You’d be right - but not for the obvious reasons.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) is a self-styled national ‘movement’ (blacklivesmatter.com). To quote its homepage, it aims to resist state violence against the powerless. It fights against racism. It’s against “extrajudicial killings of Black people by police and vigilantes” . It defends the oppressed (Blacks) against the crimes of the oppressor (the police). It fights genocide against Blacks.

The ‘Palestinian Cause’ also calls itself a national movement. Like BLM, it, resists [alleged Israeli] state violence against the powerless—the ‘Palestinian people’. It, too, struggles for "justice."

Both BLM and the ‘Palestinian Cause’ embrace an ‘ideology of the underdog’. Both see their constituencies as innocent ‘underdogs‘ oppressed by a brutal ‘overdog’—an entity more powerful than they Both seek equality (ibid). Both are linked to violence.

They embrace each other (“Black Lives Matter voices solidarity with Palestinians”, presstv, August 12, 2016). They embrace because, they say, their struggles are similar Both stand for freedom against racism and oppression (ibid). Both “fight against imperialism, capitalism, militarism and white supremacy” (from the BLM platform, as quoted by Audrey Bomse, “Furore (sic) over Black Lives' support of Palestine reveals movement's true allies” middleeasteye, August 11, 2016). Both are “liberation movements”

BLM and the ‘Palestinian Cause’ also share something else: they promote the ‘ideology of the underdog’ by means of a ‘Social Justice narrative’.

Social Justice has three components, ‘social/societal’, ‘justice’ and ‘narrative’. Social justice is a good idea—in theory. It’s a dream for a better society. It achieves ‘justice’ by correcting what’s wrong and oppressive in society. In theory, it focuses on equal rights, equal opportunity, equal housing, etc.

The social justice ‘narrative’ is the vehicle that propels the ‘movement’. It’s the medium for the movement message.

It contains three main principles:

(1) The narrative is more important than fact.

(2) The narrative is never wrong.

(3) The narrative must be endlessly repeated.

Through these principles, BLM and the ‘Palestinian Cause’ never go off-topic. Their individual message never gets side-tracked by law, fact or reality.

With both BLM and the ‘Palestinian Cause’, facts are irrelevant. For example, when a 16-year old Arab teen attacks police with a knife and is killed doing that, the narrative says, ‘IDF kills boy’. That keeps alive the narrative of evil Israelis brutalizing innocent ‘Palestinians’. But didn’t the boy die trying to commit murder? That’s irrelevant. Didn’t the police shoot in self defense? That’s irrelevant.

Narrative trumps fact. What matters is, the racist overdog (Jew) has again killed the underdog (‘innocent’ ‘Palestinian’).

In America, six police officers in Baltimore, Maryland were charged with either murder or manslaughter for the death of a Black man (in 2015) who died while in police custody. BLM charged white police racism (Paul Sperry, “Judges and juries keep acquitting the cops whom Black Lives Matter calls racist”, newyorkpost, July 19, 2016). Three of the officers charged were Black. That wasn’t relevant. They were cops. Therefore, they were white racists (Mike McDaniel, “Freddie Gray case, Update 35.7”,statelymcdanielmanor, June 24, 2016).

Facts are irrelevant. What matters is, the racist overdog (police) has again killed the underdog (‘innocent’ black man).

The same ‘evil-white-racist-kills-innocent-black’ story happened in Florida (Bob Burnett, “Racism in America: the killing of Trayvon Martin”, huffingtonpost, July 19, 2013). It happened in Ferguson, Missouri (Jon Swaine, “Michael Brown shooting: 'They killed another young black man in America'”, guardian, August 12, 2014). It happened in Minneapolis, Minnesota (Glen Ford, “Philando Castile Was Killed Because He Was Black, Not Because He Had A Gun”, therealnetworknews, July 12, 2016).

In each of these incidents, aggressive behaviour by the supposed ‘victim’ is irrelevant. Social justice isn’t about law It’s about underdogs being killed by racist overdogs (the police in America; security forces in Israel). What matters is that the underdog’s death must be avenged: that vengeance is the justice. Law is irrelevant.

Social justice narratives are destructive. They’re the antimatter to the rule of law’s matter (“Freddie Gray case, Update 36.5”,statelymcdanielmanor, July 15, 2016). The prosecution in the Baltimore police trials rejected the rules of law and evidence to seek a social justice (vengeance) outcome (see below). Every advocate for the ‘Palestinian Cause’ does the same thing (Chloe Valdary, “To the Students for Justice in Palestine, a letter from an angry Black woman”, tablet, July 28, 2014).

When you read the details of the Gray trials, you see the prosecution abandoning the rule of law and embracing social justice, which called for the blood of the police officers. Evidence? Fact? None of that mattered (“Freddie Gray case, Update 36.5”,statelymcdanielmanor, July 15, 2016).

It’s the same with the Arab-Israel conflict. When Hamas or ‘Palestinians’ attack Israel and Israel responds (or defends itself), the UN condemns Israel. Fact? Evidence? What actually happened? None of that matters.

What matters is the Social Justice Narrative. In America, that means each and every officer in the Gray trials should have been found guilty on all counts and jailed. That would have been justice. In the Arab-Israel conflict, it means each and every IDF soldier and Israeli leader should be charged with war crimes and jailed. That’s justice.

-Social justice says that the police are systemically racist (Ben Shapiro, “Some Black Lives Matter Activists Want To Abolish The Police. Here’s What Would Happen Next”, thedailywire, July 12, 2016).

-Israel is systemically racist (“Black Lives Matter Has No F***S Left For Israel: You Are A Racist State”, usuncut, August 4, 2016).

-The police are an ‘occupying force’ (Shapiro, ibid).

-Israel is an ‘occupying force’ (Adam Kredo, “[Hilary] Clinton Accuses Israel of Being Occupying Force”, washingtonfreebeacon, June 10, 2014).

The only solution is to end ‘the occupation’ (Shapiro, ibid). Therefore, for Justice, get rid of the police (Shapiro, ibid). For Justice, get rid of Israel (“Op-ed in PA daily anticipates Israel’s end: “The occupation of Palestine… will end with the return of the occupiers to the place from where they came”, Source: Official PA daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Apr. 26, 2016; from Palestinian Media Watch).

That’s the social justice version of reality. All crimes against the underdog—real, imagined and manufactured--must be avenged. Otherwise, there’s no justice.

In the social justice universe, law is useless. Under rules of law, the underdog always remains underdog. The only way to get justice is to make the underdog the overdog. This is what every anti-police and anti-Israel protest is about: the overdog is evil; he must be removed for justice’s sake.

In the social justice universe, you must abandon the rules of law. Justice occurs only when the underdog replaces the overdog. That’s what BLM wants. It’s what the ‘Palestinian Cause’ wants.

This grotesque demand that the underdog replace and remove the overdog has the power to destroy Western civilization. The joining together of BLM, the ‘Palestinian Cause’ and Social Justice will not bring justice to the world. It will bring chaos, war and tyranny.

It’s a love triangle that will not end well.