Köppel critiques the left Israel and democracy

Sep 20

Köppel argues that Berlin's Left Party developments challenge democratic pluralism while defending the AfD as a legitimate opposition. He recalls Die Linke's election victory, says migration is part of the explanation but not the whole explanation, and describes fears among sections of Berlin's middle class and Jewish community. He describes Köktürk's posted Bochum video and repeats vulgar remarks against Israel, Netanyahu, Trump and people who disagree, arguing that an AfD politician would attract more sustained outrage. Turning to the British Greens, he says they equate Zionism with racism, punish advocacy of Israel's right to exist and rejected a special protection clause for Jewish members, citing Bild. He connects this to immigration and criticizes German assessments of the AfD, while arguing against colonial descriptions of Israel and briefly recalling the October 7 massacre. He says Berlin's election-winning Left candidate was involved with Rote Hilfe until 2025 and has partly distanced herself. He describes the organization's past terrorist support, explicitly leaves his state-funding assumption uncertain, and alleges a mass-migration strategy to abolish the market economy. He contrasts this with AfD positions, argues that militarily punishing Russia's breach of international law will prolong war while accepting the breach and finding an agreement can restore peace, and acknowledges that the far left also shares some preference for peace with Russia. He speaks of these developments as governing reality without documenting a formed coalition, then briefly invokes a German-in-Switzerland survey and closes with optimism. In the later closing return he suggests the political excesses could be a transitional or rearguard phase amid a return to conservatism. All allegations, voter explanations, comparisons and forecasts remain his account; no criminal finding, new British law or coalition agreement is established.

Kan reported that Die Linke finished first in Berlin's September 20 state election with 26 percent of the vote. Coalition formation remained open: the correspondent described the SPD as pivotal between an alliance with Die Linke and an alternative involving the center-right and Greens. The report included concerns from Jewish community representatives and Israel's ambassador about antisemitism within the party. Tagesschau's September 23 report independently recalls Die Linke's Sunday election victory while examining Berlin's prospective Olympic-bid withdrawal. It reports that the Senate may blame the party's longstanding opposition, but correspondent Sebastian Schöbel argues that the DOSB evaluation, funding doubts and weak public support are more decisive. It does not report a coalition agreement. AUF1's September 22 account adds that AfD won 16.3 percent, below earlier polls around 20 percent, and twelve constituencies, including five of six in Marzahn-Hellersdorf. It gives Die Linke 28 direct mandates, the CDU 27 and the SPD one. A later passage discusses a possible Left–SPD–Green government without reporting an agreement. Another return says BSW narrowly missed the five-percent threshold, preventing its participation in a possible parliamentary Covid inquiry; Alexander King expresses regret. Weltwoche's September 24 commentary adds Roger Köppel's critical but relatively calm assessment of Die Linke's victory. He describes a young activist party, questions the affordability of its housing, migration and policing proposals, welcomes its pacifist profile and connects its gains to opposition to the AfD and dissatisfaction with the Merz government. Citing blogger eugyppius, he disputes claims that Muslim voters were the main driver and points instead to former Green and SPD voters and new voters. His quoted two-to-ten-percent estimate of the Muslim-voter contribution is an attributed claim, without methodology or independently verified polling presented in the video. In a separate return, he predicts that financial realities will constrain the party's programme and urges caution about alarmist forecasts. No coalition agreement or implemented policy is reported. In the earlier September 22 Weltwoche edition, Köppel attributes Berlin's leftward shift partly to CDU and Merkel-era migration policy and the domestic consequences of the Middle East conflict. He criticizes Die Linke's expropriation platform and its positioning toward Israel while arguing that the CDU helped create the conditions for its success. These are causal and political interpretations, with no voter-study evidence presented. This account has a different emphasis from his September 24 discussion of voter origins; both editions are preserved. In the September 25 Weltwoche edition, Köppel emphasizes housing shortages and rent increases as reasons for Die Linke's appeal. He revisits the Wowereit government's municipal-housing sales during Berlin's financial crisis and subsequent costly buybacks, interpreting them as part of voters' dissatisfaction. He also highlights the party's peace stance and opposition to domestic surveillance, while criticizing its migration and policing proposals and predicting financial limits. He urges critics to understand left-wing voters as they would AfD voters and assigns responsibility for migration policy to Merkel's CDU. These are his causal interpretations, not a voter study, a new election result or a coalition agreement. ZDF's September 21 broadcast adds Merz's and Evers's first-hand account of CDU's disappointing Berlin result and two possible three-party combinations, without reporting agreement. Evers offers a centrist alternative and accepts a need for empathy and practical responses to voters' concerns. Maurer discusses BSW's exclusion and the Left's governing ambition; Faas analyses weakening traditional-party support, tactical voting and coalition compromises. Their diagnoses and predictions remain attributed. The substantive coalition offer is also identified as a distinct next-day occurrence. In his October 6 commentary, Köppel again recalls Die Linke's victory, attributes part but expressly not all of the explanation to migration, and describes radicalization and fears among parts of Berlin's middle class and Jewish community. These remain his interpretations and reported concerns, without a voter study or evidence of a formed coalition.