Gil Anidjar — The Jew, the Arab: A History of the Enemy

546 published claims from this book.

• A biblical war prefigures the modern First World War in structure
• A law that has lost its content becomes indistinguishable from life
• A visual similarity to Arabs praying gave the camps their word for the dying
• Absolute submission is an unacknowledged center of modern Paul reception
• Affect binds individuals to the power that subjects them.
• Agamben builds on Kafka to theorize a relation beyond frame
• Agamben closes the theological gap between Jew and Muslim by conflating them
• Agamben’s biopolitical theory derives from Jewish messianic law, not Greek or Roman sources.
• Algerian Jews were indigenous North Africans, not European settlers
• An enemy can be depicted with intimate humanizing detail in Arabic war poetry.
• An enemy relation is not reducible to hostility or enmity.
• ANC founding documents secularized government by removing theological reference
• Ancient Athens legally compelled citizens to take sides in internal strife
• Ancient Greek politics operated primarily through friendship and enmity
• Ancient Greeks regarded enmity, not just friendship, as constitutive of civic order
• Anger targets individuals while hatred targets groups and persists
• Anidjar recounts Bloom reading Othello-Desdemona love as a figure of failed statesmanship
• Anti-coffee songs warned children against the ‘Turk’s drink’ as weakening
• Any theory of agency requires a prior theory of passivity and submission.
• Aquinas reduces the love-enemy duty to readiness, not performance.
• Aquinas reintroduced the theological term inimicus into just war theory.
• Aquinas reversed Augustine’s dismissal of enemy-neighbor distinctions.
• Arab and Jew markers persist across even opposed political agendas
• Arab Christians form groups neither identical to nor separate from Arab Muslims
• Aristotle and Herodotus treated enmity and friendship as criteria for judging regimes
• Aristotle defined hatred as targeting classes while anger targets individuals
• Aristotle held friendship, not justice, to be the bond of the state.
• Aristotle made friendship the bond of the state and enmity its chief danger
• Aristotle treated civic enmity as constitutive of the Greek polis
• Asking who the enemy is already constitutes an act of war
• Augustine defines the City of God’s enemies as arising independent of any external threat
• Augustine divides all things into those to be enjoyed and those to be used.
• Augustine frames his theology as war against pagan enemies
• Augustine generalized love across spheres while Aquinas exiled perfect love from concrete possibility.
• Augustine holds ignorance to be a primary source of human enmity
• Augustine universalized love of enemy while Aquinas made it abstractly impossible
• Augustine’s hermeneutics reduces all reading to enjoying or using
• Augustine’s just war theory works because love erases the self-neighbor-enemy distinction
• Augustine’s love of neighbor subsumes the enemy under a universal goal that erases singularity
• Auschwitz demanded a language translation that reinscribes familiar meanings to the point of rupture
• Auschwitz forced a total resemanticization of ordinary language that must nevertheless fail.
• Auschwitz’s ‘Muslims’ lost hope of survival at a specific threshold
• Benjamin held that law emptied of content ceases and merges with life
• Benjamin read Kafka’s messianism as a theologico-political remnant
• Benveniste argues the stranger is by necessity an enemy
• Between the 18th and 19th centuries the enemy became classified as inhuman
• Biblical war begins for the sake of a brother taken captive
• Bloom read Othello’s love as failed statesmanship turning tyrannical
• Both Christians and Arabs were genealogically tied to Hagar in the patristic tradition
• Camp inmates coined country-names like Canada and Mexico for depot sections of Auschwitz
• Camp language produced a Polish verb meaning to become a Muslim
• Camp language reveals the gray-zone partaking binding victims and perpetrators
• Camp life created a gray zone binding Nazi and Jew together
• Camp slang persists among survivors yet needs translation even for Germans
• Captors formed a happy circle around the blindfolded, anonymous prisoner
• Christendom collapsed Jew and Arab together while insisting on their difference.
• Christian Europe is divided from its beginning between an inner and outer enemy
• Christian Europe’s political existence depends constitutively on Islam as enemy
• Christian love becomes a wartime temporality in Rosenzweig’s thought
• Christian love produces a politics of indifference that renders existing differences irrelevant
• Christian neighbor-love recast as territorial conquest is a religious act of love
• Christian polemics argued Jews posed a greater diabolical threat than Muhammad
• Christian typology historically coupled Jews and Muslims as carnal children of Abraham.
• Christian universal love inevitably produced intolerance toward outsiders
• Christian universal neighbor-love abolishes the geographic distinctions that once separated holy from political war.
• Christian universality merges holy war with political war into a single undifferentiated violence.
• Christian writers called Muslims ‘new Jews’ from the eighth century on
• Christian writers repeatedly collapsed Jews and Arabs into one category
• Christianity cannot decide whether war is theological or political.
• Christianity cannot distinguish theological from political war, while Judaism regards all wars as political
• Christianity creates a new enemy by collapsing neighbor into enemy
• Christianity’s Westernization is a process of self-reabsorption and self-overcoming.
• Clausewitz defines war as force compelling the enemy to our will
• Clausewitz held war targets a real enemy, not an abstraction
• Colonial ideology and law jointly constructed the Tutsi as nonindigenous civilizers
• Colonial law created an inside-outside sphere for customary law
• Colonial law invented ethnicity by politicizing previously cultural communities
• Colonial law segregated Bedouins into a distinct tribal legal category
• Colonial law transmuted cultural communities into political ones
• Colonial legal reform created the colonized subject as a replica of the European citizen
• Colonial rule installed subject races as agents within colonial machinery
• Colonial rule legally constructed the Tutsi as a nonindigenous alien race.
• Colonial rule manufactured political identities that it then naturalized as culture
• Colonial rule produces binary political identities where none had rigidly existed.
• Colonial rule transformed fluid ethnic distinctions into rigid binary identities.
• Colonial states ruled colonized populations chiefly through Western law and race
• Colonial subject races were integrated as agents while being denied citizenship
• Concentration camp ‘Muslims’ failed a capitalist logic of value and were mostly Jews
• Concentration camp prisoners called ‘Muslims’ became a figure of absolute subjection
• Concentration-camp language forces a translation that must always fail
• Critical theory’s focus on agency has neglected the question of submission
• Cultural identity requires both external difference from others and internal self-difference.
• Czarist persecution and failed rebellion drove Eastern European Jews to mass emigration to America
• De Man and Bloom’s anti-materialist criticism emerged during liberal-imperial transition from Korea to Vietnam
• Deciding that something is unpolitical is itself a political act.
• Declared hate publicly constitutes a political community by naming its enemy
• Declaring something unpolitical is itself a political decision
• Dehumanized enemies must stay human enough that killing them seems valorous
• Derrida frames the Abrahamic as an unreadable, explosive field at the sources of religion.
• Derrida identified himself as an uprooted African born in colonial Algeria
• Derrida self-described as an uprooted African born between colonizer and colonized
• Derrida’s hyphen joining Jew and Arab pacifies nothing despite its silence
• Derrida’s je suis suspends identity claims between being and following
• Derrida’s self-description as African deliberately resists stable identity
• Despotism and fanaticism only later coagulated onto Islam and Jews in Hegel
• Distinctions between enemies are actively performed, not naturally given
• Eichmann trial made Holocaust author Ka-Tzetnik famous when he collapsed testifying.
• Eighteenth-century despotism discourse yoked Judaism and Islam under subjection but alternately erased each
• Empire’s rhetoric of the terrorist enemy wavers between singular and plural under U.S. influence
• Enemy distinctions constitute rather than merely reflect the theological-political divide
• Enemy objects arise when ambivalent conflict is displaced onto a substitute
• Enemy objects shift along axes of interiority and exteriority.
• Enemy relations historically include impulses beyond mere hostility
• Enemy-love commandment threatened the Torah’s Jew-gentile distinction
• English audiences saw Othello’s command of Venice as shocking reliance on a stranger
• Enlightenment thought credited Muslims with bringing despotism into being
• Enmity and subjection form one internal division of the Pauline subject
• Enmity is constituted by projecting one’s own aggression onto the other
• Enmity is defined politically before it is acted upon violently
• Enmity is derivative of human potentiality, not a primary relation
• Enmity is not the symmetrical reverse of friendship or love
• Enmity must be analyzed separately from war
• Enthusiasm and pride name distinct feelings a single subject of both religions must hold
• Equal men who desire the same scarce thing become enemies
• Eternity occupies the structural position of the sovereign who suspends law.
• Euphemisms meant to conceal can come to name exactly what they hid
• Europe rendered its own role in the Jew-Arab enmity invisible to itself
• Europe’s concept of the enemy is structured by the Arab and the Jew
• Europe’s constitutive division is internal, not between Christianity and Judaism.
• Europe’s defining conflict is internal to itself, not between Christianity and Judaism
• Europe’s political existence derives from warring against Muslim enemies
• European legal history transformed the enemy from justus hostis into the inhuman Unmensch.
• Even secular revolution preserves the theological structure of politics
• Even the love command fails to end enmity, only recasting it.
• Every rival framing of the conflict reinscribes unexamined Jew-Arab distinctions
• For Aquinas enemyhood is an accidental appendage, not a natural essence.
• For Aquinas, enemyness is contingent evil added to nature, not an essential difference.
• For Augustine the enemy must be loved and used no differently from anyone else
• For Augustine the enemy, like the self, is only a means toward loving God
• For Augustine the neighbor is defined relationally so that compassion extends even to enemies
• For Hobbes the enemy founds and abolishes history by persisting as having been here
• For Hobbes the enemy is not the other but the neighbor
• For Hobbes, punishment applies only to subjects, not to declared enemies
• For Hobbes, speech that corrects subjects one must govern is not abuse
• For Levinas the enemy emerges within alterity, not outside it
• Foucault theorized the enemy without giving it a history
• French colonial rule replaced religious with national categories dividing Algerian Jews and Muslims
• Freud associated Bosnian Turks with resignation toward death and trust in doctors.
• Freud collapsed enemy and neighbor into a single identity.
• Freud connected Moses and the Turk through Egyptian circumcision
• Freud depicted Turks as sexually vital yet resigned toward death.
• Freud dissolved the love-enemy commandment into the love-neighbor one
• Freud fused Jew and Arab through the figure of Moses the Egyptian.
• Freud invoked Othello and Shylock to show Jew and Arab convertible identities.
• Freud linked the Muslim figure to Christian mortality and judgment doctrine.
• Freud links enemy treatment to taboo upon rulers and the father
• Freud saw civilization itself as an adversary hostile to human alterity
• Freud traced Christian intolerance directly to its universal-love ideal
• Freud’s anecdote links Muslim Turks to death and sexuality
• Freud’s forgotten name encodes the shared fate of Arab and Jew
• Freud’s forgotten painter conceals a Shakespearean Arab-and-Jew pairing
• Freud’s Signorelli forgetting was driven by an imposed silence he could not breach
• Genocide targets a politically defined enemy distinct from the class enemy
• Greece remains a misfit Orthodox outsider inside Western institutions
• Greek independence eradicated the entire Jewish population of the Peloponnese
• Haredi anti-Zionism rejected nationalism and racial distinctions outright
• Hate functions as a public assertion of enmity that constitutes a political community
• Hegel anticipated Foucault in seeing suppression as productive of the enemy
• Hegel characterized Islam as enthusiasm become fanaticism, religion fused with terror
• Hegel claimed Jewish and Islamic religiosity precluded state-level mutual recognition
• Hegel classified Islam’s universalism as a crude, spiritless drive toward world dominion.
• Hegel compared the Jew-Arab link to strangers sharing a coffee
• Hegel credited Muslim fanaticism for Islam’s rapid spread
• Hegel credited the ban on graven images for both Jewish and Islamic religious pride.
• Hegel defines the enemy as a self-posited ethical difference to be negated
• Hegel fused Kant and Montesquieu to tie despotism to Muslims and Jews
• Hegel grouped Judaism and Islam together under servitude to one God
• Hegel held modern war removes personal hatred from enmity
• Hegel held that necessity turned the Jews into enemies of others
• Hegel invented the European figure of the Muslims for philosophy.
• Hegel invented the figure of the Muslim as Europe’s enemy
• Hegel joined Kant and Montesquieu in linking Islam and Judaism to submission
• Hegel linked Islam and Judaism by opposing both to Christianity
• Hegel linked Islam’s so-called fanaticism to terror and to love
• Hegel located the essence of Oriental social relations in absolute domination
• Hegel named the Muslim principle ‘religion and terror’
• Hegel paired Judaism and Islam under shared monotheistic servitude and sublimity
• Hegel saw Islam, like Judaism, as a pure unity of religious-political abstraction
• Hegel’s link between Jews and Arabs lacks the recognition that would unite them
• Hegel’s paired treatment of Jews and Muslims shaped later theory
• Hegel’s philosophy fixed the modern image of Muslims as fatalistic and purposeless
• Hegelian bondsman achieves selfhood through service and work on things
• Historical understanding of the Holocaust requires prior linguistic study of Nazi language
• History and love of neighbor both require a self-other distinction
• Hobbes defines enemies only negatively as non-subjects, including banished men
• Hobbes frames rhetoric as an enemy that reason must escape
• Hobbes located Satan as the first enemy underlying political threat.
• Hobbes omits enemy-love from Leviathan despite endorsing the golden rule
• Hobbes personally managed political risk around Leviathan’s publication.
• Hobbes presents the enemy as an ineradicable permanent threat to civil power
• Hobbes treated biblical texts as enemy fortifications assaulting civil power.
• Hobbes treated injurious words to an enemy as an abuse of speech
• Hobbes treated Scripture texts as the enemy’s defensive outworks
• Hobbes turned the abstract enemy into every individual human being
• Holocaust-era Nazi words persist in Israeli cultural history and literature
• Homo sacer belongs to God precisely by being excluded from divine law
• Identifying the true enemy is philosophy’s first political question
• Identity is derivative of a prior ipseity irreducible to saying I
• In modern war, hatred shifts from individuals to nations, standing in for personal enmity
• In war, law persists as force while emptied of significance
• Intelligence and knowledge-gathering define the enemy as knowable.
• Interrogating identity and the empirico-transcendental distinction drives Anidjar’s project
• Islam is politically constitutive yet positioned outside the political
• Islam resists being placed on either side of Europe’s political boundary
• Islam’s appearance severed Europe’s political being from its theological roots
• Islam’s early followers were dismissed by Aquinas as ignorant forced converts
• Israel’s own eventual salvation is imagined only through terms of death and resurrection.
• Israeli soldiers around a captive form a happy circle of mundane individualities
• Israeli war literature resists easy ideological justification of state violence
• Israeli youth derived sexual gratification from Holocaust torture literature
• Israeli youth learned about sex from books describing Nazi torture of Jews.
• Japanese-Americans were classified as an enemy race, not merely alien enemies, before internment.
• Jew and Arab are constituted through a partaking that is both division and participation
• Jews served as the accessible template for identifying enemies of Christian society.
• Jews, Christians, and Muslims are belligerent brothers bound by an untenable genealogical condition
• Ka-Tzetnik collapsed mid-testimony at the Eichmann trial
• Kabbalistic divine-spark doctrine makes the Messiah descend into Islam
• Kafka’s parable on parables turns on whether inside and outside are relevant categories
• Kant assigned Jews misanthropy and Muslims pride as religious temperaments
• Kant defines the sublime as an accord-discordant emotion of attraction and repulsion
• Kant grounded both Jewish enthusiasm and Muslim pride in one shared prohibition
• Kant saw Judaism’s separatism as misanthropy and Islam’s victories as pride
• Kant severed the link between having an enemy and harboring enmity
• Kant severed the presumed symmetry between friendship and enmity
• Kant’s concept of affect defies all positive definition.
• Kant’s juxtaposition of Islam and Judaism cannot be explained by shared iconoclasm alone
• Kant’s sublime describes reason’s violence over imagination and its subjection to a cause.
• Kant’s sublime frames aesthetic feeling as subjection to commanding violence
• Kant’s sublime is constitutively tied to political and religious power.
• Kant’s sublime theory is complicit with domination
• Kantorowicz and Straussians distorted Schmitt by suppressing his emphasis on enmity.
• Kantorowicz and Straussians suppressed Schmitt’s emphasis on enmity and hostility
• Know thy enemy exposes the Enlightenment promise of knowledge as peace
• Knowledge of others serves confrontation as much as coexistence
• Knowledge of the other is as much a precondition of enmity as of peace
• Language was both victim and causal agent of the Nazi genocide
• Law emptied of content ceases to exist and merges with life
• Law ranked colonized peoples on a civilization ladder granting rights to minorities
• Law retains force precisely when reduced to insignificance in the state of exception.
• Law was the primary instrument of colonial rule in the 19th-20th centuries
• Levi reads the Auschwitz Muslim as a messianic figure who lost the divine spark
• Levi’s lost divine spark mirror Scholem’s messianic descent into Islam
• Levinas equates being and totality with war
• Levinas’s ethics of the other sets a limit where the neighbor becomes an enemy
• Losing the enemy would unleash unheard-of violence, not peace
• Love of enemies is oddly absent from Augustine’s treatment of war
• Love of neighbor detaches single individuals from the world’s cohesive structure
• Loving enemies erases the friend-enemy distinction entirely
• Loving the enemy becomes impossible when that enemy is God’s enemy
• Major Jewish commentators ignored the fraternal tension Onkelos flagged
• Medieval authorities marked off both Jews and Muslims together as aliens
• Medieval Christendom both conflated and opposed Jew and Arab in its classifications.
• Medieval Christendom distinguished Jews from Saracens along unexamined lines
• Medieval dialogue imagined philosophers and Christians as united in a common moral fight
• Medieval Europe conceived Muslims and Jews as a single body of aliens
• Medieval Europe treated Jews and Muslims as two halves of one body of aliens
• Medieval Europe understood Islam through its existing category of the Jews
• Medieval European identity was constituted through the conscious rejection of the enemy other.
• Medieval Jewish polemic framed Muslim circumcision as shared Abrahamic inheritance
• Medieval jurists transferred the husband-wife bond into the prince-state union
• Medieval just-war scholarship nearly confined love-of-enemy to the martial sphere
• Medieval polemic ranked Judaism a greater internal threat than Islam
• Medieval theology theorized enemy-love while never asking who the enemy actually is
• Medieval thinkers framed tyranny as a crime against humanity itself.
• Metaphor’s etymological carrying-over mirrors the parable’s theme of being carried
• Monotheistic reason is threatened by the coexistence of Jew and Arab as sibling origins.
• Montesquieu framed blind fatality as absurd and reason as the precondition of law
• Montesquieu frames reason and law as opposites of blind fate
• Montesquieu says Islamic religion adds divine fear onto political fear
• Montesquieu tied despotic submission to fear and natural stupidity
• Naming an enemy frames the scope of the war
• Natural reason served as Aquinas’s last resort for engaging the Muslim enemy
• Nazi camps racialized Jewish prisoners by labeling them with Muslim terms
• Nazi euphemistic language worked through concealment while drawing on long-standing German words
• Nazi evil operated through linguistic misnaming rather than word avoidance.
• Nazi genocide worked through an artificial language of improper, concealing words
• Nazi jargon drew on vocabulary of love, faith, and sacrifice to a unique degree.
• Nazi language remained a recognizable Christian language built on existing cultural capital
• Nazi language’s distinctiveness was already analyzed at Yad Vashem in 1957.
• Nazi racial policy treated Jews and Arabs as one Semitic category
• Nazi vocabulary of love, faith, and homeland functioned as criminal language
• Neighborliness is a reciprocal relation that extends even to enemies
• New Testament exegesis cannot stabilize who Paul’s adversary actually is.
• Nineteenth-century Orientalists collapsed the Semite onto the ancient Hebrew
• No academic or legal discipline has claimed the enemy as its proper object
• Once war begins, law and philosophy stop theorizing the enemy’s becoming
• One law produces two incomparable sublime feelings in Jews and Muslims
• Orientalism collapsed Jew and Arab into one religious Semitic figure
• Orientalism invented the Semite as a merged Jew-Arab defined by abstract religion
• Othello claims political and military status on the model of royal lineage.
• Othello is a political enemy whose religious status stays ambiguous.
• Othello is cast as exercising a jealous, punishing godlike sovereignty
• Parity between Jew and outsider was both asserted and anxiously erased by Christian theology.
• Partaking means both parting and taking part, division and sharing at once
• Patriotic service rhetoric was gendered in Muslim PR
• Paul held Israel simultaneously beloved and enemy of God
• Paul holds the same people are simultaneously God’s enemies and his beloved
• Paul makes Israel simultaneously God’s beloved and God’s enemy depending on perspective
• Paul makes the Messiah both hated and beloved, neighbor and enemy
• Paul’s Hagar allegory grounded Christian identification of Jews with Muslims.
• Paul’s love-of-enemy command functions as deferred vengeance, not pacifism.
• Paul’s term for enemy is grammatically undecidable between active hater and passive hated
• Paul’s theology constitutes the self as a permanent battlefield of spiritual war
• Paul’s theology frames enmity and subjection as a single divided condition
• Pauline messianism divides the enemy into hated and beloved
• People fear collapse and carry their own powerless enemy within themselves
• Phobic anxiety tracks a perceived danger rather than a present threat
• Pius XI in 1937 read Nazi language as a Christian heresy borrowing the lexicon
• Plato considered it petty to treat a corpse as an enemy
• Plato located the potential for enmity within the body itself
• Plato treats personal enmity as more central than war-derived enmity
• Political despotism’s emergence required inventing the apathetic resigned subject to match it
• Political enmity exceeds both private hostility and the question of war
• Political theology’s two-body structure maps onto the Arab-Jew community
• Political thought asks how to fight the enemy, never what the enemy is
• Political Zionism revolted against Judaism, not against the West
• Politics freed from every ban requires thinking abandonment beyond every idea of law
• Prisoners who failed to adapt within days became the nameless Muselmann mass
• Purely political war, stripped of theology, disappears within Christendom’s undecidable political-theological frame.
• Race versus ethnicity is a colonial legal construction
• Race-ethnicity distinctions legally include and exclude colonized populations simultaneously
• Racialized groups have been categorized as enemies beyond alien status.
• Reading an enemy’s sacred texts was seen as a step toward apostasy
• Reading Derrida’s ‘I’ requires tracking empirical effects rather than biography.
• Reason functions as the last weapon once theological common ground with Islam fails
• Religious commitments can blind scholars to historical evidence of division
• Repressed names encode both the wish to forget and the wish to remember
• Revelation traveled westward by necessity rather than chance.
• Revelation’s historical westward course was not accidental
• Rosenzweig cast Islam as monistic paganism stuck in pagan categories
• Rosenzweig casts Islam as pure political war opposed to Judaism
• Rosenzweig constructed a political theology dividing Judaism, Islam, and Christianity by war and love.
• Rosenzweig defines Islam as holy war rather than neighborly love
• Rosenzweig deliberately widened the gap Hegel had collapsed between Judaism and Islam
• Rosenzweig denied Islam genuine religion, creation, and revelation.
• Rosenzweig denied Islam’s capacity for love and neighborly relation
• Rosenzweig dismissed Islamic confession as disbelief masquerading as faith
• Rosenzweig framed his philosophy as a declaration of war against German idealism
• Rosenzweig grounded both war and neighbor-love on the self-other distinction
• Rosenzweig held that loving one’s neighbor collapses religion-politics boundaries
• Rosenzweig held the Jewish people experiences only purely political war, never holy war
• Rosenzweig holds Judaism unites man while Christianity splits him into two figures.
• Rosenzweig positioned Judaism, Christianity, and Islam on a single politico-theological axis
• Rosenzweig structurally excluded Islam by casting it as pure political war
• Rosenzweig’s political theology recasts Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as war-related figures
• Rosenzweig’s thought made Islam both the invisible and the political enemy.
• Rosenzweig’s war theory is bound up with the love of enemy
• Rousseau listed childhood among the natural enemies humanity cannot defend against
• Rousseau listed childhood, illness, and old age as enemies of humanity
• Sabbatai Zevi’s conversion parallels the Muslim’s loss of the divine spark
• Scarcity from equal ability and shared desire makes any two men enemies.
• Schmitt alone established the friend-enemy distinction as the condition of the political
• Schmitt asserted an intense continuity between theology and politics.
• Schmitt both denies and performs the passage between theology and politics.
• Schmitt confined the enemy to law while dodging the ontological question
• Schmitt defines the political strictly by the friend-enemy distinction.
• Schmitt distinguishes the political enemy from private adversaries
• Schmitt holds that circumscribed European warfare was the highest form of human order
• Schmitt left obscure exactly what theological status the Gospels held for him
• Schmitt left the link between sovereign exception and enemy unstated
• Schmitt opposed conceiving political existence as detached from theology
• Schmitt’s text performs the political passage its argument denies
• Scholarly terminology shifted from Jews and Arabs to Jews of Islam, erasing the Arab.
• Scholarly treatments of Sabbatai Zevi erase the Muslim context entirely
• Scholars read Sabbatai Zevi’s conversion through Christianity, erasing Islam’s significance
• Scholars reinsert theological-political divisions despite Sabbatai Zevi’s own embrace of Islam
• Scholarship has consistently evacuated the theological significance of Islam from messianism
• Scholarship on European persecution consistently omits Muslims as targets
• Scholem’s messianism makes the Messiah descend into exile and Islam to redeem divine sparks
• Secure coalition size is defined relatively against the fearing enemy, not absolutely.
• Separation in Israeli peace discourse functions to divide Palestinians from Jews
• Separation is a form of autonomy that preserves the Jew-Arab distinction
• Shakespeare framed the theological and political enemy as Jew and Moor
• Shakespeare scholarship has marginalized Othello and Merchant of Venice from political study
• Shylock embodies enmity defined by religion rather than politics.
• Shylock embodies theological enmity while Othello embodies political enmity
• Shylock fails at law, Judaism, and revenge where Othello succeeds.
• Shylock is the theological enemy while Othello is the political-military enemy.
• Solon’s law compelled citizens to take sides as enemies during civil strife
• Solonian law compelled every citizen to choose a side during civil strife
• States must engender an opposite and create an enemy.
• States wrongly assume adversaries will mirror their own weapon doctrines
• Subjugation and submission to law constitutes the shared ground of Jew and Muslim.
• Sufficient defensive numbers are set only by comparison with the feared enemy
• Symmetric friendship and enmity served as ancient criteria for judging regimes
• The ‘final solution’ euphemism now names precisely what it concealed
• The abandoned house’s coffee cups preserve the family’s absent fingers as traces.
• The Abrahamic exceeds being merely empirical, historical, or identitarian
• The Abrahamic naming exceeds empirical, identitarian, and historicist reading
• The Abrahamic reading rejects the linear progression from Judaism to Christianity to Islam
• The Abrahamic resists the linear progression from Judaism through Christianity to Islam
• The Abrahamic’s spectral shape appears unreadable in survivors’ camp texts.
• The Arab Jew is an illegible nonfigure that resists every fixed enunciation
• The Arab was figured as the Jew’s inverse, absolute subjection against newfound military strength.
• The Arab-Jew opposition is a naturalized modern construction
• The Bible’s first war already shows winners taking all spoils.
• The Bible’s first war is also the first land-conquest and holy war.
• The biblical word brother already signals enmity and war
• The brother is both cause and effect of Abraham’s war.
• The brother is both cause and effect of war
• The brother, not the stranger, is the paradigmatic figure of the enemy
• The camp called broken-willed prisoners Muslims, men of unconditional fatalism.
• The camp figure of the Muslim was a transient condition, not a fixed fate
• The camp label ‘Muslim’ was unstable, allowing reversal and return
• The camp term Muselmann names absolute subjection and resists translation
• The camp word ‘Muslim’ originated from prisoners’ praying posture resembling Arabs.
• The closest parallels between Jew and Arab are studied the least
• The command to love enemies meant actual enemies, not merely non-friends
• The command to love one’s enemy collapses when the enemy is also God’s enemy.
• The concentration-camp Muselmann embodies a juridical state beyond law and life
• The crusade era demoted Jews to a subset of unbelievers
• The discourse of work and action reduces the human to a laboring animal.
• The enemy becomes visible only as fleeting moments within theological-political time
• The enemy concept fuses agency and passivity in a plastic unity
• The enemy concept lacks integrity and must be plural to function
• The enemy concept resists any single disciplinary location, making its history near-impossible
• The enemy eludes stable identification the moment it is named
• The enemy emerges from the self’s own self-negation, not from a true pair.
• The enemy exceeds the human, arising from appetites and potentiality rather than identity
• The enemy fuses theological love-object and political target into one problem
• The enemy is a single relational category spanning the Jew-Arab divide
• The enemy is a vagabond essence with no fixed determination
• The enemy is carried within without ground or cause
• The enemy is collective and impersonal, a people rather than an individual
• The enemy is constituted by choice before perception, not perceived first
• The enemy is distinct from the other and belongs to war
• The enemy is knowable and constitutes a culmination of the knowledge drive.
• The enemy is not definable solely through war
• The enemy is plastic, an unstable unity of agency and passivity
• The enemy is produced by substitution, not by the father’s mere danger
• The enemy is sovereignty’s mirror-avatar, not an alien other.
• The enemy must be a living totality whose negation is perilous
• The enemy never achieved the status of a proper philosophical or political concept.
• The enemy object is produced by a primal substitution
• The enemy operates through friends, servants, and one’s own household
• The enemy persists as a readable text after having been historically present.
• The enemy question must be separated analytically from the question of war
• The enemy resists ontological definition despite asserting a threatening essence
• The enemy reveals itself only in passing moments, like a Hegelian God
• The enemy vanished from Western political philosophy almost from its start
• The enemy-concept fuses agency and passivity, making enmity politically explosive
• The enemy, like sovereignty, resists coherent philosophical thought.
• The European enemy has always been conceived as a familiar neighbor, not a stranger.
• The family as legal category is a construct of modern state governance
• The feminine form hostia turns the enemy into a sacrificial victim
• The figure of the enemy spans and exceeds separate discursive spheres
• The figure of the Muslim transcends fixed ethnic and gender identity
• The final solution phrase came to name exactly what it concealed
• The first biblical war is fought over a family member, a brother.
• The forgotten ‘Muslims’ remain charged sites of memory despite leaving no trace
• The friend-enemy distinction, not good-evil or beauty-ugliness, defines the political.
• The Greek word for enemy in Paul’s letters is grammatically both active and passive
• The Hebrew original omits the word humanity when describing displaced Arab villagers
• The Hebrew word for brother also means kin, neighbor, and friend.
• The hyphen in hyphenated Jewish identities marks hybridity’s critical potential
• The imageless law splits into incomparable affects across Judaism and Islam.
• The inside-outside model of Jews and Muslims as Europe’s enemies is historically erroneous
• The internal enemy had to be actively found, not merely faced
• The Islamic subject became a distinct fixed human type only in the nineteenth century
• The Jew and the Arab name the theological-political question of Europe
• The Jew-Arab enmity is structured by a history longer than its colonial phase
• The Jew-Arab hyphen marks an unresolved wound rather than a reconciliation
• The Jew-Arab opposition is a sedimented historical product, not a natural lexical given
• The Jew-Arab separation precedes and enables the theology-politics split
• The Jew-Moor split in Shakespeare precedes and enables the theology-politics separation
• The Jews and Muslims question resolves through a shared genealogy of absolute subjection.
• The Judeo-Christian pair constitutes itself by excluding Islam from neighborly love.
• The Kantian sublime’s emotional dynamics frame the Jew-Islam political-religious comparison
• The Latin enemy-as-victim word hostia is feminine and means sacrifice
• The Latin hostis originally meant stranger before meaning public enemy
• The love-enemy commandment turns the neighbor into an enemy to be loved
• The love-of-enemy commandment marks a distinct and unexamined history.
• the love-thy-neighbor ideal is the disturbing source of civilizational discord
• The Messiah who became the neighbor has also become the enemy
• The messianic structure positions the subject as both inside and outside the law
• The modern European nation is the theological-political inversion of the kingdom
• The modern political category of despotism was invented during Kant’s era
• The modern political concept of despotism began as a domestic household term
• The Muselmänner remain sites of memory despite leaving no trace
• The nation, even after secularizing revolution, still occupies the church’s structural place
• The original political relation is the ban, not belonging
• The philosopher’s philosophical method gives him a decisive two-sword advantage in the polemical contest.
• The poem depicts the Arab as intimate guest-enemy whose inner life stays opaque
• The political term despotism derives from the Greek word for household head
• The secure multitude is measured only against the feared enemy
• The Semitic concept unraveled from internal Christian tension, not conflict alone.
• The shared figure of Abraham unsettles the Judeo-Christian hyphen and the politics of Europe
• The shift from ‘Jews and Arabs’ to ‘Jews of Islam’ erases the Arab
• The sick man metaphor frames the Ottoman Empire as Europe’s dying internal other
• The Star of Redemption is a war book attacking German idealism
• The state must become the enemy of the family it governs.
• The state of nature is by definition a condition of enmity and injustice.
• The state of war arises only when two men desire the same thing
• The sublime’s doubled sensation models a possible subject of both Judaism and Islam
• The Targum translator corrected fraternal language out of anxiety
• The theological dimension of homo sacer’s abandonment remains unread in Agamben
• The theological enemy is both under God’s law and outside it
• The theological enemy is conceived as irreducibly carnal yet strangely bodiless
• The theological enemy is marked by its failure to master the flesh.
• The unhappy consciousness produces its enemy from within its own self-struggle
• The US interned Japanese-Americans by legally recategorizing them from enemies to an enemy race.
• The very concept of a justified enemy collapses under logical scrutiny
• The West understood Islam as closest intellectually to Judaism.
• The word ‘Muslim’ functions as a cipher naming the exceptional limit case.
• The word ‘Muslim’ never appears in a book titled Musulman about concentration-camp inmates.
• The word Muslim settled in Israeli culture and literature through Ka-Tzetnik’s Holocaust writing
• The word Muslim settled in Israeli culture as a Holocaust term
• The word Shoah carries nationalist political weight that Holocaust does not
• Theologians endlessly theorized enemy-love while evading who exactly the enemy is
• Theological discussion of loving enemies never addresses who the concrete enemy is
• Theological readings erase Islam’s significance in Sabbatai Zevi’s conversion
• Theological reflection defines the enemy through the lover, not the enemy himself
• Theology can dispute only with those sharing a common scripture
• Theories of agency and freedom have neglected the question of submission.
• Those who serve power fear the trusting gaze that recalls their lost spirit
• Three theological traditions each transformed the concept of the enemy.
• True abandonment is felt only apart from all notions of law and destiny
• Understanding an enemy is a precondition of fighting it
• Understanding Nazi history requires first understanding Nazi language
• Understanding the messianic requires tracing law from force to corpse
• Unreadable indistinguishability between Jew and Muslim persists as an unresolved event.
• Venice’s imagined sexual licentiousness and weak patriarchs justify hiring the Moor
• War and its enemy concept structure Rosenzweig’s entire theory of knowledge
• War defines the political as the enemy’s proper space
• War is the condition of both possibility and impossibility of relating to God
• Weakness precedes the subject as what disowns and dispossesses it
• Wehrmacht soldiers coined Muslim camp terminology from Arab praying imagery
• Well-intentioned historical revisionism still fails rigorous evidentiary standards
• Western law was the core apparatus of colonial rule
• Western thinking about the enemy fused theology with politics into one question
• Women in Auschwitz were also called ‘Muslims’ in masculine grammatical form
• Yizhar’s landscape is morally neutral and devoid of ominous signs
• Yizhar’s prisoner is rendered pathetic and repulsive, not merely tragic
• Zionism externalized the Arab from the Jew and the Jew from Europe
• Zionism’s secularization reinscribed the Semitic wedge separating Jew from Arab
• Zionist descriptions rendered emptied Arab villages as grotesque remains of subhuman existence.