The question of recognising Israel plays itself out easily enough in the general public. They are against it. This would spring no surprises; the intellectual diet that has been fed the public might leave charitable room for the United States occasionally but absolutely none for Israel.
A portion of the liberati, however, have a different take on the issue. They argue that recognising the state would yield a considerably large dividend for the country; that the intransigent position on Israel rests on a retrogressive interpretation of religion, one that reflects itself in the real problems that our country faces in the form of terrorism; that we have immense difference with India as well, but we still do recognise them and have mutual diplomatic setups, so why the exception for Israel? These views gained currency when former president Pervez Musharraf broached the idea in public discourse, as he did while in power and then the other day again.
There are problems with this line of reasoning. First of all, opposition to Israel stems from secular, humanist values, not (necessarily) religious ones. It was only in 1992, for instance, that India formally established relations with the rogue middle-eastern state; the father of the country, Mohandas Gandhi, was dead against the then embryonic state. If the country finally recognised it, it is because the realpolitik overpowered a moral stance, not any notion of inclusive diplomacy.
The Israeli state is fascist and is perhaps the world’s only truly and overtly racist state. The original inhabitants of the land are still living under occupation.
Why should Pakistan, beset with so many problems of its own, be bothered to bear this cross? Because morals do (or at least should) play at least some role in statecraft. We could ease up, yes, but only if the people of Palestine, after years of humiliating subjugation, seek some closure and feel it would be the best way to go. Until then, the position is not too great a cost to us. Our position and that of the many nations that still don’t recognise the state is a reminder that this was one of the clear cases of injustice in 20th century history.
