Emil Fackenheim was one of the most important and profound Jewish theologians of the postwar era, perhaps best known for his famous formulation of a “614th commandment”—in addition to the 613 rabbinic tradition identified in the Torah—“to deny Hitler the posthumous victory” by preserving the Jewish people and religion. James A. Diamond reviews Kenneth Hart Green’s new study of this rabbi’s thought:

As Elie Wiesel put it, not only man but the Idea of Man died as well at Auschwitz. Green’s exhaustive study is in a profound sense an extended investigation of how Fackenheim channeled Wiesel’s lyrical perception into a philosophical one.

But here is what I found most problematic with Fackenheim’s philosophical theology: . . . while moving away from divine revelation, and at the same time, salvaging some transcendent authority for moral imperatives rooted in Auschwitz, he resorted to characterizing its source as a “negative Absolute” variously emanating from “demonic,” “diabolical,” and even “Satanic” forces. It is difficult to understand how this does not amount to some form of dualistic gnosticism, acknowledging Evil as some ontologically independent power.

In a sense, the most successful negotiation with Hamas was the recent agreement securing the release of Edan Alexander, the last living hostage with a U.S. passport. Unlike those previously handed over, he wasn’t exchanged for Palestinian prisoners, and there was no cease-fire. Dan Diker explains what Hamas got out of the deal:

Alexander’s unconditional release [was] designed to legitimize Hamas further as a viable negotiator and to keep Hamas in power, particularly at a moment when Israel is expanding its military campaign to conquer Gaza and eliminate Hamas as a military, political, and civil power. Israel has no other option than defeating Hamas. Hamas’s “humanitarian” move encourages American pressure on Israel to end its counterterrorism war in service of advancing additional U.S. efforts to release hostages over time, legitimizing Hamas while it rearms, resupplies, and reestablishes it military power and control.

In fact, Hamas-affiliated media have claimed credit for successful negotiations with the U.S., branding the release of Edan Alexander as the “Edan deal,” portraying Hamas as a rising international player, sidelining Israel from direct talks with DC, and declaring this a “new phase in the conflict.”

Fortunately, however, Washington has not coerced Jerusalem into ceasing the war since Alexander’s return. Nor, Diker observes, did the deal drive a wedge between the two allies, despite much speculation about the possibility.