> In sum, I do think that any grievances against the US voiced by Bin Laden
> and Co. are commensurate with the actions they take. Not even close. On
> the other hand, those who do have legitimate grievances (like
> Palestinians,
> for example) generally do not fill the ranks of anti-US terrorist
> organizations. This paradox can possibly be explained if we assume that
> the
> US is merely a proxy target, a diversion that re-directs internal
> conflicts
> on an outside enemy - which I believe has been a hallmark of Muslim
> politics
> since the times of the "prophet."
==============================
I don't believe the terrorist attacks displace the internal conflicts and
are quietly supported by the Arab regimes for that reason, as you suggest.
My impression is otherwise. I think they're widely supported by the Arab masses, and serve to dramatize for them the passivity and collusion of their rulers in relation to the Palestinian conflict. In the sense the attacks increase the alienation of the masses from the ruling autocracies, they contribute to a sharpening of internal conflict, and are viewed this way by both the (alarmed, not satisfied) ruling regimes and their Islamist opponents alike.
A negotiated settlement of the Palestine Question would at a stroke eliminate the basis for the mass support of al Qaeda and like-minded terrorist organizations. They would have to abandon their wider aims and actions against Western targets and either fold themselves into the mass Islamist opposition parties trying to overthrow the autocracies by mostly electoral means, or face political marginalization.