yankel, your attack on my “naivete” – do you have a point? What you see as “naive” is mu humble attempt to argue an issue from the first principles – what is it about, instead of starting with stereotypes and slogans from any of the groups. It is a well-regarded approach, practiced by Avraham (Rambam’s version) and Socrates. If you would like to have your objections, gezunte heig – and you often do – byt simply ranting at me because I am not using cliches dear to your ear is silly and unbecoming.
