First, it’s The Times of Israel, and this time it’s the Jerusalem Post. Quite interestingly, both are discussing the potential of Imran Khan to align with Israeli foreign policy. This raises a simple question: Why doesn’t PTI deny what is being said and written in the Israeli media? Does PTI actually support that implication?
The increasing interest of Israel in Pakistan’s internal politics is quite intriguing. The question is, can we analyze it objectively without being influenced by political affiliations? In the recent past, Israel’s envoy to the United Nations, Adi Farjeon, criticized Pakistan at the UN for human rights abuses following the arrests of PTI activists. This was perceived as Israel’s traditional opposition to Pakistan rather than support for the PTI. However, the situation seems to have escalated. Things seem to be more serious and murky.
Israel’s interest in Pakistani politics has extended beyond the Israeli government to the Israeli media. Proponents of Israel are now advocating for intervention in Pakistan’s politics and are urging Israel’s allies globally to do the same. Regardless of the perspectives presented in the Israeli media, it’s crucial to be aware of this narrative.
Basarova’s article published in the Times of Israel was alarming. One of its phrases is particularly thought-provoking. She writes, “Israel and its allies must do whatever they can to ensure that Imran Khan is free to participate in Pakistani politics again.”
And now this is Jerusalem Post. An excerpt of Jerusalem Post suffice to understand whats going on:
“PAKISTAN IS an interesting case in point. Although it has maintained a policy position that was pro-Palestinian for a long time, recent years have seen an occasional sign of its desire to improve relations with Israel. Former prime minister Imran Khan – despite his strong rhetoric against Israeli policies – hinted at Pakistan needing to forge its own foreign policy path. This was particularly pertinent at a time when the rest of the Muslim world began to normalize ties with Israel on the basis of self-interest. Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Party winning 93 National Assembly seats in the country’s recent election his influence – or perhaps the emergence of another like-minded and equally pragmatic leader – could bring opportunities for reevaluating the extent to which Pakistan can afford to reconsider its historic hostility toward Israel, particularly in the face of its ongoing deep economic crises. For Pakistan, normalization with Israel would bring about significant economic benefits, including technological support in agriculture, cybersecurity, and defense, not to mention potential financial investment, among other things. In 2022 alone, trade between Israel and the UAE jumped 124% to $2.59 billion year-on-year exhibiting the potential. A more diversified foreign policy on Pakistan’s part could also bring with it strategic benefits as it navigates its own complex relationships with both India and Afghanistan. But for that, a strong resistance from within its own military establishment, which has long held back full-blown normalization with Israel, would need to change. A change in leadership would most probably also be needed for any resolution to move forward, and figures like Khan could very well be central in changing both public opinion and military policy alongside of course, the continuous evolution of regional dynamics.”
This should not be treated with casualness; we have been addicted for decades. It is a serious matter and should be taken seriously.
