Pragmatic possibilities

Pakistan's historical and current position on Israel contrasts with the evolving stances of Arab and other Muslim countries.

Given the recent troubles between Iran and Israel, the role of the US, the genocide in Gaza and the foreseeable evolving geopolitics, living where Pakistan does, it will naturally be forced to reconsider its options. The latest 60-day Hamas-Israel ceasefire option highlights the enshrined posture and acquiescence of the GCC countries. This emanates from the Abraham Accords, initiated in 2020, marking a significant shift in Middle Eastern diplomacy, with several Arab nations normalising relations with Israel.

Since its inception in 1947, Pakistan has not recognised Israel, aligning itself with the broader Muslim world's support for the Palestinian cause. This stance was evident during the Arab Israeli conflicts of 1967 and 1973, where Pakistan provided diplomatic and, reportedly, military support to Arab nations.

The perceived ideological foundation of Pakistan, emphasising Islamic solidarity, has been a significant factor in its foreign policy decisions. While there have been covert interactions and discussions about potential normalisation, especially during General Pervez Musharraf's era, these did not culminate in official recognition.

Historically, Arab nations maintained a unified front against Israel. However, geopolitical shifts, particularly concerns over Iran's regional influence, have led to a revaluation. Saudi Arabia, while not officially recognising Israel, has engaged in covert cooperation, especially in intelligence and security domains. The Abraham Accords saw the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan normalise relations with Israel, signalling a pragmatic shift in regional diplomacy.

Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim-majority country, has consistently refrained from establishing formal relations with Israel – its stance rooted in its support for Palestinian self-determination and concerns over domestic Islamist sentiments. While there have been informal engagements, Indonesia, somewhat akin to Pakistan, maintains that normalisation is contingent upon the resolution of the Palestinian issue.

Iran, on the other hand, maintained diplomatic and economic ties with Israel during the Shah’s time, reflecting a strategic alliance in the region. However, the 1979 Islamic Revolution marked a turning point, with the new regime adopting a vehemently anti-Israel stance and supporting groups opposed to Israel's existence. Recent developments, including a 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran, have further strained relations, with regional implications and shifts in alliances.

Zooming out, Pakistan’s regional geopolitics is also influenced by the Saudi stance on Iran, KSA being an ally and anchor for the US in the Middle East. During the recent 12-day war between Israel and Iran, the 2023 China-brokered detente between Iran and Saudi Arabia was notably tested. Iran, while escalating support for its regional proxies, notably ensured that groups like the Houthis refrained from targeting Saudi interests.

Saudi Arabia, on its part, maintained a neutral stance, refraining from joining US-led military operations against Iranian assets, and instead emphasised diplomatic solutions. China, observing the escalating tensions, called for de-escalation and offered to mediate, though its influence was limited due to perceived partiality stemming from its close ties with Iran. Pakistan maintained a strong pro-Iran stance. What does all this herald for Pakistan’s future regional and global political positioning?

An obvious option is that Pakistan maintains its current stance, emphasising support for Palestine and aligning with nations that have not recognised Israel. This approach apparently reinforces its ideological foundations and domestic political considerations and seems to be easiest and convenient. Another option could be that, like the KSA and others, Pakistan explores limited engagement with Israel, possibly in areas like trade or technology, contingent on progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

This pragmatic approach balances ideological commitments with geopolitical realities, though it can fan serious internal religio-political flames, as demonstrated by recent speeches by the Jamaat-e-Islami leadership.

Yet another option, though appearing remote and unlikely, is that in response to regional shifts and economic considerations, Pakistan fully normalises relations with Israel, following the lead of other Muslim-majority countries. This move would signify a significant fundamental shift in Pakistan's foreign policy, potentially unlocking new economic and diplomatic opportunities. Among the three outlined scenarios – continued non-recognition, conditional engagement and full normalisation – the option closest to realpolitik is conditional engagement.

The geopolitical landscape of the Middle East and the broader Muslim world is undergoing significant transformations. Regional dynamics, domestic considerations and the evolving discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will likely influence Pakistan's future approach to Israel.

A nuanced, research-based approach will be essential in navigating these complex dynamics. Pakistan could cautiously adopt a strategy of ‘conditional engagement’ with Israel, using discreet diplomatic channels initially focused on humanitarian issues. Limited economic and technological interactions, framed as developmental cooperation, could proceed indirectly.

As part of the conditional engagement, domestically, Pakistan could emphasise consistent support for Palestinian rights, carefully manage public opinion and foster dialogue among stakeholders. Diplomatic risk mitigation would rely on coordination with key allies, such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Turkey and China. Such a measured, incremental approach will align Pakistan’s ideological commitments with pragmatic geopolitical realities, exemplifying realpolitik through careful diplomacy.

Throughout history, Islamic leadership has engaged in diplomatic practices as part of broader efforts towards dialogue and diplomacy. Examples such as the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah reflect an emphasis on pragmatic diplomacy and dialogue in international relations, rather than conflict.

The writer is a development professional working on intersectional issues in society, economics, and climate. A former World Bank staffmember, he is now managing an impact advisory consulting business out of Dubai and Islamabad.