How stupid a liar are you? Best regards, Cindy S.
torresdD
>Orthodox Jewish Women can bear their children,
> but their Zionist husband cannot touch them during labor.
> How cruel is that?!
> ---------------------
> How stupid a liar are you?
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.
VI. Maternity
http://queensvaad.org/chevra/?chevraID=15
Orthodox Jewish husbands,
while extremely supportive throughout
the labor and delivery process,
will not touch their wives or hand
them things directly during active labor.
They are not being recalcitrant when
they seem unwilling to do such tasks
for their wives.
cindys
"torresdD" <torr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VrEKb.28663$IM3....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
And as I have already posted in response to this post, the husband is
allowed to touch his wife during childbirth if she requests it.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
amigocabal
"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:HlIKb.59198$q55....@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
You jews are as crazy as a bat! get off your horse and smell the roses!
Tilly
Muslim men aren't even allowed to be present when a woman is giving birth.
The man goes out or the woman goes to a different house, sometimes one that
is just used by women for birthing.
Tilly.
Tilly
torresdD
"Tilly" <Brig...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:BkOKb.4284$9k7....@news.xtra.co.nz...
Both of religions treat women like uclean human beings.
Christanity is not far behind.
cindys
Now there is a huge lie with respect to Judaism. With respect to Islam, I
couldn't say because I don't know enough about it.
Best regards,
--Cindy S.
Susan Cohen
>
> "torresdD" <torr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sNOKb.13273$6B....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> ----------------
> Now there is a huge lie with respect to Judaism.
Oh, yeah, such a surprise - NOT!
With respect to Islam, I
> couldn't say because I don't know enough about it.
Islam, when practiced correctly, is not nearly how it has been portrayed WRT
women.
Susan
cindys
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Z_TKb.4532$nC....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
I have no doubt at all.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Deborah Sharavi
Torres is a pretty stupid liar, who doesn't even read
the articles she posts.
What Torres left out in her selective editing of the interview
with Benny Morris are the facts that Benny does not condemn any
"ethnic cleansing" which took place in 1948; that Benny states
what the Pallie Arabs went through was "peanuts" and "chicken
feed", that Ben-Gurion should have finished the job of "ethnic
cleansing"; and that Benny thinks "The Arab world as it is today
is barbarian."
Benny Morris:
"If [Ben-Gurion] was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he
should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and
the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that
this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had
been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large
expulsion and cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel,
as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his
fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a
partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for
generations."
"If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the
Jews, it will be because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer in
1948. Because he left a large and volatile demographic reserve in the
West Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself."
Survival of the Fittest
by Ari Shavit
Benny Morris says he was always a Zionist. People were mistaken when
they labeled him a post-Zionist, when they thought that his historical
study on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem was intended to
undercut the Zionist enterprise. Nonsense, Morris says, that's
completely unfounded. Some readers simply misread the book. They
didn't read it with the same detachment, the same moral neutrality,
with which it was written. So they came to the mistaken conclusion
that when Morris describes the cruelest deeds that the Zionist
movement perpetrated in 1948 he is actually being condemnatory, that
when he describes the large-scale expulsion operations he is being
denunciatory. They did not conceive that the great documenter of the
sins of Zionism in fact identifies with those sins. That he thinks
some of them, at least, were unavoidable.
Two years ago, different voices began to be heard. The historian who
was considered a radical leftist suddenly maintained that Israel had
no one to talk to. The researcher who was accused of being an Israel
hater (and was boycotted by the Israeli academic establishment) began
to publish articles in favor of Israel in the British paper The
Guardian...
"At the same time, it turns out that there was a series of orders
issued by the Arab Higher Committee and by the Palestinian
intermediate levels to remove children, women and the elderly from the
villages. So that on the one hand, the book reinforces the accusation
against the Zionist side, but on the other hand it also proves that
many of those who left the villages did so with the encouragement of
the Palestinian leadership itself."
"From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer.
There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly
comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population]
transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership
understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what
is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is
created."
"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there
could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its
midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."
"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would
not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to
evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state
would not have arisen here."
"But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don't
think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can't make an
omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands."
"A society that aims to kill you forces you to destroy it. When the
choice is between destroying or being destroyed, it's better to
destroy."
"If you expected me to burst into tears, I'm sorry to disappoint you.
I will not do that."
"There are circumstances in history that justify ethnic cleansing. I
know that this term is completely negative in the discourse of the
21st century, but when the choice is between ethnic cleansing and
genocide - the annihilation of your people - I prefer ethnic
cleansing."
"That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state
would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000
Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no
choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the
hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It
was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our
settlements were fired on."
"I know it doesn't sound nice but that's the term they used at the
time. I adopted it from all the 1948 documents in which I am
immersed."
"I feel sympathy for the Palestinian people, which truly underwent a
hard tragedy. I feel sympathy for the refugees themselves. But if the
desire to establish a Jewish state here is legitimate, there was no
other choice. It was impossible to leave a large fifth column in the
country. From the moment the Yishuv [pre-1948 Jewish community in
Palestine] was attacked by the Palestinians and afterward by the Arab
states, there was no choice but to expel the Palestinian population.
To uproot it in the course of war.
"Remember another thing: the Arab people gained a large slice of the
planet. Not thanks to its skills or its great virtues, but because it
conquered and murdered and forced those it conquered to convert during
many generations. But in the end the Arabs have 22 states. The Jewish
people did not have even one state. There was no reason in the world
why it should not have one state. Therefore, from my point of view,
the need to establish this state in this place overcame the injustice
that was done to the Palestinians by uprooting them."
"You have to put things in proportion. These are small war crimes. All
told, if we take all the massacres and all the executions of 1948, we
come to about 800 who were killed. In comparison to the massacres that
were perpetrated in Bosnia, that's peanuts. In comparison to the
massacres the Russians perpetrated against the Germans at Stalingrad,
that's chicken feed. When you take into account that there was a
bloody civil war here and that we lost an entire 1 percent of the
population, you find that we behaved very well."
"Because I investigated the conflict in depth, I was forced to cope
with the in-depth questions that those people coped with. I understood
the problematic character of the situation they faced and maybe I
adopted part of their universe of concepts. But I do not identify with
Ben-Gurion. I think he made a serious historical mistake in 1948. Even
though he understood the demographic issue and the need to establish a
Jewish state without a large Arab minority, he got cold feet during
the war. In the end, he faltered."
"If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a
complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and
the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would
be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved
once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and
cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the
Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If
he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he
would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations."
"If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it
will be because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer in 1948.
Because he left a large and volatile demographic reserve in the West
Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself."
"I am not a statesman. I do not put myself in his place. But as an
historian, I assert that a mistake was made here. Yes. The
non-completion of the transfer was a mistake."
"If you are asking me whether I support the transfer and expulsion of
the Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza and perhaps even from Galilee and
the Triangle, I say not at this moment. I am not willing to be a
partner to that act. In the present circumstances it is neither moral
nor realistic. The world would not allow it, the Arab world would not
allow it, it would destroy the Jewish society from within. But I am
ready to tell you that in other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which
are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions.
If we find ourselves with atomic weapons around us, or if there is a
general Arab attack on us and a situation of warfare on the front with
Arabs in the rear shooting at convoys on their way to the front, acts
of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential."
"The Israeli Arabs are a time bomb. Their slide into complete
Palestinization has made them an emissary of the enemy that is among
us. They are a potential fifth column. In both demographic and
security terms they are liable to undermine the state. So that if
Israel again finds itself in a situation of existential threat, as in
1948, it may be forced to act as it did then. If we are attacked by
Egypt (after an Islamist revolution in Cairo) and by Syria, and
chemical and biological missiles slam into our cities, and at the same
time Israeli Palestinians attack us from behind, I can see an
expulsion situation. It could happen. If the threat to Israel is
existential, expulsion will be justified."
"My turning point began after 2000. I wasn't a great optimist even
before that. True, I always voted Labor or Meretz or Sheli [a dovish
party of the late 1970s], and in 1988 I refused to serve in the
territories and was jailed for it, but I always doubted the intentions
of the Palestinians. The events of Camp David and what followed in
their wake turned the doubt into certainty. When the Palestinians
rejected the proposal of [prime minister Ehud] Barak in July 2000 and
the Clinton proposal in December 2000, I understood that they are
unwilling to accept the two-state solution. They want it all. Lod and
Acre and Jaffa."
"Oslo had to be tried. But today it has to be clear that from the
Palestinian point of view, Oslo was a deception. [Palestinian leader
Yasser] Arafat did not change for the worse, Arafat simply defrauded
us. He was never sincere in his readiness for compromise and
conciliation."
"He wants to send us back to Europe, to the sea we came from. He truly
sees us as a Crusader state and he thinks about the Crusader precedent
and wishes us a Crusader end. I'm certain that Israeli intelligence
has unequivocal information proving that in internal conversations
Arafat talks seriously about the phased plan [which would eliminate
Israel in stages]. But the problem is not just Arafat. The entire
Palestinian national elite is prone to see us as Crusaders and is
driven by the phased plan. That's why the Palestinians are not
honestly ready to forgo the right of return. They are preserving it as
an instrument with which they will destroy the Jewish state when the
time comes. They can't tolerate the existence of a Jewish state - not
in 80 percent of the country and not in 30 percent. From their point
of view, the Palestinian state must cover the whole Land of Israel."
"Ideologically, I support the two-state solution. It's the only
alternative to the expulsion of the Jews or the expulsion of the
Palestinians or total destruction. But in practice, in this
generation, a settlement of that kind will not hold water. At least 30
to 40 percent of the Palestinian public and at least 30 to 40 percent
of the heart of every Palestinian will not accept it. After a short
break, terrorism will erupt again and the war will resume."
"There is not going to be peace in the present generation. There will
not be a solution. We are doomed to live by the sword. I'm already
fairly old, but for my children that is especially bleak. I don't know
if they will want to go on living in a place where there is no hope.
Even if Israel is not destroyed, we won't see a good, normal life here
in the decades ahead."
"The bombing of the buses and restaurants really shook me. They made
me understand the depth of the hatred for us. They made me understand
that the Palestinian, Arab and Muslim hostility toward Jewish
existence here is taking us to the brink of destruction. I don't see
the suicide bombings as isolated acts. They express the deep will of
the Palestinian people. That is what the majority of the Palestinians
want. They want what happened to the bus to happen to all of us."
"I have researched Palestinian history. I understand the reasons for
the hatred very well. The Palestinians are retaliating now not only
for yesterday's closure but for the Nakba as well. But that is not a
sufficient explanation. The peoples of Africa were oppressed by the
European powers no less than the Palestinians were oppressed by us,
but nevertheless I don't see African terrorism in London, Paris or
Brussels. The Germans killed far more of us than we killed the
Palestinians, but we aren't blowing up buses in Munich and Nuremberg.
So there is something else here, something deeper, that has to do with
Islam and Arab culture."
"There is a deep problem in Islam. It's a world whose values are
different. A world in which human life doesn't have the same value as
it does in the West, in which freedom, democracy, openness and
creativity are alien. A world that makes those who are not part of the
camp of Islam fair game. Revenge is also important here. Revenge plays
a central part in the Arab tribal culture. Therefore, the people we
are fighting and the society that sends them have no moral
inhibitions. If it obtains chemical or biological or atomic weapons,
it will use them. If it is able, it will also commit genocide."
"But when one has to deal with a serial killer, it's not so important
to discover why he became a serial killer. What's important is to
imprison the murderer or to execute him."
"The people the Palestinian society sends to carry out the terrorist
attacks, and in some way the Palestinian society itself as well. At
the moment, that society is in the state of being a serial killer. It
is a very sick society. It should be treated the way we treat
individuals who are serial killers."
"We have to try to heal the Palestinians. Maybe over the years the
establishment of a Palestinian state will help in the healing process.
But in the meantime, until the medicine is found, they have to be
contained so that they will not succeed in murdering us."
"Something like a cage has to be built for them. I know that sounds
terrible. It is really cruel. But there is no choice. There is a wild
animal there that has to be locked up in one way or another."
"In my opinion, we will not have peace, no."
"In this generation there is apparently no solution. To be vigilant,
to defend the country as far as is possible."
"An iron wall is a good image. An iron wall is the most reasonable
policy for the coming generation. My colleague Avi Shlein described
this well: What Jabotinsky proposed is what Ben-Gurion adopted. In the
1950s, there was a dispute between Ben-Gurion and Moshe Sharett.
Ben-Gurion argued that the Arabs understand only force and that
ultimate force is the one thing that will persuade them to accept our
presence here. He was right. That's not to say that we don't need
diplomacy. Both toward the West and for our own conscience, it's
important that we strive for a political solution. But in the end,
what will decide their readiness to accept us will be force alone.
Only the recognition that they are not capable of defeating us."
"I'm trying to be realistic. I know it doesn't always sound
politically correct, but I think that political correctness poisons
history in any case. It impedes our ability to see the truth. And I
also identify with Albert Camus. He was considered a left-winger and a
person of high morals, but when he referred to the Algerian problem he
placed his mother ahead of morality. Preserving my people is more
important than universal moral concepts."
"I think there is a clash between civilizations here [as Huntington
argues]. I think the West today resembles the Roman Empire of the
fourth, fifth and sixth centuries: The barbarians are attacking it and
they may also destroy it."
"I think the [Muslim] values I mentioned earlier are values of
barbarians - the attitude toward democracy, freedom, openness; the
attitude toward human life. In that sense they are barbarians. The
Arab world as it is today is barbarian."
"The West is stronger but it's not clear whether it knows how to
repulse this wave of hatred. The phenomenon of the mass Muslim
penetration into the West and their settlement there is creating a
dangerous internal threat. A similar process took place in Rome. They
let the barbarians in and they toppled the empire from within."
"I think that the war between the civilizations is the main
characteristic of the 21st century. I think President Bush is wrong
when he denies the very existence of that war. It's not only a matter
of bin Laden. This is a struggle against a whole world that espouses
different values. And we are on the front line. Exactly like the
Crusaders, we are the vulnerable branch of Europe in this place."
"The whole Zionist project is apocalyptic. It exists within hostile
surroundings and in a certain sense its existence is unreasonable. It
wasn't reasonable for it to succeed in 1881 and it wasn't reasonable
for it to succeed in 1948 and it's not reasonable that it will succeed
now. Nevertheless, it has come this far. In a certain way it is
miraculous. I live the events of 1948, and 1948 projects itself on
what could happen here. Yes, I think of Armageddon. It's possible.
Within the next 20 years there could be an atomic war here."
"No, Zionism was not a mistake. The desire to establish a Jewish state
here was a legitimate one, a positive one. But given the character of
Islam and given the character of the Arab nation, it was a mistake to
think that it would be possible to establish a tranquil state here
that lives in harmony with its surroundings."
"But that's so for the Jewish people, not the Palestinians. A people
that suffered for 2,000 years, that went through the Holocaust,
arrives at its patrimony but is thrust into a renewed round of
bloodshed, that is perhaps the road to annihilation. In terms of
cosmic justice, that's terrible. It's far more shocking than what
happened in 1948 to a small part of the Arab nation that was then in
Palestine."
"Destruction could be the end of this process. It could be the end of
the Zionist experiment. And that's what really depresses and scares
me."
"We are the greater victims in the course of history and we are also
the greater potential victim. Even though we are oppressing the
Palestinians, we are the weaker side here. We are a small minority in
a large sea of hostile Arabs who want to eliminate us. So it's
possible than when their desire is realized, everyone will understand
what I am saying to you now. Everyone will understand we are the true
victims. But by then it will be too late."
Deborah