Thread by @c_stroebele

Short remark on #Netanyahu speaking of #Hamas (not Palestinians) as “#Amalek”.
This refers to the archetypical figure of the enemy, and I see this in an archetypical sense, as it has been in use for centuries.
Some details (very ad hoc): 1/

The context in the speech is painting Hamas as “an enemy such that there is no other as cruel”, against which IDF is “committed to completely eliminate this evil from the world for our existence and for the whole of humanity… You must remember what Amalek has done to you”. 2/

The reference takes us back to the narrative of the faint and weary, who, at the rear of the convoy of Israelites, were attacked by Amalek, when they were most vulnerable in the wilderness, on the way they took, with Moses, from Canaan, cf. Deuteronomy/Devarim 25,17-19. 3/

The biblical text are the final lines of the 49th parashah (Torah part) (Ki Teitzei) and from before Purim. Thus, especially the last verse, commanding the wiping out of Amalek, is enshrined in Jewish memory, as already Maimonides noted (Book of Commandments, 189). 4/

In Exodus/Shemot 17,14, God vowed to blot out Amalek’s remembrance himself, and verse 16 states that the Lord would war with the Amalekites “from generation to generation”.
In 1 Samuel/Shmuel 15,1-3, this command is addressed to King Saul. 5/

Saul is victorious, but leaves King Agag alive and also the best of the livestock, which leads to a break between him and Samuel, who in the end kills Agag himself. In 1 Sam 30,26, the Amalekites are demonized as “enemies of YHWH”, those who, acc. to Ps 37,20, shall perish. 6/

On a mythological reading of the Exodus narrative, the attack from Amalek comes when Israel had safely passed “through the Un-Welt in two manifestations, Egypt and the Sea”, or 3, counting the desert, enabled by YHWH exercising “his cosmogonic powers” (P.D. Stern 2020, 173). 7/

So, the Amalekites might be seen as “a personification of its [the desert’s] deadliest dangers” or as the force who “threaten[s] Israel with non-existence”. There is much more to say on this (as Stern does, but let’s leave it here). 8/

In Jewish tradition, Amalek became the apogee evil.
But there were several counterweights from early on. One was the idea that Senaherib, King of Assyria, “confused the nations”, so that it became impossible to differentiate the Amalekites (Talmud Berachot 28a, Yoma 54a). 9/

The Portuguese philosopher Yitzhak Abrabanel (1437-1508) took in his Torah Commentary, and similarly, the Spanish rabbi Yitzhak 'Aram (Isaac ben Moses Arama) (d. 1494) the view that... (I draw mostly from Avi Sagi 1994 here and in the following) 10/

the divine command was based in severe iniquity of unjust warfare: neither cause for war nor fair conduct. “The command ... is thus meant to convey resistance to any form of evil, and the harshness ... is understood as a function of the severity of the crime.” (Sagi 1994, 326) 11

But already in the Talmud (b. Yoma 22b), the justification of smiting the Amalekites is questioned by Rabbi Mani: the sanctity of life already holds for the heifer, and “how much more [ought consideration to be given] to all these persons! 12/

And if human beings sinned, what have the cattle done, and if the adults have sinned, what have the children done?' A heavenly voice came forth and said: 'Be not righteous overmuch' [Eccl 7:17]…”. 13/

The halakhist Avraham Bornstein (1839-1910) echoes this view, which in essence blocks the punishing of innocents: “The seed of Amalek is punished for the sins of their fathers. But it is written: 'Fathers shall not be put to death for children, ... 14/

neither shall children be put to death for fathers.'(Deu 24,16)”
In mystical exegesis, following some hints in Rabbinic literature, Amalek is altogether taken as the symbolic representation of evil, as the Zohar paints in a vision of heavenly battle. 15/

Or the Kabbalist Isaiah Horowitz (1560-1630) takes “Amalek” to mean the “impure body”.
In this manner, the Holocaust was viewed as a struggle with “Amalek”. (cf. ) “For many Jews, any explanation of the abominations of the Holocaust could ... 16/kedem-auctions.com/he/node/32660

only be attempted in archetypal terms, such as an eternal war between good and evil. Many thinkers, including several halakhists, have extended this perception to the modern struggle for Jewish independence in the state of Israel.” (Sagi 1994, 331f) 17/

So, we stand in a well-established tradition of referring to “Amalek” as a threat of destruction which has to be eradicated.
And several elements *in the very Jewish Amalek-tradition* should actually block an extension to unjustly punish innocents. 18/

So, the reference works for Hamas, not for Gaza. There are other parts in the speech, like painting the border to Gaza as the gate to evil, which I find more problematic, and which might explain why the Amalek-reference was, by some, taken as genocidal "holy war" rhetorics. /19

@threadreaderapp
unroll