Comments on: FAQ: Amalek, Goldberg, Netanyahu and Iran

By: Racism, Amalek and Videotape

Racism, Amalek and Videotape — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:02:24 +0000

[...] I wrote recently – in response to a column by Jeffrey Goldberg – Amalek is the Biblical enemy that achieved [...]

By: moron

moron — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 07:20:41 +0000

Please note: That’s not a quote from Bibi, it’s a quote from the adviser taking measure of Bibi.

Even that overstates the relevance.

More precisely, it’s an uncorroborated, too-good-to-be-true blind quote from a supposed advisor to Netanyahu as relayed by professional unreliable narrator Jeffrey Goldberg. Caveat suxxor.

By: Wonk Room » Amalek Debate ‘A Perversion’?

Wonk Room » Amalek Debate ‘A Perversion’? — Sun, 31 May 2009 15:11:45 +0000

[...] discussion on Amalek to be very interesting and informative — Gershom Gorenberg’s extended treatment of the subject is particularly good. Goldberg’s attempt to short circuit the debate, however, [...]

By: berger

berger — Thu, 28 May 2009 23:59:55 +0000

It’s fair enough to say that one shouldn’t try to read texts “cold,” because one can’t possible do so – traditions and history always play some role in how we read (and why). But it seems to me a bit disengenguous, especially on this issue, to (at least) imply that the text is somehow secondary (particularly to something called “the Jewish view of human beings”). Texts are always read by somebody but the texts obviously play a huge role in framing this whole conversation, so they are definitely a good place to start. I think you demonstrate this quite well actually in your discussion of Amalek (and in Michael’s comments as well).

By: The Amalek Controversy « Around The Sphere

The Amalek Controversy « Around The Sphere — Thu, 28 May 2009 23:10:28 +0000

[...] Gershom Gorenberg [...]

By: Lilly Rivlin

Lilly Rivlin — Thu, 28 May 2009 13:33:13 +0000

Excellent piece, full of insight. Particularly the lesson of , … don’t try to seek to understand a religion by going back to its founding text and just reading it cold. This applies to the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, the Quran, or any other founding text. What matters is how the text is read today, and it is usually read in several ways.”
AMEN!

By: Suzanne

Suzanne — Thu, 28 May 2009 11:41:33 +0000

To GG: Excellent. Thank you.

By: Richard Blanco

Richard Blanco — Mon, 25 May 2009 04:04:18 +0000

“The problem with such a mythological view is that it flies in the face of the Jewish view of human beings. In the myth, Amalek is irredeemable, evil by nature. In Jewish ethics, all human beings have free choice between good and evil. This is a rather classic religious dilemma: The mythical and ethical views of the world lead to drastically different conclusions.”

Don’t forget the halakhic, as well. While only a third-generation Egyptian (“Mitzri”) convert can marry an Israelite, and an Ammonite or Moabite never can, apparently an Amalekite is freely available to, even first generation.

Although what this says about the free will of Egyptians, Ammonites and Moabites…

By: Michael Zank

Michael Zank — Sun, 24 May 2009 20:05:28 +0000

Very good! — As to who else might be identified as Amalek, I remember distinctly walking through Meah Shearim (perhaps as far back as 1986) and seeing posters all over depicting mounted Israeli police attacking ultra-orthodox demonstrators. The caption: “Don’t forget what the Zionist Amalek has done to you!”

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Sun, 24 May 2009 14:54:50 +0000

“Second, looking at current enemies in mythical terms is a bad business. It dehumanizes them. It makes compromise and reconciliation impossible. It is unethical. It leads to very bad decision-making.”

I thought the above paragraph was insightful and educational. In particular: making the connnecting between myths and ethics.

Lloyd