Pakistan and Israel: Through the prism of realities

When it comes to making decisions which base heavily on emotions and rarely on rationale, Pakistan emerges first to strike the mind. At crucial times when we need to take steps of national importance, we have a knack of elevating emotions to the driving seat while pragmatism is made to watch the proceedings from the back seat. One of many issues that we treat emotionally is of recognition of Israel.

This is a subject that has never been open to public or media debate in Pakistan though the question has always been there since the birth of Israel. A request for recognition which was formally placed by Tel Aviv in 1948, is still pending with Islamabad.

Despite some striking ideological parallels between Pakistan and Israel, rightly summed up by General Ziaul Haq that both Pakistan and Israel are products of ideologies — and this incontrovertible fact that Pakistan does not have any border or political dispute with Israel, we continue to be baffled by the question of recognition.

General Pervez Musharraf’s view aired on May 29th on Geo television channel that Pakistan should seriously think of recognizing Israel, expectedly attracted a lot of controversy. The test-flight of his inference ran into crosswinds blowing from religious quarters. Former prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto had also checked the waters by putting this question to the test of public opinion. But right from our first foreign minister Sir Zafrulla Khan to President Pervez Musharraf, this question has always been conditioned upon the creation of an independent Palestine state — a prerequisite which acts as a buffer against explosion of political or public ire. We need to explore some fundamental dimensions of the situation to understand the problems that inhibit us from adopting a logical attitude towards this issue.

The entire movement of Pakistan derived strength from Islam and the country was created in the name of this very religion. Thus, the nation which shaped up during the process of that movement, groomed with the creation of a Muslim country, finally matured with a built-in responsibility of safeguarding Muslims around the globe. The nation which fought its war all by its own for a separate homeland, became self-appointed guardian of Islam and set itself no limit for selflessness. Islamic cause, therefore, has been the hallmark of Pakistan’s foreign policy in any given period of time. Pakistan always offered itself to be the main source of opposition to any activity detrimental to Muslims anywhere.

Right from the condemnation of 1917’s Balfour Declaration to appreciation of 1993’s Oslo accord, Pakistan always behaved like the first party to Palestinians’ dispute with Israel, instead of ever taking up the issue from a proper perspective of a third party which actually it is. Pakistan’s role of unending source of energy for Kashmiris, its committed fight against Red Army in Afghanistan and its untiring support to Palestine is part of its sincerity with which the theory of Ummah is entertained by this 140-million strong nation. But the concept of Ummah, unfortunately, is nowhere subscribed by others so vigorously as Pakistan.

We delightfully took up the duty of unconditionally supporting Kashmiris in their fight against Indian oppression and continue to stand by Kashmiris to this moment despite intense Indian and international pressure. But no other Muslim country nor the OIC took any serious or notable step to help mitigate the sufferings of Muslims living in Kashmir.

The Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) despite having 57 countries on board and innumerable problematic issues faced by many of its members, has effectively reduced itself to only one issue and that is Palestine. If 13 million Muslims of Kashmir are ignored to maintain an indivisible focus on three millions of Palestine because Palestinian Muslims are Arab and Kashmiris are non-Arab, than OIC itself should be abolished immediately because it is against Islam.

Prophet Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him), clearly stated in his famous last sermon on the ninth day of Zul Haj (10 AH) that: "An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab..., except by piety and good action." If still OIC has to be only a Palestinian mouthpiece and Arabs should still be concerned to Muslims from their own backyard only, than Pakistan has every reason to exempt itself from self-moratorium on acting in self-interest.

And it is equally criminal if the OIC does not support Kashmiri Muslims for political reasons which, unfortunately, is a glaring fact. In the Foreign Ministers’ Conference of the OIC in June 2002, stage was all set for India’s admission to the OIC despite Pakistan’s serious objection to the move. Paperwork had been readied and a press conference had been arranged for a formal announcement of a Hindu state’s inclusion in the organization of Islamic countries. Finally, it was the decision of the government of Pakistan to quit the organization in protest which barred India from making it to the OIC. This highlights the commitment of the OIC towards Ummah. India does house more Muslims than Pakistan, but still it’s not an Islamic State.

In order to make another attempt to fix the puzzle of Arab-Muslim-Israel relations, we will need another breakup of this breakdown to make some sense of it. Let us examine the entire geopolitical chessboard with a different perspective, making Palestine an issue neither Palestinian, nor Arab but an Islamic one and try to find out what responsibility lies with whom.

Palestine-Israel issue aggravated from the announcement of 1917’s Balfour Declaration — a letter of understanding which was sent by the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Arthur James Balfour, to Lord Rothschild, paving way for the creation of Israel. The declaration of support for a Jewish state in Palestine was aimed at procuring support of the Jews so that the Jews in the United States and Russia (USSR) would influence their governments to support the British cause and its allies in the First World War. The Balfour Declaration proved a shot in the arm for the Jewish movement for an independent state and Israel appeared on world map on May 14, 1948. In this period of 31 years, all the Islamic countries produced only scattered opposition to Balfour Declaration and no unified and concrete resistance was put up by the Islamic world. After its creation, Arabs fought five wars against Israel but the reasons were divided between the Muslim/Palestine cause and neighbourhood disputes.

Desires do not produce results unless supplemented by practical steps. Absence of a concerted effort gave birth to Israel which grew stronger and stronger with every passing day. Today’s Israel, we like it or not, is a force to reckon with and simply cannot be wished away. And given the current state of affairs of Islamic world, the Jewish country is all set to keep its existence intact. We can still continue with our disorganized protest against Israel which may only delay a solution to the issue and prolong the sufferings of not only Palestine, but the entire Muslims world. Time has rolled on to think about eliminating Israel from the map of the world, yet we still have time to cogitate how not to lose our young generation anymore in suicide bombing campaigns. Or at least for the time being, we need to pause for a while, think about our strengths and weaknesses, put our acts together and fortify our vigor to launch any meaningful push against Israel.

We should also think of what sort of assistance was offered to Pakistan from Muslim countries when we were in the throes of partition in 1947 and in the wars of 1965 and 1971 with India? Where do the OIC and the Arab League stand with regard to Pakistan’s Kashmir stand?

All the Arab countries have strong political and trade relations with India due to which they do not utter any word against Indian atrocities in Kashmir. OIC’s sympathies for Kashmiri Muslims are strictly confined to mere lip-service and Kashmir problem is viewed by all the Muslim countries, including Palestine, a purely bilateral dispute between India and Pakistan. With such a situation at hand, selflessness amounts to self-destruction.

Pakistan’s religious community is vehemently against anything which may near Islamabad and Tel Aviv and it has undoubtedly one of the most strongest argument to shoot down any move of normalization of ties with the Jewish state. Its argument is based on the Quran in which Allah Almighty prohibits believers from extending hand of friendship to non-believers.

In Sura Al Maeda, chapter#5, verse#51 of the Quran, Allah Almighty orders: "O you who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians as friends...." The order is paraphrased in verse#57 of the same chapter.

With these indisputable instructions from the divine in point, a debate, in any sense whatsoever, does not intend to build a counter-argument. Yet, it does raise doubts about our own commitment as to how religiously and honestly we carry out these orders.

The holy verses quoted above clearly forbids friendship not only with Jews, but also with Christians. Yet we still recognize and have full-fledged relations with almost every Christian country on the face of the earth. If the Quran is to be the only source of guidance for our actions, than we should depend on this divine document wholeheartedly, not partially. Half of the order which suites us is overlooked very conveniently whereas the other half is shamelessly used for a purpose which may very well be politically polluted. The only meaningful utility of Israel for us has been to discredit political opponents or unearth Indo-Israel nexus against Pakistan.

There is no denying of the fact that Israel has been active with India against Pakistan. But this is also a fact that Israel never undertook any step against Pakistan on its own. Emotions apart, sending anti-terror experts to assist India in Kashmir or arming New Delhi with hi-tech weapons is a moral responsibility and a business opportunity for Tel Aviv. This partnership may constitute a danger to Pakistan’s security, but it can not be termed Israel’s malevolence towards Pakistan for Israel is discharging its responsibilities as a friend of India which any friend ought to be doing anyway. And if it is only for malice against Pakistan that Israel sells its military hardware to India, it would have never sold its high-tech weaponry to China.

Even the possibility and the danger of a much-publicized pre-emptive Indo-Israel action against Pakistan’s nuclear assets need to be carefully examined before filing a charge-sheet against Israel. Countless reports are on the record that with the help of India, Israel had been planning Osirak-type strikes on Pakistan’s prime nuclear research laboratory in Kahota. While Israel and India did study the risk Pakistan’s nuclear programme posed to both the countries, the dimension of the risk was different to New Delhi and Tel Aviv and so was their reaction.

India is our immediate neighbor and thus the threat of an atomic bomb in the hands of an adverse neighbour was more relative and realistic to New Delhi. All the ingredients for the initiation of a conventional war, graduating into a nuclear conflict, were in abundance. On the other hand, Israel was neither involved in any border dispute with Pakistan nor there was any direct political dispute as such which necessitated Israel’s extreme step against Pakistan. Though a report surfaced back in 1983 that then defence and foreign minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, presently the prime minister, had discussed with his Indian friends to plan a joint attack on Kahota to destroy its nuclear programme which was under development at that time, it should be noticed that it was India which approached Israel with a plan and provoked it for such an action.

A team of Indian experts was dispatched by Mrs. Indira Gandhi to Israel soon after the later’s action against Iraq’s nuclear facility on 7th June 1981 to apprise Tel Aviv of another similar danger in embryo. Mr. Bharat Karnad, a defense analyst with Center for Policy Studies New Delhi, observed in his reports that the Indian defence scientists discussed with their Israeli counterparts about the possibility of an Iraq-type attack on Pakistan to get rid of an Islamic Bomb which was in the making at Kahota Research Laboratory (KRL).

Israel, as a matter of fact, had no danger from Pakistan’s atomic bomb. Yet it was always afraid of an Islamic Bomb — exactly what Pakistan had been innocently advertising around the globe. Right from the beginning of Pakistan’ nuclear programme back in 1974, Islamabad had been projecting it as an Islamic bomb. Israel’s concern was that an Islamic bomb, given Pakistan’s close relations with Arab countries, will eventually be in Arab hands where Israel is considered illegitimate. Action against Iraq was also based on this philosophy that no Arab country should be a conventional or nuclear threat to Israel’s existence.

Why Israel is not afraid of Pakistan’s nukes is a question which needs a logical examination. India attempted on many occasions to cajole Israel into attacking Kahuta but never committed, materially or physically, its own participation to this exercise. Israel was required, by the Indian theory, to do all the work itself while Indian role would be that of a consultant only. New Delhi knew that its nuclear, social and industrial infrastructure would be an open target of Pakistani’s conventional retaliatory response and Tel Aviv was aware of severe political fallout of such an extreme action against yet another Muslims country after Iraq.

Apart from political considerations and logistical constraints, action against Kahuta was never a technical possibility after 1984 when the KRL started to produce enriched uranium. Statement of a Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry spokesman on 6th July 1998 that "there was a real threat of attack on our installations on the night of 27th May...(the night after Pakistan conducted nuclear tests)," underlines the hype with which Indo-Israel nexus is blown out of proportions. Everyone knew that such an attack on such a time would wipe off not only almost the entire population of Pakistan and would affect Indian population as well, but Israel would also become the center of political radiation of this attack.

Islamabad and Tel Aviv are both in the possession of long-range missiles and none of them is safe from the other. Pakistan’s Ghauri III has been tested to do 2,700 kilometers, a range which could be increased to 3,500 kilometers with the adjustment of payload. Israel, on the other hand, has long ago tested its Jericho II to a range of 1,450 kilometers. But that’s not it! According to a former pentagon official familiar with Israel’s missile programme: "it’s safe to assume that the missile (Jericho II) hasn’t been tested to full range."

Moreover, Jerichos are fired from Shavit launcher which is powerful enough to make Jericho II travel to a distance of 4,500 kilometers. Israel is also believed to have Jericho III ready with a range up to 5,000 kilometers.

Which Jerichos and Ghauris able to hit Kahuta and Soreq (Israel’s equivalent of Kahuta) Tel Aviv and Islamabad are involved in a balance of terror even from a distance of over 3,500 kilometers.

But this balance of terror constituted by missiles, does not create any parity in the striking or bargaining positions of these two countries because Israel still has edge over Pakistan in the shape of its anti-missile defence system, Arrow II, which is considered one of the most sophisticated anti-ballistic missile system. This is the same system a vital component of which, according to the International Herald Tribune, had already been purchased by India in February this year.

A green signal is also expected to be given by Washington for the sale of Arrow II to India because the Department of Defense has already cleared that the "defensive nature" of the Arrow II does not breach Missile Technology Control Regime or MTCR — thereby, paving way for its shipment to India and letting both Tel Aviv and New Delhi escape from confinements of MTCR.

Another item for sale is Phalcon radar, an Airborne Early Warning, Command and Control System which Israel claims is superior to the US Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS). The Phalcon which is said to be a "close copy" of the US E-3 Sentry and which was denied to China in 2000 despite a deal closed as early as in 1996, is now being packed for New Delhi.

Despite Israel’s generous arms supply to India and its own mighty military muscles, Pakistan’s friendship still holds immense attraction for Tel Aviv. Its status as the only nuclear Islamic state is respected more in Israel than any other Muslim country. Though Pakistan tirelessly lobbied to project its nuclear capability for the entire Ummah, branding it an Islamic Bomb, it remained fail to sell this notion well in Muslim community. That Pakistan possesses the most advance and devastating war machine among Muslim countries is a fact which does not find many admirers in Muslim world. The due respect and regard which should have come to Pakistan automatically after becoming first Islamic nuclear power, was nowhere to be seen.

Instead, it was Israel which initiated a serious debate to win recognition of Pakistan because they view Pakistan as a bridge that could provide Israel with a shortcut to reach the heart of Muslim countries. Israeli think-thanks are of the view that despite its week standing and shabby reputation in the eyes of Islamic world, recognition of Pakistan may kick start a chain reaction and many other Muslim countries may also queue up to accord their recognition to Israel.

Moreover, first of a series of factors that makes Israel lenient towards Pakistan’s nuclear capability is its understanding of ground realities that given the current scheme of things, Pakistan will continue to be allowed to retain its nuclear capability on the condition of non-proliferation. It means that none of the Arab countries will ever become a nuclear power because of Pakistan. Addendum to this factor is another fact that the world community, especially Washington, will not like to let this impression build among the Muslim countries that while Christians, Jews and Hindus have their own nuclear bombs, Islamic world is being deliberately denied the most lethal technology of warfare. With Pakistan in the possession of nuclear and ballistic missile technologies and proving to be the most trusted and responsible ally from the Muslim world, international community saves itself from the blame of being racist and thus, puts to rest at least one reason of clash of civilizations.

Secondly, Tel Aviv also seems to be well aware of the change of hearts of Islamabad that instead of sharing its hard-earned nuclear know-how with other countries which may endanger its own nuclear status, it should keep the exclusive privilege of being the only nuclear power of Islamic world.

Now the question arises what Pakistan gets in response to recognizing Israel.

In order to estimate Israel’s importance for Pakistan, it needs to be viewed against the background of the United States. There are 52 major Jewish organizations in the United States who work through a coordinated network to promote interests of the Jewish state. Each of them has a chairman/CEO of its own and all of them are answerable to a joint head. Some of these pressure groups are rated among the top ten lobbying firms such as Washington-based America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and Tel Aviv-based Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a conservative defense think-tank whose board of directors includes many of President George W. Bush’s top national security advisors.

These lobbyists, through a well-structured system, implant their think-tanks in policy research institutes and recruit established and prominent political scientists from the same system the Capitol Hill banks on for guidance for its policy-making. This powerful intelligentsia which enjoys a great deal of influence over elected representatives, helps these firms spot pro-Israeli elements in the foreign and defence ministries and elevate them to decision-making positions.

Also working for Israel is a rather unnoticed and silent non-Jew bloc which comes from large Christian community which is dubbed Christian Conservatives and the persuasion is called Christian Zionism. As far as getting things work for Tel Aviv is concerned, Christian Conservatives are as good as Jews.

Apart from non-government officials working to dictate government policies, there are 11 Jews sitting in the Senate and 26 in the House of Representatives to take care of the well-being of over 5 million Jews of the United States and over 6 millions of Israel. Put everything together and you have a strong, large and influential lobbying army ready to work dedicatedly for Israel and its friends, i.e., India. One must not find it difficult to understand why Pakistan’s image is so badly tarnished in the capital of the world!

Now remove the US from the background and view Israel as an independent country and you come to know that Tel Aviv has on its disposal the 3rd most sophisticated military and the 5th biggest arms exporting apparatus. Israel’s arms industry is influenced by the American weapon manufacturers which means the quality is as good as that of American weapons.

Pakistan cannot afford to see American (-type) arms in the hands of Indians. Even Pakistan’s missile superiority over India is on the verge of collapse with Israel’s anti-missile defence system, Arrow II, coming to India. Those against the status quo are growing in numbers in Islamabad who understand that establishing ties with Tel Aviv may not neutralize Israel but it can surely act as a counterbalance. Relations with Israel will also desist anti-Pakistan orientation among pro-Israeli lobbyists in Washington.

Israel’s ambassador to EU and NATO Dr. Oded Eran and Israeli Foreign Minister Mr. Silvan Shalom have already hinted at an "even-handed approach" towards India and Pakistan should Islamabad oblige Tel Aviv. Israeli administration has also conveyed through different channels that the recognition of Pakistan is eagerly awaited in Tel Aviv and would be duly rewarded.

Israel has already relations of one kind or the other with 29 Muslims countries. Influential countries like Egypt and Jordan who had severed their ties with Israel with the beginning of Intifiada in 2000, are all set to re-send their ambassadors to Tel Aviv.

Palestinian National Authority (PNA), the main party which has already acknowledged Israel’s right to existence, is also ironing out its differences with Israel and negotiating peace deal with Tel Aviv. Mr. Nabil Shaath, foreign minister of Palestine said in a statement on July 21 that : Palestine has no objection or reservation on Pakistan’s consideration of recognizing to Israel as Palestinian Authority is confident that even if a sovereign decision to recognize Israel or otherwise was taken, Pakistan would continue supporting the just cause of Palestine." This is a realization of one fact on the part of Palestinians and an oblique reference to another fact that Pakistan does not need to be "more Palestinian than the Palestinians."

We have also on the record that Prophet Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him) entered into pact with Jewish tribes like Banu Nadeer, Banu Quraizah and Banu Qanuqua in 627 to fit Muslims into the new political and strategic dispensation of Madia.

It is also argued by some of our politicians that a common Pakistani is totally against Israel, thereby, there is no question of according recognition to Israel. To put up a more liberal face, they shrewdly propose to conduct a referendum to know what a common man opinions. An argument to this effect could be stateforward to the extent of rudeness. Let us honestly acknowledge that a man on the street is not mentally mature enough to evaluate the pros and cons of as sensitive an issue as recognition of Israel. The issue will again be weighted on the scale of emotions — a method that is not recognized on international level. Had our common man so cerebral, we would have not seen Sharifs and Bhuttos and Legharis and Zardaris getting elected over and again. Let this subject be debated by the elected representatives, policy-makers, think-tanks, intellectuals and media if Pakistan is to be the sole beneficiary.

A phased normalization of ties with Israel is not only in the interest of Pakistan, but it may also auger well for the issue of Palestine because Pakistan may be able to use its ties with Tel Aviv to secure some concessions for Palestinians. In this entire scenario, timeframe is the name of the game. Time does not change it speeds but it can definitely change everything around in a matter of moments. The most suitable point of departure has arrived for adopting a more sensible outlook as a responsible country.