 In stark contrast to the reticence often displayed by governments in Arabic countries, Malaysia has taken bold steps to address the plight of the masses in Gaza. In recent times it has emerged as a vocal advocate, unafraid to call out Israel for its actions in Palestine regardless of political repercussions. This marks a departure from the era of concealing inconvenient truths to appease Western powers, which often resulted in a perceived hypocrisy in handling the Gaza crisis. The Malaysian government believes that it is imperative to dispel the tarnished image of the collective West by taking a firm stance on this issue. Our commitment to delivering impartial news and insightful geopolitical analysis remains unwavering. We urge you to actively engage with our content through likes, shares and subscriptions so you can stay informed about the latest developments concerning Palestine. During a recent diplomatic visit to Germany, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim of Malaysia delivered a sobering assessment of the West's role in the ongoing Gaza conflict. Drawing a poignant parallel between Gaza and a European country currently grappling with a Russian military invasion, Anwar questioned why the West appeared to champion fundamental rights in one instance while turning a blind eye to the blatant disregard for human rights and dignity in Gaza. He asserted that beyond mere biases, the global inaction on the Gaza crisis reeked of racism and underscored supremacist notions of moral justification. Anwar's remarks were made in an interview with German DWTV, yet surprisingly they failed to gain widespread attention. Legacy media outlets seemingly ignored Malaysia's stance, choosing to overlook the significant commentary from this Asian nation. The purpose of this review is to delve deeper into Anwar's statements, providing nuanced insights to amplify his position. At the Open-Minded Thinker Show, our objective is to propel this video into virality, ensuring that the world gains a clearer perspective on the truth about Gaza and occupied Palestine. Anwar Ibrahim, a graduate of the University of Malaya, embarked on his political journey as the President of the Student Union, Pursatwan Ke Bangsaan Plajar Islam Malaysia, PKPIM. He further solidified his influence as one of the founders and the second president of the youth organization, Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia, ABIM. Subsequently, after joining the United Malays National Organization UMNO, the primary party within the long-standing ruling BN coalition, Anwar held various cabinet positions across successive governments during the 1980s and 1990s. Let us now delve into his remarkable exposition during the interview. Prime Minister Anwar, many thanks for speaking to DWTV today. You've been speaking a lot over the course of this week, powerfully, with accusations of hypocrisy towards the West in its approach to the crises going on around the world. And I think with particular reference to the war in Gaza and comparing it to the war in Ukraine and comparing the Western responses to these two conflicts. Could you just explain the view that you've been expressing? No, I'm expressing the sentiments and feelings of many people in the global South that they want peace, they want justice, and there should be discriminatory practice or judging areas and bias. That's why I call it hypocrisy because they seem to be very tough on Ukraine and we have to express the same thing. We were against any aggression, any conquest by any country. That's why it's so difficult even to call for ceasefire in Gaza and how you can tolerate 60 years of atrocities, of dispossession, of land being taken. That was the only thing that I need to call upon the West to consider. And at the same time we talk about apportionment, understanding to East and West, respect the materialism, it doesn't work that way. People become more disillusioned and distrusting of political leaders. Now Germany and the broader West position, their position has been very much with respect to Gaza that Israel has the right to defend itself against the terrorist attack as they see it. There was mounted by Hamas a group that they see also as a terrorist group on October the 7th. Do you reject that as any justification for the Western view on things? What about colonization of the last 50, 60 years? What about the dispossession? What about the land being taken? What about the killings of children on a daily basis by the settlers taking people's land and property? Is that not relevant? Humanity and justice and atrocity is only committed on the 7th of October and nothing before that. Why is it that the West can tolerate for 50 years of this ridiculous atrocity? These are questions that need to be raised. People are not naïve. Nobody wants to condone any sort of atrocity by anyone. But if countries colonize all the war against colonialism all throughout these decades and centuries in Vietnam, in Algeria, in South Africa, Pathai, do you talk about atrocities committed by the freedom fighters? You don't. Why give an exception to Hamas? That's the point. Do I therefore condone and say, No, how do you stop Hamas's atrocity? Stop the colonialism or colonization. Why can't we look at it in a comprehensive manner how to resolve not from the dictates of the capitals of Europe and the United States? Not all capitals, fortunately. But why? You see, that's the point. I'm not condoning any atrocity. But the point is that you seem to be very selective. It's like selective amnesia. You choose, so people question. I mean, in the global, look at the narrative. Is it because they are colored? Is it because they are Muslims or there are many Christians in Gaza? But why is it? Why is it that you cannot have sort of transparent, consistent, coherent voice? So I'd like to talk about Hamas shortly. But let's try to get specific then. So we understand the argument that you're making towards the broader West. You're here in Germany. Is this behaviour, are these positions that you see in Germany, do you feel that in the German position there is hypocrisy, this hypocrisy that you describe? Well, let's say this, that Germany stand to have this psyche of the millstone antecedent what happened against the Jews, the Holocaust, which I condemn, okay? Because no community including the Jews should be treated in that manner, period. So you have a special relation with Israel. That's your right. That's not the question. But I'm questioning from 4748 Nakaba. Why is it so difficult to take a position? Yes, you want to protect the security of Israel. But why must we be muted when it comes to atrocities against another? If one patiently watches through Prime Minister Anwar's interview and carefully decipheres the underlying meanings of each of his positions, it becomes evident that the Malaysian government stands among the most ardent supporters of international equity and justice in the unresolved Palestinian cause, which has endured for nearly 80 years. The Prime Minister articulated the deliberate efforts of Western powers and their media to downplay the historical implications surrounding the events in Gaza and the entire Palestinian territory. An especially striking moment occurred when the Prime Minister called out the selective condemnation of Palestinian resistance, exposing the interviewer's attempt to obscure the provocations often instigated by European colonizers in an effort to vilify Palestinian resistance. The PM's astuteness in this regard was evident as he deftly navigated through attempts to distort the narrative. But why this complete silence and tolerance of continued atrocities pre-7th October and post-7th October? If the narrative of the West is not accepted by the entire world, that is the point. It's not Malaysia. I choose to say it because I think it's my conscience. I went through hell in my life. I know what solitary confinement is. I know what injustice is. So I thought that it is only proper that I speak up. But many MacLeaks wanted to do that for fear, for concerns, for economic survival, whatever reasons. Before moving on to the next kind of area of questions, just to be specific again, so your accusation of hypocrisy, you welcome some of the steps that Germany has made recently, but your accusation of hypocrisy does apply to Germany as well as the wider West. Well, at least before the final decision, at least calling for a cessation of atrocities or the attack on Gaza, specifically in Aurafa, and calling for an increased humanitarian assistance. But even then, the people are getting cynical. Yes, do increase, so we send some support. But then the bombings continue. Well, we will issue a super-light statement to stop these bombings. You mean to say the entire Europe and America cannot wield that influence that will stop the war? Nobody will believe it. So what's your request to Germany? What should it do? They have been more assertive lately, but I think they should work within the EU and coordinate with the United States and other countries to just insist, just stop the killing. People cannot accept it. I mean, generally, I mean, I don't know how people see it. I've also mixed around here. I went to the United Nations community, made a lot of things, things, thanks, and scholars this morning. Most people know right-minded person with any conscience for humanity would want this to continue. Now, let's move on to talk about Hamas. You mentioned it already. You have said in recent days that you make no apologies for the fact that Malaysia and your government has relations with Hamas, even though it did murder more than 1,000 civilians in early October on October the 7th. Can you just explain to people who might think, how could you have relations with a group like that that conducts a terrorist atrocity like that? How could you maintain friendly relations with them? Before I respond to that, before that, I will ask this question and this will be a response from leaders in Europe and the States. How do you continue to engage and respect and honour and give credit to Netanyahu and the government of Israel for the continued killing of 30,000 children? Yeah, but we're asking you the questions today. We want to understand your views. Yeah, I want to get the context right. And not only that, for the decades, that's why I say the thing is the polite word would be contradiction. The frank statement would be hypocrisy. Now, why do I engage with Hamas? The political will with Hamas, not the military will. Because they were the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people in Gaza. But if I may interject, I mean, that was an election held in 2006. I mean, that's almost 20 years ago. Right, but till then we have to deal with them. When we discuss with Myanmar, we discuss the military junta. Is that a question? Is that an issue? Is that a legitimate representation of the people of Myanmar? Well, the outside government would say no on the case of Myanmar. But let's stay on Hamas. So that's why I say these contradictions are bound. What I mean is, if you don't want to speak to Hamas, whom do you speak to? So given the limitations at present, when a country, an area is colonised and has a daily basis, you talk about democratic elections. You don't talk about the killings. You don't talk about the dispossession. You don't talk about the land being taken. You don't talk about the children being killed. Schools being destroyed. That's my contention. Now, and then of course Hamas is a terrorist group. I ask you, I mean, Germany's colonised countries, the French or the Italians, all the freedom fighters resort to waste that you cannot defend under normal international rule. It happened, yes. Mandela is a great hero. But Mandela didn't order the killing of a thousand people. Well, you better pick up your history, because Mandela was part of the ANC and part of the ANC were involved in some of these actions. But people accept that because the way they were treated, discriminated, killed and dispossessed. So if I could drill down on this, then are you suggesting that because of the way that Gaza has been treated, that the 7th of October is justifiable, maybe not understandable, explain more about where you're coming from? Well, this is why I said this narrative here. This narrative is the mantra of 7th of October. To some people in the West who are completely, I should say, oblivious to the facts and realities, ignorant of history or just amnesia. I mean, I'm talking about the 60 years of atrocity for goodness sake, deal with it. And we say, no, no, no, we don't care about these 60 years. We don't care about the thousands killed before. To us, what is important is the 7th of October. I said, that's to you, not to me. To me, before October, 7th of October, after October, are all relevant in this discourse. And we must deal with it in a comprehensive manner and settle. How can we talk about humanity, about freedom of people, about the children? You mean only children, the white children, Israel is relevant, not the colour in Palestine? What is the issue? What is the basis that you can condone the action of killing of 30,000 plus, plus, plus, plus, but you cannot condone another action? Do you ask me? I don't condone any killings of children, women or civilians. And of course, nor do we. We're simply trying to peel open your opinion. So that viewers can understand. I hope you understand that, Prime Minister. I'm responding. I mean, I'm not. But, and Deutsche Welle has done very extensive coverage of the full gamut of the conflict, including settlements and including the situation in Gaza. But I just want to, again, come back to understanding your view and the reason why you say it's legitimate to have good relations with al-Asq. So as far as I understand, you are essentially saying that what happened on the 7th of October, the taking of hostages and those killings, is understandable in the context of this long conflict. Am I putting words into your mouth? Not condoned, but of course understandable because people have been victimised and so on. But my response is this. The fact that the other state killed 30,000 people is not relevant. You can still engage, you can still praise. But the other side, because I don't know whether because they are coloured, because they are victimised, because they are seen to be different, or the other, they cannot be condoned. And that is my point. So if you ask me for a comprehensive solution, just stop this. Stop the killing either by the Palestinians against the Israelis or the Israelis against the Palestinians. There is a comprehensive settlement. But why then be very selective? As if the problem has never happened, except on the 7th of October. This is absurd, this appalling display of total ignorance and attempt to erase historical facts. I think the point you're making is similar to a point that Antonio Guterres himself said last year, of course. So it's not that nobody from a Western background is saying such things. Guterres did not present a Western view, he presents a rational... Standing for the United Nations. But I just want to come back a little bit more to Hamas, because I'm interested in how you view the kind of role that they can potentially play, because of course Hamas, you know, it does say in the Hamas Charter that there is no solution for the Palestinian question, except through Jihad. It says that any initiatives, international conferences, proposals are a waste of time and vain endeavours. Doesn't that give you... Isn't that a concern that Hamas is a group that will forever be radical and will never be in a place to try to find the kind of peaceful solution that you aspire to? Do I agree with that position? No. But the next question is, why are you silent with the fact that the Israeli government and the Zionist talk about greater Israel, which covers the entire Palestinian area? To remain faithful to the truth, it's crucial to acknowledge Malaysia's steadfastness in its Middle East policy concerning the Palestinian question. Malaysia stands out as one of the few nations that have adamantly refused to establish formal ties with the occupying entities in Palestine. Allegedly, Malaysia has maintained robust relationships with leaderships of Palestinian resistance movements for nearly a century. This consistency has been resolutely upheld despite the condemnation that followed the Palestinian counteroffensive on October 7th. While Malaysia has engaged in limited trade relationships with Israeli companies, such interactions are often constrained by commercial and social restrictions. The current state of Israel-Malaysia relations reflects a lack of formal diplomatic ties between the two nations. Malaysia maintains an overtly hostile stance towards Israel, as evidenced by the inscription found in Malaysian passports. This passport is valid for all countries except Israel. Furthermore, Malaysian passport holders are explicitly forbidden from entering Israel without written permission from the Malaysian Ministry of Home Affairs. Malaysia has remained unwavering in this position, refusing to yield even in the face of external pressures. Malaysia also has good and improving ties to Iran, Hamas's major backer in the region. You met President Raisi, I think, twice in recent months. You said, after your meetings, that you want to see relations enhanced between Malaysia and Iran. How do you explain that? Iran is one of the most repressive regimes in the world. I mean, you said to yourself, you spent years in jail fighting for democracy. There are many people in Iran in jail who've been thrown into jail after protests. People have died. Do you really feel comfortable saying you want to improve relations with a government, with a country led by a government like that? Well, I don't view Iran from the prism of the West. Yes, there are excesses. I don't accept that sort of rapid condemnation in the country. We have excesses in many countries in Europe. We know how minorities have been treated. You know the growing fascism. You know what's happening to blacks in America. They took decades to be recognized. But we continue to respect. Why is it that for the United States it's fine? But when it comes to other countries, you have a different standard. I have excellent relations with China. I agree in every single decision of China. I have very good relations with Germany. There are some issues I differ. So I think we have to take this right. In Malaysia, we are of course a vibrant democracy. I believe in democracy. I believe in human rights. But we engage with countries, although they do not necessarily share the same aspirations and views. Just to pick up on that briefly, you are comparing the situation of African-Americans in the United States to the situation of democracy activists in Iran. You think that's a... No, because different contexts. Different contexts. I agree with you. There are different contexts. But the point is you don't engage with countries that share your views, your values in its entirety. I have extremely good relations, to be fair. The United States leadership has been very forthcoming in my defence because of the principle of democracy and human rights. Because I'm grateful. But then you don't erase, as I said, the history of the fact that in the past decades how the blacks and the colored people have been treated. But my point is that even with that happening, you continue to have very good relations with the country. But my concern is this. When you come to China, you have different rules. Huge criticism or question gives me why I'm making good relations with China or with Iran. But with the rest, it's fine. Even with countries that continue to bomb civilians and hospitals and schools and mosques and churches, and they are tolerated. So that's why I have this problem with what I call the narrative of the Western capitals. I just want to be consistent. Yes, many countries we don't share their aspirations but we still engage. And similarly with Iran. And Iran, you know, it may be on the threshold of a nuclear weapon. It threatens many of its Arab neighbours, not just Israel. Well, America can have a nuclear weapon. It's fine. Russia has. Israel has. But Iran, you cannot. But it would be a breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. But Non-Proliferation Treaty is, of course, selective. I don't believe in nuclear power. I mean, armaments. Even in the matter of our course, we may understand. And Malaysia is strong, I guess, on the issue of Non-Proliferation. But, again, nothing can be selective. You say yes to one country and you say no to the other country. And that's what's happening in this world. And people are getting more critical. And I know, because I engage with countries to global south. Some wouldn't have the courage to talk of a number of reasons to speak up. But this is what is being shared. So let's talk about China. You mentioned China already. I mean, you do maintain good relations with China. You particularly warned against, you know, a further ratcheting of tensions in the whole region, in the South China Sea, also between the United States and China. What's your big fear? You fear a war between the U.S. and China. Is that your greatest fear? I'm most concerned that's when I was in San Francisco for the APEC meeting. And the day before, there was this meeting between Chen Jinping and President Biden. We welcomed that. And I said it publicly. This is something that is so reassuring and gives some semblance of peace and for the region. I don't completely disagree with this issue of heightened intention and creating this China phobia. I said from our prism, from a listen position, we don't have that problem. So don't impose and don't try to influence us again because we maintain excellent bilateral relations with America. Cumulatively, America is the greatest investor into Malaysia. We continue to encourage them. But at the same time, China has been very positive and aggressive with the investment into Malaysia. Very important trading. To gain a deeper understanding of this topic, it's essential to take a trip down memory lane. Particularly significant in this reflection are the actions of one of Malaysia's prominent leaders, Mahathir Mohamed. On January 27, 1981, Mahathir urged Arab countries to consider regaining Palestinian territories through diplomatic and peaceful means, emphasizing that Israel's perceived invincibility was not insurmountable. In April 1984, Malaysia demonstrated its solidarity with the Palestinian cause by supporting a resolution at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, OIC, advocating for the severance of ties with any nation relocating its embassy to Jerusalem. Malaysia also extended significant support to the Palestine Liberation Organization, PLO, during this period. In a notable gesture of support, Malaysia allowed the PLO to establish an office in Kuala Lumpur in 1974. Under Mahathir's leadership, this office received full diplomatic recognition in August 1982. Malaysia's foreign minister at the time emphasized that Israel should recognize the PLO before expecting Malaysia to recognize Israel. Mahathir's administration took a firm stance against perceived injustices perpetrated by the Israeli government. In August 1984, the New York Philharmonic Orchestra's performance in Kuala Lumpur was canceled after Malaysia requested the removal of works by Swiss Jewish composer Ernest Block from the program. In 1983, Mahathir raised concerns about efforts by external forces, allegedly backed by colonialist-controlled media to destabilize Malaysia. He also criticized Israel's actions, drawing parallels between historical persecutions faced by the Jewish people and contemporary Israeli policies. Mahathir did not shy away from vocalizing his criticisms of media outlets he perceived as biased towards Israel. He labeled publications like The New York Times and The Asian Wall Street Journal as Zionist-leaning. Malaysia's reaction to the visit of Israeli President Chaim Herzog in Singapore in 1986 was met with strong opposition, including calls to sever diplomatic ties and symbolic protests. In 1992, Malaysia made headlines for denying entry to a delegate aboard Israel's national airline, El Al, for an international flight conference. Similarly, in December of the same year, Malaysia refused entry to an Israeli football player affiliated with the Liverpool team, resulting in the cancellation of the team's planned visit to Malaysia. In March 1994, Malaysia faced controversy over the screening of Steven Spielberg's movie Shindler's List. Initially, Malaysia prohibited the screening, citing concerns that the film aimed to garner sympathy for Jews. However, following pressure from the United States and Australia, Malaysia relented but imposed conditions to censor scenes involving violence and sex. Spielberg opted to withdraw his films entirely from Malaysian theatres rather than compromise artistic integrity. However, the signing of the Oslo E-Record between Israel and the PLO in September 1993 prompted Mahathir to moderate his criticisms of the Israeli government. There were even discussions within Malaysia about potentially establishing diplomatic relations with Israel, contingent upon Israel taking substantive steps to advance peace in the Middle East, including the return of Palestinian lands. In response to the Israel PLO agreement, Malaysia pledged support to assist Gaza and Jericho in rebuilding their infrastructure. Despite these considerations, in December 1993, Mahathir reiterated that Malaysia was not prepared to establish diplomatic ties with Israel until it recognized the state of Palestine. These historical realities set Malaysia apart from other nations, illustrating its unwavering commitment to the Palestinian cause. Even amidst waves of normalization agreements in the Middle East, Malaysia remained steadfast, refusing to soften its stance in the absence of a clear plan for Palestinian statehood by Israeli authorities. This steadfast position led many analysts, including ourselves at the Open-Minded Thinker Show, to conclude that Malaysia remains dedicated to the Palestinian two-state solution for the long term. Prime Minister Anwar's alignment with this enduring mandate underscores the consistency of Malaysia's foreign policy. What's perhaps less known is the strong and remarkable relationship between Anwar and the anti-Israeli-Malaysian leader, Mahathir Mohammed. Despite facing imprisonment on what many viewed as politically motivated charges, Anwar rejoined Mahathir Mohammed in the new Pakatan Harapan PH coalition in absentia, which subsequently won the 2018 general election. Mahathir laid out a plan for Anwar to succeed him as Prime Minister after an unspecified interim period. Anwar received a royal pardon and was released from prison in May 2018. He returned to parliament in the 2018 Port Dixon by election, while his wife, Wan Aziza Wan Ismail, served as Deputy Prime Minister in the PH administration. However, the coalition's collapse during the 2020-22 Malaysian political crisis resulted in the formation of the new Perikatan National PN coalition under Muhyiddin Yasin, with Anwar assuming the role of leader of the opposition for the second time in May 2020. Given this political landscape, it's evident that the current Malaysian government remains steadfast in its support for the Palestinians until freedom is achieved. Thank you for considering this perspective, and we encourage ongoing discussion and awareness-raising about the situation in Palestine. Until next time, peace.