Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
This is a guest essay by Chico Muya, a writer, political communicator, and YouTuber.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
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.”
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. And the only reason we know about it is because of an extraordinary mistake.
Elif Eralp is a politician in Die Linke, a radical Far-Left party in Germany. As of this writing, 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, Eralp gave an interview to the German magazine Der Spiegel, during which she was questioned about repeated incidents of antisemitism within her party — a problem that has become increasingly visible in other Left-wing political movements across the West. She claimed not to know the true extent of the problem but acknowledged 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 Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine supporters. He has publicly supported the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, another Palestinian terrorist organisation, and reportedly praised Yahya Sinwar, the mastermind behind October 7th, as a martyr and a hero.
Although Ibrahim is not himself a member of Die Linke, he has operated 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 Eralp the transcript for approval. Her team deleted the entire section mentioning Ibrahim. When they returned the document, they made one enormous mistake: They forgot to remove the internal comments.
And what those comments revealed was extraordinary. In them, Eralp admitted that both she and her husband were afraid of these people. She explained that she could not risk her family’s safety by publicly naming them, even though some members of her own party were associating with them. She was so concerned, in fact, that she even asked whether the entire interview could be cancelled.
And here’s where it gets even more disturbing. Eralp 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.
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.
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, and it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that some of the politicians aligning themselves with these movements 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 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?
And this concern extends far beyond 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 similar movements have made opposition to Israel a defining political issue, while the wider Democratic Party is 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 ordinary criticism of Israeli policy.
Of course, 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.”
And 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. 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. 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, meanwhile, has become the embodiment of Western “oppression” in their eyes: 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, with people who would normally condemn terrorism finding 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.
Within this moral framework, the question of who deserves sympathy and who deserves condemnation has already been answered. The actions themselves become secondary. Consider how some activists responded to October 7th. 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 had become more important than the brutality of the methods used to advance it.
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, they’ve helped open the door to a corrosive Islamist ideology that threatens not only their own political movements, but the very societies they want to govern.
And 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 within that same 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. And on top of those political considerations, she is, in her own words, afraid for her safety.
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 suddenly finds herself on the wrong side of that equation? What happens 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. And remember, we only discovered her private fears because someone accidentally sent the wrong document to a newspaper. Which raises a much bigger question: How widespread is this?
How many other politicians among the West’s 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? And how many are not afraid at all, because they genuinely share the radical beliefs of the people they’re associating with?
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.
And 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.
To acknowledge 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 actually represent a threat to the societies they claim to defend. For some, that is an admission they are unwilling to make. And 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.
Yes, absolutely it has invited the Trojan Horse right into America with open arms, flags waving!
The Left doesn’t care that it can’t control it. The Left’s first priority has always been the punishment of its enemies, and this the monster promisees to do. That it will also crush the Left, which is nihilist, the Left doesn’t care about.