Proportionality and the numbers mistake

This is not an article about international law. Proportionality and the laws of war are clear. There is little to be gained by engaging in that debate because it is, I think, besides the point. It has the unhelpful side effect of reducing war to a brutal calculation and that is best left to those responsible for actually making it. There is a certain coldness required to engage in any war and make that calculation, no matter how just or important that war may be. Instead, this is an article about numbers. Thousands of Palestinians have died. That is a tragedy. In one sense, if more died it would be more tragic and if fewer died, it would be less tragic. But in that sense, you once again reduce war to a brutal calculation, as if each life is not equally, intrinsically and absolutely valuable. There is an idea in Jewish thought that if you save one life, it is as if you have saved the whole world and if you kill one life, it is as if you have killed the entire world. Every life is precious in and of itself. Sometimes we forget that.

This is an article about the folly of statistics, of numbers. One of Disraeli's three lies. Here is the accusation I level at those who point out how many lives have been taken: it is (mostly) irrelevant. Stop devaluing life. Even if only one Israeli and even if only one Palestinian had died, it would be a tragedy. It would be as if the entire Jewish people and the entire Palestinian people had died. The idea that several thousands of Palestinians have died and therefore Israel has acted poorly or that therefore a ceasefire is necessary misses the point. It suggests that there is an acceptable number. That, had 'only' 500 Palestinians died, Israel's response would be more okay. Or conversely, had 'only' 100 Israelis been raped and murdered and 'only' 10 hostages taken, that would be 'less' bad. 

That is why I leave the numbers to those responsible for actually making that brutal calculation. Because it is a calculation. The laws of war are clear: civilian deaths are 'permissible' (what a horrific idea) if they are not, "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated..." I cannot imagine being responsible for making that calculation, nor can I imagine how it must feel to be told that your child's death was 'okay' because it was not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Or, indeed, that you child's death was not okay because it was excessive in that context. Rather than because any death of an innocent is not 'okay' in a very real and important sense, irrespective of the context and laws of war.

Once you forget about the numbers, you can properly address the situation. A horrific, tragic situation where innocent civilians are dying. How many does not actually matter because every death would be wholly tragic even if there were no further deaths. I truly understand those clamouring for a ceasefire, who look at the numbers and immediately think, "Gosh, Israel is targeting civilians," or, "Israel must stop because so many Palestinians are dying." My previous article was about the blood libel that too many fall into when making that point, I am not going to repeat myself. I empathise, and I wish a ceasefire was the solution. The fact I happen to think that it is not, is besides the point. I am not a military strategist nor am I a politician. I am just a Jew, who cares deeply about humanity. Which means I resist the temptation to reduce Palestinian life to a number and worry 'too many' are dying and not just that a life has been lost. Which means I resist the temptation to think the situation is simple and engage in lazy, pseudo-intellectual thinking and, instead, face up to the brutal, horrific reality. It is easy to call for ceasefire without any attempt to understand or explain what happens next. Empathy, actually caring about people's lives takes real moral courage and deep thought.  

Jeannette Rankin said, "You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake." This is undeniably and tragically true; there will not be any "winners" when so many have died. That does not mean a war is not just or that a war is not necessary or that a war should be abandoned. We are all going to die eventually; we should not just stop living. So I will leave the calculations to the military people and the politicians. I do not envy them their job. I will not, however, make the mistake of thinking this war or any war can be reduced to the numbers. 

It is far more complicated than that.

Israel, the Diaspora and Blood Libel

I am somewhat of an anomaly amongst Jews who regularly visit and spend significant periods of time in Israel; I have never experienced a red alert. I have never had to rush to a bomb shelter. At best, I am ‘terror-adjacent’. My family has. My friends have. But I never have. Equally, I am acutely aware that I have never had a leaflet dropped on my house informing me that the place I call home is about to be the target of a bombing raid and, for my own safety, I had better leave, and leave promptly.

With those important caveats in mind, fully acknowledging that for me the war in the Middle East impacts me only tangentially, indirectly, I want to talk about something that I have experienced: antisemitism. Antisemitism that always rears its head when Israel is in the news but, of course, does not go away when Israel is having a quieter moment. I’ve had it on the streets of London when a cyclist screamed Jew at me, made a Hitler salute and pretended to shoot me. I’ve had it at football games where people have shouted ‘Yid’ at me. On the tram in Manchester when one passenger demanded that all the Jews (I was the only visible Jew) show their tickets. A tube platform when someone invited me to, “...smile and enjoy the music,” and when I didn’t immediately comply informed me that he knew, “...why Hitler had decided to kill the Jews.” I could go on, but by far and away the most common antisemitism that I have faced is online and ignoring the particularly vicious rabid Jew haters, the biggest subsect within that is from people I know or even call friends. 

Their antisemitism is of the anti-zionist variety and before you cry ‘but anti-zionism is not antisemitic’ or ‘criticism of the Israeli government is not antisemitic’ or a variation thereof, I do not wish to address anti-zionism. Whether or not it is antisemitic is not the point (it is, but I cannot be bothered to argue into the void on this point) nor is it the type of anti-zionism that I find the most nefarious or, indeed, confusing. That honour goes to a particular flavour of anti-zionist sentiment: modern day blood libel. The criticism of the Israel that goes something like this: 

“Israel is using very heavy bombs to destroy what it says are military targets, without being too bothered about the fact that sometimes large numbers of civilians are killed at the same time.” - Jeremy Bowen, BBC (see here, last accessed 07/11/2023: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-middle-east-67339462. My emphasis.)

“Israel is murdering civilians, children, babies. Innocents and does not care” 

“But Israel is bombing Gaza indiscriminately and deliberately targeting civilians” 

“Israel is committing war crimes and disproportionately murdering Gazans. Look how many more Gazans have died!!”

Or words to that effect. People so callously, so casually, accusing Israel of targeting civilians, murdering children with impunity and deliberately. People who, some in good faith and some not in good faith, see the impact the war is undoubtedly having on innocents in Gaza who are dying and immediately rush to accuse Israel of being indifferent to human life. The truth, of course, is far less dramatic and far more simple: people, tragically, die in war. The laws of war do not, and cannot, aim to eliminate all civilian death. While, obviously, say, firebombing Dresden during WWII (an obviously just and necessary war against Nazis) clearly would not comply with the laws of war, the fact that civilians die, often in tragically huge numbers, does not mean that the laws of war are not being followed. I’ve written previously on that question of numbers, as if had more Israelis died the Palestinian deaths would be more justified or less tragic; as if the Palestinian deaths are only tragic because of their number; as if even if only one Palestinian died, it would matter less somehow. That’s not the point I wish to make here. Equally, the point is not (just) that the accusation that Israel is deliberately committing war crimes with impunity is both false and absurd (Israel has one of the most sophisticated militaries in the world; if her aim were the murder of civilians, it is monumentally bad at it).

It’s far more nefarious and dangerous than that. Jews are used to being accused of doing unspeakable things: we killed Jesus; poisoned wells during the Black Death; backed Christian children blood into Matza during Pesach/Passover; sold the Germans out at Versailles and were responsible for its ills in the interwar period; control the banks; control Hollywood; brought down the twin towers; control the media; control the world and Western governments. The list goes on and now includes deliberately murder Palestinians. Because let us be absolutely clear, the charge that Israel acts with impunity and contrary to the laws of war as evidenced by the number of Palestinians that have died (read, been murdered by Israel) is just the latest in a long line of blood libel and conspiracy theories levelled at Jews. That this preposterous accusation is repeated so casually by supposedly thinking people just demonstrates how pervasive antisemitism is, how seemingly natural the urge to blame the Jews is. It’s so easy, so obvious. Of course, Israel is targeting civilians, don’t you watch the news? Obviously, Israel is murdering Palestinian babies, haven’t you read the BBC? This is your reminder it is possible to mourn Palestinian innocents being killed without engaging in blood libel just like it is possible to mourn those murdered on 9/11 without blaming the Jews. 

But, as with most conspiracy theories, accepting it becomes a condition of entry into the discourse. Jews are not allowed to comment on Israel until they’ve condemned Israel. The price of admission to this particular circus is making it clear that we don’t agree with Israeli actions or Netanyahu. We cannot mourn our dead, pray for the release of hostages, condemn Hamas until we’ve met certain conditions. I am deliberately resisting the urge to pay this price, not because I don’t sympathise with the plight of Palestinians failed by their terrorist leaders in Gaza and the West Bank (and before you cry that the Palestinian Authority aren’t terrorists, they use aid money to pay salaries to terrorists based on how many Jews they murdered); not because I don’t mourn for every innocent lost. No, it is because I should not have to accept the terms set by those who so casually repeat blood libel. 

So no. I don’t know what it is like to have bombs dropped on my home or rockets fired at me. But I have experienced antisemitism regularly, ranging from violent threats to the more insidious blood libel I speak about here. And it has to stop. 

We need to talk about men’s mental health

No, really. We do. Too often it’s dismissed. Men are supposed to be strong. Not show weakness. Stiff upper lip, not let things affect us. The flip side of thinking women are too emotional or unstable for positions of power is not just thinking men are unemotional or stable but that they must be unemotional or stable. To be otherwise is not to be a man whatever the hell that really means. As if men can’t cry, aren’t allowed to be upset, aren’t allowed to have emotions or be affected by things or down or low or sad or. Human. Yes, human. Emotions are human. Feelings are human. Being affected by things is human. Finding things tough is human. Not having a bloody clue what’s going on or what to do next or why you’re sad is human. So we really need to talk about men’s mental health. 

Because too many of us kill ourselves instead of talking about our issues. Afraid we’ll get shut down. Told to stop complaining. Told to just get on with it. Or, how awful, told we’re being a bit of a woman about it. Or a bit gay. As if that’s an insult. As if women or homosexual men have a monopoly on legitimate feelings. As if you need a vagina or not to like them to be allowed to talk about those feelings. That we all have. Or we’re praised for being in touch with our feelings. As if that’s a compliment rather than normal. But then. In this world it is. Because we’ve been conditioned to shove them down, far away from the light of day, from the air they need to breathe before they suffocate you. So, yes. Well done for having feelings. You weren’t supposed to, but you do. Pat on the back. And you were brave enough to speak up, say something, to someone, anyone. Despite everything around you telling you not to do that. Not to be that man. Because men are not supposed to have feelings. 

But really, shush now. We get it. That was upsetting. But you're a man so get on with it now, you've had your moment, you've made your point, that's enough now. Don't you know men aren't supposed to have feelings, no really, they aren't. It's time to move on and face the next difficulty, but maybe this time do it with fewer feelings, less noise, more silence. Bonus man points if, when it happens, you can shake your head, tut quietly to yourself, say it is what it is and pretend to everyone, including yourself, like it hasn't just ripped your world apart. Because that's what it means to be a man right? Right? 

Obviously not. But that's what we're told. That's what we see. Hear. Read about. Women have feelings. They're too emotional. Too unstable. Too soft. Men. Well, men don't. And we need to talk about it. Because men, obviously, of course, duh, have feelings. Get sad. Are down. Are emotional. Lie awake at night wondering where it all went wrong before a small voice comes to them saying 'This is going to take more than one night' (with a nod in the direction of Charlie Schulz). If only we spoke about this more. Lived in a world that encouraged that instead of shutting it down, dismissing it. There is strength in being vulnerable. Knowing that it's okay not to be okay. Articulating how you feel even when it's hard. 

If you're struggling, know you can speak up. Please do. To a friend. To me. To a therapist. To anyone. And if someone comes to you. Please. Listen. Try your hardest not to judge. If you've got your own stuff going on (and we all do) that's okay too. Be patient with others but most importantly, with yourself. It gets better. But we need to talk about it.

The Politics of Judging

Something has been missed in all the furore surrounding the leaked Supreme Court opinion - and that is that it's completely mad that in any democracy the judges are picked by the president. Judges are supposed to be fearless arbiters of the law, unswayed by outside pressure and, crucially, independent of the legislature and the executive. They cannot do their jobs properly if they are beholden to outside interests nor will they be seen to be doing their jobs properly - as the old adage goes, judges must not just be independent but must be seen to be independent. Trust in the judiciary and the rule of law depends on it. Perhaps it's easy to worry about judicial independence when you live 4000 miles away and will never have the ultimate decision on whether to terminate a pregnancy. But it matters. And it matters not just because of philosophical principle, but because of precisely what's happening in America now. 

Some housekeeping. This is not a legal opinion. This is not an argument for or against abortion or even, really, about abortion. Yes, I know the opinion leaked is just a draft. No, I do not pretend to understand the legal reasoning for that draft opinion. Indeed, it may well be the correct "legal" decision. That's not the point. Instead,  ever since the court's balance swung back in favour of the conservatives, this decision (and, one fears, more like it) has been coming. The formula was simple: a State passes a bill prohibiting abortion contrary to Roe v Wade. The Bill is immediately challenged (as intended by the State) as contrary to the constitutional protections guaranteed by Roe v Wade. The law ends up before the Supreme Court who are asked to decide, in essence, whether Roe should remain good law. If it does, the State's bill is struck down. If it does not, Roe is overturned. 

In theory, this should not be a problem. A country's highest court should be the final arbiter of the interpretation of that country's laws. Leaving aside the merits of being able to strike down law and intepreting a codified constitution, if the law states that abortions are permissible it is the duty of the highest court to faithfully intepret and apply that law, interpret its boundaries and any limits etc. If individuals or organisations bring challenges against that law or aspects of it, those challenges must be given due attention and the arguments heard. This does not change whether the law protecting the right to abortion was judge-made in the first place (as in the US) or on the statute books (as in the UK). If a challenge was brought against the 1967 Abortion Act in the UK, I would expect the Supreme Court (or whichever was the highest court the appeal ended up before) to hear the appeal, the legal arguments and pass judgment in accordance with that legal reasoning. There is nothing, in principle, wrong with a court of law determining whether or not a law permitting abortion is good law.

Where the problem lies is when the judges sitting on the highest court are, with respect, not selected (just) because they are great lawyers and would be great judges, but (also) because of their political opinions. I am sure, as legal minds go, the nine US Supreme Court justices possess good ones but there is absolutely no denying that at least part of why they were picked is because they could be trusted to decide cases, when it mattered, in accordance with the picking-president's political beliefs. Those justices that Trump selected could be trusted to lean towards overturning Roe v Wade should the opportunity arise. Judge Jackson was selected, in part, because she considers Roe v Wade good law and supports a women's right to choose. This is not to undermine any of the justice's legal credentials - they are, I am sure, great legal minds as well as believing the correct things as far as the president was concerned. But that latter point is important. To some degree, their political leanings will have been part of why they were picked and picked by that president. There is a serious problem when one can predict, with almost certainty, how the court will decide a certain case based on knowing their political opinions and which party's president picked them. There is a reason why conservative-leaning States were so keen for Roe v Wade to be challenged under the Supreme Court as currently constituted: there is a 6-3 conservative, anti-abortion majority. 

Whichever way you slice it, the US Supreme Court cannot be said to be an properly independent instution committed to upholding the rule of law - because the rule of law demands that judges be independent of the political establishment, not picked by it. And that should concern everyone. Give it a decade or two and a few conservative justices ending their tenure under Democrat presidents and exactly the same case will be decided in the opposite way. The legal reasoning won't matter so much as the political leanings of the judges. That's not the rule of law. That's not an independent judiciary committed to upholding the law of the land and faithfully intepreting the legal arguments in accordance with existing precedent. Private political opinions should play zero part in how judges are selected. Judges with a well-founded reputation for upholding certain social policies or espousing certain political opinions should be excluded from selection for any judicial role, not actively courted (forgive the pun) precisely because of that reputation. 

The Mental Health Stigma

A broken leg is not the same as anxiety; a heart attack different from depression. Aside from the obvious, a more subtle difference presents itself. We know what to do when someone turns up on the tube in a cast (offer them our seat) or when someone clutches their chest and collapses to the ground (call 999). But if a friend started displaying signs of struggling with their mental health, many of us have no idea how to respond. We probably mean well, but it's not immediately obvious what to do. Being anxious does not just go away after a few weeks. Depression isn't cured because your friend bought you a stuffed animal. 

Part of the problem is, of course, ignorance. What having anxiety or depression or mental health issues means. How it affects people. How it comes in waves. How there's nothing 'wrong' one minute and then, all it once, absolutely everything is wrong. How what helped last time, may well be the worst thing in the world this time. How everyone experiences their struggles differently. How it's impossible, sometimes, to put your finger on quite what is wrong but dammit, somthing is wrong. And if you knew, you'd tell someone, of course you would, but you just don't know. When your leg hurts, you can point at it. Tell someone your leg hurts. But how do you explain that your brain hurts. That your mind hurts. That voices inside your head won't shut up or go away. That you do not feel anything or that you feel everything and that sometimes it's somehow both. At the same exhausting time. 

How are you supposed to help in such circumstances? I think it's a fair question. I don't have the answer. I write only as someone who has struggled, and continues to struggle, with mental health. Who has tried - and sometimes failed spectacularly - to help others with their own struggles. I know it starts with going easy on yourself. As someone struggling - you do not need to be okay all the time or even trying to be okay. It's okay not to be okay. As someone trying to help - making mistakes is okay. In my experience being there for someone is littered with errors, words said better left unsaid and actions done regretted almost instantly. Don't be discouraged. You never know when a hug offered makes the world of difference or a letter written changes the course of someone's day. Sitting in silence near someone is often the best thing you can do and requires nothing but time and patience.

If you're struggling, reach out. To me, to your friends, to someone. Or don't. Just know that you could. If that would maybe help. Especially then. But even if you're not sure. The world needs more people talking about their mental health. If you can manage it. 

Shamima Begum, Citizenship and Judicial Oversight

 "But there is no perfect solution to a dilemma of the present kind"

So Lord Reed writes in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shamima Begum's case. Simple words that go to the core of many struggles that judges have in all manner of cases: there, very often, is no 'perfect solution'. 

The facts of Ms Begum's case do not really need repeating. She left the UK to join ISIS along with two friends in 2014. She had three children, all of whom died. She announced her intention to return in 2019, which sparked fierce debate in the UK and culminated in her citizenship being revoked and entry into the UK denied. It is worth starting by pointing out that I find the Secretary of State's ("SoS") initial decision to revoke Ms Begum's citizens troubling, to say the least. Relying on her entitlement to Bangladeshi citizenship (an entitlement that, to my knowledge, she has never taken up and one that Bangladesh rejected), Sajid Javid decided that he could revoke her citizenship ("the revocation decision") without leaving her stateless as a result (which would be contrary to international law). Leaving aside the absurdity of treating an entitlement to citizenship as the same as actually having that citizenship for one moment, Mr Javid's decision, with respect, set a dangerous, and racist, precedent. Do you know who else is entitled to another country's citizenship? Anyone with just one Jewish grandparent - whether or not they are themselves Jewish. As it happens, so is anyone who has one grandparent born on the island of Ireland. Allowing Home Secretaries to revoke citizenship based on entitlement to another should concern everyone. Should Jews be forced to revoke their right to Israeli citizenship and affirm their "Britishness"? Enough has been written on Mr Javid's decision, but to be clear I firmly believe it was the wrong decision (irrespective of whether it does as a matter of fact or law render Ms Begum stateless) and should never have been made. 

Leaving that aside, not only was Ms Begum's citizenship revoked, but she was been prevented from entering the country to challenge that decision. Mr Javid cited 'national security' concerns as the justification for that subsequent decision. Ultimately, the question before the Supreme Court was whether preventing her from entering the country, in turn, meant that Ms Begum was unable to effectively challenge the revocation decision. The Court decided that it did mean that, but that the "imperfect" solution, therefore, was that her appeal against the revocation decision should be stayed until such a time as she could participate in it effectively - without any idea as to how that might be possible, when that may be possible, or even if it will ever be possible. 

The Supreme Court's judgment runs to 137 paragraphs, but it can be summarised succinctly: 

1. The SoS decided that Ms Begum would be a threat to national security should she be permitted to enter the country.

2. The Court is not appropriately placed to interfere with that assessment made by the SoS. 

3. Therefore, Ms Begum should not be allowed to enter the country.

A fairly simple point is being made: the SoS is best placed to determine when someone is a risk to national security and, absent statutory basis to do so, it is not for the Court to substitute its judgement for that of a politician. Part of the justification is politicians are democratically elected and ultimately, in theory, accountable to the people for their decisions. Of course, to even begin to accept this line of reasoning we must leave aside the deficiencies in our political system which renders it impossible to actually hold individual politicians accountable for individual decisions, especially when they relate to deeply unpopular individuals who happen to be ethnic minorities. The entire system operates under the illusion that the democratic process is an effective means of holding politicians to account for decisions that will remain unknown to the overwhelming majority of people. Ultimately, however, given the Court accepted that Ms Begum could not participate effectively in her appeal and given it seems almost trite to point out that cannot be an automatic trump card over any other consideration, the question is simple: who is best placed to make determinations concerning national security risks and what judicial oversight, if any, is appropriate for those determinations. 

I do not dispute that questions of national security are ultimately questions for politicians, not judges, but the Supreme Court appears to have abdicated any responsibility for ensuring proper scrutiny of those determinations. To put it bluntly, it is clear that Mr Javid was going to find a way to ensure Ms Begum remains in Syria and to ensure she is denied proper redress against the revocation decision because of the political capital it brings him and the Conservative party. The Courts are the only way of preventing such abuses from occurring - it is a complete nonsense to suggest that those of us who oppose Mr Javid's decision should find a solution in the democratic process. Aside from anything else, there won't be an election for three years by which point Ms Begum could well be dead. Judges are supposed to be protectors against human rights abuses, best placed to ensure minority rights are upheld - especially the rights of those who society has turned its back on and rejected and for whom the democratic process offers no prospect of redress. In other words, people like Ms Begum. 

Without straying into answering the question of whether the revocation decision itself was the "correct" one (or, indeed, a lawful one) - a question which was categorically not before the Court - it seems to me that the Court has shirked its responsibility in scrutinising determinations made by the executive. The Court seems to have operated under the assumption that two extremes exist: either the Court of Appeal was correct that judicial oversight involves "stepping into the shoes" of the executive and remaking the determination from scratch or, at the other extreme, that decisions concerning national security cannot be touched except with the Wednesbury reasonableness barge pole. I am not arguing that the Court of Appeal was correct, but rather than this assumption seems to me, with respect, to be fallacious. There is, usually, a middle way where judges respect the role of the executive in making certain determinations but subjecting them to more intense scrutiny than "so unreasonable no reasonable decision-maker could have come to that decision". 

I suppose it comes back to what sort of judges and what sort of judicial oversight do we want and need in a democracy. This is a question to which there may be no "perfect" answer.

Matzah, Tefillin and Time-Bound Mitzvot

In Pesachim 43b, we learn that women are obligated in the mitzvah of eating matza. The reason, however, is a tad complicated. Since women are, normally, not obligated in time-bound positive mitzvot (i.e. positive mitzvot that are performed at a designated time), it should follow that women are not obligated in the mitzvah of matza - after all, the mitzvah is performed at a designated time (Passover). However, matza is one of the exceptions to the oft-repeated rule that women are not obligated in time-bound positive mitzvot.

But why? From where do we derive the general principle that women are not obligated in time-bound positive mitzvot in the first place? 

Mishnah Kiddushin (1:7) states:

כל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמה אנשים חיבין ונשים פטורות

For all positive, time-bound commandments, men are obligated and women are exempt

In the Gemara at Kiddushin 35a:

ומנו רב אחא בר יעקב אמר קרא (שמות יג, ט) והיה לך לאות על ידך ולזכרון בין עיניך למען תהיה תורת ה' בפיך הוקשה כל התורה כולה לתפילין מה תפילין מ"ע שהזמן גרמא ונשים פטורות אף כל מ"ע שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות ומדמצות עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות מכלל דמ"ע שלא הזמן גרמא נשים חייבות

The Gemara comments: And who is the scholar called by the nickname: The Sages of Paphunya? It is Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, who said as follows: The verse states with regard to phylacteries: “And it shall be a sign for you on your arm and for a memorial between your eyes, that the Torah of the Lord may be in your mouth” (Exodus 13:9). In this manner the entire Torah is juxtaposed to tefillin: Just as donning tefillin is a positive, time-bound mitzvah and women are exempt from it, so too are women exempt from every positive, time-bound mitzvah in the Torah. And from the fact that women are exempt from every positive, time-bound mitzvah, one can learn by inference that women are obligated in every positive mitzvah that is not time-bound.

The argument is that: 

1. Women are not obligated in tefillin, a time-bound positive mitzvah 

2. Tefillin is compared to the entire Torah

3. Given Tefillin's importance, we can learn from tefillin about the entire class of mitzvot that are time-bound and positive

4. Therefore, as women are not obligated tefillin, they are not obligated in any time-bound mitzvot (with, of course, as noted, some exceptions)

The question remains begged: why, then, are women not obligated in tefillin - from where do we derive that? It is stated as much in Mishna Brachot:

נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים פְּטוּרִין מִקְּרִיאַת שְׁמַע וּמִן הַתְּפִלִּין, 

"Women, slaves and minors are exempt from reciting the Shema and putting on tefillin"

The argument so far seems circular: women are not obligated in time-bound mitzvot. Why? Because women are not obligated in tefillin. Why? Because women are not obligated in time-bound mitzvot. 

The Talmud Yerushalmi offers an answer at Brachot 14b:

נשים מניין (דברים יא) "ולמדתם אותם את בניכם" - ולא את בנותיכם. את שהוא חייב בת"ת חייב בתפילין, נשים, שאינן חייבות בת"ת, אינן חייבין בתפילין.

From where do we know that women [are exempt from Tefillin]? [It is written in (Deuteronomy 11)] 'And you should teach it to your sons [בניכם]' - [and this implies] not to your daughters. [So] one who is obligated to learn Torah is obligated [to wear] Tefillin, [but] women, who are not obligated to learn Torah, or not obligated [to wear] Tefillin.

I am not intelligent or learnèd enough in Torah to make much more of a comment on this, I merely present some of the sources that I have attempted to understand. Instead, I merely note that both Sefaria and the Stone Edition of the Chumash from Artscroll translate בניכם as children, not sons. If we can learn anything from this (and it is not clear that we can learn women are not obligated in Torah from it), then surely it must be that words and meaning really do matter.