Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer
The Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, did not create the convergence between sections of the Western left and Islamist movements. It exposed a political relationship that had been developing for decades. The killing of Israeli civilians raised an uncomfortable question: how could movements that claim to defend human rights, democracy and freedom find common ground with organisations whose political objectives often conflict with these principles? The answer lies partly in their shared opposition to the United States and Israel. Often described as the Red-Green alliance, this convergence brings together elements of the radical left and political Islam. It is neither a formal alliance nor a unified movement. Rather, it is a meeting of interests in which otherwise incompatible groups find common ground against a perceived common enemy.
After October 7, sections of the international left interpreted the attack primarily through the history of Palestinian dispossession and Israeli occupation. These issues deserve serious attention, but they cannot justify the deliberate killing of civilians or the taking of hostages. Explaining the conditions that produce violence is not the same as excusing it. Equally, condemning Hamas does not absolve Israel of responsibility for its military actions or the suffering of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
The distinction matters because political solidarity loses its credibility when it becomes selective about human suffering. The origins of this relationship extend beyond the present conflict. Marxist movements divided society into opposing classes, while the Muslim Brotherhood, established in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, developed a transnational political movement based on an Islamic vision of society. Their ideologies differed fundamentally, but opposition to Western influence eventually provided opportunities for cooperation.
During the Cold War, Arab nationalism, anti-colonial movements and revolutionary ideologies frequently identified the United States as the principal defender of an unequal international order. Israel, closely aligned with Washington, became part of this political opposition. The Palestinian struggle consequently acquired significance beyond its immediate territorial dimensions. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 provided another example. Some Western left-wing intellectuals welcomed the overthrow of the Shah as a defeat for American influence. Yet the Islamic Republic that emerged under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini pursued a religious political order fundamentally different from the secular and individual freedoms defended by much of the Western left. This contradiction remains central to the Red-Green alliance. The secular left and Islamist movements do not share a common vision of democracy, religion or personal freedom. Their cooperation rests largely on opposition to Israel and Western power.
Universities, political organisations and social media have become important arenas for this convergence. The language of colonialism, racial inequality and oppression increasingly shapes debates about Israel. Some criticism addresses genuine concerns, including occupation, settlements and Palestinian political rights. The difficulty arises when a complicated conflict is reduced to a simple division between oppressor and oppressed. The writings of Antonio Gramsci, Frantz Fanon and Edward Said have influenced debates about cultural power, colonialism and political resistance. Their ideas, however, should not be blamed for every position later advanced in their name. The problem emerges when theoretical arguments replace the examination of evidence and the conduct of political actors. Under such an approach, violence by a movement considered oppressed may receive less scrutiny than violence committed by its opponent. Hamas’s killing of civilians can then become secondary to its claimed role in Palestinian resistance.
The same selectivity appears in debates about antisemitism and Islamophobia. Anti-Muslim prejudice must be challenged, but accusations of Islamophobia should not prevent legitimate criticism of Islamist organisations. Similarly, criticism of the Israeli government is not inherently antisemitic, yet hostility towards Jews or the denial of their equal rights cannot be excused as political activism. Slogans such as “from the river to the sea” demonstrate the problem. Those who use the phrase interpret it in different ways, but many Israelis and Jewish communities understand it as a call for the elimination of Israel. Advocates of Palestinian freedom must recognise that self-determination cannot be secured by denying another people its rights and security.
The convergence has also entered electoral politics in Western democracies. Candidates seeking support among progressive voters have addressed concerns about discrimination, immigration, foreign intervention and the war in Gaza. These are legitimate political issues. However, solidarity with Palestinians becomes problematic when it requires uncritical acceptance of Hamas or rejection of Israel’s right to exist. Zohran Mamdani’s positions on Israel and his support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement have fuelled this debate in New York. His supporters frame his approach as opposition to Israeli policies and advocacy for Palestinian rights, while critics question its implications for Jewish security and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Such disagreements should be examined on their merits. Support for Palestinian rights does not automatically make someone an ally of Islamism, just as criticism of Zionism does not by itself establish antisemitic intent. The essential test is whether a political position recognises equal rights and rejects violence against civilians.
The Red-Green alliance is unlikely to remain stable indefinitely. Islamist movements may seek a religious order, while the secular left generally supports a different social and political arrangement. Their disagreements over gender equality, freedom of expression and the role of religion cannot be permanently concealed by a shared opposition to Israel. For now, however, the common adversary continues to provide a basis for cooperation. Social media reinforces simplified narratives, while political polarisation discourages people from questioning the actions of their own side. Democratic societies must protect peaceful protest and criticism of governments while rejecting threats, antisemitism and anti-Muslim discrimination. They must also distinguish advocacy for Palestinian rights from support for attacks on Israeli civilians.
The central issue is not whether Israel should be beyond criticism. No state should be. It is whether the same moral standards apply to all political actors. Palestinian suffering deserves recognition, Israeli civilians deserve protection, and both peoples have a right to security and dignity. Political solidarity is meaningful only when it upholds these principles consistently. When opposition to a common enemy becomes more important than human rights, an alliance may gain political strength, but it loses its moral foundation.
Dr. Muhammad Akram Zaheer
Assistant Professor Pakistan Studies
Imperial College of Business Studies Lahore
