Part 1: Why Muslims Must Participate in the Political Process in the United States

Part 2: How do Muslims Participate in the American Political Landscape?

Part 3: Why a Third-party Choice is Relevant?

Part 4: How do Muslims Contribute to Generating Hope through their Role in US Elections?

Part 5: How do Muslims Interact with Non-Muslims in America?

Part 6: Are Our Mosques and Islamic Centers Doing Their Job Properly?

Part 7: Role of the Mosque in Madinah under the Prophet’s Leadership and Mosques Today

Part 8: American Muslims, the Role of Mosques and Common Civilizational Values

Part 9: Is there a Clash of Civilizations Today?

Part 10: Samuel Huntington’s Faulty Justification of the Clash of Civilizations Thesis

Part 11: Bernard Lewis’ Roots of Muslim Rage and the Clash of Civilizations Thesis

In an earlier article in this series, we critiqued Samuel Huntington’s flawed justification for his "Clash of Civilizations" thesis. We also argued that while there is no inherent clash among civilizations, pro-Israeli intellectuals and media figures have persistently promoted this idea, leading to the U.S. declaration of the War on Terror.

Surprisingly, in a recent address to the U.S. Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu echoed the sentiment that there is no clash of civilizations.

In his opening remarks, Netanyahu stated, “We meet today at a crossroads of history. Our world is in upheaval. In the Middle East, Iran’s axis of terror confronts America, Israel, and our Arab friends. This is not a clash of civilizations. It’s a clash between barbarism and civilization. It’s a clash between those who glorify death and those who sanctify life.”

How do we interpret the Israeli Prime Minister’s stance? He appears to be distancing himself from Huntington’s position, which generalized all Muslims as holding an “anti-Western” outlook, and is instead trying to recast Palestinians as barbarians. This raises two critical questions: First, why is Netanyahu distancing himself from blaming all Muslims for being anti-Western? And second, why is he redefining the terms "civilization" and "barbarism"?

Netanyahu's distancing from blaming all Muslims for being anti-Western seems to stem from Israel’s success in convincing some Arab and Muslim nations that their national interests are better served by maintaining cordial relations with Israel. It is important to note that pro-Israeli academics have historically succeeded in redefining terms such as “Western,” “anti-Semitism,” and “Zionism”—an effort that began after WWII.

The ruling elites of some Arab and Muslim countries are not as staunchly anti-Israel as their founding fathers were. For instance, UAE’s founding father Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan and the founder of modern Saudi Arabia, Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, held firm views on the unethical foundation of the modern state of Israel.

Through successful “diplomacy,” largely conducted via intelligence agencies, Israel has managed to neutralize these countries' support for Palestinian rights—a process replicated in many other Muslim countries.

The second question pertains to Netanyahu’s redefinition of "civilization" and "barbarism." Unlike Huntington, who framed these terms in the context of culture and religion, Netanyahu links them to morality and the sanctity of life. He seems to imply that those who do not endorse his actions against Palestinians are barbarians.

This group of "barbarians" includes campus protesters, nations seeking justice at the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, human rights organizations, and even U.S. Congress members who boycotted his speech. Should we accept Netanyahu’s definition of "civilization" and "barbarism," or should we rely on our own intellect to understand these terms?