To many Malaysians, it would be unusual that anything our Prime Minister Dr Mahathir says is uncontroversial. Often, it was downright embarrassing.

After 'Buy British last' and 'Vietnamese boat people will be shot upon landing', was this latest 'Jews rule the world by proxy' at his opening address of Islamic Summit Conference "one more for the road" before he steps down at month's end?

Except that in this last one, what he said appears to have gone too far in anatagonising the rich and powerful who may retaliate, bringing dire economic repercussions down on the country.

Although some OIC leaders have come to Mahathir's defence, the more powerful voices of the European Union (EU) and western nations have condemned him.

EU president, Franco Frattini denounced Mahathir's remarks as "gravely offensive and anti-Semitic" ( ' EU condemns Mahathir over anti-Jewish remarks' ). I wish to rebut this and think that this is true only if the remarks are taken superficially or at face value.

Mahathir had gone on record earlier in BBC's Talking Point with Lyse Doucet to explain why it would be wrong to perceive him as anti-Semitic or anti-Jew. When caller Sean Worral asked why he blamed 1997 financial crisis on a conspiracy of Jewish bankers, he said that he didn't blame all Jewish people he had a lot of Jewish friends - but the fact was that George Soros was a Jewish banker.

In reply to email from Daniel of Jerusalem, Mahathir said that attempts had been made to promote mutual understanding.

He said, "we have arranged for Israeli children to come to Malaysia to meet Malaysian children, Muslim children here" but that the programme was scrapped because "people got very angry here" due to the "terrible" attacks by Ariel Sharon government then. In calmer times, when there was talk of peace, Malaysia had allowed "Israeli cricket team to come here".

That the programme for Israelis and Malaysian/Muslim children to meet was scrapped because "people get very angry here" over Sharon's actions was telling of how Mahathir is always sensitive to his target audience and constituency's feelings.

In this respect, it is generally true that although large swathes of the Muslim world are disparate in custom, race or even interpretation of religion, they are singularly united against Israel as the common enemy.

I don't think that Mahathir is personally anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic or that he would denigrate the Jews simply because they are Jews. It is ludicrous for his detractors to think otherwise.

However, being sensitive to the target audience's sentiments, Mahathir will have no hesitation to imply the Jews are the "enemy" ruling the world by proxy simply because in any more conciliatory terms, he would be unable to get the rapt attention to fasten on what he says.

What is important is the substance of what he said, and whether Frattini was right to criticise Mahathir's statement as running "strongly counter to the principles of tolerance and dialogue between the West and the Islamic world".

Taking a closer reading of his opening speech to the Islamic Summit Conference published in The Star , I was surprised to find it rather good compared to his normal diatribes.

I think his points bear direct relevance to the dialogue between the West and the Islamic world and that it would take a measure of courage for him to make such a speech fraught as it was with political risks of controversies.

Jews did not like the part that they were described as "the enemy "(' Israel condemns anti-Semitic remarks by Mahathir ' ). The US, UK and Australia were not too happy about the insinuation of their "proxy" part (in the Iraq War).

Muslims might find it offensive to be compared unfavourably with the "enemy" or the West. Even PAS president Hadi Awang, who was glad to be invited, would have been squirming and wondering whether Mahathir's criticism of scholars/ ulama for over-emphasising rituals and appearances might be directed at him or his party.

At least, PAS spiritual advisor Nik Aziz Nik Mat was sufficiently impressed to urge Muslims to support Mahathir for the speech.

Using of the international arena to score points in domestic politics may add another feather to Mahathir's cap but it is probably not his main concern as he is near the end of his tenure as PM.

He was probably looking beyond to the broader problems of the Muslim ummah (brotherhood) and why it is seething with so much discontent that it has spawned acts of militancy, terrorism and suicide bombing.

Now, nothing could promote understanding between the West and the Islamic world better than taking the first step to get to the "root cause" of why many sectors of Muslim ummah are disaffected and alienated. I understand Mahathir's address as zero-ing on this.

The background has always been that of a widening gulf in wealth, prosperity and power between Muslim countries and the West. In the eyes of Muslims, the West has leveraged its power to the disadvantage of Muslim countries by sequestrating their immense oil wealth, desecrating holy places, displacing their peoples and supporting puppets as their leaders.

Although Islamic civilisation had a head start with astronomers, physicians, mathematicians "the Muslims began to regress" (intellectually) compared to Jews and the West (for reasons explained in Mahathir's speech).

There was no point, according to Mahathir, to accept fatalistically one's lot as permanently marginalised with reprieve only in the "reward of after-life" or to take the other extreme manifestation of alienation in "sending more young men and women to make the supreme sacrifice" (as the case of suicide bombers against Tel Aviv).

The right way is to "use the brain"and to strategise - like I would imagine Sun Tzu would prescribe in his Art of War - be patient and take a step backward in order to advance two steps.

What is needed is a kind of Islamic Renaissance in which (the way I interpret what he said) itijad (independent reasoning and discourse on religion) would be important.

To quote him: "Islam is not just for 7th century AD. Islam is for all times. And times have changed, not by changing our religion but by applying its teachings in the context of the world that is radically different from that of the first century Hijrah . Islam is not wrong but the interpretations by our scholars who are not prophets even though they may be very learned, can be wrong".

So if one reads behind the rhetoric, who is the real enemy here - the Jews who have ruled the world through proxies, or those who misguide and teach wrong attitudes that have led to weakening of the umma h?

When Mahathir talks about fighting the enemy, isn't it a metaphor for struggle to understand the 'enemy's ways' and attain strength to overcome it?

I am not ever an apologist for whatever the outgoing PM has said or done. But he should be given his due for bravely expressing the real problem - that of restrictive and narrow discourse space advocated by traditionally revered Muslim scholars so much so that many within Muslim communities have become reluctant or unable to cope with and adapt to modernity and technology which the West can harness and use effectively against the ummah .

This in turn will make many Muslims even more alienated, estranged, and if some like Osama bin Laden have resorted to violence or terrorism, it would beget a massive retaliation against large numbers (as in Afghanistan) .

Mahathir was then making a ground-breaking address as OIC chairman to criticise 1.3 billion Muslims - to resolve the problems of the ummah , they should not just blame external enemies without self-examination of attitudes that retard progress and development of strength in the first place.

For Israel or the West to lash out against his rhetoric that Jews control the world through proxies is to focus on form and be distracted from the substance of the underlying message - his last as prime minister of the very country they acknowledge as a model of a modern progressive Muslim nation - on how Muslims should look within to correct certain attitudes so that advancement can be pursued through ingenuity and self-help to gain equality, parity and dignity with the rest of the world.

It is a message that lays the foundation to enhance meaningful dialogue and understanding between the West and the Muslim world, rather than subverting it as the EU president perceived it. Mahathir should be credited, not condemned, for a brave and honest speech.