When the Story Begins in the Middle

From Huda Kattan to Billie Eilish: When the Story Begins in the Middle

After October 7, the question was not only how Israel would defend itself, but how the story of that defense would be told.

In the months since the Hamas massacre, in which 1,200 Israelis were murdered and more than 240 abducted, public discourse across much of the Western cultural sphere has taken on a recognizable shape. Moral language is abundant. Context is selective. Outrage is intense. Sequencing is inconsistent.

Recent controversies surrounding Huda Kattan and Billie Eilish illustrate the dynamic. Kattan, whose global brand thrives within liberal democratic systems, faced backlash after remarks that aligned with anti-Israel narratives and softened the context of Hamas’s October 7 attack. Eilish, meanwhile, sparked debate after reducing questions of sovereignty and national self-determination to a slogan delivered on a Grammy stage, language that resonated with audiences already inclined to interpret events through a simplified moral frame.

Though distinct controversies, they share a common dynamic: the narrative frequently begins in the middle of the story.

When moral judgment is formed without anchoring the initiating act of violence, clarity erodes. Cause and effect blur. The event that triggered the conflict fades, while the consequences dominate the frame. What began as a response to a massacre is recast as a standalone act detached from its origin.

This pattern is not confined to celebrities. But celebrity culture accelerates it. Influential figures speak from platforms of extraordinary reach. Their words move faster than policy analysis. Their declarations travel farther than nuance. When complex geopolitical realities are compressed into slogans, the simplification shapes perception.

And perception shapes judgment.

Israel’s war did not begin in abstraction. It followed a coordinated attack carried out by a terrorist organization that openly declares its intent to destroy a sovereign state. That sequence is factual, not rhetorical. Yet in many cultural conversations, the initiating violence becomes backdrop while the aftermath becomes headline.

This is not about suppressing dissent. Democratic societies depend on debate. It is about intellectual coherence. A conflict cannot be understood if its starting point is treated as optional.

When narratives consistently begin after the first act, responsibility appears diffuse. Self-defense appears unprovoked. Democracies are judged without reference to the conditions that compelled them to act.

For Israel and for Jews worldwide, this sequencing carries consequences. Public discourse influences institutions. Cultural narratives shape political pressure. When the initiating atrocity is obscured, so too is the clarity with which terrorism is recognized and condemned.

Civilizations depend on order. Actions precede responses. Cause precedes effect. When that structure is inverted, moral reasoning weakens.

The controversies surrounding Kattan and Eilish will fade. Viral moments always do. The larger question is whether public discourse will recover its sense of sequence.

A story that begins in the middle is rarely told honestly.

And in the aftermath of October 7, honesty about where the story begins is not optional.