@dpp in the punditosphere this was a weak case, the one that seemed like a real stretch. if all the highly paid politics-knowers thought that, you’d think at least one of twelve would have been persuaded by the defense at least consider it somewhat marginal and have to mull over it a bit. i haven’t followed reporting on the presentation at trial closely, but the prosecution was apparently very persuasive!
His ethical tradition does not strike me as unsurpassably subtle. To describe it as the Jewish tradition would be inaccurate and deeply antisemitic.
“[In times of war], it is correct to kill even the righteous among your enemy” seems like an excellent exoneration of Hamas.
What does “chosen” mean? To some, to the piece’s author, it’s exceptionalist, supremicist. To many Jews it is bitterly ironic and reflects a duty to which we are called rather than any privilege.
@Jonathanglick It is absurdly poorly argued, by a person who puffs himself up as an intellectual so extraordinary solidaristic values must give way. He caricatures every position not his own, although to be fair, that one caricatures itself. 1/
@Jonathanglick It’s not the shoddy argument that’s interesting in the piece. It’s the overtness and self-consciousness of the embrace of anti-universalism and overt supremacy as “Jewish”. There’s an extraordinary polarization occurring. Of course, two Jews three opinions. But when, somehow, this miserable war comes to a merciful close, will you and I and he recognize ourselves to be part of a shared community in any meaningful way at all? Should we? /fin
