The father of Pakistan's nuclear program, Dr A Q Khan, has attributed the plight of the Arabs to "their betrayal of the Ottoman Turks". He has also lambasted them for their failure to work towards acquiring nuclear capability. Had they started pursuing nuclear program soon after the Suez Crisis of 1956 they would have become nuclear states 10 years later. He has also argued that in those days there existed no Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), nor were there any rules that restricted the sale and purchase of equipment and material required to develop weapons as various companies of European markets were openly offering and selling nuclear material and know-how.
Unfortunately, however, the Arabs have interest in nothing but travel to the West to enjoy life there, he laments. In his three-part Masla-e-falastin aur maghrabi munafaqat essay carried by a leading Urdu daily (third and last part appeared yesterday) he has also criticised the Ottoman Turks for their decision to become an ally of Germany in World War I.
That no other community has a better sense of history than the Arabs is a fact that has been repeatedly articulated and in fact propounded by pro-Israel scholar of Middle Eastern studies Bernard Lewis in his scores of books that he has penned and the lectures that he has delivered in various parts of the world in his academic career spanning over seven decades.
According to him, the Arabs have a very strong sense of history, "without parallel in the West. In America, the ignorance of history is appalling even in universities. The Muslims are very aware of their history -- which doesn't necessarily mean it's very accurate." In his three-part series on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Dr A Q Khan has also expressed a sense of Islamic history. Citing lack of space as a reason behind his refrain from going into deeper historic details, he has, however, given an interesting account of events starting from the days of Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi in the 12th century to the Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas's arrival in the United Nations in September 2011 to seek statehood for the Palestinians.
No doubt, Dr A Q Khan is a widely travelled person; he's expected to have visited all the Arab countries and therefore formed a strong perception about the Arab world. One would also assume that this highly talented scientist must have also been to the West Bank and Jerusalem before these areas came under the illegal occupation of Israel since 1967. He must have had the opportunity to meet people from various walks of life-from commoners to heads of state. He is also expected to be endowed with a strong ability to appreciate, if not speak and write with facility, the language and understand what the Arabs say amongst themselves and understand it in the context of their own history and background. He appears to be familiar with the nuances of the Arab politics and culture.
All these factors must have contributed towards shaping Dr Khan's worldview particularly in relation to his outlook about the Middle East conflict. Although, Dr Khan writes with conviction, genuine conviction, to successfully demonstrate his expertise in Islamic history, he is not an historian-- at least in the strict sense of the word. Although, his is a narrative which will easily find its resonance in the Muslim world in particular, a lack of scholarly foundation is betrayed by his not so impressive articulation.
But the indisputable fact about Dr Khan is that he's a trained scientist. Many readers of his writings on the Middle East must have expected from him to also dilate on Israel's "nuclear ambiguity" policy because Israel, according to Wikipedia, is currently believed to possess between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads with the ability to deliver them by intercontinental ballistic missile, aircraft and submarine.
Much to the chagrin and dismay of many, however, he has not said a single word on this very critical aspect of the Israeli military prowess except that the Zionist state is so powerful that it can annihilate the armies of the Arab states without difficulty or much effort.
One would be only profoundly naïve to deduce that Dr Khan is not in a position to shed light on this topic of high import with a view to discerning Israel's nuclear ambiguity at a time when the West and Israel have cleared their decks to carry out unilateral strike against Iran's nuclear program, although Tehran insists that its nuclear enrichment program is entirely peaceful.
Dr Khan's reluctance to speak about anything that directly or indirectly leads to Iran's nuclear program perhaps stems from his traumatic experience with both Iran and Libya in particular that led to his public humiliation a few years ago, although he later clarified that he was "forced" to tender a public apology. But the point is that he's wearing the hat of a historian. He is, therefore, required to share his unique expert's knowledge, which should be more about nuclear armament than anything else, with his readers.
As a well read man Dr Khan knows better that Israel is actually maintaining its nuclear ambiguity. It has employed another method to send its message across. For example, some of the Israeli academics who carry the reputation of being part and parcel of the Israeli Establishment have been "unravelling" the mystery of Israeli nuclear program while their government continues to use diplomatic and military efforts as well as covert action to prevent other Middle Eastern countries, particularly Iran, from acquiring a nuclear capability.
Benny Morris, professor of history at Ben Gurion University, is one such academic, although repeatedly seeks to dispel this impression by insisting that his work "clearly" shows that he has never been part of Israel's Establishment. Weeks after his July 18 2008 New York Times op-ed in which Morris claimed that "Israel will almost surely attack Iran's nuclear sites in the next four to seven months", he told NRP that Israel's nuclear arsenal has existed for 40 years. A year later, he said that an Israeli attack on Iran's atomic weapons plants rests on one thing - the US president's approval.
Dr A Q Khan has some deep insights into the matter to offer. One therefore earnestly hopes that he would be presenting his perspective on this issue, which is so critical to the security of the Islamic world in general and the region in particular, without any further loss of time.
to be continued
(the writer is newspaper's News Editor)