The Balfour declaration lacked both legitimacy and legality. It was made when Britain had no right, no sovereignty, no mandate over the lands it was speaking about. Besides it did not consult the people living in those lands, whose rights would be infringed by decisions taken by a foreign power. However the declaration in itself was ambiguous for a purpose. The idea behind it was not to give Jews a state, but "a homeland". In fact the article "a" and not "the" was used to underline this. The reason behind this declaration was that Jews who were currently dispossesed due to the pogroms being carried out in Russia, Poland and other Eastern European states would have a land they could emigrate to and become citizens of that state but not to create a state of their own. In fact the whole idea was that Jews would ultimately become citizens if the state of Palestine. This is borne not just by this declaration but also by the imposition of a limited number of Jewish migrants into Palestine. The British did not want the Jews to be so numerous in Palestine, as to become a sizable majority. That things eventually changed was due to a number of factors. One was the original idea of the Zionists to take over Palestine and revive the old Jewish state, an idea borne by most if the writings of the fathers of Zionism. Secondly, although the British put a numerus clausus on the number of Jews entering Palestine, many more did emigrate to the land, in a clandestine, illegal way. Thirdly the British finally became tired out especially by the number of Jewish terrorist attacks. So the British washed their hands of the situation so much so that when finally the UN came to vote over the partition of Palestine (for which many countries were forcibly made to vote favourably by Jewish interests), it abstained. For the mess that Britain created the Palestinian people have been suffering ever since.
The Balfour declaration was adopted by the international community after the end of WW1 in the form of the League of Nations. So the international community certainly thought it had legitimacy. But the Belfour declaration wasn't as important as the San Remo conference of 1920.
Britain didn't create the Mandate for Palestine after WW1, it was the international community that created the Mandate for Palestine in the form of the League of Nations. You can blame Britain all you want but it was the precursor to the UN called the League of Nations that created the Brith Mandate for Palestine. The sole purpose of said Mandate was to create a Jewish State. Almost all of the countries in the middle easte were created after WW1 using the Mandate system. The League of Nations created almost every country in the middle east, not Just the Mandate for Palestine. The British had administrative authority over Palestine but it was granted by the League of Nations. The whole purpose of the Mandate of Palestine was to create a Jewish State once there was enough Jews in the area, but the Brits sabotaged it's main purpose by restricting Jewish emigration to Palestine to appease local Arabs populations. The Brits have blood on their hands, they restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine right before the outbreak of WW2. They were responsible for the death of Jews fleeing the Nazis, they turned the boats around and sent them back to their deaths. The US and Canada did the same thing.
It should be noted that the Brits tried to creat a country out of Palestine Mandate for the Jews and Arabs living there, even though they had no authority to do so. This offer was begrudgingly accepted by the Jews and refused by the Arabs, as they developed a habit of refusing every offer of statehood that including giving land to Jews or Israel. The Palestinians finally got a state though when Israel withdrew from Gaza strip in 2005. Even though the Palestinians don't acknowledge Gaza is a state, it is. They have there own government, in the form of the terrorist organization of Hamas. They have defined borders. Gaza could thrive if it didn't waste it's resources on fighting Israel. If Hamas declared peace with Israel, and that it was giving up it's war, Gaza could seriously thrive. The Palestinian suffering is mostly self inflicted. After Israel's independence, the Palestinian Arabs never stopped fighting Israel, long before Israel has any control of Gaza of The West Bank. Israel's existence has been the main issue for the Palestinians and for most of the surrounding countries. That is why the PLO called for the liberation of Palestine before Israel controlled West Bank and Gaza. The 1963 PLO charter explicitly stated they didn't claim the West Bank or Gaza for statehood, but it was Israel that needed to be liberated. If the Palestinians wanted peace they could have had a state of their own long before Israel's withdrawal in 2005. They were offered statehood in the 30's, the 40's and in the early 2000's.
@@rennyskiathitis8178 To your first comment: "The Balfour declaration was adopted by the international community" By international community you mean British and Zionist allies. This is contradictory anyways since you go on to say how it wasn't accepted by Arabs... To the second comment: The League of Nations aka British Allies created other Arab states. So what? That doesn't justify the illegal Balfour Declaration. And your point about how Britain sabotaged the Jewish state proves the illegitimacy of the Declaration. They didn't care about Jews, Zionists are secular anyways. They wanted strategic control over that region. This is still the case with USA's relationship with Israel. to the 3rd comment: "they developed a habit of rejecting any offer of jewish statehood" The Zionists were imposed onto the land, the Arabs rejected it, and war happened. So what's your point? Are Arabs a lower race than Brits and Jews in your view? Why can't they fight for their ideas? You're justifying the existence of Israel with the fact they won some wars. I'd expect that from someone who only makes hypocritical and muddled arguments. Let's say Britain is weak and Saudi Arabia is a nuclear power. If Saudi Arabia declared a Muslim state in England and started moving Muslims in, stealing land from Brits, would you support that? It pretty much has as much religious justification as the secular Zionist movement and would be adopted by a 'league of nations' (the Arab League and the Islamic world, allies to Saudi Arabia as the League of Nations were to Britain).
@@Haha__ What prompts these responses is motivation. If you hate Israel, then you can support your view from history with selected facts for evidence. GOD created the Jews as well as any nation of people. We will all stand before HIM one day. The most important matter in this life is to know you can stand before the LORD justified and forgiven. Are you?
Yes one of the Rothschilds was the driving force to create the state of Isreal, he worked for many years to make it happen One of his cousins Lionel Rothschild was a big opponent of his and didn’t support the idea of creating a jewish state (Isreal) and he formed a league that opposed the idea but he was unsuccsesful
@@sevdailsulejmani624 Lionel along with many Rabbinical Jews were anti-Zionist, for according to their holy book, the diaspora was to continue until the Messiah came to lead the people back to Israel. "Where is your Messiah?" they asked, but the Zionist movement was mainly secular and ignored them. Though it didn't stop them from quoting scripture for propaganda purposes.
The first state that signed support of the declaration was Serbia. It was work of a Serbian diplomat captain Dr David Albala, a Sephard and a zionist. Serbian ambassador to US in a letter to Albala marked the first time any government had referred to the yet-to-be-born Jewish state as “Israel,” presaging the name that would be adopted by the nascent republic three decades later. “You know, dear Captain Albala,” he added, “that there is no other nation in the world sympathizing with this plan more than Serbia.”. In closing, Vesnic wrote that, “It will be a sad thing for us to see any of our Jewish fellow-citizens leaving us to return to their promised land, but we shall console ourselves in the hope that they will stand as brothers and leave with us a good part of their hearts and that they will be the strongest tie between free Israel and Serbia.”
of course but it was of course the Christian Templars planning to let the Jewish people and the Palestinian people obliterate each other in military dispute and then move to Jerusalem finally after eight crusades failed. why on earth with the Christian world one to give Jerusalem to the Jews or the Muslims? They didn't they just decided to stick them both in the same area and split the country them loads of weapons and wait for them to commit genocide on each other and then move and take Jerusalem finally after eight failed crusades
And it won't be much longer before they move in. The second temple to God is underneath Jerusalem and that's what they want it's what the templars were after since the beginning
No mention of the Nakba? So much for Balfour's very clear statement that "nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".
My view and only my view about what i have learnt about the Nakba i suggest you research this issue yourself ... It is true that there was a Nakba in Palestine tensions between the two was very high , uprising & social disorder in terrorist tactics from both sides during this period ...... when Israel declared independence the Arab nations had decided to attack Israel .... Israel as part of their independence was to offer Israeli Citizenship to the Arabs residing in the lands known as Palestine .....It was the Arab Nations that had told the Palestinians to move from the lands as they were planning a attack on Israel and they would get the land back after the war for the Arabs and then they could return , but as history shows they were not successful in their invasion ....... this information was from various sources that i had read ,.... best to research yourself to understand the situation at that time .
@@tasspafitis848 The Nakba came BEFORE Israel declared itself a nation, it was an ethnic cleansing to PREPARE for that declaration. It caused 700,000 Palestinians to flee their homes. It was because of this ethnic cleansing that the surrounding Arab nations attacked Israel, so as you can see, it was Israel that started that war. A war they had been preparing for, for over 70 years, which is why they were able to win it so easily, Israel's military was double that of the combined Arab nations, so of course they won that fight. It wasn't a David or Goliath scenario as Israel usually promulgates. They had been training with help from the British for over 50 years for that fight.. As you said the Palestinian people fled because they weren't part of the war, the war wasn't with the Palestinian people, yet the Zionists still wouldn't let them return when the war Israel started ended, because Zionists had already moved in and stolen the homes of those who fled. Israel has been the instigator, and aggressor in every war since they declared themselves a nation, they even started the 6 day war in the 60s, and even tried to sink the USS Liberty that witnessed their war crimes. They are always the aggressor, and it's always to steal more land, by exterminating the native Palestinians. Do more research then just a skim of edited cliff notes.
@@ykqfilmedit Tell your high morals to your Turkish Muslims that did not allow their ethnic Greeks , Kurds & Armenians after the genocide of the Turkish nation to go back after residing in the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of centuries . It is illegal not to allow them back !
Why give strangers from europe more rights than the people who had been there for generations? But the newly arriving Europeans were given more rights, WHY?
I understand they kept the Jewish idea alive. That does not make them the Jewish of Jerusalem 2000 years ago. Chaim says as Jews are to Jerusalem not to Israel. The Declaration by a lot in the UK is considered one of the greatest acts against humanity as well. Self determination was not upheld at all for Arabic people.
@@StopSettlerViolence arabic people it was transjordan (not to mention the people rejected this plan) made jordan and we never gave up our claim to land it was stolen
If you have not lived in a land for 2000 years, does not make it your native homeland. If so anyone, anywhere, from any country, at anytime could claim to rightfully invade and conquer Africa as their native homeland since all humans originated in Africa. It's a nonsense argument to make, but when you are trying to steal land that isn't yours from natives, you will pull any excuse you can out of your arse.
And how Muslims killed the Jew when they come in the night kill them and English tell don’t protect yourself let the Arab’s kill you free! You understand why they go in the street and kill Jews because of English!
Yes first Arab’s kill the Jews all the days and also the night on 1948/ 1960 . English’s let the Arab’s do and don’t let any arm’s to the Jews. After the wake and make the first army! God bless Jews 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻🙏🏻☝🏻
@@Kruger_Mk1Right. So the notion of a homeland for a religion is ludicrous. Would Christians in the Philippines have the right to freely settle in Rome?
@@dee-veedid the Filipinos have an ancestral or any origins in rome besides being Spanish decent and not italian? Then if you think that an Israeli in Europe who's ancestors (probably came from there homeland) was expelled because of many foreign invasion, doesn't have a tigh on where he/she originated and wanna live in a place where anyone doesn't being bullied or harased doesn't have the right to live where he/she feels safe?
@@Kruger_Mk1 Most Jews don't have ancestors from the "homeland". Look at their complexion. They weren't from West Asia ("middle-east"). Jews aren''t being bullied or harassed in any way more severely than most other religious groups. It's actually disingenuous and ironic to bring up bullying.
In the hopes that one day the native Americans too could get back their land that they lost only a few hundred years ago and not thousands of years ago
@@bensonfang1868england occupier Palestine and take the Jewish from all world specially from Germany and Europe and give them the land of Palestinians wtf !!!!!!!!! And you speak about peace???
@@bensonfang1868 Ever wonder why the Balfour-Rothschild letter is called a declaration, and the Mcmahon-Hussin letter is called merely a correspondence?
Legitimatewaffle HAHAHA!!!!! Nice try, sock puppet. It’s CLEARLY propaganda. Nothing more or less. They omit several things from actual historical event with each video.
@@clashnemesis3635 there's history but they way this channel presents it is on the side to make all Israeli activities positive if you can't see this clash
There is a big question mark regarding the origins of European Jews. Why would a people whose ethnicity is closer to their cousins in the middle east I e Arabs migrate to a region of their persecutors (Romans/ Europe) and endure a harsh climate rather than migrate to their cousins who were less hostile to them than Christian Europe. Why would you have more people who claim to be jews in the European continent than there are Jews who were living in the middle east yet the original Jews were more closer in ethnicity, language and culture to the Arabs than to Europeans. Before the creation of Israel jews were living side by side with their Arab cousins without any problems. Infact it was very hard to distinguish between a Jew and an Arab in the middle east unless they tell you personally. It's like saying they're more ethnic Asians in Europe than Asia itself. The population of European Jews seems to outnumber that of Middle Eastern Jews by almost 4 to 1. This is something I have never understood.
If you haven't lived there for 2000 years, it's not your native land anymore. If that were the case, any nation, any people, anywhere, at anytime could invade Africa and state they are merely reclaiming their native land, since all humans can trace their origins in Africa. It's a silly, and nonsense claim to make.
I don’t think you know how indigeneity works, or the long-standing Jewish connection to Israel. Some Jews have lived there ever since. And why would it belong to migrants or to some colonial empire or to descendants of colonialist empires who took it over? Also why can’t Jews buy land, move back, develop the land, defend the land from attacks, and declare independence from a departing colonial power with the support of the world?
@@UNPACKED Evangelist and Zionist Rothchild's from France and Britain are the ones that financed the creation of these death cults in Israel. Lookup 'Balfour Declaration' and then lookup the Evangelist and Zionist death prophecy 'Red Heiffer'.
According to you, how far back do we have to go to have legitimacy? By your logic Arabs should all move back to Arabia, Turks to whatever hole they came from in Central Asia, most of the pop of the Americas should move back to the old world
The idea that Balfour’s opinion was that the land of Palestine was more `Jewish’ than anyone else’s claim is the source of this bloody conflict. Of course the Jews think this, but of course the Palestinians don’t. These positions have of course hardened. The fact that this letter has become central to the entire conflict just highlights another instance of how Britain’s influence has caused death and upheaval in lands really nowt to do with them. Lines in the sand. Unravelling this may be impossible. Balfours letter was not a declaration, but an opinion, but the non-Jewish Palestinians are the dispossessed.
Ever wonder why the Balfour-Rothschild letter is called a declaration, and the Mcmahon-Hussin letter is called merely a correspondence? It's all about how you spin it. Fox news would be proud.
Where did the arabs come from that were in the area of Israel at the time of establishment. They had been told by Mohammed to go and conquer, they had been told by Mohammed to 'worship' at three already established holy sites.
@@urmisunshine8 Arabs already existed in the Levant long before Islam came to be (Arabs in BC inhabited lands all the way from Sinai in Egypt all the way to Osroene in the Southern Turkey), hell even Herod the Great, King of Judea, was of Arab stock, many pre-islamic Arab kingdoms inhabited/ruled the region at various times, such as the Nabateans, the Qedarites and the Edomites, so the idea the Arabs are foreign is 100% wrong. FYI large parts of the Roman armies that fought against the Muslims in their conquest of the Levant were Arabs). Additionally, according to early Zionists such as Ben Gurion himself, the modern day Arab Fellahin of Palestine (who make up the majority of Arab Palestinians) are simply Jews who converted to Islam or Christianity. So in effect the creation of Israel was one of the biggest expulsions of ethnic Jews from their homeland, yet no Zionist will try to rectify this error for some reason BTW, there is a misconception that it was the Arabs who kicked out the Jews from the holy land, this never happened, it was the Babylonians who exiled them in the biblical story, and later the Romans through the Hadrian decree, which forbade the jews from Jerusalem under threat of death for about 6 centuries until - surprise surprise - the Muslims defeated the Romans and took control of the holy land and resettled jews in it
@@ahmad_alhallak Do people forget the Old Testament that speaks of Abraham and his wife's egyptian servant Hagar, and their son Ishmael. The jews and ishmaelites (arabs) have a common well respected ancestor. God told Hagar her decendents would be many and they would not get along with anyone else. This seems true today...Arab history is the least difficult to understand as they were groups of nomadic tribes...creating a different God than their patriarch Abraham of the old testament is perhaps what seems confounding today. I respect the jews and the old testament. The Mosaic laws are ingenious for an age where all people were well below integrity yet aspiring to be children of an all knowing God. All the essential moral laws are there for creating just societies.
@urmisunshine8 what are you on about? What are you responding to exactly? All races in the world had wars and differences with other races. The Europeans caused two massive world wars just this past century for god's sake! The Arabs at least had *mostly* friendly relations with the other natives of the ME throughout the ages (where in Eruope can you find religious minorities still surviving for 1400+ years under the rule of a different religion?) And how exactly did the Arabs create a new god? The understanding of the divine is extremely similar between modern Judaism and Islam, infinitely more closely aligned than between modern Judaism and most forms of modern Christianity at the very least! And again, what does what you commented has to do with my comment or your original comment (other than undermining it by acknowledging the relation between Arab and jews)
Correction, it was named palestina 4000 years ago prior to the revelation of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It was also never called Israel. Israel is another name for Jacob and the Israelites are his descendants. Palestine was under Jewish rule for 200 out of the 4000 years. But yes palestine is the home of all three religions. Also Judaism doesn't condone the injustices committed towards the native Palestinians of genocide, ethnic cleansing, land and home theft, apartheid etc. Zionism is an ideology that's antithetical to Jewish teachings.
I don't think there was an issue with making the Balfour Declaration. However, Great Britain does not decide who will be a country and who will not. In the end Yahweh decides those things.
Yahweh is the golden calf in the wilderness worshipped by Israelites when Moses came down from the mountain...The Most High Almighty Father in heaven in paleo Hebrew is Ahayah Ashar Ahayah...I am that I am in English translation
As I was born in an Arab house, at some point we all go back to some family as cousins way before everything, i feel they deserve all of the declarations and all of the documents message to guarantee they are land and they are homeland Israel and Palestine side-by-side with the Arabs as neighbors.
6:48 wow this really helped me understand things. Since there had been occupation for 2,000 years by various foreign powers who were now exiting, both people groups really had an equal claim on the land. Britain should have established clear borders for a 2 state solution and then enforced it by supporting Israel when they were attacked. OR just created one state of Israel and allowed Arabs to stay and assimilate, since DNA tests show many of them were originally of the Jewish tribes who were forced to convert under the various Arab conquests and occupations. Basically, they could have done a much better exit strategy...
@ Mrs. Young There are a number of flaws in your reasoning and logic. First of all there had been occupation for much longer than 2000 years. The original land of Canaan had been invaded, conquered and occupied first by the Egyptians, then the Greeks, then the Israelites, the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Romans up to the Ottomans. The Israelites, as everyone before them and after them had been occupiers even back then, that is more than 2000 years ago. Before they were just nomadic tribes who settled in Canaan and little by little tried, unsuccessfully to take over all the land. So saying that they as oast occupiers if the land had a right to it would logically lead one to say that all past occupiers had an equal right to such a claim. Saying that both people, that is Zionists and Palestinians (whose population was made up of a majority of Muslims, followed by Christians and a minority of Jews, Armenians and Druze) had an equal claim to it is highly incorrect. I said Zionists and not Jews purposely to differentiate between the Palestinian Jews who had lived there for a long time and the recent emigrant Zionist Jews from Europe. When Palestinian Muslims (as well as Christians and all the other minorities, including the indigenous Jewish minority which initially was against the alien Zionists) objected to the Zionist presence, they were not objecting to them not because they were Jews but because they were alien and foreign to the land. When Palestinians were demanding self-determination they were asking for the sovereignty for all the people in the land not just for Muslims. Britain had no power to set boundaries or create states as the UN also had no such power. It is a gross misconception that the UN created the partition of Palestine. It did no such thing because it did not have this power. Such a decision would have against its own charter. What the UN did was give a proposal which had to be accepted by the majority of the people it was going to affect. Such an acceptance obviously would never come, as it never did, as such a plan was unacceptable to the majority of the people. If you care to read all recommendations, all reports etc concerning the division of the land they all ended with the clause, that no decision could be taken without the approval of the majority of the population or that no decision would be take that would prejudice the aspirations for self-determination of the majority or that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the people. The creation of a Jewish state in Palestinian land did just that. How very rich saying that Britain (or whoever) should have created one state for Israel allowing Arabs to stay and assimilate. Why not a Palestinian state where Jews could stay and assimilate? That would have been fairer don't you think when the majority were in fact Palestinian. Palestinians would definitely have accepted that - a multi-denominational state as it had always been a multi-denominational land. As what actually was meant by the Balfour Declaration, a homeland for Jews within Palestine and not a separate state which would have put the indigenous Palestinians under a foreign jurisdiction. Mentioning DNA - besides some Palestinians being original Jews there are ample DNA/genetic studies which have shown that Palestinians are in fact direct descendants of the original Canaanite people, those same people who had preceded everyone else in this land and its original inhabitants who had never abandoned their land. How perfectly logical and justified it would have been to return the land which had been occupied for millennia to its original and really indigenous people, instead of suggesting that more than half of the land being granted to one of the past occupiers, who had been away from the land for millennia, whose DNA shows that having 80% of their genetic make up as being European took away all claims to being Semitic and indigenous to this land, and who wanted to make the land specifically a Jewish state. So what you suggested would not have made a better exit strategy and one which Britain or anyone else had any power to do as you cannot dispense as you wish when that land isn't yours.
"Britain should have established clear borders for a 2 state solution and then enforced it by supporting Israel when they were attacked." That is exactly what they did in 1947..
Which side is better??? This isn't a football match... Its complex history involving human beings. Which side is better?? Wow. And what evidence makes you think this video is amazing? It's so one sided and leaves out so much history. Plus... The presenters tone of voice and emphasis is designed to make you believe what he clearly believes.
History facts - Jerusalem was the capital of the nation of Israel made by King David in 3000 BC Jesus was born in a Jewish home in Bethlehem near Jerusalem in 2000 BC
Awfully inaccurate and re writing history to suit a dishonest narrative . The united nations has also condemned the illegal settlements by Israel in Palestinian lands .
I don't recall the Ottoman Empire being prissy about whose land they lorded it over. And when is Turkey going to quit Cyprus? If it weren't for the British (and returning westernised Jewry) the whole area would still be un underdeveloped backwater of decaying towns and villages whose only industry would be subsistence goat herding.
This is the stupidest justification of Israel I've ever heard. "Palestine 'would be' poor but Israel is rich so Israel good 🤡" Don't forget the classic "if it wasn't for Britain they would be underdeveloped!" gag... Try harder please
Wow, i guess a western "developed" civilization makes it totally acceptable to take a land that isnt yours, u may be economically developed but u sure lack ethics
Hello: interesting video But:: I have just finished reading (Against our better judgement) by ( Alison Weir) If what she says is accurate then well read the book it's short. Also as an American and veteran, my country lost 200,000 soldiers to a war that just months before we had elected a president how had promised to keep us out of. Americans who owed there locality to America seem To have pushed us into a war for there own interest not the interests of there country. Please read this book and tell me what you think.
It's not for antisemites to decide who a Jew is. It's for the Jewish people to decide. Also, Khazar theory is a joke. It has been disproven by DNA studies and by linguistics. Ashkanazi Jews have no trace of Turkish DNA. They are a mix of Mediterranean people's, mostly Italians and Levantine.
zionism is the longing of the Jewish soul to be a free nation in the land of sion and jerusalem ( aka israel) zionism is as old as judaism,by the rivers of babylon, there we sat down,yea we wept when we remember zion Pasalm 137: 1.
@@emperorworld3528 Anyone who know's anything about Judaism knows Judaism and Zionism are connected. If this wasn't the case then one of the main purposes of the Messiah wouldn't be to liberate the kingdom of Judah and reestablish Jewish independence in the Land of Israel. That is Zionism in a nutshell, Jewish sovereignty in their ancestral homeland. That actually is the simplest reason Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah, he didn't liberate Judah from the Romans.
Look up the Nabateans, the Qedarites, the Edmoites, the Abgarids, all of whom are Arabian people living outside of the peninsula since before Christ, all the way from Sinai in Egypt to Osroene in Turkey. Hell there even was an Arab Jewish king of Judea, Herod the Great, the great architect of Israel, both his mother and father were Arabs
Jews are NOT a people. it is a religion like Isalm or Christianity or Hinduism. Jews are a TURKISH people who CHOSE Judaism... there is a reason why establish was put instead of restored. Many Jews are saying the same. The Cover of TIMES magazine posted in 1956 HOW did the Hebrews leave BLACK and come back white? I think they asked a good question. Many mix up Hebrew (a people and a language) with Jewish which is a religion . There is much to say about the Balfour agreement. You left that part out. I have always learned to keep reading. Don't just stop at the part you like. Listen to the WHOLE story-for clarity. Shalom
Judaism is an ethno-religion, very much different than Christianity and Hinduism. You can be born Jewish, and most Jews are. You can also be a secular Jew, therefore it is clearly different than a religion since you don't have to practice Judaism to be a Jew. Also, I'm assuming you are referencing the Khazar theory when you mention Jews being Turks. If this is true why is there no trace of this in the extensive DNA studies done on Ashkanazi Jews? Also if Jews descended from Turkish peoples, why is there no linguistic Turkish element in any Jewish language like Yiddish or Ladino? Before you spout antisemitic nonsense try educating yourself first.
The main language of Ashkanazi Jews is Germanic, not Turkish. Not only that but there is no element of Turkish in it. There is Hebrew and Aramaic in it though, there is also romance words and Slavic words, but no Turkish. If Jews descended from Turks, there would be at least trace elements in their language. Wherever the Jews traveled it is represented in Yiddish language. The Jews were originally from Judea before being expelled by Rome. Hence the oldest elements are Hebrew and Aramaic. The next oldest elements is from romance languages. This makes sense since the Jews were expelled to the Roman Empire. After the Roman empire collapsed the descendents of the Ashkanazi Jews settled along the Rhine river, where people spoke Germanic languages and that is where Yiddish began to get formed as a Germanic language. When the Jews moved Eastwood to Slavic countries they added Slavic words to Yiddish. There are no Turkish words in Yiddish. There has also also been extensive DNA studies done on Ashkanazi Jews, the largest DNA element that shows up is Italian and Levantine DNA, not Turkish. Stop spreading antisemitic lies.
