Israel-Palestinians don't deserve citizenship when married to Arab Israelis

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/01/2012112142810371350.html


Israel's Supreme Court has upheld a controversial law that bans most Palestinians who marry Israelis from obtaining either citizenship or residency in the country.
In a six-five ruling, the court agreed that Palestinians who gain Israeli citizenship through marriage pose a security threat.
Parliament passed the law in 2003, at the height of the second Palestinian uprising, a time when fighters from the West Bank frequently entered Israel to carry out deadly attacks.
The law is believed to have prevented thousands of Palestinians from living with their spouses.
Civil rights groups had argued that Israel's Basic Laws, the country's de facto constitution, grant all citizens the right to family life. They also say that few Palestinian spouses of Israelis have ever been involved in violence.
"It is a dark day for the protection of human rights and for the Israeli Supreme Court," lawyers Dan Yakir and Oded Feller, from the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) said in a statement.
ACRI was one of three rights groups that had appealed to the Supreme Court over the law.
'Splitting families'
The 2003 law bans granting citizenship or residency to Palestinian spouses of Israelis, but allows for certain exemptions for people who are not believed to pose security risks, including Palestinian men older than 35 and women older than 25.
Last year, only 33 out of 3,000 applications for exemptions were approved, said lawyer Sawsan Zaher, who filed a challenge to the law on behalf of the Adalah Arab rights advocacy group.

She accused the government of interfering in the personal lives of its citizens.
"The court has failed in its main role, which is defending the rights of the minority," Zaher said.

Al Jazeera speaks to Hassan Jabareen from the Adalah Arab rights advocacy group about the ruling
Adalah condemned the ruling, with its lawyers Hassan Jabareen and Zaher saying the law "has no parallel in any democratic country in the world".
Jabareen told Al Jazeera that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent for racial hatred against Palestinians.

"The dangers of this decision are that it may legitimise many racist laws against Arabs living in Israel," he said.
"Furthermore, we are speaking about splitting families," he said.
The petitioners said the law violated the right of Palestinians married to Arab Israelis to a family life, but in a late-night ruling, the Supreme Court said human rights could not override security concerns.
"Human rights are not a prescription for national suicide," wrote Justice Asher Grunis, who is poised to become the next Supreme Court president.
Yakir and Feller accused the court of stamping "its approval on a racist law, one that will harm the very texture of the lives of families whose only sin is the Palestinian blood that runs in their veins".
'Security concerns'
Initially applicable for one year, the law was extended for security reasons, but has been challenged by rights groups on more than one occasion.
Palestinian-Israeli MP Jamal Zahalka, of the Balad party, said the court "had failed the test of justice".
"This decision will encourage the racist groups in the Knesset [parliament] to enact more anti-Arab, anti-democratic and anti-human rights laws," he said.
"The court's ruling pours oil on the fire of racism burning in the Knesset and removes any fear that the Supreme Court will repeal laws on grounds of unconstitutionality."
Mohammed Barakeh, an Palestinian-Israeli MP with the Hadash party, said the ruling proved a "wave of racism" was sweeping through Israeli institutions.
"This law, which differentiates between people in a repulsive, racist fashion, sets standards for an individual's personal life and denies Arabs their right to choose their life partner," he said.
Zehava Galon, an MP from the left-wing Meretz party who filed her own appeal to the Supreme Court against the law, echoed Adalah's criticism.
"The Supreme Court has failed in its duty to defend the principle of equality of all citizens before the law and to fight against racism," she told Israeli public radio.
Judicial commentator Moshe Negbi said the ruling showed the court had shown preference to the state's Jewish character "to the detriment of its democratic character".
'Stealth' return
Zeev Elkin, chairman of the ruling right-wing coalition, welcomed the court's demonstration of "common sense".
However, Elkin expressed concern "that almost half of the Supreme Court judges thought it was possible to open the gates of Israel to tens of thousands of Palestinians" who were trying "to implement the right of return by stealth through marriages of convenience".
Im Tirtzu, a right-wing student group, described the move as a step to "prevent the state of Israel from being flooded by hundreds of thousands of Palestinians".
The group denounced the decision to oppose the ruling by outgoing Supreme Court President Dorit Beinish, describing it as "a disgrace", and expressing hope that her retirement from the court in February "will signal an end of the anti-Zionist era in the Supreme Court".
No, there's no de jure racism against Arabs, riiiight :rolleyes: How hard is it for a Jewish person who marries an Israeli to get Israeli citizenship?

[seventeethdecember2016]

There is racism against many groups in Israel. My ethnic group, the Sephardi Jews, have a hard time there because we are a little darker than Ashkenazis. Mizrahi and Russian Jews also have a terrible time there.
Israel is pretty much racist to anyone that isn't white, Ashkenazi, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHHzMHfz-LU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezXm9jkukBo

[manic expression]

How hard is it for a Jewish person who marries an Israeli to get Israeli citizenship?
That's not even needed. If you're Jewish, all you need to do is show up, support the Zionist state and citizenship is yours. But remember, if you're African it's not such a nice welcoming (http://electronicintifada.net/blog/ali-abunimah/israeli-jewish-hate-rally-against-africans-tel-aviv-caught-video-haaretz-deletes), not at all (http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/israeli-black-african-jews-complain-against-racism/).

[GallowsBird]

That's not even needed. If you're Jewish, all you need to do is show up, support the Zionist state and citizenship is yours. But remember, if you're African it's not such a nice welcoming (http://electronicintifada.net/blog/ali-abunimah/israeli-jewish-hate-rally-against-africans-tel-aviv-caught-video-haaretz-deletes), not at all (http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/sesostris-the-great-the-egyptian-hercules/israeli-black-african-jews-complain-against-racism/).

Yes but they aren't real Jews.:rolleyes: They are just black men who converted to Judaism, not at all like the "pure blooded" European and Central Asian Jews.:rolleyes: We all know that a Jew wasn't originally defined (even in the original Hebrew communities of the Middle East it was a defining aspect; though it was more comples than later in history) as someone following the religion of Judaism and living in that cultural community and that to convert from it was to become non-Jewish and converting to Judaism (which was originally legal contrary to some claims) makes one a Jew.

[RadioRaheem84]

My ethnic group, the Sephardi Jews, have a hard time there because we are a little darker than Ashkenazis

Wow, that is really racist! I was under the impression that Sephardi Jews are white considering their origins are from Portugal and Spain. Hank Azaria is Sephardic and he's Caucasian.

[seventeethdecember2016]

Wow, that is really racist! I was under the impression that Sephardi Jews are white considering their origins are from Portugal and Spain. Hank Azaria is Sephardic and he's Caucasian.
Only some Sephardi Jews went to Italy or Europe after the Inquisition. Most went to Northern Africa and the Ottoman Empire.

[El Chuncho]

Wow, that is really racist! I was under the impression that Sephardi Jews are white considering their origins are from Portugal and Spain. Hank Azaria is Sephardic and he's Caucasian.

Israelis and Zionists have a hard time acknowledging that their ancestries are from all over (mostly) Europe. The reason that they (Ashkenazim Israelis and Zionists) are sometimes against both Sephardic Jews and Oriental/Arabic Jews is because they are a lot darker than the majority of Ashkenazim and thus pose a problem to the myth of Jewish racial purity, so it is easier to shrug darker Jews as non-ethnic Jews instead of acknowledging that ethnic Jews hardly exist outside of the Oriental Jews, who do descend mostly from Hebrews.

They are mostly against Bantu Jews, who are pretty much the only Jewish group who are claimed to descend from converts. The reason for this is because it would be hard to claim that black Africans are purely Hebrew like they try to with Ashkenazi Jews.

I do find it amusing that Slavic Jews look Slavic and Turkic Jews (like Krymchaks) look Turkic. But according to Israelis and Zionists they look like Middle-Eastern Hebrews. :rolleyes:

[newdayrising]

Southern Europeans are, on average, darker than northern/central Europeans anyway. Plus, I've seen studies saying that the average Sephardic jew has less "European genes" (or whatever the technical term is) than Ashkenazis. They're actually better described as Middle Eastern via Portugal/Spain than Iberians who became Jewish at some point.

Also, what does "white" mean in this context? European? He was talking about skin color, not "race". Even northern Europeans have different skin colors. Sean Connery is scottish but his skin is way darker than the red-haired freckled Scotsman stereotype.



Wow, that is really racist! I was under the impression that Sephardi Jews are white considering their origins are from Portugal and Spain. Hank Azaria is Sephardic and he's Caucasian.

[El Chuncho]

Southern Europeans are, on average, darker than northern/central Europeans anyway. Plus, I've seen studies saying that the average Sephardic jew has less "European genes" (or whatever the technical term is) than Ashkenazis. They're actually better described as Middle Eastern via Portugal/Spain than Iberians who became Jewish at some point.

I find such claims mostly bullshit. Most Sephardic Jews are probably descended from converts rather than Hebrews, just as Christians are descended from converts and Muslims are too. Sephardic Jews do seem to have some Middle-Eastern/North African ancestors and they have about one hereditary disease in common with Oriental Jews (who do probably descend from real Hebrews...like many of the racially abused African Jews). They are marginally more Middle-Eastern than Ashkenazi. The anti-Sephardic prejudice is laughable not because they are the ones that descended from Israelites (the hereditary diseases and M.E. ancestry could just be from Arabs from North Africa), but because neither of them are ''racially'' Jewish, no more Middle-Eastern than many Europeans (a great deal have at least some ancestry from the Middle-East). The view that mass migrations of Hebrews flocked into Europe and created isolated communities which didn't even intermarry with the locals is racist and absurd. Some Hebrews undoubtedly did move to Europe, but they would have had to mix with Europeans and by and large, most Jews are descended from converts. We should not put Judaism on a pedestal and create race theories about them. Judaism is a religion like any other and the NAZIs persecuted them because they believed them to be their own ''race'', not because they were such.

Jews come from all ethnicity and colours. Some are Hebrews, some Europeans, some Africans, some Asians. Judaism itself is not an ethnicity.

[GPDP]

I know the thought doesn't cross the minds of the Israeli ruling class at all, but how do otherwise working class Jewish supporters of Israel manage to not go dizzy from the cognitive dissonance of supporting a state that more and more practices the same racialist bullshit their ancestors once suffered?

It blows my mind. Can they not see the fucking parallels? Or is it really only ok when it's THEM doing the oppressing?

[newdayrising]

First of all, let me make it clear that this has nothing to do with any "entitlement by race" concept or anything like that. My post was just about historical accuracy and responding to what I saw as an illogical statement ("Sephardic jews should look the same as Ashkenazis because both are originally from Europe"). This is just for curiosity's sake, not to justify any kind of politics towards Israel/Palestine.

Now that it's out of the way, of course, they're not "pure" hebrews (nobody is "pure" anything anyway because such a concept doesn't exist), but from what I've read on the subject they're of course not just descendents of converts either. And neither are the Ashkenazis by the way.

First, Judaism was never a proselytizing religion. It was a religion for Jews that accepted converts but did not seek them. Therefore it's unlikely that entire populations of gentiles would just convert for no apparent reason. An exception would be the Turkic Khazar kingdom, whose elites supposedly converted en masse to Judaism and are sometimes used by Anti-Semites who want to claim that Ashkenazis are not "real jews", but Khazars.

Anyway... what happened, according to historical sources, was that after the Romans took over Judea, many of the original Jews emigrated and, in the case of the Ashkenazis, ended up (much later) in Central/Northern Europe where, due to the lack of Jewish women, they married local gentile women, who converted.
This happened to the ancestors of the Sephardic ones as well, but to a lesser degree, because there already were communities of Jewish immigrants all over the Roman Empire (some claim there were Jews in what-would-be-Spain even before the Romans), while the Ashkenazis arrived in Germany and surrounding areas during the middle-ages. And also, because more women emigrated in these earlier waves to Spain, while the ancestors of the Ashkenazis were mostly men traveling alone inside Europe, not by boat, over the Mediterranean.

Therefore, Ashkenazis and Sephardim come from different historical contexts and different kinds of migration, so it makes sense that they have different degrees of intermixing with local populations.

I can't post links yet, but if you need references, let me know.


I find such claims mostly bullshit. Most Sephardic Jews are probably descended from converts rather than Hebrews, just as Christians are descended from converts and Muslims are too. Sephardic Jews do seem to have some Middle-Eastern/North African ancestors and they have about one hereditary disease in common with Oriental Jews (who do probably descend from real Hebrews...like many of the racially abused African Jews). They are marginally more Middle-Eastern than Ashkenazi. The anti-Sephardic prejudice is laughable not because they are the ones that descended from Israelites (the hereditary diseases and M.E. ancestry could just be from Arabs from North Africa), but because neither of them are ''racially'' Jewish, no more Middle-Eastern than many Europeans (a great deal have at least some ancestry from the Middle-East). The view that mass migrations of Hebrews flocked into Europe and created isolated communities which didn't even intermarry with the locals is racist and absurd. Some Hebrews undoubtedly did move to Europe, but they would have had to mix with Europeans and by and large, most Jews are descended from converts. We should not put Judaism on a pedestal and create race theories about them. Judaism is a religion like any other and the NAZIs persecuted them because they believed them to be their own ''race'', not because they were such.

Jews come from all ethnicity and colours. Some are Hebrews, some Europeans, some Africans, some Asians. Judaism itself is not an ethnicity.

[GallowsBird]

I'm going to join in here.


First, Judaism was never a proselytizing religion. It was a religion for Jews that accepted converts but did not seek them. Therefore it's unlikely that entire populations of gentiles would just convert for no apparent reason. An exception would be the Turkic Khazar kingdom, whose elites supposedly converted en masse to Judaism and are sometimes used by Anti-Semites who want to claim that Ashkenazis are not "real jews", but Khazars.

That is scapegoating. Most "Anti-Semites" (a term that is hard to use for Anti-Jewish people who don't think they are a Semitic group... but I digress) think of Jews as being Hebrew. Yes some hate them and think they are all or mostly Khazars (a theory that was actually formulated by the Hungarian Jewish Arthur Koestler (a conservative or liberal depending on issue or era. It is now mostly championed by Polish Jewish/French/Israeli Shlomo Sand a leftist) who they hate anyway but a cursory glance at say Wormfront or some other Neo-Nazi sites show they are a minority? Why claim they are Turks when you hate Semites anyway? :confused:

It is true that some Arabs, White Nationalist Christians, some Black Isralites do claim this but not only is it true that Jewish and non-Jewish non-racists have supported the theory but some White Nationalists support the claim of not only pure Hebrew origin of Jew but even that the Khazar were descended from Hebrews! Here was a weird site I stumbled upon earlier http://britam.org/khazars.html. Also on the Screwdriver site (yeah I felt dirty after viewing it) they had a page against the Khazar hypothesis. That site is down now though.

Sorry, but Israel is against the idea that many Jewish are indeed at least even partially Turks, Slavs, heck even Germans as that goes against their notion of Israel being for the "Jewish people" (as they define a people racially). Even if most Jews were mostly, or even purely Hebrew in origin that still would not make them any more entitled to Palestine than the Palestinians who have lived there (as a people) since at Antiquity.

If we look at burial customs in Khazaria they suggest that more than just the upper-class converted to Judaism, just as in most of Europe the king became a Christian followed by many others under him. The "upper class conversion" theory while supported by Bourgeois Isralis and Zionists actually is only an asumption based on the idea conversion to Judaism was not accepted by Jewish authorities at the time (an idea disproved by the Torah (where there are converts) and the admittence that "missionaries" did at least convert the rulers of the Khazar state to Judaism). To claim that there are no Jewish descendants of any Khazars is one thing (still ridiculous of course) but to say that there is only evidence for the aristocracy of Khazaria being Jewish is another matter. You should take the argument up with Muslim and Jewish writers of the era that claimed that it was a land mostly populated by Jews.

Judaism was a proselytizing religion originally (even in the Biblical era if we go by Jewish texts) and it was only with the rise of Zionism and Secular Jewishness that Jewish authorities themselves came to regard proselytizing and conversion in a bad light. There were laws against Christians converting to Judaism in some countries in some eras (however not in Poland which was the centre of Judaism for much of the history of European Jewry). Also in Hungary there were Magyar converts to Judaism (who later due to Austrian-Hungarian laws had to change their surnames to Yiddish ones).

Also as most disagree with the view that African and South/East Asian Jews are mostly descended from Hebrews then doesn't that suggest mass conversion in Africa and Asia?


Anyway... what happened, according to historical sources,

By "historical" you mostly mean texts based on religion... especially that of the Talmud.


was that after the Romans took over Judea, many of the original Jews emigrated and, in the case of the Ashkenazis, ended up (much later) in Central/Northern Europe where, due to the lack of Jewish women, they married local gentile women, who converted.

There is no mention of this. It has been proposed by moderates as a via media between Ashkenazim being not Hebraic in origin to being fully Hebraic.


This happened to the ancestors of the Sephardic ones as well, but to a lesser degree, because there already were communities of Jewish immigrants all over the Roman Empire (some claim there were Jews in what-would-be-Spain even before the Romans)

Mostly unverified claims. There were Phoenicians who were, like the ancient Hebrews, a Western Semitic and specifically Canaanitic group however.


while the Ashkenazis arrived in Germany and surrounding areas during the middle-ages.

There were actually some Jews in the Rhineland during the Roman era.


And also, because more women emigrated in these earlier waves to Spain, while the ancestors of the Ashkenazis were mostly men traveling alone inside Europe, not by boat, over the Mediterranean.

That may be the case. It isn't proven of course but it is a more valid viewpoint than the view no one is descended from a convert to Judaism. However much of the travelling would have been done along the rivers such as the Rhine.

I do think *some* Jews have Hebrew ancestry but not in the large scale as Zionists, and even many non-Zionists seem to think. And I would not put too much faith in anonymous genetic surveys as they have been interpreted in many different ways, for many different purposes. So I will refrain from using some to support the viewpoint I agree with (and there are many that purport to prove the opposite). "Geneticising" culture is I think very dangerous.

I think it is ridiculous to claim all Jews are purely of Khazar ancestry as well (an almost impossibility) or, even, that all Ashkenazim are (many are descended from Slavs, Germans, Magyars and non-Khazar Turkic people (Qaralyar and Krymchaks being Turkic peoples of course)). But it is equally ridiculous to claim that all Jews are mostly descended from the Hebrews. Or as it usually is to claim that European and Central Asian Jews are but African, Chinese and Burman Jews are not and thus somehow not "real Jews"... the latter really angers me to be honest and I don't see how anyone can defend such a viewpoint.:glare:

[manic expression]

It blows my mind. Can they not see the fucking parallels? Or is it really only ok when it's THEM doing the oppressing?
I hear that a great many fathers who beat their children were once beaten by their own fathers. In my mind, that's Zionism. Case in point: the Zionist movement was licking Mussolini's boots back in the 30's...Zionism didn't react in opposition to fascism so much as learn as much as it could from it.

[newdayrising]

I'm going to join in here.
That is scapegoating. Most "Anti-Semites" (a term that is hard to use for Anti-Jewish people who don't think they are a Semitic group... but I digress) think of Jews as being Hebrew. Yes some hate them and think they are all or mostly Khazars (a theory that was actually formulated by the Hungarian Jewish Arthur Koestler (a conservative or liberal depending on issue or era. It is now mostly championed by Polish Jewish/French/Israeli Shlomo Sand a leftist) who they hate anyway but a cursory glance at say Wormfront or some other Neo-Nazi sites show they are a minority? Why claim they are Turks when you hate Semites anyway?

Agreed, so far. It's just that at least from my personal experience, this Ashkenazim = Khazars theory comes mostly from anti-semites/vulgar anti-zionists these days. For three reasons, I think: 1-According to their racialist views, if they're not "real jews", they have no rights to Israel. 2-Resolves the "Jesus was a jew" problem, as the Jews they hate are "just the fake ones", not the ones from the Bible. 3-people with no ideological bias on this subject actually rather believe in more serious and recent studies, which point to the more logical and simple explanation that they're actually a mix between "older jews" and the populations of the places they settled (same as all kinds of jews, but in different degrees).


It is true that some Arabs, White Nationalist Christians, some Black Isralites do claim this but not only is it true that Jewish and non-Jewish non-racists have supported the theory but some White Nationalists support the claim of not only pure Hebrew origin of Jew but even that the Khazar were descended from Hebrews! Here was a weird site I stumbled upon earlier. Also on the Screwdriver site (yeah I felt dirty after viewing it) they had a page against the Khazar hypothesis. That site is down now though.

Sorry, but Israel is against the idea that many Jewish are indeed at least even partially Turks, Slavs, heck even Germans as that goes against their notion of Israel being for the "Jewish people" (as they define a people racially). Even if most Jews were mostly, or even purely Hebrew in origin that still would not make them any more entitled to Palestine than the Palestinians who have lived there (as a people) since at Antiquity.

You don't have to be "sorry". I'm not disputing that or anything else concerning Israel. As I clearly stated, my post had nothing to do with Israeli policy. Any idea that claims some kind of "entitlement of nationhood" is ridiculous in my book, let alone racial ones.
Even if I gave a crap about who's entitled to be an Israeli or not, a son of a convert women is a jew according to Jewish law, so this argument so the Khazar theory would change nothing in this sense.
But again, I don't really care. I have an opinion on Israel, Zionism and etc, of course, but it has nothing to do with "Khazars" or the how much of a "Hebrew" somebody is.




If we look at burial customs in Khazaria they suggest that more than just the upper-class converted to Judaism, just as in most of Europe the king became a Christian followed by many others under him. The "upper class conversion" theory while supported by Bourgeois Isralis and Zionists actually is only an asumption based on the idea conversion to Judaism was not accepted by Jewish authorities at the time (an idea disproved by the Torah (where there are converts) and the admittence that "missionaries" did at least convert the rulers of the Khazar state to Judaism). To claim that there are no Jewish descendants of any Khazars is one thing (still ridiculous of course) but to say that there is only evidence for the aristocracy of Khazaria being Jewish is another matter. You should take the argument up with Muslim and Jewish writers of the era that claimed that it was a land mostly populated by Jews.

I never said there were no Jews at all among the common "people". Just that, as far as I know, the only part of the population that converted "en masse" was the elites. From what I've read, the rest of the population had many Muslims, Christians and Pagans as well.
But you might be right and everybody was jewish... I have no preference in this matter, I just learned otherwise and not from "bourgeois Israeli sources". These old sources give us hints, but are hardly a model of accuracy and neutrality so who knows...




Judaism was a proselytizing religion originally (even in the Biblical era if we go by Jewish texts) and it was only with the rise of Zionism and Secular Jewishness that Jewish authorities themselves came to regard proselytizing and conversion in a bad light.


Maybe we're using the term "proselytizing" differently. What I meant is that it didn't actively seek converts like most religions do, that there were probably never such a thing as Jewish missionaries, not that it didn't accept proselites at all. It was, after all, a tribal religion. People could join the tribe, but it was not supposed to be an universal religion.
On one had, there are many cases of conversion in the Bible and I know that there were periods when proselytism was common, but AFAIK, it wasn't always the rule, for instance: According to Maimonides (Isurei Biah 13:15), in the days of Kings David and Solomon, Batei Dinim (Jewish courts) did not accept converts. (Wikipedia - Conversion to Judaism)


There were laws against Christians converting to Judaism in some countries in some eras (however not in Poland which was the centre of Judaism for much of the history of European Jewry). Also in Hungary there were Magyar converts to Judaism (who later due to Austrian-Hungarian laws had to change their surnames to Yiddish ones).
No problem with that. What I wouldn't agree with would be a claim that the whole European Jewish population was comprised of converts by choice with absolutely no roots, however small, in actual middle eastern converts during the Roman days or before.


Also as most disagree with the view that African and South/East Asian Jews are mostly descended from Hebrews then doesn't that suggest mass conversion in Africa and Asia?
Depends on which population. Some communities might have originally started as converts, while others probably began with a few Jewish men mating with local women (which is usually the case) with a bunch of people converting around them.
There are studies that claim the Lemba from S. Africa, for instance, share genetic traits with other Jewish communities outside of Africa. I've never read about such studies concerning the Igbos or other West-African groups though. I'd like to. I find these things fascinating. [/quote]



By "historical" you mostly mean texts based on religion... especially that of the Talmud.
Not really. I don't see how the concept that Jews (or anyone) migrated during antiquity to be controversial.
as early as the middle of the 2nd century BC the Jewish author of the third book of the Oracula Sibyllina addressed the "chosen people," saying: "Every land is full of thee and every sea." The most diverse witnesses, such as Strabo, Philo, Seneca, Luke (the author of the Acts of the Apostles), Cicero, and Josephus, all mention Jewish populations in the cities of the Mediterranean basin. (Wikipedia)

The sources are old but hardly "biblical". As I said, these ancient sources are not, say, scientific, but they're as good as we can get. As good as the travelers who wrote about the Khazars, for instance.

I don't believe they were all of a sudden expelled from Palestine and left all at the same time, which is the myth some people seem to believe. But it seems reasonable that after the Roman takeover and the wars with Rome more people would leave, as life got worse for them, for political, social and economic reasons. The fact that there was always a Jewish population in Palestine disproves this "mass expulsion" myth.



That may be the case. It isn't proven of course but it is a more valid viewpoint than the view no one is descended from a convert to Judaism.
Which I don't subscribe to. My problem is with the idea that European Jewish communities, whether Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Italian, Greek or whatever owe their existences to mass conversions of and not to immigration and varying degrees of intermarriage. What I don't know for certain is the proportion of local converts and "Hebrew" immigrants in each case and studies I've read seem to agree that in the case of central/eastern Europe, the local component is more significant than in the Mediterranean communities.
I have zero problem with this being wrong though. Again, I have no preference either way, this is just what I've read on the matter.


"Geneticising" culture is I think very dangerous.
Agreed.
Sometimes these genetic studies offer clues to interesting things though, as prone to adulteration and misinterpretation as they seem to be.


I think it is ridiculous to claim all Jews are purely of Khazar ancestry as well (an almost impossibility) or, even, that all Ashkenazim are (many are descended from Slavs, Germans, Magyars and non-Khazar Turkic people (Qaralyar and Krymchaks being Turkic peoples of course)). But it is equally ridiculous to claim that all Jews are mostly descended from the Hebrews. Or as it usually is to claim that European and Central Asian Jews are but African, Chinese and Burman Jews are not and thus somehow not "real Jews"... the latter really angers me to be honest and I don't see how anyone can defend such a viewpoint.

Me neither.
My point, as I said, is that these communities probably mostly come from Jewish immigrants (or slaves in some cases) who, in different numbers and ways, started Jewish communities. I'm sure lots of people and even whole communities converted. My problem was, as I said above, with the idea that somehow all or the overwhelming majority of European Jews were originally converts, while I think it's more likely they descend from intermixing.

[GallowsBird]

Agreed, so far. It's just that at least from my personal experience, this Ashkenazim = Khazars theory comes mostly from anti-semites/vulgar anti-zionists these days. For three reasons, I think: 1-According to their racialist views, if they're not "real jews", they have no rights to Israel.


Just as the most vocal proponants of the view that Jews are all or mostly descended from Ancient Hebrews are racialists who think the same. That to have a claim on part of modern Palestine (or Israel) means one has to be of the "Jewish Race". This is from experience and from knowledge of actual Zionist/Israeli writings.



2-Resolves the "Jesus was a jew" problem, as the Jews they hate are "just the fake ones", not the ones from the Bible. 3-people with no ideological bias on this subject actually rather believe in more serious and recent studies, which point to the more logical and simple explanation that they're actually a mix between "older jews" and the populations of the places they settled (same as all kinds of jews, but in different degrees).

Yes. Or they just believe (like Shlomo Sand whose followers are mostly Israelis) Jews are mostly a mix of various groups with Khazars being one of the many ancestral groups who make up the original Jewish source population (Sand himself thinks they are mostly a mix of Germans and Slavs, much like many in Eastern Germany, Pomeranians (German speaking) and Sorbs (Slavic speaking) for instance... He has been mis-characterised as thinking they are all Khazars).

This is not a black and white matter to be honest.


You don't have to be "sorry".

Good to hear.


I'm not disputing that or anything else concerning Israel. As I clearly stated, my post had nothing to do with Israeli policy.

But the subject is closely connected with Israel and Zionist; for the simple reason it is important to Zionists and Anti-Zionists, whether we like it or not.



Any idea that claims some kind of "entitlement of nationhood" is ridiculous in my book, let alone racial ones.

Good.



Even if I gave a crap about who's entitled to be an Israeli or not, a son of a convert women is a jew according to Jewish law, so this argument so the Khazar theory would change nothing in this sense.

That is one of my points. Being descended from a convert and accepting the Jewish faith does not make one less Jewish than someone descended from Hebrews yet being, say, and Atheist. Judaism, like it or not, has traditionally been primarily a religion.


But again, I don't really care. I have an opinion on Israel, Zionism and etc, of course, but it has nothing to do with "Khazars" or the how much of a "Hebrew" somebody is.

Well that is different to the view of most Zionists then.


I never said there were no Jews at all among the common "people".

Good on the first part. Not sure why people has quotation marks around it though...



Just that, as far as I know, the only part of the population that converted "en masse" was the elites. From what I've read, the rest of the population had many Muslims, Christians and Pagans as well.

Many parts of the Khazar empire didn't convert to Judaism (though there is evidence that some Tartars did also), but there is evidence that many, if not most Khazars did due to their burial customs, which are usually shrugged off in this political climate.


But you might be right and everybody was jewish... I have no preference in this matter, I just learned otherwise and not from "bourgeois Israeli sources".

I should have said "bourgeois Israel and/or Zionist sources". The fact is the history of the Khazars has been neglected and most of the researches into it are both "bourgeois" and "zionist" (and in many cases sponsored by Israel, the same as many genetic surveys that "prove" most Jews are of Hebraic origin... not that the ones that prove otherwise are trustworthy. Genetic research is in my opinion and oft misused science when it comes to genetic markers. The better research is generally in regards to hereditary illness rather than population markers. The same goes for all groups not just Jews).



These old sources give us hints, but are hardly a model of accuracy and neutrality so who knows...

True but when I studied history (sadly I have put that on hold as I am not rich enough) we were taught that contemporary sources (which should be looked on with a healthy amount of scepticism) were in many cases more informative than modern ones. Too many now seem to dismiss all contemporary sources rather than look at them objectively and this is mostly, again in my opinion, due to the politicizing of history by the bourgeois establishment.


Maybe we're using the term "proselytizing" differently. What I meant is that it didn't actively seek converts like most religions do, that there were probably never such a thing as Jewish missionaries, not that it didn't accept proselites at all.

Bulan (the Khazar Khagan) was converted by a Jewish missionary. One that was invited along with Christian and Islamic missionaries. There are missionaries in the Bible, albeit in a highly mythic sense; see Abraham. Again that is a modern "white washing" of history to meet political ends. Not on your part per se, but on the part of those who write that nonsense.


It was, after all, a tribal religion.

As were most of the Dharmic faiths (especially Hinduism) originally and many other religions also. Most are originally connected with a specific tribe.


People could join the tribe, but it was not supposed to be an universal religion.

Yes and no. Originally it wasn't supposed to be for all (while still claiming to be the one true faith, unlike say Hinduism (most of the time) in which all faiths are different paths to the same end), with the only real form of god.


On one had, there are many cases of conversion in the Bible and I know that there were periods when proselytism was common, but AFAIK, it wasn't always the rule, for instance: According to Maimonides (Isurei Biah 13:15), in the days of Kings David and Solomon, Batei Dinim (Jewish courts) did not accept converts.

It may not have always been the rule but then again neither was disallowing conversion either. The point still stands.


(Wikipedia - Conversion to Judaism)

Please don't quote Wikipedia. It is nonsense. It is famously bad when it comes to Judeo-Christianity and anything remotely related to Zionism.

Do you really think that claiming Judaism is only influenced by Semetic faiths rather than being derived from the same original source, or the title in the Khazar article "conversion of the Khazar ruling class to Judaism" (when even if we grant that a majority think this is the case; a large group think it was a conversion of a significant part of the populace - which is backed up some evidence to the fact) or removing the fact many Jews supported and still support the Khazar hypothesis while many Anti-Jews are actual Anti-Semites and don't believe, it isn't bias?


No problem with that. What I wouldn't agree with would be a claim that the whole European Jewish population was comprised of converts by choice with absolutely no roots, however small, in actual middle eastern converts during the Roman days or before.

I don't think anyone claims no Jews are descended from Ancient Hebrews; this would be unlikely as there had to be an original immigrant group to convert the non-Hebrew parts of the Jewish population. The point is A) this group are unlikely to be the majority (especially linguistically and I would argue logistically) and B) it is mostly European and Central Asian groups that are claimed to be purely or mostly descended from Hebrews whereas Africans and Southeast Asians are usually seen as "fake Jews" based on such racialisation of Jewishness. It also supports the view that culture (and yes you can make a case Jewish populations are cultural groups) is purely genetic.


Depends on which population.

Yes, that is true. No one is arguing that. The main argument is that most are unlikely to be mostly Hebrews outside of the Middle East and that the groups chosen to be "pure-blooded" or even "mostly Hebrew" are those who don't happen to be Black or Southeast Asian. This is racism.


Some communities might have originally started as converts, while others probably began with a few Jewish men mating with local women (which is usually the case) with a bunch of people converting around them.

Yes. I find this the most likely scenario. Which would still show the view of "Jewish race" (there is only one race of humans anyway) to be a racist and incorrect notion.

How many times have you seen someone mention a Polish Jew for instance as Polish and then someone come along and say "they are not Polish they are Jewish" as if they are mutually exclusive and as if Polish Jews aren't Polish because they don't mostly have Polish ancestry (they do of course but I digress) and that of course precludes them from being a Pole. You can insert any nationality here but I have used Poland as it was legal to convert to Judaism and marry Jews for the majority of its history and there was a recent study (sponsored by Israel) to prove that Poles are genetically the least like European Jews which is hilariously nonsensical.


There are studies that claim the Lemba from S. Africa, for instance, share genetic traits with other Jewish communities outside of Africa. I've never read about such studies concerning the Igbos or other West-African groups though. I'd like to. I find these things fascinating.

Yes that was sponsored by the Lemba if I recall. I don't think it is unlikely and I believe it more than the study that showed the opposite. If I recall it should a similarity specifically with Yemeni Jews who the Lemba have some similarities with culturally and they claim they are from the Yemen originally. However this survey did however show they are mostly converts, which is fair enough and probably true, which is also the case with most Jewish populations. The problem that it is only certain ethnic groups that are targeted as not "racially" Jewish.


Not really. I don't see how the concept that Jews (or anyone) migrated during antiquity to be controversial.

It isn't controversial. Some did. Most did not, hence there was a large Jewish population in Palestine during the earlier Middle Ages. These probably converted to Islam. As even Ben Gurion admitted (I shall look for the quote).


[I]as early as the middle of the 2nd century BC the Jewish author of the third book of the Oracula Sibyllina addressed the "chosen people," saying: "Every land is full of thee and every sea."

Meaning "Jews" not necessarily descendants of Hebrews, though I shall guess at this point most were.


The most diverse witnesses, such as Strabo, Philo, Seneca, Luke (the author of the Acts of the Apostles), Cicero, and Josephus, all mention Jewish populations in the cities of the Mediterranean basin. (Wikipedia)

They do.

Wikipedia *sigh*


The sources are old but hardly "biblical". As I said, these ancient sources are not, say, scientific, but they're as good as we can get. As good as the travelers who wrote about the Khazars, for instance.

They are valid sources. I agree there. Not that they all neccesarily claim what we ant them to. It is interesting how these sources aren't dismissed though whereas many are... hmm... :closedeyes:


I don't believe they were all of a sudden expelled from Palestine and left all at the same time, which is the myth some people seem to believe.


It is.


But it seems reasonable that after the Roman takeover and the wars with Rome more people would leave, as life got worse for them, for political, social and economic reasons.

No one disagrees that some left. There is no evidence that the majority did however outside of texts long after the fact.


The fact that there was always a Jewish population in Palestine disproves this "mass expulsion" myth.

Glad you agree.


Which I don't subscribe to.

Good.


My problem is with the idea that European Jewish communities, whether Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Italian, Greek or whatever owe their existences to mass conversions of and not to immigration and varying degrees of intermarriage.

I don't see why that would be a problem? Most religious communities are mostly converts. Are Christian and Muslims mostly descended from Jews who accepted those forms of Judeo-Christianity? No.


What I don't know for certain is the proportion of local converts and "Hebrew" immigrants in each case and studies I've read seem to agree that in the case of central/eastern Europe, the local component is more significant than in the Mediterranean communities.

Most don't anymore, form what I have read. Or seriously downplay it to something like under 10%.


I have zero problem with this being wrong though. Again, I have no preference either way, this is just what I've read on the matter.

You have said that. And that is good.



Agreed.
Sometimes these genetic studies offer clues to interesting things though, as prone to adulteration and misinterpretation as they seem to be.

Indeed, culture isn't genetic. I am Northumbrian English because I am from Northumbria not because I am descended from an original Anglian settler (I may not have any "English ancestry". Who knows maybe I have Ancient Hebrew ancestry, it does not make me a Hebrew).



Me neither.
My point, as I said, is that these communities probably mostly come from Jewish immigrants

My point is that they mostly don't. I am not claiming all are Khazars (most are probably Slavic and German) or that none are descended from Hebrews. I just think (based on non-genetic evidence) that it is unlikely that they are mostly Hebrews.


(or slaves in some cases)

Some, being the key word. Jews/Hebrews were ironically not one of the most common groups of slaves in Late Antiquity or the Middle Ages (that honour probably goes to Slavs, which is the origin of word "slave") but any group could be enslaved (some crimes were punished by making the offender a slave for example).


who, in different numbers and ways, started Jewish communities.

I agree there. Someone had to import Judaism, just as with Christianity.


I'm sure lots of people and even whole communities converted.

They almost certainly did.


My problem was, as I said above, with the idea that somehow all or the overwhelming majority of European Jews were originally converts, while I think it's more likely they descend from intermixing.

That is better than the view there was no intermixing, however I can't see why (especially as you don't care too much) it is a problem to believe most are not descended from Ancient Hebrews? Most Christians aren't. Most Muslims aren't. Even most non-Indo-Aryan Hindu groups are not descended from Ethnic Hindus (some groups are *partly* most are probably not). Judaism is the only religion where there seems to be a problem with the idea that many are not descended mostly from its founders.

[El Chuncho]

Funny that people claim that an ancient group just moved to what is now Germany and completely adopted the language and culture without the local populace having any substantial form of schooling to aid these ''Hebrew'' immigrants. Either the Jewish population descends from mostly converts mixed with a smaller number of Hebrew immigrants (which I'll accept is most likely but not set in stone as converts from elsewhere, such as Khazaria or Ethiopia, or even Italy and Greece, could have converted a populace) or they are not descended from Hebrew immigrants at all.

You see Yiddish descends from High German with many Slavic loans and a most likely Slavic substratum, Sorbian (most likely) or Balkan-Slavic (coupled with some Greece influence too). It does have some Hebrew loans (just as English has Latin without most English being descended from Latins) but you'd have a Hebraic substratum (and I am sure there are some fringe theories out there that'll try to claim one) if so many of the population were actually descended from Hebrews... that is ignoring the fact that they could not have just learnt a German language from an illiterate populace, without being a minority that was ''absorbed'' via intermixing. The lack of a Hebraic substratum suggests that a Hebrew genetic component would only make up a small % of the genetics of Ashkenazim Jews.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The most plausible theory is that the Jewish people of Europe do descend from the Semitic exiles of the Roman period but that there was a large amount of intermarriage with the locals. From what I understand, there are unique genetic markers to all the groups, but there is also lots of proof that they were always so internal. Red haired Ashkenazi probably have both, as do Ethiopian Jews and Sephardic. People migrate and people also have sex with all sorts. People like these zero-sum game answers whereby they are either entirely "pure" or are all converts.

[El Chuncho]

No it isn't, SCM. The most plausible theory is that Hebrew intermixing was miner, due to the fact that they mostly converted gentiles to their religion. If there was widespread intermixing of Hebrews (who somehow managed to mass migrate to Europe without leaving much in the way of physical evidence; where were they settled? How did a large group from the Middle-East just mass-migrate to Central/Eastern Europe and Central Asia?) and gentiles we'd have more evidence in the languages of Jews. There is no Hebraic substratum in Yiddish, though there is evidence of Slavic. People of vastly different languages do not just give up speaking their languages to adopt another just like that, it happens over time and leaves traces. Genetic studies on Jewish groups are bunk and filled with people just reading what they want into it. Some claim that they are mixed, some claim they are pure. It is nonsense. Also it is a bit rich that they just so happen to support the claim of Zionists (who declare that they have a right to Palestine because they are of Hebrew ancestry).

I am not doubting many have Middle-Eastern ancestors, but the same can be said of all Europeans, whether Christian, Muslim or Jew. It is highly improbably that European Jews are mostly of Hebraic descent, we'd have more Hebraic influence in their languages.

They are not all converts - some would descend from Hebrews but many non-Jews would too - but the vast majority are. It is funny that Jews are the only ''pure'', or mostly ''pure'', ethno-religious group in the world, apparently. It is bullshit. Racist, Zionist bullshit.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

If you're going to go by linguistic evidence alone, the Hebrews had 1,900 years to lose their old language. Most immigrant groups pick up the dominant language over a timespan like that, which would explain why Yiddish is not much like Hebrew. You can't go off of linguistic evidence alone when we're talking about a migrant group as they always are prone to forces of assimilation, philandering and intermarriage (three things which reinforce one another). We know there were exiles, and we know they went all over Europe and Rome. We also know people married into the community and converted in various areas. These things go together.

[El Chuncho]

If you're going to go by linguistic evidence alone, the Hebrews had 1,900 years to lose their old language.


Most immigrant groups pick up the dominant language over a timespan like that, which would explain why Yiddish is not much like Hebrew.

We are talking about an era when the Germanic or Slavic people didn't have schools to teach their languages. Hebrews could not have learned enough to completely replace their syntax, and it would not explain why they are a German language with a Slavic syntax. No other group in Europe completely gave up every vestige of their language. The Romani didn't, the Shetlanders didn't etc. You'll always have traces of their former language in the syntax if the migration was as big as claimed.

And I am not claiming that no Hebrews migrated to Europe, only that they did mix with a greater number of non-Hebrews and that the bulk of the European dues were converts. It seems far more likely.


You can't go off of linguistic evidence alone when we're talking about a migrant group as they always are prone to forces of assimilation, philandering and intermarriage (three things which reinforce one another).

You'd need a greater number of non-Hebrews for them to be assimilated strongly by intermarriage. Also if they migrated all the way from the Middle-East they'd have mixed with a great load of different groups, and converted (to claim Jews didn't convert others is false) a lot of other groups before reaching north-west Germany.

We have no great material gods to support some sort of mass-migration of Hebrews from the Middle-East.


We know there were exiles, and we know they went all over Europe and Rome.

I believe these points were addressed by GallowsBird earlier.


We also know people married into the community and converted in various areas. These things go together.

And we know that many people converted without marriage (more recent Hungarian converts to Judaism support this, as do the Khazars - even if we accept the nonsense view that only the aristocracy did). It is a little racist to make Judaism into an ethnic group and to claim that they are not mostly non-Hebrew. I am not saying that you are racist, only that the Zionist view of genetic purity or near purity is.

Logically it is much more likely that most Jews are descended from converts to Judaism. I can accept groups like the Cohens being descended more from Hebrews (mixed heavily with non-Hebrews) because they are a priestly caste, but I cannot accept that a mass-migration of Hebrews ever happened and I cannot accept the Zionist claim that Jews never used conversion when we have Biblical and historical evidence to disprove it.

Judaism is a religion not an ethnicity. It can also be a cultural group, as Shlomo Sand points out, and Jews should be connected due to the Holocaust. However, we, Jews and non-Jews alike, should not buy into Zionist racism and terrorism against the Palestinian people (who are more likely to be descended from Hebrews... especially Palestinian Jews). Israel has a right to exist (as Shlomo Sand says ''even a child born of rape has the right to live''), but they really need to drop their aggression and racism and became a fair state for Jews, Christians, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists etc. Dropping their nonsense claims of being a ''race'', and defining ''Jew'' ethnically rather than religiously, would be a good step in the right direction.

[Fennec]

While this once again shows the blatant racism of the Zionist entity, nobody in Palestine wants Israeli citizenship. The goal of our struggle is to abolish the state founded on genocide, based on apartheid and guilty of terrorism, not enable its victims to become its citizens.