Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Anton Batey vs. Paul Kujawsky (1/3)

Anton Batey debates lawyer and journalist Paul Kulawsky on the ongoing conflict between the State of Israel and the Palestinians in the occupied territories. Table of contents:

PART 1

- What is the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
- Two-state solution
- Arabs "recognizing the legitimacy" of Israel as a condition to accepting a Palestinian state
- Hamas' position
- Oslo I and II and the "legitimation" of illegal settlements
- The Second Intifada
- The United States and Israel the only countries that reject the two-state solution
- The "right of return" and UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (the UN Resolution which stated "Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date")
- Can territory be gained through force?

PART 2

- Can territory be gained through force?
- UN Security Council Resolution 242
- Mr. Kujawsky's opinion vs. International Law
- 1967 Six-Day War. Was it legal according to international law?
- "territories" vs. "'the' territories" of UN Resolution 242 and the excuse not to withdraw from territories occupied
- Benjamin Netanyahu, settlements and the non-peace negotiations of 2010
- Are Israeli settlements legal or illegal under international law?

PART 3

- Are Israeli settlements legal or illegal under international law?
- Does Israel sacrifice peace in favor of expansion or vice versa? The historical record
- Israel's withdraw from the Sinai
- Israel's "withdraw" from Gaza in 2005/further intervention in the West Bank
- Peace settlements Israel made with Egypt and Jordan which did not require their "legitimacy" to be accepted as a prerequisite
- Why Palestinians won't, and shouldn't, accept Israel's "legitimacy"
- The World Court and the settlements

Tags: Israel Palestine Palestinians Israeli Israelis United States Nations Obama Bush Netanyahu Olmert Arial Sharon West Bank Gaza Strip Occupied Territory Terrorism Terrorist Benjamin Mamoud Abbas Ismael Hanaya Sami Zuhri Muhammad Mohammad Al Zahar Noam Chomsky Norman Finkelstein Alan Dershowitz Benny Morris Zeev Maoz Ghazi Hamad Barack Barak Ehud

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Israel
• Palestine
• Palestinians
• Israeli
• Israelis
• United
• States
• Nations
• Obama
• Bush
• Netanyahu
• Olmert
• Arial
• Sharon
• West
• Bank
• Gaza
• Strip
• Occupied
• Territory
• Terrorism
• Terrorist
• Benjamin
• Mamoud
• Abbas
• Ismael
• Hanaya
• Sami
• Zuhri
• Muhammad
• Mohammad
• Al
• Zahar
• Noam
• Chomsky
• Norman
• Finkelstein
• Alan
• Dershowitz
• Benny
• Morris
• Zeev
• Maoz
• Ghazi
• Hamad
• Barack
• Barak
• Ehud

[azonshine]

@AntonBatey

i agree, but non orthodox jews do have don't they?

[AntonBatey]

@azonshine

Orthodox Jews do NOT have to make the oath, which is partly why it's racist.

[azonshine]

@AntonBatey

i don't reallt disagree...

however who is it racist against? considering non orthodox jews have to make that oath as well

[AntonBatey]

@azonshine

I disagree. The law is clearly racist. Orthodox Jews don’t have to say the oath (because many of them wouldn’t pledge an oath to any country); it’s directed at specific populations, and was pushed through by a right-wing racist, who, incidentally, is the country’s Foreign Affairs Minister.

[azonshine]

@AntonBatey

agree.

nevertheless.

there's nothing wrong with this law, considering israel is identical in every aspect to many other nations, only this law is different (also, america is not a nation that was established for a certain group of people, like most nations do)

[AntonBatey]

@azonshine

You’re straying at a gnat here. I’ll say it again: if the United States implemented law saying that new Black or Latino immigrants had to take a “loyalty oath” saying that they live in a white Christian country, people would be rightfully outraged. Especially if the law came from a known right-wing racist who publically claimed he wanted to redraw American borders to minimize the Black or Latino population.

[azonshine]

@AntonBatey

but every "x" type of state represents "x" types of citizens.

germany represents germans, although there are non germans (genetically) citizens of germany.

canada represents canadian, although "canadian" is not something that is defined by ethnicity.

israel represents jews, it's confusing because judaism is both an ethnicity and a religion, but basically israel is no different then any other nation in that matter.

[AntonBatey]

@azonshine

Yeah, I don't want to make a big deal about this because I don't totally disagree with you. I just believe that a state announcing that they're a "X" type of state that represents "X" type of citizens contradicts democratic values. The loyalty oath is directed towards non-Jews and was pushed by Avigdor Liberman,and extreme rightist who publically proclaims he wants the Israeli borders redrawn to remove about hald the Arabs from Israel.Also,orthodox Jews don't have to say the oath.

[azonshine]

@AntonBatey

israel does not make israeli citizens make such oath. israel only makes new immigrants to accept that israel is a jewish state.

also, norway and finland for example are officialy christian nations, and both have a democratic regimes.

and if what you said was true, then yes it would.

and there are no laws in israel that discriminates non jews.

so no, they have fully equall rights

[AntonBatey]

@azonshine

I’m not denying that. I’m saying that if the United States proclaimed to be a country that represents white Christians and makes all Blacks take a loyalty oath proclaiming such, it would contradict classical democratic values. Also, it’s sort of a bad joke to claim that Arab-Israelis are equal citizens to Jewish-Israelis.