What's new

How are Pakistan and Palestine different?

JayAtl

BANNED
Nov 18, 2010
8,812
-14
5,251
This may on the surface look like a cheeky post but I have had this nagging question I have wanted to ask for awhile.

This is not about Pakistanis who are for a two state solution or compromise but about the very many who post the absolutely removal of Israelis from that land.

The premise of those are :

1. The land belonged to Palestinians first
2. The land was occupied on the behest of 3rd parties( politics, politicians who deemed it Israeli land)


If this meme is to be discussed, then pray tell me, why those who are extreme on the Indian side and say Pakistan was India at first and that politicians planted this new country against the populous beliefs- are wrong in asking that Pakistan should be taken back or any land claimed by pakistan? ( Not I don't prescribe to such absolutely absurdity but it makes you wonder what's good for the goose should be good for the gander then , yeah?)

And lastly, there was a poster here called Fauj Historian, a Pakistani- who showed historical facts that Pakistan fought against Palestinians in its past - which then begs the question if the anti Israeli stance of complete removal by those rigid Pakistani posters is hypocritical?
 
If I understand your point correctly then I must say you lack major understanding of history regarding Pakistan and it's creation.


Let's get this clear the Indian Parliament 1947 (modern day Pakistan, Hindustan, Bangladesh) approved the partition of India (not partition of Hindustan; due to Hindu usury of the name "INDia" this has to be made clear) so that is the technical and legal difference. Let me repeat this Indian Parliament approved and passed a resolution (Lahore resolution) which agreed to partition.


Palestinians never approved of the partition of their country/land into Jewish Israel and Palestinian West Bank (or whatever remains). Pakistan is a legal and legitimate formation and creation. You claim it was "against populous belief" this is fallacy, creation of Pakistan had majority vote, besides it did have populous belief.
 
If I understand your point correctly then I must say you lack major understanding of history regarding Pakistan and it's creation.


Let's get this clear the Indian Parliament 1947 (modern day Pakistan, Hindustan, Bangladesh) approved the partition of India (not partition of Hindustan; due to Hindu usury of the name "INDia" this has to be made clear) so that is the technical and legal difference. Let me repeat this Indian Parliament approved and passed a resolution (Lahore resolution) which agreed to partition.


Palestinians never approved of the partition of their country/land into Jewish Israel and Palestinian West Bank (or whatever remains). Pakistan is a legal and legitimate formation and creation. You claim it was "against populous belief" this is fallacy, creation of Pakistan had majority vote, besides it did have populous belief.

Factually ,would you agree- The " black mailing of the Parliament" i.e. against its true will- took place way before by the British who forced it upon on them- they did not do it as an agreement w/ o arm twisting, they did it to avoid national security concerns ..and if the Indian Parliament is the excuse then what gives on Kashmir? by your logic " Parliament" approved its as belonging to modern India.
 
If I understand your point correctly then I must say you lack major understanding of history regarding Pakistan and it's creation.


Let's get this clear the Indian Parliament 1947 (modern day Pakistan, Hindustan, Bangladesh) approved the partition of India (not partition of Hindustan; due to Hindu usury of the name "INDia" this has to be made clear) so that is the technical and legal difference. Let me repeat this Indian Parliament approved and passed a resolution (Lahore resolution) which agreed to partition.


Palestinians never approved of the partition of their country/land into Jewish Israel and Palestinian West Bank (or whatever remains). Pakistan is a legal and legitimate formation and creation. You claim it was "against populous belief" this is fallacy, creation of Pakistan had majority vote, besides it did have populous belief.

nailed it.....
 
If I understand your point correctly then I must say you lack major understanding of history regarding Pakistan and it's creation.


Let's get this clear the Indian Parliament 1947 (modern day Pakistan, Hindustan, Bangladesh) approved the partition of India (not partition of Hindustan; due to Hindu usury of the name "INDia" this has to be made clear) so that is the technical and legal difference. Let me repeat this Indian Parliament approved and passed a resolution (Lahore resolution) which agreed to partition.


Palestinians never approved of the partition of their country/land into Jewish Israel and Palestinian West Bank (or whatever remains). Pakistan is a legal and legitimate formation and creation. You claim it was "against populous belief" this is fallacy, creation of Pakistan had majority vote, besides it did have populous belief.

Good response.
 
First of all, which Palestine are you talking about? a) West Bank, which is according to the UNSC, the US, the EU, the International Court of Justice, Red Cross is Palestinian territory occupied by Israel; b) Gaza, which the UN, HRW, other bodies consider Israel to be the occupying power of (as Israel controls Gaza's airspace and territorial waters); or c) the original/historical Palestinian territory?
 
First of all, which Palestine are you talking about? a) West Bank, which is according to the UNSC, the US, the EU, the International Court of Justice, Red Cross is Palestinian territory occupied by Israel; b) Gaza, which the UN, HRW, other bodies consider Israel to be the occupying power of (as Israel controls Gaza's airspace and territorial waters); or c) the original/historical Palestinian territory?

I'm talking of the logic of posters asking for removal of Israelis completely- calling no state of Israel period- because they and hamas claim all land as occupied.
 
I'm talking of the logic of posters asking for removal of Israelis completely- calling no state of Israel period- because they and hamas claim all land as occupied.

No solution is possible that has the removal of Israelis in it. In other words, Israelis will not be removed from their land. Despite the "'difficult' & troubled history in the region" for the Palestinians, the Israelis are there to stay. I don't see any connection to Pakistan & Palestine here, Palestine is not even an official state/nation; but occupied territory. This occupation must be ended, & a two state solution incorporated for an independent Palestine & Israel, as per the 1967 UN mandate resolution 241.
 
1. The land belonged to Palestinians first
The majority of the inhabitants of the modern State of Pakistan are its native inhabitants, they did not immigrate to those lands a few years prior to the demand for Pakistan.

2. The land was occupied on the behest of 3rd parties( politics, politicians who deemed it Israeli land)
The political parties that called for Pakistan had the support of an overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of those lands, again, this argument does not apply.

Pakistan was not 'created out of India', Pakistan and India were created out of the British Colony of India, which was an amalgamation of Kingdoms, Princely States and territories conquered and amalgamated into one 'Colony' by the British through military force and/or the threat of it.

So again, the analogy with Palestine and somehow Pakistan being equivalent to Israel in 'being carved out of another nation and taken from another people' is completely wrong.
 
The majority of the inhabitants of the modern State of Pakistan are its native inhabitants, they did not immigrate to those lands a few years prior to the demand for Pakistan.


The political parties that called for Pakistan had the support of an overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of those lands, again, this argument does not apply.

Pakistan was not 'created out of India', Pakistan and India were created out of the British Colony of India, which was an amalgamation of Kingdoms, Princely States and territories conquered and amalgamated into one 'Colony' by the British through military force and/or the threat of it.

So again, the analogy with Palestine and somehow Pakistan being equivalent to Israel in 'being carved out of another nation and taken from another people' is completely wrong.

DAMN.... again I have to say... Nailed it...........:P
 
The majority of the inhabitants of the modern State of Pakistan are its native inhabitants, they did not immigrate to those lands a few years prior to the demand for Pakistan.


The political parties that called for Pakistan had the support of an overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of those lands, again, this argument does not apply.

Pakistan was not 'created out of India', Pakistan and India were created out of the British Colony of India, which was an amalgamation of Kingdoms, Princely States and territories conquered and amalgamated into one 'Colony' by the British through military force and/or the threat of it.

So again, the analogy with Palestine and somehow Pakistan being equivalent to Israel in 'being carved out of another nation and taken from another people' is completely wrong.

what came first the chicken or the egg? The notion that Pakistan was carved out of India is true in my assumption because today's Pakistani lands were fought for equally as being part of India prior to asking for a separate state.

When the freedom fight started " today's Pakistan land" was included as a contiguous land of India as a part of that struggle under British colony. Under the British rule India was defined as all of the lands including yours currently as being " India" till they were to leave and then and only then put the divide and rule policy in place.


Also to claim the Pakistan had overwhelmingly support of political parties is also not right , WHY? as the struggle preceding it accounted that paks land as being a part of India. which meant the overwhelming support you claim is false because numbers that account as a " majority", had to include " all" of the people of India under British rule and not just those folks who residing in today's pakistan.
 
To claim that the Pakistan had overwhelmingly support of political parties is also not right , WHY? as the struggle preceding it accounted that paks land as being a part of India. which meant the overwhelming support you claim is false because numbers that account as a " majority", had to include " all" of the people of India under British rule .

As Far as partition is concerned...a muslim vote to decide whether Muslims of the subcontinent wanted a seperate nation was never done....

The fact that Muslims decided to stay back in large numbers in a largely secular India raises doubts on the "majority" wanted a seperate nation argument...

Besides...if Pakistanis claim that partition was made out of British India, the a majority vote in only lands that represent modern day Pakistan is logically incorrect since it should reflect the aspirations of all Muslims...ie. entire British India...NOT just the north west or the east...

No such vote has been recorded in history
 
As Far as partition is concerned...a muslim vote to decide whether Muslims of the subcontinent wanted a seperate nation was never done....

The fact that Muslims decided to stay back in large numbers in a largely secular India raises doubts on the "majority" wanted a seperate nation argument...

Besides...if Pakistanis claim that partition was made out of British India, the a majority vote in only lands that represent modern day Pakistan is logically incorrect since it should reflect the aspirations of all Muslims...ie. entire British India...NOT just the north west or the east...

No such vote has been recorded in history

I would go to further in stating that it had to be all of India and not just Muslim India because the notion of Muslim state separately defined was not " all of India's" contention, thereby not based on level ground in terms of "populous vote"
 
We Pakistanis never came from a different continent, we always belonged to our land (Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, NWFP, Kashmir). And we Muslims made the majority in our land for centuries. Its not like Israelis, who came from Europe because they were tortured by Nazis, and their holy book said they came from Jerusalem thousands of years ago.

And throughout much of history, Pakistan and India were not one:

world_indusvalleymap.png

Indus Valley Civilization



20100703012806!Ghaznavid_Empire_975_-_1187_(AD).PNG

Ghaznavid Empire



250px-Afgempdur.jpg

Durrani Empire



481px-AlexanderConquestsInIndia.jpg

Alexander the Great's Empire



Achaemenid_Empire_~480_BC.png

Achaeminid Persian Empire


Sassanid_Empire.jpg

The Persian Sassanid Empire


umayyad_caliphate_750AD.png

Ummayad Caliphate



300px-QASIM.PNG

Extent and expansion of Umayyad rule under Muhammad bin Qasim




Israelis are like Americans. They came from a different continent, invaded a country and stole the country from the natives and killed the natives of the land. We were always native to our land, we didnt come from a different continent, and some hindus and sikhs who lived in our land left to India, while some Muslims came from India to Pakistan but the vast majority of present day Pakistanis and our ancestors always lived in the land of Pakistan.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom