1. The rabbinic tradition explicitly excludes non-Jews from "neighbor" 2. Lorberbaum's link to tzelem elokim at *best* applies to R. Akiva exclusively and is by no means a universal 3. The actions of these Jews and those who have committed actual violence are still deplorable
And more to @AvBronstein's point, this Twitter shiur on "Love thy Neighbor" in which we find qualifications to who is called, "thy neighbor" that exclude both gentiles *and* certain Jews.
Opinion: I'm very much not a fan of popular Jewish books that print the body in English and the footnotes in Hebrew.
On one hand, I appreciate the position that someone who can't read the Hebrew footnotes isn't in a position to double-check or judge the author. At the same time, I see this attitude more reflects an appeal to the author's authority rather than a desire to educate.
Furthermore, I've found that when religious figures target an audience knowing they cannot or will not double-check the sources in the original, it is much easier for them to engage in all sorts of intellectual dishonesty.
Opinion: Independent of specific policies, how Netanyahu has handled party and national leadership is disqualifying. An honorable leader would care more about the mission than himself and step aside for the greater good. 1/
Even w/in his own Likud party, rather than grooming successors to take over, he hobbled any possible challenger and actively impeded the development of potential future leaders. It's hard not to conclude these are the actions of a leader more concerned w/himself than the cause 2/
For comparison, company boards and CEOs who care about the longevity of the corp set up succession plans in advance. And for all the talk about, "King Bibi," even monarchs concern themselves with succession and the future of the nation after they're gone 3/
Honest Debate: Discussing contentious issues with the intent of increasing knowledge/understanding on finer points and accept the possibility of being wrong on at least some points
Dishonest Debate: Means to end of raising personal profile. Thus, only useful when "punching up"
There are of course other forms of dishonest debate, much of which can be self-evident from the forums or rules behind the debate.
Not to mention there are plenty of dishonest *people* - self-proclaimed authorities who resent the indignity of having to justify their positions and ignorant/illiterate gadflies who aren't worth people's time.
1. Since it came up recently, here are my current opinions on anonymous criticisms and doxxing. I say "current" because like all my opinions they're subject to change.
These are general opinions independent of any specific person, situation, person, or position taken.
2. First, I'm generally not a fan of anonymous criticisms due to the lack of accountability. I say this having seen anonymous accounts unfairly criticize and even slander people without meaningful consequence.
3. At the same time, I acknowledge why people at times feel the need to criticize anonymously due to the subject and/or temperament of those targeted. An asymmetry of power can also result in an asymmetry of accountability as well.
1. I don't know if this came up in the fight over calling people "Dr", but please read this from 2017 discussing Seb Gorka and Jill Biden web.archive.org/web/2020121522…
Today's topic: Rejoicing over and Praying for the Downfall of the Wicked
2. When this issue comes up (e.g. Osama bin Ladin or Trump's Covid-19), I find people tend to emphasize certain canonical sources in order to prove a particular point. Unsurprisingly, the range of perspectives attested in Biblical and Rabbinic literature complicates matters.
3. Disclaimer: I compare the reactions to bin Ladin and Trump not to equate their relative evils, but to assert that for those who believe Trump is evil, the same ethical and religious principles that would apply to the death of one ought to apply to the death of the other.