The claim that Palestinian identity only emerged in 1964 is related to the birth of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in that year. In its main charter, Article 6, the PLO defines Palestinians as Arabs who normally resided in the region before 1947. This was the first time in history that the term Palestinian was officially coined to refer to a distinct nationality.

Before the establishment of the PLO, Palestinians were generally known as Palestinian-Arabs, the name which emerged due to the rise of Pan Arabism. The idea of unity with their Arab surrounding resonated as a source of strength in the fight against Zionism.

Palestinians were also called “the people of Palestine”, as the Philippines’ delegate Carlos Romulo called them in his famous speech at UNGA 181, opposing the injustice that befell them.

But Palestinians were even identified as just Palestinians. Yes, way before 1964, the term was already popular among the elite, in newspapers, and within student unions.

Palestinians were also called natives by the leaders of modern Zionism, like Ahad Ha’am, as early as 1897. The founder of Israel, David Ben Gurion, recognized them from their way of life as descendants of ancient Hebrews.

What is a National Movement

Before we address the historicity of Palestinians as a nation, it is important to understand that national movements are not found in nature. All national movements are invented, and all of them had a starting point. More importantly, national movements can’t be used to measure people’s origins.

This isn’t something new in modern history. Take the Kosovars, for example. They only started calling themselves by that name when Kosovo sought independence from Yugoslavia in the 90s. Before that, they identified as Albanians. If they had to be more specific, they would say Albanians from Kosovo. That shouldn’t undermine their new identity, nor does it refute their historical origin in the land.

Why Does it Matter What People Choose to Call Themselves?

Why can’t people call themselves by the name of the land where they and their ancestors lived for centuries, even if they identified as part of a bigger entity in the past?

After all, before 1948, Israeli Jews were just Jews. The term Israeli was invented in 1948. If immigrants can develop a unique name in a foreign land, why can’t natives do the same in their own land?

So, whether Palestinians choose to call themselves by the name of the larger group (Arabs) or by the name of the land (Palestinians), or both (Palestinian Arabs), why is this so controversial?

And not like evolving from Palestinian Arabs to Palestinians is a groundbreaking change anyway.

Does Arab Identity Negate Land Connection?

So the most important question here is, how did Palestinian Arabs view their homeland, Palestine? Did they feel any special connection to it, or was it just another place in their vast Arabic/Islamic empire? Let’s examine what historical records show, shall we?

One of the early accounts by Ottoman Palestinians was written by a Palestinian writer called Khayr al-Din al-Ramli, whose family name originates from the Palestinian town of al-Ramla. In his book, al-Fatawa al-Khayriyah, he refers to Palestine as “our Homeland”. (1)

Another more recent example of Palestinian identity and self-awareness was in 1905 by a Palestinian poet, al-Nashashibi, who warned against organised land purchase by foreign immigrants. (2) He said:

Awake, this is your homeland. Do not let it be sold to strangers.

Conclusion

No, Palestinians were not invented in 1964. What was invented on that date was the formal political body that represents the Palestinian people. Palestinian identity existed long before that, and their connection to the land of Palestine spans many centuries.

Behind the Jewish Silence

When you dig through historical records, Jewish and non-Jewish, you won’t find a single clear condemnation or accusation of Muslims violating a Jewish holy ground. No protests, outcries, and no attempts to reclaim the site. Not even a single complaint. In fact, early Jewish writings are silent on the matter altogether.

And that silence is deafening. We’re talking about a place that today is described as the most sacred location in Judaism—yet there was no resistance when a permanent Islamic structure was built on it. Imagine if Muslims built a mosque in the heart of the Vatican, or Christians erected a church on the grounds of the Ka’bah. The global outcry would be unstoppable. So, if the Temple Mount held that same intensity of holiness for Jews in the 7th century, wouldn’t history have recorded their resistance?

But it didn’t. And that raises one massive question: why?

I’ve spoken to Jews about this—some were surprised, some speechless. Many had never even thought about it. Nobody seems to have a concrete answer, but here are some grounded theories based on the historical context:

1. The site’s importance may have been tied only to its past as the location of the temple.

2. Some Jewish traditions view its relevance as tied to the future arrival of the Messiah, not the present.

3. Jewish law, for centuries, prohibited Jews from entering the Temple Mount for fear of impurity—possibly weakening the emotional connection to the site.

4. Under Muslim rule, Jews were treated better than they had been under the Byzantines. They were allowed to live in Jerusalem again and practice their faith freely. So to many Jews, Muslim rule felt more like relief than occupation.

Global Silence Too

It wasn’t just Jews. The international reaction was also eerily quiet. Aside from a few Byzantine religious leaders blaming their losses on divine punishment, nobody else protested. There was no objection from historians, travelers, non-Muslim communities living nearby…nothing. The construction of the Dome of the Rock happened without anyone claiming it was a violation.

“Next Year in Jerusalem”

That phrase—probably the most well-known Jewish reference to Jerusalem—didn’t even emerge until centuries later, first penned by a poet in the 10th century. And even then, it was more about spiritual longing than political ambition. There is no mention of the Dome, no demand for reclaiming the site, no accusation against Muslims… just a symbolic connection.

Modern-Day Jewish Division

Fast forward to today, we see an evolution in the Jewish position. Modern Zionist rhetoric has gained momentum, pushing for the rebuilding of a Jewish temple right on top of the Dome of the Rock. But many Jews around the world—inside and outside Israel—reject this idea. Some cite religious reasons, saying only the Messiah can authorize a temple. Others fear political fallout and bloodshed. Even today, we don’t see a single clear Jewish position that everyone stands behind.

This division within the Jewish community undermines the claim that the Dome was ever seen as a violation of sacred space. If Jewish ancestors didn’t object, and many Jews today still don’t support this whole idea, how strong is the claim, really?

Muslim Respect for Other Faiths

Let’s go back even earlier. When Umar Ibn al-Khattab entered Jerusalem in 637 CE, he was invited by Patriarch Sophronius to pray inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as a gesture of welcome. A generous invitation many would have accepted without a second thought. But Umar declined—not out of disrespect, but because of it. Umar didn’t want future Muslims to attach religious significance to the church and risk its status as a Christian holy site.

That act of restraint speaks volumes. It gives us important context. Muslims weren’t out to replace or erase holy sites—they were mindful of preserving them. That makes it even more unlikely that they would have taken over the Temple Mount against the wishes of the Jewish community.

The Islamic Perspective

The Jewish view of the site has shifted over time, but the Islamic stance has been consistent from the beginning. Islam sees itself not as a break from the past, but as a continuation of it and a restoration of faith and tradition that had been lost for quite a long time. Muslims believe the prophets of Judaism and Christianity were all part of the same divine message. Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad (peace be upon them all)—all messengers of the same God.

So when Muslims built the Dome of the Rock, it wasn’t to erase what came before. It was to honor it and set things back in place. In that sense, the structure wasn’t a violation but a validation of divine heritage.

Some early Christian sources—like The Marriage of the Virgin—even suggest the Dome was modeled after the ancient Temple of Solomon. While that’s debated today, it still gives weight to the idea that Muslims were preserving, not desecrating.

The Bottom Line

Here's the big question: If 7th-century Jews didn't have a problem with the Dome of the Rock, why do some Jews today see it as a violation of their religious spot? Why would they understand this issue better than their ancestors did?

On June 20, 1631, the fishing village of Baltimore, Ireland, woke up to a violent attack by Algerian corsairs, led by the Dutch renegade Murat Reis. They captured over 100 villagers from their homes, chained them up, and loaded them onto ships headed for slave markets in North Africa. Those who fought back were killed on the spot. The raid on Baltimore wasn’t the only one. The corsairs routinely targeted coastal towns from Iceland to Italy between the 16th and 19th centuries. These were the feared Barbary pirates, also known as the Muslim corsairs who terrorized European waters for generations.

But that is not the whole story. Not even half of it.

This selective narrative dominates the coverage of the Barbary corsairs’ story today. Some online forums use it in debates about immigration and religious conflict, weaponizing the violent side of it to justify certain agendas. But like most historical events, the actual story of the Barbary pirates is not black and white. The untold key details reveal mutual aggression, retaliation, and a cycle of violence that spanned many years.

Missing Pieces of the Story

The eye-opening book "Piracy, Slavery, and Redemption: Barbary Captivity Narratives from Early Modern England," published by Columbia University Press, sheds light on this often overlooked historical complexity. The authors give us important context that’s usually missing from talks about Barbary pirates.

As they say in their insightful introduction, "Although the North African privateers sought profit from capturing Britons and other Europeans, they also wished to retaliate against attacks on them by these same Europeans, whom they and their Muslim co-religionists had encountered as marauding crusaders and piratical ifrangi since the medieval period."

This quote really changes how we think about that time. Many of North Africa’s maritime actions were actually responses to ongoing European attacks rather than unprovoked aggression.

Uncovering European Aggression

The book points out that between 1573 and 1644, there was a constant stream of attacks from Spaniards, Portuguese, Maltese, English, and other Christian powers on North African cities and trade routes.

Take, for instance, a shocking incident on October 15, 1584, when Venetians captured a Tunisian ship on its way to Tripoli. The Christian forces killed everyone on board—50 Moors, 75 Turks, 174 Christian converts to Islam, and 45 women. An Englishman named Thomas Saunders, who had been a captive in Tripoli just a year earlier, called this massacre “God’s just judgment on the infidels.”

In the 16th century, as Spanish and Portuguese forces gained the upper hand with better technology, they terrorized the African coasts. ” Thousands of Muslims were imprisoned, marked, and chained on warships from Malta, Italy, and France. Just in the first decade of the 17th century, over 5,500 Muslim captives were held in Venice and Malta.

A Cycle of Retaliation

The idea of innocent Europeans being victimized by Muslim pirates falls apart when we look closer. Even European captives acknowledged the role of their own countries in provoking these attacks. An English captive named John Rollins admitted that the Algerians mistreated the English captives because the English fleet had tried to set fire to the Algerian harbor months before.

In an extraordinary exchange, the Algerian ruler wrote directly to King James I of England in 1624, saying, “Your majesty's subjects did take some Moors and Turks, and now our captains did take certain Englishmen and sold them, which if your majesty shall be pleased to send us the Moors and the Turks, we shall suddenly and out of hand put the Christians at liberty.”

This letter shows a straight-up truth: English aggression led to Algerian counter-aggression. During this time, many Moors and Turks were held in jails in England, Ireland, and Wales and later sold as slaves in Spanish towns, or they were executed as pirates.

Deeper Reasons Behind the Barbary Pirates

What’s perhaps most interesting is the story of the Moriscos—Muslims who were forced to leave Spain. After living in the Iberian Peninsula for centuries, hundreds of thousands were uprooted, separated from their families, and lost their homes just because of their faith.

Many of these displaced people found refuge in North African coastal cities, where they redirected their sailing skills against their former homeland. As historian Al-Makiri put it, “They lived in Salé, and their sea jihad is now well-known.” These were once law-abiding subjects in Spain and Portugal who became “embittered sea raiders” after being kicked out.

The book explains, “Many had firsthand experience of Christian violence when they fled Spain and France to North Africa, having lost their property, been separated from their kids, and exiled due to their faith. They believed they deserved vengeance.”

The Stigmatization of Converts

Another intriguing aspect highlighted in the book is how Europeans who converted to Islam in captivity were treated. An appendix includes “The Laudian Rite for Returned Renegades” from 1637, outlining the public penance required of anyone who converted to “Turkism” (Islam) and later came back to Christian society.

These converts had to stand outside the church during Sunday service “wearing a white sheet, with a white stick in their hand, head uncovered, looking miserable,” begging on their knees for forgiveness. This kind of public humiliation speaks volumes about the religious tensions that existed during that time.

Looking Beyond the One-Sided Story

Piracy, Slavery, and Redemption challenges us to look past the oversimplified ideas of “Muslim pirates attacking innocent Christians” that can still be found in certain corners of the internet these days. Sure, Barbary pirates did capture Europeans and sell them into slavery, but European powers were doing the same, often on a much larger scale and with more destruction.

The raids and captures were part of a complicated cycle of retaliation driven by everything from religious conflicts to political expulsions and economic motivations on both sides. The classic “clash of civilizations” narrative often thrown around doesn’t capture this fundamental historical reality.

A Fuller Perspective

By bringing back this forgotten context, we can get a fuller picture of a complicated historical period that doesn’t just boil down to talking points in today’s debates about immigration or religious issues. This dangerous approach breeds intolerance and leads to conflicts. What we truly need is to fully understand historical events in their proper context so we can learn from them and bridge the gaps rather than deepen divisions.

**This blog post was inspired by Paul’s Blogging Theology video “Barbary Pirates EXPLAINED—What the West Won't Tell You.” I highly recommend subscribing to his Youtube Channel if you like historical and religious discussions away from modern influences.

If you're curious about the history of slavery in Islamic contexts, check out Professor Jonathan A.C. Brown’s book “Slavery in Islam,” which offers deep insights into this often misunderstood topic.

Unnecessary spiritual practices and unsafe movements are enough to reconsider yoga as your fitness choice. Yoga disadvantages don't stop there; we will discuss more of that later, but it’s essential to point out the need for safer alternatives that align with your beliefs and prioritize safety.

Pilates is one alternative to consider. This method focuses on core strength, flexibility, and control without incorporating spiritual elements. Unlike yoga, Pilates provides a full-body workout with lower injury risks. Yoga, in contrast, places greater emphasis on spirituality and mindfulness, often sidelining physical fitness, strength training, and safety.

History of Yoga and Pilates

Yoga, which means “union” or “contact with god,” is an ancient Indian practice combining physical, mental, and spiritual disciplines. It dates back over 5,000 years and is deeply intertwined with Hindu scriptures and philosophies. Each yoga posture, or asana, has religious or philosophical significance, often representing devotion to specific deities or concepts. For instance, the Sun Salutation (Surya Namaskar) is a ritual involving a series of poses performed to honor the Hindu sun god.

Pilates, on the other hand, has no spiritual or religious origins. Developed in the 1920s by German physical trainer Joseph Pilates, this method was designed to improve physical health through controlled movements. It is a structured fitness system that emphasizes core strength, proper alignment, and body awareness, focusing entirely on physical well-being.

Why Pilates Over Yoga

Many people believe they can practice yoga without engaging in its spiritual aspects. However, yoga often involves unnecessary appreciation for mythical deities and ancient philosophies, which some may find inappropriate for a simple physical activity. Additionally, yoga poses that push the body beyond natural alignment can lead to serious injuries.

Even yoga’s breathing exercises, which might seem harmless, can lead to complications due to unnatural breathing patterns. In contrast, Pilates promotes natural, controlled breathing techniques. While it is possible to modify yoga to suit your needs, why take the risk when Pilates already offers a safe, effective, and well-established routine?

Yoga’s Alternative Poses in Pilates

Pilates can deliver all the physical benefits of yoga more effectively and safely. Nearly every yoga pose has a safer alternative in Pilates.

For example, the Child’s Pose in yoga can be replaced with the Shell Stretch in Pilates. Both are similar, but the Shell Stretch promotes proper hip alignment and reduces lower back strain. While the Child’s Pose involves wide-leg positioning and rotated hips, the Shell Stretch keeps the legs together, with pointed feet and properly aligned joints. Whether Joseph Pilates borrowed this pose or not, he clearly improved it by applying modern fitness principles.

Another reason to choose Pilates over yoga is quicker results. Because Pilates is a more intense exercise than yoga (except for some variations like power yoga), you will notice improvement much faster and with greater muscle toning, especially in the core.

Pilates is also easier to follow, especially for beginners and those with limitations. Not much can go wrong when you don't have to bend like a pretzel just to stretch your thighs.

Benefits of Pilates

Pilates offers numerous physical and mental health benefits:

• Enhances flexibility and strengthens muscles, particularly the core (abs, lower back, hips, and glutes).

• Balances muscle strength on both sides of the body.

• Improves posture and spinal alignment.

• Helps prevent or correct muscle imbalances and injuries.

• Boosts coordination, balance, and body awareness.

• Relaxes the shoulders and neck, promoting stress relief and relaxation.

Final Thoughts

Choosing the right fitness routine is crucial for your body and goals. Don’t follow trends blindly. Take the time to identify your fitness level, goals, and personal preferences before committing to a program. Always listen to your body and prioritize safety.

At the heart of the pro-Palestine movement are different reasons that motivate many people to get involved. So, let's dive into the question: Why do people support Palestine?

• Is it about standing against injustice?

• Is it about aiming for visibility and influence?

• Or is there a hidden agenda behind it all?

Unpacking the Pro-Palestine Motives

Most people who are pro-Palestine genuinely want to help. Regular people usually feel compassion and don’t have any hidden motives. But some might take the pro-Palestine stance to push their own agenda. Aligning with a popular cause gets them more attention. Recent events in Syria have shown us just that. Since the Syrian opposition started fighting against Assad's regime on November 27th, pro-Palestine voices on social media, especially on X (formerly Twitter), have been split in their support. (1)

Many social media voices use Palestinian suffering to further unrelated agendas.

Take Jackson Hinkle, for instance. He’s a big advocate for Palestine but also supports controversial regimes like Assad’s in Syria, plus countries like Russia and China, which are often linked to serious crimes. This brings up the question of whether his support for Palestine is more about his political views than truly standing with the Palestinian people (2).

Supporting oppression elsewhere contradicts anti-oppression stances.

Assad’s regime has committed awful crimes against its own people, using chemical weapons, torture, and killings. This regime, like Israel, came into power through force and against the majority will. You can’t claim to be against oppression in one case while backing it in another. (3)(4)

Evidence from Syria shows destruction similar to Gaza’s devastation.

Photos from places like Homs and Aleppo show destruction that’s shockingly similar to what we see happening in Gaza. Both regimes have intentionally bombed civilian areas.

Parallels with pro-Israel justifications

Supporters of Assad and Israel both use similar tactics to justify the atrocities committed by their respective regimes. One similar instance is Israel’s use of the “Pallywood” conspiracy theory, claiming that footage of Palestinian suffering is all staged. Similar propaganda has been used against Syria’s White Helmets, who are depicted as instruments of Western intervention rather than genuine humanitarian responders. (5)

Polls reveal most Palestinians support the Syrian revolution.

This is where things get a bit sticky. Polls show that 83% of Palestinians are in favor of the Syrian rebels fighting against Assad. (6). This puts pro-Palestine supporters who also back Assad in a tough spot. How can you claim to side with Palestinians when your views on these national aspirations don’t even align with Palestinians?

Conspiracy Theories and Alleged Israeli Support

There’s a popular notion among Assad supporters that anyone against him, including rebels, gets support from Israel. But there’s no real proof for this. Just because Israel is involved doesn’t make one side right or wrong. The support from Israel complicates things rather than clarifying them. Historically, Israel has supported groups like Hamas to create division among Palestinians. They might be doing something similar with Syria now. However, ignoring any help from Israel might just be a mistake for both Hamas and the Syrian rebels, as this could leave them disregarded.

It’s interesting that Assad allied himself with the Kurdish militia that’s supported by the US. It really looks like he’s okay teaming up with just about anyone but the Syrian opposition, which is a pretty strange stance to take. Really makes you wonder about his motives.

Pro-Palestine is Still a Genuine Cause

Even with all the different political stories and agendas tied up in the pro-Palestine movement, at its heart, it’s really about fighting for the rights and dignity of Palestinians. Being pro-Palestine should just mean standing up against unfairness and supporting everyone’s right to live with respect. It’s also important to be consistent about fairness everywhere. Those loud few who try to take over the pro-Palestine message shouldn't get to you. Instead, let that be a reminder for all of us to keep our eyes on the true values of the movement and show that through what we do.

During a recent interview with an Egyptian television channel, Hamas leader Fathi Hammad sparked controversy by claiming that half of the Palestinians are Saudi and the other half are Egyptian. He expressed frustration over the lack of support from other Arab countries for Gaza. While his statement may have been intended to appeal to Arab solidarity and garner support for the Hamas-ruled territory, it is crucial to examine the historical accuracy of his claim. (1)

Historical Context and Complex Heritage

Firstly, it's important to note that Fathi Hammad is a political figure, not a historian. Which means his expertise is in politics, not in history.

Palestinian ancestry is far more intricate than a simple 50/50 split between Egyptians and Saudis. If you ask if Palestinians have Arab origin, the answer would be both yes and no. When Muslims conquered Palestine in the 7th century, the region was already populated, primarily by Christians. Muslim rulers did not expel them, nor did they colonize the land. Although Arab immigration occurred, it was mostly organic and insignificant. (2)

What we see in history is an organic mix of indigenous people with immigrants and those from nearby lands, like Egypt and Syria. We also see conversion to Islam and this cultural evolution that is known as Arabization. But the Arabs did not just appear in Palestine in the 7th century. The Nabataeans were Arabs who inhabited Jordan and Palestine in the 3rd century (3). The Natufians, ancestors of modern Arabs, lived in Palestine as early as 12,000 BC (4).

So Arabs have always been part of the land. After the Islamic conquest, the Arabization of Palestine happened as a gradual process until the population was almost entirely culturally Arab.

Cultural and Genetic Integration

Palestinians today are the result of millennia of cultural and genetic mixing involving various peoples who lived, settled, and invaded the land. This is not unique to Palestine; societies globally have undergone similar processes. Modern Egypt, for instance, is a product of ancient Egyptians intermingling with Arabs, Nubians, Greeks, and others. Similarly, the population of Spain reflects a mix of Roman, Visigoth, Moorish, and other influences.

The idea that Palestinians must maintain racial purity to be considered indigenous is untenable. No society can sustain genetic homogeneity over centuries, especially smaller populations. Isolation could lead to inbreeding and genetic issues, threatening long-term survival.

The Al-Masri Surname: Evidence of Mixed Heritage

Hammad's argument about Palestinian origins relies heavily on the presence of the Al-Masri surname, which means 'the Egyptian.' This simplistic approach overlooks the complexity of historical and genealogical ties. Surnames can be acquired through various means, including marriage and migration. Therefore, having the Al-Masri surname does not definitively indicate Egyptian ancestry. It more likely signifies intermarriage and cultural blending over generations.

Even if a significant number of Al-Masri families moved to Palestine, they would have inevitably integrated with the local population. The presence of shared surnames with neighboring countries is common globally and does not undermine a people's indigenous identity.

According to Forebears, there are approximately 22,000 Palestinians with the Al-Masry surname. That is not even close to half of the population.

Final Thought.

Hammad is a controversial figure who hasn’t always used appropriate language to represent the Palestinian viewpoint (5), and his sloppy remarks don’t align with history or with how Palestinians perceive their origin. When we discuss history, we should cite historical records, reputable historians, and academic works. We should not base historical narratives on what politicians say.

"The last hour would not come unless the Muslims would fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree, and a stone or a tree would say, 'O Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him,’ but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.” (Sahih Muslim 2922). (1)

This hadith is misunderstood and taken out of context. In this post, I will try to clarify this prophecy

Prophecy, Not a Call to Action

First, it is vital to understand that this hadith is a prophecy about future events, not a present-day command. In Islam, prophecies describe events that will naturally unfold, not actions for believers to pursue. The best testament to that is the fact that Jews lived among Muslims for centuries. Furthermore, Muslims saved Jews throughout history from many threats. Historians even argue that Muslims saved Jews from extinction. (2)

Many Islamic scholars see this hadith in the context of the false Messiah (Dajjal). This suggests that the prophecy pertains to a specific period of great turmoil rather than our current times. The focus is on a future scenario involving significant eschatological events.

Battle, Not Random Killing

The hadith explicitly mentions the word "fight," indicating a battle rather than random acts of violence. This distinction frames the event as a specific conflict, not a blanket justification for hostility or violence against Jews today. So, in other words, the hadith is merely saying that at the end of times, there will be a battle between Muslims and Jews, and the victorious Muslims will kill the Jews they fought. There is nothing in the Hadith that implies any event outside the prophesied battlefield.

Not Referring to All Jews

The hadith doesn't state that all Jews will be involved. The definite article "the" before the proper noun "Jews" could linguistically mean the entire group (both in the original Arabic and the English translation). But that's not the case in this Hadith. An event that would involve killing all Jews in the world would be significant enough to mention all Jews in the world explicitly.

The text rather refers to a specific group of Jews. This is similar to the Bible's reference to "the Egyptians" chasing Moses (peace be upon him), which specifically means Pharaoh's army, not every Egyptian. In Exodus 14:9, it says, "The Egyptians pursued them, all Pharaoh’s horses and chariots and horsemen and troops." (2)

The Talking Stones and Trees

The references to trees and stones speaking are not necessarily literal. Many scholars suggest that these descriptions are metaphorical, for example, specific trees or shapes of stones (buildings) serving as markers where Jews would be hiding. But many scholars also speak about that being a miraculous event.

Hamas’s Official Position

The founder of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, stated in an interview that their conflict is not with Jews because they are Jews, but with those who kicked them out of their homes, who happened to be Jews. (3)

Even when some Hamas officials made broader claims, the movement’s leadership distanced themselves from such statements. (4)

1. Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Hadith 6985.

2. Exodus 14:9, The Bible

This is a loaded question that Israelis and their supporters pose in an innocent tone. A question that carries an entire narrative to dehumanize Palestinians and blame the Arabs for their dispossession. The answer they imply is that there is something fundamentally wrong with Palestinians that makes them unwanted, while blaming Arab countries for not doing enough. Let us examine the claim and see if these implications hold up.

Similar Propaganda Was Used Against Jews

We would expect Jews to be the last to make such dehumanizing comments, given their own experience of dehumanization in Nazi Germany. Would it be fair to ask why Jews were expelled from so many places throughout history in a similar loaded tone? From the Neo-Assyrian Empire to Nazi Germany, the examples are endless. Negative comments and talking points have led to the persecution of Jews and many other minorities throughout history.

Arab Countries Like Jordan Already Have Palestinian Citizens

Contrary to the narrative that Arab countries reject Palestinians because they are perceived as dangerous to their societies, Jordan's Palestinians have been there for decades. They are not just refugees but citizens and an integrated part of Jordanian society, with many even holding government positions like Anwar Bey Nuseibeh.

Arab Countries Are Dictatorships

It's interesting how people quickly forget who actually holds power in Arab countries. Most, if not all, Arab governments today have inherited their thrones from their colonial masters in the 20th century. The people had no say in this process. It is unfair to suggest that these dictatorships represent their nations when they endorse anti-Palestinian policies.

Hosting an Entire Population

And here lies a fundamental question: why should any country bear the burden of a conflict not of its own making? Hosting and integrating a displaced population goes far beyond mere hospitality, as countries must deal with significant economic and social costs. This is a massive undertaking, especially for nations already having enough internal challenges.

Why are Arab countries burdened with this responsibility? Which logic says that Arab countries must be a backyard for Israel to dump unwanted populations?

Depopulation of Palestine

Now, let’s address the elephant in the room: If Arab countries endorsed an open border policy to welcome all refugees Israel decides to expel, wouldn’t that encourage Israel to expel more Palestinians? The Israeli Law of Return clearly states that only Jews can return. Therefore, Palestinians who are forced out, or who leave willingly, may not return ever again. For this reason alone, Arab countries are justified in closing their borders, and they definitely have no obligation to please the colonial ambitions of another nation.

Palestinians Were Expelled Many Times

Israeli supporters use this rhetoric as an example of Palestinians failing to coexist with other societies. Arab countries did expel Palestinians on multiple occasions because some Palestinians used violence to try to go back to their lands. They accused Arab governments of collaborating with Israel to prevent them from returning, which created tensions and eventually resulted in expelling Palestinians to other countries.

But then Israeli supporters falsely accuse Arab governments of expelling Jews in 1948. Except, here we get a contradictory narrative, blaming the Arab governments for carrying out an injustice against the poor Jews. But when Arab governments did the same to Palestinians, the blame was on the Palestinians, not on Arab governments. Can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Palestinians Betrayed Their Host Countries

We occasionally hear statements like these: Palestinians tried to overthrow the monarchy in Jordan, or Palestinians were expelled from Kuwait for supporting Saddam Hussein. While it's true that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) viewed the Jordanian regime as a barrier to Palestinian repatriation and admired Saddam’s pro-Palestine stance, these actions do not inherently define all Palestinians. Like any other group, Palestinians support those who advocate for their cause and distance themselves from those who oppose it.

Would it be fair to apply the same standards to Jews in Arab countries who collaborated with Israel to sabotage the entire country, like in the Lavon Affair, for example?

Dehumanizing Palestinians

These types of arguments aim to dehumanize Palestinians and eventually justify the atrocities committed against them. It also aims to paint Israel as a victim of the unwanted population and their Arab neighbors as evil entities that aren’t doing enough to help uproot Palestinians from their lands.