The country

I read the articles and it is truly shameful. Alper throws out a bunch of insults and slander and hardly gives any reason for himself. The most serious argument implicit in it is that there is no ‘empirical’ proof, meaning one that can be produced in a laboratory, for the existence of God, and therefore – put it aside – belief in Him is stupidity.
There were several response articles. I think only one touched on the point that we also believe in things that are not measurable and which are rational and not unfounded. It did not go into the arguments that prove the existence of God, however. Menachem Ben also wrote something. He used the cosmological argument in a certain way, but the presentation of things was more like a synagogue sermon and there was no strict logical structure. It was something that was written as if under inspiration. Therefore, he brings up an argument there – I do not think it proves anything – The reality of God is proven by the language of the Bible, which is divine. For example, the first verse would have been written ‘the heavens and the earth’ if it had been written by a human being instead of ‘the heavens and the earth’. A bit funny, isn't it?
In the end, no serious comment article appeared there, and that's a bit annoying. A bit annoying because it can reinforce the impression among certain people that believers don't have serious arguments to support their faith. But mostly annoying because ’Haaretz’ has an image – at least among the public that reads it – of an educated and high-class newspaper, and in fact the material published on this subject was poor, demagogic, boring and disappointing.
I haven't had the chance to read Haaretz very often, so I don't want to generalize and argue about most of the material published there, but anyone who knows more is welcome to point out other cases of this kind.
And Rabbi Mikhi, it would have been very, very appropriate for an article by you to be published there. Are you so sure that if you send it, it won't be published?
By the way, Abed L. Aziz also wrote something there, most of it purposeful claims such as religion leads to murder, poverty and that... not worth reading. But he made an interesting claim there. After he accused Christianity and Islam of the historical murderous campaigns they perpetrated (Islam still does), he claimed that we Jews would not be happy with our innocence. We were simply few, marginal and weak throughout history and therefore did not have the ability to commit the atrocities. What do you think? If we were indeed great and strong, would crimes be committed in the form and on the scale of our monotheistic cousins?

In my experience, the chance of it being published is zero. There's no point in bothering to write something that won't be published and I don't have the time.

This claim has already been made by a Khazar king. I want to believe we wouldn't do it, but you know what…

If Alper considers anything that cannot be measured in a laboratory to be stupid, is the 'belief' in morality also stupid?

With me, they will answer you that they do not believe in morality. Their argument is that it is foolish to accept the existence of something for which we have no empirical evidence. But morality does not exist, and commitment to it is not a claim of fact, and therefore it is not subject to the requirement of empiricism.
I agree with the claim of morality, but it requires more detailed reasoning. See the fourth notebook.

What is the difference if holologism creates obligation or existence?
And by the way, even a test in a laboratory does not create a true law, as the Rabbi Yom Zia said, and even an empirical test relies on logic, and in any case relying on an empirical test is stupidity, of course Alper will not accept this claim either, since it was not tested in a laboratory.

This is a different claim. In my book, I extended my argument on this matter to the fact that the empirical is also based on the rational. But the claim that dealt with belief in factual claims is not related to moral obligation.