Talk:Amalek

Why was my edit reverted?

I added: No reference to Amalek or the Amalekites has ever been found outside Biblical or Biblical-based sources; it is therefore unclear whether such a nation ever really existed. to the lead section. I was looking for exactly that information and had to read almost the entire article before I finally stumbled upon it in the section called "Alternative theories of origins", with which this information is not connected at all. This obviously is important information that shouldn't be buried somewhere halfway down the page. Why was this edit reverted without even a reason for the revert given? This article treats Biblical myths as if they were true when there is no evidence at all to support that. 81.206.240.225 (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the possibility that the whole narrative around Amelelites is sheer invention and there were never such people at all is insufficiently prominent. I put the sole reference to it in some years ago and it was in its own section marked "Historicity" but someone moved it to "Alternative theories of origin" where it doesn't belong, you are right. I will put it back.Smeat75 (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. 81.206.240.225 (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I still think there should be some kind of mention of this in the lead section, but putting in this extra heading is a big improvement for the article. 81.206.240.225 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Biblically one-sidedness?

Why is this article almost exclusively pro-Judeo-Christian viewpoint? The Muslims and Arabs have had a rich history telling of the Amalekite people and their origins from ʿImliq bin Laudh bin Iram bin Sam bin Nuh. Palmyrans, the Pharaohs of Egypt even the fair-skinned Berbers of North Africa who were kicked out of Kanaan by Joshua, as well as the former inhabitants of Yathrib, were very well known to have Amalekite origin. One could even argue that the reason for "Edom" being labeled as the procreator of the Amalekite race could be due to a typo between the daleth (ד) in the name of "Edom" (אדם) and the resh (ר) in "Aram" (ארם), but that is beside the point. Point being, this article is completely biased and needs changing or perhaps someone could simply create a new article for the Islamic viewpoint.--MuslimKnight786 (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I even tried to edit nothing changed… 24.48.97.170 (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

lede far tamer than the text and the Torah

@Dur Godiva: Would you agree that the current lede is a gross understatement, inconsistent with the Torah and other sources and inconsistent with the way the rest of this article reads:

Amalek ... was a nation described in the Hebrew Bible as a staunch enemy of the Israelites.

What can we say in the lede that seems more representative of the Torah?

Amalek ... was a nation that Yahweh ordered destroyed utterly, though a few were spared, angering Yahweh.

??? I've changed the text to this. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Do They still exist today?

Do the Amalekites still exist today, or have any descendants today, or are they all gone now? Splashen (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

According to some Israeli politicians and rabbis the Palestinians are Amaleks. // Liftarn (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Please see reply and rationale for edits within "Religious and modern scholarly discussion" below. Let me know if you'd like to discuss. Thanks! Mstraney (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Modern references

Can we have a section on modern references to Amalek 86.5.202.27 (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Religious and modern scholarly discussion

Removing "Some rabbis think that the Palestinians are the Amaleks" [1], which the source does not appear to support. I believe using some in this manner may be considered weasel words, and if relevant and the people saying it are significant, then those people should be named. The 2004 New Yorker article gives quotes mentioning Amalekites from right-wing Israelis: Benzi Lieberman,Council of Settlements Chairman, and Moshe Feiglin, a Likud politician and Effie Eitam, National Religious Party member. None of these are said to be rabbis, unless this is original research or a misreading perhaps. The article author states Rabbi Samson drew on the bible and saw heroes as warriors and killers and gives a quote from the Talmud, but does not mention the Amalekites or express any view that he thought the "Palestinians are the Amaleks". The next paragraph says "Some settler leaders", not rabbis and then appears to give right wing politicians as examples. Please let me know if this is incorrect, and this source is germaine to "Religious and modern scholarly discussion". Below are the 3 relevant paragraphs excerpted from the source for ease of review (article is VERY long, but Amalekite is mentioned only in the 2nd paragraphs below, which only mentions rabbis think the Amalekites no longer existed):

Like many ideologues of aggressive settlement, Rabbi Samson drew lessons directly from the Bible, without the moderating influence of two thousand years of rabbinic Judaism. In the Bible, the heroes are warriors and killers; the Talmud, compiled after the destruction of the Temple and the dispersal of the Jews, asks, “Who is a hero?” and answers, “He who controls his passions.”

Some settler leaders see in the Palestinians the modern-day incarnation of the Amalekites, a mysterious Canaanite tribe that the Bible calls Israel’s eternal enemy. In the Book of Exodus, the Amalekites attacked the Children of Israel on their journey to the land of Israel. For this sin, God damned the Amalekites, commanding the Jews to wage a holy war to exterminate them. This is perhaps the most widely ignored command in the Bible. The rabbis who shaped Judaism could barely bring themselves to endorse the death penalty for murder, much less endorse genocide, and they ruled that the Amalekites no longer existed. But Moshe Feiglin, the Likud activist, told me, “The Arabs engage in typical Amalek behavior. I can’t prove this genetically, but this is the behavior of Amalek.” When I asked Benzi Lieberman, the chairman of the council of settlements—the umbrella group of all settlements in the West Bank and Gaza—if he thought the Amalekites existed today, he said, “The Palestinians are Amalek!” Lieberman went on, “We will destroy them. We won’t kill them all. But we will destroy their ability to think as a nation. We will destroy Palestinian nationalism.”

I heard similar talk from Effie Eitam, a hard-edged former general who leads the National Religious Party, a coalition partner in Sharon’s government. Eitam, who is Sharon’s housing minister, said, “I don’t call these people animals. These are creatures who came out of the depths of darkness. It is not by chance that the State of Israel got the mission to pave the way for the rest of the world, to militarily get rid of these dark forces.” Eitam told me that he believes there are innocent men among the Palestinians, but that they are collectively guilty. “We will have to kill them all,” he said. “I know it’s not very diplomatic. I don’t mean all the Palestinians, but the ones with evil in their heads. Not only blood on their hands but evil in their heads. They are contaminating the hearts and minds of the next generation of Palestinians.” Mstraney (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

One paper from the relatively obscure Rabbi Hess, should not be given undue weight compared to Thomas Aquinas and Momainades regarding "Religious and modern scholarly discussion". Mstraney (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I have revised to reflect that both sources state "rabbis generally agree that Amalek no longer exists, and that references to it do not provide a justification for attacking anyone."[2]1

and "The rabbis who shaped Judaism could barely bring themselves to endorse the death penalty for murder, much less endorse genocide, and they ruled that the Amalekites no longer existed."[3]2

and to reflect that a few Israeli politicians and scholars have compared Palestinians to Amaleks as discussed in the articles being used as sources. It does not seem appropriate to omit that both of these articles give the consensus and generally held position that Amaleks no longer exist. Mstraney (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I cannot find support for stating "scholars" from either article, so I am using "extremist" per the Mother Jones article: "Nevertheless, Jacobs said that it remains common for Israeli extremists to view Palestinians as modern-day Amalekites. In 1980, the Rabbi Israel Hess wrote an article that used the story of Amalek to justify wiping out Palestinians." Mstraney (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

After a thorough reread of both, "Rabbis" nor "Scholars" are not mentioned as regarding Amalekites as still existing or as the Palestinians. Nor are multiple rabbis given in either article that state that Amalekites are Palestinians (the New Yorker article has none, and the Mother Jones article has one). We cannot do original research or synthesis to say something not claimed in the original sources. Therefore it appears that either "Extremists" (Mother Jones") or "Settler Leaders" (New Yorker) are the appropriate terms supported by each article. (see source excerpts in my 13:39 15 November and 18:42 14 November replies above). Please let me know if you have any thoughts. Mstraney (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Netenyahu

A video link was removed in good faith by [[4]] to a speech by Netenyahu talking about the current war in Gaza in the context of the Amelkites. I don't particularly like the source for this (Middle East Eye) which seems to have links with the Muslim Brotherhood (and so Hamas) but there's no doubt that he said this (although the relevance may be debated)

I think these comments should be in the article as they are relevant and timely.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/benjamin-netanyahu-amalek-israel-palestine-gaza-saul-samuel-old-testament/

https://www.salon.com/2023/11/13/bibi-netanyahus-bible-lessons-how-hes-selling-gaza-to-jewish-and-christian-far-right/

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/07/1211133201/netanyahus-references-to-violent-biblical-passages-raise-alarm-among-critics

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/netanyahu-cites-amalek-theory-to-justify-gaza-killings/articleshow/104802548.cms?from=mdr

I thought I'd start conversation on here rather than get in edit wars on a contentious subject.

09:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC) JASpencer (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll reinsert the Youtube clip as a first step. Any concerns (I can't find a better source, but others are welcome to try). Please let me know any concerns. JASpencer (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

This article has become a POV and misleading mess

Of course with everything surrounding the Israel-Hamas war, we're taken to hyperbole and politicization of what seems like everything. Throughout history, the quote "Remember what Amalek has done to you" is a standard Jewish utterance at any appearance of antisemitism, especially of a violent nature, not a call for genocide. The Holocaust memorial in The Hague also makes reference to "Remember what Amalek has done to you" [5]. Is the Holocaust memorial calling for genocide, or more accurately referencing the well-known call for the Jewish people to remain vigilant to enemies that seek to destroy them?

We're simply not going to use mendacious and politicized misinterpretations of how the Amalek reference has historically and traditionally been used as encyclopedic or DUE fact.

In addition, Noah Lanard, a political reporter, and not a Bible scholar is not a WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, not least for the lede. The Mother Jones article is misleading and full of inaccuracies (of course, a political reporter with an ax to grind is not who we should be looking to for deep analysis on complex and multi-layered Biblical phrases).

First, Lanard erroneously derives Netanyahu's quote "You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible. And we do remember" is from the Book of Samuel (Samuel 15:3), when the passage he is quoting is completely different from where Netanyahu's quote actually came from (Deuteronomy 25:17). They have two absolutely different meanings, and Netanyahu did not say anything like "spare no no one, but kill alike men and women, infants and sucklings," which is the language from Samuel. To conflate the two is completely wrong.

Second, Lanard also inserts his own incorrect commentary. After quoting Joshua Shanes, Lanard claims that, "The lesson, when read literally, is clear: Saul’s failure to kill every Amalekite posed an existential threat to the Jewish people." Of course, anyone knowledgeable of how the Jewish Bible is to be read knows that it is never to be read literally. This is a completely inaccurate way to render Shanes' commentary, and contradicts other things that Shanes has written about Amalek. ([6]) Lanard is then contradicted when he approvingly quotes activist rabbi Jill Jacobs that "the overwhelming history of Jewish interpretation is to interpret it metaphorically."

Third, Lanard (and this article) cites Rabbi Jacobs unattributed to make the claim that "that rabbis generally agree that Amalek no longer exists." This is completely false. Her opinion is valid, but Jacobs comes from the progressive wing and her opinion does not represent rabbinic consensus (to the extent there could ever be one) or more mainstream or Orthodox Jewish thought. See also: [7] [8] [9] [10]. She is speaking in the literal sense here: the Amalekites do not exist. However, but the concept of Amalek does.

There is no commandment to "exterminate the Amalekites" or "wipe out the descendants of Amalek" as the subtitle claims and the Rambam language claims. Instead, mainstream and historical interpretation is the more allegorical "wipe/blot out the memory of Amalek". See [11].

This article needs a lot of work to restore accuracy and encyclopedic credibility. Adding tags while this is worked on. Longhornsg (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Referring to the historical significance of the Amalek quote does not contradict its more recent usage within Israeli right-wing politics, which Netanyahu is a part of. Stating that its not inherently a call for genocide doesnt mean it hasnt been used as a call for genocide. It has. In fact the article names a particular example, the article by Israel Hess that came to public attention due to a 2004 Haaretz article mentioning it, in which he argues that the Palestinians are the modern day incarnation of Amalek, and should be killed. The article is even titled "Genocide: A Commandment of the Torah", so as to remove any doubt.

Your first counterpoint does not fit in with the article. The article does not claim that the quote is from the Book of Samuel, but points out the association people made with the fate of Amalek in the book of Samuel. Additionally, the meanings of the two quotes are not at all "different", as Deutoronomy 25:17 is followed up with the following phrase in Deutoronomy 25:19

"When the Lord your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!"

Here is where the Lord first commands the Israelites to destroy Amalek. The meaning of this passage is the same, that being to genocide the Amalekites. The book of Samuel picks up on this and elaborates on the genocide, but the intent behind both phrases was the same.

Your second counterpoint appears to be a complaint about commentary about the literal reading (which is not stated to be the correct or intended reading), which does not relate to the articles usage for quotes.

Your third counterpoint claims that the source is unattributed (it is attributed) and that it is only Rabbi Jacobs who is cited in this article, however this phrase was originally cited from Jeffery Goldbergs article, with the Mother Jones article being used later to further support it.

As such I do not believe you make a justified case to remove the references to the article or to completely omit the fact that Amalek as a euphemism for calling for genocide of the Palestinians is a common occurence within the israeli right-wing circles Netanyahu himself moves in. 134.3.159.138 (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

In literally the third paragraph of the article, Lannard erroneously connects Netanyahu's comments to the Book of Samuel, not to the Book of Deuteronomy. The meanings are quite different -- hence why there are 3 commandments derived separately from each phrase. It is absolutely not the mainstream view, though it is one view (a WP:FRINGE view echoed by Hess, hence his dismissal from Bar-Ilan), that either phrase is a commandment to "genocide".

This article does include references to genocide. Feel free to propose RS if you feel they are missing. But to say that a fringe figure like Hess wrote an article 20 years ago, and because Netanyahu is right-wing therefore this is what Netanyahu meant, is completely unfounded WP:SYNTH and not backed by mainstream RS, nor does it represent a NPOV. We report what RS say, for example: [12] Longhornsg (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

More RS tying the Amalek reference specifically to Hamas: [13], [14], [15]. Longhornsg (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

He doesn't "erronously" connect it. The commandment made in Deutoronomy 25:19 is the same one fulfilled by Samuel in Samuel 15:3. The meanings are not different at all. Both are commandments to genocide Amalek. The author certainly could've made it clearer that it was not the same book the original quote is from, but to deny that the quotes are connected seems unreasonable.

Hess may be a fringe figure, but the usage of Amalek to refer to Palestinians is not at all fringe in the Israeli right-wing that Netanyahu moves in. Indeed, the most fervent supporter of this interpretation, the Kachanists, are a major part of his current coalition. Saying that Netanyahu specifically meant it as a call to genocide isnt unfounded, but it also conclusive, hence why I believe having the reference to its usage in the Israeli right wing shouldnt be part of the Netanyahu paragraph but shouldn't be omitted either.

Would a alleged clarification from several months later in the context of an active case at the ICJ where the original statement is used as evidence fall under RS? I'm not actually well versed enough in the minutiae of those, however I do not believe it seems reasonable to take the PMOs statement as fact here.

As for the sources you claim tie the reference specifically to Hamas, the first actually ties it to Gazans as a whole and not Hamas, as the chant concludes with the phrase "Our motto is: No uninvolved civilians", the third doesn't make the connection at all, and the second appears to be the presenters interpretation rather than a statement of fact. Not conclusive enough. 134.3.159.138 (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The commandments are not the same, to say they are is biblical illiteracy and ignoring RS, and to say they both are commandments to genocide is personal opinion, which is not how we write WP. Come back with RS.

Tying Netanyahu to Hess is WP:OR, so no.

So we take South Africa's interpretation as fact, but not the original speaker's statements of what they meant? NPOV fail. Longhornsg (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The commandments are the same, and to say they are both commandments to genocide is not personal opinion, but a simple statement of fact. Even if we set aside the prima facie fact that Deutoronomy 25:19 is a commandment to damnatio memoriae, an erasure of a people from having ever existed which is impossible without genocide, even in the commentaries written by Rashi the genocidal nature of Deutoronomy 25:19 is made clear:

"THOU SHALT WIPE AWAY THE REMEMBRANCE OF AMALEK, both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep (I Samuel 15:3), so that the name of Amalek should never again be mentioned even in connection with a beast, in that one could say’ This beast belonged to Amalek"

In fact Rashi directly connects the two statements, as Samuel 15:3 merely is an instruction on how exactly to commit the genocide commanded in deutoronomy 25:19. Rashi should be RS, as such this connection is entirely legitimate.

Hence why my suggestion isnt to tie Netanyahu to it, but to have the usage of Amalek as a euphemism for the genocide of Palestinians by the Israeli right-wing to be mentioned seperately. The usage of Amalek by the Israeli right-wing as a euphemism for genocide is well-established, we can both use Mother Jones indirect quoting of Rabbi Jacobs here, but for more scholarly sources we can quote "Murder under the Cover of Righteousness: There is No Fixed Method for Genocide" by Shulamit Aloni and "The Origin of Nations and the Shadow of Violence: Theological Perspectives on Canaan and Amalek Tradition" by Shalom Carmy.

No, we take neither interpretation as fact. We state what Netanyahu has said without making any statement on what he meant by that, since that would be NPOV. Accepting the explanation of the PMO post-hoc in the context of a case in which this quote was used as evidence, and especially in light of the fact that it was only then clarified after many months later, would not be NPOV.

Additionally, what are your thoughts of adding the chanting soldiers cited in the case in the section? I believe due to its inclusion its notable and would provide an additional view into the usage of Amalek in the context of the conflict. Additionally, should it be connected to Netanyahu given the prima facie connection, or should it be seperate? 134.3.159.138 (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: upon rereading the article I have seen the reference to its usage by the israeli right wing is addressed in the first paragraph, as such I retract my point with regards to the inclusion of that aspect in the article. 134.3.159.138 (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Evidence cited in the case South Africa v. Israel of IDF soldiers chants referencing Amalek.

I believe adding the video of IDF soldiers chanting, first posted here:

https://twitter.com/YinonMagal/status/1732652279461757102

Should be added to the section of the arab-israeli conflict, both due to its relevancy by showing how Amalek is understood by the soldiers in the current war (made clear by the last 2 verses of the chant showing all Gazans are meant by Amalek), and due to its inclusion as evidence in the case South Africa v. Israel before the ICJ, making it notable. Should it be added in the Netanyahu section given the connection made between these two instances in the south african case, or should it be added as a seperate paragraph given the time between them? 134.3.159.138 (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

wow

On what basis is there no genealogical relationship between the Amalekites and the Arabs? On what basis are Islamic and Arab sources labeled as claims, while the fundamentally distorted book on the Jewish religion is merely taken? The article is highly politicized😂. 91.186.228.246 (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Few useful informations

According to Arab historian ibn Khaldoun, the Amaleks are an ancient Arabian tribe who lived in Arabia, in Hejaz precisely before being expelled by the Arabs of Yemen to the levant. He points out that historian al tabari confused them with the Canaanites. Yet the canaanites are Hamitic people unlike the amaleks who were Semitic. He also recalls Roman historian Orisius affiliating the Amaleks to essau, but ibn khaldoun rejected this claim, yet Orisius makes no distinction between the Amaleks and the Phoenicians who settled in Carthage and ibn khaldoun seems to confirm this. On this matter, Ibn khaldoun affiliated the berbers to the Hamitic Canaanites while the phoenians are Semitic amalek Arabs.

hopefully this would help. Nourerrahmane (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)