This is as pure an expression of the Blame Whitey narrative as you'll find. Washington Post commentator David Ignatius is actually saying that Islamophobia causes Jihad.
The West suffers from what one leading strategist calls an “autoimmune disease” in fighting the Islamic State. The self-defense mechanisms championed by Donald Trump and his European neo-populist counterparts have gone into toxic overdrive — weakening the West’s body politic and making the jihadist fever far worse.
David Kenning, a British counter-radicalization expert, made this provocative argument in a telephone interview this week and in recent research for various Western governments. His comments are part of a new wave of analysis that views the Islamic State more as a youth gang driven by the identity politics of victimization than as a religious or ideological movement.
These skeptical analysts argue that many current messaging strategies against the Islamic State are backfiring — and that polarizing politicians such as Trump have amplified the jihadists’ impact and been their best recruiting tool. Islamophobia helps the jihadists by fueling their narrative about embattled Muslims, Kenning argues. It creates a sense of wounded community — a shared identity of having been wronged, which prompts violent revenge.Source
Another contrarian analyst who shares this perspective is Marc Sageman, a psychiatrist and former CIA case officer. In a forthcoming book titled “Misunderstanding Terrorism,” Sageman explains the process of radicalization — stressing that it’s a community phenomenon instead of an individual or religious one.
Sageman’s hypothetical jihadist group emerges from a political protest community that is attacked by the state and, as society is polarized, becomes radical and violent. Sageman says his model explains more than 80 percent of the 34 campaigns of political violence he has studied over two centuries. It’s a simple enough concept: People turn to violence when they feel their community is excluded and under attack.
What policies will best counter the Islamic State? I asked each of the analysts for suggestions. The common theme is that the counter-extremist campaigns should stop feeding the jihadists’ dreams by treating them as a terrifying Muslim threat to the West. Such talk just flatters and motivates them.
“Radical Islam isn’t the cause, it’s the excuse,” says Lapis. Messaging that feeds the sense of an isolated and aggrieved Muslim community is “the worst thing that can happen in the West,” says Kenning.There are two major data points that contradict this narrative.
First, there are lots of brown-skinned people in Europe who, if we accept the claims of the leftists, suffer terrible disadvantage because of their brown skin. But negroes, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. don't engage in anything resembling the kind of organised evil we have seen from Muslims. Why the discrepancy?
Similarly, if we look at societies where Mohammedans are neither newcomers nor numerically dominated by light-skinned people, for example in Africa, we see them engaged in jihad warfare at almost every point. How does this fit into the Blame Whitey victimhood narrative? It doesn't.
Whatever frame of analysis you use to try and explain away Muslim evil, you are left with an ineradicable M factor - a Mohammedan factor - that stubbornly refuses to be explained away. In the end, any honest person contemplating this problem is driven to the conclusion that it does indeed have something to do with Islam.