Egypt, for instance, clearly does not have a really great civil rights history towards Christians and Jews. However, they have been keeping the pressure on the radical Muslim groups internally in order to preserve order. These same moderates recognize the external threat posed by the likes of Al-queda.
However, if Bin Laden can characterize the struggle as an Isreali issue, then these same moderates will not be able to retain power unless they vigorously side against U.S. actions.
This is why domestically, arguments to the effect that the U.S. brought Sept 11 on itself by its support of Israel, is such a dangerous argument. It attempts to paint those terrorist attacks as merely an extension of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Bush, on the other hand, needs to be able to portray the events of Sept. 11 by Al-Queda, and those like it, as being a direct attack against the West in a bold attempt to destroy the West. This is fairly easy to do, since that is the Muslim rhetoric.
What will make Bush's life so difficult is these people are masters of holding the olive branch in one hand and the bomb in the other behind their backs. This is the model which has worked for years with Arafat as the front man. Unfortunately, we have a media filled to the gills with Quislings and Chamberlains who gobble it up. Sharon was being grilled today on American TV as if he were persecuting the "peace-loving" Arafat. [ and what is to become of "negotiation"??? sob, sob ]
Well with half of the Moslem states voting that Palestinians blowing up supermarkets and pizza parlors is not terrorism I do not think that there is much "moderation" in the Islamic world. They can't even agree what terrorism is, how can we make them "partners". Trying to make a coalition with Islam is like inviting enemy into your backyard as you fight out the front. Stupid.