The Foundations of Victimhood Privilege The Palestinian claim to victimhood is rooted in the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, an event they term the "Nakba" or catastrophe. From a resolute conservative perspective, this narrative is not merely a recounting of historical grievance but a carefully constructed myth that distorts reality to serve a radical agenda. The Nakba storyline conveniently sidesteps critical historical truths: the Jewish people’s ancient, unbroken connection to the land of Israel, documented in scripture and archaeology; the repeated offers of coexistence rebuffed by Arab leaders, most notably the rejection of the 1947 United Nations partition plan; and the immediate, unprovoked aggression launched by surrounding Arab states against the fledgling Jewish nation. These omissions are not accidental but deliberate, crafted to paint Palestinians as eternal victims of an unjust dispossession, a narrative that has been weaponized to deflect accountability and garner global sympathy. This victimhood has become a formidable shield, protecting Palestinian actions from scrutiny and granting them an almost unassailable moral high ground. From a conservative vantage point, this privilege excuses even the most egregious behaviors—terrorism, incitement, and the rejection of peace—under the guise of justified resistance. The world’s leftist media and progressive intellectuals, particularly in the West, have eagerly amplified this tale of unrelenting suffering, portraying Palestinians as the ultimate underdogs in a moral drama. Outlets like the BBC, The Guardian, and progressive think tanks routinely frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a one-sided tale of oppression, ignoring the complexities of history and the agency of Palestinian leaders in perpetuating their own plight. This selective storytelling has cemented the Palestinian cause as a sacred cow in global discourse, untouchable by criticism and immune to rational debate.

The privilege of victimhood manifests in tangible, material ways, most notably through the staggering sums of international aid funneled into Palestinian territories each year. Billions of dollars, ostensibly earmarked for humanitarian relief, flow from Western governments, the European Union, and international organizations, all under the assumption that such generosity will alleviate suffering and foster stability. Yet, conservative critics have long pointed to the systemic misuse of these funds, particularly by groups like Hamas, a terrorist organization as designated by the United States, Israel, and their allies. Rather than building schools, hospitals, or infrastructure to uplift their people, Hamas diverts these resources to construct an arsenal of destruction: underground tunnels for smuggling weapons, rocket stockpiles aimed at Israeli civilians, and propaganda campaigns designed to indoctrinate youth with hatred for the West. Reports from conservative think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, estimate that a significant portion of Gaza’s aid—potentially hundreds of millions annually—ends up funding these nefarious activities, all while the Palestinian populace remains mired in poverty, a condition cynically exploited to sustain the victimhood narrative.

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), tasked with aiding Palestinian refugees, is a particularly glaring example of this dysfunction. From a conservative perspective, UNRWA is not a neutral humanitarian entity but an enabler of radicalism, complicit in perpetuating the very conflict it claims to mitigate. Critics, including former U.S. officials and Israeli intelligence reports, have accused UNRWA of employing individuals with direct ties to Hamas and other terror groups, allowing its facilities to be used as storage sites for weapons, and embedding anti-Semitic and anti-Western rhetoric in its educational curricula. Textbooks funded by UNRWA have been documented glorifying "martyrdom" and vilifying Israel, indoctrinating generations of Palestinian children to see violence as a noble path rather than a tragic dead end. This is not aid in the traditional sense but a subsidy for extremism, cloaked in the language of compassion and enabled by the world’s refusal to challenge the Palestinian victimhood myth.This privilege extends beyond financial gain to a kind of diplomatic immunity on the global stage. The Palestinian leadership, whether Hamas in Gaza or the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank, operates with a level of impunity that would be unthinkable for other actors. The PA, for instance, continues to pay stipends to the families of terrorists—euphemistically called "martyrs"—who murder Israeli civilians, a policy funded in part by international aid yet rarely condemned by Western governments fearful of appearing insensitive to Palestinian suffering. Hamas, meanwhile, openly calls for Israel’s destruction in its charter, launches indiscriminate rocket barrages, and uses its own people as human shields, yet retains legitimacy in the eyes of many progressive activists and even some European parliaments. This double standard is a direct byproduct of victimhood privilege, which casts every Palestinian action, no matter how heinous, as a desperate response to oppression rather than a calculated strategy to advance a radical agenda.From a conservative lens, this victimhood is not a passive state but an active, deliberate strategy to secure resources, legitimacy, and influence for a cause that extends far beyond territorial disputes. The Palestinian narrative is not merely about reclaiming land but about asserting an ideological vision rooted in radical Islam, one that rejects Western values of democracy, individual liberty, and religious pluralism. By framing their struggle as a response to Israeli and American imperialism, Palestinian leaders tap into a broader anti-Western sentiment that resonates across the Muslim world and among leftist circles in the West. This alignment is no coincidence: it mirrors the tactics of other jihadist movements, from al-Qaeda to ISIS, who similarly exploit local grievances to rally support for a global ideological war. The Palestinian cause, in this sense, is a microcosm of a larger battle, with victimhood as its most potent weapon.

The historical roots of this strategy can be traced back to the early days of the conflict, when Palestinian leaders like Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, aligned with Nazi Germany during World War II, not out of desperation but out of shared ideological hostility toward Jews and the West. This legacy of extremism persists in modern Palestinian politics, yet the victimhood narrative ensures that such inconvenient truths are buried beneath a flood of sympathy. The 1948 war, far from being a simple tale of displacement, was a multifaceted conflict driven by Arab rejectionism and a refusal to accept Jewish sovereignty in any form. The subsequent decades saw repeated Palestinian refusals of peace offers—most notably in 1967, 2000, and 2008—each rejection framed as a defense of justice but in reality a commitment to an uncompromising vision that leaves no room for coexistence.

The international community’s complicity in this dynamic cannot be overstated. Western governments, particularly in Europe, have poured billions into Palestinian coffers without demanding accountability, fearful that any criticism would be branded as callous or Islamophobic. The United States, while more skeptical, has nonetheless provided significant aid over the years, much of it squandered on corrupt bureaucracies or siphoned off by terror groups. Conservative analysts argue that this unconditional support has not only failed to resolve the conflict but has emboldened Palestinian leaders to double down on their victimhood strategy, knowing that the world’s guilt—particularly over historical colonialism—will ensure a steady flow of resources and diplomatic cover.

This privilege has broader implications for global stability. By legitimizing the Palestinian model of victimhood, the international community sets a dangerous precedent, encouraging other groups to adopt similar tactics. From separatists in Kashmir to insurgents in Africa, the playbook is clear: claim oppression, reject compromise, and demand sympathy, and the world will reward you with attention and resources, no matter the cost. This cycle undermines the principles of accountability and mutual responsibility that underpin civilized societies, replacing them with a perverse incentive structure that rewards grievance over governance.

Moreover, the Palestinian victimhood narrative fuels a broader anti-Western animus that threatens the very nations funding their cause. By casting the United States and its allies as complicit in their suffering, Palestinian leaders sow seeds of resentment that resonate far beyond the Middle East. This rhetoric aligns seamlessly with the propaganda of global jihadist movements, who use similar language to recruit followers and justify attacks on Western targets. The cheering in Palestinian streets after the 9/11 attacks, documented by conservative outlets like The Washington Times, was not an anomaly but a symptom of a deeper ideological alignment, one that sees the West as an existential enemy to be defeated at all costs. Radical Islam as the Core Ideology At the heart of the Palestinian exploitation of victimhood lies radical Islam, an ideology fundamentally antithetical to Western principles of liberty, democracy, and secular governance. From a staunch conservative perspective, this is not a peripheral issue but the central engine driving the Palestinian leadership’s actions, cloaked in a narrative of resistance to perpetuate a broader war against the West. Hamas, which has governed Gaza since its violent takeover in 2007, explicitly enshrines jihadist principles in its 1988 charter, a document that calls not only for the destruction of Israel but for the establishment of an Islamic state governed by strict Sharia law. This vision leaves no room for coexistence, rejecting the very notion of a Jewish state as an affront to divine will. The Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank, while projecting a veneer of moderation to secure Western aid, has done little to dismantle the culture of violence that permeates its society. The PA’s official media, schools, and public squares routinely glorify “martyrs” who die attacking Israeli civilians, hailing them as national heroes rather than condemning their actions as terrorism. This reverence for violence is not a cultural quirk or a spontaneous expression of frustration—it is a deliberate extension of radical Islamic tenets that prioritize conquest, submission, and the eradication of dissent over any possibility of peaceful coexistence. Conservatives argue that the Palestinian leadership—both Hamas and the PA—masterfully uses the privilege of victimhood to mask this extremism, presenting it as a justified response to Israeli “occupation.” By framing their struggle as a desperate fight against an oppressive Goliath, they garner sympathy from naive Western liberals, progressive activists, and international bodies who fail to recognize the deeper ideological war at play. The Palestinian plight is marketed as a classic David-versus-Goliath tale, a narrative eagerly embraced by those in the West who view every conflict through the lens of oppressor versus oppressed. This framing obscures a critical reality: groups like Hamas have consistently rejected peace offers—most notably the generous proposals at Camp David in 2000 and Annapolis in 2008—not out of desperation or distrust, but out of an uncompromising commitment to an Islamist vision that categorically denies the legitimacy of a Jewish state or any Western influence in the region. These rejections, conservatives contend, reveal the true nature of the Palestinian cause: not a quest for statehood, but a religiously driven crusade to dismantle the foundations of Western civilization, starting with its outpost in the Middle East, Israel.

The ideological roots of this radicalism run deep, drawing from the same wellspring that fuels global jihadist movements like al-Qaeda and ISIS. Hamas’s charter, for instance, invokes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious anti-Semitic forgery, and cites Islamic texts to justify its call for jihad against Jews and their allies. This is not a localized grievance but a worldview that sees the West—particularly the United States—as an existential threat to the supremacy of Islam. The PA, while less overt in its rhetoric, perpetuates this ideology through subtler means. Its educational system, funded in part by Western donors, teaches children to idolize figures like Dalal Mughrabi, a terrorist responsible for the 1978 Coastal Road massacre that killed 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children. Streets and public squares bear her name, and PA-sponsored youth camps celebrate her “heroism.” From a conservative perspective, this is not mere remembrance but indoctrination, designed to instill a radical Islamic ethos that glorifies death and destruction as the highest form of devotion.

This ideology is propagated through a sophisticated network of institutions, media, and religious centers, all of which operate under the protective umbrella of victimhood. Mosques in Gaza and the West Bank frequently serve as platforms for fiery sermons that blend religious fervor with anti-Western vitriol, urging congregants to resist not only Israel but the broader “infidel” world. Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV and the PA’s Palestine TV broadcast programs that demonize Jews, Christians, and Americans, portraying them as conspirators in a global plot to subjugate Muslims. These messages are tailored to exploit the Palestinian sense of grievance, channeling legitimate frustrations into a radical framework that offers violence as the only solution. Conservative analysts, such as those at the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), have documented countless examples of this incitement, from children’s shows glorifying suicide bombers to official speeches denying Israel’s right to exist. Yet, the world’s reluctance to confront this propaganda—out of fear of appearing insensitive to Palestinian suffering—allows it to flourish unchecked.

The victimhood narrative is particularly effective in shielding this radicalism from Western scrutiny because it exploits a fundamental weakness in liberal democracies: their susceptibility to guilt and moral relativism. Progressives in the United States and Europe, conditioned to view history as a series of injustices perpetrated by powerful nations, readily accept the Palestinian cause as a righteous struggle without examining its ideological underpinnings. Figures like Rep. Rashida Tlaib and organizations like Students for Justice in Palestine frame every Palestinian action as a response to “apartheid” or “colonialism,” ignoring the explicit calls for jihad that permeate Hamas’s rhetoric and the PA’s policies. This naivety, conservatives argue, is not merely misguided but dangerous, as it legitimizes an ideology that seeks the destruction of the very freedoms these activists claim to champion. The refusal to acknowledge radical Islam as the driving force behind the Palestinian leadership’s actions reflects a broader failure to confront the civilizational threat posed by jihadist movements worldwide.

The consequences of this ideological subterfuge extend far beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, posing a direct challenge to global security. By cloaking their radicalism in the language of resistance, Palestinian leaders contribute to a broader narrative that fuels anti-Western sentiment across the Muslim world. The United States, as Israel’s primary ally and the embodiment of Western power, is a particular target of this hatred. Conservative commentators point to incidents like the celebrations in Palestinian cities following the September 11, 2001, attacks—captured in footage suppressed by mainstream media but preserved in conservative archives—as evidence of a deeper alignment with global jihad. This was not an isolated outburst but a manifestation of an ideology that sees America’s values—individual liberty, free markets, and religious pluralism—as anathema to its vision of a world under Islamic dominance. The Palestinian cause, in this sense, serves as a rallying cry for radicals far beyond the Middle East, from the streets of London to the training camps of Afghanistan.Moreover, the Palestinian model of leveraging victimhood to advance radical Islam sets a dangerous precedent for other groups. Separatist movements, insurgencies, and terror organizations worldwide have taken note, adopting similar tactics to gain sympathy and resources while pursuing their own extremist agendas. From the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to Boko Haram in Nigeria, the playbook is the same: claim oppression, reject compromise, and frame violence as liberation. This proliferation of radicalism threatens the stability of nations across the globe, undermining the principles of sovereignty and mutual respect that hold the international order together. Conservatives warn that failing to confront the Palestinian example head-on risks emboldening these movements, creating a domino effect that could engulf the West in a wave of jihadist violence.

The role of Western enablers in this dynamic cannot be ignored. Progressive politicians, academics, and media outlets, eager to signal their moral virtue, amplify the Palestinian narrative without questioning its ideological foundations. The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, for instance, presents itself as a human rights campaign but aligns with groups that openly advocate for Israel’s annihilation and the spread of Sharia law. Universities in the U.S. and Europe host “Palestinian solidarity” events that gloss over Hamas’s terrorism, inviting speakers who parrot jihadist talking points under the guise of academic discourse. This uncritical support not only legitimizes radical Islam but erodes the West’s moral clarity, replacing it with a relativism that equates democratic societies with their sworn enemies. Conservatives argue that this betrayal stems from a deeper cultural malaise: a loss of confidence in Western values that leaves societies vulnerable to manipulation by those who exploit their openness and generosity.

The Palestinian leadership’s rejection of peace offers underscores the centrality of radical Islam to their agenda. At Camp David in 2000, Yasser Arafat walked away from a deal that would have granted Palestinians a state on 97% of the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as their capital. In 2008, Mahmoud Abbas rejected a similar proposal from Ehud Olmert, demanding concessions that would have compromised Israel’s security. These refusals, conservatives contend, were not tactical missteps but ideological imperatives, driven by a vision that sees any accommodation with Israel—or the West—as a betrayal of Islamic principles. Hamas’s subsequent rise to power in Gaza, solidified by its 2006 electoral victory, further entrenched this radicalism, transforming the territory into a launching pad for rockets and a laboratory for jihadist governance. The PA’s complicity, through its failure to renounce violence and its continued incitement, reveals a shared commitment to an ideology that prioritizes eternal struggle over pragmatic solutions. Inciting Hatred Against the West and the United States The United States, as the world’s preeminent superpower and Israel’s staunchest ally, stands as the primary target of a deep-seated resentment cultivated within Palestinian territories. From a resolute conservative perspective, this animosity is not a spontaneous reaction to geopolitical realities but a calculated campaign, amplified through mosques, schools, and media, to cast America as the architect of Palestinian suffering. Palestinian rhetoric consistently portrays the U.S. as an imperialist aggressor, responsible for every hardship—from the establishment of Israel to the poverty of Gaza—through its military aid to the Jewish state, its cultural dominance, and its unwavering refusal to capitulate to Islamic extremism. This vilification, which brands America the “Great Satan” in radical circles, is not mere frustration but a deliberate strategy to rally support for a broader anti-Western jihad, linking local grievances to a global ideological war that threatens the foundations of free societies.This hatred is not confined to fiery speeches or symbolic protests; it manifests in tangible, chilling ways that reveal the depth of its ideological roots. The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda—whose jihadist ideology shares significant overlap with that of Hamas and other Palestinian factions—were met with celebrations in parts of the Palestinian territories. Footage of Palestinians distributing sweets and cheering in the streets, though downplayed or outright suppressed by mainstream Western media, was well-documented by conservative outlets like The Washington Times and Fox News. From a conservative standpoint, these reactions were not aberrations but symptoms of a deeper truth: the Palestinian victimhood narrative serves as a potent recruiting tool for global jihad, transforming local grievances into a cosmic struggle against the West. Young Palestinians, raised on a steady diet of anti-American propaganda, are primed to see the United States not as a potential partner for peace but as an eternal enemy, a mindset that fuels radicalization not only in the Middle East but across the Muslim world and beyond.

The mechanisms of this incitement are both pervasive and systematic, embedded in the very fabric of Palestinian society. Mosques, often funded by foreign patrons with ties to radical groups, serve as echo chambers for sermons that blend religious zeal with political venom, portraying America as a crusader state bent on subjugating Islam. Imams frequently invoke Koranic verses alongside contemporary grievances, framing U.S. policies—such as its support for Israel or its interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan—as evidence of a divine mandate to resist. Schools, many operated under the auspices of the Palestinian Authority (PA) or Hamas, reinforce this narrative through curricula that vilify the West. Textbooks, some funded by European aid, depict America as a colonial power complicit in Palestinian dispossession, while maps erase Israel entirely, replacing it with a vision of a unified Islamic state. Conservative analysts, citing reports from organizations like the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), highlight how these materials glorify “martyrs” who attack Western targets, presenting their deaths as heroic sacrifices in a holy war.Palestinian media, both state-controlled and independent, amplifies this hatred with relentless consistency. Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV and the PA’s Palestine TV broadcast programs that demonize the U.S., from children’s shows featuring characters who denounce American “arrogance” to talk shows accusing Washington of orchestrating global conspiracies against Muslims. Documentaries and news segments portray U.S. soldiers as occupiers, its leaders as war criminals, and its culture as a decadent force corrupting Islamic values. This propaganda is not haphazard but carefully crafted to exploit the Palestinian sense of victimhood, channeling legitimate frustrations into a radical framework that offers jihad as the only path to redemption. The result is a generation indoctrinated to see America as the source of all evil, a narrative that aligns seamlessly with the rhetoric of global terror groups like al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Hezbollah, who similarly cast the U.S. as the ultimate obstacle to their vision of an Islamic caliphate.

From a conservative perspective, this anti-Americanism is not merely a reaction to U.S. foreign policy but an extension of radical Islam’s broader war against Western civilization. The United States, as the embodiment of individual liberty, free markets, and secular governance, represents everything that jihadist ideology seeks to destroy. Its support for Israel, while a focal point of Palestinian ire, is but one facet of a deeper ideological conflict. America’s refusal to bow to extremist demands—whether in its fight against terrorism, its defense of democratic allies, or its promotion of cultural values like free speech and gender equality—earns it the enmity of those who see compromise as apostasy. Palestinian leaders, by framing their struggle as a response to American-backed “oppression,” tap into this global jihadist narrative, positioning their cause as a frontline battle in a civilizational clash. This alignment is no coincidence: Hamas’s charter, for instance, echoes the same anti-Western tropes found in Osama bin Laden’s manifestos, invoking a shared vision of a world purged of American influence.The global implications of this incitement are profound, extending far beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. By cultivating hatred for the United States, Palestinian leaders contribute to a broader anti-Western sentiment that fuels terrorism worldwide. The 9/11 attacks, the 2004 Madrid bombings, the 2015 Paris attacks—all perpetrated by groups ideologically akin to Hamas—were justified using rhetoric that mirrors Palestinian propaganda: the West as oppressor, jihad as resistance. Conservative commentators argue that the Palestinian territories serve as a microcosm of this dynamic, a testing ground where victimhood is weaponized to radicalize populations and export hatred. Young Palestinians, steeped in tales of American perfidy, are not only potential recruits for local terror groups but also fodder for international networks seeking foot soldiers for attacks on Western soil. The 2014 kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers by Hamas operatives, for instance, was celebrated in some Palestinian circles as a blow against U.S.-backed Israel, illustrating how local acts of violence are framed as contributions to a global struggle.Western complicity in this dynamic, particularly among progressive circles, exacerbates the problem. From a conservative lens, the refusal of leftist politicians, academics, and media to confront Palestinian incitement stems from a toxic blend of guilt, ignorance, and moral relativism. Figures like Rep. Ilhan Omar and organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) often deflect criticism of Palestinian rhetoric, framing it as a natural response to U.S. policies rather than an ideological assault on Western values. Mainstream outlets like CNN and The New York Times downplay or contextualize anti-American sentiment in the territories, preferring to focus on Palestinian suffering rather than the hatred it breeds. This selective blindness, conservatives argue, emboldens radical voices, granting them legitimacy under the guise of free expression. The refusal to hold Palestinian leaders accountable for their rhetoric—whether Hamas’s overt calls for jihad or the PA’s subtler incitement—reflects a broader failure to recognize the existential threat posed by radical Islam, a failure that weakens the West’s resolve to defend itself.

The Palestinian model of inciting hatred through victimhood sets a dangerous precedent for other regions. From Yemen to Nigeria, groups like the Houthis and Boko Haram adopt similar tactics, claiming oppression to justify anti-Western violence while demanding sympathy from the international community. This playbook undermines global stability, creating a cycle where grievance fuels extremism, and extremism fuels further grievance. Conservatives warn that ignoring this dynamic risks normalizing jihadist rhetoric, allowing it to seep into the mainstream of Muslim-majority societies and even Western diaspora communities. The rise of anti-American protests in Europe, often led by activists citing Palestinian “resistance” as inspiration, underscores the far-reaching consequences of unchecked incitement.Moreover, this hatred undermines any prospect of peace in the Middle East. By demonizing the United States, Palestinian leaders poison the well of diplomacy, ensuring that their people view American-mediated negotiations—such as the Oslo Accords or the Abraham Accords—with suspicion. The PA’s refusal to condemn anti-American rhetoric, even as it accepts U.S. aid, reveals a cynical opportunism: it reaps the benefits of Western generosity while fostering the very hatred that derails progress. Hamas, meanwhile, openly rejects any U.S. involvement, branding it a tool of Zionist domination. This stance, conservatives argue, is not a negotiating tactic but an ideological imperative, rooted in a vision that sees peace with the West as a betrayal of Islamic principles. The Role of Western Enablers Compounding the exploitation of Palestinian victimhood is the complicity of Western progressives, who, from a steadfast conservative perspective, are utterly deceived by the carefully crafted narrative of Palestinian suffering. Politicians, academics, and activists across Europe and the United States champion the Palestinian cause with a fervor that rarely pauses to question its ideological underpinnings or long-term consequences. From a conservative standpoint, this uncritical support is not merely misguided compassion but a dangerous enabler of radicalism, granting legitimacy to voices that reject Israel’s existence and spread anti-Western vitriol under the guise of justice. The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, for example, cloaks itself in the language of human rights, claiming to seek accountability for Israel’s policies. Yet, conservatives point out that BDS frequently aligns with groups like Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine—both designated terrorist organizations—that openly call for the eradication of the Jewish state and the imposition of radical Islamic governance. This alignment reveals BDS as less a moral crusade than a front for extremist agendas, one that thrives on the naivety of Western supporters who fail to see the broader war against democratic values.

Conservatives contend that this progressive complicity stems from a deeper cultural malaise: the West’s obsession with guilt and self-flagellation, a mindset that distorts reason and undermines its own survival. By amplifying Palestinian grievances without scrutiny, progressives inadvertently invite the very ideologies that seek their destruction, weakening the foundations of liberty, democracy, and secularism they claim to uphold. The refusal to hold Palestinian leaders accountable for terrorism, incitement, or rejectionism reflects a cowardice that emboldens radicals, proving that victimhood is a currency eagerly accepted in the marketplace of Western liberalism. This dynamic, conservatives argue, is not an isolated phenomenon but a symptom of a civilization losing confidence in its own values, leaving it vulnerable to manipulation by those who exploit its openness and generosity for nefarious ends.

The mechanisms of this complicity are pervasive, operating across multiple spheres of Western society. In politics, progressive lawmakers in the U.S.—figures like Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Sen. Bernie Sanders—routinely frame the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a one-sided tale of oppression, ignoring the role of Palestinian leadership in perpetuating violence and rejecting peace. Their rhetoric, often echoing Palestinian talking points, casts Israel as an imperialist aggressor and the U.S. as its enabler, sidestepping inconvenient truths like Hamas’s jihadist charter or the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) payments to terrorists’ families. In Europe, leftist governments and parliamentarians go further, offering diplomatic recognition to a Palestinian “state” that exists only in theory, without demanding accountability for incitement or governance reform. This posturing, conservatives argue, rewards bad behavior, signaling to Palestinian leaders that their victimhood narrative will always find a sympathetic ear, no matter how egregious their actions.Academia serves as another battleground for this enabling. Universities in the West, particularly elite institutions like Columbia, Berkeley, and Oxford, have become hotbeds of pro-Palestinian activism, where faculty and students champion the cause without questioning its radical underpinnings. Courses on “post-colonialism” and “global justice” often present Israel as the epitome of Western imperialism, while Palestinian violence is rationalized as “resistance.” Student groups like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) organize rallies, divestment campaigns, and “apartheid weeks” that amplify anti-Israel sentiment, frequently crossing into anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. Conservative critics, citing reports from organizations like the AMCHA Initiative, note that these events often feature speakers with ties to extremist groups, yet university administrations hesitate to intervene, citing free speech while ignoring the chilling effect on Jewish students and pro-Western voices. This academic echo chamber, conservatives contend, normalizes radical rhetoric, training a generation to see the Palestinian cause as a moral absolute rather than a complex conflict driven by ideological extremism.

The media plays a pivotal role in perpetuating this complicity, acting as a megaphone for the Palestinian victimhood narrative. Mainstream outlets like The New York Times, BBC, and Al Jazeera consistently frame the conflict in terms of Israeli aggression and Palestinian suffering, downplaying or contextualizing acts of terrorism as desperate responses to “occupation.” Stories of Palestinian rocket attacks or suicide bombings are buried beneath images of Gaza’s poverty, while Hamas’s use of human shields or the PA’s incitement is rarely explored in depth. Conservative media watchdogs, such as CAMERA and HonestReporting, have documented countless instances of this bias, from skewed headlines to selective omissions that paint a distorted picture. This one-sided coverage, conservatives argue, not only misinforms the public but grants Palestinian leaders a free pass to escalate their radicalism, knowing that Western audiences will see them as victims rather than aggressors.The progressive obsession with guilt is the linchpin of this enabling, rooted in a distorted view of history that sees the West as the source of all global ills. From a conservative perspective, this guilt—over colonialism, slavery, and perceived imperialism—has morphed into a pathological self-loathing that blinds liberals to the realities of the Palestinian agenda. The narrative of Israel as a “settler-colonial” state, for instance, ignores the Jewish people’s ancient ties to the land and the Arab rejection of the 1947 UN partition plan, yet it resonates with progressives eager to atone for their civilization’s supposed sins. This mindset leads to a double standard: Israel is held to an impossible standard of perfection, while Palestinian leaders face no scrutiny for their corruption, terrorism, or rejection of peace offers like those in 2000 and 2008. The West’s willingness to excuse these failures, conservatives argue, stems from a belief that non-Western grievances are inherently valid, a form of moral relativism that undermines the principles of accountability and truth.

The consequences of this complicity are profound, extending far beyond the Middle East to threaten global stability. By legitimizing the Palestinian victimhood narrative, Western progressives embolden radical Islamic movements worldwide, from the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to Hezbollah in Lebanon, who adopt similar tactics to gain sympathy and resources. The BDS movement, for instance, has inspired copycat campaigns against other democratic nations, spreading anti-Western sentiment under the guise of human rights. Conservative analysts warn that this trend risks normalizing extremism, creating a world where grievance trumps governance and violence is excused as justice. The failure to confront Palestinian incitement—whether Hamas’s rocket barrages or the PA’s “pay-to-slay” policy—sends a message to other groups that terrorism will be met with sympathy rather than condemnation, undermining the rule of law and incentivizing chaos.This enabling also erodes the West’s moral clarity, weakening its ability to defend itself against existential threats. By amplifying Palestinian grievances, progressives sow division within their own societies, pitting communities against each other and fostering resentment toward democratic institutions. Anti-Israel protests in Western cities, often organized by leftist groups, frequently devolve into anti-American and anti-Semitic displays, as seen in London, Paris, and New York. These events, conservatives argue, are not spontaneous but orchestrated, drawing on the same rhetoric that fuels Palestinian radicalism to undermine Western cohesion. The refusal to call out this hatred—out of fear of being labeled racist or Islamophobic—reflects a cowardice that emboldens radicals, proving that the West’s openness can be weaponized against it.

Moreover, progressive complicity undermines the prospects for peace in the Middle East. By refusing to hold Palestinian leaders accountable, Western enablers enable a culture of rejectionism that derails diplomacy. The PA’s continued incitement and Hamas’s outright hostility to negotiations are excused as responses to “injustice,” allowing both to evade responsibility for their failures. The Oslo Accords, once hailed as a path to peace, collapsed in part because of Palestinian intransigence, yet progressives rarely acknowledge this, preferring to blame Israel and its American backers. This one-sided approach, conservatives contend, perpetuates a cycle of violence, ensuring that Palestinian youth grow up steeped in hatred rather than hope for coexistence.The broader cultural implications are equally dire. The West’s embrace of the Palestinian narrative reflects a loss of confidence in its own values—liberty, reason, and individual responsibility—that leaves it vulnerable to manipulation. Progressives, by prioritizing guilt over truth, risk dismantling the very principles that have made their societies prosperous and free. From a conservative lens, this is not just a policy failure but a civilizational crisis, one that requires a return to moral clarity and a rejection of the victimhood currency. The West must demand accountability from Palestinian leaders, expose the radicalism beneath their rhetoric, and refuse to subsidize movements that seek its destruction. The Consequences for Global Stability The ramifications of the Palestinian exploitation of victimhood to advance radical Islam are profound, extending far beyond the confines of the Middle East to threaten the stability of the entire free world. From a staunch conservative perspective, this dynamic is not a localized issue but a destabilizing force that undermines the foundations of global order. By leveraging their status as perennial victims, Palestinian leaders contribute to a broader ideological war that strengthens radical Islamic movements, fuels anti-American sentiment, and erodes the West’s ability to confront existential threats. The proliferation of this narrative, rooted in a deliberate distortion of history and amplified by sympathetic Western enablers, empowers groups like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and their ideological kin, who share the same jihadist DNA as Hamas and other Palestinian factions. The West, distracted by internal divisions, moral relativism, and a misguided obsession with appeasement, risks losing the clarity and resolve needed to counter this growing challenge, with consequences that could reshape the international landscape for generations.

At the heart of this threat lies the Palestinian leadership’s ability to transform local grievances into a global rallying cry for radical Islam. By framing their struggle as a response to Israeli “occupation” and American “imperialism,” groups like Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) tap into a deep well of resentment across the Muslim world, where anti-Western narratives already simmer. From a conservative standpoint, this is not mere rhetoric but a calculated strategy to inspire and mobilize extremists far beyond the borders of Gaza and the West Bank. The anti-American sentiment stoked by Palestinian propaganda—disseminated through mosques, media, and schools—resonates in places like Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, where terror groups exploit similar grievances to recruit followers and justify attacks on Western targets. The 2015 Paris attacks, the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, and the 2020 Vienna shooting, all perpetrated by jihadists citing solidarity with oppressed Muslims, reflect the global reach of this ideology. Conservative analysts argue that the Palestinian narrative serves as a cornerstone of this jihadist worldview, linking disparate conflicts into a unified struggle against the “infidel” West, with the United States as its primary target.

This proliferation of radicalism is not an abstract concern but a direct threat to global security. Groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, while distinct in their operations, draw inspiration from the same ideological wellspring that fuels Hamas’s charter and the PA’s incitement. The glorification of “martyrdom” in Palestinian schools, where children are taught to idolize suicide bombers, mirrors the propaganda of ISIS training camps, where recruits are promised paradise for killing innocents. The rhetoric of eternal resistance, so central to Palestinian rejectionism, echoes al-Qaeda’s calls for perpetual jihad against the West. From a conservative lens, this ideological overlap is no coincidence: the Palestinian cause, cloaked in victimhood, provides a veneer of legitimacy to a broader war that seeks the destruction of democratic societies and the imposition of Sharia law. By amplifying this narrative, Palestinian leaders contribute to a cycle of violence that destabilizes nations, from Iraq to Nigeria, where jihadist insurgencies thrive on the perception of Western oppression.The West’s response to this challenge—or lack thereof—exacerbates the crisis.

Distracted by internal divisions, progressive guilt, and a creeping moral relativism, Western societies are losing the resolve to confront radical Islam head-on. From a conservative perspective, this weakness is evident in the reluctance of governments, particularly in Europe, to hold Palestinian leaders accountable for their role in fueling extremism. The European Union, for instance, continues to pour billions into Palestinian aid programs, despite evidence from conservative think tanks like the Gatestone Institute that funds are diverted to terror tunnels and anti-Western propaganda. In the United States, progressive politicians like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez deflect criticism of Palestinian incitement, framing it as a natural response to “injustice” rather than a deliberate ideological assault. This refusal to face reality, conservatives argue, stems from a broader cultural malaise: a belief that Western values—liberty, democracy, and secularism—are no more valid than the ideologies that seek their destruction. This relativism paralyzes the West, leaving it vulnerable to manipulation by those who exploit its openness while plotting its demise.

The Palestinian example sets a dangerous precedent, one that threatens to proliferate across the globe as other groups adopt similar tactics. From Kashmir to Xinjiang, from the Sahel to the Caucasus, separatist movements and insurgencies are learning to cloak their radical agendas in the language of oppression, demanding sympathy while pursuing violence. In India, for instance, militant groups in Kashmir cite Palestinian “resistance” as inspiration, framing their attacks on security forces as a fight against occupation. In China, Uyghur extremists exploit narratives of persecution to justify terrorism, even as they align with global jihadist networks. Conservative analysts warn that this trend risks creating a world where grievance becomes a license for chaos, undermining sovereignty and incentivizing extremism. The Palestinian model—claim victimhood, reject compromise, and vilify the West—offers a blueprint for destabilization, one that could unravel the fragile fabric of international order if left unchecked.

This precedent is particularly alarming because it exploits the West’s Achilles’ heel: its susceptibility to guilt and compassion. Progressive activists, media, and academics, eager to atone for historical sins like colonialism, readily embrace narratives of oppression without questioning their veracity or consequences. The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, for example, draws parallels between Israel and apartheid South Africa, a comparison that resonates with Western liberals but ignores the jihadist ideology driving many of its Palestinian backers. This uncritical support, conservatives contend, legitimizes a playbook that other groups can replicate, from environmental radicals in Europe to ethnic separatists in Africa. By rewarding victimhood with attention and resources, the West inadvertently subsidizes radicalism, creating a feedback loop where grievance fuels violence, and violence fuels further grievance.

The erosion of Western resolve compounds these dangers, threatening the very principles that underpin global stability. The United States, as the leader of the free world, has historically stood as a bulwark against tyranny and extremism, from communism to jihadism. Yet, internal divisions—between conservatives who advocate strength and progressives who favor appeasement—weaken its ability to lead. The reluctance to confront Palestinian radicalism head-on, whether through sanctions on Hamas or pressure on the PA to end incitement, reflects a broader hesitation to defend Western values unequivocally. From a conservative standpoint, this hesitation is not just a policy failure but a civilizational crisis, one that risks ceding ground to ideologies that reject freedom, tolerance, and reason. The West’s distraction with identity politics, cancel culture, and self-flagellation leaves it ill-equipped to face a unified, ideologically driven adversary that sees compromise as weakness.

Moreover, the Palestinian narrative undermines efforts to build a stable Middle East, a region critical to global energy markets, trade routes, and security. By perpetuating a culture of rejectionism, Palestinian leaders derail peace initiatives, ensuring that the region remains a powder keg of violence and instability. The Abraham Accords, a historic breakthrough in Arab-Israeli relations, were achieved despite Palestinian objections, yet progressive critics in the West continue to prioritize Palestinian grievances over regional progress. This focus, conservatives argue, not only alienates moderate Arab states but emboldens Iran, a primary sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah, which exploits the Palestinian cause to advance its own hegemonic ambitions. The ripple effects—proxy wars, refugee flows, and terrorist attacks—destabilize Europe, Africa, and beyond, proving that the consequences of Palestinian radicalism are truly global in scope.The economic toll of this instability is equally significant. Terrorist attacks inspired by jihadist ideology, from 9/11 to the 2017 Manchester bombing, have cost billions in damages, security measures, and lost productivity, burdening Western economies already strained by internal challenges. The Palestinian territories themselves, despite receiving billions in aid, remain mired in poverty, not because of external oppression but because of corruption and the diversion of resources to violence. Conservative estimates, such as those from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, suggest that Gaza’s economy could thrive under peaceful governance, yet Hamas prioritizes rockets over roads, tunnels over trade. This economic stagnation fuels further resentment, perpetuating a cycle that destabilizes the region and draws Western powers into costly interventions.From a conservative lens, this crisis demands a radical shift in policy and mindset. The United States and its allies must reject the victimhood privilege as a legitimate basis for engagement, recognizing it as a tool of manipulation rather than a cry for justice. This means holding Palestinian leaders accountable—through sanctions on terror groups, conditions on aid, and public condemnation of incitement—while exposing the ideological roots of their rhetoric. It also requires a broader defense of Western values, unapologetically affirming the superiority of democracy, liberty, and secularism over theocratic extremism. Appeasement, disguised as compassion, has failed; only strength and clarity can restore stability.

The West must prioritize alliances with nations that share its principles, like Israel and the Gulf states, over those that exploit its goodwill for radical ends.In conclusion, the Palestinian exploitation of victimhood to advance radical Islam poses a profound threat to global stability, from a conservative perspective. By fueling anti-American sentiment, empowering jihadist groups, and setting a precedent for grievance-driven extremism, it undermines the free world’s security and cohesion. The West’s distraction with guilt and relativism only exacerbates this crisis, weakening its resolve to confront an ideology that seeks its destruction. Other regions, from Kashmir to Africa, risk following this dangerous model, amplifying chaos worldwide. The United States and its allies must act decisively, rejecting victimhood as a policy guide and embracing strength, clarity, and an unflinching defense of their values. Failure to do so risks a future where radicalism reigns, and the principles that sustain global order crumble under the weight of unchecked hatred.