There is no shame in Jewish power, and we should use it.
Jews must leverage their power in many ways, and the most effective is to employ wildly disproportionate means to achieve deterrence.
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
This is a guest essay by Benjamin Kerstein, an Israeli-American writer based in Tel Aviv and Recipient of the 2024 Louis Rapaport Award for Excellence in Commentary from the American Jewish Press Association.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
Near the end of his Mishneh Torah, Maimonides enumerates the laws of kingship and war, which, given the Jews’ total lack of political and military power at the time, was a notably optimistic endeavor.
However, Maimonides’s optimism would prove justified many centuries later, making his insights quite valuable.
In particular, there is Maimonides’ understanding of what constitutes a milchemet mitzvah: a war that not only should be fought but that one is commanded to fight:
“The king should fight no war at first except a milchemet mitzvah. And what is a milchemet mitzvah? The war of the seven nations, and the war against Amalek, and the war to save Israel from a stranger who comes to harm them.”
As he so often was, Maimonides managed to be both prescient and timeless.
Today, the Jews are fighting two of those wars:
The “war against Amalek” is the war against the Jews’ eternal metaphysical enemy, who rises again in every generation and must be beaten back until he is finally destroyed in the days of the messiah. At the moment, even for the secular among us — including, I must say, myself — it is hard not to think that there is at least something in this.
“The war to save Israel from a stranger who comes to harm them” is perhaps the most relevant and important of all. Around the world, strangers are coming to harm the Jews, and we are still struggling to find a way to beat them back and, hopefully, defeat them.
The question is how to do this effectively. There is much dissension as to the answer. In the past, the joke was “two Jews, three opinions.” Today, it is “two Jews, 300 opinions.” Almost everyone agrees on what must be done, but a consensus on methods eludes us.
For example, there are those among us who think that U.S. President Donald Trump administration’s crackdown on systemically antisemitic universities and deportation of antisemitic criminals are not just good but essential things. Others, no less concerned about antisemitism, are appalled by them and see them as fundamental violations of both American and Jewish values.
No one can agree on something that will both work and be socially acceptable: Education? Counter-protests? Government action? Non-violent resistance? Physical self-defense? Lawsuits? Political activism? Any and all of the above? Perhaps something else?
Personally, I am sympathetic to most of these possibilities. Anything with the potential to defeat the strangers who have come to harm us ought to be, at the very least, considered. Experiment is all-important in an unprecedented situation, and, at least in terms of the last several decades, the Jews are in an unprecedentedly bad situation.
One thing I do know, however, is that any plan of action must be based on a basic principle: no half-measures. Resistance to antisemitism must be absolute. The Jews must scorch the earth. Within ethical bounds, we must adopt a doctrine of massive retaliation.
That is to say, the reaction to antisemitism should not be protest, lamentation, or even anger. It should be swift, immediate, and overwhelming retaliation. Retaliation that does not seek to arrest or punish antisemitism, but to neutralize it completely.
The Jews, in other words, must start to “think big.” They must not simply respond to individual incidents. They must attack the larger forces at work with overwhelming force — shock and awe — intended not just to oppose but to defeat the enemy.
For example, regarding the universities, their systemic antisemitism must be fought not to reform them but to shut them down entirely. The university in question should not just be sued but sued for its entire endowment, as well as full repayment of all tuitions paid by Jewish students. Their accreditation should be revoked, their property sold off, and their staff and faculty sent to the unemployment line.
The goal should not be for Harvard University to be nicer to the Jews, but for Harvard to cease to exist. Whether this actually happens or not, the threat will be sufficient to change things.
This does not only involve aggressive demands. Jews must also “flood the zone,” unleashing such a storm of punitive measures that the enemy finds himself paralyzed and helpless. For instance, when South Africa launched its campaign of blood libels against Israel in hopes of rescuing Hamas, Jewish groups could have filed numerous cases in international courts and forums accusing South Africa of collaborating with terrorism and complicity in Hamas’ attempted genocide. Jews could have campaigned for South Africa’s expulsion from international bodies, an end to U.S.-South Africa diplomatic relations, and the enactment of economic and trade sanctions.
Whether any of this would have happened in the end is, again, irrelevant. South Africa would have been so occupied with dealing with the threat that it would have been unable to continue its antisemitic campaign and would have been deterred from future malfeasance.
In the same way, we now know that the United Nations not only lends moral and political support to terrorism, but also material support and even participation. The role of the UN agency for Palestinians (UNRWA) and its employees in the October 7th massacre is well-documented and, I think, still underestimated.
Given this, there is no reason for Jewish groups not to demand that the UN be defunded, expelled from its New York headquarters, and proscribed as a foreign terrorist organization. With the gravy train suddenly stopped, the UN would mend its ways very quickly or face extinction.
This strategy of massive retaliation could be applied to innumerable antisemitic forces: individual politicians, officials, and activists; collaborationist NGOs; religious and educational institutions that preach antisemitism; and so on. Not every massive retaliation will succeed in neutralizing the enemy, but it will debilitate and deter them.
However, one can easily imagine the objections to this strategy. For example, many Jews will say, won’t this just strengthen the antisemites’ belief in omnipotent and sinister Jewish power?
Probably it will. But antisemites believe this anyway, and anything and everything they see confirms it for them. It is a basic tenet of their understanding of the world, and there is no way to either strengthen or weaken it. The best way of countering it is for Jews to use their power to stop those who believe it from acting on it.
There is no shame in power, and if Jews have it, we should use it. After all, everyone else happily does so. We should not refrain from effective action out of the bizarre delusion that antisemitism is somehow evidence-based.
Connected to this will be the charge that massive retaliation will just “make things worse” by exacerbating antisemitism in general. In this case, the argument is simply nonsense. Massive retaliation won’t make things worse. We are already at peak antisemitism. Our enemies are already outright genocidal, and we know this because they say so.
Moreover, the only thing that will get a lot “worse” if something isn’t done is peak antisemitism’s ever-escalating atrocities. Massive retaliation is far more likely to make things better rather than worse.
However, the naysayers will ask, aren’t such measures simply unrealistic and ineffective? The answer is: only if you demand absolute victory every time. Massive retaliation is not just a strategy but also a tactic. It is based on the irrefutable fact that when you go for everything, you usually end up with something.
As already noted, even if the antisemite is not completely neutralized, he will be far more damaged and deterred than he would be if opposed less aggressively. The strongest objection will be the moral one: Isn’t a policy of massive retaliation wildly disproportionate? Can’t we use more moderate tactics?
Sadly, we cannot. We do not have the numbers for mass street protests. Our enemies are indifferent to, if not outright contemptuous of half-measures. Non-Jews can get away with things Jews cannot, and thus enjoy impunity that protects them from any but the most aggressive counter-measures.
Jews must use their power in other ways, and the most effective is to employ wildly disproportionate means to achieve deterrence.
Certainly, we should also be smart. We must use our power with discernment and intelligence. We should not give our enemies a sword they can use against us, and we should remember that every sword is double-edged. This, however, is not and must not be any excuse for complacency, inaction, or convenient delusions.
Effective measures, moreover, are not just advisable but commanded. They are a milchemet mitzvah, an act of tikkun olam. The great Torah commentator Rashi said as much when he wrote of Amalek:
The Holy One, blessed be He, swears that His Name will not be perfect nor His throne perfect until the name of Amalek be entirely blotted out. But when [Amalek’s] name is blotted out, then will His [God’s] Name be perfect and His throne perfect. As it is said (Psalms 9:7): “The enemy is come to an end, he whose swords were forever”—and this refers to Amalek, of whom it is written, “He kept his wrath forever.”
In other words: Amalek has no mercy, and we should show him none.
A strategy of massive retaliation will be difficult to implement, however. Most Jewish organizations will reject it, as they are dedicated to self-immolating moderation if not outright quiescence.
The best method, therefore, might be the founding of a new organization whose sole purpose is to act upon the principle of massive retaliation. It could operate independently of the Jewish establishment, which is largely catamitic, and would likely be far more effective as a result.
This, in and of itself, would attract wide Jewish support, which might even allow the group to supersede the establishment organizations and become one of the leaders of the Jewish world. This may be an unrealistic ambition, but ambition has always been essential to great achievements. And this achievement is not just an endeavor but a commandment.
It is not for us, in our days, to destroy Amalek. Our tradition teaches that this lies in the hands of God and his anointed. But it is incumbent upon us to defeat Amalek in this generation. As the sage said, is not for us to complete the work, but nor are we free to desist from it.
If the throne is to be perfected, Amalek must be overcome by whatever moral and ethical means necessary to do so. If he is not, he will keep his wrath forever.
 | A guest post by
|
Jews who live in New York City cannot even agree that Zohran Mamdani is their enemy. An enemy out to destroy them. They think some charm school approach will appease his hatred of Jews and Israel. They are dangerously mistaken. Naïveté or just plain stupidity?
The obsession some Jews have with not making the gentiles mad reminds of that classic joke where the two Jews are condemned to death by firing squad and one asks for a cigarette and the other one says "shush. Don't make trouble."