Why are we so adamant in our support for Palestine when they themselves support India against us?

[Awan68]

Qibla awal is no doubt a major issue.... Don't know how Israeli defend there position... its very dangerous and trivial.

Its a conflict of ideologies, when we adhere to ours as staunchly as they adhere to theirs, we will come out on top and ofcourse the patronage of a superpower never hurts, that is how the Israelis defend their position, the language of power.

 

[xeuss]

My point was that even when that land was decolonized, a nation called "Palestine" would never have emerged.

Even in the start of the war in 1947, Jerusalem was under control of Jordan and most of the Sinai was under control of Egypt, not some Palestinian state.

So is that your justification to create a Jewish state, seize property and lands of the Arabs and expel them from their lands?

Do you realize the hollowness of all the arguments you have put forth?

 

[QWECXZ]

No one disputed the fact that Muslims were living here, it's just that there was never a Palestinian nation controlling this area.

That's simply wrong.
Jews had wars with Arabs since the late 1800s, with frequent Arab raids on Israeli villages.

Read about Trompeldor for example.

Our genetic makeup has nothing to do with this.

The concept of statehood or nationhood is irrelevant to what has caused this bad blood. There were people with life and families you displaced and stole their houses. They became refugees because you invaded their lands and forced them out of their houses, even though they initially had welcomed you with open arms and they were living with Jews in peace before you went there.

This picture shows an old man and his wife formerly living in the house standing in front of two Israeli couples who are now occupying their home.
​

Jewish-Arab wars date back to even before Islam. Maybe even before the Achaemenid empire as the Babylonians had captivated you. What's your point? How's that relevant to 1948? Palestine was a peaceful land in 1948 before Nakba.

If you claim a land to be yours, you'd better at least have some genetic link to the native residents of that land.

 

[Cliftonite]

Turks were not occupiers of Palestine, the were the same people, both were Muslims. Turks respected Palestinian affairs and largely left them to govern themselves. Before them, various Arab, Kurd, and other Muslim rulers were governing the region. They were not occupiers.

The whole region was divided into administrative districts by Ottomans, Vilayat, namely Damascus, Aleppo, Jerusalem, Beirut, and Mt. Lebanon.

Everybody used to live happily ever together, play cham-cham and ring a ring a roses. Except one small detail you left out. Arabs conspired with the British to overthrow Ottomans. There are far more divisions Middle Easterners have with each other and than with those outside it.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Read my post again, the support is not for Palestinians but for the occupation of Qibla e Awal, the same way we feel obligated to protect the two holy cities, it is not about the people who inhabit those places but the holy places themselves.

You alone cannot decide that. Palestinians are part and parcel of Al Quds and surrounding area.

You sound like Hindutvans who want Kashmir, but do not care for Kashmiris.

Definitely, we Pakistanis support our Arab brothers.

The Palestine issue has multiple dimensions, religious, humanitarian, and forced population change.

Remember what Rasulullah saws said about the Ka'aba and to those doing Hajj with him, "The honor and property of a Muslim is more holy than you [Ka'aba.]" -ibn Majah

 

[HAIDER]

Its a conflict of ideologies, when we adhere to ours as staunchly as they adhere to theirs, we will come out on top and ofcourse the patronage of a superpower never hurts, that is how the Israelis defend their position, the language of power.

Another interesting issue , which I never noticed ....

https://www.causes.com/causes/500544-conspracy-against-our-qibla-e-awwal/about

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Everybody used to live happily ever together, play cham-cham and ring a ring a roses. Except one small detail you left out. Arabs conspired with the British to overthrow Ottomans. There are far more divisions Middle Easterners have with each other and than with those outside it.

Some Sherifs of Makkah, followed by Ibn Saud and secular Levantine Arab nationalists, had those aspirations.

Arab masses did not have a say. The game was decided without them.

 

[Naofumi]

Jewish-Arab wars date back to even before Islam. Maybe even before the Achaemenid empire as the Babylonians had captivated you.

And a Persian - Cyrus The "Messiah" (only non-Jewish person to be called so) released them (at least according to Bible).

 

[El Sidd]

Some Sherifs of Makkah, followed by Ibn Saud and secular Levantine Arab nationalists, had those aspirations.

Arab masses did not have a say. The game was decided without them.

Why did the Mughals and Persians not accept the Ottoman rule?

 

[Naofumi]

Why did the Mughals and Persians not accept the Ottoman rule?

Mughals recognised them as Caliphs though.

 

[El Sidd]

Without "opening the mouth for Satan" (It's an expression we have in Hebrew), the COVID-19 virus is almost over, only a dozen infection cases per day.

Good to know.

The allies defeated the Germans, humiliated them with the peace deal, but in the end they gave them too much freedom and Germany came back stinging.

See if the Germans had not felt cheated and insulted with the victors deal, world war 2 may have had different players.

We made a deal. They already rejected it.

You gave them charity. They accepted it.

Now they want deal as equals.

 

[El Sidd]

Mughals recognised them as Caliphs though.

there are legal implications on calling anyone that.

Mughals had no interest in losing an inch of sovereignty they held till the economics got out of their hand.

 

[CriticalThinker02]

This is a recurring argument and flashpoint on the forum (The Holocaust).

We have seen many a good member banned over it.

I have, for the sake of a united and consistent position, asked all PDF management to weigh in on an internal discussion on forum policy on the holocaust in order to provide clarity for all members.

My personal opinion is that denying the holocaust or allowing threads discussing holocaust denial should not be allowed on this forum. Even the Germans (those accused of committing the holocaust) have accepted their guilt and don't deny it, so this shouldn't be up for debate.

Doing so damages the credibility of the forum.

There was a genocide of Jews in Europe at the hands of the Nazis - this is established historical fact.

Again I would like to repeat that there is a difference between denying the Holocaust all together and being a Holocaust Revisionist, questioning and or challenging some of the claims made during and immediately after this historical event by some of the parties involved specifically the claims made by the USSR during the nuremberg trail, I personally am a Holocaust Revisionist based on the research I have personally done and I would like to share some of that study with you in the shape of this documentary, you are welcome to watch it or ignore my post it's up to you but my views are made because of it, regarding if this discussion should or should not be allowed, why should it not be allowed? I mean we question our beliefs and history all the time on this forum so why not question others as long as the discussion is civil?, not allowing a civil discussion and self thought simply because it irks the west is akin to oppression I think.

 

[Cliftonite]

Some Sherifs of Makkah, followed by Ibn Saud and secular Levantine Arab nationalists, had those aspirations.

Arab masses did not have a say. The game was decided without them.

If that's true, why do Turkish and Arab members on this group bicker all the time? Ibn e Saud and the Ottoman emperor died ages ago. Their legacy should have died with them.

 

[Hamza913]

This is historical too, for example Timur left only "Arab" origin Muslims when he massacred Delhi

The records mention nothing about lineage AFAIK, he just segregated his victims based upon religious lines when he could (unless the Muslims also bit him in the a55).