Israel’s recognition: not just yet

LIKE so much else that is weird in the way we run our country’s affairs, a debate has suddenly erupted about whether or not we should recognize Israel. The exact origins of the debate are unclear. It could very well have been inspired to coincide with President Pervez Musharraf’s visit to the United States in the forlorn hope of presenting Pakistan in the West as a rational country that is prepared to look at issues in a practical, unemotional manner. Or it could be due to some unreported developments that were seen as either constituting a threat to Pakistan’s security or promising unspecified economic benefits in return for recognition.

If there is a threat perception, it could be attributed to the fact that Israel, which has its own atomic arsenal, does not wish any other country in the region, specifically a Muslim country, to have a nuclear capability. In this, as in so much else, American and Israeli interests coincide. Such a threat has always existed, and it may have gained a sharper edge post-Iraq, but whether it is imminent is difficult to say in the present rosy state of US-Pakistan relations. Where any possible economic gains may be concerned, there is always much to be said for trading and doing business with as many countries as possible, and establishing normal relations with Israel could perhaps provide some new opportunities. But these do not appear to be so tantalizing as to make us reverse a policy that has been part of Pakistan’s statecraft ever since independence; indeed, there are far more compelling and economically sound reasons for us to resume trade with India.

This policy has been fairly clear-cut. It holds that Pakistan will not recognize Israel until Palestinians and the Arab countries do so. Some Arab countries have individually established diplomatic relations with Israel, and the Palestinians, because they are talking to Israel, have accorded it de facto recognition. The Palestinians have also been forced to give up their earlier commitment to the destruction of Israel. But the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Conference have not yet accepted Israel, and Israel remains in occupation of vast areas of Arab land. It says it will agree to demolish “illegal” Jewish settlements, but that means “illegal” in terms of Israeli law. In Arab eyes, all settlements are illegal and the result of forcible, and often brutal, dispossession. Why should we be so eager to forgive Israel its trespasses when the Arabs continue to be menaced and humiliated by it? There has long been a lobby in this country that has advocated recognition of Israel on the grounds that we should not sacrifice our own interests for the sake of the Arabs and Palestinians because they have not extended enough support to us on the Kashmir dispute with India. A parallel between Kashmir and Israel defies logic. Kashmir and Kashmiris have always been there; Israel has been created by expelling Palestinians from their homeland and it is peopled by non-Arabs. It is an artificial entity planted in the Arab heartland for the benefit mostly of Europeans.

When we decry American foreign policy for lacking in principles, why should we be so anxious to abandon a principled position in our own foreign policy that enjoys wide backing among our Muslim friends? President Musharraf seemed all too eager during his foreign tour to answer questions on Israel’s recognition. Although he said there was no question of immediate recognition, he nevertheless indicated that there was room for a national consensus on the issue. It is absurd to suggest, as some of our religious stalwarts have done, that the issue should not be discussed. But these are far more pressing questions on which a national consensus is required, not least the role of the military in politics and factors that are preventing our sustainable democracy from gaining sustenance. The attention of all of us should right now be concentrated on matters such as these rather than on whether or not we should recognize an oppressive settler state.

When Baghdad bleeds

AS the Iraqis braved another midsummer day made infinitely more atrocious by power outages, water shortage and street violence, the occupying American forces celebrated US independence day on July 4 throwing lavish barbecue parties and holding concerts. Hollywood’s muscle-studded action-thriller superstar, Arnold Schwarzenegger, was especially flown into Baghdad to be with the US marines to add a dash of glamour to the celebrations. Meanwhile, US troops killed 11 Iraqis, “acting” in what the Pentagon called “self-defence”. This crude display of muscle power and this pomp and ceremony was in utter bad taste and betrayed the complete moral bankruptcy of the occupying forces. The evening bash at ‘Camp Victory’ in Baghdad seemed to mock the miseries and hardships the occupation of Iraq has brought on the Iraqis. It was simply a vulgar show of primeval malevolence in which a pompous victor flaunted his ‘independence’ in a vainglorious spirit ostensibly to make the vanquished Iraqis feel how small and insignificant they are by comparison.

The way America has carried out its Iraq policy since the beginning of the crisis leaves one bewildered and at a complete loss for a logical explanation. Iraqis under occupation today are much worse off than they ever were under the despotic Baathist regime. Given the everyday hardships and humiliation that they are being subjected to by the occupying forces, there is hardly any need for the occupiers to make a spectacle of their pomp and power. The sporadic outbursts in the form of sniper attacks on the American and British soldiers in recent days have come only as a natural reaction from a people being cruelly and callously treated in their own country. The public mood in post-Saddam Iraq has rapidly changed from one of indifference to that of anger and resentment at what the change of regime has actually come to mean for them. Iraqis will do all they can to resist any attempt at colonizing and subjugating them. The sooner the neo-cons in Washington realize this, the better. The current imperious approach on their part will inevitably turn millions of Iraqis implacably hostile and resentful, making things increasingly difficult and unnerving for the occupation forces.