Apostate - Murtad and his punishment in
Islam. Let the verdict of the Holy Quran prevail. Part 1
‘Let there be no compulsion in religion’, the Holy Quran. What right do we have to take the life of another human being? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6QV_XbF9yI
An Unlikely Ally: How Imran Khan Could Shape Israeli-Pakistani Relations, by Aynur Bashirova
Pakistan’s Historical Stance on Israel.
Pakistan has long been one of the staunchest supporters of the Palestinian cause, arguably more so than many other Muslim-majority countries. This position is rooted deeply in Pakistan’s identity as an Islamic Republic and its broader commitment to the ummah, or global Muslim community. The notion of recognizing Israel has historically been seen as contradictory to this identity, particularly given the country’s foundational links to the larger Islamic world.
The pro-Palestinian stance is not only political but also deeply embedded in Pakistani society and public opinion. This is reflected in the consistent policies of successive Pakistani governments, which have included open condemnations of Israel’s actions in the Palestinian territories, refusal to engage in diplomatic relations, and support for Palestinian statehood at international forums such as the United Nations.
The intensity of Pakistan’s anti-Israel sentiment can be traced back to its founding in 1947, during which it sought to establish itself as a leader of the Muslim world, aligning with other Muslim nations that opposed the creation of Israel. This alliance was further solidified through Pakistan’s membership in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other Islamic blocs, where the Palestinian cause has remained a central issue.
Imran Khan’s Public Stance and Strategic Calculations
During his tenure as Prime Minister, Imran Khan publicly maintained Pakistan’s traditional support for the Palestinian cause. He condemned Israeli actions in Gaza, voiced support for Palestinian rights, and dismissed the idea of normalizing relations with Israel as long as the Palestinian issue remained unresolved. These positions were consistent with both domestic expectations and Pakistan’s longstanding foreign policy.
However, Imran Khan’s tenure was marked by a pragmatic approach to foreign relations, often characterized by a balancing act between public rhetoric and behind-the-scenes diplomacy. Khan’s pragmatism is evident in his broader foreign policy maneuvers, where he sought to strengthen ties with both traditional allies like China and Saudi Arabia and to open channels with adversaries when it suited Pakistan’s interests. This approach suggests that Khan may have been more open to reevaluating Pakistan’s position on Israel than his public statements indicated.
The Influence of the Goldsmith Family and Western Elites
Imran Khan’s close relationship with the Goldsmith family, particularly his ex-wife Jemima Goldsmith, is well-documented and plays a significant role in understanding his potential shift in stance towards Israel. The Goldsmith family is part of the British elite, with Zac Goldsmith, Jemima’s brother, having been involved in British politics, including a bid for the London mayoralty.
Zac Goldsmith’s connections to Jewish and pro-Israel circles in the UK, along with the broader influence of the family within Western elite circles, could have provided Khan with a different perspective on Israel. Khan’s support for Zac Goldsmith in the London mayoral election, even against a fellow Muslim candidate, Sadiq Khan, underscores his loyalty to the family and their broader network, which in turn have supported him in the past.
There have been reports suggesting that Imran Khan sent messages to Israeli officials through the Goldsmith family, signaling a potential willingness to consider normalizing relations between Pakistan and Israel and his willingness to moderate the religious discourse in Pakistan. If these reports are accurate, they suggest a level of flexibility in Khan’s approach to Israel that goes beyond the traditional Pakistani stance. This potential willingness to engage with Israel could be seen as a strategic move to align Pakistan’s foreign policy with the changing dynamics of the Middle East.
The Potential for Mediation and Regional Shifts
Imran Khan’s Western education and his ability to navigate between different cultural and political spheres position him uniquely as a potential mediator between Israel and Muslim states. His tenure as Prime Minister was marked by efforts to improve relations with key Middle Eastern players like Saudi Arabia and the UAE—both of which have shown signs of warming relations with Israel through the Abraham Accords and other normalization efforts.
Khan’s ability to bridge gaps between the West and the Islamic world could theoretically allow him to play a similar role in Israeli-Pakistani relations, if he were to return to power. His personal relationships and strategic outlook could be leveraged to mediate between Israel and other Muslim-majority countries, contributing to a broader regional realignment.
However, any attempt by Khan to shift Pakistan’s stance on Israel would be fraught with challenges. The political landscape in Pakistan is heavily influenced by religious organizations, many of which hold strong anti-Israel sentiments. Public opinion is also overwhelmingly against recognizing Israel, and any move towards normalization would likely face significant backlash from both the public and religious leaders.
Despite these challenges, Khan has previously shown a willingness to challenge the status quo, particularly in areas like education reform and women’s rights, where he has taken on powerful religious organizations. This suggests that he might be willing to take a more nuanced approach to Israel if he believes it could serve Pakistan’s broader strategic interests.
Speculation in a Rapidly Changing Middle East
While the idea of Imran Khan shaping Israeli-Pakistani relations remains speculative, it is not without merit given the rapidly changing geopolitical dynamics in the Middle East. The normalization of relations between Israel and several Arab states has shown that long-standing hostilities can be overcome through pragmatic diplomacy. These developments suggest that other Muslim-majority countries, including Pakistan, could potentially reevaluate their positions on Israel in the future.
The Middle East is in the midst of a significant realignment, driven by shifting alliances, economic interests, and the shared threat of extremism. In this context, Imran Khan’s potential role in shaping Pakistani-Israeli relations serves as a reminder that diplomacy often involves unconventional thinking and unexpected alliances. As the region continues to evolve, Pakistan’s foreign policy may also adapt in ways that were previously unthinkable, potentially opening the door to a new era of relations between Israel and the broader Islamic world.
Israel and its allies must do whatever they can to insure that Imran Khan is free again to participate in Pakistani politics and be the voice that channels moderation. Imran Khan’s unique position, relationships, and strategic thinking could influence Israeli-Pakistani relations, despite the significant challenges and opposition he would likely face in attempting such a shift.
About the Author
I am an independent consultant, researcher, and writer based in Brussels, focusing on writing, editing, translation, and communication strategy. My areas of specialization are Middle East, post-Soviet space, EU, security & defense, energy strategy, and geopolitics. What is more, I write fiction. My languages are Azerbaijani, Russian, Turkish, English, and French. I have two Masters' in European Studies (VUB, Brussels) and International Law (University of Kent, Brussels branch), as well as Bachelor's in International Affairs (VUB, Brussels). In addition, I have a certificate on Curriculum Development in Critical Contemporary Antisemitism Studies (ISGAP, Oxford).
In the UN India and Pakistan are parties to the JK Dispute, not people of JK. Roles of Pakistan and Pakistan?
Pakistan has a shameful record when it comes to human rights. Pakistan opposed a resolution which asked governments to protect human rights defenders. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h44zUs5Ui9s
Facts about the 13 July 1931 incident. Why Muslim sentiments were hurt? Who was behind it? Lease of Gilgit?
Hari Singh was in London during this time. On his return, he said: ‘My religion is justice, and all his public acts and policies are guided by it.’ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajfAatL-9pI
Jamil Maqsood explains the situation of POK-300 people are missing from Azad Kashmir.
Agencies are smuggling drugs to JK. Peaceful struggle will continue. Pakistan must honour their pledges. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6zMwNU5-tQ
This I wrote in 2016 about CPEC, and how it has come true. Dr Shabir Choudhry
This piece is taken out from my book: Is CPEC Economic Corridor or a Strategic Game Plan?
Pakistani government and their foot soldiers claim CPEC is a game changer. Maybe the CPEC is a game changer, but the question is in whose favour will this game change? Many Pakistani economists have serious doubts about the CPEC projects and what they can offer to the people of Pakistan. We can all agree that the CPEC has the potential to make some more billionaires in China and in Pakistan. It can also help China to advance its economic and strategic agenda.
However, I have the following questions and see if the CPEC satisfies them, and which will enable readers to comprehend if this mega project will empower Pakistan, its society; and if it is anywhere near to the Marshall Plan:
1. The people of Balochistan have very serious apprehensions about the CPEC. They feel it is imperial in design and is intended to utilize China’s military and economic might to further fortify the slavery of Balochistan; and help Pakistan to loot and plunder natural resources of Balochistan.
There are many statements and interviews of rebel Baloch leaders to support the above viewpoint, and the insurgency in Balochistan and the movement of the Baloch Diaspora also support this. People of other Pakistani provinces and Gilgit Baltistan also have similar complaints about the CPEC. If I start giving details of all then the article will become too long.
2. According to many Pakistani economists and business people, Pakistani products will not be able to compete with Chinese products; and that will seriously hurt the Pakistani industries and exports. Already there is a big trade deficit in trade, and poor infrastructure and inadequate facilities will increase this gap further.
3. Pakistan is an unequal partner in the CPEC, and decisions will go in favour of the stronger partner, China. This will result in Pakistan losing economically, and strategically and will also lose its sovereignty in many spheres of governance.
4. People need to see if the CPEC will empower women and other disadvantaged people in Pakistani society.
5. Will the CPEC promote peace and stability in the region? Or it will invite other competing powers to intervene in the affairs of the region?
6. Will the CPEC create more space for civil society; or it will enable Pakistan to curb more fundamental rights and shrink already very little space?
7. Will the CPEC help to promote democratic and secular ideals; or those who promote them will be hunted and punished?
8. Will the CPEC empower anti-democratic forces and help to militarise the society; or it will empower the human rights activists to stand up and fight their corner?
It must be remembered that even the elected government with a big mandate is losing power and losing ground to non-state actors and unelected forces, and that vacuum is filled by anti-democratic forces. Militarisation of the society is taking place systematically; and evidence of that is even in a cricket match in Lahore, half an hour was spent in promoting the army.
9. Will CPEC a promote vibrant and resilient society? Or it will strengthen undemocratic forces?
It must be noted that a vibrant and resilient civil society does not suit the governments of China and Pakistan. So, it would be foolish to expect from them to empower civil society.
10. Will CPEC promote transparency and accountability? The evidence so far available does not support this. Anyone who asks about the CPEC is given a shut-up call. Or they are accused of being an agent of India or some other perceived enemy country.
In my considered opinion, the nexus between the army and religious extremists is going to become stronger. Space for human rights activists and civil society will further shrink. Dissent will be brutally crushed, especially in Balochistan and in Gilgit Baltistan. The export of extremism and terrorism will continue to be an unofficial policy of the state policy, and the ideology of hatred and intolerance will be promoted under the cover of religion.
Shaukat Kashmiri explains: Suffering in Balochistan-Pakistan blames those who show mirror.
Fatima Jinnah and many other leaders were called Indian agents. It is a policy of the ruling elite not to resolve issues and oppress people, especially those who demand equality and fundamental rights. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-unj_vDRX4
