The Jews who are descended from the Khazars are also all descended from the people who once lived in what is now Israel.
The ones you speak of in North Africa follow the religion of the people of Judea before the diaspora, while most modern Jews follow the Rabbinical tradition, which started a few hundred years after the diaspora, so it's a little younger than Christianity.
>>670384 >The Jews who are descended from the Khazars are also all descended from the people who once lived in what is now Israel. A lot of people have lived in what is now Israel. >modern Jews >which started a few hundred years after the diaspora You see my point? North African Jews are the real descendants of the Judaic tradition.
>>670393 personally i dont completely buy the khazar theory. even if there were conversions it wasn't mass conversion, it was just the khazar king and some of the aristocratic classes. it wouldn't have impacted the jewish gene code that much. also jews already lived throughout the roman empire before the destruction of the temple
>>670393 >A lot of people have lived in what is now Israel.
They are all descended from people who were expelled during the diaspora.
It's probable that every human on planet Earth is descended from people who once lived in that region.
>You see my point? North African Jews are the real descendants of the Judaic tradition.
Of the traditions, yes. But anon was wrong in saying that Ashkenazi Jews were not Jewish. They are Jewish and European, they follow a religion known as Judaism, which is based on Rabbinical interpretations of the Book, and some other books, many written after the tradition began.
>>670407 >It's probable that every human on planet Earth is descended from people who once lived in that region.
Why doesn't Israel want to give Palestinians citizenship, then? >Of the traditions, yes. But anon was wrong in saying that Ashkenazi Jews were not Jewish. I said they're called "Jewish." I'm sorry you don't value traditional identity, or believe in cultural identity, at all and only believe in racialist theories of identity.
Then anon is not talking about them, but about the Jews of Beta Israel, not in North Africa, but in Ethiopia (I think?). They are sometimes considered Jewish enough for Israel, though they practice a tradition far closer to the inhabitants immediately before the diaspora.
>>670427 >Why doesn't Israel want to give Palestinians citizenship, then?
Why do you think?
They want to control the aquifers that are in the West Bank, once they have settlements or bases over all of them, the West Bank will be treated like Gaza is now.
They believe that god said they own this land forever and everybody else should get out, but there are religious restrictions on how much of your enemy you are permitted to kill at a time.
The only really absurd idea that comes out of this whole argument is that Muslims and Jews both say god gave them the land, and that it was somehow uninhabited before they both arrived there in 1948 and started fighting over it. It's not two religious beliefs colliding, it's a religious belief colliding with property owners and foreign citizens; iterated out over half a century.
>I said they're called "Jewish." I'm sorry you don't value traditional identity, or believe in cultural identity, at all and only believe in racialist theories of identity.
I don't even. Can you link to where I said I only accept 'racialist' theories of identity?
>>670448 >>670457 Either way Israel really shouldn't be there in the first place. >Can you link to where I said I only accept 'racialist' theories of identity? It was implied, when you said that Khazars are Europeans who are as Jewish as North African Jews from before the diaspora, that you accept racial theories of identity. I don't understand why it's relevant whether or not Ashkenazi Jews are of European heritage. My claim is that their Judaism is not an expression of the actual Jewish tradition, which exists in North African Jewish communities separate from the state of Israel.
Only the Khazarian nobles were converted to Judaism, Khazaria itself is a rare case of almost complete religious diversity from what I understand. The three biggest Religions being Christianity, Islam, and Tengrism. Also, most genetic studies suggest very little East Asian blood.
So, my conclusion? Are there still Khazar Jews? Yes. For instance, let's look at Mila Kunis. a Ukrainian Jew. She has a very Asia-ish look to her, does she not? Is it mere coincidence that Ukraine is in roughly the same area as Khazaria? Not in my opinion, no.
BUT, I don't personally think Ashkenazi Jews are *true* Jews. Genetic studies have found plenty Middle Eastern genes in Jewish men, but very few Middle Eastern genes in Jewish women. Most evidence suggests that Jewish men were deported to Germany by the Romans (or, Ashkenaz, as the Jews called Germany) but Jewish men had to convert German women to Judaism to pass on "Jewish" offspring. In Judaism, Jewishness is passed down via Maternal bloodline. So basically speaking, under Jewish law, Ashkenazi's are not Jewish in the biblical sense, merely Germans and eastern Europeans with Jewish paternal genes.
>>670473 they would still be considered jewish. the women converted, BUT fyi the original law was that jewishness was through the father, that was changed after the destruction of the temple because so many jewish men died/women were raped.
that's what i learned anyway, i cant totally vouch for that, but ashkenazim are definitely halachically jewish
>Either way Israel really shouldn't be there in the first place.
If we were talking in 1946. It exists now, so if you have a general policy against ethnic cleansing (on what other grounds could you oppose it's establishment?), you can't demand it now ceases to exist.
>It was implied, when you said that Khazars are Europeans who are as Jewish as North African Jews from before the diaspora, that you accept racial theories of identity. I don't understand why it's relevant whether or not Ashkenazi Jews are of European heritage. My claim is that their Judaism is not an expression of the actual Jewish tradition, which exists in North African Jewish communities separate from the state of Israel.
I said they were all descended from Jews who lived in Israel before the diaspora.
And I said that the only Jews who practice their religion in the way they did before the diaspora, or at least closest, are the Jews of Beta Israel. Rabbinical, Talmudic Judaism postdates the diaspora by centuries.
When you say the actual Jewish tradition, you mean, collecting the first of the harvest for priests to bless, sacrificing animals, and so on? This is practiced by the North African Jews who are descendants of.... who?
It's debatable how close they are, and on what points. They aren't identical to their ancestors, they're just closer than the Jews who converted to a different tradition when removed from their homeland.
I don't think there is much debate that a tradition which began centuries after the diaspora predates the traditions that were practiced before the diaspora.
>>670495 >If we were talking in 1946. The conditions that were in place in 1946 will never be different than they were in 1946; therefore, the conditions under which Israel was founded will never be legitimate. >you can't demand it now ceases to exist Have I done that? >they were all descended from Jews who lived in Israel before the diaspora. Sounds like a group identity being emphasized. >And I said that the only Jews who practice their religion in the way they did before the diaspora, or at least closest, are the Jews of Beta Israel. Rabbinical, Talmudic Judaism postdates the diaspora by centuries. So we're in agreement that I'm correct. Talmudic Judaism is a bastard offshoot. >When you say the actual Jewish tradition, you mean, collecting the first of the harvest for priests to bless, sacrificing animals, and so on? This is practiced by the North African Jews who are descendants of.... who? Doesn't matter 'who' they're descended from.
>>670531 >Which group? The Jews. >Then they might as easily be converts to Judaism? They just practice is better than the other Jews? Being a Jew who's in touch with the tradition but not ethnically Jewish just seems more authentic than being ethnically Jewish and not caring about the tradition and identifying as Jewish anyway.
>>670584 Where else was it supposed to be, and why would that be any better? The Jewish Autonomous Oblast is in the middle of Siberia and had no potential for anything at all. Jews already had a spiritual and religious connection to a land where a lot of them lived already, and have historically lived in.
It had to be there because of the Jewish religious belief that they own that land. It was resisted because of the residents belief that they lived there already, and wanted their own state in some format that wasn't controlled by the west.
>>670698 >And since the establishment of this state for freedom from persecution, their neighbors in the region have become more tolerant of Jews?
No, but it is infinitely better than being in Auschwitz.
Besides, you are missing the point. Israel is a safe-haven for Jews who are persecuted in other countries. If their Arab neighbours are persecuting these Jews, they can go to Israel where they will be safe.
>>670732 >No, but it is infinitely better than being in Auschwitz.
Those weren't the only two options, to allow the Jews to be exterminated, or to ethnically cleanse Palestine.
Jews could also have moved to the rest of the western world. Or somewhere where people didn't already live.
>Besides, you are missing the point. Israel is a safe-haven for Jews who are persecuted in other countries. If their Arab neighbours are persecuting these Jews, they can go to Israel where they will be safe.
But did this persecution go up or down after the foundation of Israel?
And it's only safe until it's destroyed. Why pick a neighborhood full of people who hate you, and then start the relationship with a war where you take territory from all of them?
>>670316 The Jews of the Bible had their state destroyed and scattered to the far winds, along with their bloodlines. None of the people that call themselves "Jews" nowadays know what tribe they were from. The only thing they have is the Cohen, which is just a name. Hebrew itself was a dead language until the late 1800's, and it was revived through the Zionist movement. It is evident from the Old Testament that different tribes spoke different dialects of their language.
Even their religion is nothing like it was in the Old Testament. The original Israelites followed judges, prophets, and kings. Judges were temporary dictators who had direct communication with God. This was exchanged for kings, which had permanent power but did not have direct communication with God. They learned God's will through their dealings with prophets, who had direct communication with God but did not have political power. After the exile, the Israelites built the Second Temple. During the Second Temple period, Judaism saw a shift from Priestly Judaism (of the Old Testament) to the Rabbinical Judaism (what you saw at the beginning of the New Testament). It was at a crux in this shift, complicated by Roman occupation, that Jesus began teaching. Basically, Jesus was a traditional Torah teacher, who sought a return to Priestly Judaism. This angered the Pharisee Rabbis, who had him executed. Christians maintain that the living Jesus Christ is the High Priest of the Old Faith, of the order of Melchizedek (the high priest king of Abram's time), and the Covenant of Israel is open to all who have faith.
>>670758 >Jews could also have moved to the rest of the western world. Because they were so well off in Germany, France, and Poland? Considering Germany went from being the most open and tolerant nation on the planet to a genocidal dictatorship in less than 10 years, there was no guarantee that the Jews were safe in the rest of the Western world
>Or somewhere where people didn't already live. This is like telling the Poles after WWII that they can set up a new state but because Germans now live in their land they have to go to Siberia to create a new Poland. Besides, no country was really willing to give up land except for Britain.
>But did this persecution go up or down after the foundation of Israel? On an international scale, it certainly went down. Israel has managed to help Jews in countries where they were threatened or being persecuted (See: Yemen, Ethiopia). In Arab countries specifically, to say that they were particularly friendly prior to the establishment of Israel would be false. Not to mention that the Jews who used to live in Arab countries definitely have a higher standard of living now than they did under Arab rule.
>And it's only safe until it's destroyed. Why pick a neighborhood full of people who hate you, and then start the relationship with a war where you take territory from all of them? This is a massive oversimplification of the Six Day War and Israel's founding. The region was picked because there was already a substantial amount of Jews living there, Jewish institutions already existed (and were not destroyed during WWII), and the vast majority of Jewish holy sites are in the region.
>>670810 >Because they were so well off in Germany, France, and Poland? ...
Or they could move to America.
There is no guarantee that they are safe in Palestine.
>This is like telling the Poles after WWII that they can set up a new state but because Germans now live in their land they have to go to Siberia to create a new Poland. Besides, no country was really willing to give up land except for Britain.
So why wasn't Israel founded in the Home Counties? Anywhere that wasn't conquered by Britain...
>On an international scale, it certainly went down...
But their situation in Arab countries, one that lasted for a thousand years at least, was basically ruined by the foundation of Israel, yes?
>This is a massive oversimplification of the Six Day War and Israel's founding....
Does this not describe Israels founding:
Britain gives land that they conquered in Palestine to Israel.
The people who live in Palestine object to the deal, but it's forced through anyway.
Arab armies invade to protect their neighbors who have not agreed to join Israel.
Israel fights and annexes land from all of their neighbors.
You see, I'd put the start of the problem at the part where Britain promised Palestine to the Jew, everything after that is the result of this initial crime.
And does this not describe the Six-Day War:
Israel believes that they are about to come under attack.
Israel attacks first.
Israel annexes land from every neighbor, but this time no citizenship for these people ever.
Again, it's the religious belief that Jews own the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean that is the root cause of the current conflict. Palestinians are not ultimately fighting for religious reasons, even if individuals are. Israelis are not ultimately fighting for secular reasons, even if individuals are.
Promised land means nothing unless god tells EVERYONE that's what they want. The secular argument that only Israel could gain enough support to become a homeland for the Jews holds some water, but only if the land was actually uninhabited before the settlers arrived.
>>670855 >Move to America The difference is that there is no chance that the government of Israel is going to become an antisemitic genocidal regime. While it is highly unlikely, the fact that it happened in Germany shows that a liberal democracy is not necessarily safe for Jews.
>Why not home countries? I don't really understand, do you mean somewhere in Europe after the war? Jews were scattered across the continent, what is the real difference? Both involve displacing people, the only difference is that in Europe, there are practically no Jewish institutions left and no Jewish holy sites.
>Situation in Arab countries Jews being safe and tolerated in Arab countries is a meme. The fact that they prospered more than the European Jews in the Middle Ages doesn't really mean much when you think about it, and there are frequent anti-Jewish riots in Arab countries prior to 1948.
>Israel's founding No, it does not describe it at all. Palestine was partitioned between an Arab state and a Jewish state which could have coexisted in peace. Palestinians could still live in the region if they chose to. However, in the mess of the Arab invasion because they could not accept the fact that the Jews needed a state, they were kicked out as Israel expanded to more defensible borders.
Besides, in 1948, Israel didn't annex land from all their neighbours. They annexed land from what was supposed to be a Palestinian state, as did Jordan and Egypt. In 1967, when Arab rhetoric against Israel made it clear that war was going to break out, Israel surprise attacked in self-defence. Their casus beli was Egypt blockading the Strait of Aqaba, which was clearly an act of war.
>>670960 >The secular argument that only Israel could gain enough support to become a homeland for the Jews holds some water, but only if the land was actually uninhabited before the settlers arrived.
Not really. The difference is that the Palestinians wanted that land, the Jews needed that land. A Jewish state was required so that Jews could survive without the threat of extermination, while the Palestinians were under no such threat.
>>670967 >The difference is that there is no chance that the government of Israel is going to become an antisemitic genocidal regime....
It was safe for Jews when it was a liberal democracy.
And Israel is not likely to be genocidal to Jews in general, but we know how selective they can be when they want to be.
>I don't really understand, do you mean somewhere in Europe after the war?...
The counties immediately around London. If Britain was going to give land to the Jews following World War 2, why not give it land that Britain owned, that was populated by British subjects, rather than a recently conquered province?
>Jews being safe and tolerated in Arab countries is a meme....
Were they MORE safe before or after Israel was founded?
>No, it does not describe it at all..
So the Palestinians who didn't want to agree to the settlement objected. Why shouldn't they have, they got the raw end of the deal. If demographics were the basis for the settlement, Israel is a strip of land near Tel Aviv, nothing near the Negev, so why give so much land to foreign settlers?
The Jews were happy with the deal, so they didn't object, they got way more than their demographic footprint would indicate; and in the war, they got more again.
>Besides, in 1948, Israel didn't annex land from all their neighbours...
So they completely annexed Palestine during the first conflict. Did they also annex the citizens, or were they only interested in ethnically cleansed lands?
Then you agree that the blockade of Gaza is an act of war today?
Why did the homeland of the Jews have to be in a place that already had a population? Was a vote ever taken among the locals about whether they wanted to be part of a Jewish state, or a Palestinian state, a plebiscite done region by region? If not, then it's formation was a crime against Palestinians.
>>670980 >Not really. The difference is that the Palestinians wanted that land, the Jews needed that land. A Jewish state was required so that Jews could survive without the threat of extermination, while the Palestinians were under no such threat.
Palestinians lived on that land, and the Jews didn't.
A Jewish state could have been started anywhere; somewhere safe would be a good start, and somewhere without locals who need ethnically cleansing should be a bare minimum requirement.
And today, Jews can leave Israel if they want, and move to a safe life in any part of the western world. Where can Palestinians go? To a refugee camp in a Muslim country; or they can live on a refugee camp in Israel, and hold out hope they'll get their homes back, and get a state of their own.
>>671022 >It was safe for Jews when it was a liberal democracy. Great, but it just proved how a liberal democracy could become an oppressive, genocidal dictatorship very quickly. The creation of a Jewish state would prevent Jews from being the victims of genocide by their own nations. As well, a country like America isn't going to go out of its way to, say, airlift Jews from Ethiopia and Yemen like Israel did.
>The counties immediately around London. Why would they? The choice is between a far-off region where Jews have a connection to and they are going to decolonize from anyway or the area surrounding their capital which Jews have no connection to.
>Were they MORE safe before or after Israel was founded? Anti-Jewish rioting increased after Israel was rioting, but overall, the Sephardic Jews are now safer living safely in Israel was opposed to in Arab countries. The creation of Israel helped these Jews.
>muh land area! muh population distribution! The partition plan also accounted for the fact that around 2 million Jews would be immigrating to Israel directly after it is established. No matter how many Arabs were living in the Jewish state, they were quickly going to become outnumbered by a long shot.
>So they completely annexed Palestine during the first conflict No. There was no "Palestine" to annex at the time because no Palestinian state was ever established. Much of the area you are referring to was annexed by Jordan and Egypt as well.
>Did they also annex the citizens, or were they only interested in ethnically cleansed lands? All Arabs who remained in Israel after the war were given citizenship.
>Then you agree that the blockade of Gaza is an act of war today? Different situations. Israel did not elect a government openly firing rockets at Egyptian civilians for no reason. Gaza was not under blockade until they elected a terrorist organization.
>But people were already living there! And they could have continued living there if they accepted the partition plan which wouldn't have displaced anyone, it would just have put them under different governments.
>There was no vote There didn't need to be. There were going to be two states for two peoples. Each state would have displaced nobody.
>>671031 >Jews didn't live there Jews did live on that land, there were just more Palestinians. However, with immigration, Jews would quickly outnumber the Palestinians.
>Jewish state could have been anywhere A Jewish state could not have been "anywhere". There needs to be institutions, a connection, and usable land. Israel had all of these, no other place in the world which was willing to have land had these requirements.
>muh refugees! It is not Israel's fault that Muslim countries want to put Palestinian refugees on display to justify their own misery. When Israel received 850 000 refugees following the establishment of Israel, they resettled them in the land, not put them in refugee camps for 70 years so that they can get the UN to feel bad for them.
im kind of biased though, i just think israeli girls are close to the lowest quality there is (even worse than american girls), but a lot of people disagree with me. so dont give up just because of what i said
>>671263 yeah, but i should just say as a disclaimer my opinion on things in general has always been very peculiar to me. i have a very distinctive taste i guess. a lot of people really like israeli girls though, but for me they just represent everything i DONT want in a girl
israelis in general are also very anti-intellectual which bugs the shit out of me
>>671280 yes, i know. it's rather ironic, but what i mean is there is no passion for intellectual topics. it's mostly "practical" fields of research and such. there is no love for it. the humanities are totally neglected in israel, and an israeli cant even begin to fathom why anyone would bother with those topics. i think the value a society places on "unnecessary" topics (history, philosophy, art, classics) is a very good indicator of what level of civilization they are at, spiritually you could say. israelis are brutes :(
>>671295 There is plenty of study in Israel related to history and religion. I couldn't speak on every liberal arts subject, but I can tell you that archaeology is very highly valued in Israeli society.
>>671303 there are maybe five people majoring in classics at the hebrew university (the preeminent humanities university in israel). that's not an exagerration, i went there and asked for the number. dont get me wrong though, there are places where they are doing good work. i had a hindu roomate that was involved with some cool sanskrit studies that they were doing in bar ilan. but once again, besides the professors it was mostly foreigners and immigrants. there is no value placed on these things in israel. when i would tell people i was interested in classics/philosophy they would look at me like i stepped out of a space ship.
>>671271 >>671280 >>671295 >>671303 >>671308 >>671355 A lot of Israeli intellectuals tend to leave the country as well. Many of the BDS movements on campuses across Europe and the US are endorsed by professors of Israeli origin. These professors are generally in humanities as well.
>>670316 Redpill me on the tribal history Biblical assburgers are so obssed on
So there were 12 (or 13?) tribes + Khazars who claimed to be "13th missing one", right? Then why the hell weren't Pagan Ammonites, Moabites and Edomites counted as part of that? They effectively just spoke a Hebrew dialect, no?
What's with one of those Hebrew tribes claiming Phoenicia? Weren't they direct descendants of Caananites, or Northern part of it?
>>671656 khazar king was converted by a proselytizing jew, then some of the aristocracy also converted
the late jewish kingdom was divided into northern and southern. the northern was called israel amd most of the tribes were there. southern was called judah, and consisted of judah, levi, and benjamin. the assyrians destroyed the northern and those tribes have been gone ever since. random people around the world will claim to be one of those missing tribes. ethiopians claim to be the trube of benjamin i think.
originally 12 tribes. phoenicians are semitic but not jews
>>671674 The Phoenicians were the Levant. Cities like Tyre and Acre were all Phoenician cities, not colonies. On the other hand, Carthage was a Phoenician colony. However, it (along with the other Phoenician colonies) more or less developed its own culture in the years following the collapses of the Levant Phoenician cities.
>>671691 Pretty much yeh. Theyre pretty fascinating peoples. Although it should be noted that, like the Greeks, the Phoenicians werent a unified state, but a people. They consisted of individual city states, each of which produced its own colonies (although they were used as trading bases by all of the Phoenician cities). If you had to pick a Phoenician capital state, it would probably be Tyre. They were arguably the strongest of the Phoenician states before they got cucked by the Assyrians.
>We need to build a safe space after that genocide >Let's do it in the middle of an inhospitable desert where people who hate our religious and ethnic identites have lived for thousands of years >In fact let's move into their territory >We need to live among these genocidal people, it's the only way to avoid another genocide How does this make sense to Jews? Christianity demands a lot of ontological backflips, but Jewish politics are another thing entirely.
>>672647 "Inhospitable" as in the natives want to kill you. >>672794 You know precisely what I mean. The immigrant population of Israel is ny definition not the native population. Sure, maybe native Jews live in Israel, but that can't negate the fact that native Muslims have resented Israelis for a long time.
Thread replies: 88 Thread images: 3
Thread DB ID: 516390
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.