Skip to content
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Strategic Alliances for a Secure, Connected, and Prosperous Region

The Red-Green Alliance and the War against American Jewry, the American-Israel Alliance, and the Foundations of American Democracy

Filed under: Anti-Semitism, World Jewry
Publication: Jewish Political Studies Review

Jewish Political Studies Review
Volume 30, Numbers 3–4

The recent outburst of open antisemitism in American public life is a shocking development. No less disturbing than the hateful statements of Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar was the failure of the House of Representatives and its Democrat leadership to condemn this language forcefully and to disassociate themselves formally from expressions of hatred which offend against the American traditions of freedom of religion and civility. Some have called this development a “game changer.” According to Merriam-Webster, a “game changer” is a “newly introduced element or factor that changes an existing situation or activity in a significant way.” Although the failure to repudiate publicly expressed antisemitism may be a “game changer” in its own right, it should be identified as part of the greater game which is still being played out and which endangers the very foundations of democracy in America. One cannot speak of a “game changer” without first knowing the type of political warfare to which it belongs. According to the Prussian theoretician of war Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831), “the first of all strategic questions” is to identify the kind of war in which one is engaged.1 Following his recommendation, this article will focus upon the example of the Red-Green Alliance.

The Red-Green Alliance belongs to a broader category of political warfare known as the “Crossover.” A Crossover takes place when political groups which ostensibly are hostile to each other form an alliance of convenience in order to achieve a political goal. The Red-Green Alliance is an alliance of Islamists and the progressive left, but such an ad hoc arrangement is part of a more comprehensive plan. Before the advent of the Red-Green Alliance, there was the Red-Black Alliance, which referred to the alliance of communism and fascism as in the case of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. This included, for example, Stalin’s support for the rise to power of the Nazi Party,2 and on the eve of the Nazi invasion, the activation of the Communist Party of France to support domestic defeatism. An unpublished Georgetown University dissertation described the demoralization of France in dramatic terms: “A primary cause of the collapse [of France] was the disintegration of military morale accomplished by the Communist defeatist campaign directed against the French soldiers during the months following the signing of the German-Soviet nonaggression pact [August 29, 1939]. The fall of France [June 1940] was celebrated in both Moscow and Berlin, for France was as much a victim of Communist antimilitarism as of German militarism”.3 Similarly, during the immediate postwar years, the Soviet Union recruited members of the Nazi Party to fill key civil-service posts in the communist German Democratic Republic (DDR).4 One should not speak of ex-Nazis, because such individuals never ceased to be Nazis. In fact, Simon Wiesenthal published the names and party-membership numbers of a group of professional propagandists in the DDR who spread the mendacious Soviet accusation that Israel was the aggressor in the Six-Day War.5 He pointed out that these professionals used the identical language in the service of DDR leader Walter Ulbricht as they did for Hitler.6

Christopher C. Harmon examined the evolution of the Crossover in the post-1960 era and described the surprising cooperation between leftist and rightist terrorists in Italy, publishing his original findings in a 1985 article.7 Harmon, then a public affairs fellow at the Hoover Institution, focused on Mehmet Ali Agca, who attempted to assassinate Pope John Paul II on May 13, 1981. During his first interrogation, Agca proclaimed: “I am an international terrorist, ready to help other terrorists anywhere…. I make no distinctions between fascists and communists. My terrorism is not red or black; it is red and black.”8 Harmon noted that Agca’s crime represented the marriage of leftist and rightist terrorism. He added the valuable insight that fascists and leftist terrorists were united in their hatred of democratic institutions and shared the desire to destabilize them. He also noted that both received support from the Soviet bloc and its Arab clients:

Contrary to popular assumptions, not only have leftist and rightist terrorists not been shooting at one another, but there is accumulating evidence of their collaboration in the shared objective of crippling the democratic state. Indeed, a new type of terrorist has emerged – exemplified by the would-be assassin of Pope John II – who does not draw neat ideological distinctions in the causes he serves. A significant connecting cord between “red” and “black” wreakers of violence, moreover is the common denominator of support from the Soviet Bloc and its Arab clients.9

Harmon’s remarks are important because his main point is that the real targets of political terror, both of the right and the left, are the institutions of liberal democratic society. Following this reasoning, one may argue that while the recurrence of large-scale antisemitism in American society is shocking, the targeting of Jews and Israel belongs to a larger strategy whose real objective is to destabilize and destroy the institutions of democracy in America.

Several scholars and researchers have recently identified the presence of a Red-Green Alliance, particularly during the period following the 9/11 attack. In his book Rising from the Muck: The New Anti-Semitism in Europe, first published in 2002, the French thinker Pierre-André Taguieff described this alliance and its ideological foundations.10 In addition, the late Michael Kelly, a senior journalist for the Washington Post, portrayed this dynamic in his forceful column “Marching with Stalinists,” which ran on January 22, 2003. Kelly noted the deep hatred for America of the leftist-Stalinist group International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism). He was also shocked by the fact that the New York Times gave such sympathetic and encouraging coverage to their antiwar marches in Washington, San Francisco, and elsewhere.11

Ehud Rosen, a senior researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, has mapped out a selection of the leading Muslim activist organizations in Germany, France, Belgium, and the United States and their campaign to delegitimize Israel via the BDS movement.12 This work’s table of contents makes it clear that these organizations belong to a larger global enterprise. In summarizing his findings, Rosen states that “comprehensive and in-depth research is still missing; such research should isolate the main players – their structures and working methods, inner struggles and dynamics within the campaign, as well as attempts to convey their message in Western liberal language.”14

While the concept of the Red-Green Alliance has been known for some time, it has once again become a subject of serious discussion.  In a recent article, Philip Carl Salzman, emeritus professor of anthropology at McGill University, explains how the Red-Green Alliance has pushed for the delegitimization of Israel and the hatred of Jews on the university campus:

The unholy marriage of the progressive left and far right Islamists is seen nowhere clearer than on university campuses, where the anti-Semitism of the leftist Students for the Liberation of Palestine and the Muslim Students Society encompasses both Jews and Zionists…. Today, on campuses, Jewish students and professors, those who do not support anti-Semitic initiatives, are under attack from progressives and Islamists. Hating Jews is the glue that holds together the progressive–Islamist (or red–green) alliance, which now shares anti-Semitic attitudes with far-right racists and neo-nazis. This is what they call “social justice.”16

Beyond the pragmatic advantages of such an alliance, there is a type of shared ideological affinity which must be appreciated. Liel Leibowitz of Tablet Magazine argues that one of the BDS movement’s ideological objections to Judaism concerns its values, which by nature run counter to the monolithic and authoritarian approach of BDS:

American universities are openly breaking their bonds with the Jewish community by embracing active discrimination against Jewish students and rejecting their intellectual, emotional, and moral attachments to the values of equal human dignity, universal rights, critical inquiry, and rational thought.

…Jewish students should take note. What the undergraduate Jacobins…hate isn’t Bibi Netanyahu, or the “occupation,” or even Zionism. What they hate are the values that used to make American universities great, and that made Jews such a great fit for American universities. In an intellectual environment increasingly governed by fear—adopt our rigid worldview or be labeled racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, ableist, or worse—and living almost entirely in the shadows, away from public scrutiny, the true intellectual seeker is not an asset but a liability…. They’re disliked and targeted because of who they are.17

While our knowledge may not be complete, it is worth devoting special attention to the case of the Muslim American Society and its type of political activism.

The Muslim American Society and ANSWER

The basic Islamic program in America is no secret. It is stated in publications such as A Muslim’s Guide to American Politics & Government (2004) by Raeed N. Tayeh, who describes himself as a “political consultant and writer.” (Our copy of this publication was freely purchased at the store of a mosque in California.) As the title indicates, it is written for American Muslims and their sympathizers.18

On the cover of the book, the Muslim American Society offers a clear statement of purpose, describing itself as a “religious, educational, social, and civic organization. Its mission is to present the message of Islam to Muslims and non-Muslims and to promote understanding between them, to encourage the participation of Muslims in the building of a virtuous and moral society, and to promote the human values that Islam emphasizes: brotherhood, equality, justice, mercy, compassion and peace.” This proselytizing message should be recognized as belonging to the genre known as da’wa, the call or invitation that God and the prophets address to the people to believe in Islam, the true religion.19

Rosen’s findings, however, give a less flattering description of this organization:

The Muslim American Society (MAS) is another U.S. Muslim Brotherhood organization that was registered in 1993, and it has grown into a national organization with over fifty local chapters. One of those who reportedly assisted with the foundation of MAS was the late Mohammed Mahdi Akef [1928-2017], who later served as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s seventh general guide.20

Rosen also cites a protocol of a July 1994 meeting of the Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee that was presented to the court in the Holy Land Foundation trial. It refers to the role that the MAS was expected to play within the United States: “to educate the brothers in all work centers, mosques, and organizations on the necessity of stopping any contacts with Zionist organizations and the rejection of any future contacts.”21

Let us return to Raeed N. Tayeh’s evaluation of the relative strengths of Jews and Muslims in 2004.  He identifies the success of American Jews in working within the system as the source of their strength and recommends that American Muslims adopt the same methods. He considers that the two groups are natural adversaries and confidently predicts that the Muslims in America will ultimately win:

American Jews are very powerful – this is true – but they do not maintain their power through secret conspiracies designed to control everything in this country. This does not mean that many elements of the Jewish community do not plot against Muslims and their interests: they do. But overall, they are as powerful as they are because they understand how the system works, and they know how to use it to their advantage. It has taken them over 100 years to get this powerful, however, while the Muslim-American community has been on the map for only 30 or 40 years. If you compare the development of both communities, you will see that the Muslim community has reached the point where it is now much faster than the Jews did [sic].  If this trend continues, Muslims in America will be a major political force within several years if they continue on the course they are on now.  So, one should think positively about the political future of Muslims, not negatively.22

Tayeh also gives a highly informed description of American political life. One of the most interesting sections is his analysis of machine politics in Chicago under the late Mayor Richard J. Daley.23 Most importantly, Tayeh includes sections about the practice of lobbying within the American political space and the function of interest groups. These well-written sections encourage pragmatic opportunism.

While this approach is informative, A Muslim’s Guide to American Politics & Government omits the alliance between the MAS and the militant leftist group ANSWER.   According to Rosen, ANSWER “regularly cooperates with Islamist groups. In June 2009, for example, it co-organized the ‘Gaza solidarity day’ rally and march with the Muslim American Society…. In September 2007, MAS took part in the organization of ANSWER’s Stop the War rally next to the White House.”25  Rosen added that “according to the ADL [Anti-Defamation League], ANSWER, which has the ability to partner with a wide array of anti-Israel groups, has positioned itself as one of the leading coordinators of rallies against Israel.”26

However, there is more to the story. In his above-cited article “Marching with Stalinists,”27 Michael Kelly described the large antiwar marches which the Left organized in 2003 in Washington and San Francisco. He attacked the approach of the militant radical left and exposed the political lineage of ANSWER. Both are significant. Not least, the ferocity of the left in 2003 is similar to what we have recently experienced during the Trump era:

The left has hardened itself around the core value of a furious, permanent, reactionary opposition to the devil-state America, which stands as the permanent evil of the world and the paramount threat to the world, and whose aims must be thwarted even at the cost of supporting fascists and tyrants.28

Kelly noted that the media coverage of these marches was “respectful,” and took issue with the New York Times, which, in its editorial, played down the significance and origins of “the activist group International Answer.”29 Kelly’s description of ANSWER offers insights which are relevant to our present political situation:

International ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) is a front group for the communist Workers World Party. The Workers World Party is, literally, a Stalinist organization. It rose out of a split within the old Socialist Workers Party over the Soviet Union’s 1956 invasion of Hungary – the breakaway Workers World Party was all for the invasion.  International ANSWER today unquestioningly supports any despotic regime that lays any claim to socialism, or simply to anti-Americanism. It supported the butchers of Beijing after the slaughter of Tiananmen Square. It supports Saddam and his Baathist torture-state. It supports the last official Stalinist state, North Korea, in the mass starvation of its citizens. It supported Slobodan Milosevic after the massacre at Srebrenica. It supports the mullahs of Iran, and the narco-gangsters of Colombia and the bus-bombers of Hamas.30

Summing up, Kelly targeted both International ANSWER and the partisan political stance of the New York Times:

The Times’ “mainstream” Americans marched last weekend with people who held signs comparing the president and vice president of their country to Hitler, and declaring “The difference between Bush and Saddam is that Saddam was elected,” and this one: “I want you to die for Israel. Israel sings Onward Christian Soldiers.”

March on.31

Here one may observe the convergence of religion and politics in a coherent ideological program. The religious dimension is evident. In addition to presenting a political vision, the program of this alliance contains an invitation to join a new religion and adopt another way of life. When we consider the collaboration of an activist Islamic organization, such as the MAS, with the radical-leftist ANSWER group, we may understand the broader meaning of the Red-Green Alliance.

The Ideological Coherence of the Red-Green Alliance

While the ideological foundations of the Islamist outlook are known, Pierre-André Taguieff studied the basic ideological tenets of Islamism and their close relationship with neo-leftist thought. (Purists would not speak of Islamism but rather of Islam.) Taguieff first presented his findings in 2001 in a series of lectures entitled “Judéophobie post-nazi” (Post-Nazi Judeophobia), and he published his ideas in Le Figaro under the title “The New Waves of Anti-Semitism.” As noted earlier, in 2004 his basic findings appeared in English under the title Rising from the Muck: The New Anti-Semitism in Europe.32 This publication followed the 9/11 catastrophe; at that time the subject had a greater cultural and topical immediacy.

Taguieff’s special contribution was his cogent description of the basic elements of the Islamic doctrine and their affinity with the Marxist-Leninist thought of the New Left. He identified several basic elements of the “new Islamist totalitarianism”:

  1. “The end justifies the means. The end that here gives absolute justification is the sacred cause, open to various interpretations within the perspective of Palestinian national Islamism but often reduced to the goal of the series of terrorist actions: that is driving ‘the Jews’ from the ‘Sacred Land,’ either through terror (involving not a decisive battle but a gradual intensification of the conflict resulting in discouragement and despair) or through extermination in a jihad (holy war) that mobilizes all the Muslim countries around the world.”33
  2. “…a universalization of the vague idea that most of the ills affecting humanity were somehow linked to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and that the fault of this lay with Israel…. The intended result was to monopolize legitimate appeals to right and justice in an international context….”34
  3. “The Islamist identification of democracy with the enemies of Islam implies a blanket rejection of the principle of secularism—that is any separation between religion and politics.”35
  4. “The West, then, is rejected as a sickness endangering Muslims around the world. The incurable disease of ‘Westitis’ threatens to infect the community of believers, the Umma, with the viruses or toxins borne by ‘Crusader Christianity,’ ‘Judaist and Judeo-Masonic circles,’ atheists, licentious elements, feminists and so on.”36
  5. According to Islamic doctrine, the world is divided into two camps, Dar al-Islam (the Abode of Islam and Peace) and Dar al-Harb (the Abode of War). In this context, Taguieff quotes an address of Osama bin Laden on November 1, 2001, on Al Jazeera television: “The crusade against Islam has intensified and the killing of the followers of Muhammad…has spread widely in Afghanistan…. The world has been divided into two camps: one of the banner of the cross, as Bush, the head of infidelity, said, and another under the banner of Islam….”37
  6. The Islamic idea of the two camps antedates modern leftist thought. As the distinguished Sovietologist Robert C. Tucker noted: “The postulated division of the world between capitalist and Communist camps took concrete shape in Russian Communist thinking as a division between what Lenin, in one of his last writings, called the ‘the counterrevolutionary imperialist West’ and the ‘revolutionary and nationalist East.’”38 Later, in 1947, Stalin introduced the concept of the two camps when he established the Cominform (the Information Bureau of the Communist Parties) and launched the Cold War.39

The Threat of the Red-Green Alliance to the American Way

While the delegitimization of Jews and Israel is a matter of major importance in its own right, one must not lose sight of the larger goal that the enemies of Jews and Jewish values want to achieve. They want to destroy the liberal democratic society and to seize power. The same may be said about religion, particularly about Christianity in American public life. It is within this framework that the anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli strategy of the Red-Green Alliance should be appreciated. If we accept this perspective, then the components of this strategy begin to fall into place.

Agitation and propaganda are the classical tactics which both sides use in order to undermine public confidence and destabilize the foundations of American democracy. One method of achieving this goal is to mold the consensus of public opinion. This is done by seeking out and cultivating grievances, real and imagined, and creating a new consensus that the current political situation is intolerable.  Part of this strategy has been to bring about “the desertion of the intellectuals.” Harvard historian Crane Brinton devoted considerable effort to the study of revolutions and described a situation in which the intellectuals become disloyal toward the existing legal authority, in which they “clearly felt that the government, the political, social, and economic institutions under which they lived were so unjust that root-and-branch reform was necessary.”40 Lenin, in his famous treatise “What Is to Be Done?,” spoke of exploiting such feelings and preparing the way for revolutionary change. His exact words were: “We must use every trace of discontent. We must collect every grain of protest.”41 Likewise, gaining control over the mass media and a country’s educational institutions became part of this political scheme. The shared, but unstated, goal of each party in such an alliance is to break the social, moral, and cultural “hegemony” of the existing democratic system.42

For decades a clash of cultures has been taking place, but its danger has been systematically underestimated. The Muslim Brotherhood and its allies have been working systematically to take power within American society. In this pursuit they have targeted American Jewry and particularly the Israel-Diaspora relationship, which has been a source of strength for Israel, American Jewry, and to an increasing extent, Israel’s Christian supporters. Not least, this alliance has contributed to American security.  As part of this strategy, the other side seeks to build alliances within American society, particularly with the radical-socialist and “progressive” left.  Islamists want to transform the United States into an Islamic state governed by sharia law, and the “progressives” want a new order which would bring about “social justice,” namely in the redistribution of wealth and privilege.43 At this early stage, both parties would support the destruction of the existing system. Afterward, a parting of ways would probably occur.

A process of delegitimization takes place gradually, and its effects are cumulative.44 At present, the political war of the Islamists and the progressives has taken the form of agitation and propaganda. It is occasionally violent, particularly on American university campuses, which have become the scene of intimidation and bullying.

The other side knows that it cannot attain power under the system set down by the Constitution. Although they have not stated their aims systematically, one of the few ways that they can hope to achieve power is by destabilizing the system or by carrying out a coup d’état. For example, abolishing the Electoral College and permitting unrestricted immigration, when combined, could lead to devastating political consequences. The real danger is that beneath the surface, there is a reality of latent violence and a type of disorder which would result in the breakdown of law and the negation of the constitutional guarantees of political and religious freedom.

As mentioned above, Christopher C. Harmon explained the meaning of the political “Crossover” which coincided with a major proliferation of terrorism and state-sponsored terror. He analyzed the true nature of this undercurrent and its continuing threat:

Left and right share a mutual enterprise: the destruction of the liberal democratic society. To gain that end they will continue to shoot, not each other, but their common enemies: judges, policemen, military personnel, Carabinieri, conservative journalists and the officers and offices of established political parties. All these are taken to be the functionaries of the status quo, including its reformist and its conservative elements. All others are enemies, including the citizens of the republic, derided as “the walking dead” and “zombies” by terrorists who cannot spur them to revolution.

Terrorism, in one sense, is a war for public opinion. It is not a war a republican government can afford to lose. The answer to the terrorists which must be made by the Italians – as well as by other democracies under attack – lies in the intelligent defense of the principles of free institutions….45

This analysis shows that the problem is much greater than what has been widely identified as “the resurgence of anti-Semitism” or the delegitimization of Israel. Neither should be minimized or defined down, but they are part of a larger game. For those who want to deal effectively with its symptoms, it is necessary to have a more accurate understanding of the real contest and its true proportions. This is the “the first of all strategic questions.”

* * *

Some of Dr. Fishman’s contributions are as follows:

“‘A Disaster of another Kind’: Zionism=Racism, Its Beginning, and the War of Delegitimization against Israel,” Israel Journal of foreign Affairs V: 3 (2011), 75-,

“The BDS message of anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, and incitement to discrimination,” Israel Affairs, Vol. 18, No. 3 (July 2012): 418–431.

“Anti-Zionism as a Form of Political Warfare,” in Robert Wistrich, ed. Anti-Judaism, Antisemitism, Delegitimizing Israel.  Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2016.

“The Delegitimization—and Relegitimization—of Israel,” in Eunice G. Pollack, ed., Anti-Zionism/Anti-Semitism, Past and Present.  Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2017.

* * *


1 “…wars must vary with the nature of their motives and of the situations which give rise to them. The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish by that test the kind of war on which they are embarking, neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature. This is the first of all strategic questions and the most comprehensive….” Carl von Clausewitz, On War, Michael Howard and Peter Paret, eds. and trans. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), Book 1, ch. 1, Item 27, 88.

2 “By forcing upon the KPD [the Communist Party of Germany] a policy of uncompromising belligerence against Social Democracy (‘social-fascism’) he abetted the Nazi victory,” Robert C. Tucker, Stalin in Power: The Revolution from Above 1928-1941 (New York: Norton, 1992), 229.

3 Robert E. Beerstecher, “Revolutionary Antimilitarism in Communist Theory and Practice,” dissertation no. 1799, Georgetown University Library, 1959, 524, as cited by Eugene H. Methvin, The Riot Makers (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1970), 298.

4 J. H. Brinks, “Political Anti-Fascism in the German Democratic Republic,” Journal of Contemporary History 32, 2 (April 1997): 213-15.

5 See Dore Gold, The Fight for Jerusalem (Washington, DC: Regnery, 2007), 168-77.

6 Die gleiche Sprache: Erst feur Hitler – jetzt fuer Ulbricht: Pressekonferenz von Simon Wiesenthal am 6. September 1968 in Wien (Vienna: Juedisches Dokumentationzentrum, Simon Wiesenthal Centre and Bonn: Rolf Vogel, 1968).  Also Brinks, “Political Anti-Fascism,” 212-14.

7 Chistopher C. Harmon, “Left Meets Right in Terrorism: A Focus on Italy,” Strategic Review 13, 1 (1985): 40-51.

8 Ibid., 40.

9 Ibid.

10 Pierre-André Taguieff, Rising from the Muck: The New Anti-Semitism in Europe, trans. Patrick Camiller (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2004).

11 Michael Kelly, “Marching with Stalinists,” Washington Post, January 22, 2003, A15.

12 Ehud Rosen, The Spider Web: The Roots of BDS and the Campaign to Delegitimize Israel (Jerusalem: JCPA, 2018). This publication may also be found at the JCPA website,

14 Ibid., 5.

16 Philip Carl Salzman, “The Peculiar Progressive-Islamist Alliance,” PJ Media, April 29, 2019, (accessed June 5, 2019).

17 Liel Leibovitz, “Get Out,” Tablet, May 6, 2019, (accessed June 5, 2019).

18 Raeed N. Tayeh, A Muslim’s Guide to American Politics & Government, 2nd ed. (Falls Church, VA: Muslim American Society, 2004).

19 Shammai Fishman, Fiqh al-Aqalliyyat: A Legal Theory for Muslim Minorities, Research Monographs on the Muslim World, Hudson Institute, October 2006, Series 1, paper no. 2: 3-4.

20 Rosen, Spider Web, 107.

21 Ibid.

22 Tayeh, A Muslim’s Guide, 8-9.

23 Ibid., 92-95.

25 Rosen, Spider Web, 127.

26 Ibid.

27 Kelly, “Marching with Stalinists.”

28 Ibid.

29 New York Times as quoted by Kelly.

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid.

32 Taguieff, Rising.

33 Ibid., 14.

34 Ibid., 18-19.

35 Ibid., 23.

36 Ibid., 19.

37 Ibid., 60.

38 Robert C. Tucker, The Soviet Political Mind: Stalinism and Post-Stalin Change, rev. ed. (New York: Norton, 1971), 267.

39 Vladislav Zubok and Constantine Pleshakov, Inside the Kremlin’s Cold War: From Stalin to Khrushchev (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), 133.

40 Crane Brinton, “Reflections on the Desertion of the Intellectuals,”

Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 99, 4 (1955): 219-23, (accessed June 6, 2019).

41 Vladimir Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 5 (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1961), 430. As quoted by Methvin, Riot Makers, 126 and 558, n. 2.  Methvin also offered the alternative translation: “Our task is to utilize every manifestation of discontent, and to gather and turn to the best account every protest, however small.”

42 Lenin’s disciple Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) developed this passive strategy. During the First World War, the early Bolsheviks had hoped that the first socialist revolution would break out in Germany; after this failure, Gramsci developed a strategy more suited to the conditions of a liberal democratic regime. His method was to attack the social, moral, and cultural values which supported the “hegemony” of the existing order and clear the way for an eventual capture of power. Alan Bullock and R. B. Woodings, Twentieth Century Culture: A Biographical Companion (New York: Harper, 1983), 285.

43 For a contemporary examination of this subject, see Salzman, “Peculiar Progressive-Islamist Alliance.”

44 See Joel Fishman, “The Delegitimization—and Relegitimization—of Israel,” in Eunice G. Pollack, ed., Anti-Zionism/Anti-Semitism, Past and Present (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2017).

45 Harmon, “Left Meets Right,” 49-50.