Judaism, Amalek and Racism

This coming Shabbos is "Parashas Zakhor," in which we read the passage about remembering Amalek's attack on us in the desert and how we want God to destroy that nation. One of the 613 commandments is to destroy the nation of Amalek. The question raised in today's social climate is whether that is a racist command. Is the Torah racist in demanding that we kill people who are genetically, through no fault of their own, Amalekites?

R. Ari Kahn addressed this is an essay in his weekly column, later published in his book Emanations. He makes a number of important points:

1. An Amalekite is not destined for doom by his ancestry. If an Amalekite formally accepts upon himself the seven Noahide commandments then he loses his status as an Amalekite and no longer falls under the commandment to destroy Amalek. In fact, an Amalekite can convert to Judaism and even become a prominent rabbi. Historically, we know that descendants of Amalekites have become rabbis.

2. Additionally, according to R. Hayim Soloveitchik, the wording of the Rambam implies that the status of Amalek can be earned by someone not genetically related to the original Amalekites. R. Soloveitchik claimed that one who acts like the original Amalekites gains that status.

Thus, the command to eradicate Amalek is not necessarily race-related because someone from the Amalek race can remove himself from the status and someone from outside the race can gain the status.

However, this is not necessarily sufficient. It all depends on how you define racism and, perhaps more importantly, what your goal is in asking this question.

1. If you define racism as condemning someone to a position because of his race, then Judaism has been proven not to be racist. An Amalekite is not condemned to his status because of his ancestry.

However, if you define racism as applying preconceived categories to an individual, then this does apply to the command to eradicate Amalek. An Amalekite is assumed to be in that status, based on his birth, until he removes himself from that status. Imagine a law forcing all Jews to go to prison unless they convert to Christianity. This is discriminatory simply because it forces us to reject our heritage and renounce our ancestry in order to avoid punishment. The same thing applies to an Amalekite. Even a "non-religious" Amalekite, one who has no sympathy for the wicked acts of his ancestors, might still be uncomfortable about "converting" away from his heritage much like a secular Jew would feel uncomfortable about converting to Christianity.

2. We must go back to the reason for asking this question. If we accept the current notion that all people are individuals and are not at all conditioned by their upbringing or their ancestry, then we would have to say that this commandment is unjust. However, this assumption is patently and demonstrably false. Certain traits are genetic. Furthermore, biases are definitely passed on through upbringing. But even more to the point, people who discover their ancient ancestry are often moved to adopt some practices and behaviors from their forebears. There are Christians in New Mexico who, upon discovering that their ancestors from 400 years ago were Jewish, have begun to affiliate with Judaism. The same could very well happen with Amalek.

So what are we left with? Amalekites are not condemned to their status because they can remove it if they choose. However, absent that, Judaism discriminates against them. Is that bad? It certainly is not politically correct, and I doubt that it will sit well with many people, myself included. But it is not our place to judge the Torah; our is simply to try to understand it.