Comments on: Saving Ramat Shlomo for the Jewish People…and Chabad

By: Charles Schumer (Likud, New York) « Mantiq al-Tayr

Charles Schumer (Likud, New York) « Mantiq al-Tayr — Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:19:14 +0000

[...] (Richard Silverstein has an interesting take on Ramat Shlomo.) [...]

By: Richard Silverstein

Richard Silverstein — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:12:40 +0000

I wasn’t “carried away” in the least & the interpretation I drew fr. the speaker’s words were entirely appropriate. The problem is yours entirely my friend.

By: Barry

Barry — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:06:29 +0000

Sorry for the delay. No, I’m not a settler. My point is journalistic fairness: no matter what some others express, and how angry you feel towards those others, you took the leap and implied something that this particular person simply did not say. It suited the drama of the article, but I stand by my point that in this way it was journalistically and blog-wise not the best thing to do.
We all get carried away at times.

By: richards1052

richards1052 — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 06:52:09 +0000

You're out of yr gourd. I quoted the JPost w/o changing a word of what the Ramat Shlomo resident said. The resident said that even dogs couldn't live where they intended to put in new housing. In truth, Palestinians would love to build there but can't because Israel refuses to allow to build on their own land.

Richard immediately writes that Arabs are considered dogs, an inflammation that he made up.

You know as well as I that it is extremely common to hear among settlers that Arabs are dogs. YOu can see such graffiti relatively regularly in Hebron & other such settlements.

he and other residents want more local homes.

Yes, they certainly do. They want to steal Arab land & make more homes for Jews, something to which I object.

What's yr address btw? Ramat Shlomo, Hebron, Yitzhar, Kfar Tapuach?

By: Barry

Barry — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 13:44:01 +0000

Just before reading the article, I read the Jerusalem Post article that Richard Silverstein referenced. The quote In the Post from the local "elderly resident" was greatly changed in meaning by Richard here. Read it yourselves. In the original, the older man is talking about the terrain. Only squirrels can get around there, it is too awkward for dogs. On top of that Richard immediately writes that Arabs are considered dogs, an inflammation that he made up.
So then I considerd that all the article does is complain about the out-of-place look of the Lubuvich "770" copy and then wrongly implies Arab hatred. The article actually indicates this man has a sense of humor, and that he and other residents want more local homes. Disagreement with this is no excuse to effectively post an inflamatory lie.
Richard Slverstone, for shame.

By: DICKERSON3870

DICKERSON3870 — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 03:35:01 +0000

P.S. As to the Ramat Shlomo replica of '770 Eastern Parkway', the phrase 'sore thumb' comes to mind. Can't they at least paint the brick a nice color like Eggshell, Seashell or Moccasin?
List of colors – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colors
P.S. I'm certain the dark-colored brick looks quite nice there at 770 Eastern Parkway, but…. Might there be room in Ramat Shlomo for that Museum of Tolerance with all of its bright primary colors? I think that might just tie it all together rather nicely.

By: Liz

Liz — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:40:20 +0000

When I have been in Ramat Shlomo, I don't have the impression that I am in the territories at all. If I hadn't read this article I wouldn't have known that it is East Jerusalem at all. Thanks for telling me this.

By: Liz

Liz — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:04:38 +0000

When one goes to Ramat Shlomo, you don't have the feeling that you are in "the Arab section." In fact, if I hadn't read this article I would have never known it was considered "East Jerusalem!"