Jewish Roots and Modern Israel

[Anonymous]

He's a good Zionist apologetic for Israel.  1/2 - 2/3 of the article goes into justifying the "Jewish" takeover without portraying it as a takeover.  It's all legitimate UN international law folks... nothing to see here.

- - - - - -

The Thirteenth Tribe: The Khazar Empire and Its Heritage. by Arthur Koestler

Reviewed by: Don Peretz

Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2, (Winter, 1977), pp. 133-138


JEWISH ROOTS AND MODERN ISRAEL
Arthur Koestler. The Thirteenth Tribe: The Khazar Empire and Its
Heritage} Random House, New York, 1976. 256pp. $8.95.
Reviewed by DON PERETZ*

The theory that the mass of European Jewry descended from the central
Asian Khazars has long fascinated both Jewish and non-Jewish historians. It is
significant in the context of the dispute between Arabs and Jews because of its
use by those who seek to refute Zionist claims to Palestine based on historical
ties of modern Jewry with ancient Israel. If the overwhelming majority ofJews
are not descended from the Semitic Hebrews of the Old Testament, but rather

*Don Peretz is Professor of Political Science at the State University of New York, Binghamton.
134 JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES

from the Turkic people of Khazaria, then, argue many anti-Zionists, Jewish
claims to Palestine based on the Bible are vitiated if not totally invalidated.
Arthur Koestler, the latest author-historian advocate on this Khazar theory,
explicitly refutes its bearing on modern-day Israel. He writes:
I am aware of the danger that it [his book] may be maliciously misinterpreted
as a denial of the State of Israel's right to exist .....But that
right is not based on the hypothetical origins of the Jewish people, not on
the mythological covenant of Abraham with God; it is based on international
law-i.e., on the United Nation's decision in 1947 to partition
Palestine... Whatever the Israeli citizen's racial origins, and whatever
illusions they entertain, their State exists de jure and de facto} and
cannot be undone, except by genocide.... Whether the chromosomes of
the people contain the genes of Khazar or Semitic, Roman or Spanish
origin, is irrevelant, and cannot affect Israel's right to exist.... The
problem of the Khazar infusion a thousand years ago, however
fascinating, is irrelevant to modern Israel. (p.233)

While discussed only peripherally, it seems that this question is more significant
than the information and arguments Koestler presents in the main body
of his study. In comparing The Thirteenth Tribe with previous research on
the Jewish Khazars done by historians for whom the subject was part of a life
work rather than a dilettantish interlude, I could find little that was new or
original other than Koestler's courage in throwing historical caution to the
wind by selecting those sources that confirm his own strong affirmation of the
Khazar theory.

As is often the case in a much discussed historical theme, those who wrote
about the Khazars before Koestler have used the identical sources but interpreted
much more cautiously what they found. Two of the most reputable historians
to whom Koestler frequently turns in support of his affirmations, Salo
Wittmayer Baron and D.M. Dunlop, have many more reservations about the
interpretations they place on the documentation. Uncertainties arise, not over
existence of a Jewish Khazar kingdom in central Asia, but over the extent of its
Jewishness and the fate of its inhabitants after its demise sometime before the
end of the thirteenth century.

There is sufficient historical data to affirm that the rulers of Khazaria were
converted to Judaism sometime in the eighth or ninth century. Even Koestler
acknowledges that: "The circumstances of the conversion are obscured by
legend... " (p. 63) anq "no doubt inspired by opportunistic motives-conceived
as a cunning political manoeuvre." (p. 62) Baron, in his Social and
Religious History of the Jews} and Dunlop, in The History of the Jewish
Khazars} as well as other historians of the period agree that the conversion was
motivated less by ideological than political considerations. Pressed by the
Byzantines on the west and the Muslims from the east the Khazar conversion
was a defensive tactic to neutralize their country. While Baron cites it as "the
largest and last mass conversion to Judaism," (Vol. III, p. 196) he is uncertain

RECENT BOOKS 135

about its extent and the ultimate fate of the Khazar kingdom's Jewish inhabitants.
In his shorter three volume summary, he states that the question of the
conversion has "not been satisfactorily solved." He cites an earlier authority
who wrote that "the conversion was gradual and proceeded from the royal
house to the upper classes, without ever including the bulk of the people."
(Vol. III, p. 77)

Koestler placed major emphasis on the so-called "Khazar Correspondence,"
an exchange of letters between a Spanish Jewish notable, Hasdi ibn Shaprut
and King Joseph of Khazaria, written in the latter tenth century, to support
his verdict. Both Dunlop and Baron are less sure of the authenticity. Baron
writes of "the paucity and general unreliability of the few Khazarian-Jewish
sources and, particularly, of the crucial letter of King Joseph extant in both a
shorter and a longer version.... " (Vol. II I, p. 196)

There is no doubt that Khazaria and the conversion of its leaders to Judaism
was a fascinating episode, which Koestler described with verve and colour.
From a variety of sources he extracts a chronicle of the era that is exciting and
somewhat novel. He makes up for what is lacking in description of the Khazar
kingdom's Jewishness with the story of its relations in a hostile and barbarian
world. There are lengthy accounts of wars with Arabs, diverse Turkish tribes,
Byzantines, Russians and others. But more interesting from the viewpoint of
contemporary history are the sweeping conclusions derived from this skein of
events and supposed events. On a foundation of data, about whose reliability
other historians still have doubts, Koestler affirms that the dispersed Khazars
were the ancestors of Eastern European Jewry. In summary, he asserts that he
has "compiled the historical evidence which indicated that the bulk of Eastern
Jewry-and hence" of world Jewry-is of Khazar-Turkish, rather than Semitic
origin." (p. 199)

His concluding chapter on "Race and Myth" is indeed an intriguing speculative
essay supporting theories of Jewish non-Semitic roots, but hardly proof
of Khazar-Turkish origins. His argument that there is no Jewish race is cogent
and convincing, and of course long supported by anthropologists. The evidence
he reiterates of diverse racial characteristics among Jews-cranial
measurement, blood types, skin, hair, and eye coloration, and other physical
characteristics - is worth repeating once again, especially in the context of the
the Arab-Israeli struggle where racial or ethnic stereotyping is not uncommon.
His two page discourse on the Jewish nose-with diagrams-and his observation
about the ease with which groups acquire physical stereotypes is both
amusing and an object lesson but supports a theory of what Jews are not,
rather than what they are.

Despite his uncertainties, Baron does not refrain from acknowledging the
importance of the Khazar contribution to Jewish history, yet he is not as
sweeping in his conclusions as Koestler. After falling victim in the thirteenth
century to the Mongol invasion set in motion by Jenghiz Khan, Baron writes
that the last remnant of Khazaria

136 JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES

was largely absorbed by the Golden Horde which had established the
center of its empire in Khazar territory. But before and after the Mongol
upheaval the Khazars sent many offshoots into the unsubdued Slavonic
lands, helping ultimately to build up the great Jewish centers of eastern
Europe.... During the half millennium (750-1250) of its existence, however,
and its aftermath in the East European communities, this noteworthy
experiment in Jewish statecraft doubtless exerted a greater influence
on Jewish history than we are yet about to envisage. (Vol. III, p.
206)

As for the theory that the Jews of eastern Europe, especially those in Poland,
were the descendants of the Khazars, Dunlop concludes that:
This can be dealt with very shortly, because there is little evidence which
bears directly upon it, and it unavoidably retains the character of a mere
assumption to speak of the Jews of eastern Europe as descendants of
'the Khazars would be to go much beyond what our imperfect records
allow. (pp.262-263)

Whether or not they accept the Khazar origins of modern Jewry, most
modern historians do conclude that today's Jews are a congeries of peoples in
terms of race and physical characteristics, yet they are one people in an ethnic
national sense. The fundamental historical question, raised by this observation,
as well as by Koestler's various and at time conflicting conclusions, is
complex. Would Jewish nationalism in the form of Zionism be subverted by
realization that the Jews in the modern world are not a "racially" cohesive
group with common Semitic ancestry? Both anthropological and historical
evidence does seem to indicate that few Jews can reliably trace their origins to
the ancient Middle East. The diverse racial characteristics and physical types
of Israel's Jewish population which includes African Blacks, blond, blue-eyed
"Nordics" from Germany, dark skinned Indians, a few racial Chinese, and the
Eastern European "Semitic" stereotype, refute any theory of common physical
origin. If, as Koestler maintains, most Jews are descended from the Khazars,
this theory is hardly valid for the Jews of Israel. More than half of them are
neither Ashkenazi nor European, but came to the country from long established
African and Asian communities unrelated even in theory to the
Khazars. Yet despite severe strains between the European and the Afro-Asian
Jewish communities in Israel, both claim a common identity with the country.
An explanation of their ties with Palestine, now Israel, is less difficult for
those who are practitioners of orthodox Judaism and their supporters among
Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament. They
perceive Israel as God's gift to the Jewish people, regardless of who the Jewish
people are today or the historical and ethnic transformations through which it
passed during the past two thousand years. Because mere man cannot argue
with or question God's will, the theories of anthropologists, historians, and
scientists can no more invalidate orthodox Jewish claims to Palestine than

RECENT BOOKS 137

scientific theories could or would invalidate the story of Jesus' birth for
pious Roman Catholics.

Since Israel was established in 1948 fewer and fewer Zionists proclaim divine
sanction for their "rights" in Palestine. Indeed, few nationalists of any
genre base their claims on God-given authority. To the extent that historical
claims can be extended back through history on grounds of common racial
origins, national prerogatives of many groups are fortified, and many do seek
to create elaborate mythologies to justify their presence in disputed territories.
However, with new archaeological discoveries and diverse interpretations of
their significance, it becomes increasingly clear that population movements of
the last two thousand years have so scrambled the peoples of Europe, Asia,
and Africa that few if any "pure-blooded" peoples of any significance exist.
Neither Zionists nor Palestinians can claim the disputed country on the basis
of "blood" or racial ties with the peoples who were there in ancient times.
If the Jews are not a race united by common physical characteristics, if increasing
numbers are secularists for whom divine guidance on this matter is
irrelevant, in what sense are they now an ethnic group and on what basis does
this ethnic group claim legitimate rights in Palestine?

First, given the arguments stated above, in what way are the Jews an ethnic
group? Increasingly nationalism is self-defined, i.e. those who identify with a
particular group or state are members of the group, regardless of objective
criteria. The subjective feeling of identity creates identity. In the United States
black identity is less identified with blackness of skin than the association of an
individual or group with black culture and black consciousness. Jewishness is
no longer associated with the angle of a hooked nose or the curliness of hair,
but with subjective identity by an individual with the Jewish people. Many
Palestinians are the off-spring of immigrants who came from Armenia, the
Caucasus, or of inter-marriages between Middle Easterners and Europeans,
but their self-identity as Palestinians rather than percentages of blood or some
other such characteristic determines their national 'identity. "Pure" national
origins have become a myth. It is the people who identify themselves as a national
group at any given moment in history that gives substance and credibility
to the group's existence, not the mythologies of ancient origins and
"blood roots."

Both Jewish and Palestinian self-identity as Jews and as Palestinians gives
their respective national identities credibility and legitimacy. To the extent
that a self-defined national or ethnic group's cohesiveness is reinforced by
common symbols such as language or religion or race or tribe or culture, the
easier it is to assert the existence of objective foundations for identity. But ethnic
or national cohesiveness can exist without such "objective" criteria merely
by the determination and will of a people to exist as a distinctive
group. While common history and ancestral roots may also strengthen group
cohesiveness, they are neither a prerequisite nor a necessary justification for
ethnic or national identity.

138 JOURNAL OF PALESTINE STUDIES

What then of Jewish "rights" in Palestine? Are they more, less or equal to
those of Palestinian Arabs, or do they exist at all? Again, Koestler's book and
the Khazar theory is of little help in answering the question for me since I, too,
have assumed that neither divine sanction nor "blood" origins are anything
other than mythic components of any group's ethnic consciousness and
identity.

Both Israeli Jewish and Palestinian Arab identity with the same country is
justified for existentialist reasons: identity exists deep enough In the consciousness
of both peoples to merit recognition and acknowledgement by
others and to warrant mutual acknowledgement by both. Regardless of the
"blood" roots of either, or the authenticity of the elaborate historical justifications
that each claims for its "rights," the symbolism of Palestine is so deeply
etched in both Jewish and Palestinian consciousness that it is neither quixotic
nor ephemeral. Each may seek to undermine the historical credibility of the
other's justifications for Palestine-centeredness, but no scientific arguments
can diminish the existential claims that each will continue to make.