History never announces when it begins. There is no bell declaring that one era has ended and another has begun. In real time, change can look like just another election, another poll, another unusual statement. Only in hindsight do we identify the moment when what had been considered impossible became possible, and what had been regarded as exceptional became part of reality. That is why the results of the Berlin election matter far beyond the composition of the city's parliament.
Die Linke won 25.7% of the vote, becoming the largest party in the German capital. The Alternative for Germany (AfD) received 16.3%, its best result ever in Berlin. Two parties on opposite ends of the political spectrum gained ground, while the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Social Democratic Party (SPD) lost support.
For Germany's Jews, this is no academic debate about voting trends. Gideon Joffe, chairman of Berlin's Jewish community, issued a stark warning over the result; Josef Schuster, president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, voiced deep alarm over what had taken place during the campaign; and at virtually the same time, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned that Jewish life in Germany "is no longer safe."
These three developments should be read together. Not because Germany in 2026 has somehow become a different Germany. Indeed, comparisons with the past can obscure what is happening in the present. Historical danger does not always lie in a repetition of what came before. Sometimes it emerges when the rules of the game gradually change, when the boundaries of what is considered acceptable expand and when the political center that is supposed to hold the extremes in check loses its strength. That is also why these developments matter to Israel.
Reading the trends
A country that wants to shape its future must recognize developments beyond its borders before they arrive at its doorstep. Israel is currently in the midst of an election campaign, and attention is naturally focused inward. Candidates are being judged on their answers to problems already on the table. But the test of leadership sometimes begins precisely with the challenges that have not yet arrived.
In periods of change, the heaviest price is often paid not for misreading reality, but for the comfort of continuing to believe that the familiar reality still exists. Berlin presents precisely such a test to those seeking to lead Israel.
What does the weakening of Europe's political center mean? What happens when forces that once existed outside the political mainstream evolve from protest movements into forces seeking to shape government? And what should Israel understand when Jews in a major European democracy begin reconsidering basic assumptions that seemed self-evident for decades?
There is no need to declare a catastrophe. The purpose of serious policymaking is to act before such declarations become necessary. Once reality imposes itself, leaders have fewer choices. The question is what they did while the warning signs were already visible but could still be interpreted in different ways.
The Berlin election results are neither the end of this process nor its beginning. They are a moment after which it becomes difficult to claim that the signs were not there. Leaders cannot know in advance which event will become a historic turning point, but they can be expected to recognize an accumulation of warning signs and prepare for the possibility that the familiar reality is changing.
The 90th minute is not the point at which we already know with certainty what is about to happen. It is the point at which there is still time to see, think and act before reality decides for us. Beyond that point, even leadership becomes merely a reaction.
