Islamophobia Reconsidered

Stranger things have happened, but not too many of them. Dare we suggest that we are intrigued by the Biden administration's handling of the war in Gaza, war for which it bears considerable responsibility.

Let’s see. Yesterday, our hapless Secretary of State, one Antony Blinken, wondered aloud about why the world had so quickly forgotten what Hamas perpetrated on October 7. Where’s the outrage, intoned one of those who is most responsible for muting the outrage.

Keep in mind, the Biden policy has been for Israel to surrender. That is, to declare a unilateral ceasefire. Of course, the more Biden talks this way, as he did yesterday, the more Hamas hardens its positions. 

Blinken and Biden have blamed everything on Prime Minister Netanyahu. New York Times columnist Tommy Friedman is on board. Even the normally sensible Bret Stephens argues that Netanyahu has to go.

Obviously, blaming the Israeli prime minister is preferable to taking responsibility for bad policy in the region. Naturally, the great minds of the Biden administration, along with the dimwits at the New York Times, insist that removing Netanyahu, or at least militating for his removal, would be a step toward victory over Hamas.

If you believe that, you will believe anything. Consider that Israel is fighting a war. When you fight a war, the time for partisan political maneuverings, even the kind that makes Muslims in Michigan feel better about themselves, must be suspended. If this were a chess game and you were calling to replace the king, you would be calling for surrender.

Symbolic surrender, perhaps, but surrender nonetheless.

It ought to be obvious, even too obvious to have to state it, but the people who hate Israel and who pray for an Israeli defeat also hate America. About that Joe Biden and his flunkies have nothing to say.

Now, of course, Biden has denounced Netanyahu for having committed what he calls a “mistake,” in Gaza. This means that the slow motion sellout of Israel is proceeding apace. In no other war in human history has anyone suggested that one side stop fighting in order to allow the enemy to replenish its foodstocks. The notion is risible, especially coming from someone like Biden, who has no military experience. As you know Netanyahu and his war cabinet have extensive military experience.

The Babylon Bee sums up the Biden policy, with a touch of satire:

BREAKING: Hamas Agrees To Release Zero Hostages In Exchange For All Jews Being Wiped From The Face Of The Earth

Now, we discover that most of the hostages cannot be returned, because they are dead. As for the American citizens who are being held hostage, the Biden administration has had nothing to say about it.

One ought also to add that the chorus of the impotent, comprising the presidents of Jordan and Egypt and France, also called for an immediate Israeli ceasefire. Apparently, their feelings have been hurt, even more so considering that Egypt and Jordan are part of the problem. Jordan, which is a Palestinian state, refuses to take charge of the West Bank. And Egypt has worked long and hard to keep the border between Sinai and Gaza closed. And yet, you do not hear the Biden administration condemning these countries for their part in this horror.

As for France, President Macron has something of a manliness problem-- or should I say, a lack of manliness problem-- so he feels compelled to intervene on the side of surrender. Maybe it just means that he is French. You can figure that one out.

In the meantime, David Goldman has echoed a point I made at the onset of the current conflict. That being, that the Gaza Palestinians and certain other segments of the Muslim community have a problem with humiliation. 

They are being humiliated daily by the Israeli Defense Forces and cannot deal with it. They do not much care if Muslims are killing Muslims. And yet, when Israel kills Muslims, even in a war, they are up in arms. They would rather go to their deaths than to concede that Israel, as I have often put it, is the solution, not the problem in the Middle East.

From the onset of the current conflict I have suggested that the Hamas attack was designed to cover up the failure of Gazans, to say nothing of Jordanians and Egyptians, to succeed in the world economy and in the modern industrialized world.

When Israel became a great nation on land that had been managed by people who had largely failed to enter the modern world, it shamed Palestinians. And they believed that they could only deal with it in one way, by destroying what Israel had built. 

One ought to notice that the slogan about the river to the sea assumes that what Israelis built should be confiscated by Palestinians who did not build it.

Surely, confiscation and extortion are much easier than building something more consequential than terror tunnels and jerry-built rockets.

Now, you can try to overcome your shame by humiliating those who you hold responsible for humiliating you. Or you can recognize that the problem in Gaza and the West Bank involves a grotesque failure to produce and to build. That being the case, the solution to the shame of failure is the pride that attends success.

Apparently, that flagrantly obvious truth is too much for the people of Gaza to contemplate. Because if it is true, then the solution to the problems that Middle Eastern countries face lies, not in agitation, not in hating Jews, not in running around like crazed loonies, but-- drumroll please-- in the Abraham Accords. An alliance that would contribute to regional solidarity while allowing Muslim countries to advance and to modernize-- that has been the way out of the dilemma.

Creating a series of alliances between Israel and Muslim countries was a masterstroke, but apparently it was too much for the terrorists in Tehran to contemplate. 

Keep in mind that the October 7 massacre occurred as Israel and Saudi Arabia were about to sign an accord. Clearly, this would have represented an admission that the Muslim world had squandered its people’s talents and abilities for around a millennium. Evidently, the mullahs who run Iran could not accept that.

Of course, Muslims want to be respected. And yet, no one respects you for massacring women and children. You need to build something to be respected.

If respect is not in play, then too many Muslims have decided that they would rather be feared. Better to be feared than to be treated with contempt, contempt for having failed.

Ironically, the word that expresses fear of Muslims is-- Islamophobia. Go figure.

Please subscribe to my Substack.