Pakistan’s Double Story on Israel: Diplomacy, Hypocrisy and a Crisis of Uniformity.

 Pakistan’s Double Story on Israel: Diplomacy, Hypocrisy and a Crisis of Uniformity

Consistency in foreign policy builds trust. For decades, Pakistan has adopted a clear and loud stance: Israel will not be recognized until the Palestinians achieve their right to self-determination. This has been not just an official position but also a moral claim and a political slogan that is rooted in the country’s ideological foundations. However, recent events, tweets and behind-the-scenes information reveal cracks in this “principled” stance. They suggest that Pakistan is presenting two contradictory stories simultaneously one for internal purposes and the other whispered in diplomatic circles.

 

This contradiction is evident in three key events. On the one hand, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Khawaja Asif delivered a powerful speech at the United Nations against Israeli aggression, reflecting its long-standing solidarity with Palestine. On the other hand, British-Pakistani commentator and advisor Dr. Shama Jonjo openly admitted to advocating for Pakistan-Israel relations. Her tweets show that she has been active in the normalization of relations with Israel for years, even though she was also playing a speechwriting and policy advisory role in Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s government. Moreover, the presence of individuals in government delegations who appear to favor dialogue with Tel Aviv further complicates the story.

 

This dual policy is not new. Pakistan has often lived in a gray zone between ideology and reality. But the current revelations, social media revelations, and global scrutiny have made it almost impossible to ignore the contradictions. Pakistan’s official position has always been straightforward: Israel will not be recognized unless a two-state solution guarantees Palestinian rights. This stance was strongly reiterated in international forums, domestic politics, and religious discourse. It was tied to Pakistan’s identity as a Muslim-majority nation standing up for the oppressed. Every government, military or civilian, repeated this line.

 

Khawaja Asif’s speech at the UN General Assembly was also on the same script. They criticized Israel’s occupation, reiterated their support for Palestinian independence, and opposed normalization of relations without justice. Domestically, this stance carries strong implications and any deviation can trigger political and religious backlash. But alongside this public stance, silent advocacy has continued for years. Dr. Shama Junejo’s admission on social media is the latest example. She openly wrote that she is in favor of dialogue between Pakistan and Israel. She also reveals that international powers are investing in Imran Khan, but in her view, the vision of normalizing Pakistan-Israel relations has not been addressed.

 

This is not just one person’s opinion. Shama Junejo has stated that she is working closely with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif in policy advisory and speaking engagements. If someone is actively advocating for Israel’s recognition in such close proximity, it either indicates tacit approval within the government or at least reflects an internal debate that is far removed from the public discourse. Fawad Chaudhry’s tweet further complicated the picture. He criticized the government delegation, saying that pro-Israel elements are now part of Pakistan’s official diplomatic circles, despite Khawaja Asif taking a hard line against Tel Aviv. This is a classic example of “double language” one for the UN meeting, the other for quiet lobbying and a hidden agenda.

 

Why this dual policy exists Several factors explain this contradiction. The Ibrahim Accords and the wave of normalization in the Middle East led by the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan have put pressure on Pakistan. The Gulf allies, which provide financial support, expect Islamabad to eventually come to the same line. Saudi Arabia’s normalization moves are making it difficult for Pakistan to resist. Pakistan’s difficult economic situation often affects its foreign policy. If powerful financial institutions and allies condition recognition of Israel on aid or investment, Pakistan’s leaders may quietly explore the possibility. Figures like Dr. Shama Jonjo, who lives abroad, show that the refugee elite often prefers practical relations over ideological rigor. They see normalization as opening the door to trade, technology, and diplomatic clout. Historically, the military leadership has been wary of openly normalizing, fearing a domestic backlash. But leaks and hush-hush meetings show that military circles are also in indirect contact with Israeli counterparts, often through third parties. Politicians popularize the idea through “intellectuals on the basis of friendship.”

 

This dual policy comes with risks that are not limited to foreign policy. When the world sees a Pakistani minister harshly criticizing Israel while his advisers openly advocate normalization, the country’s reputation suffers. Diplomacy is based on trust, and doublespeak undermines it. If the public feels betrayed by covert efforts to recognize Israel, political chaos can ensue. Religious and nationalist parties are active in accusing the government of "selling out."

 

If Pakistan is playing both sides, its reputation as a supporter of Palestine is weakened.For decades, Islamabad has claimed leadership in this struggle. Now, the contradictions may show that support to be hollow. This is not an isolated incident. Pakistan’s history is littered with such duplicity. Officially, Pakistan did not recognize Bangladesh until 1974, but quietly maintained relations. Publicly, relations with India were opposed, but back-channel talks continued. Similarly, Islamabad verbally rejects Israel but has allowed “accidental” contact whether it be Musharraf’s meetings with Israeli officials or reports of quiet intelligence cooperation.

 

What is different today is that social media does not make secret relations possible. Tweets from insiders like Junjo expose matters that governments once hid behind a veil of diplomatic secrecy. Pakistan now has a choice. It can either openly discuss normalization with Israel, or continue this dangerous doublespeak. If policymakers truly believe that Israel’s identity is in Pakistan’s interest, they should build consensus through parliament and public dialogue. If not, they should ensure that advisers and delegations do not undermine the official position through tweets or informal meetings. The need for candor is not just for foreign policy, but also for Pakistan’s self-respect. A nation cannot move forward by taking one step on principles and another on hypocrisy.

 

Shama Junju’s tweets, Khawaja Asif’s UN speech, and Fawad Chaudhry’s allegations highlight a painful truth: Pakistan’s position on Israel is not just ideological, but also political duplicity. For decades, leaders have maintained this ambiguity. But in 2025, with global surveillance and social media exposing every contradiction, the cost of hypocrisy is greater than ever. Pakistan must decide whether it wants to remain a principled critic of Israel or a silent advocate of normalization. Trying to be both will damage both the country’s international credibility and its internal legitimacy. The world is watching and so are the people of Pakistan.