OBL was never the deciding factor of supporting terrorism. His ideology was to eliminate Western armies from Middle Eastern countries. However, the terrorists he created do not see down this lane alone. Their ideology is to invade, strike and eliminate every other non-Islamic state and establish their 7th century desert empire. Afghanistan was a solid living proof of that before Bush invaded the country.
Until OBL was alive, there was covert unsaid support among Arabs. Having traveled in Arab countries, I have sought a lot of responses vis a vis this ideology. And shockingly many people actually find his (not the anti-American but the Taliban-based) branches quite positive. It was shocking. The one good thing Abottabad operation did was get loonies who think like this, to rethink all over again due to the fact that US can strike them as well.
Let me distinguish the two here. OBL was able to capitalise on genuinge grivenaces that the Arab world had. These were mainly the dispropotionate support to Israel on the Palestinian issue, the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf War, the US support to autocratic regimes in the GCC and Egypt and what led to an explosion in AQ recruitment spree - the Iraq invasion and occupation.
This does NOT mean that there is support for OBL's tactics which revolved around two main things (1) Justification of killing civilians inclusing women and children (2) Justification on using suicide bombings . Both are explicitly declared forbidden in Islamic theology. The way OBL went around this - and remember he wasn't an Islamic scholar - is to use a political reason. Basically saying that American weapons kill so many women and children in Palestine, so we can do the same to the US. Not a theological justification - but a political one.
This is one of the reason why there is disbelief among many muslims and arabs even today that OBL would have done the 9/11 attacks. Which may be techinically correct that he may not be directly behind it but the fact is that his minioms like KSM e.t.c. did it and tried to justify it.
And what is OBL's main purpose to attack the US?
He tells this quite clearly in many of his Arabic interviews before 9/11 and the one that he did right after it. The aim was "provoke" the US to angrily lash out against the Muslim world, and draw it into a longdrawn war in Afghanistan vis a vis the USSR. Ofcourse that strategy failed in 2001. But Bush's invasion of Iraq was a perfect recipe to restart the same process. The long drawn war and incresing ecnomic costs would weaken the US and force it to stop supporting Arab autocratic regimes. And once the US support to these Arab regimes would go, we would then be able to topple these regimes and establish "Islamic" govt.s
Ofcouse if the Arab Spring currently going on stays on track, it would go further to show how margnisalised OBL has become.
India having ties to Arab League doesn't make them think that way. We have diplomatic ties with Pakistan as well. Does that change anything? Nothing. It is their constant Pakistani affiliation to Pakistan due to common "culture" along with OIC's adamant stand is what caused us to develop strong ties with Israel. And boy, did we make an excellent decision on that!
Not sure what you mean by that but Pakistani-Indian ties are nothing compared to Indo-Arab ties. They are completely different and as a block they actually form our largest trading bloc, next to our largest remittance earning bloc and not to mention our biggest energy suppliers. Not to mention security and military-to-military relations we had with Iraq for example.
And again common "culture" with Pakistan? You might speculate that common "religion" factor but that again is an ideological way of looking at geopolitics. That is not what the policy planners sitting in Egypt or Iraq or GCC countries think. I think the better way to explain the change is use a realist perspective. The fact is that during the Cold war we were pretty much in the soviet camp. Israel along with GCC countries and Pakistan was in the US camp. While we had Iraq, Syria and Egypt until Gamal Abdel Nasser on our side supporting us. Its unfortunate that we basically were in the loosing camp and Iraq was bombed to smithereen in 1991 while Syria is an economic basket case. And ofcourse Egypt switched to the US in the 1970s. Pakistan had the backing of the US most of western Europe:UK, France, Germany e.t.c and ofcourse other countries that were firmly in the US camp like Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
Post coldwar India started normalising relations with all these countries. Israel was ofcouse one of the first which we recognised in 1992 after the PA accords. We needed urgent military upgrades after the USSR and it was very much beneficial. And soon after it was under the last years of the NDA govt. that plans of upgrading diplomatic ties with Turkey and Saudi Arabia - former cold war countries of the opposite camp were put in action. The UPAI picked up the ball and there is a definite "partnership" in play since MMS visit to Saudi Arabia. If some former diplomats are to be believed - it was not just the Israeli or US pressure but the Saudi/GCC pressure that finally pushed India to take the call on voting against Iran on IAEA. Ofcourse, I can't confirm this but if true, it shows the links that we have behind the scenes.
But on topic, Arab League making this statement is nothing new. OIC chaging its stand would be something new.
EU is a toothless tiger now. It has no stand and its power source has dissolved. It can maximum be an arms salesman and technology hub. It's opinion also matters little anymore. They continue to call Kashmir a disputed territory and have the audacity to meet the separatist terrorist called Geelani in first place (it is astounding how India doesn't show anger on this itself--but then, with this government, it is not that surprising). So whether it sponsors any Pak government anymore doesn't matter until it becomes a cause of terrorism in our country.
The EU was still the most important block that pushed for HR violator designate against India in the 1990s and even later. OIC offers rheotorical support and nothing else. But the EU on the otherhand have regular conferences and meetings, they invite dissdents and sepratists and give wide press coverage to the issue. It might not change the ground realities, but it obviously generates press coverage and affects India's public diplomacy.
I think we are pretty much nearing the end of Kashmir issue. The contours will be LoC=IB with some form of autonomy. To the valley if not to the entire state. But only time will tell.
What the main focus should now be of GoI is to have the same sort of visits and visibility of POK. These delegations and media should be allowed to visit Gilgit Baltistan and other regions of Kashmir in Muzaffarabad and Mirpur and allowed to freely meet people like they have done on the Indian side.