His associates Marzel and Gopstein are really extreme, but is his party by itself really not basically like Smotrich?

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 pretty strong suspicion of racism regarding Smotrich. Almost anyone who takes the words of the sages of earlier generations about gentiles literally is racist, in my opinion.

Rabbi,
I learned from you that you are basically begging the question when you say that certain people are racist, and therefore their views are not legitimate / are problematic. True, you didn’t say that 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 research were to show that people of a certain race have, on average, more IQ points, many people would say that this research is “racist.”
It’s clear to me that research cannot be “problematic,” because it only (is supposed to) reflect reality. If we agree that such research 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 indeed racist, but that is not a very problematic kind of racism.

I wrote columns about racism. The definitions are there. Research is not racism.

Are the plagues with which the Egyptians were struck, while the children of Israel were passed over, considered “racism”? And Moses’ request from God, “that I and Your people may be distinguished”—are all these not a form of “racism”?

Best regards, T. Haran

Okay, I’ll take a look.

With God’s help, eve of the Sabbath, Parashat Va’era 5780

To the honored Rabbi—greetings,

I saw in this week’s Torah portion that only the Egyptians were struck with the ten plagues and not the children of Israel—isn’t that racism?

Best regards, T. Haran

What does racism have to do with Egypt? There it still made sense to speak of an entire people bearing liability for the harsh enslavement of another people.
Today, certainly, such a thing really has no meaning, and no one would argue that punishments should be imposed on all the people of Germany because of their belonging to that nation. The only place where something like that still applies today is in punishment such as sanctions and the like, which by their nature address a collective rather than an 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 acting according to a worldview. How, then, can one say that someone is “suspected of racism”? Either he acted according to his worldview, or he didn’t.
And do you think that everyone who understands the words of the sages literally with respect to gentiles necessarily acts according to that worldview?

Not necessarily at all. But those guys act according to that doctrine. We’re talking about actions and not just ways of thinking. Check Rabbi Meir Kahane’s legislative proposals and you’ll see various applications.

You wrote above that “almost anyone who takes the words of the sages in earlier generations about gentiles literally is racist, in my opinion.” As stated, there is no reason to think that all of the above actually act toward gentiles according to that worldview. Therefore, by your definition, they should not be called “racists,” at least not as a negative value judgment.
I apologize for “holding you to the word,” but I feel that you cast aspersions on a not insignificant percentage of Torah-and-commandment observant Jews, and therefore it is important to me to clarify the matter.

Hello Eli. You’re not holding me to a word. This is a relevant and important discussion. I stand behind everything I wrote. Someone who takes the words of the sages literally on this matter is usually a racist, even if he does not act that way. Usually, the only reason he doesn’t act that way is because he lacks the power and ability to do so (because of the wicked secular people and the threat from the nations of the world); otherwise he would do it (our hand is not strong enough). This is reminiscent of the king of the Khazars’ argument to the sage that our enlightened behavior stems from the fact that we had no independent rule and had no possibility of behaving otherwise. The sage answers him: You have put me to shame, O King of the Khazars.

It’s hard to know what would happen if we had the option of behaving differently. I once heard you say that if a definite Amalekite were standing before you, you probably would not kill him. Same here. I think we should judge the Jewish people favorably—that if our hand were strong enough, we would behave with compassion. But of course that’s speculation in both directions.

Rabbi Kahane may fit your definitions of a racist, but is Itamar Ben-Gvir really the same as Rabbi Kahane? He explicitly says he isn’t.

I haven’t done a comparative study, nor do I have any interest in doing so. Maybe he is racist in a different way, and maybe he is just a more sophisticated propagandist.