|
|
October 1, 2005
Not a wrong initiative
FOR once in the history of our foreign relations, we have taken a proactive and correct decision regarding engagement with Israel. A host of apologetic statements, however, coming out of the foreign office and even from President Musharraf after the historic Kasuri-Shalom meeting have somewhat diluted the impact of the event.
Engagement with Israel is in fact one of the best things that has happened in our recent history. India recognized Israel in 1992 and has resultantly benefited from multi-billion dollar defence and economic deals with it. We have belatedly taken this initiative and there should be no second thoughts about it. It is not only in our own best national interest but also in the interest of the Palestinians.
The response of the opposition parties is unfortunately negative. It seems that they have not fully grasped the significance of the initiative and their reaction is hasty and motivated by emotions. The reality will dawn upon them in due course. The president is right when he says that we cannot be more Palestinian than the Palestinians themselves.
When Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, himself is talking to Israel and some Arab and other Muslim countries have even recognized it, why should Pakistan stay aloof? Pakistan’s growing stature in the world as the only Muslim country with nuclear capability and Gen Musharraf’s standing as a world statesman place us in a unique position to play a substantive role in the resolution of the Middle East conflict. The president has assured the nation that the decision to recognize Israel will be linked with total withdrawal of Israelis from the occupied territories and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
The 1967 class of Command and General Staff Course at Fort Leavenworth, USA, had a representation of 56 countries including Israel. The Israeli participant was a shrewd officer of the rank of lieutenant colonel who, during my stay of one year at the college, made deliberate overtures to run into me. He even invited me at his house for dinner a couple of times which I politely declined. This was in compliance with my pre-course briefing that required me to avoid contact with Israeli officers as far as possible.
This one-way social boycott was, however, broken during a gathering outside the college one day when suddenly I found the Israeli officer standing next to me and getting himself photographed. He assured me that this was for his personal album. Next day the photograph appeared in a Kansas City daily. In the brief encounter we had, he asked me a number of incisive questions.
First, why does my passport carry the endorsement ‘valid for all countries of the world except Israel’? Second, why do I avoid contact with him when the Arabs and Jordanians who have some cause for hostility are quite friendly with him and even attend dinners at his house? Third, what wrong has Israel done to Pakistan to earn an adversarial relationship? Fourth, does Pakistan realize that by adopting a position as Israel’s adversary, it is forcing Israel to presuppose for itself a similar relationship? I sent a gist of our conversation to our embassy at Washington DC for onward dispatch to Pakistan.
During the country presentation before a gathering of nearly 1,500 participants and faculty, the Israeli officer introduced his country by saying that Israel appeared on the map of the world in 1948 as a result of a United Nations resolution and was therefore still in its teens. He further said that Israel had only one ‘fixed’ border with the Mediterranean Sea and the remaining ones had yet to be determined. He further explained that his country’s military strategy envisioned contiguous adversaries as well as non-contiguous ones who possess or subsequently acquire the capability to threaten Israel’s national and territorial interests.
I have narrated this incident for the reason that even 38 years ago, there appeared to be a desire on the part of Israel to come closer to Pakistan. I will not like to consider the Israeli officer’s initiative as his personal desire to cultivate a friendship with me. An officer of his rank and status is expected to remain within the parameters of the national policy brief provided to him.
Clearly, his approach was mission-oriented and precise. Through me he conveyed the following messages. One, Israel did not see any serious conflict with Pakistan and wanted to get into dialogue with it to clear the ambiguity in perceptions. Two, both Pakistan and Israel were ideological states, were born at the same time, were struggling for survival and both needed to have sympathy for each other.
Three, Israel was determined to survive and would therefore acquire any kind of military capability to achieve this objective. Four, its borders except the northern one were flexible and needed to be realistically carved out to avoid suffocation. Five, Israel did not consider Pakistan an adversary, but if Pakistan did, Israel would be left with no option but to change its view.
Pakistan will gain much from diplomatic relations with Israel, whenever established, in a number of ways. First of all, the growing Indo-Israeli nexus against Pakistan will suffer a setback and Israel will change its attitude towards us. Also, the Jewish community in the US will develop a soft corner for Pakistan and will help balance the US approach towards India and Pakistan.
Israel, India and the US view Pakistan’s nuclear capability with suspicion. Washington’s main worry is about its potential use against Israel. With improvement in relations with Israel, both Washington and Israel will be relieved of this worry and Washington may in turn lift some pressure on our nuclear assets. Above all, Pakistan’s stature will further grow if its peace efforts bear some fruit.
The writer is a retired lieutenant-general of the Pakistan Army and a former commandant, NDC and chairman, PMIC. E-mail: smhb786@yahoo.com
|
|
|
