Pakistan and
Israel: Estranged Cousins or Eternal Foes?
By Mohammad A Chaudhry
Pittsburg, CA
Honestly speaking, if an Israeli
Jew were to ask a Pakistani Muslim in America
one blunt question, “What wrong Israel personally
has done to Pakistan that you hate Israel so much?”
an instant No, followed by, but… would be
the natural response. But, any such answer could
also act as a trap. If the answer were that Islam
is an egalitarian religion, therefore, all Muslims
are brothers to each other. Aggression against
Palestinians is aggression against all Muslims.
This could be easily proven wrong, because no
such love exists between Muslim countries on the
one hand and among Muslims within one country
on the other hand. True, Islam and its essential
spirit have been totally absent from the life
of Muslims for quite some time now.
Fifty-six Muslim countries hardly ever agree on
one agenda. Pakistanis themselves had abandoned
and disowned some 238,000 stranded Pakistanis
in 1972 to rot in some 66 camps where such inhuman
conditions exist that women have to wait two hours
to have access to what is called a toilet. Their
biggest sin being that during the 1971 war they
had sided with Pakistan!
Bengali Muslims have dehumanized them persistently
because they do not speak Bengali, and have kept
them in the harshest possible conditions; and
Pakistanis had been too busy with Kashmiris, Afghanis
and Palestinians to think about them. Sectarian
violence in Pakistan hardly smacks even an iota
of the egalitarianism that Muslims are so fond
of listening to in every Friday khutba. Religious
leaders are more sensitive than a barometer to
register what Pakistan thinks about Israel and
Palestine because like the Kashmir and the Afghanistan
issue, it is an endless source for them for exploiting
people, charging them with hatred and inciting
them to resort to violence. More pressing issues
- like lack of social justice, absence of basic
necessities and existence of inhuman hygienic
conditions that exist in the backyard - hardly
ever figure prominently in their scheme of things.
And if the answer is that it is in the Holy Qur’an
that the Jews and Christians cannot be true friends
to Muslims, then we endorse what they repeatedly
say that violence and terrorism get sanctified
by the Qur’an. The sin committed here is
double. First we do not try to understand ourselves
the Holy Qur’an and its eternal message
for mankind, and rely too much for its meanings
on the interpretations made by our religious leaders
who often approach it with tainted glasses, and
second we strengthen the misperceptions of non-Muslims
about Islam and the Qur’an by saying what
they love to hear. The Qur’an honors every
human being on the sole merit of being a human
being, and acknowledges diversity as a part of
the Scheme of God, and mentions Jews and Children
of Israel some fifty times, Moses 137 times and
Torah eighteen times. The Qur’an, in fact,
heaps generous praise upon them, and also a fair
share of blame and rebuke. The Qur’anic
rebuke of them is either historically contextual,
or it is so because they did something that the
Qur’an deems in conflict with their religion.
The Bible does that in several of its passages.
The Qur’an does not condemn the Jews as
a people, nor does it denigrate or laud any ethnic
group or race. In fact, the Qur’an acknowledges
that it were the Jews who were the only bearers
of monotheism in a world, which was essentially
pagan or idolatrous. Territorial, ethnic, racial
or political disputes are a different matter.
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS OR NATURAL ALLIES
In the words of Mr. Hasan Abbas (Pakistan’s
Drift into Extremism), “No single factor
has stoked the fires of hate in Muslim countries
as have the US policies affecting Israel and the
Palestinians.” Pakistan is not an Arab country,
and is geographically located far from the scene
of conflict.
Logically Pakistan should have been the last to
harbor anti-American feelings of the strain and
virulence of those harbored by many Arabs. And
in the early days of Pakistan’s history
it did happen so. Israel and Pakistan and America
came into being in identical circumstances in
many ways, says Stephen Philip Cohen: each was
founded by a minority that felt threatened; each
wanted a homeland where they could practice their
religion unhindered by the State. In his words,
Israel is more like Pakistan. Both originated
in a Diaspora located some distance from the eventual
homeland, hence mass-scale migration; both were
based on persecuted religious minorities and both
have been less than just toward their own sectarian
and religious minorities, (Israel towards Palestinians
and Pakistan towards Shias, Ahmedis and Christians
etc); both faced external threats (Israel from
the Arab countries and Pakistan from India), and
both had an identity crisis. The biggest similitude
in these two countries has been that both owe
their creation to an idea; both follow the religion
of Prophet Abraham and both believe in the Oneness
of God, which ought to have led the true followers
of the Abrahamic Tradition to the oneness of humanity.
It did not happen so, because diversity, which
has been a major factor in the Scheme of God,
became an early casualty.
Both had secular founding fathers: Ben Gurion
and Quaid-i-Azam could be anything but religious
zealots. Both faced opposition from the religious
elements in the beginning, but later the same
very elements found it prudent to overtake the
state they had opposed so strongly. Anti-Israeli
rhetoric has always been an integral part of all
election campaigns in Pakistan, so is the rhetoric
of the bogey of Arab domination and security threats
in Israeli elections.
It was the public humiliation of Captain Dreyfus,
a Jew in Paris in January 1895 when the crowd
shouted, “Kill the traitor! Kill the Jew”,
which inspired Theodor Herzl with the vision of
Zionism. Similarly it was the public humiliation
of Quaid-i-Azam in December, 1920 at Nagpur session
where the Congress delegates attempted to force
the Quaid to address Mr. Gandhi, his seven year
junior as, Mahatama, and bereft him of all honors,
and even refused to listen to him. That marked
the end of the Quaid’s trust in Hindu leadership.
Israel and Pakistan, both had been playing Romeo
and Juliet with each other secretly since day
one of their creation, and Dr. P. R. Kumaraswamy
traces the history of this hide-and-seek game
rather interestingly. Every major leader of Pakistan
has met, interacted or has sought a modus vivendi
with the Jewish state. It was Israel that took
the initiative and sent a formal request for diplomatic
recognition to the Quaid, but it did not go through
because of the Arab sentiments and Pakistan’s
first solid stand for the Palestinian cause.
Ch. Zafarullah Khan, the first foreign minister
of Pakistan did oppose the partition of Palestine,
but after the creation of Israel he vehemently
urged the Arabs to be pragmatic. As early as April
1952, Ch. Zafarullah Khan and Abba Eban, the then
Israeli ambassador in Washington, met formally,
which act was repeated in the following January
of 1953.During the Suez conflict, Pakistan maintained
a realistic position by remaining pro-Western,
and opposed Nasser who never minced matter when
it came to claiming his friendship with Nehru,
with complete disregard to Pakistan’s feelings.
On the Kashmir issue he did not hesitate to make
a blunt statement, saying that Kashmir was as
important to India as Sinai was for Egypt. It
is customary with the ME countries to jilt Pakistan
when it needs them most.
General Zia who presented himself as the champion
of the Palestinian cause as Brigadier was personally
involved in supervising a crackdown on the Palestinians
in 1970. At one point it was he who suggested
to the PLO to recognize the Jewish State. In the
1984 OIC meeting in Casablanca, it was Gen. Zia
who successfully maneuvered the re-entry of Egypt
into the Organization, and thus broke the isolation
of Egypt, which had established diplomatic relations
with Israel.
It was during Gen. Zia’s time that the CIA
had the biggest office in Islamabad, and the Israeli
generals often acted as advisors in the war against
Russia.
Benazir and Mian Nawaz Sharif, both gave indications
from time to time during their tenure to deal
with Israel rather openly. In 1994, Benazir’s
intended visit to the newly created Palestinian
Authority in Gaza Strip ended in a fiasco solely
because she forgot that all roads to Gaza still
passed through Tel Aviv. However, a few weeks
later, Pakistan did present itself at the ceremony
marking the signing of the Israel-Jordanian Treaty
in the Arava. In January 1992 India formally recognized
Israel, an act which Pakistan could have pre-empted,
had it not been a victim of Arab pressures from
outside, and of indigenous zealots at home.
Even some clergies attributed this new relationship
between India and Israel to Israel’s displeasure
with Pakistan over the absence of relations. Conscious
of the importance of such relations with Israel,
ambassador Abida Hussain, publicly spoke in favor
of a dialogue with Israel and her colleague in
the UN mission even attended a diplomatic reception
hosted by the Israeli ambassador in New York.
On the assassination of Robin in November 1995,
Pakistan issued an official statement condemning,
“all acts of terrorism”, with Bhutto
drawing a parallel between Robin’s assassination
and the hanging of her father by Zia.
In 1996, she hinted that Pakistan could modify
its position toward Israel, subject to the peace
progress in the ME, and she even thanked Israel
and its friends in the US for their help in the
supply of F-16 fighters to Pakistan, and to the
partial lifting of the nuclear proliferation related
arms embargo imposed on Pakistan.
When Pakistan went nuclear in 1998, Islamabad
did assure Israel that Pakistan was a responsible
player and that it would not transfer nuclear
technology or weapons to any “third country
or entity”; by entity was meant the Palestinian
authority. Quite a few Pakistani ministers appeared
on Israeli television to reiterate their country’s
commitment against the transfer of nuclear weapons.
The good thing is that Israel is convinced that
a nuclear Pakistan is not inimical to Israel.
It was even revealed that during the height of
the Soviet opposition of Afghanistan, Israel did
maintain a “permanent representation”
in Islamabad. Credit goes to Pakistan’s
Foreign Service officers who in comparison to
India’s have always been more creative,
result-oriented and risk-taking. They always kept
the doors open. Even Pakistani leaders had all
along been pragmatic toward Israel. They never
lost sight that all paths to Washington passed
through Tel Aviv, and the best way to curry favors
with Washington was to act upon the saying, “love
me love my dog”.
PAKISTAN’S OPTIONS
On September1, 2005 when Israel and Pakistan held
their first-ever high-level talks in a bid to
normalize ties, it was not much of a surprise
to many. Buoyed by Israel’s ties with Arabs
and Muslim States in general Israeli foreign minister,
Mr. Silvan Shalom and his Pakistani counterpart,
Mr. Khurshid Kasuri finally met for what they
called, “historic talks”.
Mr. Shalom saw in this meeting the beginning of
a new period and Mr. Kasuri read in it the promise
of a positive response from the Muslim countries
if the imperatives of peace in Palestinian issue
were observed.
Earlier, when President Musharraf while talking
to a German weekly, Der Spiegel, called PM Sharon
“a great soldier and a courageous leader,”
it was definitely not like one general praising
another general. In June 2003, he had asked the
Pakistani public, “We should not overact
on this issue. We should give a serious consideration.
It is a sensitive issue”. His logic was
convincing when he said, “We fought three
wars with India, but still had diplomatic relations”,
and in an implied sense he also meant that Pakistan
had never fought a war against Israel.
It would be naïve on the part of Pakistan
to stay complacent by remaining estranged with
Israel when it has bonded itself so closely with
India. The crescendo of India-Israel relations
has been when Israeli PM Mr. Sharon visited India
for the first time in September 2003.
Dr. Kumaraswamy is right when he says that Pakistan
would not be the first country in the Muslim world
to establish diplomatic relations with Israel.
Pakistan has four models to choose from.
• The Turkish model: Pakistan can recognize
Israel without establishing diplomatic relations
immediately.
• The Iranian model: It can follow the precedent
set by the Shah of Iran and recognize the Jewish
state, and maintain its relations under wraps.
• The Jordanian model: It can imitate the
Jordanians and maintain close political as well
as military relations with the Jewish state without
granting any official recognition.
• The Chinese model: It can adopt the Chinese
example and view military contacts as a means
of promoting political relations.
Pakistan should follow its own model, a synthesis
of all the above, pursued in result-oriented phases,
and close to the one which Dr. Kumaraswamy forgets
to mention, the Egyptian model.
Whatever the imperatives and compulsions, President
Musharraf deserves special recognition for stoking
the old fires with a view to solving rather than
keeping them under the rug, such issues as the
presence of religious extremism; Pakistan’s
direct involvement in Kashmir and Afghanistan,
and Pakistan’s relationship with India,
and now with Israel. Every political leader in
Pakistan dared not touch these time bombs, because
in them they clearly read the writ of their political
demise.
President Musharraf would be the first Muslim
leader of international stature, and head of a
Muslim nuclear country to address the Council
for World Jewry in New York, another bold step.
The time for drawing-room politics is over. Muslims
must come out of the closet and present themselves
as the enlightened and moderate people who love
peace as much as anybody else.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
