Washington Report, November 2005, pages 36-37

The Subcontinent

Pakistani-Israeli Relations: A True Opening, Or Merely a Trial Balloon?

By M.M. Ali

	Pakistani Foreign Affairs Minister Kurshid Qasuri (l) and his Israeli counterpart, Silvan Shalom, pose following their Sept 1 meeting in Istanbul, the first ever high-level encounter between the two countries (AFP photo/Mustafa Ozer).

ANNOUNCEMENTS from Islamabad and Tel Aviv on Sept. 1 alerted the world to the meeting in Istanbul that day between their foreign ministers, Khurshid Qasuri and Silvan Shalom, respectively, the first formal encounter between the two countries. Pakistan insisted that the meeting was the result of Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, and that it would not officially recognize the Jewish state until a sovereign state of Palestine is established.

In January of this year, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shimon Perez was quoted in the Pakistani press as saying that Israel and Pakistan should have “direct, personal contacts publicly without being ashamed about it.” The report caused an adverse reaction in certain Pakistani circles. President Pervez Musharraf earlier had asked for an open debate on the subject, but the issue had died down, and nothing more was heard about it until the September announcement.

According to an Associated Press report, former Israeli Ambassador to Washington Silvan Shalom said that “There have been contacts on different levels with Pakistani officials for several years.” Moving right along, President Musharraf, in New York for the opening of the U.N. General Assembly, shook hands with Ariel Sharon at a Sept. 15 reception and, two days later, addressed a dinner hosted by the American Jewish Congress. There, after receiving a standing ovation upon his arrival, he told his audience, “I am convinced that peace in Palestine will revive the historical ties between Islam and Judaism.”

Although there may be some truth to the assertion, Islamabad constantly and emphatically denies that its talks with Israel were the result of U.S. pressure. However, Pakistan has been moving in this direction for some time, particularly since India established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992 and the two non-Muslim allies subsequently have entered into several trade and defense agreements. Another factor pushing Pakistan toward Israel is Washington’s India-Jewish lobby, which Islamabad may seek to dilute—or duplicate.

While Pakistan’s religious groups remain adamantly opposed to any recognition of Israel, most Pakistanis are aware that not a single Muslim country—Arab or otherwise—has ever publicly supported Pakistan on the Kashmir dispute. As a matter of fact, the late Yasser Arafat always enjoyed cozier relations with India than with Pakistan. Nevertheless, Pakistan is reported soon to be sending a large delegation of politicians, civil servants and community leaders to the Palestinian Authority. Their entry, of course, will require facilitation by Israel, which controls all entry points to the Palestinian Authority.

Despite all these developments and speculations, however, Pakistani-Israeli ties are not around the corner. Washington can help Musharraf by applying pressure on India to resolve the Kashmir dispute. The absence of such perceived U.S. evenhandedness can only provide fodder to anti-Musharraf forces, both civilian and military, at home. Musharraf will not rush to embrace Israel. He remembers the fate of Egypt’s Anwar Sadat.

For Israel, the establishment of relations with Islamabad will be a major asset. Pakistan, the only known nuclear power in the Muslim world, has been able to keep a huge country like India at bay for over half a century. It commands a special place in the Islamic bloc, and enjoys the friendship of both the U.S. and China. Israel has nothing to lose by opening up relations with Pakistan—for Tel Aviv, it’s a win-win game.

Upon arriving in New York on Sept. 12, President Musharraf, in a meeting with the press (as reported in the following day’s Washington Post), lashed out at every questioning of his position on various topics, including his continued holding of the offices of commander-in-chief and presidency. He fully supported Iran’s right to engage in nuclear research for peaceful purposes. On North Korea’s denial that it possessed nuclear weapons technology, he said: “I think they do have an enrichment program.” On the issue of al-Qaeda members apprehended in Pakistan, he told reporters that he had handed over about “700” to the United States, adding, “They are here [in the U.S.] now.” Asked about Mukhtar Mai, a Pakistani woman who was gang raped on orders of the local tribal council and is restricted from leaving the country, Musharraf curtly replied: “It was a disgraceful incident, but a lot of people say if you want to go to Canada…and become a millionaire, get raped.” He further remarked: “It is happening everywhere…in the United States, Canada, France and Britain.” Although Musharraf tried to deny making such a statement, a Sept. 19 Washington Post headline noted, “Recording Shows Post Article Correctly Quoted Pakistani President.”

According to the Sept. 13 Post report on his meeteing with journalists, Musharraf was highly critical  of the execution of the invasion of Iraq, saying, “If you launch a massive operation where the whole world watches for months bombing and shelling and people dying and towns burning, this alarms the whole world. So the whole scenario of hatred for the man [Saddam Husain] turns into sympathy for the people of Iraq.”

India-U.S. Relations

As a sequel to President George W. Bush’s July offer to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the U.S. has removed certain restrictions imposed on India in 1998 for importing nuclear technology and equipment. According to U.S. Ambassador to India David Mulford, “This is a tangible result that delivers on President Bush’s commitment to strengthen strategic and commercial relations between the United States and India.”

Citing a U.S. Congressional Research Service report, the BBC on Aug. 31 reported that in 2004 India was the leading purchaser of conventional arms among developing nations, spending $5.7 billion. The weapons, the report said, included tanks, submarines, combat aircraft, missiles and ammunition.

Coincidentally, less than two weeks later, a related statistic appeared in the Sept. 11 Washington Post. Wrote correspondent John Lancaster, reporting from Gorakhpur: “Last week in its annual human development report, the United Nations faulted India for falling behind on key public health goals, noting that its infant mortality is now higher than that of Bangladesh. One in 11 Indian children, the U.N. reported, dies before reaching the age of 5.”

India finds itself in a difficult bind on several issues. For example, because it occupies Kashmir, it has never been able to question Russia’s occupation of Chechnya. And because Delhi considers Iran’s nuclear program to be solely for energy generation and peaceful purposes, Foreign Minister Natwar Singh opposed taking the issue to the U.N. Security Council. However, in a sharp statement issued on Sept. 10, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice asked  Russia, China and India in particular to support the U.S. position that if Iran proceeds with its nuclear program, the issue must be taken to the Security Council. This “request” came a day after members of Congress criticized the Bush administration for waiving nuclear sanctions against India without proper NPT safeguards.

At home, Delhi is playing the inconsequential game of  keeping the ball rolling on what are described as confidence-building measures (CBM) with Pakistan. To this end it has engaged in dialogues with Pakistan to reduce tensions on the borders, open new roads between the two countries, and increase trade prospects. However, there has been no real headway on resolving the Kashmir dispute. Prime Minister Singh again spoke with the moderate faction of the All Parties Kashmir Hurriyat Conference, offering to reduce the number of Indian military personnel stationed in Kashmir. But no date was given, and no numbers disclosed.

In Pakistan, Musharraf’s hands also are full with domestic political problems. His party, the Muslim League (Q), has made no political gains around the country, and the National Assembly has not been allowed any real political power. The only recent development has been the holding of local elections, and even these have been described as “flawed” by opposition groups.

Nor has Musharraf had time lately to deal with India, focusing instead on his new effort to open a dialogue with Israel. Here, too, he may need the help of a Big Brother.

Prof. M. M. Ali is a specialist on South Asia based in the Washington, DC metropolitan area.

SIDEBAR

Shaikh Ahmed Deedat (1918-2005)

Renowned Islamic scholar and activist Shaikh Ahmed Deedat died after a long illness on Aug. 8, 2005 in Lotusville, South Africa. Born in Surat, India, on July 1, 1918, at the age of 9 he joined his father in South Africa, where he helped him run a small retail business. Unable to pursue his education beyond what he received in India, he worked part-time in local Christian seminaries in order to supplement his income. It was here that he discovered that the Bible and certain basic Christian beliefs differed from his own Islamic faith and its teachings. It was this exposure that caused him to devote the rest of his life to studying the three Abrahamic faiths of Islam, Christianity and Judaism, and their origin and development in eras separated from each other by centuries.

It was apparent that the social, economic and political environment he found in South Africa was repugnant to his own convictions and beliefs. While the end of World War II saw the retreat of colonialism in many parts of the world, in South Africa the policy of apartheid still flourished. The country was physically divided between the well-preserved and highly protected affluent white neighborhoods and the segregated, rundown shanty towns of native Black Africans. Even the churches were separate. Caught in between were the Asian (mostly Indian) settlers. However, Ahmed Deedat by and large avoided the politics of the day, devoting himself instead to the examination and comparative analysis of the three monotheistic faiths. Entering into regular discussions with rabbis and priests, he organized public debates with them and publicized the encounters in the media.

Amid the growing acceptance in parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America of theories of non-alignment and secularism, the well-known Islamic scholar and Muslim Brotherhood founder Syed Qutub was executed in Egypt by the government of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Deedat, who, along with millions of others, was greatly affected by these and other events in Egypt, himself was influenced by Maulana Abu ul Ala Maududi, whom he met during his visits to Pakistan, and Maududi’s interpretation of the Qur’an and explanations of shariah.

Deedat attained fame primarily through his debates with Jewish and Christian scholars and priests, during which he pointed at weaknesses in the Jewish and Christian gospels and compared them to the Islamic Shariah. Noting the many revisions made of the Jewish and Christian faiths over the centuries, he compared them with Islamic teachings that, he argued, were backed by historic evidence. During the last three decades of the 20th century he held such open debates in South Africa, Europe and in the United States.

Deedat established the Islamic Propagation Center International in Durban, South Africa, for the publication of Islamic literature. He authored 20 books on Islam and published numerous booklets based on his interfaith debates. This material was distributed free of cost and is still available in book stores around the world.

In recognition of his work, in 1986 he was honored with the prestigious King Faisal International Award.—M.M.A.