Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Anton Batey vs. Paul Kujawsky (2/3)

[smartcnut]

Palestinians are already 60% of Jordans population , the palestinian province of the Turkish Empire was divided in two more then 80% for the Arabs - muslims and less then 20 % to the Jews.

[AntonBatey]

@smartcnut

And the point?

[smartcnut]

@AntonBatey And the point is that if Jordan got 80% of the palestinian province why is there no claim agains Jordan for land disputes ? Why was Jordan justified in slaughtering more then 20 000 palestinians ( Black September ) and the world kept quiet ?

[AntonBatey]

@smartcnut

Wait a minute....where the HELL do you get that I think Jordan was justified in killing 20,000 Palestinians? Did I miss something?

[smartcnut]

@AntonBatey I dont say you agree with it , I'm saying that is what happened - You do know about black september ?

[AntonBatey]

@smartcnut

Of course I do. You claimed that I thought it was "justified". Again, I'm lost.

[smartcnut]

@AntonBatey My apologies I didnt mean you thought it was justified , What I meant is that when it happened the world made little noise over it as though Jordan was justified in its harsh response to a palestinian uprising against the minority Hashemites ( which still govern Jordan to this day even though palestinians are the majority of the population )

[AntonBatey]

@smartcnut

Okay, no problem.

[smartcnut]

Israel cant claim land by force but Islam can in Somalia , Sudan , Kosovo . The UN charter was adopted in 1945 the borders for Israel was already established by the balfour declaration and San Remo mandate which included all of Judea , All of Sumaria ( Westbank ) and all of Jerusalem. Both these guys seem lacking in knowledge of the middle east and international law.

[AntonBatey]

@smartcnut

I am not against there being a state of Israel within their pre-1967 borders, and the topic is not Sudan, Somilia or Kosovo.

[smartcnut]

@AntonBatey Yes I agree , however the borders of Israel were defined more then 20 years before the UN was in existence , the UN adopted the San Remo mandate in 1945 which stipulates the borders which include Judea , Sumaria and all of Jerusalem.

[AntonBatey]

@smartcnut

Resolution 181 in November, 1947 spells out the borders mandated between Israel and Palestine. Every international body claims that Israel took East Jerusalem illegally, as well as the West Bank in 1967.

[smartcnut]

@AntonBatey That would be incorrect as the UN has no power over the partition of an established state and grossly acted against international law. Even to this day the westbank and gaza are disputed territories which still need to be resolved.

[AntonBatey]

@smartcnut

181 was a recommendation which was voted on. In 2011, it’s recognized that the West Bank and Gaza are Palestinian territories. But the San Remo was in the 20s and wasn't recognized by the UN, which, after 1945, was the legal international body.

[smartcnut]

@AntonBatey The Partition Plan (General Assembly Resolution 181) is a plan, not a law. It was a bilateral agreement. The Jews agreed, but the Arabs did not. Unilateral acceptance of a bilateral deal invalidates the deal. With the deal being invalid, the land would stay in the hands of whomever holds the title-the Jewish National Home.

[AntonBatey]

@smartcnut

That’s not really my point. The entire international community views the pre-1967 borders are, pretty much, the borders to build a Palestinian state. NOBODY is paying the slightest mind to an agreement between Italy, Japan, France and Britain in the 1920s. Nobody.

[smartcnut]

@AntonBatey Israel has legal title to the land under international law. Nobody is paying slightest mind to the agreements because it does not fit the agenda .  The 67 borders are not defensible borders and it is not realistic for Israel to agree to them. The fact that the agreements are from the 1920's does not change the legal status of these agreements. The UN knows this and thats why no legal action has or can revoke Israel's legal title to the land.

[AntonBatey]

@smartcnut

That’s completely false. The entire international community recognizes the West Bank and Gaza as Palestinian territories that are being illegally occupied, and the rest of the 78 percent as the land of Israel. What you’re proposing is an extreme right-wing fringe suggestion that nobody takes serious. It’s similar to a Professor I once debated who claimed that there is no Palestinian “people”. The debate is pointless, essentially.

[AntonBatey]

@smartcnut

Oh goodness. Unfortunately, I saw your profile picture and it says: “Islamophobic, and Proud of It”. That explains your unrealistic extreme position of ethnic cleansing. Debating a bigot is pointless, like debating someone about race in America that has a profile picture saying: “I Hate Niggers, and I’m Proud of It”.

[madtrade]

@smartcnut

or maybe because there was a shitloadtodeath of veto

the legal owner of those land was the people who lived there nothing else

all of you who think israel is legit for occyping this country i strongly suggest you give america back to the indians. and dont go back in europe we dont want stupid zionist in our land

[smartcnut]

@AntonBatey UN adopted the palestinian mandate in 1945 , never rejected it.

[azonshine]

lord caradon also said: We didn't say there should be a withdrawal to the '67 line; we did not put the 'the' in, we did not say all the territories, deliberately.. We all knew - that the boundaries of '67 were not drawn as permanent frontiers, they were a cease-fire line of a couple of decades earlier... We did not say that the '67 boundaries must be forever; it would be insanity.

[AntonBatey]

@azonshine

And he said, “Nevertheless it is necessary to say again that the overriding principle was the ‘inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war’ and that meant that there could be no justification for annexation of territory on the Arab side of the 1967 line merely because it had been conquered in the 1967 war”.

That’s the key issue.

[azonshine]

@AntonBatey

it was never legally arab either.

[AntonBatey]

@azonshine

That’s not the point. The point is that ALL key authors of 242 claimed that you cannot gain territory by force, specifically referring to the 1967 war. In other words, ALL the territory gained by Israel in the war needs to be relinquished.

[azonshine]

@AntonBatey

and given to who? who is the legal owner? it's not the palestinians, they never had any legal claim to it as a nation, it's not the jordanians, they had it for a while, but not legally. israel now won it through war, which is again, not really legal.

lord caradon himself, and the US president, said that israel has no obligation in returning to the 1967 borders, as they were never international borders, and they are indefensible.

[AntonBatey]

@azonshine

The West Bank would be in the hands of the Jordanians, Gaza and the Sinai to Egypt and the Golan Heights to Syria for the time being. The issue is that the land Israel acquired through war would have to be relinquished. With whatever else you have to say, THAT is the bottom-line issue of Resolution 242.

[azonshine]

@AntonBatey

sinai is already in egypt.

and gaza was never legally egyptian, and the west bank was never legally jordanian.

this is why it's called a DISPUTED territory

[AntonBatey]

@azonshine

Nevertheless, Israel was to withdraw from territories she acquired through war. Your argument as to why you think they shouldn’t is a red herring.

[azonshine]

@AntonBatey

legally, perhaps.

but to who and why (legally) should it have been given.?

[AntonBatey]

@azonshine

To whom would be the previous proprietors for the time being. Israel recognized that the West Bank was Jordanian (I can get into the details if you’d like) and Gaza/Sinai as Egyptian and of course, the Golan Heights as Syrian. Further down negotiations would be sought to make Gaza and the West Bank – only 22 percent of the 1947 partition – Palestine.

But again, this is a side issue that, unlike Israel withdrawing, is up for debate.

[azonshine]

@AntonBatey

israel got no need to withdraw completely to the 1967 borders (yes according to the law).

some of the settlements ARE legal (they are there for self defense = legal).

israel's claim for east jerusalem is the strongest one.

however israel should withdraw from the settlements who are not essential.

but again.... jordan does NOT want the west bank, they will refuse to take it (same with egypt and gaza).

so who should have them????

[AntonBatey]

@azonshine

Yes, they do. Israel is to withdraw from whatever territory they gained in the Six Day War. Israel seized Jerusalem illegally, but again, international law you conceded. Regarding the West Bank, you’re talking about two different time periods. Currently the West Bank should be the bulk of a Palestinian state. But thanks to the illegal settlements and military occupation, that is looking more difficult to implement, and Israel knows it.

[steute2011]

The Zionist gets killed in this debate. He is trying to explain the Israel interpretation of 242 and failing miserably!!!!!

[humper9]

informative interview...