In an editorial today, the Washington Post says:
Thanks to the construction of a fence along the West Bank border and a
cease-fire deal with Hamas, Israel has been more peaceful in recent
months than it has been in years.
cease-fire deal with Hamas, Israel has been more peaceful in recent
months than it has been in years.
That fence is not on the border. And it's not even a fence. Or not always. And it's a violation of international law. The editorial's about Israel's political paralysis, Livni's coalition. Not a word, of course, about the Arab parties.
As usual, you derived an odd message from the article.
The message of the article is that Israel is at a crossroads, which has been a relevant theme of yours.
Peace with security (with major compromises and acknowledgement of the nakba) vs security without peace (with major character compromises).
The FACT of an Obama victory, and the practise of an Obama administration can make the first far more palatable.
As usual Witty ignores the facts on the ground, in this case the simple location of a fence, and whether it meets the common sense definition of a fence.
Talking to Witty is like talking to a rabid Nazi.
Why do they insist on calling the peace barrier a "separation fence"? Does the anti-Israel bias of the corporate news media in the United States know no bounds?
Richard's novel concept of "security without peace" is fascinating… Is that when things are blowing up all around, but you never seem to get hurt, because you live a hemisphere away from your spiritual homeland?
Richard, would you be so kind and help me understand this message of yours a while back: (context: Tail bites Dog
*****************************************
There are many Jews that feel a deep commitment to retain access and care to Jewish shrines in the West Bank. Its not necessarily a fanatic sentiment.
The land that was acquired in an arms length exchange should not be contestable, but that is a minority of the land of the settlements.
Most of the land was transferred from British state ownership (with Palestinians often allowed to reside, creating relative ownership rights), to Jordanian (including ILLEGAL ethnic cleansing of Jewish residents), to Israeli state, to the Jewish National Fund, to moshavim and private ownership.
Its the status of the state land transferred, and the denial of the Palestinians' residence based rights that are legitimately contested.
Decree, even by knesset, isn't enough to comprise consent to a legal "rational man".
Posted by: Richard Witty | October 26, 2008 at 06:02 PM
*************************************************************************
What precisely are you alluding to here: "at arms length exchange"? What land was "acquired in an arms length exchange" and when (1967?)?
What percentage of the West Bank and Gaza do you think is legitimately owned by Palestinians? What percentage of the same territories is legitimately owned by Israel via the ownership chain: Ottoman > British > Jordanian > Israeli ?
What percentage of the Palestinians are "real owners" versus whatever it is that you differentiate as: "residence based rights" of Palestinians. What are you alluding to here?
What exactly are you trying to express with the last sentence? Are you suggesting a framework beyond the individual Israeli state consent? How far versus an international or Western consent would you move?
Finally: What sources are you relying on concerning Israel/land/law?
Witty is secure, protected by ASAP 9-11 goy cops, income fixed b y
his shell games in behalf his clients, his family with freedom to
prance over the world, sticking it to have-nots under the banner of
victimhood.
"Talking to Witty is like talking to a rabid Nazi."
It's more like talking to a computer. I am reminded of what Kevin Barrett, a Congressional candidate from Wisconsin, said about communicating with Noam Chomsky. Barrett had some email communications which started out cordial enough, but when Barrett pressed Chomsky for definitive answers rather than accepting his familiar linguistical obfuscation, Chomsky just retreated further into obscure and evasive wordplay, leading Barrett to make the following observation:
"If I were a paranoid conspiracy theorist, I would suspect that I'm in the middle of a Turing test, communicating with a CIA computer-generated linguistic simulacrum designed to drive me crazy, rather than the great, honorable dissident Noam Chomsky."
Describes Richard Witty to a tee.
Great questions, LeaNder. Of course, they won't be answered in a straightforward manner. Watch for a lot of obfuscation and evasive wordplay, which you can then attempt to decipher, and which will be answered by more of the same, which you can then attempt to decipher again, which will again be answered by even more obscurities…
Meanwhile, the Palestinians burn, and the Zionist agenda continues to be carried out, while we're all busy arguing with Witty, and defending people like Khalidi against charges of "anti-semitism" brought on by Zionists – without ever hearing what Khalidi has to say, as evidenced by the WaPo editorial "in support" of him and similar articles/statements of "support" – these tactics shift the focus from where it should be, namely Palestinian suffering under brutal Israeli occupation, to defending a man against charges of "anti-semitism."
We need more Palestinian voices. The whole episode is not only framed by Zionists in their terms, but is then argued by Zionists amongst themselves, so that the argument comes down to "he's an 'anti-semite'" on the one side versus "I don't agree with what he has to say about the conflict, but he's not an 'anti-semite,' rather he's a distinguished scholar and a very intelligent man." Well, that's nice, but notice what we never hear: exactly what Khalidi himself has to say. It would take a research paper to figure that out in the midst of all the Zionist obfuscation. And that's the whole objective.
LeanDer,
I don't know what percentage are which. I think a much larger percentage of privately owned land is uncontestable (on the reasonable man legal test) as Palestinian than Jewish.
In a portion of the land near Hebron and a few other locales in the West Bank, prior to 1948 (and in some cases for 2800 years), Jews purchased land from rightful landowners ("arm-length transaction" – a transaction between two consenting non-related parties). When Jordan annexed the West Bank, the Jews were forcefully removed, and the land was occupied by non-owner Palestinians.
On "relative title". It refers to cases in which title is NOT clear, and are in FACT contested. There are a couple of reasons that would be the case.
In the case of a significant portion of the land, Palestinian residents remained on land that was held by absentee owners, with permission, and comprising a leasehold by consent (if not in writing). The Ottomans sought to confirm in writing such arrangements, but that did not occur fully, and when the Ottomans lost their sovereignty the state of law fell into a state of ambiguity.
The current state of legal ambiguity as to title, particularly of state lands, transferred and transferred, is part of a larger trend.
It needs to be clarified, authoritatively, multilaterally.
But, to state that title on those lands is perfected, is to lie. (A lie by the settlers, a lie by the Palestinians, a lie by Palestinian solidarity.)
For the Palestinians that held leasehold rights by residence, not by title, they are in a disadvantageous position regardless of whether it is Palestinian, Jordanian or Israeli law that controls.
The WORLD has changed. As every square inch of the US is affirmed by registered title, the same is true in almost all of Europe, and most of the land with primarily urban population. (The population density of all of Israel and Palestine is describable as urban or close to it.)
BOTH Israeli and Palestinian legislatures enacted title laws that conflict with European and American standards of title. They did so by state decree. The "rational man" test is the reasoning that an appellate court must use to determine if a particular judge's decision conforms with the law of the sovereign jurisdiction, and also conforms to natural law.
The question isn't "do YOU conclude x?", but would a "rational man conclude x?"
The idea being that the consent of a rational man is potentially consented by multiple parties, whereas a ruling by decree or mob will be consented to only by one side or perspective.
Even "international law" (as selectively – prejudicially – as activists invoke) must be tested through the "rational man" filter.
The purpose of law of title is to shift the status of title from CONTESTED to CONSENTED.
Courts generally have latitude to apply their creativity to realize that change in status. Except in aggregious cases, courts are and should be reluctant to forcefully remove current residents, and instead require other forms of remedy.
Did any of you watch the Khalidi interviews that I posted, the Youtube references?
Khalidi is NO ranting terrorist, NO fanatic by any stretch.
He does speak in similar terms to me, in urging reconciliation of title claims.
I don't know if he similarly distinguishes questions of sovereignty from questions of title. He did refer to the obligation of compensation on multiple occassions in the interviews, indicating to me that he in does not suggest forced removals as remedy.
If YOU want to distinguish yourselves from accusasations of being a "mob", you would similarly advocated for clarity as to sovereignty as a distinct question from clarity of land title.
And, you would require that EVERY person gets his/her day in court, with the right of appeal.
And, you would require that the court adopt the least currently intrusive remedy possible.
If land claims reach the Israeli court system in fact, many of the decrees of the knesset will be shot down, and hence many of the title claims of settlers will require some significant remedy. (Israeli courts do not "make law" by precedent, as US courts do. The republican repulsion – including Ron Paul's – for courts "making law", would favor the Israeli interpretation that knesset legislation need not be tested against any international or natural law.)
For the most part we are loyal to who pays our bills.
It is another indictement on fiat money.
For example: Casino owners no doubt donate to organisations on the right.
The basic thing Witty ignores is that the Palestinians right of ownership is anchored in many generations of Palestinians living on the land until the Jews came in and forced them off that land, whether by title purchased by absentee Arab landlords or force of
foreign arms.
Sovereignty and jurisdiction over property rights cannot be divorced.
The rule of law is not the same as moral right.
There is a notion in law called adhesion contract.
And another called Fraud.
What is the base fact is that sovereignty was/is a matter of force
as there is no Constitution or even a Magna Carta to reveal
essential rights.
The Jews came from outside the land and they took olive trees that had been in Palestinian families for centuries as a practical
matter the Palestinian children knew as part of their ROMANSBILDUNG.
You have an odd response to "Palestinians deserve their day in court".
Not quite the art of insulting, but insult mixed with much hot air never the less.
The question isn't "do YOU conclude x?", but would a "rational man conclude x?"
The idea being that the consent of a rational man is potentially consented by multiple parties, whereas a ruling by decree or mob will be consented to only by one side or perspective.
And just in case that the suggestion might have escaped your attention. He repeats it using his visual screaming techniques for the blind like him–compare his repeated misspelling of my name.:(
If YOU want to distinguish yourselves from accusasations (sic!)of being a "mob", you would similarly advocated (sic!) for clarity as to sovereignty as a distinct question from clarity of land title.
After his insults he merges me with the "larger comment mob" anyway. Since as a clairvoyant he knows, why I asked the question. I must want to push his settler friends into the sea:
Courts generally have latitude to apply their creativity to realize that change in status (from contested to consented). Except in aggregious (sic!) cases, courts are and should be reluctant to forcefully remove current residents, and instead require other forms of remedy.
What have we learned? That the Ottomans did not manage to or bother to confirm ownership of land during their 400 reign in the region. (hard to believe)
That his new statements contradict his last statements above, were he suggested a simple ownership chain from one respective conqueror to the next. A chain in which "Palestinians" were only allowed to reside under "relative ownership rights", but hardly ever owned anything. Compared to:
The centuries old Jewish firm legal ownership traditon, an interesting insert in brackets. This may assume "unambiguous" and thus written ownership tradition dates back 2800 years in 1948, thus back started in 852 BCE. Un "unambiguous" chain that came down to us in a sea of ambiguity. And I gues we can assume that here we do have ownerships "confirm(ed) in writing" with every new sovereign as compared to the squatting rights of the Palestinians which of cause now are competing with the squatters rights on the side of the settlers.
Could it be that Richard's not so clear, even contradictory statements around supposedly national land is that he knows only how Israel dealt with the problem, but not much about its history? And that's why he feels he has to insult me?
Hmmm? Yes, I am mad, who likes to be insulted by an apparent nitwit.
But below I changed too much. Hopefully it does work here. (blocked by cross-site-scripting) Correction:
The centuries old Jewish firm legal ownership traditon, an interesting insert in brackets. Here he obviously seems to assume "unambiguous" and thus written ownership tradition dating back 2800 years in 1948, thus ownership that started in 852 BCE. An "unambiguous" chain of Jewish owners that came down to us in a sea of ambiguity. And I guess we can assume that here we do have ownerships "confirm(ed) in writing" with every new sovereign as compared to the squatting rights of the Palestinians which of cause now are competing with the squatters rights on the side of the settlers.
Oy! old timers know how much I like this particular item of mondoweissian memorabilia…
" 'Talking to Witty is like talking to a rabid Nazi.'
It's more like talking to a computer."
Posted by: Dan Kelly (higginslads) | November 02, 2008 at 12:18 PM
—–
"David S. wondered aloud whether Richard Witty is real. I've wondered whether he was simply one of those word-generating programs, that take limited input and build responses, replete with homophone and context errors."
Posted by: Oarwell | September 26, 2007 at 09:36 AM
—–
"Mr. Witty, are you using some kind of algorithmic text generator?
"Posted by: David | March 27, 2007 at 04:56 PM
There are more like this. Still, some people call the thing "rather sane and reasonable," which is like calling a Microsoft operating system "security with peace."
"If I were a paranoid conspiracy theorist, I would suspect that I'm in the middle of a Turing test, communicating with a CIA computer-generated linguistic simulacrum designed to drive me crazy, rather than the great, honorable dissident Noam Chomsky."
Marvelous!
Well that has almost a JH touch or CK?: mondoweissian memorabilia…
But there are times when this: computer generated linguistic simulacrum tripod makes my blood boil. Ironically that happens every time I think: Let's give him a chance, before jumping to conclusions. Did you really understand? Tripod?
It's not even his fearful perspective, which presents itself so average, so mainstream, so uncontroversial, that you would only die of boredom reading. It's his bumptiously bloated self-righteousness combined with an utterly biased projecting perception, that really makes me sick.
"compare his repeated misspelling of my name.:( "
hehe. I've noticed this too. It's actually rather difficult to repeat this type of error after it's been brought to your attention, but Richard has done it to a number of people.
I'm afraid there's no other explanation other than we're in the realm of the clinical passive-aggressive here. "Everybody hates me anyway, so I might as well make them SHOW it!"
LeanDor,
The principle is very clear. I'm amazed that a sober person like yourself would contest it.
That is that EVERY person asserting any title claim (Palestinian, Jew, others) deserve their day in court, to argue their relative (nothing is absolute) case as to the state of title of specific land, and appropriate remedies to shift the status of title from contested to consented.
You disagree with that goal?
"Well that has almost a JH touch or CK?"
Aha! Not so fast, LeaNder. As far as I know Jim Haygood is now preparing for this new year's eve Kōhaku Uta Gassen counting on the Barack Obake to finally make shirogumi (white team) lose.
And Charles is too much busy (and angered) to waste his time collecting memorabilia from the supranational wittycist. No, it's anonymous the monkey doing the strange (and rather undesired) bits, as usual.
But it wasn't me doing the "LeanDoor" above, which is of course the way the wittycist call's LeaNder: "the thin gate of Brandenburg" or something like that.
By the way (meaning I shoudn't be here by now), business commandment: whenever possible thou shall not pronounce the name of thy rivals.
(I would rather spend eternity in hell for breaking my promise than let this one pass by)
Sorry for the mispelling of your pen name.
Ah, yes. There has been a very positive and helpful Anonymous spirit around for quite some time. I have to check. I think I remember now.
<>You disagree with that goal?
I am repeating myself: it has never been about disagreements.
Believe it or not some of the people on this list are just as rational as you & Rashid Khalidi.
Maybe I should have concentrated on the funny elements and not on the poor rhetorical tricks straight out of the Machiavellian play book. Which I consider bad taste. And which contrasts with your holy than holy, or self-righteous ethical self-presentation.
********************************************
memory hook (German Eselsbruecke/donkey bridge):
Lea N der
1. Lea, Jewish female name separated by a capital N from the German masculine article: der
2. The word leader (German: Fuehrer) separated in the center by the capital letter: "N". Which stands for no, niet, nein, non, …
3. Greek male name Leander (Hero & Leander) with the middle letter capitalized.
Do you need more?
******************************************
holier than holy: between self-perception and reality.
I am in a hurry!!! This is not an excuse.
Actually I think the English idiom you want is "holier-than-thou."
It's an adjective (note the hyphens) meaning self-rightous or sanctimonious, as in "a holier-than-thou attitude".
The 'security' fence should have been built along the 1947 UN mandated borders.
The basic thing Witty ignores is that the Palestinians' right of ownership is anchored in many generations of Palestinians living on the land until the Jews came in and forced them off that land, whether by title purchased from absentee Arab landlords or by terror, force of
foreign arms.
Sovereignty and jurisdiction over property rights cannot be divorced.
The rule of law is not the same as moral right.
There is a notion in law called adhesion contract.
And another called Fraud.
What is the base fact is that sovereignty was/is a matter of force
as there is no Constitution or even a Magna Carta to reveal
essential rights over the lands in questions .
The Jews came from outside the land and they took olive trees that had been in Palestinian families for centuries as a practical
matter and of which the Palestinian children knew as part of their ROMANSBILDUNG.
Thanks CHA. Yes that's it. But you got the message? It's only part of the puzzle anyway.
I keep staring at the: Romansbildung. What the hell is is supposed to mean, anon?