European Jews are Descended Almost Entirely from the Khazars

Thank you for this great debate. In this paragraph I will conduct my Summary, as well as necessary last rebuttals. Summary and last Rebuttals: As for the Debate Topic "European Jews are Descended Almost Entirely from the Khazars" I can, after several rounds of debate and many hours spent researching this Topic only come to the conclusion that the statement made by the topic is factually in all accounts incorrect. Pro has brought forward many good arguments, but in the end these do not create a logical explanation as to the outstanding question, as well as when cross examined by historical as well as scientific evidence do not conclude as factually correct. I will summarize what can be concluded from the debate below: The Khazar theory, as to the descend of the Ashkenazi Jews was created in 1887 as a part of the book 'History of Israel' by Ernest Renan, after writing his book 'Origins of Christianity'. Renan was an Anti-Semite, while I have included antisemitic quotes by him I did not provide any evidence as to their origin. I will thus, as a bonus provide more antisemitic quotes made by this man and then conclude what connection this has to the topic. In the book that made him most famous during his life, 'Life of Jesus', Renan states that "Jesus was transformed from a Jew into a Christian, and that Christianity emerged purified of any Jewish influences", or in general claiming that Jesus was able to purify himself of Jewish traits and that Jesus became an Aryan. (Susannah Heschel (2008). The Aryan Jesus: christian theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany. Princeton University Press. p. 34". ISBN 978-0-691-12531-2. Retrieved 31 May 2013) If I connect that with his statement "I am therefore the first to recognize that the Semitic race, compared to the Indo-European race, truly represents an inferior combination of human nature." (Arvidsson, Stefan (2006). Aryan Idols: Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science. University of Chicago Press, p. 107) he even prides himself in being an anti-Semite. Now, to analyse why he would have made that claim around this time, as in my opinion it would not have taken nearly 900 years for something like the Khazar theory to be stated if it was true, someone would have noted this down in history way before 1887. So lets look at the late 19th century. A new idea was created. The idea of Zionism. Now, I would argue that a pro-Semite can be anti-Zionism, but an anti-Semite has no reason to be pro-Zionism, he would be anti-Zionism. And what easier way to dispel Zionism than to just claim that the Jews are actually not Jews, and as such have no right to Zionism. This makes perfect sense, though Renan never stated that this was his reason. But just to be honest, no fraud will admit he is lying. So the Khazar theory was most likely based on a anti-Zionist lie by an anti-Semite to dispel the right of Zionism. Quite logical. As for the Term 'Ashkenaz', I was simply trying to prove that this terminology existed way before the Khazar Kingdom, in fact about 1200 years before the Khazars. Also, as pro states as well, the term 'Ashkenazi' was suddenly used to describe all Jews in Europe, and as such would increase the number of Ashkenazi as well as dispel the belief that the European Jews are descend of the Khazar, as there were Jewish communities in Europe way before the Khazar Kingdom even existed. As for the Ashkenazi not containing their heritage of Judaism as well as their connection to the Levant, 25% of all Ashkenazi live in that area (2.8 million) while only about half as many live in Europe and Asia (Russia). About 50% live in the U.S. (5-6 million). Also stating that 92% of Jews (Ashkenazi make 92% of all followers of Judaism) are not practicing 'same, or even slightly similar, forms of Judaism' to the original form seems to be ridicule. The people who are called Ashkenazi today would have been called Sephardic (for example) 900 years ago. The definition changed. As for pros argument of no proof that Jews expelled by Muslim countries would have settled in Khazar, lets look at current issues. Lets use the Syrian war, made extremely popular by media at the moment and lets think about the poor civilian refugees of war. They are in fact subject to the same phenomenon that the Jews would have been subject to 1200 years ago. The majority of refugees have fled to Turkey and Lebanon. Why? Because these countries are right next to Syria. People will not travel thousands of miles to Europe if the Kingdom of Khazar and the Byzantine Empire are right there and safe. This wasn't done 1200 years ago and is not done now. Especially not in 800 CE, where travel was significantly harder than nowadays and roads were dangerous. The distance from the Levant to Khazar is about 1500 km. To Constantinople about the same. The land route to Europe though, which would have been what people would have had to use, would have been double that much, about 3000 km. Now, which one would you choose? As for the next statement, the difference of practice of Ashkenazi Jews. I will say it again. 92% of all Jews are considered Ashkenazi. Thus stating that they changed their culture would seem strange. If you consider the old meaning of Ashkenazi, the definition of German Jews, yes, they have a different culture. But as pro herself stated, Sephardi Jews speak their own language, thus negating the apparent difference as nothing special. I however did not admit that Yiddish started as a Slavic language. I stated that 'modern Eastern Yiddish is based on Slavic languages'. The based on meaning containing words and phrases, which is logical. Also note the 'Eastern' in the statement. Yiddish is based on German as stated, meaning pro misrepresented my statement as I never stated that 'Yiddish did begin as a Slavic language'. I also like to refer to 'Yiddish FAQs - Department of Jewish Studies', stating that there are about 600 thousand Yiddish speakers today, meaning that a mere 5.5% of Ashkenazi can speak Yiddish, the majority in Israel and the US. Also I did not allege that 'Jews in Eastern Europe began speaking it after WW2', I stated 'Christianities history with Jewish persecution we suddenly get a good image'. Note here the alleged Host desecration depicted by this 15th Century woodcut, describing the killing of all Jews that did not convert. Jews fled Europe well before the 20th century and did migrate to the east and later to America. (http://upload.wikimedia.org...) Thus again showing a statement taken out of context by pro. As I have stated before, pro is not using the correct definition of 'Ashkenazi' and seems to change it whenever it fits. Once they are German Jews, once they are all European Jews. This is why I have placed such great emphasis on the definition. Pro though alleges 'cultural changes', but is not realizing she is describing different people over different times. As I have stated before, the definition changed dramatically. If in fact all Ashkenazi Jews originate from Khazar, 92% of Jews, 11 million people (after the holocaust with 6 million Ashkenazi victims) are descendants of 1.4 million, of whom not even many were Jewish. This is illogical. The majority of Ashkenazi lives in the US, while another 2.8 million live in Israel. I do not think many people would allege compromised believes within those 2.8 million, as pro does. I think they would be described as Jewish, just like any other follower of Judaism. There is no cultural difference, especially being the majority. Pro states historical references, fails to reference these though. And of course new communities would be different to Sephardi Jews, being from the Iberian Peninsula as well as Mizrahi Jews, as this term was not even used prior to the state of Israel, but they defined themselves as Sephardi. Now, the Iberian Peninsula to Khazar is nearly 4000 km linear distance. Of course there will be a difference in culture in some sense. Also, there are no records as to an 'explosion' of followers following the fall of the Khazar Kingdom and there are no records of this to my knowledge. Once again, Pro does not provide evidence of this. ------ To conclude this summary I would once again like to look at the origins of the Khazar Theory, being made by an anti-Semite, most likely for anti-Zionist reason. Why would such claims be made 800 years later? I am sure somebody would have noticed this way before, if true. However there is no historical evidence supporting the Theory, nor does modern DNA research by 30 accredited Scientists from 13 different Universities, as stated already in Round 1, support the Theory in any way. Pros main arguments were the historic study of the Old Testament, a non historic book, made by an anti-Semite, the term 'Ashkenazi' together with differences from other Jews, while the definition has changed many times over the last 4000 years and as such not providing a lot of evidence, language that has no context to descend, migration that happened as well as one scientist proven wrong by 30. Con has evidently shown that there is no link, whether historic nor scientific, as there is no evidence of descend of the majority of European Jews, namely Askenazi to the Kingdom of Khazar. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I would like to thank pro, as well as all voters for reading through this large Debate. I would like to applaud pro, though I have spent many hours researching this topic, as it seemingly was harder for her side to find arguments. Kind regards for a great Debate, I hope we can Debate again. WAM.