off when we allow people to specialize in what they are really good at. So what is the Arabs' (positive) niche in this scheme?
K
K,
Ashkenazim and southern Europeans do have more sub-Saharan admixture than northern Europeans. In the old uniparental DNA surveys, sub-Saharan L1 and L2 mtDNA haplogroups were found in Polish Jews at something like a 1-2% frequency. There was also a paper by Moorjani from the Reich lab at Harvard last year that found evidence of this admixture in Jews and southern Europeans. As Dienekes showed, the method employed by the paper was flawed because the reference population (north Europeans) is shifted away from sub-Saharans towards a subset of northeast Asians (a subsequent finding of the Reich lab), and the paper's method apportions any unexpected deviation from the reference group to sub-Saharan admixture. But Ashkenazim and some other populations deviate towards East Asians as well as sub-Saharans. The executive summary would be that there is evidence of very low-level sub-Saharan admixture in Ashkenazi Jews, but that the Moorjani estimate is probably too high.
Africans at things requiring athletic or improvisational musical ability
The Europeans are good at both writing music and improvising it. J.S. Bach was famous in his day for improvising on the pipe organ and harpsichord.
Mexicans good only at cutting grass? Mexico has beautiful literature, paintings, cinematography, cuisine, humor, etc. Pity Americans know only of grass cutters.
The Nords don't assume all the desirable traits.
Jehovah says nobody is perfect.
What ARE Arabs good at?
Boasting!
Ashkenazim and southern Europeans do have more sub-Saharan admixture than northern Europeans.
But Ashkenazim and S. Europeans are similar to each other. Everything points to admixture at an early time (Roman times) and then not much admixture later when Jews move north into E. Europe. Jews can "pass" for Italian or French but stick out like sore thumbs among Lithuanians, Russians, etc.
K
Alas, we Ashkenazim admixed with the only Southern Euros whose women can't cook.
:(
K,
Ashkenazi Jews are not genetically the same as south Europeans. They show indications of southern European admixture on top of a Middle Eastern substrate. It's not entirely surprising that Jews would have slightly higher rates of sub-Saharan admixture than most southern Europeans given that the Middle East is on the doorstep of Africa and that the ancient Egyptians, carrying diluted sub-Saharan ancestry, entered the Levant many times in their history. Then you have to consider that Roman-era Egypt and North Africa had large Jewish populations that could have mixed with North African natives carrying dilute sub-Saharan ancestry. Finally, there is increasing support for an East African origin of the Afro-Asiatic language family. It is possible that pre-historic East African migrants brought the precursor of Semitic languages into the Middle East. Despite all this, the percentage of sub-Saharan admixture in Jews is very low - much less than in Arab Muslim populations.
That southern European populations have more sub-Saharan admixture than northern Europeans is also not surprising. They had earlier ties with the Middle East, absorbing a greater amount of Middle Eastern-origin people during the Neolithic demic diffusion. Hellenistic and Roman era warfare and trade also brought both Middle Easterners and Africans to southern Europe. Iberians were among the first Europeans to enter the formal AFrican slave trade.
The amounts under analysis are still minute. In the case of Southern Europeans and Jews we're only debating admixture rates of 1-3%.
Is that for Subsaharan admixture in both Jews and South Euros, or South Euro admixture in Jews?
The former.
European admixture in Ashkenazim is in the 40-50% range and most of it appears to be south European.
If Jews are ~ 50% S. European but have African genes at the same rate as S. Europeans, then they must have already had a similar African admixture beforehand or they would only have half as much.
K
Which South Europeans? Those of today, who've spent two millennia being overrun by every kind of barbarian to appear West of the Urals, or those of 2000 years ago? If the latter, how are they reconstructing their genome? The Slavs of Croatia, or the Sardinians?
K,
Yes, Jews likely had a small amount of sub-African admixture before undegoing European admixture. The Levant is on the doorstep of Africa. Southern Europeans could also have had sub-Saharan admixture from an early date via Neolithic demic diffusion from the Middle East, contacts with North Africa and the Roman slave trade. Thus, the dilutional effect of southern European admixture on Jewish sub-Saharan admixture wouldn't necessarily be profound.
B,
The studies can't answer which south European population(s) may have contributed with certainty. It's not like there was one specific admixture event to pinpoint. But there is signficant genomic content in Ashkenazim which is not Middle Eastern, and calculated genetic distances between southern Europeans and Ashkenazim are lower than calculated genetic distances between modern Levantines and southern Europeans and between Ashkenazim and northern Europeans.
>But there is signficant genomic content in Ashkenazim which is not Middle Eastern, and calculated genetic distances between southern Europeans and Ashkenazim are lower than calculated genetic distances between modern Levantines and southern Europeans and between Ashkenazim and northern Europeans.
Sounds like a bunch of fancy science-talk for "we conjectured up a hypothesis to fit a square peg in a round hole." Who's to say that we can't have our own unique genomic content?
Further support for predominantly southern European rather than northern European admixture can be found in Dienekes' ADMIXTURE analyses at the Dodecad project website. The inferred southern European/Mediterranean ancestral component in Jews is more significantly expanded than the North European ancestral component. Both components are more prominent in Ashkenazim than in Middle Eastern populations. The relatively small increase in the northern European component could be explained as a secondary effect of southern European admixture since southern Europeans have an elevated northern European ancestral component relative to Middle Easterners.
To affect all Ashkenazim, admixture with southern Europeans would have to have occurred in ancient times. Our ancestors weren't living in southern Europe recently. Moreover, Jewish proselytism and intermarriage were forbidden by the Church and secular authorities during the medieval period.
Sounds like a bunch of fancy science-talk for "we conjectured up a hypothesis to fit a square peg in a round hole." Who's to say that we can't have our own unique genomic content?
To some extent, as there is evidence of an Ashkenazi genetic bottleneck from the recent paper by Palomara. That's why Ashkenazim tend to form their own clusters in analyses at high numbers of inferred ancestral populations. However, there is evidence of admixture by ALDER analysis (which Dienekes explains well):
ALDER signal of admixture in Ashkenazi Jews
Then there is the question why one would expect sui generis DNA content in Jews to show affinities to southern Europe. Moreover, this finding doesn't tie all Jewish populations together - it is not found in Jewish populations whose ancestors were outside the Roman Empire (Iraqi and Irani Jews). That correlation with the reach of the Roman Empire itself is very suggestive.
Forgot to mention, the allelic variants that are "unique genomic content" among Ashkenazim tends to separate them from all other populations. That's what happens with bottlenecked, inbred populations after enough time. Palomara showed a bottleneck between 700 and 900 years ago (depending on how long one considers a generation to last), and Eurpean Jews have been endogamous for the last 1600 years. The unique alleles are very unlikely to mimic existing southern European allele patterns. This isn't a one-off we're talking about. This is thousands of loci.
Again this fits with what we know about social patterns - Jews were more open to converts in Roman times and Romans (like Americans) were big religion shoppers, then Christianity isolated the Jews.
K
I don't think the Jews were more open to converts than they are today-sources don't really support that. But they were not being undercut by Christianity (a sort of cut-rate Judaism.) I can only speculate as to what would have happened had the Roman elites converted to Judaism or become Bnei Noach. The empire might be around today-a lot of their decline can be attributed to the official strain of Christianity and its rosy vision of human nature, the empire as vehicle for the spread of Christianity to the world, causing a new era of peace and happiness. Moldbug writes about this.
OK, H2O man comment on this.
Doesn't apply to most western Euro Jews though.
There was a huge migration of Eastern European Jews to the big cities of Central/Western Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. If the West Euro Jews were a distinct group, they got swamped by the ostjuden.
The typical scenario is that you get adventurous young men traveling alone to some new territory. There, out of sight of family and clergy, they meet and marry local women and produced mixed breed offspring. As the community becomes more established, full bloods arrive from the old country, but the half breeds and intermarried are now in prominent positions and the later arrivals are in no position to disown them, so they are accepted into the community and their genes become a permanent part of the breeding pool. As you can see from the Icelanders, even Negros become blonds after a few generations of dilution. There are often noticeable difference in genetic composition between the male and female lines.
K
Where in Jewish history do you find examples of this?
I am positing that something like this happened to explain how Ashkenazi Jews ended up w/ so much S. European blood.
A lot of the American Jewish community intermarried in the early days but they mostly disappeared into the general population. If the German Jews and later the Ostjuden hadn't showed up in large numbers, there probably would be no Jews left in the US by now. You need some sort of critical mass to sustain a community.
K
OK, but this scenario is not "typical." It's hypothetical.
I mean typical in other instances of newly established communities, e.g. Spanish colonization of Latin America.
K
@ Rifleman -
The Elhaik study is a mess. He has a very weak knowledge of history, not just Jewish history but regional history. For instance, he interprets genetic similarities with Armenians to indicate Caucasus affinity in Jews, ignoring that the historic Armenian homeland was to the south and west in Anatolia. The genetic data collection work is solid, but his interpretations are all suspect because choice of comparison populations is critical in historical population genetics. If you don't want to take my word for it, read what Razib Khan of Gene Expression at Discover Blogs has to say:
Ashkenazi Jews are probably not descended from the Khazars
But the Spaniards never had prohibitions and taboos on marrying locals. This was never a Catholic thing. On the other hand, check out the admixture in gypsies, who have a code about this kind of stuff, Armenians, who have an insular culture and a global diaspora, the Puritans, etc. Even among trade minorities like the Overseas Chinese and the Lebanese, I have the feeling that intermarriage is exceptionally rare.
People throw us the Khazar hypothesis as it were an insult. Hungarians, for example, consider themselves (wrongly) pure nomad fighters from the steppe, and are proud of speaking Hungarian, a language of the Ugro-Finn group. I learned from the milk of my milk-mother to be proud of the Hungarian heritage. My original name in Hungary is of a leader of the conquering Hungarian hordes, like Atilla, Csege, Hunor, Huba, Kende, Kadosa, Lehel, TihamĆ©r.I for one wouldnt care to be descendant of Batu. Of course I am 100% Ashkenazi Jew, ×× ×עש××Ŗ
"But the Spaniards never had prohibitions and taboos on marrying locals. This was never a Catholic thing."
K is closer. It was not a Catholic or political thing, but it was a social one.
As K said nothing that wealth and social status could not compensate.
A poor Galician emigrant could not throw the local planters from the boat and replace them. But he could marry into the local families if he had official status.
And so it went on and on until the local halfbreeds as K defined them - genetics proves this today - were numerous and wealthy enough to say enough with those poor Euros.
"People throw us the Khazar hypothesis as it were an insult. "
I never understood that. What is wrong with the Khazars?
I do not see anything wrong about having or not having any Eurasian genes.
Or like the big discoveries that maybe some 1-2 % of the European genome might be of Subsaharan origin. OK. But what might be the problem?
Some ancestors like Grandma might have Eurasian genes like Khazar. Or not. But some traces exist. I never thought about this as a problem. Maybe someday out of pure curiosity I shall have a test. But it does not mean anything.
It is a complete mistery to me why this issue is being kept alive. Historically it is interesting. But except some scientific curiosity I can not see anything else worth mentioning about it.
An insult?
Something like : Your great great etc grandmother had slant-eyes.
Hmmm OK so what? Is that supposed to hurt or something?
Never encountered a more stupid attempt of an insult.
But it has a political angle. It reduces the legitimacy of Jewish claim on the land of Israel.
If you analyse it as an insult it sounds ridiculous. But as a political statement it is not. I think that today that is the only reason why this theory is kept alive in the public sphere. At least I can not see a different one.
Teo has it. If Jews are Khazars, they (arguably) have no claim on the land of Israel. Funny though that no one says that the Hungarians have no claim on Hungary. The rules always seem different for Jews.
K
B, the evidence is there in the genes (and in our appearance). We are obviously NOT pure bred semites (and yet we know that when we were in the east there was little interbreeding with locals). So how did we get this way? There was the ancient culture, and then eventually an Ashkenazi culture formed, but there must have been a period of ferment - the Temple is destroyed, all bets are off. After WWII, a lot of Hasidim had thrown in the towel - they stopped wearing the outfits. The Lubavitcher Rebbe was working as an electrician in Brooklyn. Then they got it going again.
The overseas Chinese did interbreed - the usual pattern of taking local wives. Arabs did too. Gypsies were poor outcasts and nobody would give them their daughters. Women prefer to marry "up".
K
The Khazar hypothesis would not rationally reduce our claim to Israel, because our claim is based on God's promise. The Hebrews never held this land for long. It is possible that Arab occupation (800 years or more) is longer. But them Amerindians held America for 11000 years - their claim is stronger. Neandertals held France for 200000 years, the Gallic peoples arrived yesterday.
BTW, there was a terrible Mongol conquest in the Middle East and they left much genes here. The natives - Iranians, Irakis, Syrians, Turks, etc. have more Mongol/Kipchak/Khazar genes than we Ashkenazis. What are Erdogan and all the Turks doing in
Ionia? There is no end to imbecility.
No, it is not the Khazars. It is just that they dont want us here or anywhere.
I don't really understand the WN's who have venomous hatred Israel and highlight the Khazar theory. Is it not better for them that a huge percentage of the worlds Jews are confined to a some small shitty desert next to the med, concerned not with "destroying the white race", but with getting through the day without being blown up by some camel f*cker?
Hypothetically should Israel fall, would not Jewry simply revert to its diasporic pre-20th century situation with many more Jews living in these "white" countries the WN's seek to be Judenrein. I guess rationality is not the WN's strong suit.
Hitler proved that there was a "third way".
K
Well post Wannsee, yes. In the 30's the Nazi's were more than happy to facilitate and wave goodbye to German Jews as they set sail for Palestine. Eichmann even visited, and later on in his trial mentioned he would have been a fanatical Zionist had he been born Jewish.
Israel was a marvelous creation from a WN perspective, yet for some reason the stormfront crowd despise the place. Bizarre.
The Khazar hypothesis would not rationally reduce our claim to Israel, because our claim is based on God's promise. The Hebrews never held this land for long. It is possible that Arab occupation (800 years or more) is longer. But them Amerindians held America for 11000 years - their claim is stronger. Neandertals held France for 200000 years, the Gallic peoples arrived yesterday.
Yes you are right. But we need justifications for our actions. We can not really say that we own some real estate because gramps and his palls were better at killing then others. Sounds hmmmm wrong. So we need all sorts of Divine action giving us legitimacy. Of course is all based on violence.
So we invent stuff like God helped Grandpa because the others were evil. No it was not because Grandpa was a greedy killer. No sir.
Just that evil Atahualpa had thrown our holy book to the ground. And then baby Jesus got really pissed off and told Grandpa to kill the bastards.
See ? Much better. Grandpa just did God's work and got rewarded for that.
"The Khazar hypothesis would not rationally reduce our claim to Israel, because our claim is based on God's promise."
Exactly the point. God promissed the land to Hebrews. What do Khazars have to do with that? They are interlopers in this case. If you are a Khazar then you are an impostor J. That is the idea. You got no justification to claim the land of Israel. Because God promised nothing to the Khazars.
I think this idea has run out of steam anyway. Ivrit speaking Israelis born in the country are hard to attack by claiming they are Khazar invaders. But as any legend it will not die. This sort of stories never die. Irrelevant they might become, but we shall carry them along for a long time.
Don't be silly. The fight is never over. The Moors lived in Andulusia for 7 centuries (and the Jews in E. Europe for even longer) and yet they were "foreign" and were ultimately pushed out. And another 7 centuries later they still haven't thrown in the towel and now want to restore the caliphate. 70 or 100 years of Hebrew speaking crusader/Khazar invaders won't lead to acceptance.
K
You are right K.
Unpleasant as it seems the future you predict it is the most probable one.
It won't end.
But as the saying goes: a problem without solution is not a problem.
Post a Comment