FULL ARTICLES

EUROPEAN POLL CALLS ISRAEL A BIG THREAT TO WORLD PEACE

European Poll Calls Israel a Big Threat to World Peace
International Herald Tribune
October 31, 2003

Almost 60 percent of Europeans say that Israel is a larger threat to world peace than North Korea, Iran or Afghanistan, according to a poll scheduled to be made public Monday by the European Commission.

The result from a survey of about 7,500 people across the European Union was confirmed Thursday by an official at the commission.

Although Europeans have been consistently critical of Israel in recent surveys, the poll appears to show a severe souring of attitudes toward the Jewish state.

Full details of the survey were not available Thursday but an official at the commission confirmed that Israel was rated first when pollsters presented a list of 15 countries and asked: "Tell me if in your opinion it presents or not a threat to peace in the world." Fifty-nine percent of Europeans chose Israel, according to the official at the commission, who said the data were still being processed and could change, but only by "a matter of decimals." The poll was limited to Europe so there is no way to directly compare the results to U.S. attitudes. Americans tend to be sympathetic toward Israel in surveys.

El Pais, the Spanish daily newspaper, said in an article Thursday that the Dutch, Austrians and Luxembourgers were most likely to see Israel as a "threat in the world" whereas the French were less likely. The full results, with breakdowns from each country, will be included in the report Monday.

El Pais said that the survey - which included many questions about Iraq and the U.S. presence there - was due out earlier but that the European Commission waited until after the Iraq donors' conference in Madrid finished last week and then released only partial results on Monday.

Five of the questions, including the one about which countries were seen as a threat, were held back and will be released Monday.

A spokesman for the commission, Gerassimos Thomas, said the delay was due to "technical" reasons. He refused to comment on the substance of the survey or whether it represented the commission's views.

"This is nothing more than providing a service," he said of the survey, which is known as the Eurobarometer.

The commission regularly makes opinion polls public but this was the first time that the question about threatening countries was included.

The survey was coordinated by the commission but carried out by a contractor in October.

The same number of people - about 500 - were polled in each of the EU's 15 countries, giving much more weight to the views of people in small countries like Belgium, Luxembourg and Ireland.

In the parts of the survey made public Monday, 80 percent said they wanted Europe to be more involved in the Middle East peace process.

Some 58 percent of those polled said the United Nations should manage the reconstruction of Iraq, compared with 44 percent who said the Iraqi provisional government should and 18 percent who said it was a job for the United States.

But 65 percent said they thought the United States should pay for the rebuilding of Iraq.

A majority of Europeans surveyed (54 percent) said they were not favorable to sending European peacekeepers to Iraq. And more than two-thirds said that the war in Iraq was not justified.

In a survey conducted last year for the Pew Research Center for the People the Press and the International Herald Tribune, British, Italian, French and German respondents said they sympathized more with the Palestinians than Israelis.

By contrast, 41 percent of Americans said they sympathized with Israelis and only 13 percent with the Palestinians.

RABBI DANNY GORDIS' RESPONSE TO TONY JUDT

Rabbi Danny Gordis' response to Tony Judt

Dear Professor Judt,

Though I'm sure you weren't wondering, I'll begin by telling you that we had a pretty nice Shabbat here in Jerusalem. The weather was beautiful, we had a house full of guests, there was a wedding across the street that went way into the night. And nothing blew up. Kind of an idyllic day here in Jerusalem. For the most part.

But not entirely. You see, I made the mistake of re-reading your recent piece in the New York Review of Books (Israel: The Alternative) before heading off to shul in the morning. Big mistake. You can imagine how distressing it must be for someone living here in Jerusalem to read an article in a journal as respectable as the New York Review of Books that declares the State of Israel an "insecure, defensive microstate born of imperial collapse," that the idea of a Jewish State is a "late-nineteenth century separatist project" and that Israel, an "anachronism," should be replaced by a bi-national State of Jews and Arabs, bringing the Zionist project to an end.

Wow. That is one annoying piece of writing. Admittedly, you're not the only intellectual suggesting that it's time to declare the experiment called Israel a failure. A recent issue of The Nation has an article by Daniel Lazare saying more or less the same thing, and even Israelis like Meron Benvenisti have declared Zionism dead, agreeing with you that it's time for Jews and Arabs to share one state before the river and the sea.

So if others have said this already, why did your piece bother me so much? Some of it, of course, was the parts that were plain silly. You note that Ehud Omert, Israel's deputy Prime Minister, has insisted that Israel still has the option of killing Arafat, which, "you say," reveals Zionism's "fascist" elements. "Political murder is what fascists do," you write. I'll be sure to point that out to the American troops hunting for Saddam and Osama bin Ladin. Or your suggestion that the real reason for the war on Iraq was to improve Israel's strategic position in the Middle East. You really expect us to believe that the United States would demolish an entire country for Israel's sake, at the expense of billions of dollars, and then quibble with us about where to put the security fence? To say that that's counter-intuitive would be to put things mildly.

But I can deal with the silly parts of your article. What is much harder for me is the not so subtle anti-Semitic underpinning of the whole argument. Now, I know how you'll respond. You'll say, "There they go again. Any time anyone says anything negative about Israel, they reply, in some knee-jerk fashion, that it's just anti-Semitism." But you'll be wrong if you say that. I agree with you that Sharon is an unsavory fellow, that we could be doing more to promote some possibility of peace. I wouldn't compare him to the inventor of modern terrorism and the butcher of the Middle East, Yassir Arafat, as you do, but I disagree with a lot of what he does. I'm uncomfortable with many of Israel's policies. And I don't believe one has to be Jewish to point out those failures. No, you have a right to critique.

So what's anti-Semitic about your article, you want to know? It's the fact that not so deep down, you just wish the Jews would disappear. No, of course you don't say it that clearly. That's no longer politically correct in the academic circles you inhabit. So you just hint at it. "In a world where nations and people increasingly intermingle and intermarry at will . where more and more of us have multiple elective identities and would feel falsely constrained if we had to answer to just one of them; in such a world, Israel is an anachronism." But here's the rub, Professor Judt. Many Jews (most, I suspect) don't want to intermingle and intermarry at will. Of course, we have multiple identities, but we answer to one before the others. We take pride in the fact that Jews have survived for thousands of years. We believe that Jews have something to contribute (as do other cultures, obviously) to the world, and frankly, we don't think of our Jewishness as an "elective identity." To many of us it's a gift, and a responsibility. We're not around today because our ancestors walked away from their Jewish obligations, and we don't plan to start walking away now.

The real problem, you see, isn't that Israel is an anachronism. It's that Judaism, or Jews, is an anachronism. We are so very annoying in our insistence that we don't want to completely blend in. Now, when you compare us to Islam today, I think we've done a pretty admirable job of blending in. If Islam were to embrace modernity and western culture the way that we have, the world would be a much better place. The World Trade Center would still be standing, the United States would not be in Iraq, there would be no American troops in Afghanistan, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be over, because rejectionist Palestinian leaders would have accepted the State that they were offered in both 1947 (by the United Nations) and in 2000 (by Ehud Barak's government). If there's any group you should be annoyed with for refusing to have "multiple identities," it's Islam, not Judaism.

But, of course, it's not surprising that you focus on Jews, for example, and not Muslims. The world has a history of having a problem with the Jews' identities. It would be hard to imagine a Jewish community more blended into its surrounding culture than German Jewry in the early 1930's. Yet they can't tell you much about their lives, you see, because their history didn't end particularly well. They went up smokestacks.

Oh, no. I've slipped again. I know you don't want to hear about the Holocaust. You've told us to drop it. "The circumstances of [Israel's] birth have thus bound Israel's identity inextricably to the Shoah, the German project to exterminate the Jews of Europe. As a result, all criticism of Israel is drawn ineluctably back to the memory of that project, something that Israel's American apologists are shamefully quick to exploit."

Well, if mentioning the Shoah is shameful or exploitative, I'm guilty as charged. Since you're a historian, though, I suggest that what's shameful is not our mentioning the Shoah, but your subtle minimizing of its scope. Because you, more than almost anyone else, know much better. The Shoah wasn't just Germany's project. If I remember my European history correctly (but correct me if I'm wrong, because you're the Professor of European History), there were quite a few other countries who joined in this "project." ("Project"? My God. That's what you call the genocidal attempt to wipe out the Jews? A "project"? How clinical can someone possibly get?)

Nor was the target just "European Jewry." Those are the Jews who were, indeed, destroyed. But Hitler had a grander plan. Surely, he didn't plan for a "Museum of a Vanished Race" because he planned to leave non-European Jewry alive. When he was done, there were going to be no Jews left anywhere. It wasn't about European Jewry, which would have been bad enough. It was about Jews everywhere. It was about eradicating Judaism, a "project" I suspect you'd like to see completed, but we'll come back to that.

Even those who fought the Axis powers weren't exactly wild about the Jews. Roosevelt closed the borders of the United States, Canada didn't let the Jews in, and the British also sealed the shores of Palestine. In that regard, you're in good company when you express your distaste for the Jews, and I suspect you'll have good company for a long time to come. This month, you've got the Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahatir Mohamad, who is annoyed with the Jews for ruling the world. But others will follow.

The problem for Mahatir Mohamad, and for you, is that the Shoah and its tactics are no longer politically correct. The world frowns on ethnic cleansing these days (which is why you accuse Israel of being willing to do that, even though you know it's absurd; we've long had the power and have never done anything of the sort, and anyone who knows anything about Israeli public opinion knows that it's unthinkable to the vast majority of Israelis), so one has to subtly come up with other ways to end not just Zionism, but the Jewish people. And that's where your article comes in. Let's just end the Jewish State and put an end to the fighting. Sounds reasonable. But you know what many others, Jews included, haven't yet figured out. The end of the Jewish State is the end of Judaism as we know it.

Would there be some Jews left who would practice a several thousand year old religious tradition? Of course there would, you're right. But the thriving, flourishing Judaism that the world knows today is a Judaism that can exist only with a Jewish State. How many novels are written in Hebrew outside of Israel? I'm not aware of a single one, but there are certainly very, very few. How significant is the production of Jewish art, or high culture, outside of Israel? Relatively speaking, there's almost none. How many people would speak Hebrew -- the language that allows access to Judaism's critical and formative texts -- if not for Israel? Very few, indeed.

But Israel has the Jewish cultural productivity that it does because it is only in Israel that Jews make up the majority of the population, it is only in Israel where a Jewish consciousness is part of the rhythm of the society, its media, its artists, its women and men of letters. Where else, as Israelis debate whether or not to follow through on a prisoner exchange that would free Elchanan Tenenbaum in exchange for hundreds of terrorists, even though Tenenbaum now appears to have been captured when he traveled to Abu Dhabi for some illegal purpose, would even secular citizens offer their opinion about a possible prisoner of war trade by citing the case of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, the great Talmudic sage of the 13th century? The Maharam of Rothenburg, as he's known, was also kidnapped, but when he heard that the Jewish community had raised the money for his ransom, he realized that if he were freed, other Jews would be similarly kidnapped, and he refused to allow the deal. He rotted in prison until his death. Many of us take pride in conversations like that, in dialogue in which the richness of Jewish history, law and expression is often the foundation of our contemporary discourse. But only in a country that's Jewish at its core will the radio waves be filled with the discussion of a 13th century Talmudist as people opine on a current affairs topic. It's that sort of cultural richness which is unique to post-War Judaism; it's that sort of cultural richness that only a Jewish culture in a Jewish state can provide. And it's that cultural richness that you want to see eradicated.

No, I understand. You'll say that you have no objection to that cultural richness surviving. You just want the political and military battles to cease. Enough bloodshed. Let's share the land, and then Jews can flourish without having to die in a never-ending conflict. But there are solutions to this conflict, though you deny them, that do not require dismantling our country. They'll be hard to implement, true, but they're not impossible. So why advocate doing away with us? Because, Professor Judt, you know in a bi-national state, Jews would almost immediately become a minority. And with time, a rather small minority. How well would we fare there? Well, let's ask ourselves. How many westerners do you see running to Egypt, to Saudi Arabia, to Jordan, to Syria, to Iraq, to Iran or to Lebanon (for starters) so that they can live in an environment in which they'll have complete and unfettered access to cultural expression and flourishing? (Even Israeli Arabs overwhelming say that they wouldn't move to Palestine when the State is created; they'd rather live in the Jewish State.) Those are the kinds of places that you suggest we re-create in order to permit the Jews to thrive? Surely you jest.

And one final question, if you don't mind. Why is it that when Ceausescu turns Romania into a living hell, no one suggests doing away with Romania? Or when Iraq menaces the world, the United States invades Iraq, not to destroy it, but to save it and return it to her people (with minimal success, I agree). When North Korea announces its arms proliferation program, the discussion is about how to contain North Korea; no one says that North Korea has no right to exist. Why do we hear claims that a country has no right to exist only when it comes to Israel? Doesn't that strike you as odd?

Sadly, though, it's not that odd. Throughout your article, you keep reminding us that the world has changed. But your brave new world doesn't seem all that brave to me, or all that new. The French still have a country of their own, and a place to root their culture. And the same with the Germans, and the Swiss, and the English and so on. No, the only culture that you think doesn't need or deserve a place to have roots is Jewish culture. The only people threatened by your view of the world are the Jews. No one's talking about doing away with France. Alas, the world hasn't changed almost at all. That's the real problem.

Happily, though, reading your piece wasn't the last thing that I did on Shabbat. When we got home from shul, the whole discussion of Elechanan Tenenbaum started again. Books flew off shelves, Jewish history suddenly came alive, and our kids avidly participated in the kind of discussion they could have only in a country where they have a right to believe that Jews should make distinctly Jewish decisions about the fates of other Jews. Not bad given where the Jewish people was half a century ago. Then, at night, my wife and I went to the movies. We saw Costra-Gavras' film, AMEN. I know. More Holocaust. I apologize.

As we waited for the movie to begin, we couldn't help but notice the makeup of the crowd. Four native Israeli thirty-somethings in the row in front of us, some American retirees in the row behind us, and to our left, two elderly men speaking French. The movie, as you know, isn't an easy one to watch. But as powerful as it was, perhaps the most moving thing was what we heard during the very few scenes that take place in the concentration camps. It was, obviously, silent in the theatre, except for the sound of the film, and except for the sound of one of the French men weeping as he saw the place in which he had undoubtedly been. You watch that movie and the world's refusal to care, you hear the sounds of this man sobbing, remembering God only knows what, and I must tell you, Professor Judt, that with all the problems that Israel has, and they are many, I walked out of the theatre with renewed gratitude that we have this place, and like my fellow Israelis, I suspect, determined that we'll never give it up. Never.

Virtually every other major culture in the world has a home, Professor Judt. Almost everyone. Jews have learned what happens when we don't have one. We've been there, and we're not going back. Everything about this place reminds us that we are home, and everything about our history reminds that we need this home.

I'm sorry that you find us so bothersome. I'm sorry that the only way you can see ending this conflict is to do away with us. But we're home, Professor Judt, and your transparent objections notwithstanding, we're here to stay.

1. "Ramadan seen month of virtue and violence in Mideast" (Reuters, Dubai bureau, Oct. 29, 2003). "From a holy month of piety and sacrifice, Islam's Ramadan has evolved into a prime time for attacks by Muslim militants seeking a fast track to Paradise, and this year it appears to be no different. Ramadan, which began in most of the Middle East on Monday, got off to a violent start in Iraq, where synchronised suicide bombings killed 35 people. A day later, Washington warned Americans not to travel to Saudi Arabia because of information on possible attacks on aviation and Western targets. Egyptian militant Yasser al-Sirry who runs the London-based Islamic Observation Centre, said: "Ramadan is a blessed time when good deeds are rewarded 10-fold. If you are martyred in Ramadan, that's even better." Islam strictly forbids the killing of non-combatants during conflict and many clerics frown upon suicide attacks. But analysts and Islamists say the heightened religious fervour of Ramadan appears to encourage extremism. In Algeria, where an estimated 150,000 people were killed during an Islamist insurgency in the 1990s, residents greeted Ramadan with fear as it is traditionally a time for attacks. In ancient and modern Islamic history, Ramadan has also been a time of great victories for Muslim armies. "Shedding blood during Ramadan brings them (militants) greater martyrdom and closer to God," said Mounir Boudjema, an expert on Algerian Islamist rebel groups."

2. "U.S. postwar death toll in Iraq hits new milestone" (Reuters, Baghdad bureau, Oct. 29, 2003). Two U.S. soldiers were killed in an attack north of Baghdad late on Tuesday, the U.S. military said, taking the combat death toll among U.S. troops in Iraq since the war higher than the wartime total.

3. "FACTBOX - Table of military casualties in Iraq" (Reuters World Report, Oct. 29, 2003). Reuters provides a table of casualties suffered by U.S., British and other forces, as well as Iraqis, since the U.S.-led assault on Iraq began on March 20. The figures for Iraqi civilian dead are estimated at between 7,776 and 9,587, according to the web site www.iraqbodycount.net, run by academics and "peace activists".

4. "Recent bombings in Iraq since August" (AP, October 27, 2003). Here, the Associated Press, lists recent bombings in Iraq.

5. "Holy month of Ramadan begins for Muslims" (UPI news agency, Bahrain, Oct. 26, 2003). "Cannon fire signaled the start of Ramadan on the island of Bahrain early Monday. Ramadan, the ninth month of the Islamic calendar, is a month of fasting and reflection for more than a billion Muslims worldwide. For the entire month, starting at dawn until immediately after sunset, Muslims refrain from drinking, eating, smoking and sexual relations. Muslims believe prayers on that night will be answered and God will reward the faithful who stay up late praying for the atonement of sins and a place in paradise after resurrection."

6. "Syria slams ICRC attack as harming Iraqi interests" (Reuters, Damascus bureau, Oct. 29, 2003). Syria condemned as "terrorism" on Wednesday a deadly suicide attack on the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Baghdad this week, saying such attacks harmed the Iraqi people's interests... A U.S. general has said one attacker captured alive in an attempted suicide bombing on a police station on that day was carrying a Syrian passport.

7. "Iraq - The Unanswered Question" (By Charles J. Hanley, AP Special Correspondent, Oct. 29, 2003). "Twelve bombings and three months later, U.S. occupation authorities appear no closer to halting the Iraq terror offensive than on the August morning when the first exploding vehicle ripped through Jordan's embassy in Baghdad. Some American officials were quick to blame diehard Saddam Hussein loyalists for the latest Baghdad suicide bombings. Others pointed to "foreign fighters." But in Baghdad itself, the U.S.-led occupation made clear it's still too early to answer the urgent questions of who's behind the attacks and how to stop them."

8. "2 Al Jazeera Staffers Are Held in Iraq" (Associated Press, October 29, 2003) Coalition forces in Iraq have detained two Al Jazeera staffers on allegations that they had prior knowledge of a car bombing in Baghdad, the editor of the Arab satellite television station said Tuesday... The Brussels-based International Federation of Journalists has criticized U.S. military forces for what it called an increased harassment of reporters since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

9. "Another Vietnam? No" (By Ralph Peters, New York Post, October 29, 2003). "Every lost service member matters, but at the present casualty rate it would take 15 years for our dead in Iraq to surpass the number of Americans butchered on 9/11. Better to fight like lions than to die like sheep... Iraq another Vietnam? Hell, even Vietnam wasn't the Vietnam of left-wing baby-talk politics and campus political astrology. Our Vietnamese enemies represented a mass movement. The Iraqi terrorists represent a small, bloodthirsty movement to oppress the masses... Did Operation Iraqi Freedom create terrorists? No. It terrorized the terrorists. Now it's flushing them out of their hiding places. We'll be killing and capturing them for years. But that's the only approach that works..."

[TG adds: I attach these final three articles to illustrate how in general the Western media does not give nearly as much prominence to the deaths of civilians and "militants" in Iraq and Afghanistan as it does in "Palestine."]

10. "American Soldiers Kill Six Iraqi Civilians After a Bomb Explosion Near a U.S. Convoy" (New York Times, October 29, 2003). "FALLUJA, Iraq - American soldiers killed six civilians just west of this city on Monday after a roadside bomb exploded near their convoy, according to town officials and witnesses. The soldiers, who were on the main road to Falluja when the bomb exploded, fired on a minivan heading in the opposite direction on a different road more than 100 yards away, witnesses said. A spokesman for the American military in Baghdad offered only a general response to questions about the incident, saying he had no details about what had happened but he believed the use of force was justified. Four people in the minivan died, and two were severely wounded, Mr. Saleh said. He showed what he said were photographs of the shattered van that he had taken immediately after the incident. The photographs show a gruesome scene. Pieces of bodies cover the van's seats, sharing space with a set of brown prayer beads. A headless, legless torso lies on the ground beside the van... Since early September, soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division have killed more than 20 civilians and Iraqi police officers in and around Falluja in incidents where the victims have put up little or no resistance, according to accounts from witnesses."

11. "Air Raid Kills 22 Taliban, Al Qaeda in Afghanistan" (Reuters, October 28, 2003) At least 22 guerrillas from the ousted Taliban regime and al Qaeda network were killed in an aerial attack by U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan's southeastern Paktika province, the region's governor said on Tuesday.

12. "Ten Taliban Killed in Fighting With Allies" (AP, Oct. 27, 2003) U.S. and Afghan troops patrolling the rugged border with Pakistan killed at least 10 suspected Taliban who ambushed them with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, Afghan officials said Monday.

OIC SUMMIT THE ISLAMIC WORLD NEEDS UNITY, CHANGE
October 24, 2003

NOTE This analysis is based on 55 reports from 20 countries, October 16-23, 2003. Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date

KEY FINDINGS

** The Islamic press highlights the "frustration and despair" in the Islamic world.

** Mahathir's speech provokes a "hue and cry" but Muslims say its message was "distorted."

** Islamic dailies say Muslims must "unite and increase their capabilities."

MAJOR THEMES

'Troubled times for the Muslim ummah'-- The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) summit in Malaysia Oct.16-18 opened with the world's Muslim press expounding on "the atmosphere of despair and despondency in the Arab and Islamic world." The position of the Islamic peoples "has never been so weak as it is now." The "frustrations and anger of Muslims around the world were palpable" among OIC delegates, said Egypt's leading, pro-government Al-Ahram. Bangladesh's English-language Daily Star spoke for many by protesting that in addition to Muslims being afflicted by "poverty, dispossession and oppression," Islam is also "vilified around the world as a religion of terror." Papers in Egypt, Syria, Turkey and Bangladesh complained the OIC "has never played its role to the full potential" and said it needs "restructuring and new policies that can answer today's problems."

Mahathir's speech 'distorted' by West-- European, Israeli and Latin dailies said Malaysian PM Mahathir's "absurd" comment that "Jews rule the world" were "dangerous and prejudicial" and the kind of "poisoned language" that "fuels terrorism." Singapore's pro-government Straits Times called it "a pity" that Mahathir's "needlessly provocative rhetoric" distracted attention from the "groundbreaking" elements of his address, which called upon Muslims "to shun violence" in pursuit of their aims. The world's Muslim press held that "most Western media conveniently ignored" that Mahathir had said "Muslims should make peace" without violence in Palestine and that the kernel of his message was that Muslims should emulate the success of the Jewish people by "pulling together, working hard and planning for the future." Some outlets, like Pakistan's centrist national The News, claimed Mahathir's comments on the Jews were "not a desecration, but a statement of historic fact."

Muslim writers see the need for a course correction-- Analysts in the Islamic press pointed to the need for "introspection" to find the path to "modernize and provide economic, political and human rights to the Muslim ummah." Too many OIC countries are "dictatorships or despotisms" as well as "economic backwaters." Providing for the human and political rights of Muslims "is the OIC's historical mission." Many dailies echoed Mahathir's call to "emphasize education and science" to overcome the Muslim world's "backwardness." The Islamic community "must work very hard to grasp again the glory" of its past, declared Jakarta's independent Media Indonesia. "This can only be done with high-quality education, not with violence." Moderate dailies in Saudi Arabia highlighted the need for Muslims to "collectively and individually" fight terrorism, "which has deformed the image of Islam."

MIDDLE EAST

EGYPT

"Summit of Frustration"

Attiyah Isawi commented in leading pro-government Al-Ahram (10/20) If it were not for the tempest resulting from the statements made by Mahatir Muhammad, the Malaysian prime minister that Jews ruled the world by proxy and wanted people to kill and die for them, humanity would have never even heard that the OIC summit was in session. Many are the summits, meetings and conferences held in the third world. They convene and conclude uselessly. Thus, people know in advance their outcome, and deep down wish that the leaders saved the money spent on their participation. No sooner had Mahatir bitterly said, 'how can 1.3 billion Muslims stand helplessly vis-à-vis a few million Jews who rule the world and want others to sacrifice their lives for them,' that America, Israel and the EU hastened to accuse him of anti-Semitism. True to their habit, they pounce on whoever dares to criticize Israel's behavior and that of its allies in Washington and Europe.... It seems that the man wanted to say what he said, which was largely true, not caring for the Zionist reaction, because he will be stepping down voluntarily anyway, after 20 years during which he made his country into one of the economic tigers.

"As expected, the summit hosted by his country ended with a handful of rhetorical decisions, none of which carried a single position that maintained Muslims' dignity, rights or reinforced economic relations between their countries to reduce their reliance on the west, especially the United States and sometimes Israel. Both attack the rights and sovereignty of Islamic states and occupy their territories.... To that extent, Islamic states were unable to do anything to maintain their dignity, rights, and not become the doormat that all nations use to wipe their feet, despite their great numbers is like the scum rejected by the flood. Why would they not try once to withdraw their ambassadors from Israel or America in solidarity with the peoples of Palestine, Iraq or Afghanistan? Why did they not boycott the British, Israeli and U.S. firms, expel the ambassadors of Israel or at least freeze cultural relations? The answer may be that they do not control their decision. Each needs America and perhaps Israel, either to receive economic aid from them and the international financing institutions controlled by Washington, to acquire U.S. weapons or help their rulers stay in power. He, who cannot grow his own food, cannot control his decision. Well said indeed!"

"Turmoil Lies Ahead"

Leading pro-government Al-Ahram weekly remarked (Internet version, 10/16) "The frustrations and anger of Muslims around the world were palpable as delegates at the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) summit meeting in the new Malaysian capital Putrajaya complained that, in Kashmir, Chechnya, Palestine and Iraq, Muslim people and territories are occupied, sanctioned, threatened, and accused of sponsoring terror. This atmosphere of despair and despondency in the Arab and Islamic world should not be permitted to linger long. It will only create more trouble, more tension, and threaten international peace and political stability in the region."

ISRAEL

"Mahathir's Charming Message"

The conservative, independent Jerusalem Post editorialized (10/19) "That anti-Semitism is alive and well is no longer news.... It is also no longer news that the evil that was created by medieval Christianity and perfected by secular Europe now dominates the thinking not just of the Arab world, but the Muslim one.... Fortunately for everyone, Mahathir's nasty reign ends this month, which is about 22 years too late. Whether his legacy of hysterical anti-Semitism and conspiracy-mongering survives him will depend on his hand-picked successor, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Badawi should be asking himself whether he wants to steer Malaysia in the direction of the Asian world or of the Muslim one--that is, toward democracy, prosperity, and pluralism, or toward fascism, poverty, and intolerance. One and one-third billion Muslims live in relative poverty not because they are shackled by a few million Jews, but because they think they are shackled. The sooner they free their minds from this fantasy, the quicker the progress they'll make."

SAUDI ARABIA

"Who Protects Ideology Of Hate?"

Riyadh's conservative, Al-Riyadh editorialized (10/21) "If the West actually wanted to create an atmosphere of (religious) tolerance it would set an example by fighting statements which instigate terrorism. Comparing what Mahathir Mohammed said with the remarks of an American official [General Boykin], who reflected an irresponsible and barbaric attitude, we must ask how such an official keeps his job in a government which has declared war on terrorism."

"Justifications For Attacking Mahathir"

Jeddah's moderate Al-Bilad argued (10/21) "President Bush went over the limit when he criticized the Malaysian prime minister publicly and personally. [Bush] failed to justify his attack; he could have ignored the remarks or dealt with them diplomatically, rather than in the media. The campaign against Mahathir shows that a storm of anger awaits any Muslim nation that tries to develop even a moderate position."

"Muslims And Coexistence With The World"

Dammam's moderate Al-Yaum opined (10/20) "All of a sudden, Muslims who were well known for their long history of tolerance, kind-heartedness and honesty among human societies, have suddenly turned into killers and terrorists. This would never have happened if it were not for the stupid, reckless and radical actions of those deviant groups.... The doctrine of Islamic nations stresses security, stability and prosperity among all human communities with no exceptions, all Islamic nations are required collectively but not individually to fight this phenomenon."

"Re-Organizing The Islamic House"

Riyadh's moderate Al-Jazira editorialized (10/20) "The Islamic speech, which concentrated on the importance of reorganizing the Islamic house as a necessary step towards its effective participation with the others, is a vital matter to the Kingdom.... The main concern for Muslim countries is fighting terrorism, which has deformed the image of Islam, considering that there are several terrorist groups proclaiming to be Muslims, and speaking on behalf of Islam and that their actions come out of the Islamic perspective. The problem is not Islam, but those who pretend that they are Muslims and taking a path that diverges far from Islam's instructions, because radicalism and exaggerations are not related to Islam. Therefore, Islamic countries have to sort out their religion from deviations that have nothing to do with Islam or its objectives or means."

"The Will And The Price"

Jeddah's moderate, Okaz argued (10/18) "In light of the Crown Prince's statement at the Islamic Conference we have two questions First, do Islamic countries have the will to deal with their citizens with complete transparency and without deception--something that we have come to expect from them in the past? Second, are we ready to pay the price for the remedy? The cure requires hefty concessions that put the public good ahead of both regional and personal interests. If we answer yes to both these questions, then there may be a light at the end of the tunnel."

"Rooting Out Extremism"

Riyadh's English-language, moderate Riyadh Daily editorialized (Internet version, 10/18) "Extremists are today the worst enemies of the Muslim world.... The Kingdom has time and again spoken vociferously and acted promptly against people with extremist ideology. This established fact was brought to fore once again at the OIC summit... when the Crown Prince called for stronger institutions to counter the bane of militancy stemming from extremist thought. Muslim countries have now accepted the reality that the name of Islam--which in truth is the religion of peace--is constantly being linked to international terrorism. The OIC, which yesterday concluded its first ever summit after the September 11 attacks, has addressed the issue with a realistic approach regardless of how fair or how generalized the accusations of terrorism against Muslims might be.... The Crown Prince directly addressed the problem by rooting this terror image to the extremists within the fold.... The fight against extremism, of course, would have to begin at home itself, within the Muslim world. In this context, the Crown Prince has urged the OIC states to strengthen institutions to tackle the growing trend of extremism among the youth. The Kingdom itself has been looking into its educational institutes and theological discourses, to stem out any elements of extremism, if any. The few black sheep within the fold must not be let loose to tarnish the good name of Islam."

MOROCCO

"Look for the Silver Lining and You Will Find It"

Palestinian Press Attaché at the Palestinian Embassy in Rabat, Wassif Mansur, wrote on the front pate of government coalition Al Alam (10/21) "In the end, it is absolutely worth saying that the Palestinian people, throughout its long history, can no longer rely on Arab, Islamic or international organizations' official meetings, because not one clause from any of those organizations' communiques is ever implemented. If the Palestinian people feel a little optimism after the recent OIC summit, it is only because the summit's condemnation of Israel represents a kind of a courage that has been lost in Arab and Islamic countries since the events of September 11. The (OIC'S) courage has given the Palestinian people some optimism, even if only lip service optimism."

SYRIA

"The Islamic Summit And The Challenge Of The Media War"

Ahmad Hamadah opined in government-owned Al-Thawrah (Internet version, 10/16) "The Islamic summit...has to answer many questions, basically this one will the Islamic countries adopt effective resolutions to confront the state of frustration and despair from which the Muslim people are suffering as a result of the Zionist campaign against them, the accusation of terrorism against them, and the launching of wars on them under this pretext, or will the summit serve only as a forum to deliver speeches and establish follow-up and coordination committees that might not be able to follow up anything? It is no secret that the OIC, since its establishment in 1969, has played a positive role in bringing the Islamic countries closer and unifying their positions over many just causes, notably the Palestinian cause.... But it also has been noticed that after the 11 September events in the United States, the priorities of many Muslim countries changed. Differences among the Muslim countries deepened.... The card of Islamic boycott of Israel also eroded.... Some Islamic countries went as far as taking the side of the camp that threatens their independence, sovereignty, security, and culture. They were driven behind that camp's deception campaigns that portrayed resistance as terrorism and terrorism as resistance.... The Zionist trumpets and media machine are releasing their venom, accusing Muslims of terrorism to distorting their image in the West. They have been telling the United States and its alliesSeize the opportunity to strike at the Islamic countries (your new enemy after communism). This is the new threat that wants to undermine your Western civilization. This campaign, which invented the so-called 'Islamic extremism', found responsive people in the West.... This is due to the torrent of lies used and the absence of any Islamic role exposing these lies, which went beyond every imagination and limit.... Will the Islamic summit note the seriousness of these campaigns and lay out an information strategy to counter them?"

TUNISIA

"The Sword of Damocles"

An editorial by senior editor Hajer Jeridi in independent French-language daily newspaper Le Temps stated (10/20) "The Islamic and Arab position has never been so weak as it is now.... Any observation or criticism expressed by this 'Evil Race' is interpreted as an incitement to hatred and as a racist act.... Being unable to defend themselves...Arabs seem to be resigned to consider this fact as a part of their reality. There is no resistance, no policy, no well-planned communication to answer these accusations.... The most recurrent blame, the sword of Damocles, that weighs heavily on Arab-Muslim populations, is the accusation of anti-Semitism.... It is an insidious policy aimed at isolating the Arab-Muslim world and overwhelming it with charges so as to portray it as an area of outlaws."

EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC

INDONESIA

"Besides Blaming Others, OIC Should Consolidate"

Leading independent Kompas observed (Internet version, 10/19) "This year's summit was the first since the attack on 11 September, 2001, and then the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq--two developments which put the Islamic world on the defensive. As President Megawati Soekarnoputri said in her speech at the summit, these cruel acts of terrorism did not cause casualties and property damage alone, but brought about an erroneous view of the Islamic way of life, which then took the image of a religion smeared with violence and aggression.... In this regard, what [Malaysian Prime Minister] Mahathir pointed out has also played a part in the declining image of Islam. He said the Jews had oppressed and humiliated the Islamic world through their influence in the West. Some of the above points have some truth in them, [but] it is not enough for Muslim nations to blame others. That is why Mahathir also called on Muslim nations to unite and increase their capabilities. He regretted that Islamic nations had made few achievements in economic progress and in mastering technology [and] rejected the view often put forward by fundamentalists that modern education, technology, and progress are anathema to Islam.... Under 22 years of Mahathir's leadership, Indonesia's neighbor has proved itself as a Muslim majority country that has succeeded not only in economic development, but also in advancing political stability.... Malaysia has a lot that OIC nations could copy.... Muslim nations first and foremost need to consolidate, close ranks, and to determine priorities. First, of course, is the effort to advance, at least to the level of the summit host nation. Next, they can forge a compact view, for example, in declaring an attitude regarding Palestine. If Muslim nations can unite, they will not only have a stronger voice, but greater wealth. Therefore, a more appropriate stance is not simply to blame others, but to use some introspection and consolidation to improve themselves first."

"OIC, A Scattered Power"

Independent Media Indonesia asserted (Internet version, 10/18) "It is not surprising that the OIC bargaining position is so weak in so many world affairs. Take only Iraq and Palestine. The OIC seems to have lost its voice. The OIC is powerless to resist the aggression of the United States and Britain, who now control Iraq. The OIC, too, could not hold back the push of Jewish Zionism from swallowing up Palestine. This is because Islam is a scattered force. Thus, Mahathir's call for OIC countries to unite must be welcomed. For the foundation of any organization, wherever it may be, is commonality. When commonality is no longer a cord that binds, there is no longer anything of an organization to defend....

"With the rise in terrorism, the image of violence has covered the Islamic community. And Islam must answer that with intelligence and the high moral ground.... That Islam is cool, tolerant, incorruptible, clean and peace loving, choosing the path of dialogue.... Indonesia, for instance, as the largest Muslim nation, is incapable of setting an example. Our education is increasingly on the ropes, and the morality of our leaders at almost every level is extremely poor.... Thus, what Mahathir says is a call to make profound corrections to our course. The Islamic community must work very hard to grasp again the glory of the seventh and eighth centuries, when Islam was the greatest contributor to world civilization. And this can only be done with high-quality education, not with violence."

MALAYSIA

"Message That The West Distorted"

Bunn Nagara wrote in the English-language Star (10/18) "Malaysia's attempt to rally members of the Organization of Islamic Conference...sought to rouse them from various states of stupor, apathy and semi-paralysis. It had to be a kick-start to push an otherwise disparate array of 57 nations to rise above their rut, torpor and defeatism. Datuk Seri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad's opening speech was as usual expansive and provocative. It challenged OIC member states to rise to the occasion, and that occasion was the politically weakened state of their shared faith. The speech covered many areas and topics, among which was the global dominance of Jewish entities. This was enough for much of the Western media and some Western leaders to single out the point with which to denounce the prime minister and his message. It would have been better if all these critics had read the speech in its entirety, rather than just responding to isolated 'statements' or reports of the comment. As it is, their urge to clamp down on Dr. Mahathir's blunt comments sits oddly with their proclaimed adherence to free speech.... The result is not unfamiliarcondemnation of views taken out of context.... These self-righteous critics worry about hurtful words while turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the bullets and missiles destroying real lives of multitudes of innocents. If this is not sheer ignorance it must be gross hypocrisy, with vile duplicity to match.... The speech also acknowledged Jewish grit and savvy, without belittling Jewish capabilities in any way. The prime minister similarly pressed Muslims to emulate the ways of Jewish people which have led to such success around the world. Pulling together, working hard and planning for the future were all better than pessimism, destruction and self-destruction."

"The West's Misconception Of Dr. Mahathir's Criticism"

Government-influenced Malay language Berita Harian had this to day (Internet version, 10/18) "The world has tried to distort the essence of Malaysian Prime Minister Datuk Sri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad's speech at the opening of the 10th Organization of Islamic Conference [OIC] Summit...just because he is sincere in talking about the Jews' trickery. Western countries cannot accept the facts of Dr. Mahathir's statement.... All this time they have been condemning Islam and treating Muslims like they have no dignity. Do the Jews and big powers supporting them feel offended by Dr. Mahathir's statement when what he has said is no longer a 'secret?' Where can we hide the facts about Palestinian land, Iraq, Afghanistan and several other Islamic nations that have been devastated?.... The statement...has sparked a political polemic because it comes from the leader of an Islamic nation that has achieved progress.... Dr. Mahathir's speech focuses on the issues of Islam, Islamic nations and the attitudes of Muslims. He has also openly criticized the attitudes of Muslim leaders that led to Islam being humiliated. Not even one Muslim leader is angry or has responded to the statement in an unsatisfactory manner. Instead, they regard Dr. Mahathir's statement as a factual criticism in order to make Muslims realize the reality. To countries in the bloc that views Islam with contempt, the portrayal of everything negative should be directed at Muslims only. Muslims must be left to suffer and continue to be weak. To them, Dr. Mahathir's efforts to make other Islamic nations realize the need to build up their strength, will pose a threat to their superiority.... Muslims, particularly the leaders of Islamic nations, must be jerked with a bold statement because all this while they have been afraid to say the truth. The invasion of Islamic nations by Western powers, and without the a slightest humanitarian feeling, has made all these nations' leaders bow to them. The Muslims' countries are ravaged, resources monopolized, and leaders blamed by the people. This is the horrifying dream that is faced by Islamic nations when they have the strength but are scared to use it."

"Post OIC Summit In Putrajaya"

Lokman Othman remarked in government-controlled Utusan Malaysia (Internet version, 10/18) "Dr. Mahathir called on Islamic nations to stop being emotional and not to use the old approach in dealing with conflicts. Instead, they must use knowledge to overcome them. The Jews have shown this and by using knowledge for development, they have power now. Although the process has taken a long time, the result is effective. The Jews are strong militarily and economically. But until today the fate of Muslims is not only without improvement, but rather, the situation is getting worse.... Dr. Mahathir wanted Islamic nations to look to the past and emulate Prophet Mohammed's leadership as useful examples. The Muslims were then small in number and weak, but with wisdom and intelligence God endowed them, they finally became successful in all fields. However, the recipe failed to defend the Muslims forever. Political discord caused them to kill each other while other races continued to build their individual strength. Dr. Mahathir tried to make OIC member countries realize the reality that they are faced with now.... Unfortunately, the foreign media viewed Dr. Mahathir's speech from a negative perspective.... The voices of some of the foreign media that are filled with contempt for Dr. Mahathir must be banned. To the foreign media, the truth that Dr. Mahathir said must be concealed so that the Muslims would continue to be in the dark, apart from being saddled with weaknesses and backwardness. If the Muslims feel that they are weak, they must be developed in accordance with the big powers' wishes."

"Strength And Unity Become The Pillars"

Government-influenced Malay language Berita Harian noted (Internet version, 10/17) "Toward the last moments of his leadership as the prime minister of a dynamic Islamic nation, Datuk Sri Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, without any fear, has continued to reproach all quarters--leaders, scholars or ulemas--for the mistakes and failures committed by Muslims thus far. It is due to these factors that the 1.3 billion Muslims throughout the world are still backward and not fairly defended. Without putting the blame on others except Muslims themselves, Dr. Mahathir said that our attitudes have allowed us to be divided into numerous groups, sects, and tarikats, each more concerned with claiming to be the true Islam than our oneness as the Islamic Ummah. This has made it easier for our enemies to humiliate and oppress us.... Dr. Mahathir not only made a wise and deep evaluation of the situation hitting the Islamic world now. Rather, he also explained a program of action to overcome the problems. The program, regarded by several leaders as a 'peace plan,' must be adopted by all Islamic nations. By using strength and unity as the pillars, it is hoped that the program of action can be implemented by leaders and Islamic nations in handling issues faced by Muslims throughout the world."

SINGAPORE

"Uproar Drowns Mahathir's Real Message"

Brendan Pereira wrote in the pro-government Straits Times (Internet version, 10/18) "Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's controversial 'Jews rule the world' speech should have gone down as a clarion call to Muslims to shun violence and use their brains, not just brawn, to improve their lot. It was a speech rich with groundbreaking elementsa call for Muslim countries to pause and try to resolve the Palestinian issue through peaceful means, and a plea for Muslims not to antagonize their detractors but to win them over. What a pity that Dr. Mahathir's needlessly provocative rhetoric about the Jews distracted everyone and diluted the meat of his address.... Not surprisingly, the derision was immediate and widespread.... Here is the irony. If anyone should have been angry...it should have been Hamas, Hizbollah and their ilk in the Middle East, or some of the backward regimes that dot the Muslim world. He called for a different approach to tackling the Palestinian issue, arguing that the policy of aggression had not worked for 50 years. A better option was to win the hearts and minds of people who were critical and suspicious of Muslims.... This was the moderate view that the Muslim world so badly needs to hear again and again. This was also the kind of view that the rest of the world has wanted Muslim leaders to articulate. So it was a pity indeed that Dr. Mahathir muddied the waters with his rhetoric."

THAILAND

"Mahathir Leaves A Malay Dilemma"

The lead editorial in top-circulation, moderately conservative, English language Bangkok Post read (10/21) "The OIC Summit ended in a dilemma, however. Host and Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, the patriarch of Southeast Asian politics and two weeks from retirement, committed two giant gaffes. In his speech to the summit, Dr. Mahathir made racist and offensive remarks about Jews around the world. Then, instead of retracting them or even trying to claim he was speaking of the state of Israel, he defended and repeated them. This so overshadowed the actual accomplishments of the OIC that it created an actual dilemma. Dr. Mahathir at the very least appears guilty of grandstanding, although many believe racism and bigotry decided his words. Only he can know for sure. But if he wished to motivate Muslims, as he claims, he had 100 methods to choose from. Fellow political leaders from Islamic countries had no trouble to speak to Muslim problems, and to offer both realistic and idealistic solutions."

SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIA

INDIA

"Myopic OIC"

The pro-BJP right-of-center Pioneer editorialized (Internet version, 10/21) "The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which has always tended to take a one-sided and pro-Pakistan view of the situation in Jammu & Kashmir, broke all its earlier records in partisanship.... Its Secretary-General Abdelouahed Belkeziz's...call for India to allow an OIC delegation to visit J&K and inspect the conditions there, reflects a glaring inability to recognize reality. The same applies to the demand for a 'plebiscite' in J&K and condemnation of 'human rights violations' by India in the organization's communiqué. If this has further undermined its credibility with New Delhi, its unquestioning endorsement of Pakistan's position on Kashmir and failure to condemn the latter's sponsorship of cross-border terrorism which is the basic cause of the troubles in J&K, have severely damaged such image as it has in the world.... Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed...sought to underline the need for change among Islamic countries which he said, had to be stable, well-administered, economically and financially strong, industrially competent and technologically advanced to disprove the perception that Islam was a religion of backwardness and terror. This is doubtless a tall order given the state of most of OIC's member countries, but even a beginning cannot be made unless they recognize their own inadequacies. As the summit has shown, a critical one is their failure to be objective."

"Islamic Countries Favor Pakistan"

Second-largest circulation Hindi daily Dainik Jagran averred (10/20) "Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has said that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's statement in Malaysia demanding a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir was ridiculous.... The OIC is interfering in India's internal affairs by passing the proposal on Jammu and Kashmir, which is objectionable. India has strongly criticized the proposal but that is not enough. It is not an ordinary matter that 57 Islamic countries under the OIC passed the proposal and demanded that the Kashmiris be given the right to have a referendum. Surprisingly, not a word on Pakistan-occupied Kashmir was mentioned in the proposal. This is nothing short of favoritism shown toward Pakistan by the Islamic countries.... This is not the first time that the OIC has taken an inimical attitude toward India. It appears that its members are intentionally overlooking the fact that India has the second-largest Muslim population in the world, next to Indonesia. The Muslims here are living in a much better situation than Muslims elsewhere in the world. The OIC's pro-Pakistan policy has made the organization a suspect in the eyes of the Indians.... If the OIC values the goodwill of Indian Muslims, it should avoid becoming a tool of Pakistan. India should not merely express regret over the OIC resolution. The country should make an effort to change the members' attitude if they want cordial relations between India and the Muslim world to continue. Efforts should also be made to counter Pakistan's false allegations against India before the Muslim countries."

"OIC Meeting"

The nationalist Hindustan Times editorialized (10/20) "The OIC would have done well to indulge in a bit of self-introspection. Had it been wise enough to do so, it would have found that the concept it is supposedly looking for in Kashmir is absent in most Islamic countries, including Pakistan whose warped vision it blindly endorsed. Even the 'democracy' prevalent in Pakistan is not regarded as a genuine one by, say, the Commonwealth.... No less fatuous was the demand voiced by the OIC's secretary-general to allow a delegation from the organization to 'inspect conditions in the Indian-controlled part' of Kashmir.... If the OIC wants to help its member-countries, it should focus on ways to break the stranglehold of retrogressive 'mullacracies' prevalent in the Muslim world. A delegation can also visit Kashmir to learn about democracy and pluralism."

"Kashmir Truths"

The centrist Times of India held (Internet version, 10/18) "Quite clearly, the sponsors of terrorism had planned for the new phase of violence to coincide with the sense of betrayal increasingly felt by the average Kashmiri.... Ironically, the outrage happened a day after Washington traced Dawood Ibrahim's whereabouts to a Karachi address, and announced that he in fact held a Pakistani passport. Belated as this American 'discovery' of Dawood is, it nonetheless exposes Pakistan's lie about the D-company [Dawood and his associates] and, by implication, the role of both sponsoring trouble in India. It is a safe bet, of course, that the general will be unfazed by this embarrassing turn of events. One indication of the course he is likely to follow is suggested by his invitation to the OIC [Organization of The Islamic Conference] countries to send their representatives to investigate the reality of 'occupied' Kashmir. Rather than panic at this, India should welcome the team so they can see the truth--including the fidayeen attacks--for themselves. Simultaneously, the Indian side could suggest that the OIC visit Pakistan to ascertain both the general's popularity and the state of his terror camps."

"Look First Within"

Pro-Congress Urdu-language Qaumi Awaz stated (10/18) "The OIC has been claiming to be the representative of Muslims worldwide, but the organization has not paid any attention to solving the social, economic, and political problems of the Muslim countries because it has been functioning under the influence of the United States and the western countries. India, which has millions of Muslim population, is kept out of the OIC membership.... The OIC has no legal or moral right to ask for plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir. However, the OIC's narrowmindedness encourages the terrorists.... The OIC should rise above its emotional links with Pakistan and consider the situation.... The OIC should have asked Musharraf to respond positively to India's peace initiative last year. The OIC leaders should pay heed to the dangers of the extremists and anti-democracy elements threatening the Islamic world. The organization should consider how the western countries succeeded in linking Islam with terrorism, and why in some Muslim countries, the powers were vested in few hands.... In his inaugural address, the new OIC chairman, Mahathir Muhammad, said that no Islamic country was free in the true sense.... The OIC countries should first look within. Only then they should dare interfere in India's internal affairs."

PAKISTAN

"Mahatir's Remarks Protest By Israeli Patron Crusader Bush"

An editorial in the second largest Urdu daily, Nawa-e-Waqt read (10/22) "U.S. President George W. Bush protested to Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Mahatir Muhammad over his remarks regarding Jews.... Whatever Prime Minister Mahatir said...was one hundred percent correct. Whatever Jews faced in Europe before the inception of Israel was a result of their misdeeds.... The day President Bush was expressing his love for Jews and Israel and registering his protest with Mahatir Muhammad, Israeli aircraft were launching repeated attacks on Palestinians in Gaza."

"Israel's State Terrorism Response To Dr. Mahatir Mohammad's Statement?"

The Karachi-based pro-Taliban/Jihad Urdu daily, Islam remarked (10/22) "U.S. President Bush has yet again provided a proof of his pro-Zionist affiliations by protesting to Dr. Mahatir Mohammad [over his statement] at the APEC summit. Many believe that the recent action by Israel against Palestinians is a direct Israeli reaction to this statement."

"Unmerited Offense"

The center-right national English daily, The Nation held (10/22) "The hue and cry that Dr. Mahatir's observations have provoked among the pro-Jewish circles in the world is totally uncalled for.... Characterizing Jews as having been the victims of 2,000 years of pogrom, which they fought 'not by hitting but by thinking,' he advised Muslims 'to emulate their response'.... Dr. Mahatir called those who 'lash back in anger' by killing themselves and others as 'people acting irrationally.' Plainly he was urging the Muslim world to forsake violence and start thinking about an honorable exit from the tricky situation they find themselves in.... One wonders with what face the U.S. president could tell the Malaysian prime minister that his views were 'wrong and divisive'. Should Jews, insignificant in number compared to the overall global population, not be ruling by proxy, Mr. Bush would not have jumped to their defense."

"What Is Free May Not Be Fair"

The Karachi-based center-left independent national English daily, Dawn noted (10/22) "While one can empathize with what the Malaysian leader has said about what is fair and what is not in the context of free trade, it is not possible to agree with him fully on the matter of poorer countries' right to protect their 'little businesses until they can compete with the giants' or that the developing countries be allowed to take pride in their national industries, even if they are producing match-sticks and cigarettes rather than automobiles and aircraft."

"The Emperor Comes Calling"

Mahir Ali editorialized in the Karachi-based center-left independent national English daily Dawn (10/22) "What caused most alarm was not the veteran Malaysian leader's words but the fact that he received a standing ovation. However, the opportunity for a Washington-led anti-Mahatir tirade was undermined somewhat by reports that a leading U.S. general, William G. Boykin, who is the Deputy Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, has in his utterances been alluding to a Christian crusade against Islam."

"Re-Creating The OIC"

An op-ed by Hans B. Bremer in the centrist national English daily, The News judged (10/22) "One need only quote Dr. Mahatir's own reaction to his western critics'They think while it is proper to criticize Muslims and Arabs, it is not proper to criticize Europeans and Jews.' Of course, most western media conveniently ignored the fact that Dr. Mahatir had also said Muslims should make peace as they could not win the Palestinian conflict through violence.... Don't expect any big thank you from Uncle Sam. What was it again that Dr. Mahatir said about the Jews ruling the world by proxy? So where do we go from here? It is imperative that the momentum coming out of Put