The Left has opened the door to deep antisemitism, Islamism and support for terrorism in our politics and societies, all under the banner of “pro-Palestine”.
I’ve been ringing this alarm for a while now, because the dangers of this movement have been as clear as day.
But a story that recently emerged from Germany reveals something even more disturbing: what happens when the very politicians who have embraced these movements become afraid of the people operating within them.
The only reason we know about it is because of an extraordinary mistake.
This Publication is 100% reader-supported. I release an article weekly and they’re completely free! But if you’re able to support, please consider a paid membership. It helps a tonne, and gives me more time to research and write. Either way, it’s lovely to have you here!
The Accidental Revelation
Elif Eralp is a politician in Die Linke, a radical far-left party in Germany. As of writing this, she’s seeking to become the mayor of Berlin.
She has accidentally revealed that she’s terrified of extremist pro-Palestinian activists operating in her party’s political circles, including people with alleged links to Hamas.
Here’s what happened.
In late October, she gave an interview to the German magazine Der Spiegel, where she was questioned about repeated incidents of antisemitism within her party. The same problem has become more visible in other left-wing political movements across the West.
She claimed that she didn’t know the true extent of the problem, but admitted that some members of her party were acting on behalf of Palestinians.
The journalist then asked whether she was referring to Ibrahim Ibrahim.
For context, Ibrahim is an extremist pro-Palestinian activist associated with a network of Hamas and PFLP supporters. He has publicly supported the PFLP, another Palestinian terrorist organisation, and reportedly praised Yahya Sinwar, the mastermind behind October 7, as a martyr and a hero.
Although Ibrahim is not himself a member of Die Linke, he has moved within political circles connected to the party, including attending one of its election celebrations in Berlin.
Eralp confirmed that he was one of the people she was referring to.
But here’s where things get crazy.
After the interview, Der Spiegel sent her the transcript for approval. Her team deleted the entire section mentioning Ibrahim.
But when they returned the document, they made one enormous mistake.
They forgot to remove the internal comments.
What those comments revealed was extraordinary.
In them, she admitted that both she and her husband were afraid of these people. She explained that she could not risk the safety of her family by publicly mentioning their names, even though some members of her own party were associating with them.
She was so concerned that she even asked whether the entire interview could be cancelled.
Here’s where it gets even more disturbing.
She compared her fears to dealing with organised crime, explaining that Berlin’s criminal police had previously advised her against publicly naming certain individuals.
But now, she said, she was dealing with people connected to Hamas.
I want you to sit with that for a moment.
Here is a European politician, someone who wants to govern the German capital, privately admitting that she is afraid to even name extremist activists operating in her own party’s political circles.
Not merely because of political embarrassment, but because she fears for the safety of her family.
This is the insanity of what people on the radical Left have allowed into their own political circles.
They’ve become victims of their own ideology.
When Ideology Becomes a Trap
I would be astonished if this were an isolated case.
Because this is no longer just about demonstrations in the streets. These people are pushing for policies that will change our societies. But it’s becoming clear to me that some of them are compromised by their own political alliances. They’ve embraced a movement containing elements that are deeply hostile to the West and its interests.
How is someone supposed to lead the capital of a major European country when she is afraid to publicly name an extremist activist associated with her own political circles?
Following these revelations, Eralp publicly insisted that she would stand against organised crime and terrorism, and that she would not allow anyone to intimidate her.
But how much confidence are we supposed to place in those assurances when, behind closed doors, she was so afraid of naming one extremist activist that she wanted the entire interview cancelled?
She wants to govern Berlin. Yet her private actions raise serious questions about her willingness to confront the very people operating within her own political circles. If she cannot bring herself to name them publicly, how can Berliners be confident that she will stand up to them when it matters?
This is not a concern limited to Germany.
Across the Western world, the Palestinian cause has become central to the identity of significant parts of the radical Left. In America, the Democratic Socialists of America and other progressive movements have made opposition to Israel a defining political issue. The wider Democratic Party is also facing growing internal divisions over Israel and Gaza.
In some of these circles, the distinction between opposing Israeli government policies and hostility toward Zionism itself has all but disappeared. Jews are often told that the problem is not Jews, but Zionists.
Yet for many Jews, Zionism simply means believing that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state. When Jewish identity or participation in political movements becomes conditional on rejecting that belief, we are dealing with something far more troubling than normal criticism of Israeli policy.
But to understand how we arrived at this point, we need to understand the worldview that makes these alliances possible.
The Hierarchy of Oppression
The radical Left views the world through a simple division: oppressed and oppressor.
People are placed into these categories according to race, ethnicity, sex, historical grievances, and perceived power. Within this framework, the more oppressed someone is believed to be, the less responsibility they are expected to bear for their actions in resisting that oppression.
In the pro-Palestinian movement, we’ve found what might be the ultimate expression of this worldview.
The Palestinians have become the undisputed winners of the oppression Olympics.
Their cause has acquired an almost sacred status in certain political circles. Anyone who stands with them can claim some of that moral authority, depending on their activism, their associations, or their proximity to Palestinians themselves.
The result is that behaviour which would normally be condemned can suddenly be explained away, minimised, or even celebrated.
Because once you’ve convinced yourself that you’re witnessing the greatest injustice on the planet, almost anything can be justified in the name of ending it.
The accusations of genocide, apartheid and ethnic cleansing have been turned up to a fever pitch. For many activists, this has become the defining moral struggle of our time, against which almost every other issue must be measured.
Israel has become, in their eyes, the embodiment of Western oppression. A powerful Western-aligned state standing against a supposedly powerless population.
This combination has helped produce one of the most radicalised political movements in recent memory.
It’s why the movement can sometimes take on an almost cult-like energy. It’s why people who would normally condemn terrorism find themselves defending or rationalising atrocities when they’re committed in the name of Palestinian resistance.
It’s also why politicians, celebrities and organisations are willing to bend the knee.
The moral framework has already decided who deserves sympathy and who deserves condemnation. The actions themselves become secondary.
Consider the way some activists responded to October 7. Even as Hamas terrorists massacred civilians, there were people in the West describing the attacks as resistance or liberation.
The supposed moral righteousness of the cause became more important than the brutality of the methods.
That is precisely where the danger lies.
The Ideology Turns on Its Own
Many of these leftists, some of whom know very little about the history or complexity of the conflict, genuinely believed they were standing on the side of humanity.
They threw their hearts and minds into the cause, convinced that they were defending the oppressed against the powerful.
Instead, I believe they’ve helped open the door to a corrosive Islamist ideology that threatens not only their own political movements, but the societies they want to govern.
This is what makes the story of Elif Eralp so frightening.
Her political environment has embraced a movement in which some of the most extreme activists openly celebrate terrorist leaders. Yet she now privately acknowledges being afraid of people operating in that environment.
Within the hierarchy of oppression, someone like Ibrahim Ibrahim occupies a position of considerable moral authority. His activism is associated with a cause that many on the radical Left regard as the ultimate struggle for liberation.
Eralp, meanwhile, is a politician seeking power within a movement whose activist base includes people sympathetic to precisely these ideas.
Speaking out against their extremist rhetoric could carry serious political consequences, particularly if the audience she depends upon has come to regard such activists as representatives of a righteous cause.
On top of that, in her own words, she is afraid for her safety.
The reason for this is simple.
Within this worldview, violence can become morally justified when committed by those considered oppressed, especially when it is framed as resistance against their oppressors.
But what happens when someone like Eralp finds herself on the wrong side of that equation? When speaking out against the very people her political circles have embraced risks turning her into an enemy of their cause?
The threat of violence is no longer something she can simply dismiss, because the ideological framework that has excused it is already present in the political environment around her.
We only discovered her private fears because someone accidentally sent the wrong document to a newspaper.
That raises a much bigger question.
How widespread is this?
How many other politicians in European left-wing parties are privately afraid of the extremist activists operating within or alongside their political movements? How many feel unable to confront them because doing so could cost them their political careers?
How many are not afraid at all, because they genuinely share the radical beliefs of the people they’re associating with?
The Trojan Horse
This is why I’ve been warning about the dangers of this movement for so long.
The problem isn’t simply that extremist individuals attend demonstrations or make inflammatory speeches. It’s what happens when their ideology begins to influence established political movements, when politicians become dependent upon their support, and when policies affecting millions of people are shaped by these relationships.
The consequences will not be confined to the radical Left.
They will affect the societies these people aspire to govern.
I believe this is why the whole “pro-Palestine” movement has become a Trojan horse. Under the language of human rights and liberation, it has created political space for Islamist extremism, antisemitism and the glorification of terrorism.
The very people who helped legitimise these forces may now find themselves unable to confront them.
Acknowledging the danger would mean questioning their ideological worldview, confronting the choices they’ve made and admitting that people they embraced in the name of humanity may represent a threat to the societies they claim to defend.
For some, that is an admission they are unwilling to make.
So the warning signs are ignored. The extremists are excused, and the public is told there’s nothing to worry about.
In Berlin, one politician’s private fears became public only because of a mistake.
I cannot help wondering how many more conversations like this are taking place behind closed doors, in political parties across the Western world.
Because the most frightening possibility is not simply that some politicians are afraid to confront the extremists they’ve embraced.
It’s that others no longer see anything wrong with embracing them in the first place.
This Publication is 100% reader-supported. I release an article weekly and they’re completely free! But if you’re able to support, please consider a paid membership. It helps a tonne, and gives me more time to research and write. Either way, it’s lovely to have you here!
Zionism is part of Jewish identity and is older than the State of Israel. It is a love for Israel. Zionism involves pride in our culture as Jews. The movement to attack Zionism is a movement to destroy Israel and the Jews. Once this is accomplished they will go for all the other infidels and dominate the world. The Communists tried this and this led to the Refusenick Movement. Read Izabella Tabarovsky “Be A Refusenik”.
Great article,
What I found out was that after they started bringing in the Turks and later the families of the Turks , they started replacing the old German crime families. Then the Lebanese, then the syrians , afganis and Palestinians and bingo those crime families all grew to the point where the police can't get anyone inside like the old days, it's real family, clan and tribe business now. And the later generations are being radicalized. And now the left is stuck..