From the Nouvel Observateur, an editorial by Jean Daniel.

Here's a translation of the last part:

Personally, I would not have been hostile to the intervention in Iraq, even without approval from the UN, if the United States had been able to obtain the adhesion of certain Arab powers by taking an equitable position in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It is a fact that Ben Laden was hardly concerned, at the beginning, by the conflict in the Middle East. Israel was not quoted in the first Al-Qaida official statements. The terrorism from Afghanistan did not aim - in particular in Algeria! - in liberating Palestine. But if the radical islamists were rather indifferent, it was not the case of the moderated Moslems, and precisely of these same whose support had been necessary to oppose Ben Laden and to legitimate the removal of Saddam Hussein. One regards as possible and even probable a victory of George Bush. We would then see developing a crusade against terrorism carried out in the name of the most rudimentary vision which one had for a long time to deplore in the democracies. It is thus more important than ever to wonder what really feeds terrorism. However it's not only the injustice, the arbitrary and the humiliation which it uses as pretexts, it is terror itself. We heard Palestinians, and none the least, condemning the attacks against civilians. One can find the same judgment under the plume of tchetchen resistants. In other words, the Moslem world understood that the fight against terror known as an islamist one, was to be led in priority by Moslems in the name of Islam. It is them who have the greatest legitimacy to do it. It is them who can tear off their alibis from George Bush, Vladimir Poutine, Ariel Sharon and the others. It is them whom it is necessary to help to avoid the "shock of civilizations". Looking at the latest documentaries about the way the islamists recruit and endoctrinate their young militants, one understands better how terror feeds terror, how the crusade feeds the crusade.