I thought the most intriguing aspect of US President George W. Bush's call in Jerusalem this week for a Palestinian state that was "viable, contiguous, sovereign and independent" was the simultaneous use of the words "sovereign" and "independent." This tells us nothing new about American rhetoric on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but it is intriguing for how it can help clarify crucial political sentiments in other parts of the Arab world.

Why does Bush feel the need to use both the words "sovereign" and "independent?" You would think that if a country enjoyed one of these attributes, the other would come automatically. Well, not really - and not only in the case of Palestine's desire to gain genuine independence and end Israeli control of its land, air, water, people and natural resources. In fact, one of the major concerns of ordinary citizens and mass political movements in much of the Arab world today is the sense of living in independent Arab states that are not fully sovereign, because they do not fully control their own resources or foreign policy.

This sense of feeling disenfranchised within your own borders is one of the major driving forces for Islamist and other political movements in the Arab world. In Lebanon, for example, the most vocal criticism that the Hizbullah-led opposition makes of the Siniora government is that it is an American puppet, and that it has transformed Lebanon into an agent for American plans and goals. Many in the Arab world feel that their governments are not fully free to make decisions that are in the best interest of their people, but rather must succumb to Israeli, American, European or other pressures.

The sense of clipped sovereignty is not only a consequence of Western and Israeli pressures. In some cases, citizens complain that other Arab governments, or Iran, are the ones who dictate policies to Arab leaders. The sense of thwarted rights is also felt at the personal level by many Arabs who feel that they do not enjoy the full rights and privileges of citizenship, due to the abuse of power by small ruling elites and the many people in society who revolve around those elites.

The common Arab self-perception of being independent but not sovereign reflects several different feelings: that others make decisions for us; that we do not fully control our own resources; or that we are so dependent on others for money, security, food or technology that we suffer profound vulnerabilities that erode our sovereignty. The manner in which some Arab governments openly or covertly participated in the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, for example, is seen by many in this region as a sign that some Arab foreign and security policies are largely dictated by Washington or Israel. Whether this is true or not is largely irrelevant; what matters is that many Arabs believe this to be the case, and formulate their political attitudes and behavior accordingly.

It is important for others around the world to appreciate how deeply many Arab citizens feel this sense of disempowerment, dependency, marginalization, and manipulation and control by others. It is one of the core degrading discontents that drive Islamist movements throughout the region, who aim at an important first level to give people back their sense of empowerment and humanity.

To be an independent state that is not sovereign, or to be a citizen whose political and human rights are abused by one's own state and government, does not only anger or irritate people; it generates a deeper sense of dehumanization, of being almost worthless and meaningless in the face of power exercised by others. Citizens without rights and states without sovereignty are unnatural conditions that cannot long endure. The power to make one's own decisions is a universal driving force, for individuals and countries alike. This is a biological rather than an ideological matter. It is a human need as basic as food, water, shelter and companionship. People and societies that feel they are invisible in the eyes of others will insist on being seen and respected; they will organize, struggle, suffer and even fight if necessary to affirm their humanity.

It remains unclear if the United States is serious about brokering honest Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. The track record today suggests not, but we will find out in the coming months. Yet it is a good sign that the American government explicitly mentions both independence and sovereignty as being necessary attributes of a Palestinian state to be born.

The US, Israel, Europeans and others around the world would do well to extend this sensitivity to the rest of the Middle East, where the sense of being only quasi-sovereign is widespread, and corrosive. True sovereignty requires less foreign interference, threats and dictates, and remains among the most pervasive and powerful political driving forces in the Middle East today.