For decades the term “Red-Green Alliance” referred to the working partnership between Marxists/Progressives and environmentalists (a “watermelon” was an environmental activist who was Green on the outside and Red on the inside).
The first time I ever heard the phrased used in reference to Islam was in a post by Carl in Jerusalem. Since green is the color of the Saudi flag, and is prominent in many other Islamic flags and logos (including that of the Muslim Brotherhood), it makes sense to refer to the “Red-Green alliance” between the Left and Muslims. The “Left”, in this case, includes the excessively PC progressive-minded Christian denominations.
The latest newsletter from the The Tennessee Council for Political Justice discusses these matters as they pertain to Nashville and the state of Tennessee:
The Red-Green Alliance and the BDS Campaign
Groups interfaithing in Nashville under the Red-Green alliance include but are not limited to: the Muslim American Center for Outreach (ACO), the American Muslim Advisory Council (AMAC), the Family of Abraham (FOA), Clergy for Tolerance (CFT), Temple Ohabai Sholom, West End United Methodist Church, Vine Street Church, Christ Church Cathedral, Woodmont Christian Church, First Presbyterian Church, Glendale Baptist Church, University School, and Lipscomb University.
Organizers include Remziya Suleyman, Avi Poster, Irwin Venick, Daoud Abudiab, Bernard Werthan, Mary Shelton, Tom Negri, Rev. Heidi Hudnut-Beumler and Rabbi Laurie Rice, among others listed on their invitations.
Did Family of Abraham organizers Avi Poster, Irwin Venick and Rabbi Rice know about ISNA’s Jew hatred but invited ISNA’s representative anyway? What about ISNA’s support for Hamas and Sayyid Syeed’s complicity? Why is Jewish Federation Director Mark Freedman silent? Why does Rabbi Mark Schiftan want such a close relationship with Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR/Hamas supporters?
Could it be that they agree with Secretary of State Kerry that Israel does not have to be recognized as the Jewish homeland? Are they aligned with J Street and therefore have to work with the Islamists and pro-BDSers?
Did Rev. Michael Williams at UMC and event promoter Rev. Kleinert at Vine Street Christian Church bother to google their speaker and his associations? Have any of these people read the Quran? If not, they are politically naïve (Islam is a political ideology as well as a religion), and useful to Islam as dhimmis and apologists who are ignorant of the fact that Allah cautions Muslims to not take Jews and Christians as friends. Is this Quranic quote compatible with the goals of interfaith dialogue?
Hopefully ignorance is their answer to these questions. Otherwise, it seems that the Family of Abraham wanted to legitimatize what ISNA, its ally the Muslim Brotherhood and Syeed represent.
Respectful but Dishonest Dialogue in Nashville
The August 2013, Family of Abraham meeting at The First Presbyterian Church in Nashville featured Lipscomb University president Randy Lowry. He said that while “be[ing] honest about their differences” interfaithers should “focus on their interests — the things they really care about — rather than the issues that divide them.” Does he mean differences like wife-beating, polygamy, slavery, jihad against non-Muslims, death for apostasy, theocratic government, much less the story that God saved Ishmael, not Isaac from Abraham’s sacrifice? Does Lowry mean those differences?
Every person who identifies themselves as a liberal progressive and who suggests that Israel is both the problem and the answer to the problem, ignores the fact that Israel is the sole country in the Middle East with any measure of and commitment to religious diversity and democratic rule. Why it then hasn’t a group like FOA that claims to promote respect for religious diversity and social justice, taken a stand against BDS?
The reality is that Family of Abraham events feature Muslim speakers and others who counsel attendees about how everyone should want to get closer to Muslims in their communities because they are only different branches of the same family tree. The subtext of the meetings is Muslim victimhood and, by analogy, the same for their Middle Eastern brethren, the Arab Muslim Palestinians.
Progressive interfaithers claim those like ISNA’s Sayyid Sayeed represent “moderate” Muslims even though Sayeed and his organization do not condemn Hamas attacks on innocent civilians. Interfaithers also claim that Hamas/CAIR is a civil rights group even though its Executive Director Nihad Awad publicly declares his support for Hamas, and CAIR’s state leaders, Dawud Walid and Zahra Billoo, regularly demonize Jews and Israel and advocate for BDS.
Liberal Christian sects like the United Methodist and Presbyterian USA churches that champion BDS while ignoring the persecution of Christians by Muslims, one of the greatest human rights tragedies in the world today, should be working to keep their own houses in order instead of trying to weaken and harm Israel. All these individuals and organizations, whether Muslims, Christians, or Jews, should be publicly and loudly rejected by real peace-seekers and those that respect religious pluralism.
For the liberal Left and Progressives,the BDS campaign is the modern day replacement for the failed Marxist revolution. BDS has made it easy and socially acceptable to hate Jews but not be labeled a Jew hater. All you have to do is parrot the BDS slogans, demonize Israel and pretend to care about social justice for “Palestinians.”
Since there are no facts or truth to back BDS claims, it should be understood for what it really is — plain and simple Jew hatred…
I think there is another factor here than just Jew Hatred.
If you insult a Jew’s religion, you will probably be met by a nasty look and maybe an argument.
If you insult(or tell the truth about) Islam to a Muslim you might be killed.
This is called cowardice.
A very important article. The content is most important. it leads me to want to know more about all of these groups and individuals.
Towards the end you lead into the issue of “Marxist” when you refer to the “failed Marxist Revolution” (hope that quote is correct)m but I do not consider the 1917 October Revolution was a “marxist Revolution” rather it was a revolution by the working class. It was led by a party the key figures of whom were Marxists, especially Lenin and Trotsky. The difference may seem fine to most people but to me it is most important. If there had been no Lenin or Trotsky there would still have been serious unrest, but no successful taking of power. Also you have not shown how these people you refer to have anything to do with Marxism. But still thanks for other information.
So, Mr. Quigley, according to your view there was no non-communist revolution. There was simply (working class) unrest that went nowhere. Communist leadership, however, effected an actual revolution that would not otherwise have taken place.
Therefore, the 1917 October Revolution was a “marxist Revolution.” Everything that took place subsequent to 1917 was decided upon by communists. Hardly a “fine” distinction.
I feel my comment was inadequate because the reply above is polemical whereas we need a serious study of Russia from an historical angle, the rapid changes inside Russia with its rapid industrialisation, the situation in Russia in the months of 1917, the situation of Russia concerning World War 1, the situation of the Jews and concerning this factor the evidence that the White Russians provided the key element in German Nazism as described in work by Michael Kellogg and so on. When all of this is looked at closely there was a revolution, but counter revolution was also on the cards, and nobody has ever speculated even what that would have meant for the Jews of Russia in a period from 1917 on for at least a decade