Why Pakistan will be next to normalize with Israel

[Saiyan0321]

Why Pakistan will be next to normalize with Israel​

Islamabad denies any move is afoot but a Saudi and UAE-backed normalization of ties could soon be in the offing

PESHAWAR- Last month, Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry rebutted a barrage of reports on social and mainstream media that suggested Islamabad was poised to restore diplomatic relations with Israel, a move that would inevitably send shock waves across the country’s many radical Islamic groups.

The Foreign Office was forced to intervene before the rumors sparked demonstration or worse, always close to the surface in a nation that frequently rallies to the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian cause.

Despite the official denials, analysts, observers and even some officials reckon there is at least a shred of truth in the viral speculation considering the shifting winds in the Middle East and with rising signs Saudi Arabia could soon follow the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in normalizing ties with Israel.

It would mark a historic turn if Pakistan and Israel were to follow suit and formally normalize relations. Pakistan did not recognize Israel as a country when it was formed in 1948, a year after Pakistan won its independence. Pakistani passports still carry a stamp that proclaims that this document is valid for all countries worldwide except Israel.

Yet observers believe that the winds of change now sweeping over the Arabian Peninsula, including among Pakistan’s key Middle Eastern allies and traditional patrons, could next blow through Islamabad.


The United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain, they note, have restored diplomatic ties with Israel after Saudi Arabia reportedly gave its tacit affirmation to go ahead. Analysts argue Pakistan could be next if Riyadh gives a similar nod.

Any such move would face political resistance at home. Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) senator Musadiq Malik told Asia Times that such a crucial decision can not be made by a few individuals and that representatives of Palestine would also need to be consulted.

“A few people cannot thrust their verdict upon the nation. We have elected representatives and the parliament that could better determine policy in this regard,” he added, presumably meaning Prime Minister Imran Khan and his backers in the army establishment.

Afrasiab Khattak a politician, intellectual, and Pashtun rights activist told the Asia Times that since the Pervez Musharraf era (1999 to 2008) there has been a consistent behind-the-scenes effort to normalize relations with Israel, though so far without tangible results due to radical religious forces and their ability to stir street agitation.

“When the Arab countries have changed their stand on the Arab-Israel conflict and tried to live in peace with their proverbial foe then what is the point of pursuing an anti-Israel policy?” he asked.

Days after the UAE formally revived ties with Tel Aviv, foreign and local media carried reports suggesting that Saudi Arabia and the UAE were pressing Pakistan from behind the scenes to be next in recognizing Israel.

“I think there is a conversation going on in which UAE and MbS would like Pakistan to take a lead and recognize Israel but don’t think it will happen either in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. It’s politically not doable,” Ayesha Siddiqa, a Pakistani scholar and expert on military affairs told the Asia Times.

The speculation was reinforced when Prime Minister Khan, in an exclusive interview with a local TV channel, disclosed that he was “under pressure” from some “friendly countries” to recognize Israel but that Pakistan would not budge until the Israel-Palestinian issue was resolved.

Khan did not disclose the identity of the said “friendly countries”, saying only that Pakistan maintains good relations with them.

But when Israeli media broke the news that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the head of Israel’s spy agency Mossad Yossi Cohen held a hush-hush meeting with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) in the Saudi city of Neom, the reports also spotted a Pakistani army business jet operated by the country’s powerful Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) spy agency in Amman when the leaders were meeting at the Red Sea resort.

Siddiqa tweeted in late-November, “If policy not under consideration then what was Pak Army aircraft PA-9834 doing in Amman for 2 days & reported by Israeli media?”

Saudi Arabia and the UAE certainly have leverage on Islamabad to persuade a change in Pakistani policy towards Israel. Pakistan relies heavily on both for financial support to stave off a debt crisis, always near as foreign reserves dwindle and the economy contracts.

Moreover, over four million Pakistani expatriates remit roughly $4 billion from Saudi Arabia and UAE every year, representing nearly half of the country’s $9 billion in annual remittances.

Still, Pakistan’s relations with both UAE and Saudi Arabia have been on a downtrend in recent years, partly due to Riyadh’s tilt towards India on the Kashmir issue and New Delhi’s growing economic and political engagement with the Arab nations. Saudis are also concerned about Islamabad’s hobnobbing with Turkey.

In late August, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, frustrated over the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s (OIC) indolence on the Kashmir issue, exhorted the group’s de facto leader Saudi Arabia to “show leadership” on the issue.

It was a costly statement. Soon thereafter Riyadh required premature payment of US$2 billion of $3 billion worth of outstanding loans and terminated $3.2 billion worth of oil deliveries granted on deferred payment.

The subsequent diplomatic visit of Pakistani Army Chief General Qamar Jawed Bajwa to Riyadh in early August this year to smooth tensions failed to resecure the financial facilities, as Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman reportedly refused to meet the army chief.

To be sure, Pakistan has always maintained covert diplomatic and military connections with Israel.


Indeed, Pakistan’s secret military cooperation with Israel dates back to 1970 when the military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq was posted in Jordan as a brigadier general at a time Pakistan’s army fought in support of Jordan against then Yassar Arafat-led Palestine in the 1970-71 Black September war.

More than 7,000 Palestinians died in the war and General Zia had become a darling of the Jewish state, which backed Jordan in the conflict.

Pakistan-Israel cooperation continued in the 1980s during the Soviet Union’s intervention in neighboring Afghanistan. Both countries coordinated their stance on the Afghan issue and exchanged defense-related information.

Military dictator General Musharraf was more vocal about his government’s interactions with Israel. During his tenure, Pakistan and Israel established their first formal diplomatic contact and used their diplomatic staff in Ankara and Istanbul to mediate and exchange information on defense and terrorism-related issues.

In 2009, Pakistan’s spy agency ISI passed on information to Israel’s Mossad about a plot to kill Israelis in India. According to an October 2009 US diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks, the ISI chief had reportedly contacted Israeli officials to head off the attacks.

In late March this year, Musharraf called to establish relations with Israel to counterbalance India’s overtures to Tel Aviv.

In a press conference in Dubai in March this year, Musharraf acknowledged that he had initiated contacts with Israel when he led the country. “The Israeli leadership was quick to respond to my offer. I believe Israel wanted to create better relations with Pakistan. They still want it,” he said.

Why Pakistan will be next to normalize with Israel - Asia Times

PESHAWAR- Last month, Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry rebutted a barrage of reports on social and mainstream media that suggested Islamabad was poised to

asiatimes.com

 

[Nilgiri]

@Saiyan0321 what are your views on it? Should it be done and in what timeframe if so?

 

[Saithan]

What gains do Pakistan have from changing their stance ?

 

[Saiyan0321]

@Saiyan0321 what are your views on it? Should it be done and in what timeframe if so?

What gains do Pakistan have from changing their stance ?

Well first, we need to understand what is Pakistan's official stance regardsing Israel? Is it non-recognition of state or no diplomatic relations with a state. These two are very important things.

Pakistan's official stance is not that Israel is entirely composed of Palestinian territory occupied as such but is based on the fact that Israel occupies territories of palestine and needs to go back to the pre-1967 borders immediately and cease the human rights violations in the territory of palestine. The two stands are fundamentally different and while one may argue that Pakistan never recognized Israel even before 1967, however that remains irrelevant since Pakistan has cleared its stance. This was done alongside the palestinian stance which was done in 1988.

In 1988 the Palestinian national council, the legislative body of the Palestinian liberation organization passed the Palestinian declaration of independence with 253 in favor and 46 in against and 10 abstentions. This declaration would then be officially announced on 15th november 1988 by Yassir Arafat and as he would finish the reading he would assume the title of President of Palestine from his previous designation as Chairman of Palestine Liberation Organization which would be done officially through the Palestinian Central Council in April 1989. Now this is the official formation of the Palestine state which is recognized as such in the UN as well as by 71% of the member states of the UN amongst whom is Pakistan as well.

So the question is what were the borders of this new state? did palestine declare itself as the right and legitimate government of levant and Israel as a false government and false nation built on occupied lands? did they state as such and with that declare all territories under Israel as Palestine? Basically did they do what our emotional bunch claim as such?

No they did not. Infact they formulated their territories in their map as Gaza strip, the west bank and the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, which includes west Jerusalem. Not all of jerusalem but the western part of the divided jerusalem and it is in western jerusalem which holds our great sacred mosque. Now this independence was recognized in the UN resolution 43/177 on 15th december 1988. The most important part we need to understand is what Palestine claims and what recognition of palestine would inturn have us claim. In 1993 Palestine recognized the state of israel in line with the resolutions of 242 and 338 which dealt with the Israeli return to pre-war territories respectively where 242 deals with 1967 war and 338 deals with 1973 war and as you know that Israel has not returned West jerusalem nor has it returned the Golan heights. With this Palestine Liberation Organization, recognized as the legitimate representative of the people of palestine by the world ( even by those that dont recognize palestine) and this government of the state of Palestine, recognized as the representative of the people of Palestine provided Dejure recognition to Israel and Israel in turn recognized PLO as the legitimate authority and representative of palestinians. Now Defacto recognition of a state is one which can be revoked under international law since the concept of Defacto recognition is that the state does not complete the essential requirements of statehood thus cannot be given dejure recognition but will be afforded with defacto recognition which can be removed. It is a custom based on factual situation on ground. Dejure recognition, on the other hand is permanent and is a legal act of lawful nature and its revocation can only happen in the even of absolute breakdown of a state to such a nature where the state ceases to function as a state. Examples of revocation of Dejure include Soviet Union or Yugoslavia. You know absolute breakdown.

So getting back, Palestine declares Israel as an official state and recognized its right to exist in peace which means that the territories of pre-1967 were no longer claimed by palestine and were now the legal and rightful territories of Israel. This was seen during the independence speech, Palestines recognition of resolution 242 and 338, the Oslo Accords and the Letters of recognition. Now if you were to read the letters of recognition then the letter sent by yasser arafat on 9th Septmeber contains the word '..The PLO recognizes the state of Israel and its right to exist peace and security. The PLO confirms to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and 338.' All of these are counted in International law. Any state that would recognize palestine would also recognize the territorial limits of the state of Palestine. They can agree or disagree to the territorial claims of Palestine but they cannot go beyond those claims meaning that by recognizing palestine, we cannot say that all of levant is palestine if palestine itself says not all of levant but the territories we claim as such. Infact one can even argue that such recognition gives defacto recognition to Israel automatically and the aspect of non-recognition is purely the states own decision to not hold diplomatic relations. Not having diplomatic relations with a nations is not synonyms with non-recognition. This is getting way too legal so i am going to bring it back a bit and highlight Pakistan. Pakistan recognized the state of Palestine on 16th November 1988 and by 1989, had opened full diplomatic relations between the two states.

So Pakistan recognized Palestine as the state based on the resolution 43/177 and has voted as such which means that Pakistan recognized the territorial limits of Palestine as stated by Palestinian government and the true representatives of the Palestinian people. So if they recognize Palestinian territorial limits then who governs the rest of the territory in the book of pakistan? Israel then? Its true that Pakistan does not have diplomatic relations with Israel however Pakistan through its actions and in its words ( spoken by Musharraf i believe and our Foreign office although they avoid this topic), does afford a form of lesser dejure recognition and has stated that the only problem between recognition of Israel is the borders of 1967 and the absolute independence of Palestine and human rights violations.

With the above it can be understood that we have left the original position of no recognition of Israel whatsoever and the entirety of the Levant belonging to Palestine and Palestine alone. This is the position, which is referred to when we speak of the position our founding fathers took however that was then and this is now and this simple fact was not lost to our leadership as well as our legal circles as they amended their position to state that Israel is an entity that cannot be ignored and with Palestinian recognition, in accordance to the above mentioned UN resolution and we shall not hold any diplomatic relations with Israel until Palestine, in accordance to the map of PLO, becomes a sovereign country with absolute independence.
The thing is that when you repeatedly tell a populace that all your problems stem from the actions of that entity and thus it is not our fault but theirs, it becomes very hard to explain to the same populace as to why you are seeking peace with them. It is the same case with Israel, same case with India and same case with Afghanistan or afghan refugees. Afghan refugees have been marked as the reason behind terrorism in Pakistan, whether that is true or not is not the point. The point is that they have been marked and whenever any concession is offered aka the current government statement to provide them with citizenship, it is met with extreme anger, hatred and protest just like such a suggestion regarding Israel will be met. The populace becomes shocked and demands that whether you tell us the truth on the matter or you tell us why you are surrendering to our enemy that you have told us, is our enemy. In such situations we see a panic state make excuses and try to return things back to normal.

What we need to ask ourselves is whether recognizing Israel now will bring any change or benefit to the country of Pakistan? lets say that XYZ leader of Pakistan establishes diplomatic relationship with Israel. How would that benefit Pakistan? our problems are not because of Israel, neither economic nor military nor strategic, have any relation with Israel and they are entirely based on other factors. Israel is also not looking for validation from far away muslim countries when the Gulf is giving it to them on a silver platter. Israel will not become buddy buddy with us so easily and its relations with India are far more solid. We cant hope to throw a wrench in that relationship. So there exists no incentive on external factors, is there an incentive in internal factors? would the country become more united or will it solve our social problems? none of it. none at all. Infact it will become more divided as some will support and many and many and many will not support at all and it may create chaos in the country thus there exists no incentive for any government to go out of its way to recognize Israel. This is why our current stand is realistic. We made a peaceful position that make palestine independent based on pre-1967 boundaries and we will recognize Israel. You can argue why did we bother in the first place to enter this conflict but it wouldnt change the fact that we are in this conflict with an emotional nation where the state declares itself the custodian of Islam and interpreter of Shariah and the clergy sees them as an entity that has nothing to do with Islam and cannot possibly be the interpreters of Islam . We are emotional and even then, we will still be emotional and we hate the jews and that is a fact. This country is not the fan of the jewish population and israel. you just have to visit Hafeez center in lahore to know that.

@Kaptaan @VCheng @Yankestani what do you think Pakistan should do now? Should a weak government of Imran Khan risk such a step when he is already called a Yahoodi agent and you have everybody breathing down his neck?

 

[Saithan]

Well first, we need to understand what is Pakistan's official stance regardsing Israel? Is it non-recognition of state or no diplomatic relations with a state. These two are very important things.

Pakistan's official stance is not that Israel is entirely composed of Palestinian territory occupied as such but is based on the fact that Israel occupies territories of palestine and needs to go back to the pre-1967 borders immediately and cease the human rights violations in the territory of palestine. The two stands are fundamentally different and while one may argue that Pakistan never recognized Israel even before 1967, however that remains irrelevant since Pakistan has cleared its stance. This was done alongside the palestinian stance which was done in 1988.

In 1988 the Palestinian national council, the legislative body of the Palestinian liberation organization passed the Palestinian declaration of independence with 253 in favor and 46 in against and 10 abstentions. This declaration would then be officially announced on 15th november 1988 by Yassir Arafat and as he would finish the reading he would assume the title of President of Palestine from his previous designation as Chairman of Palestine Liberation Organization which would be done officially through the Palestinian Central Council in April 1989. Now this is the official formation of the Palestine state which is recognized as such in the UN as well as by 71% of the member states of the UN amongst whom is Pakistan as well.

So the question is what were the borders of this new state? did palestine declare itself as the right and legitimate government of levant and Israel as a false government and false nation built on occupied lands? did they state as such and with that declare all territories under Israel as Palestine? Basically did they do what our emotional bunch claim as such?

No they did not. Infact they formulated their territories in their map as Gaza strip, the west bank and the territories occupied by Israel in 1967, which includes west Jerusalem. Not all of jerusalem but the western part of the divided jerusalem and it is in western jerusalem which holds our great sacred mosque. Now this independence was recognized in the UN resolution 43/177 on 15th december 1988. The most important part we need to understand is what Palestine claims and what recognition of palestine would inturn have us claim. In 1993 Palestine recognized the state of israel in line with the resolutions of 242 and 338 which dealt with the Israeli return to pre-war territories respectively where 242 deals with 1967 war and 338 deals with 1973 war and as you know that Israel has not returned West jerusalem nor has it returned the Golan heights. With this Palestine Liberation Organization, recognized as the legitimate representative of the people of palestine by the world ( even by those that dont recognize palestine) and this government of the state of Palestine, recognized as the representative of the people of Palestine provided Dejure recognition to Israel and Israel in turn recognized PLO as the legitimate authority and representative of palestinians. Now Defacto recognition of a state is one which can be revoked under international law since the concept of Defacto recognition is that the state does not complete the essential requirements of statehood thus cannot be given dejure recognition but will be afforded with defacto recognition which can be removed. It is a custom based on factual situation on ground. Dejure recognition, on the other hand is permanent and is a legal act of lawful nature and its revocation can only happen in the even of absolute breakdown of a state to such a nature where the state ceases to function as a state. Examples of revocation of Dejure include Soviet Union or Yugoslavia. You know absolute breakdown.

So getting back, Palestine declares Israel as an official state and recognized its right to exist in peace which means that the territories of pre-1967 were no longer claimed by palestine and were now the legal and rightful territories of Israel. This was seen during the independence speech, Palestines recognition of resolution 242 and 338, the Oslo Accords and the Letters of recognition. Now if you were to read the letters of recognition then the letter sent by yasser arafat on 9th Septmeber contains the word '..The PLO recognizes the state of Israel and its right to exist peace and security. The PLO confirms to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 and 338.' All of these are counted in International law. Any state that would recognize palestine would also recognize the territorial limits of the state of Palestine. They can agree or disagree to the territorial claims of Palestine but they cannot go beyond those claims meaning that by recognizing palestine, we cannot say that all of levant is palestine if palestine itself says not all of levant but the territories we claim as such. Infact one can even argue that such recognition gives defacto recognition to Israel automatically and the aspect of non-recognition is purely the states own decision to not hold diplomatic relations. Not having diplomatic relations with a nations is not synonyms with non-recognition. This is getting way too legal so i am going to bring it back a bit and highlight Pakistan. Pakistan recognized the state of Palestine on 16th November 1988 and by 1989, had opened full diplomatic relations between the two states.

So Pakistan recognized Palestine as the state based on the resolution 43/177 and has voted as such which means that Pakistan recognized the territorial limits of Palestine as stated by Palestinian government and the true representatives of the Palestinian people. So if they recognize Palestinian territorial limits then who governs the rest of the territory in the book of pakistan? Israel then? Its true that Pakistan does not have diplomatic relations with Israel however Pakistan through its actions and in its words ( spoken by Musharraf i believe and our Foreign office although they avoid this topic), does afford a form of lesser dejure recognition and has stated that the only problem between recognition of Israel is the borders of 1967 and the absolute independence of Palestine and human rights violations.

With the above it can be understood that we have left the original position of no recognition of Israel whatsoever and the entirety of the Levant belonging to Palestine and Palestine alone. This is the position, which is referred to when we speak of the position our founding fathers took however that was then and this is now and this simple fact was not lost to our leadership as well as our legal circles as they amended their position to state that Israel is an entity that cannot be ignored and with Palestinian recognition, in accordance to the above mentioned UN resolution and we shall not hold any diplomatic relations with Israel until Palestine, in accordance to the map of PLO, becomes a sovereign country with absolute independence.
The thing is that when you repeatedly tell a populace that all your problems stem from the actions of that entity and thus it is not our fault but theirs, it becomes very hard to explain to the same populace as to why you are seeking peace with them. It is the same case with Israel, same case with India and same case with Afghanistan or afghan refugees. Afghan refugees have been marked as the reason behind terrorism in Pakistan, whether that is true or not is not the point. The point is that they have been marked and whenever any concession is offered aka the current government statement to provide them with citizenship, it is met with extreme anger, hatred and protest just like such a suggestion regarding Israel will be met. The populace becomes shocked and demands that whether you tell us the truth on the matter or you tell us why you are surrendering to our enemy that you have told us, is our enemy. In such situations we see a panic state make excuses and try to return things back to normal.

What we need to ask ourselves is whether recognizing Israel now will bring any change or benefit to the country of Pakistan? lets say that XYZ leader of Pakistan establishes diplomatic relationship with Israel. How would that benefit Pakistan? our problems are not because of Israel, neither economic nor military nor strategic, have any relation with Israel and they are entirely based on other factors. Israel is also not looking for validation from far away muslim countries when the Gulf is giving it to them on a silver platter. Israel will not become buddy buddy with us so easily and its relations with India are far more solid. We cant hope to throw a wrench in that relationship. So there exists no incentive on external factors, is there an incentive in internal factors? would the country become more united or will it solve our social problems? none of it. none at all. Infact it will become more divided as some will support and many and many and many will not support at all and it may create chaos in the country thus there exists no incentive for any government to go out of its way to recognize Israel. This is why our current stand is realistic. We made a peaceful position that make palestine independent based on pre-1967 boundaries and we will recognize Israel. You can argue why did we bother in the first place to enter this conflict but it wouldnt change the fact that we are in this conflict with an emotional nation where the state declares itself the custodian of Islam and interpreter of Shariah and the clergy sees them as an entity that has nothing to do with Islam and cannot possibly be the interpreters of Islam . We are emotional and even then, we will still be emotional and we hate the jews and that is a fact. This country is not the fan of the jewish population and israel. you just have to visit Hafeez center in lahore to know that.

@Kaptaan @VCheng @Yankestani what do you think Pakistan should do now? Should a weak government of Imran Khan risk such a step when he is already called a Yahoodi agent and you have everybody breathing down his neck?

If there is no gain to be made then don't bother. You've already seen what the Arab penninsula offers, money on a leash.

 

[Jackdaws]

What a Catch-22 for Pak leadership. They can't afford to antagonize the Arabs. They can't antagonize the Islamists in their own country. Hara kiri either way.

 

[VCheng]

@Kaptaan @VCheng @Yankestani what do you think Pakistan should do now? Should a weak government of Imran Khan risk such a step when he is already called a Yahoodi agent and you have everybody breathing down his neck?

The real question to ask here is whether Pakistan is independent and free enough from certain outside influences to be able to pursue its own national interests in this matter.

 

[Nilgiri]

Well first, we need to understand what is Pakistan's official stance regardsing Israel? Is it non-recognition of state or no diplomatic relations with a state. These two are very important things.

I get your point. But these days (post cold war) there is not much difference....not much grey middle ground. i.e there is no point to recognition of state (step A) but not having diplomatic relations (step B).

India followed A but not B (except for an Israeli consulate in Bombay) during the cold war for example. Full diplomatic relations were only started in early 90s after cold war ended.

During this grey period, there were well known contacts among leaders and politicians (and much more at more levels esp military, but thats another story).

JP Narayan meeting with Ben Gurion, leftie-centrist nationalists of their day:

Rightie side....*Checks to see Joe is not within distance* .... Menachem "Irgun" Begin meeting S. Swamy (aka @Joe Shearer favourite hehe)

India during cold war had its relations to balance with the Arabs and Soviets for example.

My contention is that period (cold war) is over now for countries.

Simply the 99% obstacle is recognising the country now and establishing relations is a 1% formality after it as there is no reason to hold off on that if you recognised the country to begin with. Like there is literally no point these days to recognizing a country, but not have full diplomatic relations with it.

In 1988 the Palestinian national council, the legislative body of the Palestinian liberation organization passed the Palestinian declaration of independence with 253 in favor and 46 in against and 10 abstentions.

So Pakistan recognized Palestine as the state based on the resolution 43/177 and has voted as such which means that Pakistan recognized the territorial limits of Palestine as stated by Palestinian government and the true representatives of the Palestinian people.

I don't see these are big issues to stop relations forming in and of themselves. They mirror very much the issues confronting many countries that interpret things a certain way (in establishing relations with palestinians at exclusion of Israel on their own decision to do so).

The thing is countries can find way to do both and let the two parties then settle their differences (w.r.t borders, setup etc) bilaterally (or with multi-lateral help) as for the parties to resolve themselves....if they so desire to.

That's why lot of countries held recognition of Armenia and Azerbaijan simultaneously (though Armenia occupied huge part of Azerbaijan at the time).

Or North and South Korea simultaneously (though these still dont have a peace treaty and dont recognise each other)

Or India and Pakistan simultaneously (and India and Pakistan recognise and have full diplomatic relations with each other themselves even though they have territorial dispute)

The one that isn't possible is PRC and ROC, but thats because PRC specifically made its one-china policy for establishing diplomatic relations with it.

I don't see that being the case for Palestine and Israel, many significant countries recognize both and have diplomatic relations with both (India, China, Russia, Brazil, Turkey all come to mind). There is simply no absolute stance stated or enforced by either Palestine or Israel that you can only recognise them and not the other. It is for the 3rd party country to decide in the end.

In fact Pakistan can look to the Turkey model on this too right?...if its seemingly impressed on many matters by Turkey in general.

What we need to ask ourselves is whether recognizing Israel now will bring any change or benefit to the country of Pakistan?

This is question kind of above our paygrade. That depends a lot on further developments after recognition+diplomacy. Like in 10 - 20 year time frame and what the counter influence will percolate into Pakistani establishment from such a change in foreign policy (and the boldness to do it plus if it sticks given internal pressures and retribution etc). The Israeli lobby in US and West for example is extremely powerful so that can offer lot of new conduits to Pakistan to resolve more issues and open more doors.

But you are very correct there is the ideological obstinance at root in Pakistan (the internal pressure I talk of), so I think its another thing to just wait and see on.

 

[Kaptaan]

What gains do Pakistan have from changing their stance ?

Probably the greatest gains Pakistan could make with the effort required of one poxy signature.

 

[Saithan]

Probably the greatest gains Pakistan could make with the effort required of one poxy signature.

Puzzling answer, do you hereby mean, signing would kick mud into the emotional sentiments in Pakistani politics, or do you mean “move that lazy arm of yours and just sign the damn chart”....

 

[Kaptaan]

Puzzling answer, do you hereby mean, signing would kick mud into the emotional sentiments in Pakistani politics, or do you mean “move that lazy arm of yours and just sign the damn chart”....

Sorry mate, not had time to reply. Not had much time and what I had I indulged in blood sport, a rare opportunity. Over in another forum I taunted and goaded the Oily Arab worshippers. Once it was reliogion to worship them but with the tectonic shifts takling place and Israel being recognized, I raked the muck.

 

[Null/Void]

Pakistani "establishment" will start with low key ties and start preparing PR attempts to sooth the masses love Israel or hate Israel all you want the inevitable question is not how but when I give 5 years for Public relations to settle and another decade or so before normalization comes

 

[Saiyan0321]

Pakistani "establishment" will start with low key ties and start preparing PR attempts to sooth the masses love Israel or hate Israel all you want the inevitable question is not how but when I give 5 years for Public relations to settle and another decade or so before normalization comes

the Pakistani state or establishment may try to normalize relations but what they cant do is end the hatred for Israel in Pakistan. Here is the thing, they are powerful and can politically maneuver the country but what they cant do is change the mindset of the people of Pakistan. They preyed on that mindset, allowed it to expand and grow but what they couldnt do is change it and this is exactly the problem they have been facing for sometime now. They are open to forming relations with Israel but the extreme hatred for Israel in Pakistan and the fact that everything in Pakistan is either a Jewish or Ahmedi conspiracy, deters them since any dictator or politician doing such a thing will face immense backlash. Pakistan, since its inception has been fighting to showcase itself, to the people, that it is Islamic which has triggered the the conflict between the religious section and the state on who should Interpret Islam and whether state could ever be interpreter of Islam or merely the executor. \
Recognition of Israel at any level will create a backlash and the religious section, the interest driven parties will pounce on religious sentiments and attack the state and attack it viciously and i am not even going to bring in terror groups who will use this opportunity to gain legitimacy and favor by declaring the state as kaffir.

I dont think there will ever come a time when Pakistan will recognize Israel even if palestine, which has recognized Israel as a state, does so since we must understand that even if the Pakistani state mentions that they will recognize Israel if they go back to the 1967 borders however the people, in vast majorioty will only support the recognition of a muslim levant/

 

[Null/Void]

the Pakistani state or establishment may try to normalize relations but what they cant do is end the hatred for Israel in Pakistan. Here is the thing, they are powerful and can politically maneuver the country but what they cant do is change the mindset of the people of Pakistan. They preyed on that mindset, allowed it to expand and grow but what they couldnt do is change it and this is exactly the problem they have been facing for sometime now. They are open to forming relations with Israel but the extreme hatred for Israel in Pakistan and the fact that everything in Pakistan is either a Jewish or Ahmedi conspiracy, deters them since any dictator or politician doing such a thing will face immense backlash. Pakistan, since its inception has been fighting to showcase itself, to the people, that it is Islamic which has triggered the the conflict between the religious section and the state on who should Interpret Islam and whether state could ever be interpreter of Islam or merely the executor. \
Recognition of Israel at any level will create a backlash and the religious section, the interest driven parties will pounce on religious sentiments and attack the state and attack it viciously and i am not even going to bring in terror groups who will use this opportunity to gain legitimacy and favor by declaring the state as kaffir.

I dont think there will ever come a time when Pakistan will recognize Israel even if palestine, which has recognized Israel as a state, does so since we must understand that even if the Pakistani state mentions that they will recognize Israel if they go back to the 1967 borders however the people, in vast majorioty will only support the recognition of a muslim levant/

60 years ago the same could have been said about Red Communist China now their BFFs things aren't stagnant and constant you know

 

[Saiyan0321]

60 years ago the same could have been said about Red Communist China now their BFFs things aren't stagnant and constant you know

Indeed but with Pakistan we have more, how can i say it, instability and religious instability. The passions of the people, when it comes to religion, is simply too much. Infact if one is to look at the passion of the people when it comes to religion then we can simply look at the most inconsequential of objects being an ignite of religious passions and that was the making weekend holiday from Sunday to Friday which witnessed great debate since the era of Ayub to Nawaz and created a very strong debate among the state of its Islamic nature and once it was implemented, under Zia who was trying to be as Islamic as possible, it became very hard to remove and Nawaz was forced to utilize Islamic injunctions to give legitimacy of the change from friday to sunday. The point is that religious passions are so strong that even dictators had to account for them and where such is , the state would struggle to take action.

Pakistan first needs to enter into a period of de-radicalization, which we havent seen at all. Winning military operations does not mean that the populace is de-radicalized. When this happens, only then can we focus on Pakistan first policy however for this we need to find another idenitity to forumalte within us. People point to Pakistaniyat and i myself have been a supporter of Pakistaniyat however the problem is like the Pakistani state, Pakistaniyat is also becoming or cannot escape the chains of religion. Pakistaniyat will be declared synonymous with Islamic personality. Whenever that happens, the Islamic outlook will always cloud the judgment of the people and state.

 

[Saiyan0321]

while we are on the topic of Islam, let me tell you a fun story. When i was in LLB part 1, i decided to be more proactiove and joined a law office to see how it happens. Wasnt going to practice since a first year law student cant practice but would understand how basic documentation is done and understand the law. So i ask my teacher alot of legal questions.

One day i ask him a couple of questions

Do you need your wife's permission to have a second marriage and does it need to be registered?

He says ofcourse not to both.

I am left surprised because i had heard that these two were mandatory a long time ago. So i ask again and he answers nope in Islam, you are not obligated. The 'In Islam' part hit me. I ask him again that no Pakistan law, is it so? He again answers that God has not ordered anywhere to do so . after five minutes, i ask in this manner and i quote

"Put Islam aside, i am talking about Pakistan law, specific Pakistan only legal law. Is it so?" He then finally answers that oh yes ofcourse. You can go to jail for not doing that, The point is that for him, Islam and Pakistan were synonymous thus teaching me what is Islamic rather than Pakistan since he saw the two as one and the same. He went on to explain how the law is against Islam, i didnt agree.

This is just one of the many many incidents i have seen of people equating Pakistan with Islam. Both one and the same. Israel is an enemy of Islam. This statement would get a 99% response here and when you have Islam being synonymous with Pakistan and Israel being enemy of Islam, then how can Pakistan/Islam/Fortress of Islam make peace with the "Enemy of Islam".

 

[Nilgiri]

60 years ago the same could have been said about Red Communist China now their BFFs things aren't stagnant and constant you know

Pakistanis weren't really in the "Al-aqsa mosque up in your face" kind of realm with PRC at any appreciable level. Any tension coz of SEATO vs commie was more or less political only. In fact even during the "worst" part of relations (early cold war), Ayub Khan admin worked out the boundary issue with PRC....saiyan is quite the expert in this topic

Add to this China is 1.4 billion people now...it is hard (and self defeating) to hate on a country that large...and one that is inertial basis (given China civ) rather than formation-basis (formation of Israel nation state vis-a-vis zionism etc). Heck Pakistan has hard time as it is hating on India to any all-pervasive level (though you would say Grrrr... lmao)

China never took on a religious identity (to come into conflict by that basis) either....given Pakistan is founded on a religious identity. Israel is small population.....and its jewish state, the whole thing was an intense turf war brought to fruition...so there is very little nuance and grey if you share some identity at big enough realm with Arab populations.

Let's face it, Israel and the jews are just a far more emotive issue at root for lot of muslim majority countries due to this very reason.

Most muslim countries get cop out (compared to Pakistan) somewhat because a) they have secular formation or b) ethnic identity formation to help with the pragmatic bridges that may eventually help to reconcile with Israel's existence and then relationship building....as these identities can come to the fore to help with that past the narrow Muslim vs Zionist one.

But Pakistan very formation basis was on the religion...this effectively means any large voiced muslim population anywhere must be an issue Pakistan is behind front and centre by default. Nothing has crystallised that (over the muslim world at large) quite like Israel has.

 

[Saiyan0321]

Let's face it, Israel and the jews are just a far more emotive issue at root for lot of muslim majority countries due to this very reason.

Thats an understatement, its to this extent. A few years ago, i visited hafeex center, one of the largest tech markets in Lahore. Seriously the place is pretty good. The union over there had decided to protest against the Israeli attacks on Gaza. They placed jewish signs and israeli flags, which are there to this day, on the floor and you saw thousands upon thousands walk on them nonchalantly. People hate Israel and believe jews to be the center of the conspiracy all over. Mossad is spoken more than RAW.
the British Colonial government saw religious passions of the people as an incendiary core of the populace and we see this in the early Kiyani report post the 1950s riots and while Justice Kiyani, points to the division of the Islamic meaning among the Ulema ( which is a large topic in itself and how it forced the clergy for a united front) it also highlighted how the people are religious in nature and the passions ignited by rogue elements could create chaos in the country.

I gave an example of Sunday and Friday controversy. I am going to expand a bit on that to highlight two things. How the populace is religious and how it has become even more religious. The reason i used this is because it is such a trivial issue but its Islamic nature, makes it a grand issue.

The proposal that friday be made a holiday had arisen regularly since 1947, generally introduced here and there by the constituent assembly member or later on parliamentary member and was always opposed by the government back then. Liaqat ali was adamant against it and quoted Jinnah that he was of the view that "Since Sunday was the universally accepted holiday, we would in effect be losing two work days." in 1963, 34 members of the parliament moved the a bill to declare friday a holiday because national weekly off day observed by the jews Christians and muslims is saturday, sunday and friday and this was the reaosn why jews had declared saturday as the off day when Israel came to being. This was in thebill and i am not saying that. Ayub opposed the move, and this is very important, on the ground htat 'Pakistan is at present engaged on a gigantic development program with foreign aid. If friday is observed as a closed holiday, business, commercial houses in pakistan would get out of step with the rest of the world. While its basic argument was secular economical driven and it presented it as such, however it had to rely on Islamic argument as well that"Friday is not regarded by muslims as a day of rest or recreation and is not warranted in Quran." This was done because the religious passions of the people yet the passions were not as driven as they are today and i will show you the difference. Bhutto made similar arguments but used more Islamic arguments than economical secular ones by citing other muslim states and there were multiple committees setup on this singular issue and the committees themselves were divided since they pointed to verses that held Friday as a blessed day and later on would become so convincing that all of them made a unanimous decision to declare friday as the holiday. Bhutto took it upoin himself to bury the issue by making a bunch of other committees with his law minister Abdul Hafeez Pirzada to bury the issue and they did it very successfully until 1977 when Bhutto changed his mind and changed it to friday rather than sunday, most likely to win the election that would happen in 1977.

As this simple issue becomes uncontrollable, you will witness the growing islamic nature of the people, and this is very important to understand so that if any remedy is to be suggested then we can see how it will be reacted upon by the populace. Nawaz sharif would restore it to sunday and this is very important again. Nawaz focused his argument entirely on Islamic injunctions by stating that by observing friday as the holiday, the blessed nature of friday has been degraded as people are sepdning that time at recreation rather than friday prayers which they would, when they were working, especially the working class and by doing so, we would bring back the Islamic sanctity of friday.


So you see that in this small issue, how the argument went from economic to Islamic and now an "Islamic" injunction could only be removed through Islamic reasoning rather than through any secular or economical reasoning. Apply this to israel.