BROOKE GLADSTONE: From WNYC in New York, this is NPR's On the Media. I'm Brooke Gladstone.

BOB GARFIELD: And I'm Bob Garfield. This week, President Bush stood with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and declared that Israel had the right to keep parts of the West Bank, annexed by Israel in the 1967 war. He also said Palestinian refugees did not have the right to return to their homes inside Israel. In a long season of mounting hostility between the United States and the Arab world, it's hard to imagine news more likely to prompt universal condemnation in the Arab media. Our friend, Martin Walker, editor in chief of UPI joins us once again, having sorted through the Arab-language papers. Martin, welcome back.

MARTIN WALKER: Nice to be back on the air with you, Bob.

BOB GARFIELD: To the extent that there was any sympathy for the president in any quarter in the Arab press, that's gone now, huh?

MARTIN WALKER: Yes, even the government-owned Arab press, which normally tries to give at least a nod to the American point of view is now very firmly and overwhelmingly against what Bush is doing. For example, in the Emirates, the Al Khaleej, a very pro-government paper, says that Bush has put himself into the mold of Sharon, and is acting as if he were a member of Sharon's Likud Party. Bush has adopted Israel's racist expansionist, hostile policies and so on. In Qatar, the pro-government paper, Al Riyadh, says that international borders cannot be unilaterally changed in this way by two men meeting in a room in Washington. This is just a howl of pain and outrage which is coming on the, hard on the heels of the similar howls of pain over what's been happening in Iraq.

BOB GARFIELD: What is it that has most particularly infuriated the Arab press?

MARTIN WALKER:I think it is the reaction of dismay and disillusion by those Arabs who thought that maybe there was some hope of a fundamental change towards modernization, democratization in the Middle East on the basis of the American commitment to Iraq, and they now see that commitment to Iraq looking very, very shaky, and America looking very, very enfeebled and weak. Throughout the Arab media there has been this extraordinary condemnation of American incompetence in the way that they have run their occupation. Something they should expect, for example, from Al Quds Al Arabi which is a London-based paper, Palestinian owned, which is saying that it's now clear that those resisting the American occupation are not the remains of Saddam Hussein's regime nor Arab fighters coming across the borders, but these are the sons of Iraq, the sons of Sunnis and of Shiites and some Kurdish nationalists. We're seeing the birth of an Iraqi nationalism, united in their opposition to the Americans. Al Bayan in the Emirates, a very pro-government paper, is saying that this isn't a quagmire. It is a quicksand in which troops can disappear.

BOB GARFIELD:I want to ask you about Fallujah and the violence there. The United States has mounted a large offensive against insurgents, and there are claims that hundreds of civilians have been killed, women and children. But it's difficult for Western press to independently confirm these charges. You wonder if there's exaggeration on the Iraqi side. On the other hand, the way the press office at the American occupation forces have acquitted themselves, there's no way to know where the truth lies right now.

MARTIN WALKER: Well, what the entire Arab press is citing are the televised images coming out over Al Jazeera - the satellite TV station which has shown a considerable number of civilian casualties, collateral damage, and what is striking is the degree to which there is now a parallel being drawn between the dead of Fallujah, if you like, and the dead of Palestine. It's now commonplace for people to talk about the resistance in Iraq as a new intifada. I mean even in moderate newspapers, like for example, As-Safir in Lebanon. They're saying there that our entire region is being engulfed by American lies. We are on the verge of a political chaos and our third world war. Others, by the way, have condemned the kidnappings, like the recent Japanese hostages. Beirut Al Azhar is saying that those who kidnap innocent people are criminal gangs who are breaching all of the codes of Islam and of civilized behavior. This cannot continue. But the Americans must realize that they are now becoming victims of a hellish alliance between Osama bin Laden and Ariel Sharon to hold the world hostage to their goal of a clash of civilizations. That was a front page editorial written by the editor in chief of Al Azhar, Hassan Tawni.

BOB GARFIELD:Is it just my imagination, or am I hearing, despite the disclaimer, the accusation of thuggishness and so forth against those who kidnap and kill -- am I hearing some sort of grim satisfaction at this new intifada?

MARTIN WALKER: Yes, you are hearing that. You're, what you're also hearing of is kind of a growing chorus of 'I Told You So' from that Arab press which was a year ago, during the Iraq war, was hailing what they saw as the potential victory of the fedayeen - of the resistance against the American attackers. What they're now saying is, although the Iraqi people would not fight for Saddam Hussein, they are now fighting for their own self respect and for their own freedom and for their own country, and the Americans have never understood that.

BOB GARFIELD:There's one other major news development that has been noticed in the Arab world, and that is the 9/11 Commission. Tell me what's been written.

MARTIN WALKER: Well, I was looking at Jordan's, again, a semi-official paper, Al Rih which had a big piece on Monday saying that none of the heads in the American government have rolled, despite the continuous mistakes and lies, but perhaps they might roll come the November elections when the American people have their say. Perhaps then the big heads will roll, all together.

BOB GARFIELD: Well, Martin, as always, many thanks.

MARTIN WALKER: Thank you.

BOB GARFIELD: Martin Walker is editor in chief of United Press International.