Amalek Returns: When History Repeats Itself
The Roots of Anti-Israel Hostility

Rabbi Shay Tahan

Several threads come together at this time of year.

First, last Shabbat we read the Torah’s command to remember Amalek—the nation that attacked us without provocation, whose hatred represents a deeper spiritual war against the very existence and mission of the Jewish people.

Second, the holiday of Purim, when we faced the decree of Haman, a direct descendant of Amalek, who rose to power within the Persian Empire—what we would call today Iran.

Thirdly. We confront in our own time the hostility of the Iranian regime, which openly threatens the destruction of the Jewish nation and echoes the same genocidal language of a “final solution”.

Who Is Amalek?

Amalek identified as the son of Eliphaz, who was the son of Esav and ancestor of the Edomites. He was born to Eliphaz and his pilegesh- Timna.

The Amalekites are later referenced after the Israelites departed from Egypt, accompanied by nany open miracles that gained recognition globally. Despite the widespread awareness of these miracles, Amalek chose to defy the prevailing fear and engage in battle against us. Despite the awareness that they would not survive, they deemed it worthwhile to confront and diminish the fear instilled in the nations, accepting their own demise as a means to "cool down," so to speak, the apprehension among other nations.

Because Amalek was the first to confront Israel in battle, Bilaam, in his prophecy, refers to Amalek as "the first of nations."

In the biblical narrative, King Shaul and the conflict with the Amalekites are described in the First Book of Shmuel, (chapter 15). Hashem commanded Shaul to completely destroy the Amalekite people, including men, women, children, and livestock, as a divine punishment for their earlier hostility towards the Israelites during their Exodus from Egypt.

However, Shaul did not fully carry out this command. Despite destroying many of the Amalekites, he spared their king, Agag, and some of the best livestock.

As a result of Shaul's disobedience, Shmuel declared that Hashem had rejected him as king over Israel.

The Amalekites continued to be a recurring enemy of the Israelites throughout biblical history.

Amalek in later Generations

In subsequent generations, we encounter Haman, who was a descendant of Amalek, once again in Persia during the reign of King Achasverosh. The discovery of Haman is mentioned in Megilat Esther as "Haman the Agagi," meaning from the Agagite family. Agag is openly mentioned in the Book of Shmuel as a king of the Amalekites. Therefore, Haman is a descendant of Agag, the king of Amalek.

We encounter the Amalekite once again in recent times, specifically in Germany. The Vilna Gaon, who lived over 200 years ago, asserted that Germany are the descendents of Amalek. In the book "Yerushatenu," (חלק ח’ עמוד קצו והלאה) Rabbi Binyamin Hamburger cites various rabbis who affirmed this perspective. Among them, Rabbi Eliezer from Lezinsk and Rabbi Zusha from Manipoli, eminent Chasidic figures, were the first to express the idea that the Germans embody Amalek. This viewpoint is also echoed in the writings of the Sfat Emet and Avnei Nezer.

It’s striking to note that both Iran and parts of Europe were historically linked with the term “Aryan.” The name Iran itself is connected to an ancient word meaning “land of the Aryans,” and in later European history the term “Aryan” was also used in connection with Germans.

Modern DNA-based research has also pointed to a strong genetic connection—and therefore shared ancestry—between populations in northern India, Persia (Iran), and Eastern Europe, especially Ukraine and Poland, showing that Ukrainians as well are connected to that broader Aryan/Indo-European ancestry. This helps explain the deep-seated hostility that has existed historically among Ukrainians and Poles toward the Jewish people.

The story of Amalek and Esav descendants reveals that the battle against Israel is often not merely a dispute over borders or power, but a deeper attempt to sever the Jewish people from their identity, their Torah, and their bond with Hashem.

Let’s take a closer look at the meaning behind all of this:

“There Is One Nation…” — Haman’s Strategy: Cutting Israel Off from Hashem

“Haman said to King Achashverosh: There is one nation scattered and separated among the peoples throughout all the provinces of your kingdom. Their laws are different from every other nation, and they do not follow the king’s laws. It is not worthwhile for the king to tolerate them.”

Haman wasn’t just making a political argument. He was building a case to destroy the Jewish people by portraying them as outsiders who don’t belong—and more importantly, as a nation no longer protected by their G-d.

The Gemara (Megillah 13b) describes how Haman tried to persuade Achashverosh step by step:

Haman: “let’s wipe them out.”
Achashverosh: “I’m afraid of their G-d. He might do to me what He did to earlier kings.”
Haman: “Don’t worry—‘yashno’… they’ve fallen asleep from the mitzvos.”
Achashverosh: “But they have rabbis among them.”
Haman: “Still, they are one nation.”

In other words: Achashverosh feared Divine punishment. Haman’s response was meant to remove that fear by claiming the Jewish people were no longer connected to Hashem in a meaningful way.

What Does “Yeshno” Mean? Two Readings

The word “yeshno” sounds simple—“there is”—but Chazal read much more into it.

The Maharsha explains two meanings:

1) They “changed” the mitzvot

From the root of shinui (change):
Haman argued that the Jews distort or alter their mitzvot and don’t keep them properly.

2) They are “sleeping” from the mitzvot

From the word sheinah (sleep):
Haman claimed the Jews are spiritually asleep—careless and disconnected from mitzvah observance.

This same tactic—disconnecting Israel from Hashem—reappears later in history in the world’s two major religions: Christianity and Islam.

Both religions build a theological argument that the Jewish people are no longer living as the true nation of Hashem—but they frame it differently.

Islam’s Claim: “The Jews Are Still Obligated—They Just Don’t Keep It”

Islam generally argues that the Jewish people are still obligated in the mitzvot given at Sinai, but that they abandoned them.

One famous example appears in Islamic tradition (in the Qur’an and Hadith):
that Allah punished Jews for violating Shabbat—especially through fishing—by transforming them into monkeys and pigs.

Because of this, in many Muslim societies throughout history, Jews were insulted and dehumanized with those labels.

In this approach, the accusation is:
“You are still bound to the Torah, but you’re failing it.”

That is essentially: “They are sleeping from the mitzvot.”

Christianity’s Claim: “The Jews Changed the Mitzvot since the Mitzvot Are No Longer Required”

Christianity, from its earliest foundations, argued something very different:

Not only are Jews accused of failing to keep the Torah properly—
Christian theology claims that the mitzvos are no longer binding or required at all.

Christianity introduced a doctrine that became one of its central ideas:

Replacement Theology

A teaching that claims the Jewish people lost their status as the true “Israel,” and that the Church replaced them.

One of the most influential early Christian theologians, Justin Martyr, argued that once the Jews rejected their messiah, they were no longer the real Israel.

He described Jews as “Israel of the flesh,” while Christians became “Israel of the spirit.”

So when the Torah says Hashem is the G-d of Israel, this ideology effectively claims:
Hashem has abandoned His nation—“He is sleeping from them.”

And once mitzvot are declared “cancelled,” the only thing left is belief in their messiah:

• whoever believes is “saved”
• whoever does not believe is rejected

That is the Christian version of: “They changed the mitzvot.”

The Maharal’s Deep Explanation: Amalek and the Battle Over “Who Leads”

This concept is powerfully illuminated by the Maharal in a completely different context—his explanation of Amalek.

The Torah commands: “Remember what Amalek did to you on the way when you left Egypt… how he happened upon you on the way and attacked the weakest among you…”

Rashi explains the phrase “asher karcha baderech” as connected to impurity and corruption.

The Maharal (Gur Aryeh) explains why Amalek’s attack specifically expressed itself in a humiliating, corrupting way:

All nations were created to serve a Divine order in which Israel is meant to lead, as the Torah says: “You will rule over many nations, and they will not rule over you.”

When Israel lives up to its mission, the world has structure and unity.
But when Israel weakens spiritually, the nations rise over them.

Israel and the nations as a “relationship model”

The Maharal describes the relationship between Israel and the nations using the metaphor of male and female roles—meaning leadership and dependence, not physical identity.

• When Israel follows the torah it leads, Israel is the “giver” and the nations are the “receiver.”
• When Israel falls, the nations take control and Israel becomes weakened.

Amalek is different

Amalek is not willing to be part of that order at all.
Amalek refuses to accept Israel’s role, and therefore Amalek’s struggle is not just political—it is a rebellion against the spiritual structure of the world.

That is why Amalek represents a uniquely hostile force:
a nation that doesn’t just hate Israel, but fights the very idea that Israel has a Divine mission.

How This Connects Back to Christianity

This is where the parallel becomes striking:

Replacement Theology is not merely saying:
“Israel is wrong,” or “Israel sinned.”

It is claiming something far more radical:
“We are the true Israel now.”

No other nation in history made that claim the way Christianity did.
It is a direct challenge to Israel’s spiritual “firstborn” status and mission.

Islam, by contrast, did not usually claim “we are Israel.”
Instead, Islam claimed:
Hashem replaced Judaism with a newer “true religion,” and labeled the Torah’s system as outdated or cancelled.

The Core Idea: Haman’s Old Lie in New Clothing

Haman’s argument was never just:
“They’re different,” or “they don’t fit in.”

His deeper claim was:
The Jews are no longer connected to their G-d.

Once that connection is questioned, everything becomes easier:

• it becomes easier to hate
• easier to justify persecution
• easier to spill innocent blood

That is why this argument keeps returning throughout history—
because it is the most dangerous form of antisemitism:
not only attacking Jews, but attacking the bond between the Jewish people and Hashem.