Remember that which Amalek did to you on your way when you left Egypt, encountering you along the way and attacking the weak who straggled after you, while you were tired. He came after you and did not fear G-d. (Devarim 25:17-18)

Interestingly, in this posuk we have the reverse situation. Whereas with respect to the midwives, their fear of G-d was mentioned first, but should have been mentioned second; with respect to Amalek, it is just the reverse. It should have said:

He did not fear G-d, and came after you.

After all, what is more important, that he attacked the Jewish people, or that he did not fear G-d? Furthermore, should the posuk not have said:

He came after you BECAUSE he did not fear G-d?

From the posuk itself, it seems that the second clause is not the reason for the first one, but rather, an independent sin. It is as if to say that Amalek was guilty of two independent sins, the first being that "he attacked you," and the second one being that "he did not fear G-d." However, is not the second sin the basis of the first one?

Maybe not, when it comes to the nations of the world, as the following posuk regarding the abduction and release of Sarah Imeinu, seems to indicate:

Now Avimelech had not approached her; so he said, "My L-rd, will you slay a nation even though it is righteous?" (Bereishis 20:4)

RIGHTEOUS? Even if Sarah had been Avraham's sister, as he had told the Philistines of that time, had she consented to be taken to Avimelech to become a wife for him? Had Avraham, her "brother" agreed to the forced marriage?

Furthermore, when later confronted by Avimelech, to whom G-d had appeared in a dream to warn him to stay away from Sarah, and asked why he had hid the real truth from Avimelech, Avraham explained:

"Because I said, 'There is but no fear of G-d in this place and they will slay me because of my wife.'." (Bereishis 20:11)

Now, if Avraham had been paranoid, then Avimelech's self-indignation might have been justified. However, if Avraham had acted prudently because he had properly assessed the situation, then how could Avimelech even apply the term "righteous" to himself and his people? And, how could G-d say:

"I, too, knew that it was in the innocence of your heart that you did this . . ." (Bereishis 20:6)

Why didn't G-d just tell him, "What are you talking about, O evil one?! You stole that woman to satisfy your own desires, and you deserve everything you have coming to you!"

What does Rashi say?

THERE IS BUT NO FEAR OF G-D: When a stranger arrives in a city, do people ask him about what he would like to eat or to drink, or do they ask him about his wife - "Is this your wife?" or "Is this your sister?" (Rashi, Bereishis 20:11)

In other words, Rashi is saying that Avraham reproved Avimelech by saying, "If they are going to ask about anything at all, it should be about his needs. If they ask about his relationship to the woman accompanying him, then it is evidence that they are not G-d-fearing people!"

Interesting definition of fear of G-d that Rashi has provided here. According to this, one's ability to put the needs of others above their own personal needs is a function of a person's fear of G-d, it seems according to Rashi. This would, perhaps, explain the posuk with which we began:

But the midwives feared G-d and they did not do as the king of Egypt spoke to them, and they caused the boys to live. (Shemos 1:17)

In other words, it was not that the midwives defied Pharaoh, and therefore saved the children. Rather, the midwives feared G-d, and therefore cared for the children more than for themselves, which prompted them to save them from being killed. It happened to be that in the process, they defied Pharaoh and risked their lives.

What's the difference in the end?