There exists a common misconception that "Islamic terrorism" exists solely to punish the U.S. for its secularism and liberal democratic "values," but it seems more accurate to note that a more likely motive is anger regarding specific perceived encroachments by U.S. political regimes in terms of support for the Israeli government. Evidence of this is found in Osama bin Laden's first fatwa, Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places. Issued in 1996, it identified the Al-Aqsa Mosque as an Islamic holy site that was allegedly being defiled by Israeli sovereignty over the area. Moreover, the reality of his intent was covered in Marc Perelman's Bin Laden Aimed To Link Plot to Israel: Moreover, he wished to accelerate the attacks twice, both in response to what he considered "provocative" actions by the man known as the "Butcher of Beirut," Ariel Sharon. I wouldn't claim that he didn't oppose Western "decadence," but his opposition would not have been characterized by such a violent backlash had he not regarded the existence of financial and military support as an imposition of that decadence. As has been previously noted, he did not choose to attack the significantly more "decadent" Sweden or the Netherlands, for instance. This reality is certainly confirmed by opinion polling of the Arab populace on the matter. Zogby International's Impressions of America 2004: A Six-Nation Survey summarizes this well, noting that "[w]hen asked whether their overall attitude toward the US was shaped by their feelings about American values or US policies, in all six countries, an overwhelming percentage of respondents indicated that policy played a more important role." This assessment is validated by analyses such as this one: What comes of this is revelation of the fact that there are deeper political motivations for "Islamist" assaults against U.S. targets that can be altered by their realization of the differences between the U.S. political class and the U.S. general population and the consequent immorality of attacking the latter as if it was the former, since they become aware of the divergence between the two when it comes to foreign policy formation. If the basis for their hostility was purely theological in nature, as some assert, this wouldn't make a difference to them one way or the other. It is problematic, then, that it is incorrectly assumed that "Islamic" radicals are primarily motivated by theological doctrines and hatred of secularism and civil freedoms, when that is contradicted by such substantial evidence. That also means that an impediment to rational analysis and the formation of sound foreign policy by U.S. political regimes will continue to exist so long as this myth is sustained.