Why Pakistan does not recognize to Israel ?

[Azadkashmir]

We discussed earlier about Arabic being a high-context culture, making interpretation of the Quran tricky.

There have been and are now all sorts of sects and divisions in Judaism. Did the Quran mean to condemn one, some, or all? That's the importance of context, which can only be discovered by studying events.

Obviously this is an innovation, since Muslim rulers accepted Jews in the Holy Land as legitimate residents for over ten centuries!

Pakistan's leaders never trusted their own people to vote on their idea of Pakistan itself until 1970 - and then the majority voted "no". The two-nation theory having failed and Z.A.B.'s socialism proving insufficient to justify the remaining national identity, Pakistan's leaders were seduced into latching upon militant religion instead of accountable and responsible democracy - the course set when the Ahmadis were disowned.

You know these unsupportable and hypocritical statements are pure antisemitism, right?

khazars are not Semitic people

 

[Solomon2]

khazars are not Semitic people

Wikipedia:

In the Arab world the theory espoused in Koestler's book was adopted by persons who argued that if Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar and not Semitic in origin, they would have no historical claim to Israel, nor would they be the subject of the Biblical promise of Canaan to the Israelites, thus undermining the theological basis of both Jewish religious Zionists and Christian Zionists.[10] The Saudi Arabian delegate to the United Nations argued that Koestler's theory "negated Israel's right to exist".[11] Koestler did not see alleged Khazar ancestry as diminishing the claim of Jews to Israel, which he felt was based on the United Nations mandate and not on Biblical covenants or genetic inheritance.[1][12] In his view, "[t]he problem of the Khazar infusion a thousand years ago... is irrelevant to modern Israel."[12]

... An August 1976 review in Time magazine described Koestler's theory as "all too facile, despite the obvious effort and time the author spent on his study", and stated that "Koestler offers a blizzard of information but not enough hard facts to support his thesis".[19] A November 1976 review in National Review stated that the work had "neither the value of a well-executed honest piece of scholarship nor the emotional appeal of a polemic – only the earmarks of a poorly researched and hastily written book".[20] Koestler's analysis was described as a mixture of flawed etymologies and misinterpreted primary sources by Chimen Abramsky in 1976 and Hyam Maccoby in 1977.[21][22]

 

[Azadkashmir]

Wikipedia:

In the Arab world the theory espoused in Koestler's book was adopted by persons who argued that if Ashkenazi Jews are primarily Khazar and not Semitic in origin, they would have no historical claim to Israel, nor would they be the subject of the Biblical promise of Canaan to the Israelites, thus undermining the theological basis of both Jewish religious Zionists and Christian Zionists.[10] The Saudi Arabian delegate to the United Nations argued that Koestler's theory "negated Israel's right to exist".[11] Koestler did not see alleged Khazar ancestry as diminishing the claim of Jews to Israel, which he felt was based on the United Nations mandate and not on Biblical covenants or genetic inheritance.[1][12] In his view, "[t]he problem of the Khazar infusion a thousand years ago... is irrelevant to modern Israel."[12]

... An August 1976 review in Time magazine described Koestler's theory as "all too facile, despite the obvious effort and time the author spent on his study", and stated that "Koestler offers a blizzard of information but not enough hard facts to support his thesis".[19] A November 1976 review in National Review stated that the work had "neither the value of a well-executed honest piece of scholarship nor the emotional appeal of a polemic – only the earmarks of a poorly researched and hastily written book".[20] Koestler's analysis was described as a mixture of flawed etymologies and misinterpreted primary sources by Chimen Abramsky in 1976 and Hyam Maccoby in 1977.[21][22]

ahem Ashkenazim khazar Rothschild money lender

 

[Solomon2]

ahem Ashkenazim khazar Rothschild -

I see. He's not a Khazar because he's a Khazar, he's a Khazar because you CALLED him one. Look, I understand it appeals to anti-Zionists to roll around in this Koestler fantasy but even Koestler believed it was irrelevant, as Israel's legality is firm on the basis of the Palestine Mandate. It's just another lie seized upon by anti-Zionists to de-legitimize the State of Israel, an avalanche of lies meant to bury the truth. IMO, the very best reason for Pakistanis to recognize Israel is to escape from this pit of violence-inducing unreason.

 

[Azadkashmir]

I see. He's not a Khazar because he's a Khazar, he's a Khazar because you CALLED him one. Look, I understand it appeals to anti-Zionists to roll around in this Koestler fantasy but even Koestler believed it was irrelevant, as Israel's legality is firm on the basis of the Palestine Mandate. It's just another lie seized upon by anti-Zionists to de-legitimize the State of Israel, an avalanche of lies meant to bury the truth. IMO, the very best reason for Pakistanis to recognize Israel is to escape from this pit of violence-inducing unreason.

hey look holocaust happened in Germany it was Germans not Palestinian. so call Jew should get part of Germany.

where did the Germans get oil , arm industries, etc oh yh made in the USA machine tools, financed by Rothschild banker group.

 

[Solomon2]

hey look holocaust happened in Germany -

The Palestine Mandate, Treaty of Sevres, etc. pre-date World War II; they were not negated by it in the slightest - if anything, they were reinforced, as the war had confirmed that the Jews were not merely a religious group but a people apart.

 

[TMA]

We discussed earlier about Arabic being a high-context culture, making interpretation of the Quran tricky.

There have been and are now all sorts of sects and divisions in Judaism. Did the Quran mean to condemn one, some, or all? That's the importance of context, which can only be discovered by studying events.

Obviously this is an innovation, since Muslim rulers accepted Jews in the Holy Land as legitimate residents for over ten centuries!

Pakistan's leaders never trusted their own people to vote on their idea of Pakistan itself until 1970 - and then the majority voted "no". The two-nation theory having failed and Z.A.B.'s socialism proving insufficient to justify the remaining national identity, Pakistan's leaders were seduced into latching upon militant religion instead of accountable and responsible democracy - the course set when the Ahmadis were disowned.

You know these unsupportable and hypocritical statements are pure antisemitism, right?

He made it illegal for them to rule and govern! Not for residence and tourism. Perhaps I should have made it clearer. The Children of Israel are not meant to be governing/ruling the Holy Land. They cannot have their own state anymore. They can reside or visit there.

 

[Pindi Boy]

اب وقت ہے پاکستان کو چاہیئے کہ اسرائیل کو ایک ملک کے طور پر تسلیم کرلے۔​

The President of India, Shri Pranab Mukherjee and the President of Palestine, Mr. Mahmoud Abbas during Road Naming Ceremony (Sharia-al-Hind) and Inauguration of a roundabout (Midan-al-Hind) at Beitunia, Ramallah in Palestine on October 12, 2015.

View attachment 264381
View attachment 264382
View attachment 264383

Now its time for Pakistan to regonize Israel
View attachment 264384 ​

​

why should we accept them as a state???????

Pakistan should recognise and join hands with Israel after all they have a beef with Arabs not with us

Damage done to Israel has been continuous basis to Israel including in 60s ofcourse 60s also had 67 which saw a major war in addition to numerous terrorist attacks.

Apr 26, 1960 - Militants killed a resident of Ashkelon south of the city.
Apr 12, 1962 - Militants fired on an Egged bus on the way to Eilat; one passenger was wounded.
Sept 30, 1962 - Two Militants attacked an Egged bus on the way to Eilat. No one was wounded.
May 31, 1965 - Jordanian Legionnaires fired on the neighborhood of Musrara in Jerusalem, killing two civilians and wounding four.
June 1, 1965 - Militants attack a house in Kibbutz Yiftah.
Sept 29, 1965 - A Militant was killed as he attempted to attack Moshav Amatzia.
Nov 7, 1965 - A Fatah cell that infiltrated from Jordan blew up a house in Moshav Givat Yeshayahu, south of Beit Shemesh. The house was destroyed, but the inhabitants were unhurt.
Apr 25, 1966 - Explosions placed by Militants wounded two civilians and damaged three houses in moshav Beit Yosef, in the Beit She'an Valley.
May 16, 1966 - Two Israelis were killed when their jeep hit a terrorist landmine, north of the Sea of Galilee and south of Almagor. Tracks led into Syria.
July 14, 1966 - Militants attacked a house in Kfar Yuval, in the North.
July 19, 1966 - Militants infiltrated into Moshav Margaliot on the northern border and planted nine explosive charges.
Oct 27, 1966 - A civilian was wounded by an explosive charge on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem.

 

[Solomon2]

He made it illegal for them to rule and govern! Not for residence and tourism. Perhaps I should have made it clearer.

That would have helped, yes.

The Children of Israel are not meant to be governing/ruling the Holy Land. They cannot have their own state anymore. They can reside or visit there.

That injunction rests upon an interpretation of the Qu'ran that it applies to ALL Jews, not just a select (and maybe intended) few, right?

Note that the post-WWI arrangements did not demand a Jewish State but a Jewish National Home. That could have existed under British or even Turkish suzerainty - Ben Gurion, already a Zionist. Rather, the State of Israel became a necessity due to Arab insistence on wiping Jews out from the area entirely; Palestinian Jews could either declare a state or be murdered by the Arabs. And that's still the case today.

 

[TMA]

That would have helped, yes.

That injunction rests upon an interpretation of the Qu'ran that it applies to ALL Jews, not just a select (and maybe intended) few, right?

Note that the post-WWI arrangements did not demand a Jewish State but a Jewish National Home. That could have existed under British or even Turkish suzerainty - Ben Gurion, already a Zionist. Rather, the State of Israel became a necessity due to Arab insistence on wiping Jews out from the area entirely; Palestinian Jews could either declare a state or be murdered by the Arabs. And that's still the case today.

"Note that the post-WWI arrangements did not demand a Jewish State but a Jewish National Home."

That was diplomtic speak. Or in my parlance - a lie!! The Arabs realized that a Jewish State was going to be created and they would have ultimately have no significant part in it. Hence their resistance against the Children of Israel returning - but it was too little, too late. If only they had not made an alliance with the British and were not so foolish.
The Zionist movement wanted a place where they could have rule over. Indeed they did have a Jewish National Home pre 1948 under British "suzerainty" but that was not enough for them...and it was not enough for the Anti-Christ!

"That injunction rests upon an interpretation of the Qu'ran that it applies to ALL Jews, not just a select (and maybe intended) few, right?"

Are you saying that some Children of Israel are allowed to have a state and other Children of Israel are not??

 

[surya kiran]

Reading this thread, you get the impression foreign policy is driven by holy books and not by the requirements of the citizens of a country. Books written more than 1000 years back.

 

[Solomon2]

why should we accept them as a state???????

As discussed, Pakistanis don't need to invoke the Jews' religion to accept Israel as legitimate: the Jews returned under explicit invitation in the League of Nations Palestine Mandate, buying lands from Arabs and settling state land.

The Arab land purchase bit is an interesting story not well covered by anti-Zionists. It's something of an embarrassment, I suppose. Jews had to pay something like forty times the price an Arab would be charged for the same plot of land. These transactions appear to have been a kind of mafia operation, as some of the brokers were relatives of the fanatical anti-Zionist Mufti of Jerusalem - Yassir Arafat's uncle - who booked immense profits. The Arabs were told they could kick the Jews out from the same land they had sold the Jews after the British left. Their failure to do so, to complete their evil scheme of extortion and murder, is the heart of Arab frustration today.

That was diplomtic speak. Or in my parlance - a lie!! The Arabs realized that a Jewish State was going to be created -

There was no time limit to the Palestine Mandate.

Are you saying that some Children of Israel are allowed to have a state and other Children of Israel are not??

Could that be what the Qu'ran meant?

Reading this thread, you get the impression foreign policy is driven by holy books and not by the requirements of the citizens of a country. Books written more than 1000 years back.

I noticed. Yet Pakistan's strategy has been to find some way to appeal to militant extremists, to push them into the service of the needs of the State, or mollify them somehow. It seems very un-Pakistani to flat-out oppose their desires, yes?

"Using Islam as a basis for preventing Arabs from recognizing any sovereign right of Jews over the Land of Israel is new. Such beliefs are not found in classical Islamic sources. Concluding that anti-Zionism is the logical outgrowth of Islamic faith is wrong. This conclusion represents the false transformation of Islam from a religion into a secularized ideology." - Shaykh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi

 

[MadDog]

Pakistan's leaders never trusted their own people to vote on their idea of Pakistan itself until 1970 - and then the majority voted "no". The two-nation theory having failed and Z.A.B.'s socialism proving insufficient to justify the remaining national identity, Pakistan's leaders were seduced into latching upon militant religion instead of accountable and responsible democracy - the course set when the Ahmadis were disowned.

It’s a whole separate debate, I will open up a Pandora box and this thread will become a troll fest, anyways since you started this topic, let me explain. Pakistan the word first time was used by Ch Rehmat Ali in 1933, in his journal “Now or Never”…it meant Punjab, Afghan province (since KPK used to be part of Afghanistan), Kashmir, Sindh and balochisTAN. No where Bengal was mentioned, it was supposed to be a separate Muslim state, all the previous leaders talked about an independent state in the North West. Pakistan resolution 23rd March 1940 at Lahore (still celebrated in Pakistan), called out for more than one muslim state, since two wings separated by hostile territory of 1500km were not viable. The However, British never gave this option. Pakistan with its two wings was the only option if Jinnah wanted a separate country. Two distinct lands (1500 km towards west is Jordan/Iraq, can you think of Pakistan and Iraq being one, No offcourse not). Distinct cultures, languages, civilizations and huge distance didn’t make it viable. Pakistan had to send troops via Sri lanka, from three sides E.Pak was surrounded by India, naturally, it was easier for Indians to mount an attack there. E.Pak’s separation was natural.

However, the region of Pakistan was always separate from today’s India (with the exception of Indian Punjab and Kashmir). Civilizations developed on the banks of River Indus were distinct from those developed around River Ganges and Jumuna. River Indus is akin to River Nile in Egypt, Punjabis, Pushtuns, Baloch, Sindhis, Kashmiris all have lived on its banks through thousands of years, history of the five regions called Pakistan is ancient, while Bengalis were completely different, 1970 elections became an excuse.
Ahmedis were disowned since Bhuto wanted sympathies of the religious right wing, still Ahmedis contribute tremendously to Pakistan, infact they play a vital role in armed forces.

 

[JonAsad]

i always say that now is not the right time to open another Pandora box by accepting israel as a state- maybe a couple of decades later or never-

 

[TMA]

It’s a whole separate debate, I will open up a Pandora box and this thread will become a troll fest, anyways since you started this topic, let me explain. Pakistan the word first time was used by Ch Rehmat Ali in 1933, in his journal “Now or Never”…it meant Punjab, Afghan province (since KPK used to be part of Afghanistan), Kashmir, Sindh and balochisTAN. No where Bengal was mentioned, it was supposed to be a separate Muslim state, all the previous leaders talked about an independent state in the North West. Pakistan resolution 23rd March 1940 at Lahore (still celebrated in Pakistan), called out for more than one muslim state, since two wings separated by hostile territory of 1500km were not viable. The However, British never gave this option. Pakistan with its two wings was the only option if Jinnah wanted a separate country. Two distinct lands (1500 km towards west is Jordan/Iraq, can you think of Pakistan and Iraq being one, No offcourse not). Distinct cultures, languages, civilizations and huge distance didn’t make it viable. Pakistan had to send troops via Sri lanka, from three sides E.Pak was surrounded by India, naturally, it was easier for Indians to mount an attack there. E.Pak’s separation was natural.

However, the region of Pakistan was always separate from today’s India (with the exception of Indian Punjab and Kashmir). Civilizations developed on the banks of River Indus were distinct from those developed around River Ganges and Jumuna. River Indus is akin to River Nile in Egypt, Punjabis, Pushtuns, Baloch, Sindhis, Kashmiris all have lived on its banks through thousands of years, history of the five regions called Pakistan is ancient, while Bengalis were completely different, 1970 elections became an excuse.
Ahmedis were disowned since Bhuto wanted sympathies of the religious right wing, still Ahmedis contribute tremendously to Pakistan, infact they play a vital role in armed forces.

Great reply!

People think of (historic) India being united. It was never the case. The Indian Subcontinent is a bit like Europe (of course a lot more dense and complex) there is a shared identity but in no way can this be considered to be a united nation. Just like there is a shared European Identity but the nations of Europe are separate.