Leaked data reveals Israeli govt campaign to remove pro-Palestine posts on Meta

A short-lived attempt to reboot the process after Arafat's death happened in 2007 between Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas, which was aborted when Hamas won the Palestinian elections and triggered a Palestinian civil war. There were again direct talks in 2010, which ended when Hamas (who by then fully controlled Gaza) said they wouldn't accept a peace deal and would continue attacking Israel; from the Israeli perspective there was no point in continuing land-for-peace talks if the other side was firmly refusing the "peace" part.

Of course the Palestinian situation is quite sad. But that is in large part a consequence of horrendous leadership that has repeatedly insisted on maximalist territorial demands and refuses to give up hope of destroying Israel and ruling the region in its entirety; they have been offered many options over many years that are far better than their current semi-state and refused them, since they would need to give up on destroying Israel. Even blaming "horrendous leadership" is a bit generous... After all, Hamas was popularly elected into power in part based on their claims that violence could extract territorial gains from Israel. Just as Trump couldn't have done much without being elected by his massive MAGA base, Hamas couldn't have ruled Gaza without their large Palestinian base that voted them into power — and Hamas continued to be extremely popular in Palestinian polls until late 2024, when the consequences of their actions began to become clear even to their ardent supporters.

The present day "Middle East" (a colonialist term) is carved out by european colonilism through sykes-picot.

The plan to occupy Palestine started way before 48.

As for Jews supposedly being able to live in peace prior to the British — you are once again incorrect. Jews were considered dhimmis, with various insane accompanying laws: Jews were legally required to dismount horses/donkeys and simply walk whenever any random Muslim passerby demanded it; a Muslim man could take a Jewish woman as a wife, but if a Jewish man tried to marry a Muslim woman he would be killed; Jewish orphans were systematically taken from the Jewish community by law and raised as Muslims — in fact, this is legally genocidal! — and in parts of the Ottoman Empire, the "Dung Gatherer's Decree" mandated that Jews clean the literal poop from Muslim sewers; in other parts they were forbidden from wearing shoes; Jews were killed in massacres by the thousands and synagogues burned; and of course, there's the famous Benny Morris quote from the 19th century in Jerusalem:

I have seen a little fellow of six years old, with a troop of fat toddlers of only three and four, teaching [them] to throw stones at a Jew, and one little urchin would, with the greatest coolness, waddle up to the man and literally spit upon his Jewish gaberdine. To all this the Jew is obliged to submit; it would be more than his life was worth to offer to strike a Mohammedan.

Naturally the Jews were not eager to return to this state of affairs. And so just as India and Pakistan were created out of British India, Israel and Palestine were attempted to be created out of the British Mandate. The Muslim residents were very eager to return to the prior state of affairs, refused partition, invaded, and... lost. And again; most of their territory was taken by Egypt and Jordan, not Israel.

There most definitely was a region, and it was called Palestine[2]. As I mentioned elsewhere, Muslim Caliphates do not erode or destroy the local culture, they embrace it. The Ottomans were Muslims, we're one people. We don't have racist ideologies.

It's interesting seeing these lies made up, or deliberate misinformation. The word "dhimmi" means one who is under the protection of another. The rights of dhimmis are protected, they can rule with their own laws among each other. No, a Jew was not legally required to dismount whenever a Muslim passed by - this is not Islamic law. Islamic law permits Muslim men to marry Christian or Jewish women, but Muslim women are not allowed to marry non-Muslim men; this has nothing to do with Jews. And it wouldn't be allowed in the first place, so he wouldn't be "killed" - no idea where you're getting your information from. The rest of the post is completely un-Islamic, and sounds fabricated.

Maybe you should ask Jewish historian Shelomo Dov Goitein why he said that Jews lived well under the Muslims; maybe he knows something you don't, and he was not affected by fabricated narratives.

To summarize, Islam rejects the Sykes Picot/Balfour borders between Muslim nations. What is happening today is a direct consequence of WWI. This is why Muslims are calling for a Caliphate to unite all Muslims, something that the west desperately tries to fight.

[1] https://imgur.com/a/BlTdfKy [2] https://imgur.com/a/jSMLBiZ

Wrong. https://katz.sas.upenn.edu/resources/blog/what-do-you-know-d...

And I notice you didn't even try to refute the existence of the Dung Gatherer decree, or the mass murders and synagogue burning. Plenty of massacres prior to 1899, if you're clinging to that as a magic number to justify atrocities carried out against Jews under the Ottomans.

There was a region, it was called Palestine.

Here are the administrative subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire as of 1899: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_divisions_of_...

As you can clearly see, there was no subdivision that cleanly mapped to the currently-existing region of Israel or Palestine. That region was created by the British, as "Mandatory Palestine."

Islam rejects the Sykes Picot/Balfour borders between Muslim nations. What is happening today is a direct consequence of WWI. This is why Muslims are calling for a Caliphate to unite all Muslims, something that the west desperately tries to fight.

Sorry, but Islam does not decree to the rest of the world what borders are, and certainly not moreso than the U.N. Demanding that you're able to draw whatever borders you like and invade anyone who disagrees is what has continued this conflict for 77 years — which your side has continually lost, over and over again, with pointless bloodshed. No one wants to live under your caliphate. Many countries had their borders change after WW1, and WW2, and — oh well, they changed, people adapt and live with it.

colonizers

Lmao. Where do you think you got Istanbul from? Do you recall that it once had a different name — does "Constantinople" ring a bell? The pot is calling the kettle black here.

It is for a fact that Islam does not permit what you mentioned.

> As you can clearly see, there was no subdivision that cleanly mapped to the currently-existing region of Israel or Palestine. That region was created by the British, as "Mandatory Palestine."

Neither did any fake border map to present day country in the Middle East. This proves my point further - these fake borders were placed by the colonizing West to divide and conquer; and they got what they wanted - continued civil unrest, which they sowed on purpose to this very day. As I said, Islam and Muslims reject these fake borders.

> Sorry, but Islam does not decree to the rest of the world what borders are

It does decree to its lands; which is where the west came in and colonized them. Or are you denying Muslim autonomy on their own lands?

> Lmao. Where do you think you got Istanbul from? Do you recall that it once had a different name — does "Constantinople" ring a bell? The pot is calling the kettle black here.

Not really - when you compare how Constantinople was conquered and what was the end result (Light was brought in, science and culture flourished, the local culture was preserved, no one was forced out, etc.) to how western colonization works (destruction, civil wars, killing natives, forcing people out of their homes, etc) which continues to this very day; the story is very different. This is what the europeans did to the natives in America/Canada/Australia, etc.; this is what America did to Afghanistan/Iraq/etc, and this is what they want the Palesinians to do; but to their suprise, the Muslims do not give up so easily. The west left defeated from Afghanistan at the hands of the brave local population, even though they faced the most advanced armies.

And I notice you're still trying to avoid the dung-gatherer decree...

Its lands

Uh-huh. The ones it conquered and colonized?

The end result

The Armenian genocide? The Greek genocide? Not to mention the actual act itself as documented by primary sources:

As soon as the Turks were inside the City, they began to seize and enslave every person who came their way; all those who tried to offer resistance were put to the sword. In many places the ground could not be seen, as it was covered by heaps of corpses.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople

There is no evidence of the "dung gatherer decree" except in fictional work. As I wrote, I deny all accusation unless cited properly.

> Uh-huh. The ones it conquered and colonized?

No, the lands it spread to whose inhabitants accepted Islam without force, whose local culture and language was preserved, and which flourished afterward, and whos non-Muslim population was granted rights and protections.

The Armenian and Greek genocides was due to the rise of secularist movements like the young Turks. I mentioned this in another post. Those are explicitly anti-Islamic, and purely secular. Again proving my point that those would not have happened under Islamic rule.

That is not a "fictional work."

And the UPenn article was literally written by a professor of Arabic studies!

And the quote about the piles of corpses I gave you was referencing the fall of Constantinople, when it was sacked by the Ottomans; I even gave you the Wikipedia link where you could find it. It in fact happened under Islamic rule and there is plenty of primary evidence of it.

And there is plenty of evidence of atrocities carried out by Muslims against Jews, e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1834_looting_of_Safed

Or the Mawza Exile under Imam al-Mahdi Ahmad: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mawza_Exile

Or the Allahdad: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allahdad

Not to mention mass killing and forced conversion of Christians under the Ottomans:

For strategic reasons, the Ottomans forcibly converted Christians living in the frontier regions of Macedonia and northern Bulgaria, particularly in the 16th and 17th centuries. Those who refused were either executed or burned alive. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_Ottoman_...

Your repeated assertions that none of this happened are simply ahistorical.

> The term appears in the serial fiction "Consolaçam 10" by Ron Singer, where it is described as one of several newly enacted laws that forced Jews to flee their homeland due to such humiliating and discriminatory treatment

> There is no evidence in the provided search results that the "Dung-Gatherer's Decree" is a historical law from real-world legal or religious history; rather, it appears to be an example of anti-Semitic legislation within a narrative, illustrating the use of dehumanizing laws to marginalize and persecute a minority group

So that's out.

It doesn't matter if the UPenn article was written by a professor of Arabic studies, there are no citations.

I read about the fall of Constantinople. Most references I found were of orientalists who have a vested interest since their emergence to distort events. However, let's say that looting and killings did happen. That would fall solely on the individuals who ordered them and partook in them; Islam is free from blame.

You can read about the Pact of Umar and how he allowed the jews back into Jerusalem after they were massacred by the Romans and Byzantines. Yet, this is conveniently dropped when the anti-Muslim crowd attempts to paint a picture that Muslims are somehow "anti-semitic", but in reality, we saw who the real anti-semites are based on how the jews were treated in europe. Classic projection.

As far as the 1934 lootings, from the page itself:

> The event took place during a power vacuum while Ibrahim Pasha was fighting to quell the wider revolt in Jerusalem.

And according to the same article, it was done by Arabs and Druze. Nothing to do with Islam nor was it ordered by any official in power. We've seen what destabilization causes around the world when there is no power. We've seen the Sabra and Shatila massacres, but that was officially supported by the israeli government and army. No comparison can be made here.

The Mawza exile article cites the rise of the Shabbathian movement as a contributed. Yet again, these are isolated instances in the history of the Islamic nation, as opposed to the continuous killing and murdering and raping of the Palestinians (even underage females, all well documented) ever since their land was occupied and stolen from them.

Forced conversions are not allowed in Islam. We have no issue calling out violations of Islamic Law by whomever commits them. But today, the world watches international law being violated and war crimes being committed in front of our eyes live on TV. The israleis are literally committing mass starvation as we speak, but it's ok since they're "defending themselves". Never has history seen such atrocities while the rest of the world sits passive. But all of this has been foretold over 1400 years ago[1]

[1] https://sunnah.com/abudawud:4297