By William Markiewicz
Professor Shlomo Sand, from Tel Aviv University, states in his book that the exile of the Jews imposed by the Romans could not have been as big as we assume and also that seventy five per cent of Polish Jews were Khazars.
A while ago I read a translation of some old Roman chronicles where the author says "fat women of an Oriental cult threw insults at us who led them into exile." So, the exile must have been quite big, if not total. The Romans had revenge in their hearts as the war on both sides was very brutal. To the Professor's point about Kchazar Jews in Poland, I have a question. If they came from the East and not from the West, then how did they come with Yiddish instead of Khazarian? Yiddish is, in the great majority, a medieval German language (Yo, oy vey …). The classical Jewish customs – herring, bagels with lox and white cheese, certainly came from Europe and from the North. There were no such delicacies on Mount Sinai. Those traditions probably come from Vikings converted to Judaism. So the Professor is right that the majority of European Jews and others are descendants of converts and not the original Jewish people from the Holy Land.
The Professor's theory that the future of Israel lies in a Jewish/Arab state can be dismissed as we see that in present day Europe, for instance, practically all who could do so, separate from each other. Multi ethnic states are becoming a slight minority. If in the Americas, multi ethnic states have survived and even thrived, it's because they started as mixed. Where countries were born uni national, there is a tendency to remain so or return to it. The Polish poet Norwid wrote in the nineteenth century: "One of them has to go, whether guest or host." And Norwid was not an anti Semite, on the contrary. He undoubtedly spoke in general terms and not about the situation in Poland. So why should Israel opt for a solution which sooner or later will be fought.Back to the index of the Vagabond