The unseemly sight of Cabinet ministers expressing opposing views has been witnessed. Information and Broadcasting Parliamentary Secretary Ch Daniyal Aziz has said if Pakistani troops formed part of the proposed International Stabilization Force for Gaza, they would obviously have to disarm Hamas forces in order to provide security to the Gaza Strip. Defence Minister Kh Asif has described these remarks as “irresponsible”, “personal views” that did not reflect the government’s stance, or the country’s foreign or defence policies. This came on the heels of an Information Ministry statement describing as false an Indian TV channel’s report that Pakistani troops were to be deployed to Gaza as part of the proposed ISF, and that Israelli approval was needed for this. It would be presently impossible for such a deployment to occur, as long as the validity stamp on the Pakistani passport, ‘for ;all countries except Israel’, continued.
At the same time, it has been confirmed that Pakistan has been asked to contribute troops, which it has not agreed to do, and which it wants to do under the UN flag. Basic issues such as operational control, command and control structure and rules of engagement have also to be settled. While Pakistan is willing to help its fellow Muslims in their time of need, it also needs to be sure that it is wanted. So far, Pakistan has carefully refrained from any entanglements in the Arab world, such as in Iraq or earlier in Kuwait during the First Gulf War. While there is an obvious desire to curry favour with the USA, such a step might provoke a visceral anti-Israel sentiment within the country.
However, it seems that the debate on recognizing Israel, and thus winning US favour, is being revived. It seems that the debate is dividing the ruling PML(N), but the coming out into the open of these differences mean that either Kh Asif or Ch Danyal must be sacked by the PM. //while there is nothing in theConstitution obliging collective Cabinet responsibility, and while there have been previous episodes of ministerial dissension without consequence, there is a constitutional convention demanding unity.The only way of keeping both in office would be for one to back down publicly. Members of the ministry must know that they do not have the right ot personal views, at least not in public.
