Musings on recognising Israel

These reasons, up to a point, are valid enough, except the last. But since we have not recognised Israel for over half a century of its existence, the reasons for doing so now need explanation. Which Pakistani interest demands recognition of Israel? One understands, without recognising it, the dependency syndrome on America, and Pakistani yearnings for security guarantees of some sort will remain dissatisfied. This seems to be pushing Pakistan toward recognising Israel. Maybe doing so will make Pakistan's task in Washington easier for eking out some more aid. Maybe Israel will sell arms that America may find it difficult to do. What else can recognising Israel do? If these are reasons to undo all that Pakistan diplomacy has done so far, they are unconvincing.

Was it a mistake not to recognise Israel over for half a century? Was Pakistan sacrificing its national interest for illusions like winning Arab support on Kashmir? Has Islamabad been finally disabused of the fond hope of Arab help or even of Ummah? Ummah was as impractical an idea in 1940s as now.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Time was when the UN was reverberating with Pakistan Foreign Minister's eloquent denunciation of the idea of creating an Israeli entity. Sir Zafrullah Khan delved into history and questioned the very idea of making a Jewish National Home in Palestine. Britain had no business doing it. It had conquered Palestine militarily and was supposed to be administering it on the League of Nation's behalf for the benefit of local Arab inhabitants. The British betrayed the trust of the League and it told lie after lie between 1917 and 1948. It had promised not to adversely affect the political rights of the Arabs. But it acted otherwise. Pakistan reminded everyone that prior to 1917 and right down to 1948, Palestine was seen as, and was in fact, an Arab entity. The grounds on which the UK, the US, and the rest of the UN membership agreed to the creation of the state of Israel were totally bogus and immoral.

British lies were a direct consequence of the deal Britain had made during the First World War with Zionists for supporting the war effort. Britain also had other motives. No doubt, Jews had been badly oppressed by Russians, Europeans, and Americans. Liberal opinion felt the Jews needed some support and restitution. But the point is who oppressed the Jews? Who should pay the compensation? Arabs or Muslims were certainly not the oppressors. The Europeans and the Americans oppressed the Jews. But under American and other victors' goading, a restitution was given to Jews by way of a state of their own at the expense of Arabs, an entirely different people. The basis of Zionist claims for their right to return to Palestine was a hoary religious legend, not history. They were stories told by traveling merchants. That was no basis for creating a new state in the 20th century.

What the UN, with British and American insistence, did was to recognise outsiders' right to usurp an Arab land. The Jews forgot the horrible oppression they had suffered and proceeded to oppress and suppress the Arabs of Palestine. Arabs' human rights have been flagrantly violated by Israel, supposedly democratic in its internal working, though it keeps its Israeli Arabs as second class citizens and has kept Palestinians under its jackboots for almost 40 years. Some democracy that!

Some say Israel is a fact of life. It is a nuclear power. It is a military superpower in Middle East. Its influence on US is tremendous. It also influences world opinion. Pakistan finds itself hemmed in by the American influence from all sides. In a way, it is actually an unoccupied territory. It depends on American goodwill and aid abjectly like any Banana Republic. Exercising the theoretical sovereignty of not recognising Israel is apparently equal to foregoing the benefits that recognition might bring in. Can these be substantial? Isn't American aid -- from the American viewpoint -- nearly as much as could be expected, given the ugly aspects of Pakistan polity?

The case for recognising Israel is false, or is made in the expectation that recognition will mean that America will loosen its purse-strings and fill up State Bank's coffers with dollars. This is wishful thinking. It is unlikely to happen. Americans would pay to Pakistan as much as is their estimate of its cooperation's worth. It is also possible to err on the side of a greedy realism by eating all the voluminous words that Pakistan has uttered in the UN General Assembly and Security Council. Perhaps our own case for Kashmir will be weakened by recognising Israel on the ground that if Israeli military strength and influence is adequate justification for recognition, Indian military control over Kashmir too is as much a hard fact of life as the other. Why don't we recognise India's sovereignty over Kashmir? After all we are going back on our principled stand over Palestine for so long. Recognition of Israel after abstaining so long and saying so much against recognition means endorsing all the sordid actions by Britain from 1917 onward. This will be endorsing all that Israel has done. Timing will make it an approval of Sharon. It is not 1948 when recognition could be understood as facing facts.

The present state of Palestine is a heart-breaking affair. There are six or seven million Jews, many Zionists, who conquered much of Palestine in 1948 and more in 1967, including West Bank and Gaza. They have vacated Gaza but continue to control it just as they are controlling West Bank area. Indeed they are likely to steal some more lands and oppress the Arabs a great deal more. What is Pakistan's attitude to this likelihood? Is it enough for a Pakistani with a conscience and historical memories to cower before the strength of Israel and forget all about the Arabs because they are weak? For many Pakistani realists, oppression over Arabs is of no great concern to us. Why? Because (a) they are weak, (b) are more or less a hopeless case, and (c) they do not support us over Kashmir. Some realists see no option but to embrace Ariel Sharon.

One does not suggest any policy; policy-making in Islamabad being the private affair of a few, it is pointless. Even so aware, Pakistanis would want to have some idea of what can be a solution of the Palestine problem now. It is too late, too inhuman, and too difficult to insist on forcing out the Jews already in Palestine. The solution can only be One State of Palestine: it should be a secular democratic state and not a Jewish State or an Islamic one. It should be secular and thoroughly democratic, whether or not it is as efficient as today's Israel. The question of further Jewish immigration has to be tackled firmly. Those already there should become Palestine citizens, as it were by force majeure. Whether or not we can do anything to achieve this goal, we should raise our voice about what should be the desired end.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.