The enemy never achieved the status of a proper philosophical or political concept.

Evidence

Unlike war (which, until recently, was logically contingent on the enemy without being a necessary condition of the enemy) or conflict (a lifeand-death struggle can take place without enemies ever having been identified, much less defined), the enemy never quite achieved the secured status of a philosophical concept. Nor has the enemy been an object (and even less a subject) of political reflection as such. Describing a “city-state consisting not of free people but of slaves and masters, the one group full of envy and the other full of arrogance,” Aristotle suggests about the enemy that “nothing is further removed from a friendship and a community that is political.” Aristotle thus casts doubt as to whether the enemy could ever be a political entity or unit, indeed, a community, “since community involves friendship” and “enemies,” echthroi, “do not wish to share even a journey in common.” — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab, 393

Categorization

• DEFINE: Establishes that the enemy has been theoretically excluded from political community since Aristotle, framing the book’s central question.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab: A History of the…, 393