We, here at The Right Opinion, don't tend to get too heavily involved in foreign policy. We're typically much more concerned about what's going on in the United States, but the most recent chapter in the Israel-"Palestine" conflict has driven me to see 2 very clear patterns in how the Left covers major news stories: 1) The Left loves a victim. 2) The Left always starts the story in the middle.
Often, when you hear uninformed people make comparisons between the modern day and the past, you get one of 2 examples: The fall of Rome and WWII. There's about 1,600+ years of history in between that most people seem to just forget about. While all misinformed people are not Leftists; all Leftists are most definitely misinformed. This is how they are led by insincere talking heads and their own hyper-driven emotions to come to some of the most bizarre conclusions about fairly obvious one-sided issues. In this case, we are talking about their conclusion that Israel is an oppressive occupying force and is hellbent on the destruction of something called "Palestine".
You might have several questions, including "What's a Palestine?" Well, Palestine is one of the fictional places, where Stacey Abrams isn't Governor, like Narnia. In fairness, it is recognized by the United Nations as a de jure sovereign state, but the U.N. also recognizes China as a member of their Human Rights Council, so what the fuck do they know?
More importantly, what do we know? Well, we know Israel and "Palestine" have been at odds for centuries. We know that Israel is the world's only Jewish state, and "Palestine" is mostly comprised of Arab Muslims. These 2 groups do not get along, largely stemming from them both staking claim to certain holy sites in and around the Gaza Strip. We know that Israel is a wealthy, technologically-advanced country. We know "Palestine" is none of those things. We know that "Palestine" wants the absolute destruction of Israel. They want to be "free, from the river to the sea," meaning they want Israel gone in its entirety. This may sound a little extreme, if you were unaware the the "Palestinian" leadership is We know that this is made difficult for the "Palestinians" because of Israel's Iron Dome (their missile defense system). So, we have "Palestine" with the will to destroy Israel, but not the means. On the other hand, we have Israel with the means to destroy "Palestine" but not the will. Is there any doubt who the aggressor is in this situation? If you still have any doubt, please ask yourself the following questions:
If Israel lowered the Iron Dome and put down all of their weapons tomorrow, would "Palestine" do the same, or would they immediately move to destroy Israel?
If Israel wanted to destroy "Palestine", what's stopping them?
If Israel is the evil aggressor, why are they calling in-advance of delivering airstrikes, if not to reduce civilian casualties?
When the obvious realities of the situation set in, you can clearly see who the real victim is in this situation. YET... that has never stopped a Leftist from taking a stupid stance on an issue. The Left, most prominently "The Squad", has gone full-scale terror-apologist as they defend the actions of the "Palestinian" regime. But, why? Let's revert back to the 2 patterns I picked up:
1) The Left loves a victim.
They love victims so much, they have to see everyone they agree with as some sort of victim. They don't care what sort of knots they have to twist themselves into to arrive at that conclusion. They're going to get there, and they are planting their flag of woke-ness. Oftentimes, they arrive at their destination by simply ignoring vital parts of the story, like the first several chapters. Hence:
2) The Left always starts in the middle of the story.
Think about the major stories highlighted by the Left in recent years: The supposed targeting of black men by police, the gender wage gap, the inhumane treatment of children at the border and, now, the Israel-"Palestine" conflict. In all of these cases, they tell the rest of us that the black men, working women, migrant children and the "Palestinians" are these innocent little flowers who are the victims of various systems of oppression. The black man is the victim of the police. The woman is the victim of the patriarchy. The migrant child is the victim of racism. Palestine is a victim of Israel. They say these things loudly and regularly enough to actually convince others that these statements are true. Certainly, some of these notions are correct… sometimes. Some black men are the victims of police, and some women do, undoubtedly, suffer the ill effects of misogyny. But are these instances the rule, or are they the exception? The Left would have you believe these are the rules, because they need them to be, or their entire worldview crumbles.
So, they start the story in the middle. They don't bother to tell you what the black man was doing before he was shot by police. They don't tell you that Mary from the office just came back from maternity leave and is already pregnant again. They don't tell you that the migrant child was dragged across a dangerous desert for hundreds of miles by a coyote. They don't tell you that Palestine is firing rockets so indiscriminately, they are hitting their own people in the Gaza Strip. They just skip over all of those pesky details to get you to their predetermined conclusion that they are on the side of the victims and unless you're one of those victim-blaming Nazi Republicans, you will go along with the narrative.
They have to frame anyone who doesn't blindly follow them this way, so these dissenters can be cut out of the conversation. After all, if they were allowed to participate, they might ask why simple questions like:
Why was one black "murdered" by the "racist" police, and not all black men, or even most black men?
Why focus so much energy on the minimal black men killed by police instead of other causes of death?
Is there any definitive evidence that Mary is underpaid due to her sex?
Why would Mary expect to make as much as her male colleague who worked while she was at home for months caring for her child?
Why is the migrant child in danger when he's safely kept in a facility with food, water, clothing and medicine, but he wasn't in danger as he was trekked across a dangerous desert by a total stranger?
Why do Leftists champion these migrants' journey to America when they know that nearly 1/3 of all women who make the trip are sexually assaulted?
Why is the Left so in love with Islam, a religions that legitimately oppresses women and members of the LGBTQ community?
Why does Palestine hide their weapons under schools, hospitals and apartment buildings?
These are questions you are not allowed to ask, because they lead to obvious answers. Those answers are not in sync with the mainstream, Leftist narrative, so they must be banished. If you propagate these "lies", then you are victimizing those who wish to spread their own lies.
You see? The Left always starts in the middle of the story, and they love a good victim, but their favorite stories are the ones where they can frame themselves as the victim. By having the audacity to question their narrative, you have given them exactly what they want, because they believe there is power in victimhood. As long as we continue to let them play the victim, they may be right. It is incumbent upon us to start the story from the beginning and shed light on the fact that the Left is only a victim to their own stupidity.