The main powers that triggered globalization was undoubtedly Europe and the U.S., with their economic expansion, technological breakthroughs and cultural hegemony. Interestingly enough, it was the Westerners themselves who were appalled by the consequences of globalization. The rest of the world was eagerly adapting to globalization and expanding toward the West. Even though the West's normative values were quickly adopted, the Middle East was not assimilated into the West in the end. Quite the contrary, as the Middle Eastern world drew close to universal values, it suffered separation and fragmentation within itself, and the moral ground of claiming rights in opposition to the West was formed. Radical Islamic movements were born, grew and found social support in such an environment. However, Western observers can still analyze the Middle East and Islam regardless of how the West politically, economically and culturally impacts the rest of the world.It is impossible that this benighted way of thinking will not suffer a backlash and fail. Globalization makes different people from different regions a part of the same cultural "transcendental space." There is a natural psychological bond between a young Middle Eastern man from Beirut who is estranged from his family in a scarred city, and an Algerian man who is stuck in the suburbs of Paris. Driven by the way that life affects them, they both can develop similar feelings about the world. Being a Middle Easterner and Muslim is experienced and shared as a historical state of victimization in this global environment. Therefore, the propellant dynamic of such a psychological bond that links Beirut to Paris is the "Other," i.e., the West, which is considered the ontological perpetrator of this victimhood.Today, this orientalist and patronizing attitude of the West, which deems its own values universal and attributes civilization directly to these values, arouses a common feeling in the rest of the world, producing a negative attitude. Globalization has removed this feeling from its purely psychological form. While Beirut and Paris were joining side by side, Paris was divided itself. However, this division did not create communitarianism and an open conflict in the West as it did in the Middle East. The conflict camouflaged itself in the West's developed public sphere and legal structure, went underground and constituted a fatal element that had the potential to display the most devastating examples by spurting out of "street loopholes." Today, it is said that only in Paris are there thousands of African Muslims who are poised to become "lone wolves."On the other hand, there is a direct link between waging a struggle against the West to claim rights and forming a power in the Middle East. This struggle can make its subjects legitimate and help them gather strength. In short, today, "attacking" the West is one of the ways of doing politics in the Middle East. As the U.S. and Europe do not face themselves, this Middle Eastern breed of politics grows. Just as racist parties grow stronger in the West, a political view that prioritizes reactive attitude and thinks that utmost firmness is an accomplishment, is gaining ground in the Middle East.Even though Western orientalism and arrogance ideologically settled itself in Enlightenment and modernism, Middle Eastern occidentalism does not have historical success stories of this kind in the modern age. Middle Easterners have a 1,400-year-old religion that challenges time, and which they think proper in terms of giving identity to victimization. Thus today, Islam can become an ideology and be used as the driver of political friction and political careers in the hands of some Muslims.Ultimately, what integrated Beirut and Paris in the past was Western modern civilization. Today, however, they are becoming integrated through the Middle East's reactive ideological resistance. Globalization is undergoing a new wave, and this trend may continue for a long time if Westerners cannot be truly rational.