![tribune tribune](https://i.tribune.com.pk/media/images/2679469-expmimrankhan-1722763997-630-640x4801722765353-0/2679469-expmimrankhan-1722763997-630-640x4801722765353-0.jpg)
The Times of Israel blog has identified Imran Khan, the founder and chairman of PTI, as the most suitable leader to normalise diplomatic relations between Pakistan and Israel.
The Israeli blog cited Imran Khan's approach to foreign policy during his tenure as Prime Minister and emphasised his personal ties to influential pro-Israel figures, including his former in-laws, the Goldsmith family.
It pointed out that Imran Khan's connection to his ex-wife, Jemima Goldsmith, and her family, particularly his brother-in-law Zac Goldsmith, played a significant role in shaping his perspective on Israel.
Zac Goldsmith, a prominent figure in pro-Israel and Jewish circles, is said to have influenced Imran Khan's views on the matter.
The writer claimed that this family connection gives Imran Khan a unique outlook, making him more open to reconsidering Pakistan's stance towards Israel.
Historically, Pakistan has maintained a staunch pro-Palestinian stance, rooted in its identity as an Islamic Republic and its commitment to the global Muslim community.
Successive Pakistani governments have condemned Israel's actions in the Palestinian territories and refused to engage in diplomatic relations.
Imran Khan, too, publicly upheld this stance during his premiership, criticising Israel's policies and dismissing the idea of normalisation as long as the Palestinian issue remained unresolved.
According to the blog, there have been informal messages conveyed to Israeli officials through the Goldsmith family, signalling potential moves towards normalising ties between the two countries.
The blog highlighted that while this may pose a significant challenge in Pakistan's political landscape, his leadership could facilitate a shift in the current nature of Pakistan-Israel relations.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ