At the recent meeting of the OIC, member countries have unanimously condemned Israel's act of entering Palestinian soil as an act of terrorism. The meeting also defines the meaning of terrorism which to my mind is so wide that any act of aggression can be labeled as a terrorist act. What stands out like a sore thumb is the failure of the members of the OIC to come up with a definition as to whether the suicide bombers are considered terrorists.

It is apparent that freedom fighters, in this case the Palestinian suicide bombers, are not considered as terrorist. With this failure by the OIC to address such a core issue, the resolution passed by the OIC appears to be lopsided and loses credibility. What about the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq?

Is that not an act of terror against the sovereignty of an independent nation. Iraq's argument of invading Kuwait is as valid as Argentine's claim that the Falkland Island or the Malvinas belong to Argentina or the IRA's claim that Northern Ireland belongs to the Republic of Ireland as one country instead of the superficial division of the country by Michael Collins with Westminster.

Are the fighters from the Iraqi army, the IRA, the British soldiers and the Argentina soldiers in fighting for their cause terrorists or are they freedom fighters ? So far there are no satisfactory definition or explanation on this — what we have are various perceptions.

That said, violence will never end until the people concerned can learn to live in peace and harmony. The state of Israel is a creature created by the United Nations. I feel it is imperative that the United Nations should address this issue positively to end all violence in that region.