International Gaza children freezing to death amid Israeli blockade, warns UNRWA chief

[kflo]

What the hell do you mean Israel had 56% of the population. You mean Jews?

The partition plan had 56% of the people in Israel and 44% in Palestine. Israel had both Jews and Arabs as you know.

And you still wont link to MediaBiasFactCheck?

 

[Hog-train]

The partition plan had 56% of the people in Israel and 44% in Palestine. Israel had both Jews and Arabs as you know.

You're confusing (or deliberately conflating) the land allocation with population numbers. The Partition Plan allocated 56% of the land to the Jewish state and 44% to the Arab state.


"the majority of the land (56%) would go to a Jewish state, when Jews at that stage legally owned only 6–7% of it and remained a minority of the population (33% in 1946).There were also disproportionate allocations under the plan and the area under Jewish control contained 45% of the Palestinian population. The proposed Arab state was only given 45% of the land, much of which was unfit for agriculture. "

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And you still wont link to MediaBiasFactCheck?

You're so deliberately obtuse on purpose. I already linked it pages ago.

NGO-Monitor on MediaFactcheckBias labeled a right wing pro-Israeli group.

Conclusion - I don't believe a word they say.

It's funny how normally you're super left with your support for all the trans shit, but with Israel you're far right. You Jewish, correct?

NGO Monitor - Bias and Credibility

RIGHT BIAS These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: Israel
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MODERATE FREEDOM
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

History​

Founded in 2001 by Gerald M. Steinberg, NGO Monitor is a Jerusalem-based NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) that analyzes and reports on the output of the international NGO community from a pro-Israel perspective. According to their about page, “NGO Monitor provides information and analysis, promotes accountability, and supports discussion on the reports and activities of NGOs (non-governmental organizations) claiming to advance human rights and humanitarian agendas.”

Analysis / Bias​

NGO Monitor has faced criticism and has been labeled a right-wing pro-Israeli group. For example, in 2013, a member of NGO Monitor was caught editing their own Wikipedia page, which is not allowed. Wikipedia then banned him as an editor. Further, the founder Gerald Steinburg worked for the Israeli government after the formation of the NGO, a seemingly obvious conflict of interest.

Overall, we rate the NGO Monitor Right biased based on support for the right-wing Israeli government. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting based on the consistent promotion of pro-Israeli propaganda. (D. Van Zandt 8/31/2021) Updated (12/08/2023)

 

[kflo]

You're confusing (or deliberately conflating) the land allocation with population numbers. The Partition Plan allocated 56% of the land to the Jewish state and 44% to the Arab state.

So 56% of the population (and growing) got 55% of the territory (with 60% of that territory being desert - you keep ignoring this part).

"the majority of the land (56%) would go to a Jewish state, when Jews at that stage legally owned only 6–7% of it and remained a minority of the population (33% in 1946).There were also disproportionate allocations under the plan and the area under Jewish control contained 45% of the Palestinian population. The proposed Arab state was only given 45% of the land, much of which was unfit for agriculture. "

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You're so deliberately obtuse on purpose. I already linked it pages ago.

lol.

The information you dismissed was from the Jewish Learning Institute. You said you dismissed it because of MediaBiasFactCheck……I guess you were lying (well, I knew you were lying)……

 

[Hog-train]

So 56% of the population (and growing) got 55% of the territory (with 60% of that territory being desert - you keep ignoring this part).

Show me the source that says 55% of the population got 55% of the territory.

Also, that's really irrelevant because it's under Jewish control. The Partition Plan artificially separated a lot of Arabs strictly for the Jewish people's benefit.

If they were being fair, they would have just given 30% of the land for a Jewish state and the rest to the Arabs. In line with population numbers.

lol.

The information you dismissed was from the Jewish Learning Institute. You said you dismissed it because of MediaBiasFactCheck……I guess you were lying (well, I knew you were lying)……

I already answered this directly to you. I dismissed the NGO monitor article you linked because it was labeled a right wing pro-Israeli group. I dismissed the Jewish Learning Institute because it's run by an Orthodox Hasidic organization and I do not trust them to be impartial.

Why do you keep making people repeat themselves.

Yea I'm sure the Jewish Learning Institute - the education arm of the Orthodox Hasidic Judaism movement is impartial and unbiased.

 

[kflo]

Show me the source that says 55% of the population got 55% of the territory.

Also, that's really irrelevant because it's under Jewish control. The Partition Plan artificially separated a lot of Arabs strictly for the Jewish people's benefit.

If they were being fair, they would have just given 30% of the land for a Jewish state and the rest to the Arabs. In line with population numbers.

That’s just retarded bad faith posting. Again, 60% of Israel was desert land. And look up the population numbers. Fuckin wiki is your friend.

And no, they didn’t separate Arabs for the Jewish people’s benefit. They kept the Arabs where they already were, for their benefit.

If Palestine had 70% of the land and most of it was desert, you’d be bitching just the same. Hell, the Peel commission had 80% going to Palestine and that was rejected by the Arabs.

I already answered this directly to you. I dismissed the NGO monitor article you linked because it was labeled a right wing pro-Israeli group. I dismissed the Jewish Learning Institute because it's run by an Orthodox Hasidic organization and I do not trust them to be impartial.

Why do you keep making people repeat themselves.

The point was you dismissed the Jewish Learning Institute because it’s written by Jews. This was pointed out to you, and you said you dismissed it not because they were Jewish, but because of MediaBiasFactCheck. Which of course was a lie.

 

[Hog-train]

That’s just retarded bad faith posting. Again, 60% of Israel was desert land. And look up the population numbers. Fuckin wiki is your friend.

Show me the source with the population figures. I tried Wiki and didn't see it.

And no, they didn’t separate Arabs for the Jewish people’s benefit. They kept the Arabs where they already were, for their benefit.

Clearly not what it says here. They're actively working for the Jewish people's benefit over the Arabs. All of these things are for the benefit of the Jewish people living there. Including the entire Partition Plan which the majority population (Arabs) were against.

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The Plan tried its best to accommodate as many Jews as possible into the Jewish State. In many specific cases, this meant including areas of Arab majority (but with a significant Jewish minority) in the Jewish state."

"Areas that were sparsely populated (like the Negev desert), were also included in the Jewish state to create room for immigration."

If Palestine had 70% of the land and most of it was desert, you’d be bitching just the same. Hell, the Peel commission had 80% going to Palestine and that was rejected by the Arabs.

Peel Commission also rejected by the Jews.

The point was you dismissed the Jewish Learning Institute because it’s written by Jews.

Nope plenty of Jewish sources I believe - including Times of Israel, Jewish writers in the New York Times, Jewish thinkers like Noam Chomsky, etc.

I don't trust your specific JLI link because it's run by a conservative Orthodox Hasidic organization. Just as you don't believe Al Jazeera, I don't believe your biased sources. I already told you this.

This was pointed out to you, and you said you dismissed it not because they were Jewish, but because of MediaBiasFactCheck. Which of course was a lie.

I was talking about your stupid Monitor link and wasn't even talking to you. And then the other bullshit Jewish Learning Institute link that we already argued about a month ago.

You're just trying to glom into to tiny little details about how things are said because you can't argue the big points.

And you STILL have not addressed the increasing settlement activity that is happening NOW.

Do you disavow the West Bank settlement activity?

 

[BIKES!]

Except there was the whole being relegated to ghettos and rounded up for extermination thing. And the land belongs to the Jews, the so called Palestinians are the invaders and occupiers. There is a record of over 3000 years proving that.

As far as these "reports" go they are just more Pallywood Jew hating propaganda. Israel has had to put up with more terrorist evil and has done more than any nation ever in trying to protect civilians.

 

[kflo]

Show me the source. I tried Wiki and didn't see it.

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Palestine - 735K people
Israel - 905K people

Clearly not what it says here. They're actively working for the Jewish people's benefit over the Arabs. All of these things are for the benefit of the Jewish people living there. Including the entire Partition Plan which the majority population (Arabs) were against.

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The Plan tried its best to accommodate as many Jews as possible into the Jewish State. In many specific cases, this meant including areas of Arab majority (but with a significant Jewish minority) in the Jewish state."

Yes, the idea was to have minimal Jews in Palestine and mostly in Israel……to do so, they tried not to displace Jews or Arabs……

"Areas that were sparsely populated (like the Negev desert), were also included in the Jewish state to create room for immigration."

would you have considered the 60% of the land to be prime real estate? Or would you put a huge discount on that land? Be honest…….

Peel Commission also rejected by the Jews.

Yeah, the point was 80% wasn’t enough for the Arabs……they rejected the idea of Israel all along.

Nope plenty of Jewish sources I believe - including Times of Israel, Jewish writers in the New York Times, Jewish thinkers like Noam Chomsky, etc.

I don't trust your specific JLI link because it's run by a conservative Orthodox Hasidic organization. Just as you don't believe Al Jazeera, I don't believe your biased sources. I already told you this.



I was talking about your stupid Monitor link and wasn't even talking to you. And then the other bullshit Jewish Learning Institute link that we already argued about a month ago.

The other person was referring to JLI, not NGO Monitor.

You're just trying to glom into to tiny little details about how things are said because you can't argue the big points.

And you STILL have not addressed the increasing settlement activity that is happening NOW.

Do you disavow the West Bank settlement activity?

I personally don’t think expansion in the WB is in anyone’s best interest. I do think the reporting of the WB contains a lot of misinformation and hyperbole without substantiation but again, I don’t think expansion is in Israel’s interest, or the Palestinians (of course).

 

[San Marino]

You are still missing his point.

No, I'm not.
He and I were not taking about journalists in Gaza. You are the one missing the point of the conversation I was having with him.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

Good post mate.
It seems that the Israeli ideology is to kill everyone inside of Gaza. This way they can be sure to have killed all the Hamas soldiers and leadership. Civilian collateral damage is irrelevant. They don't care about Palestinian civilians or their suffering. At this stage of the game, had the Israelis dropped a 10-kiloton nuke into Gaza, more civilians would have survived. Amazing, from a people who lost 6,000,000 Jews during the Holocaust in WWII.

- A execution force!

 

[djacobox372]

If they were being fair, they would have just given 30% of the land for a Jewish state and the rest to the Arabs. In line with population numbers.

You mean like this? Arabs disagreed and attacked the jewish state to drive them out.

Heck this is more like 80% Arab land, when one considers that everything south of the dead sea is useless desert.

 

[Deleted member 267581]

Like wearing a sign saying "I'm a retard"

Everyone on sherdog has 2nd hand embarrassment for you after this post

Shows you are or have the mentality of a 13 year old

Ouch. The humiliation

So no foreign press? Israel supposed to be the example of democracy lmfao

 

[Hog-train]

You mean like this? Arabs disagreed and attacked the jewish state to drive them out.

Heck this is more like 80% Arab land, when one considers that everything south of the dead sea is useless desert.

The war started because the Jews were somehow "awarded" 55% of the land. Not 30%.

 

[kflo]

The war started because the Jews were somehow "awarded" 55% of the land. Not 30%.

lol.

why would israel get 30% of the land when israel had 56% of the population?

and you still haven't acknowledged that 60% of the land was fuckin desert.

lol at thinking they wouldn't have started a war if palestine also got 75% of the desert as well......

 

[Hog-train]

lol.

why would israel get 30% of the land when israel had 56% of the population?

The Jews were 30% of the population - that's why.

And Israel didn't exist as a nation when the Partition Plan was proposed. So WTF are you talking about.

Israel only had a larger percentage because Arabs were now arbitrarily included in the newly formed nation.

and you still haven't acknowledged that 60% of the land was fuckin desert.

lol at thinking they wouldn't have started a war if palestine also got 75% of the desert as well......

Nice fan fiction. I never disputed the Negev desert didn't become Israeli territory.

It doesn't matter if Palestine got desert or no desert. The fact of the matter is, the Jews, who were a minority population that and many of which were recent immigrants, all of a sudden got awarded a majority of the land.

No indigenous people are going to be cool with that.

And that still doesn't excuse the WEST BANK SETTLEMENTS expanding TODAY.

Why do you keep not replying to that?

 

[kflo]

The Jews were 30% of the population - that's why.

And Israel didn't exist as a nation when the Partition Plan was proposed. So WTF are you talking about.

Israel only had a larger percentage because Arabs were now arbitrarily included in the newly formed nation.

they should have displaced as many people as possible to ensure religious purity for each nation...............

Nice fan fiction. I never disputed the Negev desert didn't become Israeli territory.

It doesn't matter if Palestine git desert or no desert. The fact of the matter is, the Jews, who were a minority population that and many of which were recent immigrants, all of a sudden got awarded a majority of the land.

No indigenous people are going to be cool with that.

they weren't cool with getting 80% of the land (too much desert!), remember? the land didn't belong to the palestinian people. they got land that didn't belong to them through the plan. and a nation. yes, another arab nation. for a group of people with zero common national aspirations prior to the jews planning their own nation.

the arab state received about double the non-desert land israel received in the plan.

the reality is they didn't want israel to exist. period.

also, from the Peel Commission:

The Commission found that "though the Arabs have benefited by the development of the country owing to Jewish immigration, this has had no conciliatory effect. On the contrary, improvement in the economic situation in Palestine has meant the deterioration of the political situation". Addressing the "Arab charge that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained", the Commission noted that "Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased." They write that "The shortage of land is, we consider, due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population".

And that still doesn't excuse the WEST BANK SETTLEMENTS expanding TODAY.

Why do you keep not replying to that?

you actually ignored my reply.

 

[Streeter]

Cold an uncomfortable sure but freezing to DEATH ............ IN GAZA - Color me suspicious

 

[Hog-train]

they should have displaced as many people as possible to ensure religious purity for each nation...............

They should have never done any partition and just have one country. The Arabs originally just wanted one sovereign country and with Jews getting citizen rights. They wanted a ONE STATE solution originally.

they weren't cool with getting 80% of the land (too much desert!), remember? the land didn't belong to the palestinian people. they got land that didn't belong to them through the plan. and a nation. yes, another arab nation. for a group of people with zero common national aspirations prior to the jews planning their own nation.

You're just recycling the same old bullshit arguments that have repeatedly been uttered so many times already.

That the Palestinians didn't own the land. That they were never a nation.

So when the Europeans took America from the Native Americans it was ok because the Natives didn't "own" the land?

Fucking bullshit. They were living there for hundreds of years already. That means they "own" the land.

the arab state received about double the non-desert land israel received in the plan.

the reality is they didn't want israel to exist. period.

The reality is that they didn't want an outside power to come in and carve up their country and award 55% of the land to mostly recent immigrants.

Who the fuck would be ok with that? Literally no one.

also, from the Peel Commission:

The Commission found that "though the Arabs have benefited by the development of the country owing to Jewish immigration, this has had no conciliatory effect. On the contrary, improvement in the economic situation in Palestine has meant the deterioration of the political situation". Addressing the "Arab charge that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained", the Commission noted that "Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased." They write that "The shortage of land is, we consider, due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population".

you actually ignored my reply.

The Peel Commission was not instituted in the UN Partition Plan and irrelevant.

 

[Hog-train]

Cold an uncomfortable sure but freezing to DEATH ............ IN GAZA - Color me suspicious

You do realize dying of exposure and hypothermia doesn't actually require frozen solid bodies right?

You can die of hypothermia if your internal body temperature goes below 95°F (35°C). That can easily happen to people forced to sleep outside and exposed to the elements.

 

[kflo]

They should have never done any partition and just have one country. The Arabs originally just wanted one sovereign country and with Jews getting citizen rights. They wanted a ONE STATE solution originally.

The Commission reached the conclusion that the Mandate had become unworkable and must be abolishedin favour of partition, as the only solution to the Arab–Jewish "deadlock". It outlined ten points on: a Treaty system between the Arab and Jewish States and the new Mandatory Government; a Mandate for the Holy places; the frontiers; the need for Inter-State Subvention; the need for British Subvention; tariffs and ports; nationality; civil service; Industrial concessions; and the exchange of land and populations.[21]

You're just recycling the same old bullshit arguments that have repeatedly been uttered so many times already.

That the Palestinians didn't own the land. That they were never a nation.

So when the Europeans took America from the Native Americans it was ok because the Natives didn't "own" the land?

Fucking bullshit. They were living there for hundreds of years already. That means they "own" the land.

Europeans took land directly from native Americans and murdered them and kicked them out. Jews worked a political and diplomatic process including buying land and had a footprint in the region for millenniums and was the ancestral home for the religion. Independent parties negotiated the partition plan. Not exactly the same. Not the same universe.

And no, they didn’t own the land. Nor did they have the right to prevent Jews from purchasing land. You’re trying to argue that by virtue of being a Muslim arab in the region you automatically had rights to land you didn’t live on or own?

And again, not only were they not a nation, they had no unifying identity prior to the Jewish movement.

The reality is that they didn't want an outside power to come in and carve up their country and award 55% of the land to mostly recent immigrants.

The reality is the Arab / Muslim world wanted to keep the region Arab / Muslim. And again, they got double the non-desert land. And again, it wasn’t “their country”. The Arabs had their countries all around. This was ottoman land that the British controlled.

Who the fuck would be ok with that? Literally no one.

The entire region is Arab / Muslim. They dominate 95% of the population. Jews aren’t welcome anywhere else in the region.

The Peel Commission was not instituted in the UN Partition Plan and irrelevant.

lol. I guess their observations from the time are irrelevant as well. Just your feelings matter.

Not that ANY of this matters because Israel exists and EVERYONE needs to deal with it and move on. There’s literally zero benefit to re-litigating 1947. The only thing that matters is what to do now that Israel is here to stay. Waging war against them isn’t the best idea. Terrorism against them isn’t the best idea. Enabling and encouraging those who want to pursue those routes isn’t the best idea. The best idea is to make peace and have visions of what is in the best interests of all parties long term. It’s not to align with Iran…….