Showing posts with label genealogy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label genealogy. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 04, 2023

"Battle Scene," Folio from a Zafarnama (Book of Victories) of Sharaf al-Din 'Ali Yazdi

Jews aren’t really Jews, according to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, but Khazars, a nomadic Turkic people. These “Khazar Jews” Abbas claims, have no connection to the Land of Israel, just an invented history and a false narrative of religious rights to the Land of Israel. This, of course, is an inversion of the truth. In reality, it is the “Palestinians” who are an invented people with an invented history, and an invented religious right to Jewish territory. By now there is a large body of definitive proof that the Jews are not descended from the Khazars, but those who hate Israel are not interested in either proof or truth.

The purpose of the Khazar myth is to delegitimize all Jewish claims to Israeli territory while spreading the lie that the land in question belongs to others. It’s an if/then proposition. If Jews are Khazars, they have no legitimate claims to Jewish land, which makes them thieves. Except that the Jews are not Khazars. They are Jews. And for thousands of years, Jews have been overwhelmingly endogamous—they marry each other. Abbas says otherwise, because it serves his interests, the main interest being taking land away from the Jews.

Abbas stands truth on its head. The land, he asserts, doesn’t belong to those Khazar Jews, but to his constituents—if you can call them that, when there hasn’t been an election since Abbas assumed office in 2005. Muwaffaq Matar, Fatah Revolutionary Council member and regular columnist for official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, reported on remarks made by Abbas to “various Palestinian intellectuals,” in a 2021 meeting (emphasis added):

[At the meeting he held, PA] President [Mahmoud Abbas] debunked the Zionist fairy tale, which some call the Jewish Israeli narrative…

The president spoke about the 9th century pagan Tatar-Khazar kingdom, which was established in the Caspian Sea area. It underwent attacks and suffered from wars, and therefore its king sought advice to be saved from this situation. His friend, a Jewish man, advised him to convert. The kingdom followed in his footsteps, and it also converted. It remained like this until the 11th century when the kingdom finally collapsed, and [its residents] scattered in neighboring states. These are the Ashkenazis, who were not originally Jews but rather converted.

But this is a lie, as borne out by science. Jews are endogamous: they marry each other (or did until modern times). A study on Ashkenazi hereditary diseases published in 2022, speaks of historically endogamous marriage practices in Judaism in general, and how marrying within the tribe impacted Ashkenazi Jewry in particular:

Judaism is a shared religious and cultural identity, with endogamous marriage practices and distinctive diasporic histories of communities worldwide, particularly a Levantine origin and complex history of migrations over the last 2.5 millennia. Present-day Ashkenazim are descendants of medieval Jewish populations with histories primarily in northern and eastern Europe. As a result, they carry distinctive ancestries, and Jewish and non-Jewish medieval individuals living in the same regions would likely show characteristic patterns of genetic variation.

Hereditary disorders in Ashkenazi Jewish populations have been the focus of considerable medical research, with genetic screening now commonplace to mitigate risks. Their prevalence is generally attributed to strong genetic drift during Ashkenazi population bottlenecks, coupled with high endogamy, although other processes such as heterozygote advantage have been proposed.

Candidate population bottlenecks include the phase of dispersion following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, the formation of Ashkenazi communities in northern Europe during the medieval period, antisemitic persecution arising from the Crusades, unfounded reprisals for the Black Death, and the movement from western and central Europe to eastern Europe that preceded rapid population growth from the 15th to 18th centuries.

Representation of a massacre of the Jews in 1349 Antiquitates Flandriae (Royal Library of Belgium manuscript, 1376/77)

As we see, the Jews are no Khazars, they married within; but no matter, because Abbas has a useful idiot Jew to lend him credibility. More from the Muwaffaq Matar report:

As proof, the president brought the book ‘The Thirteenth Tribe: The Khazar Empire [and its Heritage]’ by Jewish-Hungarian author and historian Arthur Koestler.

The Jews never were a people and they never will be. The Zionist organization will continue to invent its own history and transpose it into the books of human knowledge, and even into the holy books, in all languages. This is in order to achieve the goal of mobilizing and gathering enough human ammunition [i.e., immigrants] to carry out missions of occupation and settlement, which the colonialist world powers and empires imposed on it.

What of this so-called proof Abbas brings from “Jewish-Hungarian” author and historian Arthur Koestler? According to Yiddish scholar and expert on Ashkenazi surnames Alexander Beider, there is none. Beider describes the evolution of the unfounded Khazar theory in Ashkenazi Jews Are Not Khazars. Here’s The Proof (emphasis added):

Since the late 19th century, the so-called “Khazarian theory” has promoted the idea that a bulk of Ashkenazic Jews living in Eastern Europe descended from medieval Khazars, a semi-nomadic Turkic people who founded a powerful polyethnic state in the Caucasus and north to the Caspian, Azov and Black seas. The theory received a recent boost with the 1976 publication of “The Thirteenth Tribe,” a book by Arthur Koestler. Most recently, the Khazarian hypothesis has been promoted by authors like the Tel Aviv University professor of history Shlomo Sand and Tel Aviv University professor of linguistics Paul Wexler, as well the geneticist Eran Elhaik.

Despite this institutional backing, the theory is absolutely without evidence. As any historian will tell you, generations of Jews, like generations of any people, leave historical traces behind them. These traces come in multiple forms. For starters, people leave behind them historical documents and archaeological data. Predictably, archaeologic evidence about the widespread existence of Jews in Khazaria is almost nonexistent. While a series of independent sources does testify to the existence in the 10th century of Jews in the Kingdom of Khazaria, and while some of these sources also indicate that the ruling elite of Khazaria embraced Judaism, the Khazarian state was destroyed by Russians during the 960s. In other words, we can be confident that Judaism was not particularly widespread in that kingdom.

A later report by Matar on the meeting between Abbas and the so-called “Palestinian intellectuals” details the PA president’s sickening assertions of a connection between Nazism and Zionism. Hitler’s “Jewish question,” according to Abbas, arose from the failure of the “Khazar Jews” to properly integrate into European society:

We must focus on what the president said regarding the [Jewish] question or ‘the Jewish problem,’ because its cause is that the Jews of the Khazar kingdom did not integrate in the European societies.

A separate report on the same meeting, this time written by Muhammad Al-Masri, appeared in Ma’an, an independent Palestinian news agency, on Dec. 25, 2021:

[PA] President Mahmoud Abbas presented those present with a concise historical survey, such that dealt intensively with the injustice caused to the Palestinians when the world powers – and foremost among them the US and Britain – agreed to the theft of the homeland and land and to granting them as a gift to the Zionist movement, which is an inseparable part of the international colonialist movement

President Mahmoud Abbas was clear when he said that inflaming the dreams of the Jews and realizing these dreams within a political entity was not the fruit of the efforts of the Jews themselves, but rather colonialist-theological plans and visions of colonialist world powers, as the modern-day Jews are mostly of Tatar origin. They are descendants of dynasties that established a kingdom in the 9th century called ‘the Khazar kingdom.’ In this statement, it appears that President Mahmoud Abbas sought to say that the colonialist world powers used the Jews in order to execute the great colonialist plan – dismantling the Ottoman Empire and afterwards dismantling the Arab nation.

According to Ehud Yaari, this too is a lot of hooey (emphasis added):

It should be noted that Abbas has his facts about the Khazar empire wrong: the Khazars were not Tatars—rather they were a Turkic people—and [the conversion of the royal dynasty and aristocracy as reported by medieval sources] took place, according to most historians, sometime between 740 and 865 CE. His Prime Minister, Muhammad Shtayeh, also had his dates wrong when declaring on June 26, 2021: “Present day Jews are Khazar Jews, who converted to Judaism in the 6th century.” Regardless of the historical inaccuracies about the Khazar dynasty itself, both statements are instead the product of a more recent and dangerous historical trend, reviving the case offered by the late Syrian president, Hafez al-Assad, against the justification of a Jewish homeland. These assertions follow in the vein of numerous Arab writers who have produced a number of volumes over the past five decades identifying the Ashkenazi communities as refugees from the destruction of the Khazar Qaganate by Prince Svyatoslav of Kiev c.965 CE.

Promoting this narrative has not just been the effort of Palestinian and Syrian politicians; many Egyptian, Saudi, and Lebanese intellectuals have also been drawn to a narrative that deprives contemporary Jews of pre-medieval Jewish lineage and history connecting them back to the land. Books dealing with the subject are still on sale all over the region and these theories are widely available across the internet.

This approach is deeply rooted in a widely popular theme of Soviet anti-Semitism, prevalent in many of the institutions where a number of Arab intellectuals studied. In a state where history became subservient to the reigning ideology, Soviet historians depicted the conversion of the Khazars as a humiliation of the Russians, poisoning their values and beliefs and sowing corruption in society. In a famous article published in Pravda (1951) under the pseudonym “Ivanov”—posited to be Stalin himself—an argument was put forth that it would be “shameful” to accept that a Jewish empire governed the vast area between the Caspian and the Black Seas before the appearance of the early Russian princes. This became the official interpretation of the Khazars, mixing dangerously with contemporary accusations of a “Jewish nationalistic plot.” Abbas would have acquainted himself with these concepts while writing his Holocaust-denying Ph.D in Moscow twenty years later.


Abbas was indeed well acquainted with these concepts. In May 2018, Abbas gave a speech to the Palestinian National Council, the legislative body of the PA, in which he claimed that the nonsensical Khazar theory is backed by Jewish sources:

The sons of Jacob were 12. Where did you bring 13 from? They invented it. Where? In the Khazar Kingdom. When? In the 9th century. It was an irreligious kingdom. Afterwards it became a Jewish kingdom. The emperor converted to Judaism and therefore [the kingdom] converted to Judaism. Afterwards it broke apart, and all its residents migrated to Europe, and these are the Ashkenazi Jews. The Ashkenazi Jews are not Semites, and they have no connection to Semitism or Abraham, Jacob, or others. It was a Tatar-Turkic state...

...Now we are talking about the Jewish homeland. They are talking about longing for Zion and that's why they are going [there] and so forth. I say - not me, rather history says that these words are baseless. 

 

But in fact, science says the baseless idea is the one in which Jews have a Khazar origin story. A 2014 Wayne State University study, No Evidence from Genome-Wide Data of a Khazar Origin for the Ashkenazi Jews, concludes:

Employing a variety of standard techniques for the analysis of population-genetic structure, we found that Ashkenazi Jews share the greatest genetic ancestry with other Jewish populations and, among non-Jewish populations, with groups from Europe and the Middle East. No particular similarity of Ashkenazi Jews to populations from the Caucasus is evident, particularly populations that most closely represent the Khazar region. Thus, analysis of Ashkenazi Jews together with a large sample from the region of the Khazar Khaganate corroborates the earlier results that Ashkenazi Jews derive their ancestry primarily from populations of the Middle East and Europe, that they possess considerable shared ancestry with other Jewish populations, and that there is no indication of a significant genetic contribution either from within or from north of the Caucasus region.

And still, as late as August 24, 2023, Abbas was still spouting his wildly embroidered Khazar lies. MEMRI shared these excerpts:

The truth that we should clarify to the world is that European Jews are not Semites. They have nothing to do with Semitism. . .The story began in 900 CE, in the Khazar Kingdom on the Caspian Sea. It was a Tatar kingdom that converted to Judaism. . . [In the 11th century], this empire collapsed, and all its population left to the north and to the west. They left for Russia and Western and Eastern Europe. They spread there, and they are the forefathers of Ashkenazi Jews. So when we hear them talk about Semitism and antisemitism – the Ashkenazi Jews, at least, are not Semites.

Everybody knows that during World War I, Hitler was a sergeant. He said he fought the Jews because they were dealing with usury and money. In his view, they were engaged in sabotage, and this is why he hated them. We just want to make this point clear. This was not about Semitism and antisemitism.

As for the eastern Jews, they are Semites, because all of them originated in the Arabian Peninsula and they traveled to Al-Andalus, and then came back. We are familiar with this history.

Actually, they are familiar not with history but with lies. Since 2006, the world has known that two fifths of Ashkenazi Jews are descended from four women. Judy Siegel-Itzkovich reported on the discovery by a team of Israeli geneticists:

The team, which studied mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) passed on solely by mothers to their children, found evidence of shared maternal ancestry of Ashkenazi and non–Ashkenazi Jews, a finding showing a shared ancestral pool that is consistent with previous studies that were based on the Y chromosome. This evidence pointed to a similar pattern of shared paternal ancestry of Jewish populations around the world originating in the Middle East. They concluded that the four founding types of mtDNA—likely to be of Middle Eastern origin—underwent a major overall expansion in Europe over the last thousand years.

The “four founding mothers,” [Professor Skorecki] added, “are from lineages that originate long before the launching of the Jewish people some 3400 years ago. They probably came from a large Middle Eastern gene pool.

“As consistent with the Bible, in which the founding Jews were Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and his sons, and the matriarchs were ‘imported’ from non–Jewish peoples and then converted, the haplotypes of contemporary Jewish men are much less varied.”

Is there any truth to the idea that the Khazars converted to Judaism? According to Prof. Shaul Stampfer, no. The research simply does not support this idea: 

Did the Khazars convert to Judaism? The view that some or all Khazars, a central Asian people, became Jews during the ninth or tenth century is widely accepted. But following an exhaustive analysis of the evidence, Hebrew University of Jerusalem researcher Prof. Shaul Stampfer has concluded that such a conversion, “while a splendid story,” never took place. . .

From roughly the seventh to tenth centuries, the Khazars ruled an empire spanning the steppes between the Caspian and Black Seas. Not much is known about Khazar culture and society: they did not leave a literary heritage and the archaeological finds have been meager. The Khazar Empire was overrun by Svyatoslav of Kiev around the year 969, and little was heard from the Khazars after. Yet a widely held belief that the Khazars or their leaders at some point converted to Judaism persists.

Reports about the Jewishness of the Khazars first appeared in Muslim works in the late ninth century and in two Hebrew accounts in the tenth century. The story reached a wider audience when the Jewish thinker and poet Yehudah Halevi used it as a frame for his book The Kuzari. Little attention was given to the issue in subsequent centuries, but a key collection of Hebrew sources on the Khazars appeared in 1932 followed by a little-known six-volume history of the Khazars written by the Ukrainian scholar Ahatanhel Krymskyi. Henri Gregoire published skeptical critiques of the sources, but in 1954 Douglas Morton Dunlop brought the topic into the mainstream of accepted historical scholarship with The History of the Jewish Khazars. Arthur Koestler’s best-selling The Thirteenth Tribe (1976) brought the tale to the attention of wider Western audiences, arguing that East European Ashkenazi Jewry was largely of Khazar origin. Many studies have followed, and the story has also garnered considerable non-academic attention; for example, Shlomo Sand’s 2009 bestseller, The Invention of the Jewish People, advanced the thesis that the Khazars became Jews and much of East European Jewry was descended from the Khazars. But despite all the interest, there was no systematic critique of the evidence for the conversion claim other than a stimulating but very brief and limited paper by Moshe Gil of Tel Aviv University.

Professor Shaul Stampfer

Stampfer notes that scholars who have contributed to the subject based their arguments on a limited corpus of textual and numismatic evidence. Physical evidence is lacking: archaeologists excavating in Khazar lands have found almost no artifacts or grave stones displaying distinctly Jewish symbols. He also reviews various key pieces of evidence that have been cited in relation to the conversion story, including historical and geographical accounts, as well as documentary evidence. Among the key artifacts are an apparent exchange of letters between the Spanish Jewish leader Hasdai ibn Shaprut and Joseph, king of the Khazars; an apparent historical account of the Khazars, often called the Cambridge Document or the Schechter Document; various descriptions by historians writing in Arabic; and many others.

Taken together, Stampfer says, these sources offer a cacophony of distortions, contradictions, vested interests, and anomalies in some areas, and nothing but silence in others. A careful examination of the sources shows that some are falsely attributed to their alleged authors, and others are of questionable reliability and not convincing. Many of the most reliable contemporary texts, such as the detailed report of Sallam the Interpreter, who was sent by Caliph al-Wathiq in 842 to search for the mythical Alexander’s wall; and a letter of the patriarch of Constantinople, Nicholas, written around 914 that mentions the Khazars, say nothing about their conversion.

Citing the lack of any reliable source for the conversion story, and the lack of credible explanations for sources that suggest otherwise or are inexplicably silent, Stampfer concludes that the simplest and most convincing answer is that the Khazar conversion is a legend with no factual basis. There never was a conversion of a Khazar king or of the Khazar elite, he says.

Years of research went into this paper, and Stampfer ruefully noted that "Most of my research until now has been to discover and clarify what happened in the past. I had no idea how difficult and challenging it would be to prove that something did not happen."

In terms of its historical implications, Stampfer says the lack of a credible basis for the conversion story means that many pages of Jewish, Russian and Khazar history have to be rewritten. If there never was a conversion, issues such as Jewish influence on early Russia and ethnic contact must be reconsidered.

Stampfer describes the persistence of the Khazar conversion legend as a fascinating application of Thomas Kuhn’s thesis on scientific revolution to historical research. Kuhn points out the reluctance of researchers to abandon familiar paradigms even in the face of anomalies, instead coming up with explanations that, though contrived, do not require abandoning familiar thought structures. It is only when “too many” anomalies accumulate that it is possible to develop a totally different paradigm—such as a claim that the Khazar conversion never took place.

Stampfer concludes, "We must admit that sober studies by historians do not always make for great reading, and that the story of a Khazar king who became a pious and believing Jew was a splendid story.”  However, in his opinion, "There are many reasons why it is useful and necessary to distinguish between fact and fiction – and this is one more such case."

Mahmoud Abbas lies like a rug and he repeats the same lies over and over again as if they were fact. His constituents and Jew-haters at large already know the drill. Abbas says it, and the Jew-hating echo chamber will happily repeat the false narrative until it takes on a life of its own. Mark Twain said that “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.”

Lies spread like wildfire; they have power. We see it with Mahmoud Abbas and the Khazar origin story. The more Abbas repeats his lies about Jewish lineage, the less anyone cares to hear the truth. The truth simply no longer matters; it has been rendered irrelevant.



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, July 12, 2023


The story goes that my two times great grandfather, Mordechai Shmuel Yanovsky, entered Yaffa port playing dead in a coffin, his wife, my two times great grandmother, Taibe Leah, playing the part of the grieving widow. According to my now 96-year-old 2nd cousin one time removed, who is Israeli through and through, our ancestor came into the Holy Land in a coffin because the Turks did not allow Jewish males to enter Palestine. I mentioned this to an Israeli contemporary who scoffed, “Never heard about such a thing. Many Jewish men openly came to Israel during the 19th century, while our land was occupied by the Ottoman Turks.

“Either the story is inaccurate - or there must be another reason for that, which I'm not aware of.”

I was quite ready to just accept what she said and move on. So many of the stories one or another relative has relayed about our family have turned out to be embroidered or difficult to verify. When I tell people about Mordechai Shmuel playing dead to enter Israel, they inevitably laugh, picturing him like some kind of jack-in-the-box peeking out to see if the coast was clear. That makes me think the story is probably made up. Because it really does seem ridiculous. Still, it would be nice to find a grain of truth in there somewhere—and maybe I did.

In Old Yishuv: Palestine at the End of the Ottoman Period, historian Margalit Shilo writes about the preponderance of women, specifically widows, in Palestine at that time:

Censuses of Jews in Palestine at the end of the Ottoman period reveal that the majority of the Jewish population was female. Demographer and statistician Uziel Schmelz summarized the information gleaned from various nineteenth-century censuses: “Forty-nine percent of all Jewish [adult] women [in Jerusalem] in 1839 and thirty-six percent in 1866 were widows. … There was a considerable excess of women over men in the adult population [of Jerusalem].” According to Schmelz’s calculations, based on a 1905 estimate, the number of Jewish women aged sixty and over was twice that of the parallel age group in men. Schmelz attributes this to two factors: a. widowhood, which enabled Jewish women for the first time to decide what to do with their lives, and b. male mortality, owing to the higher age of husbands compared with their wives and women’s longer life expectancy. Towards the end of the nineteenth century there was a decline in the number of widows.

Keeping my great great grandfather’s manner of entry into the country in mind, I wondered if all those women in the censuses were really widows. Could it be they were registered as widows, but really all had secret husbands who had played dead to get into the Land of Israel so the Turks wouldn’t know? It does seem improbable.

At the same time, the friend I consulted who said my family story is “inaccurate” seems unaware of the fact that the Turks decided to oppose Jewish immigration in 1881, with the assassination of the Czar, Alexander II. In Ottoman Policy and Restrictions on Jewish Settlement in Palestine: 1881-1908: Part I, author Neville J. Mandel, writes (emphasis added):

Periodisation in history is arbitrary, but for the Jews of Imperial Russia, already an unhappy community, the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881 ushered in a painful new era. The pogroms after his death were followed by the notorious 'May Laws' of 1882 which stepped up economic discrimination against the Jews. The stirring among the Jewish community, both physical and intellectual, was heightened. Many more of them started to leave, mainly for America, and not a few began to think seriously about Jewish nationalism, with the result that the 'Lovers of Zion' Movement gained momentum. Some of them, whether for reasons of sheer physical safety or nationalism or a combination of both, thought of finding a home in the Ottoman Empire. The Sublime Porte was well-informed of these trends and of their contagious effects on other Jews, especially in AustroHungary, from the start. What is more, the Porte decided to oppose Jewish settlement in Palestine in autumn 1881, some months before the increased flow of Jews in that direction got under way . . .  

On examination, the Porte's awareness of trends among the Jews of Eastern Europe was not as surprising as it may seem at first sight. Given the aggressive intentions throughout the nineteenth century of Russia and Austro-Hungary on the Ottoman Empire, the Porte had good reason to try to keep abreast of events in those rival empires. Thus, inter alia, its diplomatic representatives in St. Petersburg and Vienna reported regularly on Jewish affairs, and there is even a file in the catalogues of the Ottoman Foreign Ministry, listed under Russia, entitled 'Situation [of] the Jews; Question of their Immigration into Turkey: 1881'.

Moreover, there had been some direct approaches to the Sublime Porte on this matter. In 1879 Laurence Oliphant, an English writer, traveller and mystic, had submitted a scheme to settle Jews on the east bank of the River Jordan. In 1881 a group of English and German businessmen sent a representative to negotiate with the Government for a concession to build a railway from Smyrna to Baghdad, along the length of which they proposed to settle Jews. Their representative saw the Foreign Minister who, according to Reuter's reports, was in favour of Jewish immigration into the Empire. The Council of Ministers considered the question and in November 1881 it was announced that:

[Jewish] immigrants will be able to settle as scattered groups throughout Turkey, excluding Palestine. They must submit to all the laws of the Empire and become Ottoman subjects. With growing numbers of Russian Jews applying to the Ottoman Consul-General at Odessa for visas to enter Palestine, the following notice was posted outside his office a few months later, on April 28, 1882:

The Ottoman Government informs all [Jews] wishing to immigrate into Turkey that they are not permitted to settle in Palestine. They may immigrate into the other provinces of [the Empire] and settle as they wish, provided only that they become Ottoman subjects and accept the obligation to fulfil the laws of the Empire.

The specific exclusion of Palestine had not been expected by the Jews. To them it seemed hard to believe that the Ottoman Government, with its record of hospitality to the Jews since their expulsion from Spain in the fifteenth century, should now forbid Jews to settle in Palestine. When the announcement was made in Odessa, Laurance Oliphant was in Eastern Europe on behalf of the Mansion House Committee, a British organization concerned with the relief of persecuted Jews from Russia and Rumania. The Jews whom he met persuaded him to go to Constantinople in order to find out more about the Porte's policy and also, if possible, to gain permission for numbers of Jews to settle in Palestine. At the same time, though independently of Oliphant, the Central Office of one of the first

'Lovers of Zion' groups was transferred from Odessa to Constantinople in the hope of obtaining a grant of land in Palestine for three hundred settlers. Then, at the beginning of June, Jacob Rosenfeld, the editor of Razsvet (a Jewish paper in St. Petersburg which sympathised with the 'Lovers of Zion') came to Constantinople to investigate the situation as well.

In Constantinople, Oliphant found about two hundred Jewish refugees. He also discovered that on entry to the Empire they were required to adopt Ottoman nationality and declare not only that they accepted the laws of the Empire without reserve, but also that they would not settle in Palestine. Oliphant approached the American Minister at the Porte to see if he would be prepared to try and clarify the position. When General Wallace said that he could only do so if a request came from the Jews themselves, Oliphant sent a telegram to Jews he had met in Bucharest and thus another delegation seeking permission for Jews to settle in Palestine hurried to Constantinople.

General Wallace met this delegation on June 6 and a few days later he spoke to the Ottoman Foreign Minister who confirmed what was known already. It all boiled down to the same thing. Immigrant Jews were welcome in the Empire, but not in Palestine; they could settle in small groups, provided that (a) they relinquished their foreign nationality and became Ottoman subjects, and (b) they did not seek any special privileges, but were content to remain bound by the existing laws.

Enter Herzl:

Ottoman policy remained constant throughout the 1880's and the first half of the 1890s, and it probably was not subjected to any fundamental review until Theodor Herzl's famous pamphlet, Der Judenstaat, was published in February 1896. In this pamphlet, Herzl gave more concrete expression to Jewish national aspirations, arguing (as suggested in the title) that the 'Jewish problem' could only be solved by establishing a Jewish state, possibly in Palestine but possibly elsewhere, in which persecuted Jews could live in freedom and dignity. This pamphlet led directly to the formation of the Zionist Movement in 1897 with Herzl at its head.

It is not generally appreciated that Herzl brought himself and his ideas to the Porte's attention one year before the first Zionist Congress was held. He did so by travelling to Constantinople in June 1896 and making contact not only with several senior officials in person but also with the Sultan through an intermediary. Displaying impressive ignorance of Ottoman sensitivities, Herzl's ideas were not calculated to appeal to the Porte. At a time when the Government's grip over its remaining territories in the Balkans was far from secure, and when the Sultan was under attack from Young Turks abroad for the 'dismemberment' of the Empire, Herzl asked that Palestine should be granted to the Jews with official blessing in the form of what he called a 'Charter'. And at a time when the Government had had more than enough of heavy European interference in its internal affairs, including control of its Public Debt since 1881, Herzl hoped that his Jewish State would enjoy Great Power protection. In exchange for Palestine, he nebulously offered 'to regulate the whole finances of Turkey' for 'His Majesty the Sultan'.

'His Majesty the Sultan' was that enigmatic figure, Abdulhamid II, who came to power in 1876. His presence and personality cannot be ignored because, although the Council of Ministers dealt with the question of Jewish settlement in Palestine from 1881, power and politics in the Ottoman Empire were more and more influenced, and later wholly controlled, by Abdulhamid until the Young Turk Revolution in 1908. Abdulhamid probably knew of the increased flow of Jewish immigrants towards Palestine from very early on. In keeping with his character, his attitude seems to have been one of suspicion and ambivalence. In 1881 he was reported to favour the Anglo-German proposal to settle Jews along the proposed railway from Smyrna to Baghdad; and he was said to have received the Rumanian delegation, which came to Constantinople the following summer (although the evidence for this is weak).

However, in 1891 he told the Military Supervisory Commission at the Yildiz Palace:

Granting the status of [Ottoman] subjects to these Jews and settling them is most harmful; and since it may in the future raise the issue of a Jewish government, it is imperative not to accept them.

And in 1892 the Ottoman High Commissioner in Egypt told Sir Evelyn Baring, the British Consul-General, that the Sultan was disturbed by an attempt to settle Jews on the east coast of the Gulf of Aqaba. But by the following year Abdulhamid appears to have considered the possibility of allowing Jews to settle elsewhere, for he told the Haham Bashi (the Chief Rabbi of the Empire) that he was willing to offer Russian and other oppressed Jews refuge in the Empire, particularly in Eastern Anatolia, so that they together with Ottoman Jews might furnish him with a force of 100,000 soldiers, to be attached to the Fourth Army. This proposal was welcomed by the Haham Bashi and his Rabbinical Council, but nothing came of it because, according to the Turkish (Jewish) historian, Abraham Galante, the Council of Ministers considered it ill-advised – presumably for the reasons outlined above.

In 1896 Theodor Herzl met Philipp Michael de Newlinski, a Polish aristocrat who had once worked in the Austro-Hungarian Embassy at Constantinople and was employed by Abdulhamid for special diplomatic missions. In June Herzl travelled with de Newlinski to Constantinople. On the train there, de Newlinski introduced Herzl to Tevflk Pasa (the Ottoman Ambassador at Belgrade), Karatodori Pasa and Ziya Pasa (both described as 'elder statesmen'), who were returning to Constantinople after the coronation of Tsar Nicholas II. Herzl explained his project to Ziya Pasa, who agreed that 'the benefits in money and press support which you promise us are very great'. But, he warned, 'no one is even likely to have pourparlers with you if you demand an independent Palestine'.

A day after Herzl and de Newlinski arrived in Constantinople, Abdulhamid told the latter that:

If Mr Herzl is as much your friend as you are mine, then advise him not to take another step in this matter. I cannot sell even a foot of land, for it does not belong to me, but to my people. My people have won this empire by fighting for it with their blood and have fertilized it with their blood. We will again cover it with our blood before we allow it to be wrested away from us. The men of two of my regiments from Syria and Palestine let themselves be killed one by one at Plevna. Not one of them yielded; they all gave their lives on that battlefield. The Turkish Empire belongs not to me, but to the Turkish people. I cannot give away any part of it. Let the Jews save their billions. When my Empire is partitioned, they may get Palestine for nothing. But only our corpse will be divided. I will not agree to vivisection.

On June 29, 1882, the first tiny group of 'Lovers of Zion', numbering all of 14 souls, sailed from Constantinople for Jaffa. On the very same day, the Porte cabled the Mutasarrif of Jerusalem, ordering him not to let any Russian, Rumanian or Bulgarian Jews to disembark at Jaffa or Haifa; such Jews were not to set foot in any of the four so-called 'Holy Cities' of Palestine (Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed and Tiberias) and were to proceed to some other Ottoman port aboard the ship they came on.

This prohibition was contrary to one of the Capitulations with Russia which assured her subjects of unrestricted travel throughout the Ottoman Empire (except Arabia). When the Mutasarrif sought clarification from Constantinople, he was ordered to expel all Jews who had settled in the Mutasarriflik within the last four months; only to permit Jewish pilgrims and businessmen to remain for a brief period; and to prevent other Jews (i.e. prospective settlers) from landing. Similar instructions were soon received and enforced in the Vilayet of Sam (embracing the northern part of Palestine). The terms of these and subsequent instructions made it clear that the Porte was primarily concerned to prevent Russian Jews from settling in Palestine. Jews from other countries were arriving in much smaller numbers, and were of correspondingly less concern. 

Irregularities were not long in arising. Some Russian Jews applied for visas to Constantinople, where they obtained permits to travel within the Ottoman Empire. Thus they would arrive at Palestine with valid papers, but as prospective settlers they were refused entry. This led to complaints, and at the end of 1882 the Ministry of Police in Constantinople was ordered by the Council of Ministers to stop issuing internal travel permits to Russian Jews until the Government took a decision on the matter. The reason given for this order was that the Jewish immigrants were not fulfilling the first obligation required of them, i.e. to become Ottoman subjects. In spring 1883 it was reported that a complete bar was being imposed on the entry of all Jews at Beirut and Haifa. Against this, it was still possible for Jews from countries other than Russia and Rumania to disembark at Jaffa. And even in the case of Russian and Rumanian Jews, pilgrims and businessmen were allowed to land.

But the Mutasarrif of Jerusalem appears to have recognized that it did not accord with the Porte's real purpose to admit these Jews who claimed that they came for prayer or business, but in fact came to settle. He therefore turned to Constantinople for advice. A correspondence ensued; the Ministries of Internal and Foreign Affairs conferred; the opinions of the Porte's legal advisers were sought; and the Council of State considered the question in March, 1884. After a further exchange with Jerusalem, it was decided to close Palestine to all Jewish business men, on the grounds that the Capitulations, which permitted Europeans to trade freely within the Ottoman Empire, applied exclusively to areas 'appropriate for trade'- the Council of State did not consider that Palestine was such an area.

Henceforth, only Jewish pilgrims could enter Palestine. Their passports were to be properly visaed by Ottoman Consuls abroad; on arrival they were to hand over a deposit guaranteeing their departure, and they were to leave after thirty days.

In all this, the role of the Powers was crucial. If the entry restrictions were to be effective, they had to be accepted by the Powers, on whose nationals they fell. And, broadly speaking, the Powers did not accept them, since they were bent on preserving their privileges granted under the Capitulations (which, as already mentioned, the Porte was trying to curtail).

There were of course certain differences in the positions taken by the various Powers, depending to some extent on the state of their relations with the Ottoman Empire. For example, from the 1880's onwards, Germany was trying to befriend the Ottoman Empire and on occasion seemed inclined to fall in with the entry restrictions. But in general the Powers refused to acquiesce in them, and so in 1888, after adopting a strong stand, they were able to extract a concession from the Porte permitting Jews to settle in Palestine, provided that they arrived singly, and not en masse.

There is much more to this fascinating history as set forth by Mandel, but halfway through his recitation of the facts, I believe I’d found the answer to my family riddle. Mordechai Shmuel and Taibe Leah left Lithuania, then part of the Russian Empire, for Palestine. Mordechai Shmuel was merchant class, which means he was considered well-off. But he was not entering Palestine as a businessman. The intention of the two, who had arrived with several children, was to make Aliyah: to permanently settle in Eretz Yisrael.

Had he declared himself to be in Palestine on business, after 30 days, Mordechai Shmuel Yanovsky, my ancestor, would have been hunted down and expelled. Arriving in the country for burial, on the other hand, would probably not be seen as “settlement.” As such, the ploy of playing dead, with his wife playing the grieving widow, makes sense.

I have not found any record of other Jewish men playing dead to get into what is today the State of Israel. It does, however, pique my interest that there were so many widows in the Old Yishuv. Is it possible that the women may have been hiding the existence of their men in order to prevent them from being expelled?

Ultimately, my two-times-great-grandparents failed at Aliyah. Mordechai Shmuel and Taibe Leah stayed with relatives in Jerusalem while their farmhouse was being built on land in the newish town of Petach Tikva. That town, founded in 1878, was the first modern Jewish agricultural center located in Ottoman “Southern Syria.”

One day, Mordechai Shmuel set out from Jerusalem to check on the progress of the building in Petach Tikva. During the journey, my ancestor was attacked by three Arab ruffians, beaten unconscious, and left for dead. They were disappointed to see he had only a pair of phylacteries and little cash. My great great grandfather had not seen the need for further provisions for a simple overnight trip.

When Mordechai Shmuel awoke three days later in a hospital in Jaffa, he thought to himself, “This is a crazy place. I’m taking the family back to Lithuania.”

My Israeli cousin relates that his grandfather Nachum Shlomo, who was known to all the cousins as the “Saba from Jerusalem” refused to return with the family and his father, hoping to change his mind, threatened to sit shiva on him. But Shlomo (as he was called) wouldn’t leave, and Mordechai Shmuel did in fact sit shiva for him. They reconciled and eventually, in their old age, Mordechai Shmuel and Taibe Leah returned, living with Shlomo’s family so that they could be buried on the Mount of Olives when they died. And so it was. This time, Mordechai Shmuel stayed dead.

The graves of my great great grandparents on the Mount of Olives, restored after 1967

But here I am today, his great great granddaughter, living in a bustling Jewish State, a grandmother myself now, with deep roots in Israel. I never had to play dead, hide in a coffin, or resort to subterfuge in order to make Aliyah. There were no Turks to stop me.

Today, the Ottomans are no more. The Jews, however, are now firmly ensconced in the Land. This in spite of all the bad people who’d like to push us into the sea and steal our land. It’s fun to watch them froth at the mouth when they see they can’t get their way and make Israel Judenrein once more, as it was for all intents and purposes under the Turks.

In other words, you won’t catch me playing dead in a coffin. I’m here in Israel out loud and proud.

Mordechai Shmuel and Taibe Leah Yanovsky are no doubt amazed at my great good luck. One of their blood in Eretz Yisroel, not here to fake death or to come in my old age to die, but to live and raise more generations in the Holy Land, now a sovereign Jewish state.

Updated for accuracy July 23, 2023



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

AddToAny

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive