On Sept. 2 the first-ever public meeting between the foreign ministers of Pakistan and Israel took place. President Musharraf had viewed withdrawal from Gaza as “bold action by the Israeli prime minister.” The president called his Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri, who was on a campaign trail, to rush to Islamabad. Musharraf wanted the Turks to set up an Israeli-Pakistani meeting. “I wanted to seize upon the fleeting opportunity,” Musharraf later explained. He believed Israelis deserved encouragement, Pakistan an opportune moment for engagement and the Muslim world a realistic and optimistic “take” on the Gaza withdrawal.
Two weeks later when Pakistani president was hosted by the American Jewish Congress, the world’s most influential religious forum, he spelt out Pakistan’s significantly altered position on Israel. He acknowledged Israel’s right to survival and to security. But he was clear that security to Israel was impossible without the creation of an independent and viable Palestinian state. Leaders from the Muslim and Jewish communities and officials from Pakistan, Israel and the US looked on as Musharraf spoke. The significance of this historic event was lost on none.
In New York Musharraf articulated the broad parameters of Pakistan’s Israel engagement. He made no commitment to recognize Israel in a hurry. In response to a question from the audience asking “why not now”, Musharraf was his candid self. Already in Pakistan we have come a long way from where even the word Israel was a taboo, he explained. Now we accept the reality of Israel. Rest will follow after Israel gave more. “I need more reason, rationality and movement to take my people along on recognition.” Pakistanis were emotionally involved in the Palestinian question, in wanting access to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and “they should not be denied that.” He wanted Israel to proactively take steps that would establish an independent Palestinian homeland. Gaza and West Bank should be followed by agreement on Jerusalem and the refugees question.
Musharraf rejected the decades old adversarial framing of the Muslim-Jewish relations. He recalled common historical experiences, the overlap in religious teachings and the common causes to which many Jews and Muslims subscribed. Musharraf specifically noted that Muslim-Jewish “experiences and histories intertwine” and their “rich and very long” history of interaction called for more cooperation than confrontation. He called upon the Israelis and the Jewish community to be inspired by the examples of Muslim rulers’ treatment of the Jews and resolve the question of Jerusalem with justice and compassion.
Clearly there are takers of this policy. The people of Pakistan have largely ignored strike calls from various political parties over this issue.
Pakistan’s new Israel policy, while underscoring the Palestinian suffering, also acknowledges the reality of Israel. It embraces pragmatism and realism without abandoning the principled position on the Palestinian issue. This policy can yield dividends provided Israel actively subscribes to the logic of this “new” policy.
In fact the objectives of Pakistan’s new policy match those of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah’s peace proposal in February 2002. In exchange for Israeli withdrawal from all territories occupied since 1967 and return of refugees, Abdullah offered normalization of ties with Israel.
No Muslim leader, Tel Aviv knows, has spoken in the credible language that Musharraf did. Many in the Muslim world and in Israel will listen to him more intently than they had to any other leaders before. In fact the many rabbis at the New York gathering found Musharraf “honest and straightforward...one who stands his ground.” They applauded what he said through their standing ovations.
Washington too welcomes Pakistan’s policy. The AJC members talked of the US president being “excited” when told about it. The US secretary of state welcomed it in her Sept. 13 New York meeting with Musharraf. Also the US Congressman Tom Lantos’ comments at the AJC forum that Congressmen from “both sides of the aisle” believed that Musharraf was “indispensable” reflected the political America’s view.
Continued Muslim-Jewish engagement could help resolve ongoing disputes. Unresolved disputes have facilitated perpetuation of notions like the clash of civilizations. Unless frameworks of public discourse and paradigms of state behavior don’t shift away from naked power play an entire generation, cutting across religious divides, risks being devoured by the politics and policies hate.
As for Israel, it will have to take practical steps of withdrawing from the West Bank and make a time-bound commitment to find a mutually acceptable solution to Jerusalem and the refugees question. That would create conditions for an altered Palestinian attitude; they continue to remain caught in the cycle of repression and violence.
Larger the number of Muslim states acknowledging the Israeli need for security, the greater the possibility of Ariel Sharon finding political space to do what is required of him on the Palestinian front. The ball is in the Israeli court.
