This article is from a contributor who asked to remain anonymous
Jewish Ethnic Groups and Genealogy: Sephardic Jews, Mizrahi Jews and Ashkenazi Jews
Historically, Jewish people have been classified by the distinct region they inhabited and the cultural
elements/characteristics they practiced. Despite Jewish historians and scholars acknowledging that a
significant portion of the Jewish people living around the globe converted to Judaism during the last
millennium (and therefore are not descendants of the people of Judea), controversy still exists as to
which group comprises genuine descendants of Judea, and which group comprises converts to
Judaism.
In essence, the Jewish population is divided into the following three main ethnic groups – each of
whom disputably claim a legitimate right to settle in Palestine:
1) Sephardic Jews – descended from the Eastern Mediterranean (Spain and Portugal), Northern
Africa (Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia), and Arab nations in the Middle-East (Levant) region.
They primarily spoke Hebrew.
2) Mizrahi Jews – descended from Central Asia and the Caucus region, and includes Georgia,
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq and the countries ending with the Persian suffix ‘-stan’
(Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan and Afghanistan). Depending
on the country of residence, they primarily spoke Hebrew or various dialects of Hebrew.
3) Ashkenazi Jews – descended from Central and Eastern Europe. They primarily spoke Yiddish
(a West Germanic language).
Almost all of the Jews that perished in the Holocaust were Ashkenazi Jews. Given the geographical
separation from the major events of World War 2, both Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews were largely
untouched by the Holocaust, and generally insensitive to the Ashkenazi preoccupation with it.1
Of the approximate 15.2 million Jews around the world, approximately 64% are Ashkenazi, 30% are
Mizrahi, and the remaining 6% are Sephardic.
The United States hosts the largest Jewish population outside of Israel, with approximately 7.6 million
people (or 2.4% of its population). Approximately 67% identify as Ashkenazi, 3% as Sephardic, 1%
as Mizrahi and the remaining population identify as a combination of the three groups. It should be
noted that this demographic breakdown varies between reporting agencies, since it is based on the
definitive criteria applied by each agency.
Genealogy of the Ashkenazi Jews: The ‘Khazarian Hypothesis’ versus the ‘Rhineland
Hypothesis’
Contemporary Ashkenazi Jews comprise the largest ethno-religious aggregate of modern Jewish
communities, comprising over 65% of the global population of Jewish people. The question of
Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry has been the subject of controversy over the last two centuries (the
debate arose just prior to the establishment of the global Zionist movement), and has yet to be
resolved.
During that period, the debate was narrowed down to two hypotheses that evolved to explain the
origins and emergence of the Ashkenazi Jewish people in Central and Eastern Europe:
1) The Khazarian Hypothesis
The Khazarian Hypothesis, states that the Jewish-convert Khazars – a confederation of Turkic,
Iranian, and Mongol tribes who lived in what is now Southern Russia, north of Georgia and east of
Ukraine, and who converted to Judaism between the 7th and 9th centuries – along with groups of
Mesopotamian and Greco-Roman Jews, formed the basis of the Ashkenazi Jewish population in
Central and Eastern Europe when they fled eastward, following the collapse of their empire in the
13th century. Central and Eastern European Jews (i.e. Ashkenazi Jews) are thus expected to exhibit
heterogeneity between different communities.
2) The Rhineland Hypothesis
The Rhineland Hypothesis states that Ashkenazi Jews descended from Israelite-Canaanite tribes
and left the Holy Land for Europe in the 7th century, following the Muslim conquest of Palestine.
Then, in the beginning of the 15th century, a group of approximately 50,000 left Germany (the
Rhineland) for the east. There they maintained high endogamy, and despite wars, persecution,
disease, plagues, and economic hardships, their population expanded rapidly to around 8 million in
the 20th century. Due to the implausibility of such an event, this ultra-rapid expansion was explained
by Prof Harry Ostrer, Dr Gil Atzmon, and their colleagues as a ‘miracle’. Under the Rhineland Hypothesis, Central and Eastern European Jews (i.e. Ashkenazi Jews) would be very similar to each other and would have a predominant Middle Eastern ancestry.
Zionism and the ‘Law of Return’
The concept of the “Jewish people” remains controversial. A central tenet of Zionism is the Law of
Return – the Israeli law that established the right of Jews around the world to settle in Israel and
which remains in force today.
It should be noted that Zionism emerged in Central and Eastern Europe, and was driven by both
secular and Ashkenazi Jews. Consequently, the Rhineland Hypothesis carries major political
significance and consequences. It is the narrative that has been used by the Zionist movement to
claim legitimate rights of the Ashkenazi Jews to settle in the region of Palestine. Any findings that
contradict these claims would significantly undermine the Zionist movement and cause widespread
controversy and potential conflict.
Throughout most of the 19th century, an estimated 60% of the Jewish population in Palestine was
Sephardic. By the mid-1930’s, this dropped to 23%, because from 1919 to 1948, approximately 90%
of the immigrants to Palestine were Ashkenazi Jews.
Sephardic immigration rose rapidly in the late 1940’s, and from 1948 to 1962, 55% of Jewish
immigration were Sephardi Jews. By the late 1970’s, Sephardi Jews constituted 55-60% of the
Jewish population and a near-majority of the Jewish electorate. Currently, the Jewish population in
Israel comprises approximately 53% Sephardic/Mizrahi Jews, and the remaining 47% are Ashkenazi
Jews. It should be noted that this demographic breakdown varies between reporting, since it is based
on the definitive criteria applied by each agency.
Genealogy and Genetic Research: Zionist influence undermining transparency and integrity
Despite the discovery of DNA structure by Watson and Crick in 1952, the use of DNA tests to
determine genetic genealogy did not progress until the late 1980’s. In regard to the ethno-religious
aggregate of the modern Jewish community – namely the three main ethnic groups (Sephardic,
Mizrahi and Ashkenazi), genetic research using DNA samples enabled the transition from
unvalidated historical accounts and questionable biblical teachings to robust scientific evidence. This
research also enables the opportunity to determine the ancestry of the indigenous peoples of
Palestine who inhabited the land prior to the migration of Central and Eastern European Jews (i.e.
Ashkenazi Jews) in the late 19 century onwards.
1) Genetic Profile of Palestinians: Human Immunology publication
In 2001, the scientific journal Human Immunology published a paper which investigated the genetic
profile of Palestinians for the first time (3), using human leukocyte antigen (HLA) gene variability and
haplotypes. The archaeologic and genetic data (including analysis of human leucocyte antigen gene
variability and haplotypes) showed that both Jews and Palestinians came from the ancient
Canaanites, who extensively mixed with Egyptians, Mesopotamian, and Anatolian peoples in ancient
times. Thus, the paper concluded Palestinian-Jewish rivalry is based in cultural and religious
differences, but not in genetic differences.
However, following publication of the paper, it was controversially retracted, despite being peer reviewed and approved for publication. There was no evidence and no claim of scientific inaccuracy.
The paper was not retracted for the quality, review and presentation of the data. In fact, its scientific
rigour was not questioned or criticised at all. It was retracted because the language was considered
(post-review and post-publication) to be “politically biased”.
The retraction of a peer-reviewed article for reasons unrelated to science was unprecedented, and
has never occurred since.
2) Outrage within the Scientific Community: Baseless Reasoning for retraction
In 2003, the British Medical Journal published an editorial article by Karen Shashock, who criticised
the Human Immunology journal’s actions, following her investigation of the matter. (4)
Shashok discovered that the words included in the manuscript that may have been deemed as
concerning were likely a consequence of English not being the first language of the authors.
Consequently, they directly translated specific words from the native language to English, which
posed different meanings. Moreover, the chief author of the study assumed they were not
responsible for the editing of the language.
Overall, Shashok found that there was an absence of any procedural fairness and little regard for due
process, concluding that the publisher contravened the expected editorial standards of journal
publishing. However – well before Shashok’s editorial article was published – numerous scientists had
already written to the American Society of Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics (who sponsor the
Human Immunology journal) to protest the retraction of the paper and accused the society of
unethical behaviour, stonewalling and pandering to the Zionist lobby groups. (5)
3) John Hopkins Genetic Study: Supporting the Khazarian Hypothesis
In 2013, a John Hopkins genetic study showed that approximately 32% of Judaics living in Israel
have no ancient Hebrew DNA, are therefore not Semites, and have no ancient blood ties to the land
of Palestine. (6)
It found that approximately 80% of Palestinians carry ancient Hebrew DNA, identifying
them as Semites. The study’s author, Dr Eran Elhaik, is a Jewish Israeli-American geneticist and
bioinformatician.
Fellow geneticists Marcus Feldman, Harry Ostrer, Doron Behar, Michael Hammer, and Gil Atzmon
were strongly critical of Elhaik’s study. However, it was revealed these five geneticists were Zionist
advocates and had been previously accused by their peers of being biased in their own research to
align with the narrative that Ashkenazi Jews originated from the Levant in the Middle-East. (7)
Furthermore, in the interests of transparency, Elhaik shared his raw data with scientific colleagues.
Despite frequent requests from Elhaik to access Ostrer’s data from his studies, Ostrer has either
refused the requests, or cited strict conditions before releasing the data – including assurances that
there are “no adverse findings for the Jewish people” within the data.
Additionally, various Zionist lobby groups were observed to be unrelenting in the pursuit of
discrediting both the researcher and his research, and used intimidation tactics against the broader
scientific community to suppress and reject the findings.
4) Research investigating the origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews and the Yiddish language.
In 2017, Dr Eran Elhaik and his colleagues published another research paper in the journal Frontiers
in Genetics, which was regarded by the scientific community as rigorous and well-designed.8
In this study, the geographical origins of Ashkenazi Jews (AJs) and their native language Yiddish were
investigated by applying the Geographic Population Structure (GPS) to a cohort of exclusively
Yiddish-speaking and multi-lingual AJs. GPS localised most AJs along major ancient trade routes in
north-eastern Turkey adjacent to primeval villages with names that resemble the word “Ashkenaz.”
DNA analysis revealed that the maternal line of AJs is European. Furthermore, the DNA of AJs has
only 3% ancient ancestry linking them to the Levant (Middle East), which is a miniscule amount and
similar to what modern Europeans as a whole share with Neanderthals.
The findings of this study were compatible with the hypothesis of an ‘Irano-Turko-Slavic’ origin for
AJs and a Slavic origin for Yiddish, and were at odds with the Rhineland hypothesis, which
advocates a Levantine origin for AJs and German origins for Yiddish.
The findings advance three ongoing debates concerning:
a) the historical meaning of the term ‘Ashkenazi’;
b) the genetic structure of AJs and their geographical origins as inferred from multiple studies
employing both modern and ancient DNA and original ancient DNA analyses; and
c) the development of Yiddish.
The study provided additional validation to the non-Levantine origin of AJs using ancient DNA from
the Near East and the Levant. It also reinforces the Slavo-Irano-Turkic origin relating to the
Khazarian Hypothesis. Overall, the results of the study reinforce the non-Levantine origins of
Ashkenazi Jews.
Astonishingly, despite the landmark findings, the study was met with relative silence within the
scientific community, and received minimal – if any – media attention. (9)
5) Integrity and ethical practice in Genealogy and Genetic Research
Research relating to or having implications for the Khazarian Hypothesis and the Rhineland
Hypothesis will remain highly controversial while there is:
i. A conflict of interest amongst specific research groups – arising from various personal and
social agendas, and
ii. Undue influence and interference by external stakeholders, including Zionist groups.
This field of research warrants the intervention of an international and independent scientific agency
to ensure transparency and ethical practice. Furthermore, it should be noted that:
a) Almost all research related to or having implications for the Khazarian Hypothesis versus the
Rhineland Hypothesis since 2013 has been conducted and published by geneticists who are also
Zionist advocates and recognised supporters of the Rhineland Hypothesis.
b) The sole critics of the Khazarian Hypothesis appear to share similar circumstances – being that
the individuals are of conservative Jewish background and Zionist advocates (e.g. Prof. Neil
Risch).
c) Independent geneticist and genealogy researchers deem any potential research that may be
linked or have implications for the Khazarian Hypothesis versus Rhineland Hypothesis as too
high-risk to undertake – in terms of both reputation and potential repercussions to their careers.
Consequently, they refrain from engaging in any such related research – confining the research
activity to those who possess a potential conflict of interest.
d) As researchers advocating for the Rhineland Hypothesis, Harry Ostrer and his colleagues
introduced the theory of a miracle (known as the ‘Demographic Miracle’) to explain how a group
of approximately 50,000 Jews in Central and Eastern Europe (i.e. Ashkenazi Jews) during the
15th Century exploded to a population of approximately 8 million in the 20th century.1
Astonishingly, the same researchers have hindered all efforts challenging this explanation since.
The controversy that has the broader scientific community concerned is that the geneticists
advocating for the Rhineland Hypothesis and strongly refuting the Khazarian Hypothesis have
essentially become the ‘gatekeepers’ of this research field, raising questions around impartiality and
transparency.
As it stands, researchers who express a curiosity and willingness to further investigate the Khazarian
Hypothesis are labelled ‘anti-Semites’ and are often subjected to intense and hostile scrutiny for their
scientific rigour, while at the same time the scientific community are expected to accept the invention
of a dubious theory (i.e. ‘Demographic Miracle’) – in the absence of sufficient evidence. (2)
Research transparency is central to ethical research practice. This is especially critical when the
results have significant implications and potentially carry considerable consequences. The stakes
could not be higher for a situation where settlers have asserted their right to colonise an occupied
territory on the basis that the occupiers claim to be the original descendants of that region.
It is the responsibility of the collective scientific community to adequately scrutinise this research and
implement mechanisms to ensure there is transparency, independence, and accountability. Until
then, this field of research remains highly contestable.
References
1) Authors Witheld. Israel: The Sephardi-Ashkenazi Confrontation and its Implications. Central
Intelligence Agency Report. June 1982: NESA 82-10188.
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP06T00412R000200840001-6.pdf
2) Atzmon G, Hao L, Pe’er I, Velez C, Pearlman A, Palamara PF, Morrow B, Friedman E, Oddoux
C, Burns E, Ostrer H. Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora
Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry. The
American Journal of Human Genetics. 2010; 86: 850–859.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3032072/pdf/main.pdf
Harry Ostrer and his colleagues coined the phrase ‘Demographic Miracle’ in 2010 to explain a
period between the 15th and 19th centuries where the population of Jews in Central and Eastern
Europe grew from 50,000 to almost 8 million people.
3) Arnaiz-Villena A, Elaiwa N, Silvera C, Rostom A, Moscoso J, Gómez-Casado E, Allende L,
Varela P, and Martínez-Laso J. The Origin of Palestinians and Their Genetic Relatedness With
Other Mediterranean Populations. Human Immunology. 2001; (62): 889-900.
https://europepmc.org/article/med/11543891
4) Shashok K. Education and debate: Pitfalls of editorial miscommunication. British Medical Journal.
2003; 326:1262–1264.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126131/
5) Journal axes gene research on Jews and Palestinians. 25 November 2001
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/nov/25/medicalscience.genetics
The paper, ‘The Origin of Palestinians and their Genetic Relatedness with other Mediterranean
Populations’, involved studying genetic variations in immune system genes among people in the
Middle East.
In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people
were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team’s research
challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited.
In the wake of the journal’s actions, and claims of mass protests about the article, several
scientists have now written to the society to support Arnaiz-Villena and to protest about their
heavy-handedness.
One of them said: “If Arnaiz-Villena had found evidence that Jewish people were genetically very
special, instead of ordinary, you can be sure no one would have objected to the phrases he used
in his article. This is a very sad business.”
6) Elhaik, E. The Missing Link of Jewish European Ancestry: Contrasting the Rhineland and the
Khazarian Hypotheses. Genome Biology and Evolution. 2013; 5(1):61–74.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3595026/
7) ‘Jews a Race’ Genetic Theory Comes Under Fierce Attack by DNA Expert (7 May 2013)
https://forward.com/israel/175912/jews-a-race-genetic-theory-comes-under-fierce-atta/
Erhan Elhaik said that proponents of the Rhineland Hypothesis also have a political agenda,
claiming they “were motivated to justify the Zionist narrative.”
To illustrate his point, Elhaik swivels his chair around to face his computer and calls up a 2010
email exchange with Ostrer. “It was a great pleasure reading your group’s recent paper, ‘Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era,’ that illuminate[s] the history of our people,” Elhaik wrote to Ostrer. “Is it possible to see the data used for the study?”
Ostrer replied that the data are not publicly available. “It is possible to collaborate with the team
by writing a brief proposal that outlines what you plan to do,” he wrote. “Criteria for reviewing
include novelty and strength of the proposal, non-overlap with current or planned activities, and
non-defamatory nature toward the Jewish people.” That last requirement, Elhaik argues, reveals
the bias of Ostrer and his collaborators.
Allowing scientists access to data only if their research will not defame Jews is “peculiar,” said
Catherine DeAngelis, who edited the Journal of the American Medical Association for a decade.
“What he does is set himself up for criticism: Wait a minute. What’s this guy trying to hide?”
8) Das R, Wexler P, Pirooznia M and Elhaik. The Origins of Ashkenaz, Ashkenazic Jews, and
Yiddish. Frontiers in Genetics. 2017; (8):87.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgene.2017.00087/full
9) Dr Eran Elhaik: The origin of Yiddish and Ashkenazic Jews (29 July 2022)
‘JUDEOPHOBIA’ VERSUS ‘ANTI-SEMITISM’: THE ZIONIST SCHEME
Judeophobia was a term commonly used in the English language meaning hostility to, prejudice
towards, or discrimination against people belonging to the Jewish faith. The term was included in the
class of other terms relating to prejudice and discrimination including Islamophobia, Xenophobia, etc.
Semite is a term commonly used to refer to a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a
Semitic language, including in particular the Arabs and Jews. Moreover, it related to (or denoted) a
family of languages that include Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic and certain ancient languages such as
Phoenician and Akkadian, constituting the main sub-group of the Afro-Asiatic family.
The replacement of the term ‘judeophobia’ with ‘anti-semitism’ in both Central and Eastern Europe
during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s – before it occurred in the English speaking world – remains
an intriguing phenomena. The significance of this subtle change in nomenclature would not be
realised until future generations. Many historians and linguists believe that this was driven by the
Zionist movement to ensure that Ashkenazi Jews were regarded as people indigenous to the Levant
(Middle-Eastern) region. In other words, it was another means of shifting the narrative regarding the
ancestry of the Ashkenazi Jews from the Khazarian Hypothesis to the Rhineland Hypothesis. The
theory behind the origin of the term ‘anti-Semitic’ is supported by the following five factors:
1) The central tenet of Zionism is the Law of Return – which asserts the right of Jews around the
world to settle in Palestine. It would be difficult to justify the colonisation of Palestine by
Ashkenazi Jews if they were not regarded as indigenous to that region.
2) The period in which the transition of the terms ‘judeophobia’ to ‘anti-semitism’ occurred, coincided
with Zionist efforts to a step-up the emigration of Ashkenazi Jews to Palestine.
3) The term ‘anti-semitism’ traces its origins of its use by Ashkenazi Jews in Germany during the
late 1800’s, and was first used in print in Germany in 1879. It gradually became a more
commonly used term in Central and Eastern Europe around the early 20th century.
4) In the early 20th century, the term ‘judeophobia’ gradually began disappearing from the English
vocabulary, while it was ultimately replaced by the term ‘anti-Semitic’ – throughout the period
leading up to the establishment of Israel in 1948.
5) Since the term ‘anti-Semitic’ became associated with persons belonging to Jewish faith, the term
‘Semite’ also became exclusively associated with the same group – ultimately disassociating it
with Arabs.
There is little doubt that the ethnic group most impacted (and disadvantaged) by the transition of
terms are the Palestinian people, who are no longer associated with the term ‘Semite’. Consequently,
their historical connection to the land that the term ‘Semite’ represents has also been diminished.
The irony – and tragedy – in all of this is that Zionism is anti-Semitism – in the true sense of the word.
Zionism prejudices, discriminates against, and oppresses Semites – both Arabs and Jews. Those
who practice true forms of Judaism view all human beings as equals. Their prime aspiration is to be
altruistic through a vocation of their passion, and strive to make the world a better place – regardless
of their habitation. The fundamental principles of Zionism oppose and undermine these tenets.
Reference
Reform Judaism versus Zionism (Video: 24 August 2022)
