Business Recorder Column September 29, 2020

Political temperature rising

 

Rashed Rahman

 

The arrest of Shahbaz Sharif by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) from the Lahore High Court premises immediately after his application of extension in bail was rejected on September 28, 2020, is a harbinger of things to come and an indicator of how the political temperature is rising in the aftermath of the opposition’s Multi-Party Conference (MPC) and the formation of the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) to head the campaign against the government. Railways Minister Sheikh Rashid must be very disappointed at this development since it seems to have put paid to his repeated ‘prophecies’ of a split in the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N). Sheikh Rashid had been relying on Shahbaz Sharif’s well known and oft repeated preference for reconciliation (with the establishment) rather than confrontation. But if the irrepressible Sheikh thought Shahbaz would abandon Nawaz Sharif, he needs to go rethink.

Shahbaz’s arrest follows the clear declaration by the MPC that it was embarking on an escalating campaign of mass rallies and protests with the objective of bringing down the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government. There are many sceptics around regarding the ability of the newly formed PDM to fulfil the task. For one, the three main components of the PDM have differing stakes in the present set up, disparate histories as far as mass agitation is concerned, and differing appreciations of the best strategy going forward. For example, PML-N still has a considerable presence in parliament (though confined to the Centre and Punjab), no track record of mass agitation despite Nawaz Sharif thrice being removed as prime minister, and notwithstanding Nawaz Sharif’s clarion call to turn the opposition’s guns on the real, ‘parallel’, ‘state above the state’, not seen as inclined towards totally burning its boats. One of the PML-N’s parliamentarians has already deserted to the ruling set up, citing differences with Nawaz’s speech. The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) has been reduced to a pale shadow of the once militant jiyalaparty, thanks to Asif Ali Zardari. It also has a stake in the present set up in the shape of its government in Sindh and presence in parliament (particularly the Senate). Neither PML-N nor PPP appear to be in favour of mass resignations from the Assemblies, contrary to Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s demand. The Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam (JUI) has the most to gain from abandoning all toeholds within the present set up and going all out for a protest movement to remove the PTI government. The Maulana is browned off because his once shining star on the establishment’s trophy shelf has dimmed. Hence his defeat in the 2018 general elections from his traditional D I Khan seat. JUI neither has huge stakes in the present dispensation nor much to lose by a street agitation, for which it has appreciable potential. Given these differences in approach, orientation and agitational capacity, it is a tall order for the opposition to reconcile the differing stances and present a united front to the government (and the establishment).

What in essence is the perceivable strategy of the PDM? Clearly, no insurrection is on the cards. As announced in the declaration of the MPC, incrementally large protest rallies will be held in the provincial capitals and smaller cities and towns starting October 2020, escalating to bigger protests by December 2020 and the final assault on Islamabad in January 2021. Stripped of rhetoric, the PDM clearly wishes to add to the perceived ineptness and incompetence of Imran Khan’s government by making its normal functioning impossible through mass agitation. This, PDM hopes, will persuade the establishment to abandon its ‘creature’, the PTI government, for whatever alternative in whatever form becomes possible.

The internal differences in the ranks of the PDM described above are obstacles to this purpose while the stirring dissatisfaction of the masses (even those who genuinely voted for the PTI in 2018) based on crippling inflation, stubborn unemployment for lack of growth in the economy, and little to look forward to or bring cheer for the foreseeable future, are factors favouring PDM’s plans. If the issue is finally to be decided in the streets, further pre-emptive arrests of opposition leaders may follow Shahbaz Sharif’s incarceration and the start of nibbling at Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s strength by arresting his colleague Musa Khan Baloch and sending the Maulana a NAB notice. What effect that may have on the ability of the PDM to defy the crackdown remains to be seen in the near future.

Initially, many amongst the people, even non-PTI supporters, despite the controversial 2018 election and the installation of a minority PTI government (with help from the usual cast of pliant parties and politicians), were prepared to give Imran Khan the benefit of the doubt and even make concessions to the PTI’s first time in power that implied a learning curve in office. However, the one-point agenda of the PTI on corruption has worn thin and lost credibility in the absence of appreciable performance by the PTI government and a transparent and credible accountability process that spares no one, not even the PTI’s members. The latter in particular has not happened. Jahangir Tareen cooling his heels in London is the best example of the largely one-sided witch-hunt the accountability process has metamorphosed into.

On a sad note, Pakistan has been ‘blessed’ throughout its existence by unlikely heroes. Despite widespread reservations regarding the shenanigans of the PML-N and PPP leaders in office, when they lent currency to the apprehension that the post-General Ziaul Haq turn to democracy had simply yielded the descent into seeking public office for private gain for the politicians (in which they are far from alone), the performance of the PTI government and its blatant kow towing to the establishment have caused large numbers of people to recoil from another failed establishment ‘experiment’. How far this recoil aids the plans of the PDM will probably be clearer in the next few months, and perhaps visible by the end of the year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Editorial September 29, 2020

Army-government relationship

 

There is no gainsaying the fact that the military has played a dominant role in our country’s politics. Therefore what is referred to as the civil-military relationship assumes extraordinary importance. In practice, it is the army-government relationship that determines the course of our politics. Given this history and facts, it comes as no surprise that Nawaz Sharif, without naming the military, said in his speech to the Multi-Party Conference (MPC) of the opposition on September 20, 2020 that there existed a ‘state above the state’. Nor should it surprise us that in its aftermath, a meeting on September 25, 2020 between Prime Minister Imran Khan and some journalists should have almost inevitably turned to the question of the state of relations between the incumbent Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government and the military. In his reply, Imran Khan too reiterated that there was unprecedented harmony between the government and the army. The latter, Imran Khan continued, does 100 percent what he asks of it and always lends its support whenever required. This statement should be juxtaposed with the repeated statements of Imran Khan that the army and the government were ‘on the same page’ and other almost daily utterances to this effect. We cannot say to what extent the military likes being drawn publicly into the political fray as a result. But given its extraordinary outsized role in our national affairs, this appears to have become inescapable. Even meetings of opposition leaders with COAS General Qamar Javed Bajwa become fodder for the daily war of words between the government and the opposition. The revelation of these meetings lately by Railways Minister Sheikh Rashid has given rise to a storm in a teacup, with the irrepressible Sheikh threatening more revelations that may embarrass the opposition.

Perhaps it is in response to this mini-furore that Nawaz Sharif has now forbidden any meetings with the top military brass without the approval of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz’s leadership. Subsequent to this the prime minister too, through a letter issued by the cabinet division, banned the members of his cabinet and the bureaucrats from meeting military officials without his prior permission.

Another issue that reared its head before the MPC was whether Nawaz Sharif’s speech would be allowed to be broadcast by local TV channels. Initially, a host of PTI ministers fulminated that a convicted person could not be allowed to have his speech broadcast. Perhaps they had in mind the aftermath of Altaf Hussain’s incendiary speech, whose fallout was the ban on Altaf Hussain’s utterances on our TV channels and the break-up of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM). There is also the negative precedent of Asif Ali Zardari’s interview on a TV channel being taken off the air in mid-sentence. However, these precedents do not make the case for suppression of speech or curtailment of the right of free expression. It goes therefore to the credit of Imran Khan that he overrode his ministers’ objections and decided that allowing the speech to be broadcast would be in the interests of free speech and in the event, the interests and image of the government. It is another matter that the speech has been castigated by Imran Khan and other ministers as music to India’s ears. From this, some have tried to construct once again the ‘patriotic card’ to castigate Nawaz Sharif for bringing grist to India’s propaganda mills. This dubbing of dissident opinion, almost in knee-jerk fashion, as ‘anti-national’ needs to be eschewed since any controversial happening or speech is pounced upon by the Indian media to do Pakistan down. Patriotism, to quote the classic saying, is often the last refuge of the scoundrel. Love of country should not be debased in this manner and through its overuse in our discourse. In a democracy, the rule of law is supreme. If the law does not generally permit stifling free speech, our political leaders should learn to curb their atavistic urges and follow the law in both word and spirit as Prime Minister Imran Khan did.

Business Recorder Editorial September 25, 2020

Justice at last?

 

The arson attack on a garments factory in Baldia, Karachi, on September 11, 2012 was the worst industrial disaster in Pakistan’s history, in which 264 workers, men and women, perished. After eight long years, an Anti-Terrorism Court has finally handed down a verdict that sees two former activists of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) sentenced to death, life imprisonment to four gatekeepers of the factory, and acquittal for four others, including then minister of industries Rauf Siddiqui. It has been an agonising wait for justice for the victims’ families. The sentences include fines and diyatto these families, attracting further jail time in the event they are not paid. The facts of the case show that the owners of the factory, Ali Enterprises, were being subjected to extortion by the MQM cadres for some time. This was not unusual in the days when MQM had Karachi and its citizens by the throat. Reports later revealed a network of extortion (bhatta), torture cells, and murders of anyone who stood in the way of the then dominant MQM, not excluding recalcitrant cadres of the organisation itself. Not a leaf moved in Karachi in those days except according to the will of the then MQM supremo, Altaf Hussain. The arson attack followed the refusal of the owners of Ali Enterprises to comply with the MQM’s demand for Rs 250 million in extortion money or a partnership in the enterprise. The main culprit on the ground was then chief of MQM’s Karachi Tanzeemi Committee Hammad Siddiqui, who has been declared an absconder. Amongst the 400 witnesses who deposed during the trial, the owners of Ali Enterprises denied responsibility for the factory’s doors being locked, which denied the trapped workers exit from the blazing inferno. But their testimony also points the finger at MQM bigwigs like Rauf Siddiqui who lodged an FIR against the owners to pressurise them into silence. The then Governor Sindh Ishratul Ibad stands accused of pressurising the owners to pay Rs 59.8 million via the MQM to compensate the victims’ families. As it turned out, the amount was paid but not a penny reached the intended beneficiaries. Instead, the money was used to buy a plot in Hyderabad.

The murky era of the MQM’s hold on Karachi is well exemplified by this case. General Ziaul Haq’s regime ‘encouraged’ the emergence of MQM as an urban force in the 1980s to neutralise the Pakistan People’s Party’s hold on Sindh. In the process, the MQM proxies turned so vicious that the establishment was forced to carry out suppression campaigns against the party from the early 1990s onwards. Today the MQM lies ‘broken’ into three warring factions and they are a pale shadow of the once mighty Altaf Hussain’s empire. However, for MQM-Pakistan to attempt to distance itself from the Baldia happenings because Rauf Suddiqui has been acquitted or they claim they have cut off all relations with Altaf Hussain just does not hold water. Today’s changed reality cannot nullify the MQM’s responsibility for the Baldia and other acts of cruel terrorism. The justice system’s excruciatingly slow grinding wheels, which took eight years to get to the verdict that could still go through an appeals process in the higher courts, once again reflect the painful reality of the flaws in our creaking judicial set up. Not everyone is satisfied by the verdict. The Ali Enterprises Factory Fire Affectees Association and the National Trade Union Federation, which have been campaigning for the rights of the victims and their families, have expressed dissatisfaction at the verdict, deeming the owners responsible for the tragedy’s high toll of human life because of poor safety and design and the controversial issue (still) of who was responsible for locking the factory’s doors. This may well have been the norm at the factory. When even such a huge tragedy cannot be brought to satisfactory closure after eight years of the investigative and judicial merry-go-round, what hope is there for justice in our society?

Business Recorder Editorial September 24, 2020

Gilgit-Baltistan’s status

 

It seems the government and the opposition have reached a rare consensus (or at least near-consensus) on the prickly question of Gilgit-Baltistan’s status. The people of Gilgit-Baltistan have long demanded they be taken out of the limbo in which they have been trapped since 1947 because of the Kashmir dispute. Since Gilgit-Baltistan was part of the historical state of Jammu and Kashmir, the region remained hostage to the intricacies of the Kashmir dispute pending a resolution of the conflict. This state of limbo had long deprived the people of Gilgit-Baltistan of any of the rights normally expected for the citizens of a modern state. Of late, the issue has assumed greater significance because of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the geopolitics surrounding the project, given that Gilgit-Baltistan lies in the path of CPEC. It would therefore be a matter of satisfaction for the people of Gilgit-Baltistan that the government and opposition have converged on the issue of making Gilgit-Baltistan the fifth province of Pakistan, a long-standing demand of the people of the region. However, the consensus still betrays potential differences on the timing and method to be pursued for translating this aspiration into reality. For one, the five-year term of the Gilgit-Baltistan Legislative Assembly and with it the tenure of the incumbent Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz government ended on June 24, 2020. Elections to 24 general seats of the Gilgit-Baltistan Legislative Assembly were to be held on August 18, 2020, but had to be postponed on account of the Covid-19 pandemic. Now that the elections are planned for later this year, the meeting between a government and opposition team some weeks ago in Islamabad attained a ‘near-consensus’ on granting a provisional provincial status to Gilgit-Baltistan while agreeing to hold further consultations on the issue after the Legislative Assembly elections. This was insisted on by the opposition because any move to change the status of Gilgit-Baltistan before the elections would be read as pre-poll rigging. Also, the strategic location and nexus with the unresolved Kashmir issue rendered the matter highly sensitive, with implications for Pakistan’s case on Kashmir. It should be mentioned that the controversial manner in which India has annexed Indian Held Kashmir last year was a setback to a peaceful solution to the dispute. Knowledgeable minds argue making Gilgit-Baltistan the fifth province of Pakistan could be seen as a fait accompli and complicate the final resolution of the Kashmir issue almost as much as India’s annexation of Indian Held Kashmir.

The ‘near-consensus’ of the government and opposition was taken to a subsequent meeting with COAS General Qamar Javed Bajwa, where the latter threw the ball into the politicians’ court and told them categorically to sort out between themselves the matter of making Gilgit-Baltistan the fifth Pakistani province either before or after the Legislative Assembly elections. Whereas the military wants the politicians from both sides of the political divide to take responsibility for the fate of Gilgit-Baltistan, one cannot help wondering whether such a happy outcome is possible in the strained atmosphere between the government and the opposition. Pakistan People’s Party’s Senator Sherry Rehman has delivered a timely reminder of the fact that any such change of status for Gilgit-Baltistan to the fifth province of Pakistan would require a constitutional amendment that cannot be done without a two-thirds majority in parliament. Given the parlous state of government-opposition relations, one wonders if the ‘near-consensus’ can be easily translated into a real consensus. While sympathy lies with the aspirations of the people of the region seeking their constitutional and political rights, the thorny problem of the impact of such a move on Pakistan’s case on Kashmir remains a worrying afterthought.

Business Recorder Editorial September 23, 2020

Lawyers’ moot

 

The conference on “Superior Judiciary, Accountability and Civil Liberties: Concerns and Corrections” organised by the Pakistan Bar Council and the Supreme Court Bar Association in Islamabad last week boasted virtually the entire opposition and a bevy of lawyers, journalists and rights defenders. The unanimity across these ranks on the subject/s of the conference reflected the state of affairs in the country. The joint declaration adopted at the end of the moot laid down some pertinent and critical points. First and foremost, the moot expressed its dissatisfaction over the procedure in place for appointing judges to the superior judiciary. They described this system as the biggest hurdle in the path of achieving the critical goal of a truly independent judiciary. The declaration demanded revisiting Article 175-A of the Constitution that lays down the procedure for the appointment of judges of the superior judiciary. Unfortunately, the 19^thAmendment, the moot argued, had rendered the concept of the judiciary not acting as judge in its own case redundant by giving the judiciary final say in appointments, thereby undermining the role of parliament in the process. There is certainly weight in the observation that the appointment of judges of the superior judiciary through a process that gives the judiciary the final say, hermetically seals the process in the hands of the judiciary itself instead of, as the conference argued, providing all important stakeholders – the judiciary, executive and Bar councils – input under the overall supervision of parliament. Although the conference had a lot to say about accountability, it wanted the principle of accountability extended to all institutions in a fair, objective and transparent manner, including the judiciary. Appointments and the accountability of the judiciary have seen more than their fair share of controversy in recent times, not to mention the painful memory of the judiciary legitimising military coups and dictators to the extent of even giving them the right to amend the Constitution. Since only the judiciary through the Supreme Judicial Council sits in judgement on judges, this ‘in-house’ process too has become controversial. The conference declaration also took to task the present system of accountability as having been reduced to a farce through its use (if not overuse) as a tool for political engineering. The conference demanded a uniform and transparent accountability law under which all institutions and public functionaries should be held accountable without discrimination. Such a law should declare incarceration of the accused before being proven guilty illegal and treat any exemption to any institution as discriminatory and against the principles of justice. Pakistan, the conference declaration went on, was being derailed from the constitutional path of the federal democratic system, and expressed its dismay over the shrinking space for dissent, freedom of the press and civil liberties. It deplored the trend of implicating media persons in treason cases, putting curbs on the media and ‘disappearing’ journalists who dared to challenge the dominant state narrative. Perhaps as a corollary to this, the declaration expressed concern over the increasing interference of the establishment in politics.

Although trends in Pakistan point towards a much stifled atmosphere for objective comment or opinion that runs counter to the national narrative being peddled by the establishment and faithfully parroted by collaborationist politicians and others, the spirit of resistance to such tendencies, weaker though it is in comparison with times past (and worse), is still alive and struggling. The longer and harder this attempt continues, logic suggests the reaction, when it comes, will be severe. Before state and society are convulsed once more by such developments familiar from our past, the powers that be need to don their thinking caps and reflect on the implications of the direction the country is being made to proceed in.

Business Recorder Column September 22, 2020

The die is cast

 

Rashed Rahman

 

Amidst much anticipation, the Multi-Party Conference (MPC) was held in Islamabad on September 20, 2020, hosted by the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and its young chairperson Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. Almost the entire array of the opposition, comprising 14 parties, was represented by their leadership. The only party absent was the Jamaat-i-Islami, which has decided to take solo flight.

After speeches by the leaders, including Asif Ali Zardari, Nawaz Sharif (both by video link), Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Shahbaz Sharif, Bilawal and others, the MPC adopted a 26-point declaration that covered the entire gamut of things considered awry by the opposition. This includes the decision to name the campaign against the government the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM). The PDM demanded the resignation of Prime Minister Imran Khan and announced an escalating three-phase protest campaign starting with public meetings from October 2020, bigger rallies by December, culminating in a long march on Islamabad in January 2021.

The declaration demanded an end to the establishment’s interference in politics, new free and fair elections after electoral reform that would block any role for the military and intelligence agencies, release of political prisoners, withdrawal of cases against journalists, implementation of the National Action Plan against terrorism, speeding up the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor project, and across-the-board accountability under a new law.

The MPC consensus was to use all political and democratic options, including no-confidence motions, en masse resignations from parliament, etc, to oust the government imposed through manipulated elections. Parliament, the MPC concurred with Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s contention, had been reduced to a rubber-stamp. There was a call for the sacking of Asim Bajwa over his alleged foreign and local assets beyond means. The government was accused of neglect in halting the incrementally growing sectarian tensions in the country. The MPC deplored the institution of cases against upright judges and supported the resolution of the conference held by the lawyers on September 19, 2020 regarding the procedure for the appointment of judges for the superior judiciary.

The MPC also raised concern about the troubling trend of persons going ‘missing’, rejected non-party local bodies polls, and demanded implementation of the Aghaz-i-Haqooq-i-Balochistan package. It demanded the constitution of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to present the country’s history since 1947 in objective fashion. The moot agreed to revisit the Charter of Democracy to improve it in the light of experience.

While the MPC’s conference play and its outcome were not surprising (even predictable), the highlight of the conference was the speech by Nawaz Sharif. Pulling no punches, he took to task the ‘parallel’ government that was actually running the show from behind the scenes, calling it the root of all the country’s problems and arguing it was not so much Imran Khan and his government that was the target but what he dubbed the ‘state above the state’. He bemoaned the existence of either martial laws or ‘parallel’ governments in our history. This dictated, according to Nawaz Sharif, the foremost priority of getting rid of the non-representative, incapable, selected government and more importantly, getting rid of the system targeting people, the opposition, and judges of good repute.

Nawaz Sharif urged the MPC to suggest a comprehensive plan for ensuring the Constitution’s supremacy, respect for the vote, and resolving the basic issue of the ‘parallel’ government. He demanded that the Hamoodur Rehman Commission’s recommendations be made public in order to learn the necessary lessons in the light of the East Pakistan debacle in 1971. If such changes as he was demanding were not carried out, Nawaz Sharif asserted, the country could once again suffer an irreversible loss. He urged the MPC to take fearless decisions to protect democracy given the frequent military interventions in our history that produced the anomaly of no prime minister being able to complete a five-year tenure. Article 6 of the Constitution, Nawaz Sharif continued, was unable to stop the Generals’ adventurism , which yielded 20 years of military rule since 1973. The judiciary too could not be spared for its role in validating military takeovers, going to the extent of giving military dictators the right to play with the Constitution.

Elected leaders had been murdered, hanged, declared thieves and traitors, driven into exile and disqualified for life. Nawaz Sharif, in an honest but belated admission, regretted his mistake of not abolishing the National Accountability Bureau set up by General Musharraf for malign purposes that by now stand out in bold relief. Sharif also dilated on suspicions regarding the corruption within the ranks of the holier-than-thou ruling Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI). He pointed to the unprecedented (even for Pakistan) gagging of the media and picking up journalists not kowtowing to the officially certified truth. Nawaz lambasted the PTI government for its handling of the economy, inflation, the food crisis and Pakistan’s international relations.

The government’s response was even more predictable than the MPC’s discourse. Their spokesmen trotted out the same, tired mantra of the opposition demanding to be let off the accountability hook and not much else. Frankly, this diatribe is by now producing diminishing returns in the absence of concrete achievements by a government still floundering two years into its tenure.

In contrast, Nawaz Sharif’s hard hitting, scorching speech has set the political horizon on fire. In a development familiar to those aware of the country’s political past, an incumbent government has managed to push almost the entire political opposition into an embrace that promises once again to bring the government to its knees. The main responsibility for this juncture is the inability of the PTI government to divest itself of its aggressive, divisive, ‘container’ narrative after coming into power and dragging politics into an abusive gutter with little positive to provide relief from the tedium.

Welcome to another possible Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD) type mass agitation. Such movements may not always have achieved their ultimate goal, but they may find ready, combustible tinder at the level of the masses chafing under the misrule of the PTI.

 

 

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Editorial September 18, 2020

Ignominious Arab stampede?

 

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain signed agreements on September 15, 2020 in Washington for normalising relations with Israel, becoming the third and fourth Arab countries after Egypt and Jordan to break ranks with the long standing Arab and Muslim consensus on no peace with the Zionist entity without a just settlement of Palestinian rights. In a triumphant ceremony on the lawns of the White House, a beaming US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu celebrated the reversal of decades of hostility without anything resembling a resolution of the Palestinian plight. As if this development were not bad enough, Trump announced that at least 5-6 countries would also be joining the normalisation process with Israel very quickly. Although Trump refrained from naming the countries, Oman is mentioned in reports as one of them. Inevitably it is Saudi Arabia that is now the focus of attention. Although Saudi King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud reiterated his country’s traditional position that there can be no reconciliation with Israel without a just settlement with the Palestinians, there appear to be straws in the wind indicating a softening of the Saudi stance. For one, the UAE and Bahrain are essentially under the influence of Riyadh. While maintaining a pregnant silence on these two countries’ abandonment of the Palestinian cause, Saudi Arabia seems to have encouraged the process from behind the scenes to test the waters regarding the reaction to and fallout of this development. Significantly, when the UAE announced its intent to normalise relations with Israel, reports spoke of Saudi airspace being opened to flights between Israel and the UAE. In a further sign of the shifting winds, the Imam of the Grand Mosque of Makkah, Abdul-rahman al-Sudais called on Saudis to shun emotionalism and treat Jews well so that they embrace Islam. The Imam’s sermons in the past have been tearful, emotional appeals for the victory of the Palestinians. This could be read as a sign of the changing times.

Trump and Netanyahu are dubbing these developments as a pivotal change of history, but the jury may still be out despite the indications of an Arab stampede in the direction of accepting Israel’s creation and occupation of Palestine. Although the Arabs and Palestinians accepted the compromise of a two-state solution after the Palestinian armed struggle virtually ended in the late 1970s for want of an operational base, it is Israeli intransigence regarding the creeping annexation of the West Bank and reducing the Gaza Strip to the world’s largest open air prison that has held sway because of the US-led west’s support. Even the peaceful protest movement (intifada) by the Palestinians was met with brutal force and put down by Israel. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has proved a weak and ineffective leader, despite the recent rapprochement between rivals Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) in the interests of a joint struggle against Israel. The Palestinians now face a historic reckoning. Either they surrender and join the Arab herd galloping towards the US-supported Israeli stable, or revisit their options. It must be recognised that Israel and the US share with the Arab countries breaking (or contemplating breaking) ranks their fear of and hostility to Iran, not the least because it has helped roll back Washington’s planned control over Lebanon and Syria, and is thought to have prevented Saudi Arabia and the UAE from imposing their will on Yemen against the Houthis. The strategic setbacks to Washington and Tel Aviv in the region have convinced not just them but also an increasing number of Arab countries that their best interests lie in hitching their wagon to the US cavalcade. Hamas continues its armed struggle against Israel to the extent possible from Gaza. The unanswered question remains whether the PLO will now shed its long standing illusions about a US-brokered peace that guarantees them at least their own state on the West Bank and Gaza and revisit all its options, which must of necessity include political, diplomatic and military possibilities.