It might be in Pakistan's interest to improve relations with Israel, but convincing the Pakistani people of this is going to be an uphill task, reports Iffat Idris On Thursday 1 September, Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri held a meeting with Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom in Turkey. It was the first ever formal meeting between high-level officials of the two countries -- as such, it was truly historic. Whether it marks the beginning of a historic turnaround in Pakistan-Israel relations, however, remains to be seen. Statements from the two sides after the meeting put a different spin on it: while the Israelis claimed it was "the beginning of a new period... of open and useful mutual relations", the Pakistanis presented it as a demonstration to Israel that "the Islamic world will respond positively if it is ready to accept the imperatives of peace by respecting the fundamental right of the Palestinians to live in freedom and peace in their own homeland." Pakistan has never recognised the state of Israel -- its official stance is that it will not do so until there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. Anti-Israel feeling runs very high in Pakistan, where there is a lot of sympathy for the Palestinian cause. While this sentiment has prevented the formalisation of Pakistani-Israeli relations, unofficially there has been contact between representatives of the two countries for many years. President Musharraf has gone much further than his predecessors, however, in moving forward Pakistan's relations with Israel. In July 2003 he called for an open debate on the issue of relations with Israel -- something that would have been akin to blasphemy a few years earlier. In early 2004 there was talk of an Israeli minister coming to Pakistan as part of a UN agriculture delegation. And in January 2005 Shimon Peres gave a historic interview to a leading Pakistani newspaper -- the first ever of a senior Israeli leader. It has been clear for a long time that the Pakistan government wants to move forward with engagement with Israel. The reason it was able to do so now was last month's Israeli pullout from Gaza. This was presented in Islamabad as a move towards the end of Israeli occupation of Palestine, and hence something that Pakistan should help to move forward. Pakistani spokesmen also cite the visit by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to Pakistan in May, when he expressed a desire to see President Musharraf use his position in the international community for a just and peaceful resolution of the Palestinian dispute. Pakistan claimed it informed the Palestinian leader of the forthcoming foreign ministers' meeting, and that he supported it. But this would appear to be contradicted by statements from Palestinian Deputy Prime Minister Nabil Shaath, who said there was a difference between notifying and securing support for the meeting. He expressed concern that Pakistan was premature in "rewarding Israel" for the Gaza pullout: "It is not good to give gifts to Israel before it really implements the peace process, not only in Gaza, but in Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem." The criticism from Hamas leaders was even stronger: "We condemn any relationship between an Islamic state and the Israelis." Given this apparent Palestinian dismissal of the reasons presented by Pakistan for the meeting -- that it was to aid the Palestinian cause -- why did Pakistan make the move? The real motive has less to do with helping the Palestinian cause as with promoting Pakistan's interests. The Musharraf government has a number of reasons for seeking improved relations with Israel: The first is the concern over the growing warmth between Israel and arch-rival India -- seen as particularly serious in Islamabad because of the massive defence cooperation between the two countries. But if Pakistan aims to scupper this relationship by recognising Israel, it is wasting its time. Israel -- as well as India -- gains too much from the bilateral relationship to sacrifice it for Pakistan. Second, Pakistan is motivated by its relationship with the United States. Though the US denied it had anything to do with the foreign ministers' meeting in Turkey, it welcomed the move. Pakistan knows how strongly pro-Israel the Bush administration is, as well as the strength of the Jewish lobby in America. Pakistan's relationship with the US can only gain from Pakistan-Israel rapprochement. Third, the move is in keeping with the generally more positive feeling towards Israel in the Muslim world -- exemplified most of all by the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The days when Israel was viewed as an utter pariah by the Muslim world are over. Though the number of Muslim countries to have formally established diplomatic relations with the Jewish state is still low, the overall level of hostility towards it is down, at least among Muslim governments. Pakistan's engagement with Israel can be interpreted as pragmatic acknowledgement of the new realities. Fourth, President Musharraf is desperate to change Pakistan's image: what better way of presenting the country's moderate face, and refuting charges that it is a hotbed of Islamic extremism, than by holding out a hand to Israel? Tied with this, is Musharraf's desire to shift the basis of Pakistani foreign policy away from ideology and towards pragmatic -- for example economic -- national self-interest. Normalising relations with Israel is not a straightforward business in Pakistan, however. As mentioned, there is extremely strong opposition to Israel -- ironically, much more so than towards India, with which Pakistan has fought four wars, including Kargil, and which is a direct party in its conflict over Kashmir. The reason is Israeli oppression of Palestinians and occupation of Arab land: this arouses very strong emotions in Pakistan. These particularly come to the fore whenever there are any signs that the government is about to shift policy on Israel. Previous Pakistani moves towards engagement with Israel demonstrated this all too clearly. The proposed UN agriculture delegation's visit to Islamabad was "postponed" after protests about the participation of an Israeli minister in the delegation. The Shimon Peres interview was followed by attacks on the newspaper's offices by angry mobs -- enraged not just at the content of the interview but at the mere fact that a Pakistani newspaper had provided a forum for Israeli voices. This latest engagement between Pakistan and Israel in Turkey has proved no different. The Mutthida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) -- the main Islamist political alliance in Pakistan -- wasted no time in condemning the meeting. It accused the Musharraf government of betraying Islam and the Palestinians, and carrying out another U-turn -- reference to Pakistan's abandonment of the Taliban and support for the Kashmiri separatist movement -- under US pressure. MMA leader Qazi Hussein Ahmed described the meeting as "against everything Pakistan stood for". The MMA also claimed that the meeting would be followed by Pakistani recognition of Israel. The alliance organised nationwide protests against the meeting on Friday. Other, more secular, parties took a somewhat different stance. While the major parties -- Pakistan People's Party (PPP), Pakistani Muslim League, among others -- accept that the world has changed and that Pakistan can no longer maintain a totally anti-Israel stand, they argue it is premature to talk of formal recognition of Israel -- they share the MMA's belief that this is the ultimate intention of the Musharraf government. For its part, the government has strongly refuted accusations that its Israel policy has changed. Addressing the National Assembly, Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said, "there is no U-turn in policy." Similar statements were made by President Musharraf. The other main criticism from political parties stems from the fact that they were only informed about the meeting after it had taken place. Indeed, it appears as if even those on the government's own benches were not aware the meeting was to take place. Opposition politicians have condemned this as proof that the major decisions in Pakistan are still taken by one man, President Musharraf, bypassing parliament, and that there is still no real democracy in the country. Looking ahead, given the extent of opposition in Pakistan to the recognition of Israel, this is not likely to happen anytime soon. What will happen is that President Musharraf will address the influential American Jewish Congress in New York, when he goes there for the forthcoming UN summit -- the first Muslim leader ever to do so. That address is already being justified in the interests of promoting inter-faith harmony, rather than as support for Israel.
