The Amalek Controversy: Decoding the Biblical Term Used by Israelis in Reference to Palestinians

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most entrenched and complex geopolitical disputes in modern history, characterized by competing narratives, territorial claims, and deeply held religious and national convictions. Within this conflict, certain rhetorical devices carry immense historical and theological weight, none more potent or controversial than the invocation of Amalek. This biblical term, drawn from the Hebrew Bible, has been employed by some Israeli political figures, religious leaders, and commentators—particularly those on the right and in the settler movement—to label Palestinian adversaries, specifically groups like Hamas, but at times extending to the Palestinian people writ large. The use of this metaphor immediately transforms a political and military conflict into a cosmic, existential struggle, effectively activating an ancient and deeply troubling religious mandate for total annihilation, or “blotting out the memory” of the foe.

The controversy stems directly from the ancient Hebrew commandment associated with Amalek, which mandates perpetual warfare and complete destruction against this enemy. For critics, both international and domestic, applying this terminology to any contemporary group, let alone an entire modern population caught in a territorial conflict, constitutes incitement to violence, potentially crossing the threshold into genocidal rhetoric. Understanding the full scope of this issue requires a deep dive into the term’s scriptural origins, its historical interpretation within Judaism, and the dangerous context of its modern political deployment.

The debate over Amalek highlights the profound tension between modern state conduct, governed by international law and secular ethics, and certain literalist interpretations of ancient religious texts. This analysis seeks to unpack the historical weight of the Amalek narrative, trace the genealogy of its application in Zionist and Israeli political discourse, and explore the severe ethical and legal ramifications that arise when a metaphorical religious enemy is identified with a contemporary, identifiable group of people.

The phrase “blot out the memory of Amalek” is far from a mere insult; it is a command found in the Torah that has been debated and often softened by Jewish sages for centuries. When weaponized in the context of an ongoing, violent conflict, it shifts the debate from military strategy or political negotiation to a sacred obligation, implying a final, absolute resolution that stands starkly against the principles of coexistence and humanitarian law.

The Biblical Roots of Amalek: An Eternal Enemy

The story of Amalek is woven throughout the narrative of the early Israelites, solidifying its place as the archetypal, irredeemable enemy. The Amalekites were descendants of Amalek, who was the grandson of Esau, Jacob’s brother and rival. This genealogical link underscores a theme of familial betrayal and ancient, deep-seated resentment, setting the stage for a conflict that transcends typical territorial disputes. They are first encountered in the Book of Exodus, shortly after the Israelites’ miraculous escape from slavery in Egypt. While the Israelites were weary, vulnerable, and journeying through the desert toward the promised land, the Amalekites launched an unprovoked attack on the weakest members lagging behind—the elderly, the women, and the infirm—demonstrating a lack of morality and a profound lack of “fear of God.”

The Commandment to Erase Memory

This treacherous act defined Amalek for eternity in Jewish tradition. The Lord, through Moses, declared an everlasting war against Amalek. The most severe manifestation of this enmity is found in Deuteronomy 25:17–19, which not only commands the Israelites to remember what Amalek did but also to “blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; do not forget.” Centuries later, in 1 Samuel 15, the prophet Samuel instructs King Saul to fulfill this divine decree by utterly destroying the Amalekites, sparing no one—”man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” This directive is unique in its breadth and severity within the biblical text, prescribing a comprehensive destruction that today would be unequivocally classified as genocide.

The severity of this mandate stems from the theological significance of Amalek’s original sin. Commentators interpret Amalek’s attack not merely as a military skirmish, but as a metaphysical assault on the nascent Jewish nation and, by extension, on God’s divine plan. The medieval commentator, Rashi, explained that the Hebrew word used for Amalek’s attack (karcha, meaning “happened upon you”) also implies “cooling off” or tepidness. Amalek, in this view, was the entity that sought to inject doubt and randomness into a world freshly imprinted with the awe of God’s miracles during the Exodus, thereby undermining the divine providence that guided Israel. Thus, the battle against Amalek became the struggle against existential evil, chaos, and doubt.

Interpretations and Rabbinic Thought

Recognizing the moral and practical challenges of a literal, perpetual war of extermination, later Jewish tradition and rabbinic law (Halakha) worked systematically to mitigate or negate the commandment’s literal application. The sages of the Talmud eventually concluded that the genealogy of Amalek had become lost over the centuries, making it impossible to definitively identify who might qualify as an Amalekite in the modern world. This interpretation effectively rendered the physical commandment to destroy them null and void. By declaring the identity of Amalek to be unknown, the rabbis provided a moral and legal framework that respected the text while preventing its dangerous literal enforcement. Consequently, the struggle against Amalek was transformed from a physical war against a people into a spiritual and psychological battle against the evil archetype they represent—the force of irrational hatred, apathy, and the erosion of faith.

Despite this careful rabbinic distancing, the memory of Amalek remains central to Jewish observance, notably in the reading of Parshat Zachor (The Sabbath of Remembrance) before the holiday of Purim. The villain of the Purim story, Haman, is identified in tradition as a descendant of Agag, the Amalekite king whom Saul spared—a failure that emphasizes the danger of incomplete obedience to the divine command. This annual reading ensures that the concept of an unrelenting, total enemy remains a powerful, visceral part of the collective Jewish memory, even if its legal application has been suppressed.

This foundational understanding is crucial: within mainstream Judaism, the destruction of Amalek is either seen as a metaphysical or internal struggle, or simply a historical matter concerning an extinct people. When contemporary figures invoke the term literally, they are bypassing centuries of considered legal and theological interpretation in favor of a maximalist, literalist reading of the ancient text.

Modern Political Invocation and Context

The term Amalek was largely confined to theological discourse and holiday observance until the rise of modern Zionism and the ensuing conflict with the Arab population of Palestine. The political use of the term gained traction primarily among certain factions of the religious-Zionist movement, particularly those associated with the settlement enterprise and the right-wing political elite.

Tracing the Rhetoric to Policy Implications

The identification of Palestinians, or specific Palestinian groups, as modern-day Amalekites began to surface openly in the latter half of the 20th century, particularly following the 1967 Six-Day War. For those who believe the Jewish people must fully settle and govern the entirety of the biblical Land of Israel, the Palestinian resistance became framed not as a legitimate national struggle but as a manifestation of the eternal, cosmic evil—Amalek—that threatens God’s chosen people and their divine destiny. This framing is critical because it strips the adversary of political legitimacy and human rights, rendering the conflict a religious holy war rather than a territorial or political dispute.

One of the most extreme and notorious instances of this rhetoric being linked to violence occurred in 1994, when the American-Israeli extremist Baruch Goldstein massacred 29 Muslim worshipers in the Ibrahimi Mosque (Cave of the Patriarchs) in Hebron, on the Jewish holiday of Purim—the very day the Amalek story is read. Extremist rabbis and commentators later referenced Amalek and the obligation to destroy the enemy in attempts to justify Goldstein’s actions, demonstrating the deadly consequence of a literalist application of the ancient text. Later, figures like former Knesset member Moshe Feiglin and settler leader Benzi Lieberman openly suggested that the Palestinians, or their nationalist aims, represented Amalek’s spirit, implying the need to “destroy their ability to think as a nation” rather than engage in negotiation.

This long-simmering rhetoric achieved worldwide attention and notoriety following the October 7, 2023, attack led by Hamas. In the days following the massacre, the term was invoked at the highest levels of Israeli government, military, and religious authority, including by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In a public address to the nation, the Prime Minister quoted Deuteronomy 25:17, saying, “You must remember what Amalek has done to you,” which many interpreted as a direct call to action against the enemy in Gaza.

The public declaration was subsequently followed by similar statements from other senior officials, who often equated Hamas’s actions with the pure, irrational evil ascribed to the ancient Amalekites. While many Israeli government spokespersons and legal analysts insisted that the term was intended purely as a historical metaphor for pure evil, similar to likening an enemy to the Nazis, the context of an active military campaign, coupled with the term’s biblical command for complete annihilation, triggered immediate and severe criticism globally.

International and Ethical Debates: The Charge of Incitement

The international community, international human rights organizations, and legal bodies took immediate notice of the use of the Amalek rhetoric. These invocations were viewed by critics as highly dangerous, especially when uttered by political and military leaders directing massive, destructive operations in a densely populated civilian area.

Concerns of Dehumanization and Genocide Rhetoric

The primary concern surrounding the Amalek reference is that it functions as a powerful tool of dehumanization. By assigning the label of an archetypal, purely evil enemy destined for eradication to a contemporary group of people, the rhetoric effectively negates their humanity, their political grievances, and their civilian status. This rhetorical device makes it easier to justify collective punishment and indiscriminate military actions.

The concept of Amalek suggests that the enemy’s existence is a threat not just to Israel’s security, but to its moral and divine order, thereby justifying the most extreme measures. This is fundamentally at odds with the modern laws of armed conflict, which demand distinction between combatants and civilians, and proportionality in the use of force. Legal scholars and human rights advocates warn that this type of language creates an environment where atrocities are not only possible but, in the minds of some radicalized elements, divinely sanctioned.

• The Legal Context of Genocide: The invocation of Amalek, particularly the quote demanding the “blotting out of memory,” became a central piece of evidence in the case brought by South Africa against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in early 2024. The South African legal team argued that such statements, originating from the highest levels of government, constituted evidence of genocidal intent—a crucial component for proving the crime of genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention.This argument hinges on the idea that the political framing of the conflict as a struggle against Amalek provides the necessary mens rea, or psychological element, to suggest that the Israeli military operation was motivated by an intent to destroy the Palestinian people, in whole or in part, rather than solely by a need for self-defense against Hamas.
• The Rebuttal of Metaphorical Intent: Israeli defenders and legal representatives countered this accusation by arguing that the term is used exclusively in a metaphorical sense, intended only to denote the “pure evil” of Hamas’s terrorist actions. They contended that, within the context of contemporary Jewish culture, the phrase is a spiritual lamentation against relentless hostility, not a literal command for genocide, which has been legally superseded by rabbinic tradition.Furthermore, they pointed out that Israeli military orders and official policies adhere strictly to international law, citing the extensive efforts made to warn civilians before strikes. The insistence was that the rhetoric, however extreme, did not translate into official operational policy, and that the target was the terrorist organization, not the civilian population of Gaza.
• The Impact on Soldiers and Public Morale: Beyond the halls of international justice, the rhetoric has a potent effect on the ground. When military personnel are instructed to fight an enemy designated as “Amalek,” it can lead to the erosion of ethical boundaries. The term gives a religious license to extreme conduct, which complicates the maintenance of strict military discipline and adherence to the laws of war, potentially putting civilian lives at greater risk.This narrative is also leveraged domestically to rally public support, framing the sacrifice required in the war as participation in a holy, existential mission. The use of this language taps into the deep well of collective memory regarding historical persecution and threats to Jewish existence, making the conflict personal and absolute for many Israelis.
• Deconstructing the Archetype vs. People Debate: The core intellectual and moral challenge lies in the conflation of the ancient Amalek archetype (pure, unmotivated evil) with a modern political people (Palestinians). While an archetype can be fought metaphorically, a people cannot. Critics argue that even if the intent is only to refer to Hamas, the history of Amalek rhetoric demonstrates an almost inevitable slippage where the terrorist group and the wider civilian population become indistinguishable in the eyes of the literalist observer.The use of the term encourages a maximalist, zero-sum outcome, where the only permissible conclusion is the total elimination of the threat, psychological, political, or physical. This framework leaves no room for diplomatic resolution, political compromise, or even humanitarian restraint, trapping the conflict in an endless, biblically sanctioned cycle of violence.
• Historical Parallels to Dehumanization: The Amalek rhetoric is not unique in its function; throughout history, warring factions have used religious or mythic labels to dehumanize their enemies. From the Crusades to various modern genocides, the first step towards mass violence is often the rhetorical transformation of the “Other” into a subhuman or cosmically evil entity.In this context, Amalek serves to elevate the conflict beyond mere nationalism to a theological imperative, making the defeat of the enemy a sacred duty rather than a military necessity. This rhetorical maneuver is profoundly concerning to genocide scholars, who recognize it as a dangerous precursor in the spiral of escalation.

The Spectrum of Opinion in Israel

The use and interpretation of the Amalek narrative are far from monolithic within Israeli society. The controversy reveals deep ideological schisms between the religious right, the secular center, and the liberal left, highlighting different approaches to the role of religion in state and conflict.

Right-Wing Justification and Religious Literalism

For large segments of the religious and political right, particularly those rooted in hardline religious Zionism, the literalist reading of the Amalek commandment holds significant sway. The rationale is often framed around the idea that the Jewish people have entered a final, existential stage of redemption, and that current enemies are indeed the final, historical manifestation of Amalek. This viewpoint often dismisses the mitigating rulings of the Talmudic sages, arguing that the commandment remains an active, eternal obligation that supersedes contemporary ethical or legal concerns.

In this maximalist view, figures and organizations like Hamas, or the entire Palestinian nationalist project, embody the unprovoked, absolute evil described in the Torah. They justify the rhetoric by emphasizing the brutality of the opponent’s actions, claiming that such depravity can only be explained by a historical, metaphysical hatred of the Jewish people. This perspective provides an ideological justification for expansive military action and the rejection of a two-state solution or any form of political compromise that might leave the threat intact.

Secular and Liberal Counterarguments

In contrast, the secular, centrist, and liberal segments of Israeli society, including prominent human rights organizations and religious reform movements, overwhelmingly reject the application of the term Amalek to any contemporary people. These groups view the rhetoric as reckless, counterproductive, and morally abhorrent. They often side with the mainstream rabbinic consensus that the commandment is allegorical or historically obsolete.

Critics from within Israel argue that the use of such extreme language not only fuels the cycle of conflict but also damages Israel’s international standing and moral fabric. They contend that the state’s legitimacy rests on its adherence to democratic values and international law, not on a literalist reading of a genocidal biblical passage. For these critics, the invocation of Amalek is a political tactic used by extremists to avoid dealing with the legitimate political and territorial aspects of the conflict, replacing statecraft with a religious fanaticism that endangers Israeli democracy itself.

Furthermore, many military and security professionals, who operate based on pragmatic national security concerns rather than messianic religious doctrine, find the Amalek rhetoric unhelpful. They recognize the tactical and strategic necessity of distinguishing between military targets and civilians, a distinction that the dehumanizing power of the Amalek label actively works to blur.

The Legal and Humanitarian Dimension: War Rhetoric and International Law

The controversy around Amalek sits at the intersection of religious freedom, political rhetoric, and the most serious offenses in international criminal law. While freedom of speech generally protects political rhetoric, international law, specifically the Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), draws a sharp line at incitement to genocide.

Incitement is defined as the direct and public urging of others to commit genocide. The legal challenge in the Amalek context is determining whether the rhetorical use of a metaphor for “absolute evil” crosses into direct, specific encouragement to commit mass destruction against a protected group (Palestinians). The South African application to the ICJ argued that, given the specific historical context of the Amalek commandment, the term itself is inherently a public urging of destruction when spoken by a commander-in-chief in the middle of a massive military operation.

Legal responses from Israel have stressed the distinction between targeting a terrorist organization (Hamas) and targeting the Palestinian people as a whole. They cite the existence of elaborate military protocols designed to minimize civilian casualties, which would be inconsistent with a policy of genocidal intent. They also emphasize that the historical context of Amalek, for many, is a reminder of historical trauma and the need to defend against forces seeking to erase Jewish existence, rather than a license to kill.

Nevertheless, the invocation of Amalek serves as a chilling reminder of the fragility of the legal and moral restraints in wartime. The UN Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide and other international bodies have consistently warned that state-level rhetoric, particularly when it dehumanizes the enemy and uses terms associated with mass destruction, can easily facilitate crimes against humanity. The political and theological weight carried by Amalek makes its use particularly hazardous in the sensitive, high-stakes environment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, creating a dangerous feedback loop where ancient religious texts are used to rationalize contemporary military violence.

Conclusion

The Amalek controversy represents a profound crisis of interpretation, morality, and law at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The term, rooted in the biblical narrative of an unprovoked, treacherous attack on the ancient Israelites, carries the unique and dangerous theological mandate for total annihilation. While mainstream Jewish tradition has historically allegorized this command, transforming the struggle into an internal, metaphysical battle against doubt and evil, the modern political invocation of Amalek by some influential Israeli figures effectively bypasses centuries of ethical mitigation.

The application of this rhetoric to Palestinians—whether explicitly to Hamas or implicitly to the entire population—functions as a powerful tool of dehumanization, framing a complex political struggle as a cosmic, existential war against absolute evil. This rhetorical move provides an ideological cover for maximalist military responses and a rejection of political compromise, contributing to an environment where the principles of distinction and proportionality required by international humanitarian law are threatened. The international legal response, particularly the ICJ case citing this rhetoric as evidence of potential genocidal intent, underscores the gravity of using such historically loaded language in a contemporary conflict zone.

Ultimately, the debate over Amalek highlights the critical responsibility of political and religious leaders to choose their language carefully. The choice to invoke a term that biblically commands genocide, regardless of purported metaphorical intent, carries immense weight and directly contributes to the severity and intractability of the conflict. Moving forward, any path toward peace and de-escalation must involve a conscious effort to retire such destructive rhetoric and ensure that the conflict is framed within the constraints of modern ethics, human rights, and international law, rather than being dictated by the most violent, literalist readings of ancient, unfulfilled religious obligations.