A linguistic coincidence. Chazir is Hebrew for pig, and it’s an ancient term; it’s in the Bible. Arabic and Aramaic have very similar words for pigs.
Khazar is a Turkic term that the Khazar people gave themselves, but it is unknown where exactly it comes from etymologically. But it’s rather doubtful that it derives from the semitic root for pig.
FWIW, Khazar in Hebrew and Yiddish is pronounced “khoo-zar”, not “chazir”.
So it’s supposed to be some kind of sick burn to “prove” that most of the Jews actually trace their ancestry not back 3000 years to a particular area of Southwest Asia, but only 1300 years to a slightly different area? I’m not surprised people are having a hard time figuring out what the point is supposed to be.
I would genuinely hope that most people have a hard time figuring out what the point of many aspects of Nazi ideology is. Makes them less likely to become Nazis.
Yeah, that was my reaction, too. I mean, not that I expect racism to be logical and make sense, but, “ha! Your ancestors weren’t a tribe mentioned in the Bible, instead, they were a tribe that we only heard of dating back to 500AD, much like the tribe my ancestors were part of! Clearly, you are a lesser human than i am” is a peculiarly weak insult.
But also, i doubt the Nazis relied on a book written in 1976. So i think there’s something missing from this story.
A group of people - especially a minority group - defines itself by the things it shares: a religion, a language, a culture, a country, a history, an origin story and mythology. It’s what we are beyond just individuals. Attack those, and you attack who we are and what binds us together. That may not be important to you, but it is important to some of us.
Not in the Yiddish I was exposed to, but I’ve since learned there are tremendous differences among dialects.
Yes, that makes sense.
Fwiw, the Wikipedia article on the book says;
Koestler biographer Michael Scammell writes that Koestler told French biologist Pierre Debray-Ritzen he “was convinced that if he could prove that the bulk of Eastern European Jews (the ancestors of today’s Ashkenazim) were descended from the Khazars, the racial basis for anti-Semitism would be removed and anti-Semitism itself could disappear”
Which is equally nutty. No one was ever logic-ed out of racism.
Also, my husband’s uncle, a secular Jew, proud of his Jewish identity, had a somewhat similar nutty idea to Koestler’s. He thought the ancient Jews came from the Caucuses (where he had traveled to collect rugs) and that the first kingdom, the land of milk and honey, had been there, and after the Babylonian exile the Jews were moved to the arrid worthless Levant, and the later biblical authors lied and claimed it was their original territory. He didn’t write a popular book, but he had worked out a ton of details and used to explain this to us at length. He wasn’t an antisemite, either. Just a man with a kooky idea.
But i can buy that people who hate Jews would be attracted to random theories that disagree with the stories Jews tell about themselves.
If the specific idea is that Ashkenazi Jews are descended from Israeli Jews and some people from Khazar, that doesn’t really say anything about anything. There’s still that group of Israeli Jews and they were the great majority of the total body of Jews at the time of the mix.
I’m Ashkenazi; and I’ve been taken for Arab. There is quite a lot of variation, but a lot of Ashkenazi do look at least somewhat Middle Eastern.
On my mother’s side we do have a streak of blue eyed blondes — not the whole family, but an occasional example. Obviously some other genetics got in there, though we don’t know when exactly, or whether it was a willing relationship or rape.
I think the idea is that the Khazar leaders made up the whole idea of Judaism and the story of the ancient Israelites in the Bible from whole cloth as part of their three step plan:
It allows them to draw a distinction in their mind between the Jews in the Old Testament (good) and the Jews in the world today (imposters). Surely, thinks the antisemite, these conniving evildoers can’t possibly be of the same lineage as Moses and David and Samson! They must have stolen their identity to try and fool us!
Naw, that can’t be it. The story is that the tribe converted to an existing religion, after two other religions (Christianity and Islam) had spun off from Judaism.
That, on the other hand, makes some sense.
Yeah, I’ve always wondered how antisemitism can be so prevalent among Christians, historically, when the Jews are the heroes of most of our holy book. Which, of course, gets back to the point about bigotry not being logical.
The problem is that there are a lot of different strains of neo Nazi/white supremacist ideology and they don’t all make sense. Well, I’d argue none of them make sense.
What @Smapti is talking about is true of the movements we might call Christofascist. They have to explain why it should be that they hate Jews when Jesus was Jewish, and “these aren’t the REAL Jews” is a convenient method by which to do that. This is also why some in the Arab world praised the book, like the Saudi delegate to the UN; if it was true, it would give them an out from having to have any level of respect for Jews since they would actually be pagans who are just pretending and thus not protected by the whole “People of the Book” thing.
But there are other kinds of Neo Nazis, like the ones who reject Christianity like the Creativity Movement. For those types, presumably disguising themselves as Jews was how the Khazars would cash in on their hard work of converting Europeans to a religion that worships a Jewish person as the Son of God.
Does it make sense? Of course not. It’s a neo Nazi theory.
IANA expert in this stuff. Not by any stretch.
But ISTM that the Jew’s religion-based claim to the land where Israel stands today would be weaker if in fact there were no Jews in that part of the Levant way back when. Instead they were actually all wandering tribes who are really just an offshoot of the Turks.
It’s pretty obvious that depriving modern Jewry of its homeland and refuge is a cornerstone of antisemitic thought. Denying Israel the state’s right to exist where it does is a huge step on the road to denying the right to exist to Jews either as a nation or as individual persons.
But this is just a theory about Ashkenazi Jews. Not about Sephardim, or, for that matter, the Jews whose families have lived in Israel since time immemorial. Nor does it affect the claims that that part of the Levant was largely populated by Jews prior to the Roman genocide of ancient Israel, many of whom did, historically, flee to other parts of the world.
But sure, it does weaken the claim of European Jews to immigrate to Israel. A little.
This is a lot more nuance than I would expect your average Neo Nazi to deploy.
Although many Reform Jews also feel a strong attachment to Modern Israel many of them do not. It’s not that they wish any ill to the people of that nation, but while the historical connection is honored they are more tied to where they are at present.
Or, to put it another way - if I were to return to Germany or Ireland (the ancestral home of the gentile side of my family) and claim I had a right to land there I’d be laughed back across the border. Even more so if I attempted a return to Russia. Yet my ancestors lived there as recently as 150 years ago. Yet I am supposed to have some right to a patch of land that my ancestors on my father’s side probably last set foot on 1800 years ago? I’m supposed to feel a stronger connection to that than to Russia or Ireland or Germany?
Maybe it’s just that I wasn’t raised with it being drummed into me every Saturday that I was supposed to want to go and live in the Levant more than anything else.
Yes, this viewpoint is more common among Reform, Reconstructionist, and Secular Jews. It’s still a Jewish viewpoint/opinion/position.
Because historically there have been people who weren’t Jewish attempting to define who was and wasn’t Jewish. See “Nuremberg Race Laws” for an example where there was malicious intent involved.
The khazar hypothesis, as originally presented, was not inherently anti-Semitic. It has been embraced by some bigots who go on to claim that the Ashkenazi aren’t really Jewish for… reasons. At least, that’s the context in which I’ve always heard it brought up. In my experience it’s always someone who want to claim that Eastern European Jews aren’t really Jews for reasons that will benefit the bigot.
The idea that there was NEVER any sort of actual Jewish presence in the ancient Levant is trivially easy to disprove with historic and archaeological evidence.
The weaker (also clearly incorrect) version of the claim, that all or many Jews today are descended from Khazar converts and not from ancient Judeans, is completely irrelevant from a religious point of view. A convert is just as Jewish as any other Jew, and has the same relationship to the Land of Israel.
The only version of Zionism that this theory would discredit is a gross “blood and soil” version that holds that someone’s right to occupy a piece of land today depends on how closely they are genetically related to the people who occupied it at some arbitrary time in the past. Which is so fundamentally stupid that the fact that the theory is also objectively wrong is almost beside the point.