פרסומים אחרונים במדור "חברה וכלכלה"

Answer me this:

Let's say that your friend was threatened by an armed person. Would you take up arms to defend him?
If not, would you hurl yourself at the assailant, or stand between him and your friend, so that the latter may escape and be saved? And let's say that your pacifism means that your friend dies. Would you still think that your actions were just?

So you're saying that morals are irrelevant in this specific example? Then what use are they? A true pacifist would have responded: "I would have stood in my friend's assailant's path." Why? Because it is the only way to save your friend's life, while preserving your morality. If you are only a capricious pacifist, then don't call yourself a pacifist.

In using the term pacifsm i ment lacking the killing instinct,

What i was saying was that in times of trouble, morals(what ever you're morals may be) take back sit to instincts,

so you may end up doing things you might regret later,

You see pacifism as having certain morals

It's two different things,

I guess pacifist of the first kind can kill without filling sorry for it, i already answered you before,

Pacifism, as I had thought, would be the moral position that violence towards others is intrinsically wrong, not "lacking the killer instinct."

Historical documents on how the American and British leadership purposefully abstained from action:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/refe...

and

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/refe...

It seems that World War II was not a war between the humanistic values of western democracies and the Nazi racism. Rather, it looks like the whole world was swept by racism and xenophobia - called "Nativism", in the American case - and thus each nation wanted to win the war and did not care about the fate of non-citizens.

The leaders of western democracies perhaps cynically used the speeches on "freedom" vs. "nazism" as a way to energize their masses and enroll them to the military war effort. Maybe it was an empty rhetoric.

Yet another person to bury his head in the sand. Oh, well.

This is what I call "petite strategie."

First of all, using unlikely theoretical cataclysms as any kind of basis for judgement is questionable.

Second of all, think of what will happen to you, if a war kills everyone in Israel. You'll be back where all us Jews were, before we had our own country - persecuted, oppressed, rejected, all without a world power to turn to. And if not you, yourself, then your children.

And forgive me all for responding seriously to such a pathetic attempt at a reparte.

Hmm... I think you've forgotten one, negligible, yet essential point: you're part of the Jewish people, as well. And so will your children be, I would think.

No, no, no. I'm not and they won't, God forbid.

You're not of the Jewish people? How exactly did you manage that?

1. I don't think that someone can just choose to become apart of his own people, his own culture. But, again, I'm no anthropologist.
2. I would like to see you convince a neo-Nazi that you're not a Jew anymore.

The ugly duckling (habarvazon ha’mechoar) thought all his life that he was a duck, until one day he looked into the lake and saw that he was actually a swan. So is he a swan or a duck?

The case of whether one is a Jew or not is -in my opinion- clear-cut. You either are technically a Jew or you are not. If you are not a technically a Jew then eating falafel and putting on tefilin daily will not make you Jewish. Religion is the only common aspect of Jewish people around the world. Whether one follows all, some or none of its laws is another matter.

You say: “A Jew is whoever possess Jewish culture”. And what is ‘Jewish culture’ one may ask? How much of that Jewish culture one has to possess in order to be considered a Jew? What about gentiles who are a scholars in Jewish history, Bible and tradition are they Jewish?

The questioning of ‘who is a Jew’ comes mainly from secular quarters. Many find the whole religious experience meaningless and seek to redefine Judaism on secular terms. That’s fine. People are free to call themselves whatever they like, but that does not transform then to that which they call themselves. As it happens being a Jew has its roots in a religious tradition. For better or worse we are stuck with it. Anything else is ‘like Judaism’; ‘good enough Judaism’; ‘sort of Judaism’; - for some - but not Judaism.

This questioning of 'who is a Jew' came from religious quarters, as well. In any case, just because a culture is deeply religious in nature, doesn't mean that one has to be religious in order to stay a part of it, to develop it.

I agree. Indeed the majority of the Jews, in Israel and elsewhere are not religious. I was merely questioning the assertion made earlier in the discussion that having absorbed some Jewish culture qualifies one as a Jew.

Einstein said it many years ago: “It’s all relative”. There are two possible points of view to the debate whether you are Jewish or not.
1. As the world sees you.
2. As you see yourself.
There is no doubt that the world considers you to be Jewish. After all, if your mother was Jewish, then technically you are Jewish too, and there is nothing that you can do about it. In addition, you live in Israel (the Jewish state), and you were educated in Jewish schools. I suggest that you will have great trouble convincing anyone that you are not Jewish (in their eyes).

As to how you see yourself? Well, that’s up to you. Evidently you are a free thinker and entitled to your opinion. After all, no one knows you better than you do.
So that’s it, everyone is right relative to their point of view.

The link works quite well for me.

Well, are you also not going to live according to Nature's directives? Will you walk off a cliff, to show your independence of Gravity?
Face it, many decisions one makes in life are in response to pre-existing conditions - if you're going to play the "I want to be independent game," then fine. But leave your hypocracy to yourself.

What know they of England who only England know?

NYT:

He also quotes a memorandum from a British cryptologic official, dated Sept. 11, 1941, that takes account...

ynet: