randomWalks

explain, please?



for the purpose of furthering multi-culturalism?



or making fun of Jews?



this one kind of shows up without context. and, withe the pro palestinian bent on this site, I question the purpose. thank you.

The context and purpose are pretty clear if you link to the article. What I question, Roger, is what you meant by referring to "the pro-palestinian bent" of rW, as though that (if true) were to explain possibly "making fun of Jews."

I know nothing about USC, so, even when I read the article, that particular part of it skipped over me.



and I would just assume, forgive me, that if most of these posts are against the "war against terrorism," and considering for a while that there was a link about the israel soldiers who refused to fight in the gaza strip in elsewhere, that there may have been some indication there that fighting against palestinians was a bad thing.



i'm just asking for a little bit of clarification, and not a little bit of sarcasm, which is usually seen as a defensive posture.

The article doesn't even mention Palestine, numbnut.

it didn't have to, it was a question about the site.

It was an insinuation, and an obnoxious one. Now go away, you are soiling my thread.

but i was i just pointing out that, since there was no other suggestion to go along with it, that the commentary of the article was a bit ambiguous, that maybe it was meant in an anti-jewish light.



so, why are you so bitter about that?

My friend, you have overstayed your welcome as a guest here.

It's amazing to me that the people who want to make the world a better place, can't stand it when someone insinuates that they might be guilty of the same things they hate.



And I was just pointing something out. And there's no such thing as a welcome. That's something we reserve for property, and homes, and places.



This is an abstract and ulimited spacde. If you can't stand my commentary, I'm sorry.



Ask questions. I was asking for your sincere, not sarcastic, commentary.

I do forgive you. But the problem is, you're a schmendrich.



You didn't read the article carefully, didn't understand it, didn't address it substantively in your remarks, suggested that we are biased, and attempted to interject I/P as an issue where none existed.



Putz! I suspect you saw the word "Jew" on the front page, and were offended in a knee-jerk way, and now for reasons of ego you are commenting on my thread in a rude and presumptuous way.



Your behavior is a shanda fur the goyim. Cease and desist, you little pischer.

thank you. actuallly i like your nonsense, in a putrified, masochistic way.



and no, i did read the article. and whoever posted it must have read it, but didn't report on it either, in any substantive way. you cleric!

Feh!

Oh, my goodness, xowie. Are you flirting with me?



You're so cute.

I know it! Though I only date boys with large tools. Sorry, son.



I am Dai Ichi. I posted that article. I know you want to impress us all with your glib commentary, but you are failing. You're seeming like just another stray Internet doggie, thoughtlessly pissing all over my thread. And for what? Your question, rude as it was, has been answered. I was not making fun of Jews.



But I am making fun of you. Wanker.



Have the last word, if you like, son. See if you can sound smart.

From this thread, I'm starting to think you are all one person, Daichi, Xowie, and Roger.

i have that exact same suspicion!

Also, I think it's a little silly to question whether or not there's a Pro-Palestinian bent to rW. It may never have come to a vote, but the dominat posting voices are all loudly anti-Israel. Right?

What does it mean to be anti-Israel? I'm certainly anti- the militarized oppression of the Palestinians, which I don't think needs to be an essential element of the Jewish homeland. As far as Israel goes, I'm anti- US support of Israel in light of the unconscionable injustices carried out with that support. I'm also deeply disappointed and ashamed of the apparently genocidal impulse among many Israelis.

and the genocidal impulse of the Palestinians?



and what of the genocidal impulses of both the Hindus and the Mulsims in Gujarat?



two way street, in my opinion.



i'm also anti-military intervention, but the problem is the issue didn't begin with some sudden militarization, you know? it's a colonial problem that has more to do with a diplomatic creation that refused to look at the antagonism that would have resulted against both parties, and the creation of two separate "voices?" "vehicles?" to put a stop to what was at first received to be an "okay" agreement.



a majority of palestinians were okay with the creation of the state of Israel. voices with power that were not necessarily the voices of the Palestinians, were against.



Zionists, to counteract what they considered a wrong agaisnt the to-be Israelis, formed a very aggressive campaign to put one over on the aggression created by the other parties (Egyptians, Iranians, Iraqis, Ottomans, et al) that wanted that area exclusively for their own interests.



i'm against taking sides, you know? because I would like to see a peaceful agreement for the best interests of, not just the Israelis, but also the Palestinians. but it's not that easy just to give the Palestinians a state, because the Palestinians are poorl represented.



the latest trick by Arafat to say that bin Laden doesn't speak for him is another way to take the heat of Arafat for being the vessel through which other countries (who would like to own the future Palestine)speak.



when i questioned the perceived anti-Semitism of this post i did so with the context of most of the posts that are related to Israel are against Israelis, not against Zionists. the site seems to lump people together unintelligiently, as if it just wants an anti-American message.



i say that only because my opinion of what is American has something to do with being an arbitrateur, not the militarized nation sucked into a war by the disadvantaged misguided notions of reactionary terrorists.



on their own states should stand as cooperative elements in a global network of peaceable communities. and when this site throws around statements that involve Jews, without a clear representation of what that post means i take a suspicious glance at it.



to get back to what started this comment, adam, i don't think the military has a genocidal impulse. i think that they have to fight a war against other countries that use the Palestinians as their fighters through the brainwashing and financial coercion they practice.



it was not only the Isrealis that decided that the Palestinians couldn't work in Israel, or practice free trade. it was Arafat and the Egyptians, the Saudis and some other Shariah law supporters who decided to keep them from growing and emerging, choosing instead to take a militaristic and isolationist approach to dealing with a perceived wrong.



they always could have existed peacefully together. take the power ouot of politics and then you get the people, but how many people do you know can actually live without looking to some hierarchy for a solution. people instill these governments with that power.



i think we are in agreement on some basic principles, in this case.

We cannot give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians nor to other Arabs. Therefore, a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the will of the native population. Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall which the local population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy.

A Jewish state can only be obtained, if it ever is, through war...You can talk to an Arab about anything, but you cannot talk to him about a Jewish state. And that is because, by definition, a Jewish state means that the Jews will govern other people, other people who are living in this Jewish state. Jabotinsky knew that long ago. He was the prophet of the Jewish state. Jabotinsky was ostracized, condemned, excommunicated. But now we see that the entire Zionist movement has adopted his point of view...

Yigal Allon asked Ben-Gurion what was to be done with the civilian population. Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture of "drive them out." "Driving out" is a term with a harsh ring. Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population of Lydda did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the ten or fifteen miles to the point where they met up with the Arab Legion.

There's one thing roger said that I do agree with. It's critical that the Pro-Palestinian movement be clear on the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. But I don't think rW has ever fallen into that trap.



I also believe the only solution is to have one secular state with equal rights for all. For a long time this was what was being pushed for within the Palestinian movement. Now it's a small voice.

Mazin Qumsiyeh: A two-state solution won't work.

"For us, this was Israeli democracy — choosing the club you were beaten with," he said.

why can't you put more context into your writing, like, direct remarks about what you mean by posting a quote like those above? there's history to that stuff.



the same kind of language in the words of someone else can certainly be taken as equally extreme.


http://abbc.com/historia/zionism/index_misc.html



the imprecision of the use of language was the only issue i had, and it sort of led into this conjecture about whether random walks was against Israel, Jews, Zionism, or what have you. it just wasn't clear, because it sometimes seems you aren't clear about it. I think that this site would benefit by being clear, just the same as the Palestinians would be clear about the difference.



one Palestinian is not another Palestinian, the way one Jew is not another Jew. nobody really speaks for anyone these days. damn modernists! they've screwed us!

Those quotes were posted in response to your allegation that "most palestinians were okay with the creation of the sate of Israel."

Xowie, thanks for the link.