Despite being the driving force and the principal buzzword in international politics after Sept 11, terrorism is still defined according to political interests.

Nowhere is this dichotomy more apparent than the United States-led 'war on terrorism' that is focused on those perceived as inimical to American interests, but looks the other way when 'state terrorism' of Israel is involved or those combating such 'state terrorism' as the Palestinians are concerned.

Conversely, a similar dilemma confronts the Muslim world, resulting in a divide on the definition of terrorism. This was apparent during last week's Conference of Islamic Foreign Ministers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, which ended without a unanimous view on this all-important but contentious issue.

That conference was convened in a changed international context post-Sept 11, one where the United States treats 'terrorism' as the number one priority in foreign and domestic policy.

Meantime, the 'intifadah' in Palestine since the full-fledged Israeli invasion of the Palestinian Authority after March 29 has cost 200 Palestinian lives. There is the perception among Muslims that their religion and religious brethren are being singled out, while their governments remain reluctant to defend them.

Conference goals

Given this context, the Kuala Lumpur meet was aimed at achieving three goals.

First, it aimed to give reassurance and a sense of hope to Muslims that their governments are capable of protecting their rights and promoting Islam as a religion that rejects terrorism and violence.

Second, it was held to counter the American policy that ends up tarring all terrorism with the same brush, which has an undercurrent of religious colouring  as if only Muslims are responsible for terrorism, given the policies toward Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya or the operations against the Abu Sayyaf guerrillas in the Philippines.

Third, it aimed to present a consensual, Islamic definition of terrorism that could then form the basis of building a global consensus given the current international focus on this issue.

However, the conference got bogged down over the issue of Palestinian suicide bombers, whom the host, Malaysian Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, denounced as ''terrorists''. The Arab delegates rejected this notion, viewing Palestinian attacks as "legitimate resistance to Israeli stateterrorism".

Palestinian suicide bombers

Opening the conference on April 1, Mahathir said, "We cannot hunt down terrorists until we agree who they are and we co-operate in the hunt.'' He went on to say that terrorism should be condemned as an act that encompasses any attack against civilians.

Mahathir then said that this would mean the terror acts of Sept 11, 2001 against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Israeli actions against the Palestinians as well as Palestinian suicide bombings, plus actions of the Tamil Tigers as well as 'ethnic cleansing' of Bosnian Muslims by the Serbs.

The Arab delegates and Iran rejected this broad linkage with a universal definition. When the conference closed on April 3, its declaration made it clear: "We reject any attempt to link terrorism to the struggle of the Palestinian people in the exercise of their inalienable right to self-determination", a view echoed by Pakistan as well in the context of the Kashmir question.

The Arab perspective was aptly summed up by the Lebanese Foreign Ministry's secretary-general, Mohammed Issa, who said on April 2 that his country did not agree with the inclusion of Palestinian suicide bombers as terrorists or for that matter, the military activities against Israel of the Hizbollah, which operates out of Lebanon.

He said, "Our view is that we need to differentiate between terrorism, which we condemn strongly, and national resistance to liberate a country from foreign occupation".

The conference spokesperson, Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar, admitted on April 2 that "the question of finding a definition on terrorism is a difficult one".

Still, he said the conference did have an achievement in that "from very divergent views at least we have come to a view that terrorism and acts of terrorism should be condemned''. But he added, "Now the difficulty is what amounts to an act of terror, what amounts to terrorism".

Strong protests

As Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians intensify, there is bitterness among the Muslim masses, since there is no adequate pressure either from the United States or from Muslim countries to prevent the recurrence of such organised government-sponsored violence.

Mahathir argued, "The impotence of Muslim countries to do anything to remedy the situation adds to this frustration and anger.''

Such sentiments have evoked different responses from the Arab streets to governments that have taken strident positions.

For instance, the Arab League emergency foreign ministers conference on April 6 in Cairo called for economic sanctions against Israel, underlining that "the continuation of the Israeli occupation necessitates the continuation of the resistance as a legitimate, expected and necessary reaction''.

Likewise, there have been strong protests among people in Arab states against Israel, especially amid Israel's operations to ''isolate'' Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.

On April 1, 5,000 protesting students gathered in Cairo, on April 5, the US Embassy was attacked in Bahrain, and the day after, 15,000 Jordanians demonstrated against Israel.

Of late, Iran and Iraq have called for an oil embargo against Western supporters of Israel, the first such call since the Arab oil embargo in 1973 against the United States over the October 1973 Arab-Israeli War.

There has also been pressure on Egypt and Jordan to break diplomatic ties with Israel.

The religious colour given to the 'war on terrorism' has resulted in a reaction from Muslims. For instance, the Christian conservatives and Jewish groups in the United States have politically coalesced to pressure President George W Bush to pursue a pro-Israeli policy. On April 7, The Washington Post said that ''at the core, President Bush has a solidly pro-Israeli outlook''.

The leader of America's 'religious right', Pat Robertson, has openly attacked Islam as a "wicked religion".

As long as US policy toward Palestine does not change, the issue of terrorism and its definition will continue to be mired in controversy, and determined by politics and not principle.