AT PENPOINT
The internal debate on recognizing Israel seems to have started, with Information Parliamentary Secretary Ch Daniyal Aziz sticking his neck out, and saying that Pakistan could form part of an International Stabilization Force for Gaza, while Defence Minister saying that this could be a personal opinion, and there was no decision to deploy to Gaza.
The debate may not have led to any conclusion, though it did reveal a level of Cabinet disarray which went beyond internal debate. However, it did lead to an official confirmation (though without attribution) that an invitation had been received. It was not clear from where the invitation had been received.
It would not be so much a question of authority so much as ability. At the moment, there would be nobody with the authority to issue such an invitation. Could US President Donald Trump issue the invitation? It was his peace plan, and he rallied the Muslim countries behind it, but he really has no locus stand. Did Hamas issue it? Or did Israel?
Or did one of the Muslim countries? Of the Muslim countries, only Qatar or Egypt have even a remote connection to the issue by virtue of being mediators between Hamas and Israel. It was not the UN, for it has been singularly uninvolved in the process. The only use of the UN was when Trump met leaders of Muslim countries on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly to pitch them his peace plan. Pakistan was among the countries which distanced itself from that plan by saying the final draft did not include the changes it proposed.
The last time the UN was seized of the issue was when a resolution calling for a ceasefire came up before the UN, but was promptly vetoed by the USA. The USA involved itself in the Israel-Palestine issue when it refused a visa to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to allow him to attend the UN General Assembly. It has been noticeable that President Trump has been dismissive of the UN, and does not seem to wish it to be involved in any way.
The USA has had a problematic relationship with the UN, viewing its position as its host as allowing it to use it as a forum to build the sort of international cooperation it needs. Its use of the UN in the First and Second Gulf Wars must be remembered. The USA used its forces, but under the cover of the UN. Trump does not like organizations which exist to allow collective action. Apart from the UN, he has got problems with NATO, even though its military organization places the USA in charge, what with its COMEURCOM (Commander European Command) being ex officio SACEUR (supreme Allied Commander Europe).
Trump would like to see a world in which US allies enter into coalitions with it whenever it wishes, and jumps to do its bidding. He has little patience with the process of building coalitions, such as those built in the world wars, when it was remarked that generals had to show more diplomatic skills than military.
Pakistan might well keep in mind that it played a leading role in the setting up of the OIC, when it was still just a Conference, because of the arson by a Zionist extremist in attempting to burn down the Masjid Al-Aqsa. It should not be forgotten that one of the reasons Zionists have a visceral dislike for Muslims is because they want to rebuild the Temple of Solomon, destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, on the site of Al-Aqsa. Pakistan would do well to keep out of this, and even with the best of intentions, cannot become an Israeli catspaw for this.
One reason Trump trusts the UN so little is that it has become the reflection of the collective will of all its members, not just of the USA. This is precisely the idea which attracts Pakistan towards it as the sponsor of any peacekeeping mission. It would also avoid several of the difficulties inherent in a peacekeeping arrangement outside the UN framework.
The first issue that would be avoided would be precisely that: if the UN is avoided, then where does the mandate come from? The only multilateral possibilities are the OIC, but not the Arab League or Gulf Cooperation Council. However, while Pakistan is a member of the OIC, it does not belong to the Arab League or GCC It is another matter that the OIC has never before got into the business of peacekeeping, not even when two members were in direct conflict, Iran and Iraq. It also did not plat any role in the splitting up of one of its members in 1971, even though the second OIC Summit in 1974 was the occasion at which Pakistan recognized Bangladesh to allow it to attend the Lahore Summit.
That example brings Pakistan up against the problem it faces, whatever the framework: how to keep the peace between two parties, one of which it does not recognize exists. Hamas it can be said to recognize, because it recognizes the Palestinian State, accepting an ambassador from it, and thus presumably the Gaza Strip government, which Hamas formed. However, it does not recognize Israel. How it can deal with peacekeeping involving the forces of a state it does not recognize, is uncertain.
Without recognition, even travel becomes problematic. Pakistan is one of the countries which specifies that its passport is not valid for Israel. This is not an insurmountable issue, for Pakistan also does not recognise the Gaza Strip as Israeli territory, but its troops will need entry to the Gaza Strip either by air or sea, or through the Rafah crossing with Egypt.
Israeli actions since the ceasefire is supposed to have commenced also are not encouraging for any country which wishes to participate as peacekeepers. Peacekeepers are meant to be between two opposing forces, and to make sure that the agreement is carried out. However, Israel has conducted many airstrikes since the ceasefire, as if to show how abjectly Hamas has been defeated. While firing, even by an non, or tank movements, may be the work of a local commander, airstrikes require planes to take off and land from an airfield ready for them. There can be no mistake, and it requires orders coming all the way from the top.
So what happens if Pakistani peacekeeping troops find the Israelis bombing Palestinians? Or even bombing them? The Israeli doctrine of impunity shows that they have no compunction about attacking anyone who does not take their side. What will they do to peacekeepers?
An indication comes from UNIFIL, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon, which was supposed to get Israel to leave Lebanon. The peacekeepers have been there since 1978, and were unable to prevent the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacres, when Israelis enabled Falangist allies to enter the refugee camps and slaughter up to 3500 unarmed Palestinians and Lebanese Shias. Israel has not inflicted many losses on UNIFIL, but nor has it allowed it to stop it from doing what it wished.
That has happened under the UN mandate Pakistan seeks. Who knows what would happen under some framework that came from Trump’s mind. It should also be noted that his ideas seem to come from the wildest of extremist Zionist imaginings.
Under the circumstances, let alone recognizing Israel (which Pakistan is emphatic it will not), acting as a peacekeeper between it and Hamas seems fraught with danger. Not just from Israeli fire, but from obloquy among the Arabs. Pakistan should remember that the Arab regimes which might persuade it to join the ISF are not representative of the Arab street. All the goodwill generated by this summer’s successful defence against India may be dissipated by a single incident where Pakistani forces are obliged to act in support of Israelis against Hamas.
Pakistan might well keep in mind that it played a leading role in the setting up of the OIC, when it was still just a Conference, because of the arson by a Zionist extremist in attempting to burn down the Masjid Al-Aqsa. It should not be forgotten that one of the reasons Zionists have a visceral dislike for Muslims is because they want to rebuild the Temple of Solomon, destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, on the site of Al-Aqsa. Pakistan would do well to keep out of this, and even with the best of intentions, cannot become an Israeli catspaw for this.
Kilo verme ürünleri.