Courage vs. Compliance: European MEP Tells Blinken to ‘Get Lost,’ While Muslim Leaders Stay Silent

In a world where U.S. support has long been the cornerstone of Israel’s military and economic dominance, the ongoing conflict in Gaza continues to underscore the complicity of global powers. This relationship has drawn criticism from unexpected quarters, including Grzegorz Braun, a Polish Member of the European Parliament. In a bold statement, Braun opposed his country’s alignment with the United States, not just in the war in Ukraine but also as a contributor to broader U.S. foreign policy goals. His words, “Blinken, go home as soon as possible. Get lost! We don’t want you here. We don’t want Polish people paying and dying for your wars,” reflect his frustration with Poland’s involvement in what he perceives as American-led conflicts, including U.S. support for Israel.

Braun’s statement represents a rare moment of defiance in European political discourse, particularly with regard to U.S. foreign policy. While his rhetoric may resonate with Poland’s nationalist right, it stands in stark contrast to the silence and compliance of Muslim leaders across the world in the face of U.S. involvement in the Gaza conflict and the broader Palestinian issue. As the war in Gaza rages on, and Palestinian lives continue to be lost, Muslim rulers—from the Middle East to Southeast Asia—have failed to voice such audacious words. Despite the Muslim world controlling strategic resources, such as vast oil reserves, critical trade routes, and significant military power, which could be leveraged to assert their own terms, these leaders have not told Blinken to “get lost” as Braun did. Instead, they have rolled out the red carpet for Blinken, welcoming him warmly and, in many cases, offering little more than symbolic gestures in support of the Palestinian cause.

Silence and Diplomacy Amid the Gaza Crisis

As Israeli airstrikes continue to bombard Gaza, killing thousands of civilians and displacing countless more, Blinken embarked on a diplomatic tour through the Middle East, aiming to consolidate U.S. influence and ensure that local populations remain subdued. Yet, in country after country—from Egypt to Saudi Arabia, and even Turkey—Muslim rulers have been conspicuously silent in the face of U.S. pressure. None have dared to issue words of defiance like Braun, instead showing deference to U.S. power despite the mounting Palestinian casualties.

Despite the Muslim world controlling strategic resources, such as vast oil reserves, critical trade routes, and significant military power, which could be used to assert their own terms, these leaders have not told Blinken to “get lost” as Braun did. Instead, they have maintained close relations with the U.S., avoiding open confrontation and focusing on stability.

In Egypt, a key U.S. ally, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi welcomed Blinken with open arms during his recent visit. Sisi, who controls the strategic Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt, has faced international pressure to open the crossing for aid deliveries and for Palestinian refugees. However, under U.S. influence, Egypt has remained cautious, limiting its response to diplomatic overtures and carefully calculated negotiations. Sisi has not dared to confront Blinken with the harsh realities of the suffering in Gaza, despite Egypt’s historical role as a mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Similarly, Saudi Arabia, a regional powerhouse, has refrained from taking a confrontational stance against U.S. policies in the Middle East. When Blinken met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, discussions focused on maintaining stability and ensuring that regional tensions over Gaza do not spill over into mass uprisings. Despite the outcry across the Arab world over the situation in Gaza, the Saudi leadership has maintained its relationship with the U.S., even advancing talks aimed at normalising relations with Israel. Not once has the Kingdom issued the kind of fiery rebuke that Braun directed at Blinken.

Turkey: A Stark Contrast

Even Turkey, which has historically positioned itself as a defender of Palestinian rights, has been far more cautious in dealing with U.S. officials during this conflict. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, known for his strong statements on Palestine, has toned down his rhetoric in the face of U.S. involvement. Despite Turkey’s vast military capabilities and its ability to challenge regional powers, Erdoğan refrained from the fiery denunciations that have characterised his previous speeches on Israel, opting instead for diplomacy. During Blinken’s visit to Turkey, Erdoğan refrained from directly challenging U.S. policy, despite Turkey’s significant leverage as a key player in NATO and a regional military power. This cautious approach contrasts sharply with Braun’s open defiance in Poland.

Southeast Asia’s Subdued Response, and Pakistan’s Compliance

In Southeast Asia, where Muslim-majority countries like Indonesia and Malaysia have historically supported the Palestinian cause, the leadership has similarly fallen short of confronting the U.S. directly. Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim-majority country, has issued statements condemning the violence in Gaza but has done little to challenge the U.S. stance. Despite its strategic maritime position and regional influence, Indonesia has refrained from pushing back against U.S. influence. Blinken’s engagement with the region has been met with cooperation rather than defiance, even as Muslim populations in these countries express outrage over the ongoing violence.

Pakistan, despite being one of the most vocal supporters of the Palestinian cause, has also failed to challenge U.S. policies in the region. With its strategic location, nuclear arsenal, and powerful military, Pakistan could exert significant pressure on the global stage. However, when Blinken visited Islamabad, the Pakistani leadership welcomed him and focused on economic and security discussions, rather than addressing the ongoing atrocities in Gaza. While Pakistan’s leaders, including former Prime Minister Imran Khan, have occasionally condemned Israeli actions in Palestine, these statements have rarely been followed by tangible actions or confrontations with the U.S. Pakistani leaders have historically prioritised maintaining their relationship with Washington, which plays a key role in Pakistan’s foreign aid, economic stability, and military cooperation. This has kept them from issuing strong public rebukes to U.S. officials, even as the Pakistani population continues to strongly support Palestine.

This cautious approach underscores how, despite Pakistan’s significant military and geopolitical influence, its leadership has been careful not to directly confront U.S. officials like Blinken.

The Red Carpet Treatment

While Grzegorz Braun’s defiance against Blinken might be viewed as extreme, it is a striking example of a political leader willing to stand up against U.S. influence. Muslim rulers, on the other hand—despite controlling critical resources and possessing substantial geopolitical and military clout—have largely offered a warm welcome to Blinken as he tours the region. Despite the enormous human toll in Gaza, these leaders have maintained a stance of cautious diplomacy, prioritising stability and their political relationships with the U.S. over vocal opposition.

This silence raises difficult questions. If a European nationalist can muster the courage to openly challenge U.S. foreign policy, why have Muslim rulers, whose populations are deeply invested in the fate of Palestine, failed to do the same? Despite the Muslim world controlling strategic resources, such as vast oil reserves, critical trade routes, and significant military power, which could be leveraged to assert their own terms, these leaders have not told Blinken to “get lost,” as Braun did. Instead, many have acquiesced to U.S. pressure, ensuring that protests and public anger remain contained, while continuing to work with the very powers perpetuating the status quo in Palestine.

The contrast is stark. While Braun’s defiance may not lead to immediate policy changes in Poland, it stands as a symbol of resistance to foreign influence—something sorely missing from the corridors of power in much of the Muslim world.