Alija Izetbegović, Bosnia's first president and one of its greatest sons, is reported to have said that the West's hatred of Islam and Muslims is greater than its love for Bosnia.

Although this statement may not be found in a published source, it is widely attributed to Izetbegović. In addition, the substance of the testimony runs self-evidently through the veins of his writings, interviews, and speeches.

The words were uttered during the peak of the Serbian-led aggression against the sovereign and democratic country of Bosnia and its people, which culminated in the Srebrenica genocide in July 1995.

The atrocities in Bosnia occurred against the backdrop of the indifference and inaction of the institutionalized West, whose lack of concern not only encouraged the barbaric actions of the Serbs but also clearly favored and aided them.

For example, even though the Serbs were seen as a regional military superpower-having inherited much of the military strength and equipment from the defunct Yugoslavia, which was a leading military force in Europe-and the Bosniaks had almost nothing, the West still imposed an arms embargo on all parties during the aggression, effectively inviting and facilitating the slaughter.

Also, prior to the genocide in Srebrenica, the city was designated as a safe haven protected by United Nations peacekeeping forces. However, as soon as the genocide began, the small contingent of Dutch forces stationed in Srebrenica on behalf of the United Nations dwindled, offering little resistance, and the calls for help or additional support fell on deaf ears across the international board.

In the end, the West intervened only after it became clear that Bosnia, against all odds, would not only survive but also win the war and defeat the aggressors from Serbia, Montenegro, and the local Bosnian Serb population.

However, the West intervened, preaching the gospels of peace and coexistence, merely to save the Serbs and prevent the Bosniaks from achieving victory on their terms, thus allowing them to determine the country's destiny predominantly by themselves as well.

That was the embedded hypocrisy of the West at its best. All its masks have fallen off, and its true colors were there for all to see. There was nothing new, though; the West was nothing but itself, and the last of the naysayers had to admit they were wrong.

The power of the West-Serbs axis of evil

The main reason for the West-Serbs axis of evil is as follows. In addition to the typical Western epicenters of Islamophobia - such as France, America, and England - Serbia and Serbdom (the Serb people wherever they lived), could not be discounted in Islamophobic discourses. Moreover, they played a prominent role that was comparable to anyone else.

The Serbian lands, culture and thought quickly developed into hotbeds of Islamophobia in compliance with the highest international standards. Right through the ages, the European Islamophobic counterparts had constantly something to learn from the Serbs and their Islamophobia paradigm.

The avant-garde Islamophobes of Serbia stood at the forefront of guarding Europe and defending its increasingly endangered Christian character and values. This way, Serbia served as a bulwark of the self-proclaimed Christian Europe against the peril of Islam (the antemurale myth).

Having proven themselves in their new role to the fearful West, particularly by resisting the Ottoman presence in the Balkans and regularly committing mass slaughters against Balkan Muslims in an attempt to eradicate the newly introduced evil of Islam and its followers, the Serbs received the West's endorsement for their self-proclaimed mission, which was later accompanied by various forms of cooperation and assistance. The two sides increasingly spoke the same language and were getting closer to forming a camaraderie.

One example of this cooperation is seen in the Western false historiography. For instance, Leopold Von Ranke, one of the founders of modern historiography, wrote a book titled "History of Servia (Serbia) and the Servian (Serbian) Revolution." Relying solely on Serbian Islamophobes and distorted historical sources, the author portrayed Serbia as "the seat of a protracted struggle between European civilization and Oriental despotism - between the Christian and Mahomedan religions."

Christians in faith, the Serbs suffered under the cruel persecutions of their infidel oppressors and had to endure the constant "barbarity" of the Ottomans, in contrast to the civilization of the West. In this manner, subscribing to the Serbian narratives, Leopold Von Ranke compromised whatever academic integrity he had and set a bad precedent for the future.

The Bosniaks had three choices

Thus, having failed to eliminate Islam and Muslims in Bosnia, the Serb-West axis of evil embarked on a new strategy, which is nonetheless an old trait. From the outset of the Serbian genocidal attitude towards the Bosniaks, the latter have always faced three choices: to be killed, to convert to Christianity (the religion of their ancestors), or to migrate to any place in the Islamic world or the Orient where they, as Muslims, belong. The tragic post-Ottoman history of Bosnia reflects a painfully subtle interplay of these three choices.

Following the failed 1992-1995 aggression against Bosnia, during which the Bosniaks biologically survived, the West and their Serbian allies on the ground resorted to the two other options. The Bosniaks had to either leave or be converted.

The former is still facilitated by constant threats of a new genocide, systems and policies that stifle and ultimately hinder any significant progress in critical areas of everyday life, economic crises that breed despair and psychological depression, and by creating bleak images of a future where ongoing struggles for basic necessities will be the norm, preventing the flourishing of any significant ideological, religious, or cultural ambitions.

The second option, conversion, is carried out in a way that aims to keep the Bosniaks away from their Islamic, historical, and cultural identities. Detached from their roots, they are gradually to be converted to the dominant worldviews and ideologies of the West, such as secular humanism, liberalism, postmodern relativism, and materialism.

Since converting the Bosniaks to Christianity is no longer a viable option, other more promising but equally effective and damaging alternatives must be considered.

As a matter of fact, the option of migration serves the purpose of conversion also. The best opportunities and most attractive prospects reserved for the Bosniaks are in the West, where their migration to the centers of Western modernism and postmodernism is strongly encouraged and supported.

To convert them away from Islam and their Bosnian history and culture, the effective principle is, "instead of us going to them, they are coming to us." This way, a single approach effectively addresses both migration and conversion simultaneously.

It is for this reason that, while Bosnia lacks significant support and influence from leading Western economic, scientific, educational, and political institutional powerbrokers, it has instead been flooded with various forms of degenerate pop culture, intellectual, entertainment, media, and immoral stimuli.

Never mind that the standard of living and quality of life in Bosnia are among the lowest, alcohol and drug consumption, prostitution, gambling, and other immoral activities are all easily accessible and affordable, and thus rampant.

In this regard, Bosnia is quickly joining the Western elite club. Among other filthy Western traditions, Sarajevo is proudly marketed as one of the "privileged" cities that hosts an annual LGBT parade, rubbing its shoulders with the "best" in the world. This is done for the sake of coveted self-fulfillment, social self-liberation, and the securing of greater rights.

The objective for the Bosniaks is to abandon their Islam and their Islamic historical and socio-cultural identities to become something else, anywhere. After enduring a series of genocides and urbicides throughout their long and painful history, the most critical challenge for Bosnia and the Bosniaks today is culturocide and religiocide. This involves the systematic destruction of the Bosnian language, heritage, history, and their religious identity, institutions, and symbols.

The Gaza genocidal tragedy echoes the Bosnian misfortune

All things considered, the ongoing genocide in Gaza, committed by the illegitimate geopolitical entity of Israel and its Western patrons, bears a strong resemblance to the situation in Bosnia. The brave people of Gaza too have been presented with three choices: to leave their land, homes, and hopes; to surrender and live under the devilish terms of the occupiers (essentially being forced to give up their way of life and "convert"); or, if the first two choices are ignored, to face complete elimination.

Due to the extraordinary pride, faith, and courage of the people of Gaza, the first two options have been removed from consideration. This leaves the third option as the only one available, which we witness daily and which, not by chance, aligns with the unmatched level of brutality from the Israeli occupiers.

The events in Gaza are not a coincidence. They denote the culmination of a strategy that was devised over a century ago, beginning with the illegal occupation of Palestine and the unlawful establishment of the state of Israel. It is also not coincidental that both Israel and the West share responsibility for the crimes committed. Indeed, the West-Israel alliance mirrors the West-Serbs counterpart. These are merely old and new methods leading to the same ends.

They aim to intensify, as well as diversify, global Islamophobia to address the uncontrollable spread of the only truly surviving religion in the world: Islam. The purpose of the creation of Israel was similar to that of empowering and sustaining Serbia.

If Serbia served as a European bulwark against Islam and Muslims, Israel was intended to perform the same role in the name of a global fight against Islam and Muslims, under the banner of Western civilization and values. The place and role of Israel are crucial for the survival of the Western geopolitical ecosystem, not just in Europe but also around the world.

It acts as a buffer between both the ideological and geographical West and the potential influences of Islam. Israel was further placed in the heart of Islamdom with the purpose of acting as a cancer so that Islam and Muslims, owing to the malignant functions of Israel, will be preoccupied with themselves and their grafted tumor.

They will then have less time and energy to think about how to spread their ideological wings and conquer the world. To put it differently, Israel was intended to serve as a Western operative, acting as a participant in the "mission to civilize," which in reality encompasses the processes of de-Islamization, incapacitation, and Westernization.

We often wonder why the institutionalized Western world, including its churches, universities, and self-proclaimed democratic and humanitarian organizations, does little of note for Gaza. Why do they not do more to pressure the culprits to stop the systematic killing of tens of thousands of innocent civilians (genocide) and to ward off the complete destruction of land and infrastructure (urbicide)?

The truth is as shocking as it is painful. It is not that Westerners do not sympathize with Gaza and its catastrophic events, but their Islamophobic tendencies are much stronger than their humanitarian instincts, overshadowing and diminishing the latter.

While Islamophobia speaks, acts, and dictates policies, faint sympathies remain buried deep within the Western psyche. Besides, while Islamophobia is open and loud, sympathies are hidden and inaudible. Islamophobia is also formal, collective, and systematic, whereas empathy is informal, personal, and impulsive.

In the vocabulary of Zionism, the Palestinians do not exist

That is why, when the father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, composed his "Der Judenstaat" ("The State of the Jews"), he was clear about his intentions. He wished to serve the interests of the West in a region where assistance was most needed. Although he arguably did not have deep affections for the West, he believed such was the best chance for the success of Zionist projects. The benefits were mutual; both sides were using each other.

Hence, Theodor Herzl wrote that he wanted to create a Zionist state that would represent the frontier of cultural sophistication and serve as a bastion of civilization in contrast to savagery and disorder. He stated: "We should form a part of a rampart of Europe against Asia; an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. As a neutral state, we should remain in contact with all of Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence."

Theodor Herzl spoke as though the Jews would migrate to a place where there were no people and where they would be welcomed with open arms. He never raised the issue of the indigenous people in Palestine and what relations the new Jewish state would have with them. The topics of tolerance, coexistence, and cooperation with the local-and even neighboring-population were not part of the discussion.

Paradoxically, Theodor Herzl raised the possibility of "men of other creeds and different nationalities" coming to live "amongst us; we should accord them honorable protection and equality before the law; we have learned toleration in Europe."

However, he did not address the situation of those who would be found in the Palestinian urban and rural areas that they planned to occupy. He focused on an imaginary future rather than the pressing present. He resided in a fictional and perfect universe ruled solely by Jews, not in the real world, where he needed to consider the potential problems his Zionist ambitions would create.

Furthermore, the author spoke eloquently and at length about immigration, Jewish settlements, urban and general development, economy, progress, culture, and civilization, but never within any morally accountable framework or terms of reference.

Coming to a place where there were already people, culture, civilization, development, laws, traditions, history, freedom, and aspirations involved repercussions that were not studied seriously, neither from a human, Judaistic, nor commonsensical perspective. All evidence suggests that the Zionist project was a deeply treacherous endeavor, and that the vast majority of people were misled into backing and aiding its implementation.

The Zionists understood that they would not arrive in a barren and uninhabited land, but in a place that had been occupied, developed, and active for ages. This, however, did not seem to bother Theodor Herzl.

He never appeared worried about setting limits on the scale and geographical scope of immigration, settlements, development, or the establishment of a new Jewish culture and civilization. Everything in Palestine seemed limitless and absolute. The possibilities ranged from spontaneous to unrestricted. Everything was "free" and "up for grabs."

Theodor Herzl exemplified bigotry fueled by Western Islamophobia

Undeniably, Theodor Herzl was an evil bigot and a master of corruption. He planned to rescue the Jews from one darkness only to thrust them into another: from the suffering of being the "other" in Europe to the illegal occupation and oppression of the "other" in Palestine. He was correct when he said that the Jews had "learned" toleration (civilization) in and from Europe. He sought for his fellow Zionist associates to emulate the genocidal patterns in Palestine that their European mentors had perfected over centuries.

The Zionists premeditated to do to the people(s) of Palestine exactly what Europe had done to the Jews. They were indeed quick learners. The bane of antisemitism in Europe was about to be transfigured into anti-Palestinianism and into the most intense form of Islamophobia. The evil of antisemitism would pale in comparison with the evil of the latter.

By solving the Jewish question as one of the darkest problems of humanity, the Zionists wanted to create a "Palestine question" as the future darkest problem of the human race. Nobody can deny that the "Palestine question" is a blight on the modern Western-dominated (un)civilization whose individuality is either modern primitiveness or primitive modernity.

To the Zionists, neither Muslim Palestine nor Palestinians existed. These were non-existent, yet unreal notions. They were, moreover, "the malicious invention of those who wish Israel ill." This is why the occupation of Palestine could be rationalized and sanctioned. Not once did Theodor Herzl mention any of the terms Islam, Mohammedanism, Muslims, Mohammedans, Saracens, Arabs, Muslim (Arab) cities and villages, or mosques in his more-than-25,000-word pamphlet.

There is absolutely nothing related to the idea of Islam and the diverse community of Muslims, despite the fact that the Zionists planned to occupy a country where Arab (Muslim) communities lived, where Islam was practiced, where Islamic laws and traditions were observed, and where there were multitudes of mosques and other Islamic institutions. An ancient civilization, which has existed for centuries, along with its inhabitants, was tragically and deliberately destined for complete eradication.