Jewish Power

His friends Marzel and Gopstein are truly extremists, but isn't his party alone really like Smotrich's?

I don't know because I don't know him well enough. But he represents a public and a party, not a private individual. By the way, I also have a considerable suspicion about Smotrich's racism. Almost anyone who takes the words of the sages of previous generations about Gentiles literally is a racist in my opinion.

Rabbi,
I learned from you that you are essentially assuming what you are asking for when you say that certain people are racist, and therefore their opinions are not legitimate/problematic (although you did not say this explicitly, but that is what is implied when people use the description “racist” or “suspected of racism” in today's discourse). Do you think that every opinion that falls into the category of “racism” is necessarily problematic?
For example, if a study showed that people of a certain race had higher IQ points on average, many people would say that this study was “racist”.
It is clear to me that a study cannot be “problematic”, because it is only (supposed to) reflect reality. If we agree that such a study is indeed racist, then here is an example of something racist that is not problematic.
In my opinion, racism that leads to violence or serious discrimination is problematic racism. A woman who wants only Jewish hands to touch her baby is racist, but it is not very problematic racism.

I've written columns about racism. There are definitions there. Research is not racism.

Are the deaths that the Egyptians inflicted on the Israelites considered ’racism’? And Moses' demand from God: ‘And we will fall, I and your people’ – Aren't all of these considered ‘racism’?

With blessings, T’ Haran

Okay, I'll take a look.

Sadd Shek Vara 5722

Lamb of God, Rabbi Shalom

I saw in this week's Torah that only the Egyptians were struck with the ten plagues and not the Israelites. Isn't that racism?

With blessings, T'Haran

What is the connection with racism in Egypt? There was still a concept of an entire people who were in debt for the hard work of another people,
Today, there is certainly no meaning to such a thing and no one would argue that all people in Germany should be punished because they belong to the people, the only place where such a thing still belongs today is in punishment such as sanctions and the like, which in essence is addressed to the collective and not to the individual

Hello Rabbi,
Have a good week!
I saw that you wrote here (https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%93%D7%94-%D7%9E%D7%92%D7%96%D7%A2%D7%9F) that racism as a negative value is not a worldview but an action according to a worldview. How can one say, then, that someone is “suspected of racism”? Either he acted according to his worldview, or he did not.
And do you think that everyone who understands the words of Chazal as they are in relation to the Gentiles, necessarily acts according to this worldview?

Not necessarily. But these guys are acting according to this mishna. It's about actions, not just ways of thinking. Check out Rabbi Meir Kahane's bills and you'll see different applications.

You wrote above that ”almost everyone who takes the words of the sages of previous generations regarding Gentiles literally is a racist in my opinion”. As stated, there is no reason to think that all of the above act towards Gentiles according to this worldview. Therefore, according to your definition, they should not be called ” racists”, at least not as a negative value.
I apologize for “taking you at your word”, but I feel that you have taken a dig at a significant percentage of Torah and mitzvot observant people, and therefore it is important for me to clarify the matter.

Hello Eli. You didn't catch me at a word. This is a relevant and important discussion. I stand behind everything I wrote. Anyone who takes Chazal's words literally on this matter is usually a racist, even if he doesn't act that way. Usually, the one who doesn't act that way is only because he doesn't have the power and possibility (because of the evil secularists and the threat from the nations of the world), otherwise he would do it (we don't have the strength to attack). This is reminiscent of the Khazar king's claim to the sage that our enlightened behavior stems from the fact that we didn't have independent rule and didn't have the possibility to act differently. The sage replies to him: You fool me, Khazar king.

It's hard to know what would have happened if we had had the option to act differently. I heard you say once that if an Amalek were standing in front of you, you probably wouldn't have killed him. Like me, like you. I think we should teach the people of Israel a lesson, that if our hands were strong, we would have acted mercifully. But of course, that's speculation in both directions.

Rabbi Kahane may meet your definition of a racist, but is Itamar Ben-Gvir the same thing as Rabbi Kahane? He clearly says no.

I haven't done any comparative research, nor do I have any interest in doing so. Maybe he's racist in a different way, or maybe he's just a more sophisticated propagandist.