Pakistan’s official anti-Zionism – Middle East Monitor

There is a kind of analysis of Islamabad that should be served on expensive hotel stationery, with diplomatic coffee, complementary ambiguity and a little warning at the bottom: may contain traces of reality. The recent Middle East Eye article – “Why Pakistan is likely to refuse to join the Abraham Accords” – belongs gloriously to this genre:

It confuses the choreography of the elite with the actual politics of the country, the inscriptions on passports for anti-imperialism and the conversations carried out somewhere between GHQ, the Prime Minister’s House and the lobby of the Serena Hotel with the pulse of a country of 240 million people.

This is not an analysis. This is elite gossip disguised as geopolitical ideas.

The passport is not a revolution

Yes, Pakistani passports exclude Israel. Yes, Pakistan has not officially recognized the Zionist state. Yes, it’s important. But to present this as evidence of Pakistan’s unique moral exceptionalism is not scholarship; this is the mysticism of travel documents.

Around 40 other Muslim-majority states also do not recognize Israel. Pakistan is not a lone anti-Zionist beacon standing heroically against a sea of ​​Arab betrayal. It is one state among many whose formal non-recognition coexists with a deep entanglement in the imperial architecture that protects Israel.

The relevant question is not whether Islamabad hosts an Israeli embassy. The question is whether Pakistan’s ruling order materially opposes the regional system that makes Zionist supremacy possible: American military power, Gulf authoritarianism, surveillance cooperation, debt dependence, comprador elites, and the systematic stifling of popular politics.

According to this criterion, the State’s record is not that of a “refusal in principle”. This is refined hypocrisy with the stamp of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Civil society, apparently seen near the buffet

The most charming hallucination of the MEE article is its portrait of Pakistan’s “dynamic and contested” political landscape that is holding back normalization. We admire optimism. One also wonders if the author has recently attempted to wave a Palestinian flag, organize a protest in Gaza, defend Imran Khan, criticize the military establishment, or say anything vaguely honest about Pakistan’s foreign policy without being treated like a wannabe insurgent.

The small Palestinian demonstrations were framed with the solemn panic usually reserved for armed rebellions. Senator Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, one of Pakistan’s most consistent and courageous Palestine solidarity figures, has demonstrated more moral clarity than entire conference rooms of credentialed analysts. Yet somehow we are invited to believe that Pakistan is a thriving democratic bazaar in which Parliament, the media, civil society and public opinion majestically shape foreign policy.

If it is dynamism, paralysis deserves an apology.

READ: Top US diplomat thanks Pakistan for mediation efforts with Iran

The elite are not the people

The Pakistani people never needed lessons in anti-Zionism. They have instinctively, morally, religiously and politically opposed the occupation of Palestine for generations. They also opposed authoritarian rule in their country with the same instinct. This is precisely the question that pro-linkage analysis strives to disrupt.

Pakistan’s ruling elite invokes Palestine as poetry and abandons it as politics. He mourns Gaza in his speeches while preserving the relationships that make the destruction of Gaza diplomatically manageable. It condemns Israel while depending on Washington, Riyadh, Abu Dhabi and the wider imperial circuit for money, recognition, weapons, loans, employment channels and regime survival.

This is not anti-Zionism. It is an anti-Zionist image. This is Palestine as a decorative tapestry for a state that fears its own people more than the empire.

The exception of Imran Khan

Any serious discussion about Pakistan and normalization must be confronted with the fact that the MEE article politely tiptoes around: what happened in 2020. Imran Khan faced immense pressure from the military establishment, Washington and Gulf capitals to move Pakistan towards recognition or normalization with Israel. He refused.

More importantly, he understood where his true strength lay: not in Rawalpindi’s permission, not in Washington’s approval, not in Gulf patronage, but in the overwhelming moral sentiment of the Pakistani people.

This refusal was not a footnote. This was the central political fact. Khan’s stance made it clear that Palestine in Pakistan is not just a foreign policy issue. This is a popular moral boundary. His imprisonment today makes the contradiction even more acute: the man who resisted normalization sits in a cell, while the system that wanted to adapt to Zionism now recites Palestine in the sacred vocabulary of state hypocrisy.

The prison below tells us more about Pakistan’s Palestinian policy than any anonymous official cited over coffee.

READ: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey seek regional defense pact amid fears of Israeli domination

The Abraham Accords as political cosmetics

Trump’s demand that Pakistan and other countries adhere to the Abraham Accords should not be mistaken for strategic genius. Trumpism is not a doctrine; it is an imperial impulse disguised as negotiation and shouted through a campaign microphone.

One day he signs a deal. The next day, he threw a rhetorical steak at the Zionist lobby by demanding Muslim support for normalization. This claim often functions less as a realistic expectation than as political theater: Muslim regimes theatrically refuse, harvest cheap domestic legitimacy, and continue to serve the same imperial order through other channels.

This is the oldest trick in regional politics: reject the symbol, preserve the structure. Refuse the embassy, ​​maintain dependence. Denounce Tel Aviv, obey Washington. Talk about Palestine, discipline the Pakistanis. Wave the flag abroad, break the citizen at home. Anti-Zionism without democracy is theater

The fatal weakness of the MEE article is that it treats Pakistan’s refusal to recognize Israel as a demonstration of political virtue rather than the opening sentence of a much darker investigation. Pakistan cannot significantly oppose Zionism while reproducing the same grammar of domination at home: securitization, repression, elite impunity, managed media, imprisoned opponents, disappeared activists and fear of popular action.

Zionism fears Palestinian political action. The Pakistani establishment fears Pakistani political action. The contexts differ, but the instinct rhymes with disturbing elegance: controlling the population, criminalizing resistance, monopolizing legitimacy, labeling dissent as disorder and marketing the whole thing as stability.

So yes, Pakistan will probably refuse to join the Abraham Accords. But not because its leaders are heroic guardians of Palestine. They will refuse because recognition remains politically radioactive. People made it that way. The tragedy is that the same people who defend Palestine are denied sovereignty in their own republic.

This is why the Serena Hotel theory of anti-Zionism falls apart. He understands the State and calls it society. He interviews those in power and takes the echo to the streets. He sees the Pakistani passport and misses the Pakistani prison. He notes a formal non-recognition and lack of structural collaboration.

The Pakistani people chose Palestine. Its leaders chose management, dependence and fear. And until the state stops treating its own citizens as a security problem to be contained, every official manifestation of anti-Zionism will remain what it too often has been: a flag waved behind prison bars, a sermon delivered by jailers, a declaration of solidarity issued from within the architecture of submission. So the question is not whether Pakistan will recognize Israel. The deeper question is whether Pakistan will ever recognize its own people.

OPINION: Aafia Siddiqui and Pakistan’s deal with American gulags

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of Middle East Monitor.

What Are The Main Benefits Of Comparing Car Insurance Quotes Online

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / June 24, 2020, / Compare-autoinsurance.Org has launched a new blog post that presents the main benefits of comparing multiple car insurance quotes. For more info and free online quotes, please visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/the-advantages-of-comparing-prices-with-car-insurance-quotes-online/ The modern society has numerous technological advantages. One important advantage is the speed at which information is sent and received. With the help of the internet, the shopping habits of many persons have drastically changed. The car insurance industry hasn't remained untouched by these changes. On the internet, drivers can compare insurance prices and find out which sellers have the best offers. View photos The advantages of comparing online car insurance quotes are the following: Online quotes can be obtained from anywhere and at any time. Unlike physical insurance agencies, websites don't have a specific schedule and they are available at any time. Drivers that have busy working schedules, can compare quotes from anywhere and at any time, even at midnight. Multiple choices. Almost all insurance providers, no matter if they are well-known brands or just local insurers, have an online presence. Online quotes will allow policyholders the chance to discover multiple insurance companies and check their prices. Drivers are no longer required to get quotes from just a few known insurance companies. Also, local and regional insurers can provide lower insurance rates for the same services. Accurate insurance estimates. Online quotes can only be accurate if the customers provide accurate and real info about their car models and driving history. Lying about past driving incidents can make the price estimates to be lower, but when dealing with an insurance company lying to them is useless. Usually, insurance companies will do research about a potential customer before granting him coverage. Online quotes can be sorted easily. Although drivers are recommended to not choose a policy just based on its price, drivers can easily sort quotes by insurance price. Using brokerage websites will allow drivers to get quotes from multiple insurers, thus making the comparison faster and easier. For additional info, money-saving tips, and free car insurance quotes, visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ Compare-autoinsurance.Org is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc. "Online quotes can easily help drivers obtain better car insurance deals. All they have to do is to complete an online form with accurate and real info, then compare prices", said Russell Rabichev, Marketing Director of Internet Marketing Company. CONTACT: Company Name: Internet Marketing CompanyPerson for contact Name: Gurgu CPhone Number: (818) 359-3898Email: [email protected]: https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ SOURCE: Compare-autoinsurance.Org View source version on accesswire.Com:https://www.Accesswire.Com/595055/What-Are-The-Main-Benefits-Of-Comparing-Car-Insurance-Quotes-Online View photos