I do not favour any violent and bigoted reaction to issues with which we disagree. On the other hand, everyone should have his own clear stand, supporting or rejecting, on issues which are related to his sentiments, ideology or belief.

On a foreign company's decision that offends the religious sentiments or national pride of a people, their government takes the decision to condemn the objectionable stand of the foreign company. The government's decision would be in perfect agreement with people's sentiments. In some cases people do not give expression to their protest through public demonstrations. Instead they leave the task of expressing their sentiments to their government which does it in conferences and political discussions. On the other hand, governments do not encourage individuals expressing their protest on several controversial matters because it may create embarrassing situations in diplomatic circles. Such a government stand is reasonable because if individuals are left to deal with situations they disapprove of, particularly in issues involving their national pride or religious sentiments, most international meeting-points such as tourist centres, class rooms with multinational presence, foreign delegations, offices, hotel lounges, cinema houses and streets, where people from different nationalities frequent, will become scenes of pitched battles.

My attention, like several others, has been drawn by the wide attention received by the Walt Disney's interest in Israel's stand on Jerusalem. Do the entertainment company realize the implications of the threat by the Arab League to boycott it and the volume of the loss the boycott would involve if implemented?

My topic here is not Disney's stand toward Arab League's wishes or Israel's interest. I intend here to suggest a new style of protest on matters we disagree. It is the boycott on an individual level instead of leaving the matter to our governments or resorting to public show of anger. People should voluntarily restrain themselves from buying those objectionable things, visiting places of amusements and entertainment, foods or reading materials produced by companies who offend our sentiments. An individual seldom thinks of his effective role in a struggle which can be carried out without any violent confrontation or public hostility. This kind of boycott involves a wilful withdrawal from objectionable matters and promoters of insulting ideas.

Unfortunately, people do not realize the tremendous impact such a stand would make. The Walt Disney company would be compelled to reconsider their policies if hundreds of thousands of people from our countries travelling to Florida, Los Angeles and Paris shun its entertainment cities. The company would think a lot about its own interests before surrendering to Israel's political interests. Unfortunately, people do not adopt the policy of self abstention in matters where a cultural or religious attack by others is involved. That is why a lot of trash publications tarnishing the image of Gulf Arabs are found on newsstands at Edgware Road and Queens Way. These magazines and publication carry titles such as “The Nights Of Oil Princesses” or “The Debauchery Of The Veiled Woman”. Respectable people from UAE, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain appear as villainous characters in these stories.

About 20 years ago the public had avidly read every trash offered by the news agents believing that they contained some important information. Returning tourists even tried to smuggle in some of them. Nobody, these days, cares for such nonsense. Gulf and Saudi people should keep away from such news agents. They should not buy even cigarette and battery cells from them. This kind of boycott should be practiced in a voluntary manner. In fact we know the nationality of these news agents. We also know why they do not sell disgraceful literature about their own countries despite t