Herzl presented a very reasonable proposal to the Ottomans, which regrettably they didn't accept. Herzl wasn't even asking for a Jewish state to encompass the entirety of Palestine thereby displacing its Muslim residents. On the contrary, had the Ottomans accepted this today Jerusalem would still be entirely in Muslim hands. Again, had the Arabs made peace with Israel and accepted the UN partition plan, Jerusalem would still be in the hands of the Muslims. But by attacking Israel in 1948 and then for decades after refusing to accept its existence and being hostile to it, the Zionists ended up taking Jerusalem away from us by force in 1967.
We should learn our lesson that when we are greedy and won't even accept a Jewish state in part of Palestine then we will end up losing the entirety of Palestine. Zionism is a very reasonable ideology, it's merely the idea that Jews should have a state in their historic homeland of Palestine, especially considering their horrific persecution and suffering in Christian Europe which never accepted them as equal citizens. The original UN partition plan meant two states in the region of Palestine, with the Arab state retaining Jerusalem. By rejecting it, the Arabs sealed their fate and lost Jerusalem.
Even then the Israelis are kind enough to allow the Muslims to retain custody and administration of the Temple Mount, otherwise if they wanted they could take full control of it themselves.
Why are you conflating Zionists with the Young Turks and Mustafa Kemal?
Abdul Hamid was not a religious authority, nor was he ever the "Caliph of the Earth". A Caliphate is a political entity which only possesses jurisdiction over the Muslims that are under its direct rule. The Ottoman Caliphate never ruled the lands east of Iraq, namely, Iran, India, Afghanistan and Central Asia. So how can you say the Muslims of the regions east of Iraq were ever subject to the supposed Caliphate in Constantinople?
Furthermore, even if I concede that Abdul Hamid was a Caliph (he wasn't, at most he was just a king or sultan), he certainly wasn't a Rightly-Guided Caliph. Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم said that Caliphate will only last for thirty years after him, then there will be kingship. Therefore, our last Rightly-Guided Caliph was basically Amir al-Mu'minin Ali bin Abi Talib كرم الله وجهه. The Prophet also said Caliphate will remain among Quraish, whereas the Ottomans were Turks, not even Arabs let alone being from the clan of Quraish.
Next you claim the Khilafat Movement in 1920s India was the origin of the creation of Pakistan. How totally wrong you are. The Khilafat Movement was spearheaded by Indian nationalists and pan-Islamists. Hindu Gandhi and Congress were actually supporters of the Khilafat Movement. On the other hand, the group which spearheaded the movement for Pakistan, namely Qaid-e-Azam and the Muslim League were totally opposed to the Khilafat Movement.
The Khilafat Movement was basically an anti-British movement, whereas it was the British who are the ultimate creators of Pakistan.
