Question

Hello Michi.
A short question that came up for me again בעקבות the trigger of the war.
In the past you took the position that, in your view, there could in principle be two modes of divine command: those expressed through general morality, and Jewish law, the religious command, where at times the latter comes at the expense of the former, and vice versa, in cases where there is no way to bridge between them—and that this is not a logical contradiction but a tension.
I would like to ask, in principle, a question that belongs to the realm of consistency within this tension between the fixed, consistent analytic mode—specifically through the lens of those who do not see things that way, such as students of Rabbi Meir Kahane of blessed memory or Rabbi Kook of blessed memory. According to the former, there is ideally only divine morality; what we call human morality is just a byproduct of our emotions that accompany it, shaped by a corrupt Western way of thinking. According to the latter, every correct ethical spark is identified as a divine moral value system included within the higher, more exalted divine morality.
Among students of Rabbi Meir Kahane—Ben Gvir, Smotrich, Bizenbourg, Rabbi Dov Lior, and many others—an inconsistency often appears. On the one hand, there is talk about weak Christian morality that stems from warped perspectives, and talk about how in the face of a divine command one must cleanse oneself of feelings of conscience altogether. Yet in the same breath there is very emotional language and use of emotional concepts: national honor, national revenge, Jewish feeling, and the like. There are statements that the enemy is cruel and merciless, Amalek-like, lacking any regard for human life—when just a moment earlier it was said that valuing human life is itself a Christian distortion. It is worth mentioning in the same breath that this supposedly does not exist in reality at all, only in hypocrisy, because they are like the pig that stretches out its hooves. If their position were truly consistent, it would really have to be said that wiping out Amalek, revenge, or preventing assimilation should be done with exactly the same coldness and lack of emotion as observing the Sabbath, the prohibition against eating pork, and the like—even if Amalek were peace-seeking, and even if the Christians really were true pure-hearted pacifists.
This introduction is just the trigger for the question I want to ask; the question is not about them, only the introduction.
In your opinion, must an ideological, religious, theological, philosophical, or moral position be consistent and reasoned out in an orderly way from A to Z? Or is concreteness and adherence to internally consistent logical principles necessary in order to reach a correct conclusion?
It seems to me that in the past you published several articles about the tension between the analytic and the synthetic, but there was no direct treatment there of the question of consistency.
Thank you