Haman is described as an “Agagite” and the two interpretations of that are that he hated Jewish people like Agag, or that he is somehow descended from Agag (Jewish canon isn’t always consistent, so the fact that it would have been impossible for Agag to have any descendants if he actually existed is brushed off). It’s the perfect example of what I mentioned earlier - that for an extremely long time now, the story of Amalek is the story of figuratively linked people who wanted to wipe out the Jewish people, not the story of people who the Jewish people want to wipe out. You’ll note that the story does not end with the Persians being destroyed.
Because you are trying (and failing) to explain to me, a Jewish person, how my own religion interprets our own religious texts.
If they tried to explain Zionism to me, or some aspect of Jewish ethnicity, that would certainly be whitesplaining. But explaining Jewish religion to me is Christsplaining (unless you grew up in a non Christian culture, in which case you might be Buddahsplaining or Islamsplaining).
As an atheist whose had to explain, to Christians, the difference between the virgin birth and the immaculate conception, that’s not as damning as you think it is.
Again, whether or not you personally believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins, you grew up in a Christian dominated society, didn’t you?
Would you feel comfortable explaining religious minutiae like that to a Buddhist or a Hindu?
You might counter that Judaism is more similar to Christianity than those other religions, and while that is very obviously true to some extent, the similarity is VASTLY overestimated by most Christians (and non-Christians who grew up in a Christian society), who seem to think that Judaism = (Christianity - Jesus). Hence, terms like “Judeo-Christian Values” which really means “Christian values”.
Oh no, I’m not trying (and clearly failing) to explain any fucking thing to you.
But, please, continue to “ChristJewsplain” this passage, Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants…
as anything other than a command to commit genocide.
I once dated a Buddhist girl who thought that meditation was a way to earn physical goods. Like, if you wanted a new car, meditate on a new car, and you’ll eventually get one.
Granted, I didn’t call her out on this. Not because of concern over “buddhasplaining,” but because I wanted to keep having sex with her, and going all “Jamie Lee Curtis from A Fish Called Wanda” on her was probably not conducive to that.
It doesn’t really matter how religious Jews (not that there is a single such group) interpret that story, literally or not, who even cares? What is odious is when some politicians or other groups quote it as an unequivocal slogan or call to genocide. Muslims have to deal with similar shit with people (even on this board) quoting hadith like “The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them…”
Of course that’s exactly what that passage calls for. I never said otherwise.
What I said is that it is not relevant to modern Judaism. And it isn’t - no more so than the bits about animal sacrifice or crowning a king.
What is relevant to modern Judaism, as I cited multiple times now, is the part he actually quoted - “Remember what Amalek did to you” - which is often quoted in reference to those who want to destroy the Jewish people, such as Hitler, or Haman. Or, as Netanyahu used it, Hamas.
Is the rabbi commanding his followers to retaliate against Germans or Persians? Or is he saying Hitler and Haman were bad and genocide is not cool and you should never be like them? I was not there for the entire sermon.
The insistence that “from the river to the sea” is either a call to genocide or the parroting of useful idiots, but “Remember the Amaleks” isn’t, is a textbook double standard.
We see from this that the essence of being a Jew is not connected with one’s ethnic origin but with one’s personal orientation. When a Jew wants to convert, he stops being an Jew, unlike other peoples, whose essence does not disappear immediately upon their conversion. What emerges from this definition is that “Jew” is a spiritual state of being, much more than a biological group.
sound as anti-Semitic, pro ethnic cleansing, to anyone else as it does to me?
If we ignore how “from the river to the sea” has been used since its inception, and how “Remember what Amalek has done to you” (which is quite different than “remember the Amaleks”, see the quote from Chabad above about Amalek being an antisemitic state of mind rather than an ethnic group in Jewish conception), then I agree.
I’ll grant that River to the Sea isn’t inherently genocidal; it’s only genocidal in context, when you understand that it is a dog whistle for a one state solution. And since there are TWO reasons to support a one state solution - the first being a desire to see the Jewish people of Israel genocided and the second being utter braindead stupidity that makes one believe a one state solution would end in any other result - it’s possible to chant this without being genocidal.
Exactly. I thought the same thing when there was the huge world wide outpouring of pro-American sentiment after 9/11 which GWB squandered with his “your with us or your against us” cowboyism. We had an opportunity to get the world united with us in a united front against extremism, but instead we had a trillion dollar war, with the US getting a reputation as a war monger.
If you want to get offended at the comparison to one dimensional villains on Hamas’ behalf, suit yourself. It’s hardly an expression of intent to genocide the Palestinian people, though.
I’m not going to comment on the meaning of Amalek as it relates to the current situation, since I frankly don’t know enough about how the term is generally used to do so, but I have to say that that opinion piece is one of the most poorly reasoned articles I’ve ever read.
He starts out by saying that the attack on Israel by the Amaleks wasn’t an attack on the main body but was just an attack on the stragglers. Then points out that as a nomadic people who mostly survived by raiding others. Then is confused by why they would attack such a giant group of people, so the only possible conclusion must be that they hated the people of Israel just because they were Jews, and then goes on say that therefor all anti-semetism throughout history has no other explanation (like oh say rich nobles enacting Pogroms to get out of paying their debt to Jewish money lenders) and is just because there is some fundamental mystical nature that makes people hate Jews.
In fact (making the assuption that the record of the altercation is historically accurate rather that apocryphal) the author already outlined the most likely explanation of the Amalek’s attack. Some of the Jewish caravans had lagged behind, the Amaleks thought that they were easy pickings and so raided them, word got out to the main Jewish exodus, who hunted them down and kicked their ass. No underlying mystical anti-sematism, just garden variety opportunism and over confidence by a local warlord.