Opinion
Settlements: An obstacle to peace?
Israel Kasnett
Published: 19.06.08, 00:58
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
36 Talkbacks for this article
31. so
haly ,   jerusalem   (06.21.08)
you do not defend peace or setelments but the present hell
32. Sean
Leah   (06.21.08)
The problem is you do not know what the truth is. I have read your posts on this website, and other Israeli websites. And the truth is you are nothing, but an antiIsrael agitator that comes on to this website,and other similiar Israeli websites with the sole intention of poisoning the minds of wellmeaning, gullible people who don't understand the real roots of this conflct with your antiIsraeli/antiJewish viewpoints. Shame on you.
33. to 30
nansy ajram ,   cairo   (06.21.08)
i know little about history but saladin was befor 600 years of mark twain and sayidna omar bin alkhattab was 1500 years befor this twain . one was moslem the first was moslem and araby both had the interest to be in jerusalem the arab moslem city
34. Nansy 30. Ok, are you aware that Saladin was asked by a ...
Stewart ,   USA   (06.21.08)
Christian priest or borther to come into a church for something to eat I think, and Salidin wisely refused saying they would build a mosque on the place if he did. He sure knew his own people. Jerusalem was David's city and the area was called Judea. I have this funny feeling that David was Jewish. I don't think Saladin or his Arabas ever really did anything to develop the place except to build a mosque on top of the Jews temple. Very convienient. I guess its all about location. Besides, Salidin was only there because he had a Hotwire coupon for 2 nights for the price of 1 at the Jerusalem Hilton.
35. # 33 Saladin was a Kurd
(06.21.08)
Why would a Kurd want Jerusalem to be an Arab city. Secondly, read about Saladin after he chased out the Crusaders he gave the keys to the city gates of Jerusalem to the Jews.
36. #1 ... My landlord also sold my apartment ...
Amy ,   Rekhovot, IL   (06.22.08)
... and I have to move. I appreciate that those who lost their homes due to new owners in the 1800s were angry, and I'm pretty angry, too, that I have to move. But that is not being "driven from their homes" and they have no more rights to stay in that house that they were renting than renters the world over when actual legal ownership changes. The Jews who bought from absentee landlords are no different than the Jews who bought from my absentee landlord. (My landlord rents to us, he doesn't live with us.) I have to move, against my will (it's a decent apartment). So did they. It's offensive to take that simple fact and twist it into some sort of oppression/land-stealing.
Previous talkbacks
Back to article