Amalek, the anti-Israel: Muslims go berserk

In the Bible, Amalek is the anti-Israel.

       Starting in Genesis, Amalek comes into the world as the grandson of Esau - Esau, Abraham’s grandson, Isaac’s son, and Jacob’s dangerous brother, Esau.

Esau is the man who thought so little of God’s blessing that he traded it for a pot of soup! His illegitimate but direct descendant Amalek bred and multiplied and became a family and then a nation: a jealous, cruel nation.

In the course of more than 100 generations, Amalek spread, like a virus. It shared its seed with every nation. 

The theory of this blog piece is that, historically, not merely as metaphor but in a very real sense, Amalek exists as an infectious spirit: a contagious infestation of fierce jealousy, envy, injured pride and ultra-violence.

God created Israel as a force for holiness: Amalek is Israel’s opposite. Amalek is Israel’s destroyer.

Nazi Germany incarnated Amalek. From 1933 until May, 1945, Amalek ruled Germany. The German people became Amalek.

This is not to say that every single German in that time period became evil. Not at all: the Germans themselves suffered from the Nazis. Some Germans hated the Nazis and everything they stood for. Some Germans were good, even saintly people. But it’s still fair to say that, in that time period, the German people accepted Nazism. In other words, the spirit of Amalek infected the German people.

The Nazis infected the Arab world with the Amalek virus, and the same virus has now spread to much of the Muslim world. Again, some Arabs today and some Muslims today despise this evil, just as there were Germans who lived under Hitler and the swastika who hated Nazism. But it’s still fair to say that the spirit of Amalek infects the Arab world and that the spirit of Amalek infects Islam.  And now Amalek - as the Nazis did - threatens the world.

Amalek hates Israel and all whom it associates with Israel. Amalek hates America.

Amalek is furiously jealous. Amalek attacked America and “the Jews” on 9/11. Amalek infects and has become Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda and Fatah and Hamas. Amalek cannot be appeased. Amalek threatens the world like the Nazis - the Muslim and Arab Amalekites’ recent predecessors - menaced the world.

Exodus 17:16: The Lord hath sworn, the Lord will have war with Amalek in every generation (from generation to generation).

Israel is commanded to “blot out the memory of Amalek.”

The spirit of Amalek operates as the antithesis of and greatest hindrance to the manifestation of the reign of God in the world.

‘When will the name of these [Amalekites] be blotted out?’ asks the Midrash, the ancient rabbinic commentary on the Book of Exodus. ‘When idolatry is eradicated together with its worshippers, and God is recognized throughtout the world as One, and His kingdom is established for all eternity.’ (Midrash, Mechilta on Exodus, chapter 17)

In Deuteronomy 25, God commands Israel: Remember what Amalek did to you, on the way, when you were leaving Egypt: that he happened upon you on the way, and he struck those of you who were hindmost, all the weaklings at your rear, when you were faint and exhausted, and he did not fear G’d. . . You shall wipe out the memory of Amalek from under the heavens - you shall not forget! (Deuteronomy 25:17-19)

Amalek appears in every generation. Not every evil character and not every enemy of Israel is Amalek. The Babylonians who destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem weren’t Amalek, for instance. Neither were the Romans who destroyed the Second Temple. But the Edomites who called out to the Babylonians to “destroy, destroy” (as the Bible’s Writings record) were Amalek; the Nazis were Amalek, and the Arabs and Muslims who live jealous of Israel, who pray to a Jew-hating Allah, who furiously envy Israel: they are infected with the spirit of Amalek.

Al-Qaeda and the vicious terrorists who carried out the attacks on America “and on the Jews” on 9/11 are Amalek. By attacking America they hurt Jews and by attacking Jews they hurt America, they think.

Go the First Covenant Website to the August, 2006 Covenant Connection, the First Covenant Foundation’s monthly newsletter, to learn more about Amalek.

MD

7 Comments so far

  1. covenant on December 12th, 2006
    From: (Anonymous)
    2006-09-05 10:20 pm (UTC)

    amalek


    Why does Amalek hate Israel? Why did Amalek attack Israel right after the crossing of the Red Sea? Why would Amalek go against G-d?

    From: (Anonymous)
    2006-09-13 01:25 pm (UTC)

    Why


    I guess my question is, Why did G-d allow Almalek to attack the stragglers? I noticed that you did not answer or deal with that subject. If Israel was so holy why did G-d allow Almalek to do such things?

    From: covconnectblog
    2006-09-13 06:32 pm (UTC)

    Re: Why


    God blesses Israel (since He created Israel as nation in order to incarnate Torah in the world, to bring special qualities of holiness to the world) and curses those who curse Israe. At the same time, we all have free will. Amalek, the anti-Israel, has free will to make up its own mind about things. Amalek doesn’t believe that Israel is blessed. Looking with its own eyes at Israel, the first thing that strikes Amalek is Israel’s mere humanity. God calls Israel holy but Amalek sees Israel letting the weak among the people fall behind - which clearly is not holy. And then, what is Amalek itself, compared to Israel? Nothing? Is Israel some superhuman master race? Clearly not - Amalek can see that for itself. So Amalek wants to set things “right.” Amalek convinces itself that G’d has made a mistake in regard to Israel - or, really, that the G’d of Israel isn’t G’d. If Amalek can hurt Israel, it can, so it thinks, prove its own superiority - it can prove that it is holier than Israel. So it attacks. Why should G’d allow this? 1) There is this factor of free will, without which human beings aren’t human at all, and can’t develop into what G’d what’s us to become; 2) To push Israel into becoming what G’d wants it to be - a better, more holier nation than it would be if Amalek weren’t forcing it to be better. I think of Amalek as part of the dynamic of creation: Amalek fights against a complacent, less than fully holy Israel conflict and ultimately make a more holy Israel. At the same time, the rest of the world gets to see Israel and Amalek in action, to learn from the conflict and, ultimately, either damn or bless itself by whatever choices it makes between them.Pardon the long-winded answer - I just hope it is an answer.

    From: (Anonymous)
    2006-09-14 06:34 pm (UTC)

    Rome?

    Did the Romans, and the Greeks to a lesser extent, represent Amalek? Or, were the conflicts between the Romans, Greeks and Jews simply a general trend of polytheism against monotheism? From what I’ve come to understand, the Jews were tolerated, even accepted, in Greece and Rome. Some of them converted to Judaism or took up the practice of what we’d today call the Seven Laws of Noah. Jews mourned at the funeral of Julius Caesar, this according to the online entry at the Jewish Encyclopedia:“The Jews throughout the world regretted the death of the dictator. Among the numerous provincials who mourned the Ides of March, it was remarked that Jews for several months came to make final lamentation over his burial-place.”

    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=9&letter=C

    I’ve seen it written in a few places that Gd used the Romans to disperse the Jews around the world because He wanted the knowledge of Torah to go with them. Is this true? Outside of Judea, the Jews were more or less left alone. They spread to every corner of the Roman world, succeeding in winning over converts and convincing polytheists of the impracticality of idolatry. Those that didn’t convert took up practices that we today call observance of the Seven Laws, who often became more observant of Gd’s laws than Jews themselves! An interesting period in history until Christianity and its hatred of “Judaizers” came along. If not for that pagan strongman, Constantine, aligning himself with the church of Rome, history might’ve turned out differently. The Jews and their Gentile friends, as well as the remaining polytheists and even dissenting Christians, were finished off and any potential for an earlier understanding of Noachism was gone.

    Rome represents a perfect example of what could’ve been but wasn’t. I’m not trying to say that all of Rome would’ve followed the Seven Laws, but the numbers of Gdfearers was considerable. I just wonder what would’ve happened had a Noachian “church” developed at Rome, in opposition to the Christian church.

    From: covconnectblog
    2006-09-14 08:45 pm (UTC)

    Did Amalek infect Rome?

    Amalek attacks Israel in every generation, but the spirit of Amalek skips around from people to people, from generation to generation. Today’s Germans, for instance, don’t suffer particularly from the Amalekite infection, but the generations contaminated by the Nazis did. Generally, without the friction of intimacy over time and the familiarity that breeds contempt, along with direct exposure to the Amalekite spirit, Noahides don’t become Amalek. The Greeks and Romans were fascinated by Israel initially, and Israel brought a lot to the Greek and Roman world. That’s what Israel is supposed to do.In the words of the French philosopher Jacques Maritain:

    “Israel, which is not of the world, is to be found at the very heart of the world’s structure, stimulating it, exasperating it, moving it. Like an alien body, like an activating leaven injected into the mass, it gives the world no peace, it bars slumber, it teaches the world to be disconected and restless as long as the world has not God; it stimulates the movement of history.”

    As you point out, Israel spread throughout the ancient world and took the Torah with her. Naturally, this included knowledge of the Torah’s moral laws - that is, knowledge of the Noahide laws. And, as you point out, at times Greek and Roman Noahides did a better job of keeping the laws of G’d (which they themselves had first learned of through Israel) than many of their Jewish neighbors did. That’s actually part of an ancient pattern. And, as history shows, Amalek tends to strike at times like that.

    Israel experienced terrible pogroms in Egypt’s Alexandria, long before Roman times, when Amalek struck the Greek-Egyptians there. Israel suffered from pogroms and persecution in Damascus and many cities which are all but forgotten today, when Amalek infected the populations there. And Rome, certainly in Hadrianic times (in the time of one of Rome’s more flamboyantly homosexual emperors, Hadrian), became an Amalekite center.

    I don’t know about the “what if?” question about Constantine allying himself with the church instead of with Israel. Yes, for sure, Greek and Roman and Jewish humanity generally could have done better by G’d and Torah than they actually did. But people always tend to get the kind of current affairs that they deserve, don’t you think. And Amalek was afoot, at times, in Greek and Roman times, for sure.

    See what I’m trying to get at here?

    From: wilkinsr
    2006-09-15 04:10 am (UTC)

    Rome is a good historical lesson for us.


    I figured that I’d register an account in order to reply to your reply to my original anonymous post:)As to the Greeks and Romans, I think that the typical commoner, if he/she knew that the Jews had a different God than, say, Zeus, the belief was that He was just a local tribal divinity or a variation on one of the pagan gods. This seems to be the case with Antiochus Epimanes, who saw Gd as the local, Jewish variation of Zeus.

    The Greek philosophers conceived of Zeus in far loftier terms, often referring to him as the sole, supreme God (see Hymn to Zeus by the Stoic father, Cleanthes). They couldn’t seem to rid themselves of polytheism, but there were many thinkers who thought of Zeus as the Supreme God. The genitive of Zeus is “dyeus,” the title that was given to the Supreme God of the earliest Indo-European peoples (aka Japhetites), and his more proper title was Dyeu Phter, which approximately translates as “Heaven Father.” From Dyeus Pther we get:

    Zeu Pater or, to the Romans, Jupiter

    It’s my contention that the people that Torah calls the sons of Japheth believed in Gd under the title of Dyeus Pther and its derivatives. This Gentile monotheism became confused, degenerating into polytheism and superstition, but an echo of a pure belief in Gd remained in the polytheistic religions. I think that, when encountering the Jews, some of the Greeks and Romans were drawn to the idea of a single Gd because it was the original belief of their ancestors. Who the fathers of Greece and Rome called Zeu Pater had become one of many gods, a mythical recreation of the True Gd.

    It’s a speculation, but one that I’m convinced of based upon my own research. I have an interest in trying to find traces of the original monotheism in the polytheistic religions.

    As to Amalek, I think that an excellent, early incarnation of Amalekism is found in Christianity. The Christian religion, which began as a sect that followed a Torah-loving Jew named Joshua, was infused with the spirit of Amalek when it lost sight of Joshua’s mission of charity and the love of Gd. I’m not saying that all Christians were followers of Mammon, but the early, imperial church of Rome came to exemplify the insidious lust for wealth and temporal power. Even before the church was triumphant at Rome because of allying itself with Constantine, it was persecuting its enemies: Jews, “heretics” (aka nonconformist Christians), pagans and so forth. Pagan temples were smashed, the clergy killed and so forth. I’m no admirer of polytheism, but I seem to recall that the persecution/mockery of idol-worshippers is forbidden in halacha. Why is this? Even in their error, the pagans contain a certain kernel of truth. By deifying the cosmic aspects of the True Gd into divinities themselves (deities of wisdom, love, etc.), the pagans were grasping at a portion of the Truth. Amalek, as you’ve said, is incredibly jealous. Mostly of Jews, but also of those who refuse to bow to him. This included the pagans. After the annihilation of the pagans, Amalek turned on himself until the rise of Islam. Then, Amalek had to contend with Ishmael.

    With this said, the Jews couldn’t do what they were intended to do: work hand-in-hand with the nations to help Gd perfect our world. The Europeans were mired in the spiritual darkness of Christianity. The Muslims weren’t much better off, but they at least acknowledged the unity of Gd instead of kowtowing to a man (and a Torah-observant Jewish man at that). The movement of the Gdfearers of Greece and Rome was no more, and would have to wait centuries before Western society was open-minded enough to be reborn.

    I don’t believe that Gd ever intended for the Jews to do all of the work alone; they need the Gentiles to help them, because it’s a simultaneous assault that has to be waged against the forces of entropy. Western countries have the resources and prosperity, the military might and the sheer power to do what little Israel can’t do itself. Roman Christianity, even while exemplifying the spirit of Amalek in its early days, laid the groundwork for the religion of the future: Noachism.

    From: covconnectblog
    2006-09-15 08:37 am (UTC)

    Re: Rome is a good historical lesson for us.


    > I figured that I’d register an account in order to reply to your reply to my original anonymous post:)>Well, good. And after all, it is free.

    I find this so interesting: not just your idea that ancient peoples had and lost monotheism, but that it’s a scientific hypothesis subject to rigorous review.

    Recent studies reported in the journal “Science” indicate that certain genes related to language skills arose in humankind between 57 and 58 centuries ago. Genesis indicates that the first true man, Adam and Eve, came on the scene 5766 years ago.

    (We have an article about the studies from Science in the February newsletter - posted on the website: Volume 1, Issue 3.)

    You write: > Dyeu Phter, which approximately translates as “Heaven Father.” From Dyeus Pther we get:

    Zeu Pater or, to the Romans, Jupiter>

    Wow.

    > an echo of a pure belief in Gd remained in the polytheistic religions… encountering the Jews, some were drawn to the idea of a single Gd because it was the original belief of their ancestors.>

    But wouldn’t it be the original belief of everybody’s ancestors?

    > Who the fathers of Greece and Rome called Zeu Pater had become one of many gods, a mythical recreation of the True Gd.

    It’s a speculation, but one that I’m convinced of based upon my own research. I have an interest in trying to find traces of the original monotheism in the polytheistic religions.>

    Now I’m interested too.

    > I’m no admirer of polytheism, but I seem to recall that the persecution/mockery of idol-worshippers is forbidden in halacha.>

    Yes.

    > Why is this? Even in their error, the pagans contain a kernel of truth. By deifying the cosmic aspects of the True Gd into divinities themselves (deities of wisdom, love, etc.), the pagans were grasping at a portion of the Truth.>

    Yes.

    > Amalek, as you’ve said, is incredibly jealous. Mostly of Jews, but also of those who refuse to bow to him. This included the pagans. After the annihilation of the pagans, Amalek turned on himself until the rise of Islam. Then, Amalek had to contend with Ishmael.>

    I don’t know about this. Amalek the anti-Israel needs Israel, I think. The two have a symbiotic relationship. Without Israel, Amalek has no point. What would the Nazis have been without the Jews?

    >With this said, the Jews couldn’t do what they were intended to do: work hand-in-hand with the nations to help Gd perfect our world.>

    I think we overlook Israel’s contributions to the world even during the Dark Ages. The process that G’d started didn’t stop after Rome collapsed.

    > The Europeans were mired in spiritual darkness.>

    Well, they had intense religiosity, coming from a religion which came, in part, from Sinai. They had a dynamism that non-Christian peoples didn’t.

    In the East, Confucianism came from Torah, I believe. Ideas got around in ancient times. Confucius came after Isaiah. It’s unrealistic to posit that Confucius never learned anything from the great ideas from the west.

    The Chinese called the Confucian way the Way of the Ju. Interestingly, Ju means scholar.

    Whether as a partial substitute for Torah or not, the Chinese and Japanese had Confucius.

    > The Muslims weren’t much better off, but they at least acknowledged the unity of Gd instead of kowtowing to a man (and a Torah-observant Jewish man at that).>

    Islam denies human free will. Christianity doesn’t. If I had to choose one or the other, I’d definitely stick with the latter.(I do hope nobody tries to slit my throat or chop my head off for saying so.)

    Israel had a presence in the Muslim-dominated lands - probably at least about half the intelligentsia of the Arab world when “the Arabs created algebra” and “Arabic numerals.

    > before Western society was open-minded enough to be reborn.>

    Yes. They killed poor John Selden.(We are waiting today for someone to translate one of his largest treatises, on the Torah’s universal principles, from the Latin in which in it currently entombed.

    From: wilkinsr
    2006-09-15 06:20 pm (UTC)

    Ancient religions.

    *I find this so interesting: not just your idea that ancient peoples had and lost monotheism, but that it’s a scientific hypothesis subject to rigorous review.*It’s been my belief that traces of the original monotheism of mankind can be found, if one is prepared to have an open mind and do a little bit of reading about ancient polytheism. Some might call it wishful thinking, or a speculation, but my beliefs are based upon the biblical statement that all men once worshipped the same Gd (albeit with local variations).

    Dyeu Phter of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, who became Zeus, Jupiter and Tyr among their descendants; Egyptian Ra, the cosmic force of creation, a Being in which all of the gods of the Nile resided; Chinese Tian, Heaven, which was called by the title Yuhuang Shangdi (Supreme Sovereign God of Heaven). Norse Odin was called Valfader, the All-Father, and He sat upon a throne in Valhalla (The Sky-Hall located in the highest realm of Asgard, the Norse Heaven). Are these all merely local, tribal gods, or local names that the True Gd was known by? The polytheists, like the ancient Jews, loved to engage in anthropomorphisms. Were they all benighted pagans or did they actually possess a rich symbolism?

    The beginning of a hymn to Zeus, attributed to the mythical Greek poet Orpheus goes:

    “Zeus is the first. Zeus the thunderer, is the last.
    Zeus is the head. Zeus is the middle, and by Zeus all things were fabricated.
    Zeus is male, Immortal Zeus is female.
    Zeus is the foundation of the earth and of the starry heaven.
    Zeus is the breath of all things. Zeus is the rushing of indefatigable fire.
    Zeus is the root of the sea: He is the Sun and Moon.
    Zeus is the king; He is the author of universal life…”

    A polytheistic hymn or a symbolistic representation of Gd?

    I might be wrong, but the Torah implies that ALL men knew of Gd at one time. Lo and behold, if you know what to look for, you can find Gd in the ancient, non-Jewish cultures, wrapped up in local myth and often not recognized as the True Gd, but the devotion remains nonetheless. The beliefs may not be complete in the biblical sense that Jews or Noachides might know of, but they are there.

    This is why I have high respect for other, nonbiblical religions. I can look past the mythologizing and see the hand of Gd behind them. Polytheistic literature is a goldmine of knowledge about Gd, incomplete as I’ve said, but when combined with Torah, the truth becomes even more apparent.

    *Amalek, as you’ve said, is incredibly jealous. Mostly of Jews, but also of those who refuse to bow to him. This included the pagans. After the annihilation of the pagans, Amalek turned on himself until the rise of Islam. Then, Amalek had to contend with Ishmael.*

    Amalek is contentious, and will fight amongst itself or others when Israel isn’t there for it to rage against. It’s like the force of Rahab or Apophis, vengeful and destructive, lashing out at anyone it can when the focus of its hate isn’t present. This is why we see the Islamists lashing out against Hindus in India, Christians in Indonesia, etc. Even innocent Muslims aren’t safe from Islamist bombs and guns.

    *Islam denies human free will. Christianity doesn’t. If I had to choose one or the other, I’d definitely stick with the latter.(I do hope nobody tries to slit my throat or chop my head off for saying so.)*

    Most sects of Christianity do, but there are the ultra-fanatical sects that are as oppressive as Islam.

    *Israel had a presence in the Muslim-dominated lands - probably at least about half the intelligentsia of the Arab world when “the Arabs created algebra” and “Arabic numerals.*

    Actually the principals of higher mathematics were well-known in the ancient world. Arabs get too much credit for the work that earlier peoples formulated (mainly the Greeks, but also the work of the Chinese and Indians).

    From: wilkinsr
    2006-09-15 07:23 pm (UTC)

    More.

    A Jewish opinion of what I’ve come to believe is given in Elijah Benamozegh’s “Israel and Humanity,” where he points out the fact that the Egyptian monotheism. It seems to have been the property of a few learned priests, and Moses took the best aspects of it with him and turned monotheism into a universal belief (rather than the selective property of a caste of priests or Pharaoh). Rabbi Benamozegh’s approach seems to be that the ancient Gentiles had an incomplete and very often confused knowledge of Gd, and that the Jews would take the best aspects from them and incorporate them into Jewish exegesis (i.e. Greek philosophy).Any similarities that Gd has to polytheism is as the result of the titles applied to local divinities. Scholars, seeing that El was the chief Canaanite deity, presuppose that El was the same as the Gd of Abraham. El itself is merely a title, or part of a title (El Shaddai, El Elyon, etc.) and reflects nothing except the quality of the Gd or god that it’s applied to. The same with a title like dyeus phter, “sky father.”

    I believe that ancient peoples knew this, just as we do, and that some of them, did indeed, think that the title of the Gd or gd was also its proper name. Others, like Abraham, knew that the title merely implied an aspect of the unknown. Christians and Muslims tend to regard the ancient polytheists as being all idol-worshippers, but I don’t think that it’s that easy. Clearly people outside of Abraham knew of Gd (Melchizedek, Abimelech and the pre-Mosaic Pharaohs are all excellent examples). Another Pharaoh said to Moses, “Who is the Lord, that I should obey him and let Israel go?” This, to me, doesn’t imply that that Pharaoh didn’t know of Gd, just that he didn’t know the honorific for Gd that Moses was using. This was after Gd spoke the Name (ayeh-asher-ayeh) to Moses, but would Moses have spoken it to Pharaoh? More than likely Moses used a substitute. It is this substitute that Pharaoh most likely didn’t know.

    It also raises the question why Moses, being raised in Egypt, simply wouldn’t have used the Egyptian term for Gd? Perhaps because, by that time, the monotheism of earlier times was totally unknown. In its place was the polytheism we are all familar with, when the monotheistic symbolism of an earlier age had become idolatry (a good lesson for symbolists).

    So, if Moses said, “Re (God) says to let his people Israel go,” Pharaoh would’ve laughed him out of the palace. Why would a god of Egypt want Hebrews set free?

    Just some additional thinking.

  2. Robert on February 17th, 2007

    There is some spam on this blog.

  3. Michael on February 18th, 2007

    Spam gone - hope it stays gone.

    I’ve posted another question to the other string here - hope you see it and can take a shot at it.

    Shavua tov (a good new week)/Chodesh tov (a good new month - a happy new month of Adar 5767)

  4. Robert on February 22nd, 2007

    It looked like the work of Nigerians. I’ve seen similar results on other messageboards; they like to mark their virtual territory with nonsensical posts.

  5. Michael on February 27th, 2007

    Regarding the last Wilkinsr post - I don’t know what to make of the weird dates, will have to ask our webmaster, let me ask about this sentence right at the beginning:

    “A Jewish opinion of what I’ve come to believe is given in Elijah Benamozegh’s “Israel and Humanity,” where he points out the fact that the Egyptian monotheism.”

    Come again, please?

  6. Frances on March 1st, 2007

    Anonymous wrote:

    “I guess my question is, Why did G-d allow Almalek to attack the stragglers? I noticed that you did not answer or deal with that subject. If Israel was so holy why did G-d allow Almalek to do such things?”

    The answer is quite simple. G-d gave mankind free will, we can choose to do either good or evil. Amalek chose to do evil.

  7. Michael on March 2nd, 2007

    Amalek doesn’t think that he’s doing evil. Amalek thinks that attacking Israel is righteous. Amalek believes that Israel is only “so-called Israel” (as the Arabs who despise Israel call Israel today).

    Israel infuriates Amalek. When Israel presses ahead, leaving its own weakest people to struggle behind as stragglers (as we read in Exodus today), where is Israel’s holiness then? G’d allows Amalek to kill successfully because Israel is failing in some way to do what G’d wants.

    When Israel fails to live up to what it means to be Israel, Amalek grows stronger and Israel grows weaker. When Israel refuses to settle the land of Israel, for instance, Amalek - who infects the German people of that time - attacks. When Israel refuses to take the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, or Southern Lebanon, or any part of the Land where G’d wants Jewish people to live instead of brutal gentiles, that tantalizes and inflames Amalek and makes Amalek stronger.

    I’ve often heard it said that Amalek believes in nothing, that Amalek is an atheist. That’s weird thinking. The idea that the Nazis and Arabs and pogromists, etc., who hate Israel hate Israel because they’re atheists is ridiculous.

    They figure that they deserve G’d’s blessings more than Israel. They think they know Israel better than G’d does - or, rather, that Israel has somehow forfeited all blessing, and now its Amalek’s turn to show G’d and Israel and all the world how unblessed Israel actually is. Amalek is so fixated on Israel’s flaws that they completely miss Israel’s virtues. They’re still Esau, jealous and resentful of Yaakov for his blessings. But they’re not atheists. They think that they are closer to G’d than thee.

Leave a reply

*
To prove that you're not a bot, enter this code
Anti-Spam Image