Cohen on the Israeli-Pakistani Nuclear Competition (II)

By Geoffrey Cook, MMNS

Miami–Your stringer finds himself on a plane between San Francisco and Miami as he continues to write the second installment of his commentary on Israel nuclear growth and the present status of their agenda.  Your columnist was, also, able to quiz my subject, Avner Cohen, while I was still in Berkeley, on the Israel-Pakistan nuclear confrontation.  A  subject in which your reviewer is particularly interested.  By the time the plane had deplaned in Miami, my first draft was completed.  Although it is always difficult to work in the cramped quarters of a plane, at least I did not waste the five hours.
As your scribe stated above the initial segment of this report on the comments of  Avner Cohen, the expert on the Israeli nuclear program, was published last week in the Muslim Observer.  This second section was required to finish this sequence.

The IDF  (the Israeli  Defense Forces) have remained a conventional weapons juggernaut.  As was mentioned earlier in the 1960s, the States were not a major supplier to Tel Aviv.  The purpose of the change in the D.C. policy to supply  the Hebrew-speaking nation was to discourage them from crossing that mega-mace dreaded brink.  Still, the Zionists proved to be too clever for Washington through their denial of their nuclear capability.  In this manner, the tiny Israeli fatherland was able to become the most powerful single dominant militant force in the Middle East.  Israel aptitude for denial played a secret part in their covert “war” against the U.S.

There  is a gap between  their nuclear proceedings and the political role of their conventional arms policy.  Yet, Israel will not renounce either.

The (current) Prime Minister is still in charge of their arsenal, but he has not loosened up on the taboo of confessing to Tel Aviv’ dirty little clandestine closet of duplicity to this day.  Dr. Cohen thought this policy was flawed (and failing) in his end analysis.

Although the point of their bomb at first was to be deployed against hostile Middle Eastern  neighbors, but now the Hebrews feel that the whole Islamic world is there their opponent — not merely their Arab neighbors.  The horrible P.M. Sharon (who is  now a “vegetable” kept on life a support after a 2006 stroke)  had an unfounded fear of the “Islamic Bomb.”  Of course, with Kazakhstan renouncing their atomic technology, left over from the Russians, only Pakistan remained with the capacity and ability to weaponize, and they were forced to do so by neighboring India (and now the mere fear of the potential of a nuclear capable Iran).

Your scholar is interested in revisiting my paper on Israeli-Pak confrontation.  I did write such a study and presented it at the East-West Center in Honolulu quite some time ago, and their was a journalistic version of it on the Observer towards the beginning of my tenure here.  Your researcher today is attempting to determine if the posture towards the South Asian Islamic Republic still stands after Sharon has passed as a “player” from the scene.  Your commentator is trying to determine whether there is enough new information on the Zionist threat within the Arabian Sea to update my study.   After Dr Cohen’s comments, your commentator believes there is enough to do so.

I asked Cohen whether Israel has an atomic presence in the Arabian Sea?  He answered in the affirmative.  Further, whether there was a (nuclear) submarine base on an island off the Ethiopian Coast?  He claimed he did not know, but he did intimate there was one in the past.  Did a Wing of the Israeli air force — possibly with the Indian generals connivance — attempt to attack Islamabad’s nuke tests test site two days before the effective authentication of the Pakistani sword of state in 1998 — probably to knock out the “Islamic” capability in the bud?  He had no information on that.  If he did he did not wish to talk about it in a public forum.

Dr. Avner Cohen asserted that  Israel’s foreign policy did not have too much trepidation over Pakistan  or the Saudi Arabs.  Israel claimed that there was an unvoiced semi-agreement between these two countries and the major militarily dominant dominion within the Fertile Crescent.

(During the Bush Reign of Terror, George W. tried to compel Rawalpindi to recognize  the IDF, but, if President (General) Musharraf did so, he would have fallen quite quickly into a massive rebellion. 

In quintessence, the Jewish State is a pariah to the majority within the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.)  even though Avner claims that Israel has had a long-time underground Presence in  Karachi and its hinterlands, Cohen claimed that in countries who do not recognize the ancient territory of Israel as a modern entity are represented informally by the notorious Mosaad who mostly serve as the brutal external intelligence of the State!  Thus, Cohen states that most contacts are confidential and clandestine but still at a high level.

Concluding, Cohen emphasized that Israel’s nuclear policy had “Risks and was a sensitive issue.  Tel Aviv should loosen its inhibitions [over the matter].  This [his] book is to start it [the process].”  (For this [supposedly] would put his state back into the international community — especially if they would sign all the Treaties on the limitations on WMDs.)  Dr. Avner Cohen — unlike your correspondent who advocates the de-activatation of their armaments beyond the  practical needs for defense (Israel is tremendously over armed for any possible threat to them).  Avner’s position opinion is to “Keep the weapons, but become more opaque [about them], for he deems the act of confessing to their existence, is…to take responsibility [for their possession].”

Finally, Avner ended with a bit of his skepticism:  Elucidating that the Israeli Government’s official position “…is to establish a nuclear free-zone over the Middle East,” but here is where the bolt clogs the diplomatic machine “– after the conflict is resolved [Sic]!”

13-6