Can the article be uploaded here?
(Not a Facebook link, because it's blocked for me)

I went over Shalom Tzadik's article and your correspondence with him, and I was surprised by what you wrote here, that "I don't find any great novelty in it, nor any special problematic element."
Unlike you, Tzadik goes much, much further, and his words imply that he could agree with the view that the Torah and the demand to observe it do not come from an external and transcendent source, but rather from within the human being.

Here are some of his quotes:
"Maimonides thought that religion was necessary for the existence and perfection of society, and therefore he continued to 'play' the interpretive game of the sacred texts"…
"Either there exists a supernatural personal entity that somehow watches over the world, or there does not… If there is no such entity, the question ceases to be metaphysical and becomes political. The question is: is it worthwhile, for social reasons, to continue to 'play' the interpretive game (Maimonides' position), or is it preferable to smash the tools and 'kill' the God of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) in order to eliminate the social influence of the religious establishment (Spinoza's position)"…
"If someone comes to you and says that in his opinion there is no providence, no prophecy, no God, or that the Jewish people have no unique quality, do not tell him that he is a heretic"…
"It is possible to interpret the revelation at Sinai as a metaphor for Moses our teacher's apprehension"…

Whereas you write that "there is a very 'thin' general framework of broad philosophical principles, which are true for all human beings, but disbelief in them does put you outside the framework of faith (otherwise faith has no meaning at all). Belief in a transcendent being who created the world, was revealed at Sinai, gave commandments, and they obligate us. That's about it."

I see an enormous distance between what he says and what you say. I didn't understand how you don't find anything problematic in his words.

I understand. About that I wrote that I do not agree with seeing the commandments as a social instrument, or with the value of serving God without faith. But there is no especially novel intellectual thesis here. Many have already written and said this (like Ahad Ha'am), and indeed I disagree with all of them. If I remember correctly, he himself argued that this was only a pedagogic approach, to give this legitimacy in order to save people, and not that he himself thinks this way. I don't agree with that either, but by this point it is already a very widespread approach. I think most of the religious and Haredi public thinks this way ("do not stir up or awaken").

A. sent me the article and asked what I thought. (According to him, the article caused a storm in Yeshivat Otniel.)
I read the article and couldn't quite get to the bottom of the author's meaning.
I'd be happy to hear your opinion.

I read it. As it happened, about two days before the uproar was publicized, I corresponded with the guy on another matter and he sent me his article.
His basic claim, in my opinion, mixes up the tactical level and the essential one. He recommends intellectual flexibility on the tactical level in order to prevent people from leaving, which of course is correct in my view as well, but he ignores the question of what the truth is. If you allow a Catholic Christian to be considered Jewish, then of course you'll gain lots of Jews and prevent people from leaving. Basically, you can be whatever you want and still be considered part of the religious camp. In my opinion it's a somewhat confused article and not really important, and the uproar around it is Yeshivat Otniel's business. I don't see this as a public issue. There is no interesting claim here worth discussing, perhaps aside from the claim that avoiding engagement with philosophy out of fear of heresy is problematic. But even that is not for the tactical reasons he lists, but for reasons of truth (that a person should think and do what he thinks).