It was once common for anthropologists to categorize certain societies as having “honor-shame” cultures. Among academics, such categorizations, at least when applied to the societies of the Middle East, have become passé if not taboo, thanks to Edward Said’s 1978 work Orientalism, which branded virtually all prior Western scholarship on the Middle East racist and imperialist. As a result of Said’s influence, writes Richard Landes, universities have produced numerous experts who have consistently misdiagnosed the resurgence of radical Islam, the Arab Spring, and above all the Israel-Palestinian conflict:

[The] honor-shame dynamic explains much of the Arab and Muslim hostility to Israel, as well as to the West. Israel, a state of free Jews living [in historically Muslim-held territory] constitutes a living blasphemy; and Israel’s ability to survive repeated Arab efforts to destroy it constitutes a permanent state of Arab shame before the entire global community. . . .

Any effort to understand what is happening in the Arab world today needs to take into account this dynamic. And yet, by and large, [it] is not only ignored but those underscoring it are rebuked. . . . Much of this ignorance can be traced back to Said, who made “honor-shame” analysis an especially egregious “Orientalist” sin. . . .

Just because Western and Israeli analysts failed to pay attention, however, does not mean the laws of honor-shame ceased to operate. After the ceremonial signing of the Oslo deal on the White House lawn, the PLO chairman Yasir Arafat found himself the target of immense hostility from his Arab and Muslim honor-group for having brought shame upon himself, his people, and upon all Arabs and Muslims. When he arrived in Gaza in July 1994, Hamas denounced him roundly, calling his visit “shameful and humiliating.” . . .

Edward Said, proud member of the Palestinian National Council, the PLO’s quasi-parliament, echoed the language of Hamas, [declaring that Arafat’s] compromises involved a humiliating and “degrading . . . act of obeisance, . . . a capitulation” that produced a state of “supine abjectness [by] submitting shamefully to Israel.” . . . [T]his was the very language Westerners avoided discussing lest they “Orientalize the Orient.” And yet Arafat himself used the same honor-shame language in Arabic, from the moment the accords were signed and the Nobel Prize granted.

How did Qatar, an American ally, become the nerve center of the leading Palestinian jihadist organization? Natalie Ecanow explains.

When Jordan expelled Hamas in 1999, Qatar offered sanctuary to the group, which had already become notorious for using suicide-bombing attacks over the previous decade. . . . Hamas chose to relocate to Syria. However, that arrangement lasted for only a decade. With the outbreak of the Syrian civil war, the terror group found its way back to Qatar.

In 2003, Hamas leaders reportedly convened in Qatar after the IDF attempted to eliminate Hamas’s founder, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, following a Hamas suicide bombing in Jerusalem that killed seven people, including two American citizens. This episode led to one of the first efforts by Qatar to advocate for its terror proxy.

Thirteen years and five wars between Hamas and Israel later, Qatar’s support for Hamas has not waned. . . . To this day, Qatari officials maintain that the office came at the “request from Washington to establish indirect lines of communication with Hamas.” However, an Obama White House official asserted that there was never any request from Washington. . . . Inexplicably, the United States government continues to rely on Qatar to negotiate for the release of the hostages held by Hamas, even as the regime hosts the terror group’s political elite.

A reckoning is needed between our two countries. Congressional hearings, legislation, executive orders, and other measures to regulate relations between our countries are long overdue.