פרסומים אחרונים במדור "תרבות והיסטוריה"

From your article concludes the comparison between the spanish inquisition and the jewish comunity on the basis of their acts against Gabriel and his family.
A big difference that you've chosen to ignore is that the spanish inquisition's goal was to make everyone catholic and to fight those who refuses to be christened.
On the other hand the jewish community's goal , at all ages , was to keep and protect their belief , costoms and religion in order the survive as a nation with no land.
This attitude still remains these days , as you surely knows ("who is a jew ?"). You may criticize this approach (I do) but the comparison to the inquisition is not in order.

I agree to most of your views . The only thing that i am totally against is bestowing religious beliefs on secular people who have chosen not to believe or are sticking to traditional jewish values. So what we all agree is mutual respect which is very elusive but could be reached.

1) Basically , you're right.
The inquisition didn't look for the jews, since being a jewish in Spain was practically illegal. In 1492 the jews in Spain were given the option of becoming baptized Christians, or leaving Spain. While the Inquisition had no authority over practicing Jews (who could not be branded as Christian heretics), the Inquisition had great authority over the "conversos", many of whom continued to worship as Jews in secret.
In addition , the Inquisition drew up an elaborate list of "signs" by which a "Judaizer" (a relapsed Jew) could be discovered.
So eventually they did chase jews.
2) Indeed , no individual in the Jewish community thought of saving the landless nation. The community itself was trying to survive and keep its tradition. The fact that they had no country just made this mission harder.

The writers don't condem the Amsterdam Jews for disagreeing with his values, he condems them for the way they treated him.
The entire community stepping on someones back? does this seems to you as the right way to protect the communities values?

Surprisingly, things haven't changed a lot since 17th century Amsterdam. Even today, freedom of speech is never really granted for extremists, either from the right or the left wing. They often suffer modern versions of the excommunication (Cherem).
Moreover, even the cruel public "Zubur" that Acosta had to withstand at the synagogue (a ceremony that is impossible to reproduce today because we live in a big state and not a small local commmunity) still happens sometimes: an example is Clinton confessing his affairs on the TV. The public loved to see the powerful man humiliated and "accepting" the conservative (christian) family values. Vox populi is still vox dei.