The Khazar's existed, that's not the point.
It's not sure whether all of them converted to Judaism or just the king and upper echelons.
The claim is that all of Ashkenazi Jews are descended from converted Khazars and therefore have nothing to do with the Middle East.
This is utter nonsense and all evidence disproves it.
What is the source of this claim? 19th century European anti-Semites.
From wikipedia:
"The theory that the majority of Ashkenazic Jews are the descendants of the non-Semitic converted Khazars was advocated by various racial theorists[15][16] and antisemitic sources[16][17][18][19] in the 20th century, especially following the publication of Arthur Koestler's The Thirteenth Tribe. Despite recent genetic evidence to the contrary,[20] and a lack of any real mainstream scholarly support, this belief is still popular among groups such as the Christian Identity Movement, Black Hebrews, British Israelitists and others (particularly Arabs[21][22][23]) who claim that they, rather than Jews, are the true descendants of the Israelites, or who seek to usurp the connection between Ashkenazi Jews and Israel in favor of their own. For more detail on this controversy, see below."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazar#Conversion_to_Judaism_and_relations_with_world_Jewry
Anti-Semite and Anti-Semitism has always been used to mean 'anti-Jewish'. Never do you hear someone who dislikes Arabs called an 'Anti-Semite'.
The word comes from Noahs uncle 'Shem' from whom the people of the Middle East are derived, including the Arabs.
I'm however not hear to play word games.
I'm using the word in its general use, and if it bothers you, kindly replace 'anti-Semite' with 'anti-Jewish' every time that I use it.
"Secondly, you didnot even read the book. before copy-pasting stuff to support NAZIsrael and JudeoFascists.
Otherwise the context of the racist hatred in Talmud would have been very clear to you and it would be also clear to you that Occupation of "Israel" is an Apartheild (Apartheild Wall, Seperate number plates for spearate races) Racist and Occupation and not a "State"!!!
Or perhaps the author Israel Shahak was an Anti-Semite??? LOL"
Who mentioned Israel? You did.
My argument is that this claim attacks all Jewish people.
When you attack the Talmud and say its a racist, hateful document, then you're not attacking Israel, you're attacking Jews and their religion.
I recall that the title of this thread is "The Other Israel: Inner teachings of
Judaism and Talmud"
The Talmud is a collection of rabbinical commentary and the base of Jewish law, not some hate document as you seem to be portraying it.
Throughout history, people have taken quotes from it out of context, or simply twisted and invented some of it.
My question: Why are you propagating things like this if your problem is just with Israel, and not with Jewish people or Judaism?
"Lastly, And don't coin terms like "IslamoFascist" and "Anti-semite" to blame it on the innocent Muslims."
I didn't use those words. The article did.
not pre-judice you see, just a question