The prophet Amos asked a question that the modern American left cannot answer without imploding.
Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
It is a reasonable question, and the honest reply is no. Two cannot walk together unless they have agreed on where they are going. Which makes the spectacle of “Queers for Palestine” one of the strangest processions in political history, a movement marching arm in arm with an ideology that would, given the authority, throw its members off the roof. They have not agreed on a destination. One half is walking toward liberation and the other half is walking them toward a cliff, and only one half knows it.
This is the contradiction at the soft green center of the red-green alliance, and it is worth pressing on precisely because the left works so hard to keep it from being pressed.
An Ideology That Has Already Said No
The usual conservative argument runs that Western progressives simply do not understand the people they are defending. That is too generous. The Islamist movement has told them, plainly and repeatedly, that the affection is not mutual.
When a recent Gaza-bound flotilla set sail, the presence of an openly gay activist aboard drew open condemnation from fellow participants, who treated his sexuality as an offense against the cause itself. One activist asked, in so many words, why a sacred struggle should be degraded by the slogans of a movement he regarded as deviant. The rainbow was not welcome on the boat.
That episode did not require interpretation by a hostile outsider. It was self-interpreting. The very people the Western left insists on calling allies looked at the left’s most cherished identity and called it filth. And the response from the activist class was not reconsideration. It was silence, followed by a fresh round of marches.
The Geography Settles the Argument
One does not need theory here, only a map. There is no Pride parade in Gaza. There is no safe house for same-sex couples in Tehran. There is no rainbow flag in Kabul, unless it is being burned. In the territories and regimes that the slogan exists to celebrate, homosexuality is not merely frowned upon, it is criminalized and, in places, fatal. Critics have noted the obvious, that a gay activist who actually relocated to the society he champions would be fortunate to leave it alive.
The comparison the satirists reach for is cruel because it is accurate. “Queers for Palestine” has the internal logic of chickens campaigning for the colonel, of a flock organizing on behalf of the wolf. The defenders of the slogan know this, which is why they invented a word, pinkwashing, to punish anyone who points it out.
Notice the sleight of hand. The accusation of pinkwashing does not deny that Israel protects gay life and that Hamas extinguishes it. It concedes the fact and then forbids you from mentioning it, on the grounds that mentioning a true thing is itself a form of propaganda. When your rhetorical defense amounts to “stop noticing,” the argument is already lost.
Why Intersectionality Cannot Survive Contact
How does an entire activist culture end up here? Through a framework that sorts all of humanity into oppressor and oppressed, ranks the oppressed against one another, and then insists the rankings never conflict. Inside that framework the Palestinian cause sits near the top and the Western gay activist sits somewhere below, which means that when the two interests collide, the lower-ranked interest is simply told to be quiet.
The framework cannot admit that its favored victim might also be a victimizer, because admitting it would collapse the entire scaffolding. So the gay activist is asked to subordinate his own survival to the hierarchy, and, astonishingly, many agree.
This is what makes the contradiction more than a punchline. It is a live demonstration of what happens to the red partner inside the alliance. He is not an equal. He is a resource, useful for his numbers and his moral branding, expendable the moment his identity becomes inconvenient. The flotilla told him so to his face. The map tells him so every day. The history of every place where this alliance has actually taken power tells him so in blood.
Amos asked whether two can walk together without agreement, and the left has spent years insisting that the answer is yes, that solidarity can paper over the fact that one partner wants the other dead. It cannot. The two are not walking together. One is being walked, eyes forward, toward a destination the guide has never once hidden. The only question is how far down the road he gets before he finally looks up.
JD’s manually curated links for God-fearing MAGA patriots
