Saturday, September 19, 2026

Manufacturing the Muslim Enemy: Islamophobia in the Service of Israel

By Jamal Kanj

Abdul El-Sayed. (Photo: Conlan Houston. Via Wikimedia Commons)

Islamophobia does not stem from Islam being less progressive than the other Abrahamic religions, all of which have their own well-documented histories of intolerance and compatibility challenges.

Jewish hatred is real and must be condemned without qualification. But it cannot be fought by propagating hatred against the followers of another religion. Demonizing Muslims does not combat antisemitism; it simply transfers prejudice from one target to another. Sadly, that is precisely the objective of Jewish supremacists who readily invoke antisemitism to shut down debate and weaponize anti-Muslim hatred, redirecting public attention away from Israel’s policies of genocide and dispossession.

At the recent Republican Jewish Coalition’s summit in Las Vegas, Florida Congressman Randy Fine told the crowd that the problem was not radical Islamism but “mainstream” Islam. In a separate interview, Fine went further, suggesting some civilizations are simply superior to others. Texas Congressman Brandon Gill referred to a Heritage Foundation poll claiming that 40 percent of American Muslims support Sharia without acknowledging that the poll deliberately left ambiguous what respondents understood by the term, including whether they meant mandatory religious law or private observance. Sharia in the life of a Muslim is not different from the Catholic canon law or the religious laws and practices observant Jews follow in their daily lives: religious frameworks that guide personal conduct and communal life, not systems intended to govern the state.

Hate promoters are clearly gaining ground among an unsuspecting American public, and the timing is what makes this wave distinct. The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding’s Islamophobia Index climbed from 25 in 2022 to 33 in 2025, and Pew Research finds 51 percent of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence, more than double the share six months after 9/11. Within a week of Dr. Abdul El-Sayed’s win in the Michigan Senate Democratic primary, Islamophobic posts naming him jumped nearly 1,900 percent, branding him a jihadist and every Muslim officeholder a Trojan horse.

The message is clear: Muslim identity itself, not the candidate’s policy position, is disqualifying. A campaign bankrolled by Israel-first Jewish plutocrats financing pro-Israel lobbies like AIPAC, which spent approximately $30 million to defeat Al Sayed. After that effort failed, the same billionaires and AIPAC jumped horses, pouring money now supporting the Republican candidate, Mike Rogers. The single-issue lobbyists are prepared to back whichever Republican or Democratic candidate is most willing to serve the interests of a foreign nation, not Americans.

What unites these plutocrats is not their faith or the American party system. It is an Israel-first agenda, one that treats American Muslims as a proxy battlefield for a foreign policy argument and makes Islam, not policy, the dividing line.

Follow the money and the microphones, and the same Israel-first commitment shows up institutionally, not just individually. From the multimillion-dollar tax-exempt charity led by Jewish-American Steven Emerson, who produced a movie in 1994 instigating Muslim hate in America. To the so-called Clarion Fund, a nonprofit founded by Israeli Canadian brothers, who spent more than $17 million, likely tax-deductible funds, to distribute 28 million DVDs of an anti-Muslim film in swing states weeks before the 2008 election. Its partner, the Endowment for Middle East Truth, filled its advisory board with career Islamophobia figures like Daniel Pipes and Frank Gaffney, alongside a former Israeli ambassador to the US. And in 2026, there is Ben Shapiro’s fictional Islamophobic movie. These are not civic organizations with one thing in common: promoting Israeli propaganda and inciting Islamophobia.

The countries and communities Fine, Shapiro, and Laura Loomer describe as civilizational threats are, for the most part, not at war with the United States, France, or Britain. They are critics, boycotters, and protesters of the Israeli genocide in Gaza and Zionist mob violence in the West Bank. The “enemy” being conjured is those who are resisting an Israeli apartheid occupation, not at war with the US. Manufacturing a shared Western-Islamic civilizational conflict is a way of recruiting Americans into Israel’s endless wars by convincing them it is their own (the war on Iran is the latest), and Israel-first American Zionists have every incentive to keep that conflation alive.

This dynamic is not new; it is the domestic cousin of an older ploy, dressed as principled liberalism rather than open hatred. For decades, Bill Maher built a brand insisting that berating Islam was simply standing up for liberal values, that Muslims uniquely threaten free speech and women’s rights in ways no other faith does. Inarguably, fundamentalism exists in every faith. Only one gets singled out as incompatible with modern life, and it is never a coincidence which religion, or which conflict it serves.

Maher turns a blind eye when, in the 21st century, it is not the “incompatible” Muslim men who recite the morning blessings, Birkot Hashachar: “shelo asani ishah,” thanking God for not making them a woman, or “she-loh asani goy,” for not making them a non-Jew, alongside the blessing for not making them a slave. As if being a woman, non-Jew, or a slave were divine curses rather than victims of human-inflicted ills.

In fact, all of what Islam is accused of as being incompatible with Western culture was adopted from the moral codes of the Old and New Testaments, with few variations. This includes attitudes toward women and slavery. Islam, however, introduced significant changes in the treatment of women, recognizing them as persons with an equal soul and granting them legal and moral rights, including inheritance and choosing who to marry. It also accepted black slaves as full members of the Muslim community, with the same religious standing as non-black Muslims.

This was 1,400 years ago, a revolutionary transformation by any measure, and it was not merely an abstract theory. Khadija, the first woman in the Prophet Muhammad’s life, later his wife, was his employer. Bilal, a formerly enslaved Black African, became Islam’s first muezzin, the person who calls Muslims to prayer five times a day. These were not symbolic gestures; they reflected a profound reordering of social norms at a time when women and enslaved people occupied vastly different positions in Maher’s and Shapiro’s ancestral cultures.

Islamophobia does not stem from Islam being less progressive than the other Abrahamic religions, all of which have their own well-documented histories of intolerance and compatibility challenges. Rather, like the hostility toward Islam voiced by Israel-first figures, it is driven by a Zionist agenda aiming to normalize bigotry against Muslims.

This bigotry lands on real people: American Muslim students told their faith makes them suspect, worshippers who now factor gunmen into their Friday prayers, and ordinary Jewish Americans whose legitimate fears are being weaponized to license bigotry, their religion conflated with the politics of a state that international courts and human rights organizations have condemned for war crimes and genocide.

– Jamal Kanj (jamalkanj.com) is the author of Children of Catastrophe: Journey from a Palestinian Refugee Camp to America, and other books. He writes frequently on Palestine/Arab world issues for various national and international publications. He contributed this article to the Palestine Chronicle.

The Monstrosity of Our Century – The War on Palestine and the Last Western Man

By Iqbal Jassat

The Monstruosity of Our Century by Iqbal Jassat. (Photo: Book cover)

Nour reminds us that despite global anger, not a single US university president has denounced Israel’s destruction of every university in Gaza.

In his foreword, Richard Forer describes Amir Nour’s book as a comprehensive tour of Israel’s ongoing offensive against Gaza, while documenting historical events that set the stage for this tragedy to unfold.

A winner of the NYC Big Book Award, Forer commends Nour for not shying away from implicating the West for its role in Israel’s genocide.

Indeed, Ramzy Baroud concurs that Nour’s book is a bold and refreshing critique of Western imperialism, centered on Israel’s settler colonialism in Palestine and its genocidal war on Gaza.

It challenges many erroneous notions about the roots of global conflict, the binary narrative of the “war on terror”, and the dangerous “us vs. them” mentality espoused by Washington and its Western allies, according to Baroud.

The author Amir Nour is an Algerian researcher in international relations and a Research Associate of the Canada-based Centre for Research on Globalisation. His introduction to the book deals with what he describes as “the insanity of of Western political discourse”.

He rightly spells out that the textbook case of genocide Israel is carrying out against the Palestinian people with the murderous complicity of most Western governments, has inflamed public opinion across the whole world.

Nour reminds us that despite global anger, the observation made by Chris Hedges finds that not a single US university president has denounced Israel’s destruction of every university in Gaza.

Instead, “heads of these academic institutions grovel supinely before wealthy donors, corporations – including weapons manufacturers – and rabid right-wing politicians”.

In addition to the Introduction, The Monstrosity of Our Century is made up of eight compelling chapters, a Conclusion, and a Postscript, which contains the martyr Yahya Al-Sinwar’s will.

Chapter one covers the period before the Al-Aqsa Flood military operation by Hamas on October 7, 2023, followed by the second chapter, which expands on the Flood.

The third chapter provides a critical review of Western bias. Nour writes that most Western governments continue to show an uncompromising alignment with Israel. If the Zionist-apartheid regime is one of the world’s worst pariah states, why do occupation and annexation of Palestinian territories continue to be legalized and legitimized?

The core theme of how we got to the Monstrosity of Our Century is extensively dealt with in chapter four. In Nour’s words: “To be sure, from day one of the war on Gaza, Israel has been waging a war of genocide with thousands of innocent lives being sacrificed live before our eyes via social media all over the world”.

In chapters five, six and seven, the author meticulously unpacks key issues dealing with the inevitability of Palestine’s independence in the long term. Nour also poses an equally important question: “Whither the Jewish State?”, and the road ahead.

The final chapter scrutinizes a fundamental question that Nour describes as “A new global order in the making?”

Along with the Conclusion, aptly titled “The End of Empathy, Genocide, and the Last Western Man”, Nour sets out his view that the Gaza genocide will have long-lasting and far-reaching consequences given its potential to reshape the entire Middle East, to further exacerbate international tensions, and to possibly provoke a conflagration that could spread beyond a part of the world that has experienced more than its share of humiliation for more than a century.

Baroud is absolutely correct in his profound observation that Nour has helped to liberate the history of the so-called “conflict” from the provisional, often short-sighted approach to history.

– Iqbal Jassat is an Executive Member of the South Africa-based Media Review Network. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle. Visit: www.mediareviewnet.com

Sanctions without an Arms Embargo: Is Europe Serious about Israel?

By Ramzy Baroud

Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK announced their intention to consider measures against Israeli settlements. (Illustration: Palestine Chronicle)

If the restrictions are primarily intended to weaken Benjamin Netanyahu before Israel’s October elections, they may prove to be temporary political instruments.

This time, Europe seems serious about holding Israel accountable – or at least that is what 11 European countries, together with Canada, want us to believe.

On September 8, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK announced their intention to introduce national restrictions, support European restrictions, or actively consider measures against trade in goods with illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Undeniably, the announcement represents a significant political and legal precedent. Dismissing it outright would be impulsive, particularly considering the participation of governments such as those of Canada and the UK, which have historically provided Israel with extensive political and diplomatic support.

Yet celebrating the announcement as an earth-shattering event without examining its context, timing and potential effectiveness would be equally rash. Worse, it could contribute to weakening the public pressure that finally compelled Western governments to take even these limited steps.

The political meaning of the initiative notwithstanding, several important qualifications must be considered.

First, most of the 12 governments have announced intentions, rather than binding and immediately enforceable restrictions.

The decision is therefore still vulnerable to political negotiations, legislative delays, pressure from pro-Israel groups and changing electoral calculations. Without firm deadlines and enforceable mechanisms, today’s declared intentions could become irrelevant by the time they are implemented.

Second, France and Canada have yet to publish detailed implementation schedules. The UK, on the other hand, has announced a comparatively extensive package, covering settlement goods and services related to finance, construction, infrastructure, real estate and advertising. However, its restrictions could take six to nine months to enter into force.

Even if these measures eventually exert meaningful pressure, Israel has been granted additional time to advance its annexation plans and create further irreversible facts on the ground.

Third, the joint commitment focuses largely on goods, while Israel’s settlement enterprise depends on a far broader network of financing, investment, construction, technology and services. These connections often operate through complicated corporate structures that conceal whether a company or transaction is directly linked to a settlement.

Fourth, the initiative is primarily concerned with settlements, particularly the E1 project. E1 is the strategically located area between occupied East Jerusalem and the Maale Adumim settlement bloc. Israeli construction there would further divide the occupied West Bank, sever Palestinian territorial continuity and isolate occupied East Jerusalem from surrounding Palestinian communities.

Europe fears that completing E1 would destroy the remaining geographical basis for a future Palestinian state. That concern is defensible insofar as the two-state solution remains Europe’s declared foreign-policy strategy.

Yet the joint declaration does not refer to the genocide in Gaza. Nor does it confront the wider system of Israeli military occupation that enables settlement expansion, forced displacement and land confiscation. It addresses one particularly alarming manifestation of the occupation while leaving the larger structure largely untouched.

Fifth, there is still no coordinated suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement and no collective European arms embargo against Israel.

This omission is especially consequential when measured against the broader economic relationship. European Commission figures show that total EU-Israel trade in goods increased in both 2024 and 2025, the first two full calendar years following the beginning of the genocide.

Therefore, any losses suffered by the settlements – which represent only a small part of Israel’s overall trade – could therefore be absorbed through Israel’s much larger economic relationship with Europe.

The military contradiction is even more glaring. According to SIPRI, Germany provided 31 percent of Israel’s major arms imports between 2021 and 2025, making it Israel’s second-largest supplier after the US. Israel continued receiving major weapons throughout this period despite the ongoing genocide in Gaza and the escalating violence against Palestinians in the West Bank.

European states are also major purchasers of Israeli military technology. Europe received 41 percent of Israeli arms exports during the same period, helping sustain an industry deeply integrated into Israel’s military establishment.

Europe is therefore attempting to restrict the settlements while continuing to maintain economic and military relationships with the state that finances, protects and expands them.

A counterargument with some legitimacy is that the announced measures constitute a first step and that greater accountability may follow. But this argument carries weight only if we understand why these governments acted in the first place.

If the restrictions are primarily intended to weaken Benjamin Netanyahu before Israel’s October elections, they may prove to be temporary political instruments whose future depends on the electoral outcome.

Some hope, however, can be found in the growing public solidarity with Palestine across Europe.

An opinion poll published by the European Council on Foreign Relations found that 46 percent of British respondents supported banning trade with illegal Israeli settlements, while only 18 percent opposed it. That is worth celebrating – not as proof of European governmental courage, but as evidence of the power of sustained public mobilization.

Western governments did not arrive at these measures independently. They were pushed by protests, boycott campaigns, trade unions, civil-society organizations, legal challenges and voters who refused to allow Palestine to disappear from political life.

Many European governments continue to provide Israel with the weapons, commercial relationships and economic stability it needs to sustain its wars against Palestine and other Arab countries. Their limited settlement measures do not erase that complicity.

If congratulations are due, they belong to the European and North American societies that continue to raise the political cost of supporting Israel and insist on accountability and respect for international law.

The latest measures should be welcomed – but only as proof that public pressure works, and as a reason to intensify it.

– Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of eight books. His latest book, ‘Before the Flood,’ was published by Seven Stories Press. His other books include ‘Our Vision for Liberation’, ‘My Father was a Freedom Fighter’ and ‘The Last Earth’. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net