You speak the truth, but what are we to make of this?

Submitted by Shelley Ashfield (United States), Sep 26, 2002 at 11:47

Your article sheds more light on Arab foreign policy than I had yet seen, and your reccommendation for U.S. policy to acknowledge and define the term "Greater Israel" is wise.

I came upon this article as a result of reading John Kelsay's article "Osama bin Laden and the Just Conduct of War" in the Oct. 8, 2001 edition of America magazine. Kelsay's analysis of Bin Laden's fatwa regarding Muslims striking at U.S. interests mentioned that Bin Laden believed "...The United States is trying to distract...attention from the actions of Israel...to create a "greater Israel" inclusive of the West Bank, Gaza and significant portions of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia." Needless to say, I was floored to read this line, and wondered why he might think such a thing.

However, through my meanderings on the web to answer my own question as to what constituted "Greater Israel", I have gotten more confused as I encountered web sites such as http://www.ahavat-israel.com/ahavat/eretz/future.asp

And, if as you say, Arabs' interpretation of Greater Israel is based upon overactive imagination and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, what are we to make of these folk that developed this website?

Certainly ahavat-israel.com is outside Israel's political mainstream. But far-out does not necessarily mean uninfluential. We have plenty of wingnuts in the U.S. political scene that have managed to "raise consciousness" about issues such as lobster murder (PETA), mysterious illnesses around power lines, and global warming.

My question is this: what IS the influence of ahavat-israel wingnuts? Are they enough of a problem that reasoned arguements such as yours may have their credibility strained?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".