Sartre, Not Sabras

This entry was posted in History on by .

In her analysis of Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin, New York Times TV critic Alessandra Stanley may have been a bit too critical.

About Gibson she wrote: “But his attitude was at times supercilious: He asked if a nuclear Iran posed an ‘existential threat’ to Israel, as if it were the land of Sartre, not Sabras.”

I don’t mean to be supercilious, but this is the problem with a TV critic dabbling in political reporting. Anyone who reads the newspaper — and particularly stories about Israel — knows that there’s nothing hoity-toity about  the way Gibson asked the question. The term “existential threat” could hardly be more commonplace.

But just to be sure, I checked the Jargon Database, which specifically knocks out the Sartre option.

Existential Threat
Surprisingly NOT something one finds covered in a college philosophy textbook, this is regarded as a military or terrorist threat to the existence of something, usually the United States. Usually involves nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons.

Posted on September 12, 2008

Note: The opinions expressed here are the personal views of the author. All comments on MyJewishLearning are moderated. Any comment that is offensive or inappropriate will be removed. Privacy Policy

One thought on “Sartre, Not Sabras

Comments are closed.

Privacy Policy