The CubanAmerican Voice®

Biden's Anti-Islamophobia Strategy: Between Inclusion and National Security

Biden's Anti-Islamophobia Strategy: Between Inclusion and National SecurityBiden's Anti-Islamophobia Strategy: Between Inclusion and National Security

Leer en Español

The Biden Administration's Dilemma

The Biden administration has taken a dangerous step by unveiling its National Strategy to Counter Islamophobia and Anti-Arab Hate in December, marking an attempt to reconcile social inclusion with national security concerns. This initiative, which aims to protect Muslim and Arab communities from discrimination, has sparked intense debate about its effectiveness and potential consequences for the country's security as it is overprotecting different, more hostile Islamic extremist factions, which have historically acted with violent terrorist acts in the United States and other cities around the world.

The representation of Muslims in Congress and other government bodies in the United States reflects the religious and cultural plurality that characterizes and exists in the nation. This inclusion is an indication that Islam already has a place in American society and that the government does not promote hatred or discrimination against Muslims or any other religion. Rather, there is an intrinsic hatred towards Americans, Christianity, and Judaism, something easy to verify by the number of terrorist acts and the burning of flags of the United States and Israel in the world and in the United States itself.

This includes figures such as the first Muslim Americans elected to Congress: Keith Ellison in 2007 and André Carson in 2008; they are black and sworn in with their hands resting on Jefferson's copy of the Koran, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib, who are not only the first Muslim women to be elected to Congress but have also brought discussions about Muslim representation and rights into the political sphere. The representation is not only symbolic; It also implies a voice in political decisions that affect Muslim communities and society as a whole. This inclusion in government is an encouraging sign of the religious plurality that characterizes the United States, showing that, despite the prejudices they often face, Muslims can be an active part of the country's political fabric, even in most instances they maintain a hostile stance toward the American government.

 

Criticism of Biden and Dissatisfaction From the Muslim Community

However, this openness and acceptance in the United States contrasts sharply with the situation in many Muslim countries. These countries do not offer the same inclusion and respect to their religious minorities, or to U.S. citizens. Instead of building bridges, they deepen the wounds that manifest themselves in forms of hatred and mistrust. Many nations with majority-Muslim governments have seen growing tension toward the West, perpetuating the narrative that Americans, and by extension Christianity and Judaism, are seen as adversaries to be eliminated.

Despite the benefit granted by Biden to the Muslim and Arab community, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest civil rights and Muslim advocacy organization in the United States, has said that the "long-delayed" strategy "is scarce and comes too late", since "it has been published at a time when it cannot have an impact,  does not promise any changes to federal programs that perpetuate anti-Muslim discrimination on a massive scale" and "does not promise to end the main driver of anti-Muslim bigotry today: the U.S.-backed genocide in Gaza."

"Biden cannot credibly claim to care about Muslims or Islamophobia while supporting the destruction of mosques, the desecration of the Koran, and the mass murder of a predominantly Muslim population by the Israeli government. By funding, arming, and enabling Netanyahu's war crimes in Gaza, Biden has become as big a mass murderer of Muslims as Netanyahu," he said.

These statements by CAIR show the rejection of the measures of the American government concerning the Muslim community and the intransigence of the organization regardless of how beneficial it is for the community that in this case protects the Muslim and Arab communities from discrimination, Islamophobia, and anti-Arab hatred.

The Unilateral Approach Controversy

One of the most critical arguments that has been expressed is that this strategy seems to ignore the reality of Islamic terrorism. Throughout recent history, terrorism associated with extremist ideologies has caused numerous losses of life, and the Biden administration's denial of this problem is seen as an approach that puts national security at risk. By labeling Muslims exclusively as victims of irrational hatred, one risks underestimating the complexity of the problems related to the violent extremism characteristic of their radical groups.

Balancing Protection and Surveillance

The administration's strategy focuses on education and the promotion of human rights, highlighting the role of the Muslim community as part of the American social fabric. However, this view has been criticized for not adequately addressing the roots of terrorism and instead placing all Muslims under the same label as victims. This approach, while seemingly well-intentioned, can backfire by failing to recognize that violent extremism is a complex phenomenon that cannot be simplified into a narrative of oppression and victimization.

However, these elements, while fundamental, have been questioned for failing to adequately address the roots of violent extremism that have historically been practiced by radical Islamist terrorists of different denominations. The current policy risks creating a false dilemma between the protection of Muslim communities and the necessary vigilance that is required against terrorism.

In addition, the Biden administration's reaction to incidents of violence in New Orleans, where several Americans lost their lives in an attack that was heavy on its connections to Islamic terrorism, has exposed the disconnect between the rhetoric of strategy and reality. This specific case has highlighted the urgency of addressing Islamic terrorism in a way that recognizes both its existence and the ideologies that fuel it. Ignoring this facet could be seen as a failure in the administration's counterterrorism strategy, raising questions about the effectiveness of its approach.

It is essential to consider various points of view on this issue. While some defend Biden's strategy as a necessary attempt to combat Islamophobia and discrimination, others stress that it is a dangerous departure from a well-defined fight against Islamic terrorism. Some believe that, by trying to protect certain groups, the administration has downplayed the risks that extremists pose to society as a whole. This dilemma highlights the inherent difficulty in creating policies that seek to be both inclusive and effective on security issues. The strategy of countering Islamophobia can, in theory, lead to a climate of greater social cohesion, but in practice, the perception of threat is still present due to the markedly terrorist nature of these extremist Muslim groups.

Religion and cultural identity have often been used by extremist groups to attract followers and justify acts of violence. In this regard, counter-terrorism policies mustn't forget to make a critical assessment of the ideologies underlying violent extremism. The lack of critical attention can lead to further polarization and overall increased distrust of Muslim communities in the United States. Within this context, it is relevant to highlight the role of several individuals and institutions that have attempted to address Islamic extremism from a more pragmatic perspective. Researchers, activists, and community leaders have worked to identify and dismantle extremist narratives, as well as to provide young people with alternatives that steer them away from radicalized groups.

These efforts are critical as they provide a perspective that combines human rights advocacy with the necessary vigilance against violent extremism. As for Biden's strategies, they are already outdated and the Trump administration will conduct a reassessment by renewing and changing the Biden administration's misguided approaches that have proven to be too soft and permissive in the face of the brutality that radical Islamic extremist groups have demonstrated. Candid and informed dialogue is critical to addressing violence in the name of Islam without stigmatizing the Muslim community as a whole. The strategy must evolve to recognize Islamic terrorism as a real and ruthless threat, without falling into the trap of fueling Islamophobia, but maintaining strong positions that do not allow the development, indoctrination, and promotion of its terrorist ideology. This balance is crucial to guarantee not only national security but also social cohesion in a country that faces growing challenges in the face of the advance of neo-Marxist ideologies and the hatred that radical Islam manifests against Judeo-Christian communities.

In conclusion, the launch of the National Strategy to Counter Islamophobia and Anti-Arab Hatred by the Biden administration has opened a significant debate on the need for an adequate response to terrorist violence and the constant fight against extremism that the new Trump administration must undertake. As the administration seeks to improve relations with Muslim and Arab communities, it is imperative that it adopt an approach that respects both the dignity of all communities involved, as well as prioritizes and ensures the safety of all Americans who do not profess this ideology based on terror and hatred of Judeo-Christian principles and seeks to eliminate them to implant its doctrine.

Towards a More Comprehensive Strategy

To develop a more comprehensive and effective strategy, you need to evolve towards a more comprehensive approach that:

  • Recognize the existence of Islamic terrorism without stigmatizing the entire Muslim community
  • The Muslim community does not intend to impose its religion on others much less it wants to implement its laws
  • Develop mechanisms to prevent extremism without fueling bias
  • Encourage intercultural dialogue by maintaining the necessary vigilance over sectors of extremist tendencies
  • Promote social cohesion without compromising national security

Jose Tarano Author🖋️Author Jose Tarano 

José Tarano is a technical producer, graphic designer, collaborator, and researcher at Patria de Martí and The CubanAmerican Voice. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering in Telecommunications from José Antonio Echeverria Superior Polytechnic Institute (ISPJAE). In addition, he is the founder and director of Electronics JR Computer Design and Service ►, a computer and information technology services company. Originally from Santiago de las Vegas, Havana, Cuba, he currently resides in the United States.

Did you like it? Share your thoughts!