Why now? This is the question everybody asks after Pakistan President Musharraf accepted the invitation of the American Jewish Conference to address them in New York on Sept. 17. That Washington would be pleased about one of the most important and the only Muslim nuclear power engaging with the Jewish Congress and by extension with the State of Israel is obvious, but it would be highly simplistic to conclude it as the primary cause for Pakistan’s engagement.
There are three specific facts that explain Pakistan’s current engagement. One, while Quaid-e-Azam’s rejection of Israel’s creation was morally valid, the changing parameters of the Palestinian issue now require promoting the creation of a Palestinian state and its secure and peaceful existence alongside the Israeli state. All the Muslim states including Iran have moved from seeking the destruction of Israel to seeking its withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders. Since the 1979 Camp David agreement numerous Muslim states including Oman, Qatar, Jordan, Tunisia, Turkey, Morocco and Egypt have engaged with the Israeli state. In fact in February 2002 Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah floated a peace proposal. In exchange of Israeli withdrawal from all territories occupied since 1967 and return of refugees, he offered normalization of ties with Israel. Revolutionary Iran even purchased weapons from Israel.
Two, despite the overt policy of routinely condemning Israel, successive Pakistani governments have had covert contacts with Israel. Significantly as early as February 1952, while on an official visit to Egypt, the Pakistani foreign minister had declared that Israel must be regarded as “a limb in the body of the Middle East” and urged a peaceful settlement. Pakistan also wanted to work for “rapprochement between Israel and Arab states.” This intermittent covert contact has also been a result of Israel’s view of Pakistan as a critically important Muslim state. In fact after the nuclear tests the Israeli media referred to Pakistan as an “Islamic superpower.”
Subsequently Pak military and civilians have maintained contacts with Israel. For example under President Zia ul-Haq there was intelligence cooperation and Pakistan purchased weapons from Israel. Pakistan ambassador to the US Syeda Abida Hussain in the ’90s talked of recognition. While promoting Pakistan’s interests in the Middle East successive governments have attempted to maintain a balance between supporting the Palestinian movement, the Arab states interests and the US interests in the region.
Pakistan’s objective has been to create more space on the international front to promote our diplomatic economic and security interests; to play the mediator in the Arab-Israeli dispute and neutralize an adversarial Indian-Israeli front that has peaked in the ’90s onward. A more recent compulsion to engage with pro-Israeli groups would be to deal with the global Muslim complaint that the war on terrorism is turning into a war on Islam, by offering Pakistan’s support to the Jewish community on anti-Semitism and enlist Jewish support against anti-Islamic action and rhetoric.
The third and perhaps the most compelling reason to engage with the Jewish community now is to arrest the diabolical trend of clash of civilizations that has gained momentum ever since 9/11 and the US occupation of Iraq. It would be an attempt to bridging civilizations.
Pakistan is weighing in now, practically and intellectually on the global scene as a crucial Muslim state. It is taking the lead in practically rejecting the thesis of the clash of civilizations and in pushing the thesis that in the consent of civilizations lies the ascent of man. The world needs master strokes of history, not little steps keeping a people immobilized with the illusion of mobility.
So there is no contesting the assertion of the president of the American Jewish Congress who recently said, “Someone needs to break the ice so that Muslims, Westerners, Jews and other religions can have a dialogue and end the confrontation that we’re in”. Musharraf, for all his shortfalls on the domestic political front, is now engaging on the practical side of enlightened moderation. Instead of banking on the US tackling these problems for the Kashmiris, the Pakistanis, the Arabs and the Palestinians, Musharraf intends to tackle them directly.
For the Muslim world it is time to strike a balance between Quaid-e-Azam’s 1948 moral position rejecting the creation of Israel, the present reality and the rightful demand of an independent Palestine with right of return for the Palestinians. In addressing the AJC Musharraf must endorse the aspirations of the Palestinians for an independent homeland, encourage the Israelis to continue with their withdrawal initiative, articulate the anguish of the Muslim world, acknowledge the continuing tragedy of the Palestinians as well the paradoxical insecurity of a nuclear armed Israel. Gaza is significant but not sufficient. In doing so Musharraf will no doubt promote Pakistan’s own interests too.
Historiography however puts the burden of proof on Pakistan; it has to dispel the notion of the ’50s that it is not the “task boy” of Washington. That in fact its engagement on the Palestinian and Kashmir question is an effort to deal with the global security crisis on the one hand and the Muslim dilemmas on the other. Facing the Jewish community Musharraf has to tell them gently but truthfully what is their share of the responsibility. It is time to go beyond the studied covertness, studied ambiguity and studied denials of the past and overtly, collectively and wisely work to resolve the unresolved disputes that have enabled diabolical notions like the clash of civilizations to gain currency in the hearts and minds of millions of anguished people. How credible will be Musharraf’s efforts to play a role in leading the pathway to peace will depend on how he will deal with it. The parameters of the current engagement are clear. First, the engagement would help to facilitate a just settlement of the Palestinian issue. Second, the engagement with pro-Israeli Jewish organizations is neither an endorsement of their views on Israel nor an endorsement of current Israeli policies toward the Palestinians. Third, recognition of Israel will only follow a fair and final settlement of the Palestinian problem.
