A day after the October 7 attack, 35 student groups at Harvard, along with hundreds of other student organizations from various Ivy League schools, released a statement declaring that they “hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence.”
The Chicago chapter of Black Lives Matter (BLM) posted an image on social media depicting a paraglider with a Palestinian flag, symbolizing a Hamas militant’s method of crossing from Gaza into Israel. The paraglider has since become a prominent symbol of solidarity with Palestinians.
The Democratic Socialists of America (AOC’s party) promoted a pro-Palestinian rally in New York, where attendees reportedly chanted, “Resistance is justified when people are occupied.”
A popular left-wing freelancer tweeted, “What did y’all think decolonizing meant? Vibes? Papers? Essays?”
For those in left-wing political activism who take pride in the left’s historical stance on colonialism, this was seen as a measured, somewhat timid response to what they view as the bare minimum left-wing principles required in such a situation. They called for even more support, further demonstrations, and increased pressure on institutions and governments—not to condemn Hamas’ actions on October 7, but to express support. Some even suggested that a truly revolutionary movement should be sparked in America to break the chains of elite systems that support and help maintain Israel’s occupation of Palestine.
This “shocked” those on the other side, leaving them in a state of anger and bewilderment. “How could the left—our allies in BLM, LGBTQ, and climate movements—not only fail to condemn terrorism against Jewish people but also appear supportive of a terrorist organization like Hamas?”
The “other side” refers to center-left individuals, Jewish liberals, and elite Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), as well as Jewish left-wing academics and professors, often radicals on many issues—except when it comes to Palestine. “The glorification and justification of violence against civilians is not something I’ve seen in this movement in the 25 years I’ve been studying it,” said a representative from the ADL.
The sentiments of Jewish organizations and those in power towards Palestinians were summed up by Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who said of Palestinians, “We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly.” From their perspective, long-standing left-wing principles of social justice, universal freedoms, and liberation cannot be applied to Palestinians, because to them the Palestinians are “animals” or animal adjacent. And if left-wing principles do not support such actions, then those advocating for the rights of the Palestinians are themselves “terrorists.” This explains why mainstream media, pro-Israel groups, the GOP, and even some Democrats in Congress have readily described students and activists supporting Palestine as “Hamas supporters” or even “terrorist sympathizers.”
Pro-Israel liberals and left-wingers have invoked their default complaint—“We didn’t abandon our left-wing values; the left abandoned us”—to console themselves over the perceived erosion of their political and religious morals. Rather than justify their moral shift and regression in liberal and left-wing ethics in a civil manner, pro-Israel liberals and leftists have adopted authoritarian and oppressive tactics they once claimed to oppose.
Authoritarian Billionaires
In an attempt to reclaim the left from what they view as “pro-Hamas students” and suppress pro-Palestinian protests, Jewish liberals, with the help of donors, billionaires, and the GOP, launched extensive campaigns of intimidation, defamation, and cancellation. Students who simply called to “stop the genocide” were branded as “antisemites,” “Jew-haters,” “anti-Americans,” or even “Islamic terrorists.” Faculty members, administrators, and Ivy League presidents were summoned before Congress for grueling and humiliating interrogations.
When Congress’s aggressive Gestapo-like tactics failed to produce the desired results, universities were threatened with financial boycotts and potential bankruptcy unless they fired their presidents. Donors and alumni coordinated a massive campaign, warning universities they would not contribute a penny unless they replaced leadership with individuals of their choosing.
Their leverage lay in university endowments—the financial lifeblood of elite schools. These endowments are funded by private donors, alumni, and ultra-wealthy philanthropic families, many of whom now draped themselves in the Israeli flag, marching fiercely. in support of genocide and brutal occupation.
Universities caved to the pressure, fired their presidents, and called their protesting students on cops. As a result, students had their encampments vandalized and destroyed, many of them suspended or expelled. It didn’t end there. Leading universities in America updated their rules of conduct–classifying Zionism as a protected minority class.
This classification allows IDF soldiers who may have participated in the Gaza genocide to roll on the floor and claim victimhood when pressed on morality for their egregious actions. They can now also use the civil rights protection laws as lawfare to harass you and end your career.
This leads us to a critical question: who abandoned whom, and who is attempting to change whom in order to subvert left-wing ideals and principles in service of Israel, or vice versa? To find the answer, we need to look back at history and examine what left-wing principles say about violent resistance against colonialism—specifically, the Palestinian resistance.
Historically, the left has viewed violent resistance to violent oppression as not only justifiable but morally righteous.
Prominent leftist thinkers, like Frantz Fanon, argued that violence was often necessary for colonized peoples to reclaim their autonomy and dignity. The Cuban Revolution in 1959, for instance, became a powerful symbol of successful armed resistance against imperialism. Leftists worldwide celebrated these uprisings as legitimate struggles against oppression.
This support wasn’t limited to rhetoric. The left embraced and actively supported liberation movements across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Whether it was the Viet Cong in Vietnam or African liberation movements, these armed struggles were seen as interconnected with the broader fight against systemic racism and oppression at home. The same logic applied to the Palestinian cause.
On the Palestinian front, the left proudly supported Palestinian freedom fighters. This support was not only rhetorical but also involved financial and military recruitment efforts. The Palestinian resistance, especially after the 1967 Six-Day War, became a symbol of anti-colonial struggle, gaining admiration and backing from leftist movements worldwide.
1967 vs OC 7
Much like Hamas’ October 7 attack woke many people—some on the left—to the realities of Palestinian suffering, a single attack on the border between Jordan and Israel in 1967 catapulted Palestinian fighters to prominence as revolutionary figures.
After the Six-Day War in 1967, millions of Palestinians were forcibly expelled from their ancestral homes by Israeli forces. Hungry, humiliated, and helpless, they crossed the River Jordan and set up a refugee camp on the border between Jordan and Palestine/Israel. Six weeks later, with no help in sight from the Arab world or the international community, these Palestinian refugees decided to take matters into their own hands. They formed a guerrilla resistance movement called Fatah, led by Yasser Arafat, aiming to liberate their homeland and reestablish Palestine.
From the Jordanian bank, they could see Israeli patrols occupying what was once their homeland. Fatah fighters began launching guerrilla attacks, crossing into the occupied West Bank to lay traps and strike Israeli military targets. They used landmines to disrupt military transport, but tragically, one such mine destroyed a bus full of schoolchildren. This incident gave Israel the justification it needed to attempt to push Palestinians even further from the border and, ideally, beyond Jordan.
The Israeli army, one of the best-equipped in the world, was ordered to eliminate rebel bases both along the Jordanian border and within Jordan itself. Against this formidable force, 300 poorly armed Palestinian refugees faced off, creating a real-life David vs. Goliath scenario. Under Arafat’s leadership, they stood their ground and, after a fierce battle, emerged victorious, driving the Israeli army back across the border. This unlikely victory shocked the world.
The Palestinians framed their triumph as not just a victory for themselves but for all colonized peoples, showing that resisting colonialism by any means necessary could lead to success. This victory inspired freedom fighters from all over the world to join their cause. More than 50 guerrilla organizations and radical leftist groups from Africa, Asia, South America, and Europe flocked to Jordan to fight alongside Arafat and support the Palestinian liberation struggle.
These were the days when terrorism wasn’t wielded as a weapon to delegitimize the oppressed and marginalize their solidarity. The left, at that time, viewed such resistance movements as legitimate efforts to fight colonialism and imperialism, a perspective that has been co-opted—or in some cases, altered—over time.
It wasn’t just global rebels who were captivated by the Palestinian cause after their heroic victory; the media, too, was swept up in what could be called “desert fever.”
Back then, media coverage was notably different from what we see today. Even conservative outlets took a more impartial approach, attempting to cover the story from both sides without heavy editorializing. Meanwhile, the left-wing media and even many liberal outlets rallied behind the Palestinian resistance.
One particularly striking example was Time Magazine, which featured Yasser Arafat on its cover, elevating him to global prominence. The magazine did not shy away from praising Arafat and the Palestinian resistance fighters. It painted Arafat as a revolutionary icon, casting him and his fighters as brave underdogs in their battle for freedom and self-determination.
In its description, Time portrayed Arafat as a figurehead for a broader struggle, a man who embodied the courage and defiance of the Palestinian people. His fighters were depicted not as terrorists but as freedom fighters standing against an occupying force. The narrative of David versus Goliath resonated deeply, particularly among leftist readers and activists who saw in Arafat’s struggle the same anti-colonial fight they supported in other parts of the world.
“Arafat (his code name is Abu Ammar) sits at a wooden desk in his headquarters in Amman, dealing with a procession of couriers like a general on a field of battle, which in a sense he is. When a guerrilla comes in to report a successful raid, Arafat’s eyes, bulging almost to the panes of the dark glasses he wears day and night, dance with delight. He speaks softly and turns aside all questions about himself.”
The Magazine, out of both personal and ideological infatuation with Arafat printed his violent riddled quotes without censorship or Jewish Jihadsplaining it (Midrashizing).
“Please, no personality cult. I am only a soldier. Our leader is Palestine. Our road is the road of death and sacrifice to win back our homeland. If we cannot do it, our children will, and if they cannot do it, their children will.” –TIME, Dec. 13, 1968.
Can you imagine Time Magazine or any other mainstream media outlet doing this today about Yahya Sinwar or the late Ismael Haniyeh without first obtaining permission from the ADL, AIPAC, and the Israeli government?
We don’t have to imagine that because we have all been closely watching their behavior since the OC 7 attacks. Including the adjectives they choose to use to describe Palestinians are even more heinous and vicious than the Israeli bombs daily dropped on Gaza. using only contorted and caricatured images of them in their stories to emphasize their evilness.
The mainstream media due to the biases of those writing the stories and who were supposed to be the representatives of the “left” constantly refer to civilians exterminated by Israel as just “dead” apparently without a cause.
The entire Western media deploys a Protocols of Elders of Zion-level broad brush against Palestinians. When it comes to Palestine, the lines between what is conspiracy and what is facts, what is hate and what is news, what is propaganda and what is truth is all blurred.
The average chief bureau for most major US media outlets in the Middle East cannot be in any way distinguished from a QAnon on 4Chan from his mother’s basement in Russia or in the deep South.
Even Thomas Friedman, the widely read columnist for the New York Times and the supposedly most “liberal” voice in the paper removed Israel from its responsibility for murdering 40,000 Palestinians mostly civilians, and placed it squarely on Yahya Sinwar. He, out of nowhere concocted a heinous conspiracy that the 40, 000 Palestinians murdered by Israel were actually “sacrifices “ by Yahya Sinwar for the sympathies of a few thousand teenagers on TikTok.
Inventing Terrorism to Protect Apartheid
Those glowing, heroic stories in the late 1960s about the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and its charismatic leader, Yasser Arafat, ignited a wave of enthusiasm among left-wing activists across the globe. Inspired by media portrayals of Arafat and his resistance fighters, many left-wing individuals left the comfort of the West to join the Palestinian struggle against Israel. Overnight, the PLO gained significant military and financial power as volunteers poured in from all over the world. They established their base in Amman, Jordan’s capital, becoming a formidable force in the region.
However, as the PLO’s influence grew, so did its ambitions. Emboldened by international support and the flood of recruits, they felt powerful enough to challenge the Jordanian monarchy itself. In 1970, the PLO attempted to overthrow King Hussein of Jordan, leading to a bloody conflict known as “Black September.” This internal clash would set the stage for future tensions between Palestinian resistance groups and neighboring Arab governments.
For Israel, this period marked a significant turning point. For the first time since its creation in 1948, Israel faced a real challenge—not to its existence, as Israeli leaders often claimed, but to its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories. Under international law, the occupation was considered unlawful, giving native Palestinians legal justification for resistance. Israel’s usual narrative that any resistance was simply a manifestation of longstanding Arab or Muslim hatred of Jews was no longer adequate. Now, it wasn’t just Arabs fighting against them—there were radical left-wing whites, Blacks, and brown people from all over the world, including Germans, Irish, Canadians, Africans, and Americans, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Palestinians in the fight for liberation.
Alarmed by this growing international solidarity, Israel called an emergency meeting in Tel Aviv, summoning its Hasbara (propaganda) experts from around the world. After long, intense sessions, they devised a plan: use their influence in the United States and other Western countries to rebrand the Palestinian resistance as “terrorists.” This label would not only stigmatize the resistance, making it toxic and dangerous for international banks and businesses to engage with them, but it would also make anyone who provided support—financial, material, or moral—subject to criminal and financial repercussions.
However, there was a significant hurdle to overcome. The Palestinian resistance fighters weren’t some well-established organizations with office buildings, international trading companies, or deep ties to Western financial systems that could be easily targeted and sanctioned. They were mostly refugees, living in makeshift camps, scattered across Jordan, Lebanon, and other parts of the region. They lacked the financial infrastructure that could easily be isolated by the banking system. Furthermore, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, banking regulations and tracking of funds were not as stringent as they are today, making it difficult for Israel to completely sever the Palestinian resistance’s access to resources.
However, one thing about the Israelis, they are ruthless. And when they set their eyes on their target, even if that target is a baby or a pregnant woman they don’t shoot them in the leg, or arms, they go straight to the head. And that was exactly what they tried to do to these desperate refugee resisters. The Israelis went after UNRWA. UNRWA the (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) is a UN organization specifically set up to take care of displaced and looted Palestinians after the Nakba–which is once again under attack amid Israel’s current war on Gaza. Israel called upon its fixers and lobbyists in DC to get to work.
Rep. Leonard Farbstein of New York was identified by the Israeli fixers as the man to lead the efforts in Congress on their behalf. And within a few weeks in 1969 for the first time in American history the word “terrorism” entered the legislative lexicon.
Farbstein aggressively went after UN organizations feeding the displaced and genocided Palestinians. “These camps are being used for training purposes and the young children for whom the schools are being built and who are being fed and clothed are being trained as terrorists in these refugee camps,” stated Farbstein to justify his Orwellian legislative move.
Farbstein’s bill “set down a decades-long pattern that legally inscribed the Palestinian — and especially the refugee — as the default terrorist,” the report notes.
Israel’s DC fixers pushed legislation after legislation throughout the 1970s-1980s to essentially create a legislative Iron Dome around Israel with a trigger mechanism: sanctions. This gave the secretary of state the authority to designate foreign countries as “state sponsors of acts of international terrorism.” Since then, the U.S. has repeatedly applied the label to countries in the Middle East and North Africa, excluding them from aid and trade and isolating them from the broader international community.
Zionist groups like the ADL, AIPAC, and many others continued to wield the legislative powers of the US Congress as their own Israeli weapon to kill and silence any resistance against Israel.
In 1987, weeks after the outbreak of the largely nonviolent First Intifada, Congress for the first and only time designated a nonstate group, the Palestine Liberation Organization, a “terrorist organization.”
This move was much more dangerous and wide-reaching than it sounded on paper. Designation of the PLO as a “terrorist” movement effectively cut off the left to show any solidarity with the PLO and by extension the Palestinian people. They didn’t stop there. They got the U.S. lawmakers to inscribe “terrorism” provisions in immigration and civil law, to target members of the Palestinian resistance movement, their supporters and anyone who protested on their behalf. In 1990, Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to list “terrorism” as a basis for deportation and the denial of entry into the United States. The legislation once again singled out the PLO, noting that any “officer, official, representative, or spokesman” all of this sounds familiar? It does because we are reliving that moment again, following the OC attacks.
Today we have billionaires and Israel lobbyists using their influence in DC to push Congress, and Trump to threaten deportation and visa restrictions to anyone who shows empathy for the Palestinian people.
So, to answer our question, the left didn’t become radicals overnight, abandon its principles, and leave the Jews: the Jews left the Left for Israel. Jewish people left the Left for Israel, which has become a genocidal authoritarian monster with an arm of international billionaires, oligarchs, and NGO bullies.
