Khazar DNA and the debate over who is Semitic

The DNA reopening the question of who is Semitic in the conflict

Israel was founded in 1948. Since then, the label of antisemite has functioned as a weapon in any discussion about the conflict. The controversy erupts when someone questions the genetic origin of Ashkenazi Jews and claims they descend from the Khazars of the Caucasus, not the ancient Hebrews. The claim, popularized by a book by Arthur Koestler, has been refuted by subsequent genetic studies, but continues to circulate as ammunition in the debate.

The core of the problem is terminological. The term Semite designates a linguistic group — Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic — not a political identity. Confusing Jew with Israeli and with Zionist erases centuries of history and cultural complexity. And there lies the crux: if Palestinians share genetic heritage with Jews, as several studies suggest, the accusation of antisemitism against anyone who criticizes the Israeli government becomes, at the very least, debatable.

The genetic argument and its refutation

The Khazar hypothesis maintains that Ashkenazi Jews descend mostly from Turkic Khazars who converted to Judaism, not from the lineage of the Middle East. A genomic analysis by Doron Behar and other researchers, cited in the debate, refutes that possibility. The evidence points to a common origin in the Levant for Jewish and Palestinian populations.

Some claim that genetic analyses on the Semitism of Israelis are prohibited in Israel. There is no record of such a prohibition in the available material. What does appear is that Palestinians share genes with Mizrahi Jews, and that some Palestinians even have Ashkenazi ancestry. The conclusion drawn by a part of the debate is uncomfortable: in Gaza, some Europeans would be exterminating the true Semitic people of the region.

The startling fact is that Ashkenazim represent a third of Israel's population and less than half of the total of Jewish Israelis. More than 80% of Jews identify as pro-Israel Zionists. That is to say, the equation between Jew, Israeli, and Zionist is not a rhetorical simplification: it is a statistical majority.

The international definition of antisemitism

The IHRA, adopted by dozens of countries, establishes that criticizing Israel as any other country is not antisemitism. The text is cited in the debate to rebut the accusation. The standard, however, includes examples that blur the boundary: applying double standards to Israel or denying its right to exist is considered antisemitic.

Jewish antizionism adds another layer. Organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace and Neturei Karta are Jewish and antizionist. If criticism of Israel were antisemitic, they would also be. The objection is not minor: the argument of Jewish authenticity is used in both directions.

The courts and international law

The International Incivil Court seeks Netanyahu for alleged war crimes. The International Court of Justice has ruled that there is a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza. Aligning with international law is not hatred of Jews, argues one side of the debate. The other responds that the ICC and the ICJ are politicized and that their decisions are not final judgments.

The discussion shifts to international support. Iran, Russia, and China appear as actors challenging the Western order. The "free world" invoked by the United States and Israel is, for another part, the "Axis of Evil" denounced by both countries. The exchange becomes a hall of mirrors.

The escalation in the Middle East

The UN envoy, Mike Waltz, defended potential US attacks on power plants and bridges, dismissing accusations of war crimes as "irresponsible." Attacks on civilians, such as one on a school in Minab, are also mentioned. The proportion of Americans supporting their government's actions is, for some, the most relevant fact.

The war against Iran unleashes an epidemic of gas theft. Incidents of filling up without paying in Great Britain have increased by 27%, while in the United States, tank perforations are reported. The detail, seemingly anecdotal, illustrates how a distant conflict seeps into the daily economy.

The colonial origin and the broken peace

In Palestine, Sephardic Jews, Coptic Christians, and a Muslim majority lived together in enviable peace, argues one side of the debate. The arrival of the English and the Zionists destabilized the area. The idea that this land belonged only to the Jews, as God's people, was distilled from outside.

The argument is not new, but it connects with a broader suspicion: that the United Kingdom, governed by someone not born there, continues to destabilize entire regions. The comparison with Spain and the French house closes the circle.

What remains of all this

The discussion is not resolved. Some see the label of antisemite as a mechanism to silence criticism of Israel. Others see that criticism as an attack on the majority of Jews. Genetic evidence points to a common origin, but does not settle the political debate. And the startling fact is that, the deeper one delves into the DNA, the less clear it becomes who has the right to call whom Semitic.