In memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., take this day to be kind to others pic.twitter.com/paqaAdKoie
— IDF (@IDFSpokesperson) January 15, 2018
On Martin Luther King day, and so many other days as well, the Israel Lobby trots out the few flattering quotations MLK delivered on Israel. The effect is a desperate attempt to make it appear that King was an ardent admirer of the State of Israel and would be today. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Let’s delve into the historical background: as King was a distinguished figure in the American Protestant church, he naturally attracted a group of multi-denominational clergy supporters drawn both to his spiritual and political mission. Among them were distinguished Jewish rabbis like Abraham Joshua Heschel, himself a survivor of the Holocaust, and other rabbis in his Conservative movement. Among the first to answer the call to join in the civil rights protests roiling the south was Rabbi Everett Gendler, then a newly minted rabbinical student preparing for his first job in the pulpit.
Gendler, who later became the intellectual father of the Havurah movement and who also inspired the Jewish environmental movement, was a seminal figure in many of the most innovative Jewish spiritual and social developments of the past half century. As a long-time friend to King, the rabbi invited him to address the Conservative Judaism’s 1968 Rabbinical Assembly meeting. The convention took place only weeks before King’s assassination and so represents the culmination of his life’s work and thought up to that final moment. As such it is a poignant document. Poignant not only for what it reveals about the extent of his penetrating analysis of American society, but also because of how much it revealed that King’s views were, on some subjects, very much time-bound and almost archaic by today’s standards.
This certainly applies to his views on Black anti-Semitism, Israel and Zionism as expressed in that interview. Rabbi Gendler, who at 91 is a fiery, penetrating moral figure who considers himself a non-Zionist and supporter of BDS, was forced to articulate questions from his rabbinical audience that showed it to be typically white and liberal, and deeply threatened by the ascendant Black Power movement represented by figures like Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael and H. Rapp Brown.
One might say that the only thing that has changed is that such rabbis today would have switched the object of their paranoia from Black leaders to the Palestinians and Muslims in general. In fact, MLK’s responses to these questions often echo the precise formulations of such issues in discussing (and often disparaging) Palestinians and their national movement. For that reason, this is an important historical document worth reading even fifty years later.
To offer but one example highly relevant to the current uproar over BDS, stoked by the Israel Lobby: those who know their civil rights history will know that one of the first major campaigns in which King engaged was the Montgomery bus boycott. That’s why claims that boycotts are illegal or a violation of American laws or tradition are ridiculous. And in case you were uncertain of King’s views, read this passage on “Black Power” from the interview:
We have achieved some very significant gains and victories as a result of this program [Black Power], because the black man collectively now has enough buying power to make the difference between profit and less [sic] in any major industry or concern of our country. Withdrawing economic support from those who will not be just and fair in their dealings is a very potent weapon.
Political power and economic power are needed, and I think these are the positives of Black Power.
I quote substantial portions of their exchange to give full flavor to the thinking of both men on these subjects (and also the moral obtuseness of the rabbinical audience). Keep in mind that in the context of the conversation the questions that Gendler reads are not his, but were submitted by his audience:
“What steps have been undertaken and what success has been noted in convincing anti-Semitic and anti-Israel Negroes, such as Rap Brown, Stokely Carmichael, and McKissick, to desist from their anti-Israel activity?”
“What effective measures will the collective Negro community take against the vicious anti-Semitism, against the militance and the rabble-rousing of the Browns, Carmichaels, and Powells?”
“Have your contributions from Jews fallen off considerably? Do you feel the Jewish community is copping out on the civil rights struggle?”
“What would you say if you were talking to a Negro intellectual, an editor of a national magazine, and were told, as I have been, that he supported the Arabs against Israel because color is all important in this world? In the editor’s opinion, the Arabs are colored Asians and the Israelis are white Europeans. Would you point out that more than half of the Israelis are Asian Jews with the same pigmentation as Arabs, or would you suggest that an American Negro should not form judgments on the basis of color? What seems to you an appropriate or an effective response?”
Dr. King: …On the Middle East crisis, we have had various responses. The response of some of the so-called young militants again does not represent the position of the vast majority of Negroes. There are some who are color-consumed and they see a kind of mystique in being colored, and anything non-colored is condemned. We do not follow that course in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and certainly most of the organizations in the civil rights movement do not follow that course. I think it is necessary to say that what is basic and what is needed in the Middle East is peace. Peace for Israel is one thing. Peace for the Arab side of that world is another thing. Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all of our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel, and never mind saying it, as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land almost can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.
On the other hand, we must see what peace for the Arabs means in a real sense of security on another level. Peace for the Arabs means the kind of economic security that they so desperately need. These nations, as you know, are part of that third world of hunger, of disease, of illiteracy. I think that as long as these conditions exist there will be tensions, there will be the endless quest to find scapegoats. So there is a need for a Marshall Plan for the Middle East, where we lift those who are at the bottom of the economic ladder and bring them into the mainstream of economic security.
This passage perfectly encapsulates both the tacit racism of the spiritual leaders of American Jewry, while also highlighting the limited perspective King had regarding Israel and Palestine (which was only beginning to appear on the political horizon at the time of his speech). I should add, that had history taken a different path, it might have been King who was correct in his (in hindsight) overly-rosy picture of Israel as an oasis of tolerance and brotherhood. As it was, history has proven the analysis of the Black militants and figures like James Baldwin as far more prescient.
Martin Luther King’s mission was the liberation of what would then be called the “American Negro.” He rarely ventured into the subject of American foreign policy with the important exception of the Vietnam War, which concerned him because the majority of the grunts and soldiers coming home in body bags were Black. King was far less conversant with the Israeli-Arab conflict. He was not someone like Malcolm X, who understood viscerally that the lives of American Black Muslims were inextricably tied to the Middle East, both for religious and political reasons.
Though King had visited the Holy Land once in 1959, on his way home from a pilgrimage to India to visit the historic sites of Mahatma Gandhi’s satyagraha movement, he was not overly familiar with the deep moral and political thicket surrounding the Israeli-Arab conflict. Interestingly, King and a number of his Jewish and Christian colleagues had devised, just before the 1967 War, a campaign to bring 5,000 pilgrims back to the Holy Land to visit sites in both Jordan and Israel. The goal was to explore both the religious power of the ancient lands and also offer a moral example of what a non-violent approach could offer both Arabs and Jews. It’s an interesting footnote to history to wonder ‘what-if’ the War hadn’t intervened, and what if Israel hadn’t become the colonial power it later became, and what if King had been able to offer his non-violent vision directly to both the Arabs and Israelis in the region.
King and His Jewish Base
While King’s followers were largely Black, his donor base was white and largely Jewish. As such, he was sensitive to their concerns as may be seen in a question from one of the rabbis asking if donations to the movement had dropped off as American Jews became increasingly alienated from the civil rights struggle. King understood that at that time, Israel was rapidly becoming a defining element of Jewish identity. That’s what informs much of the glowing remarks he delivered here.
That King’s views about Israel would have changed over time is incontrovertible (except by those like the IDF press office, which tweeted the passage above today in its timeline). King was not an ideologue. While he was a man of principle, he always remained a man willing to reëxamine his basic assumptions as reality and facts on the ground changed. In March 1968, when he delivered these remarks, Israel had not yet developed its campaign to settle the West Bank. The Greater Israel movement had not yet come to capture the imagination of large elements of Israeli society. Fifty years ago, an intelligent, thoughtful person might still be a strong advocate of Israel, because it had not yet committed many of the sins that would later be attributed to it.
It is true that the Nakba had occurred and the ongoing subjugation of Israeli Palestinians to the Israeli Jewish majority, which commenced in 1948, had already gone on for two decades. But aside from left-wing intellectuals and political activists and large portions of the Arab world (with which King was not conversant), these notions were not widely appreciated.
But over time, King surely would have developed a much stronger appreciation of the injustices Israel meted out on its Palestinian minority population. He would likely have understood viscerally that its suffering was akin to that of American Blacks over the course of their own experience first as slaves, and later as second class citizens.
We can see how this might have played out in Gendler himself, who has become a proud champion of Palestinian rights and a fierce critic of Israeli tribalism. He likely was not that person in 1968. It took the cold hard reality of Israeli Occupation and apartheid for many Jewish liberals to finally understand the bankruptcy of classical Zionism, as defined by Israeli political leaders and political parties for the past half century.
If, as Irving Kristol once said, a neocon is a liberal who’s been mugged by reality; then BDS supporters are liberal Zionists who’ve been mugged by Israeli reality (i.e. racism, Occupation and apartheid). King too would not have been blind to this phenomenon.
Finally, Black Zionist shills like Chloe Valdary and other pro-Israel advocates who quote King approvingly this Martin Luther King Day offer a Madame Tussaud version of this great man. When he lived, his thinking was not embalmed in wax or history. It changed and developed as circumstances required. That’s why King would far more likely have followed a path staked out by Nelson Mandela, who wholeheartedly endorsed Palestinian national rights.
“When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism!” —Martin Luther King, Jr.
[ed., link deleted for comment rule violation]
@ Ed: You’ve just quoted an entirely fabricated quote which Marc Schneier manufactured out of thin air. MLK never said this. Anyone who passes off this as genuine is himself a fraud, as Martin Kramer & Schneier & now you, are.
Read my comment rules. When you quote Zio-shills not only does it make my skin crawl, it violates the comment rules. Kramer is a genocidaire, Islamophobe, Arabophobe & all around POS. Don’t quote him, don’t link to him. If you want to know why, Google his name here & read the s(^t he said about Palestinian mothers.
The quote was heard and noted by Seymour Martin Lipset, at a dinner party King attended in Cambridge, MA. I don’t know who Marc Schneir is.
@Ed: read the damn link I included in my comment. It proves without a shred of doubt that the supposed quotation is a fraud. It debunks every claim of authenticity & notes the fraudulent passage was first quoted by Marc Schneier, who is a fraud because of other matters. Schneier had no direct connection to MLK, no way of hearing or knowing the quote firsthand, and is a known fraud.
When I tell you something is a fraud it is. Unless you can offer ironclad proof otherwise, it is. Don’t test me on this or you face total banning.
[comment deleted: you are done in this thread.]
King visited Jerusalem when it was occupied by Jordan, but Jordan forbid King entry to the Jewish Quarter.
King was forced to cancel his visit to Israel in 1967, but he promised to try and return the next year.
http://martinkramer.org/sandbox/2013/01/why-martin-luther-king-never-visited-israel/
King supported Israel in her struggle against Egypt in 1956.
During Israel’s 1956 war with Egypt, he wrote: “There is something in the very nature of the universe which is on the side of Israel in its struggle with every Egypt.”
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Martin-Luther-King-Jr-Israel-and-Obama-307002
Barbarian’s got a new pen name ….
I beg your pardon?
“Ed”, have you read the post at all? 1956 is not now. That is the point.
And, by the way, King, as a minister, knew that ‘Egypt’ means ‘bondage/slavery’. Bloody fundamentalists like you do not know how to read anything other than in the dumbest way possible. Hats off to you, oh great Hebrew scholar of the Land of Israel! LOL.
@Elisabeth
The facts are these. King was a Zionist, and nothing you or Richard can say here, will change that fact.
Facts, my dear, are stubborn things.
@Eliazbeth
” King, as a minister, knew that ‘Egypt’ means ‘bondage/slavery’.”
I don’t think King knew Hebrew and ‘egypt” מצרים is in the dual form meaning ‘two straights” מצר-מצר
something like Symplegades where one has to pass thru two possibly dangerous straits. Thus the expression ‘dire straits’.
Seems I know a lot more about exegesis of the scriptures than you.
King studied (Christian) theology. Normally this includes Hebrew, Greek and Latin. The identification of ‘Egypt’ with bondage is very old in Jewish interpretations of the bible, and as a Christian I have heard it come by often as well. It may be that modern Hebrew has developed some new idioms, but the tradition on this in interpretation of the scriptures is clear.
@ marty: I appreciate the Biblical Hebrew lesson, but you certainly know that what Elisabeth wrote is equally true. The Midrash bears out her statement.
‘The facts are these. King was a Zionist, and nothing you or Richard can say here, will change that fact…’
There were a number of regrettable facts about Martin Luther King — but perhaps it’s inappropriate to bring them up on his birthday.
@Elizabeth
Yes among other things it refers to bondage but I was just trying to give another angle on this and it is not modern Hebrew. Actually this example was from a 13th century text.
I doubt that King was sufficiently literate in any of the languages you mentioned above.
Eddy-boy, if you have the facts on your side, then why do you make things up.? Repeatedly.
@ Ed: 50 years ago, before he knew or understood Israel’s sins & injustice he supported Israel. He would be an ardent opponent of Israel & its policies today.
OMG you’re such a dumb little fraud ‘Ed’.
“There is something in the very nature of the universe which is on the side of Israel in its struggle with every Egypt.”
is indeed (just as I thought) simply a religious statement, in a long sermon that has NOTHING to do with the Suez war. It is part of a an ecumenical marking of the 2nd anniversary of the desegregation decision by the Supreme Court in Brown versus boar of edcation on May 17, 1956..(See the relevance of ‘bondage’ and liberation of ‘Israel’ i.e. the American blacks in this case? Or do you think its all about you, you, you?)
https://books.google.de/books?id=XlXUAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=%E2%80%9CThere+is+something+in+the+very+nature+of+the+universe+which+is+on+the+side+of+Israel+in+its+struggle+with+every+Egypt.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=R-xM_N5OnP&sig=dR5VT_T9Cns08VteH-2rx_0-I-c&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi366vMst3YAhUNDuwKHXo9CDUQ6AEIMjAC#v=onepage&q=%E2%80%9CThere%20is%20something%20in%20the%20very%20nature%20of%20the%20universe%20which%20is%20on%20the%20side%20of%20Israel%20in%20its%20struggle%20with%20every%20Egypt.%E2%80%9D&f=false
@ Elisabeth: I’m even more pissed off to find that he made you TOO waste your time proving Ed to be a fraud!
Reading MLK was fun, don’t worry!
@Elisabeth
“OMG you’re such a dumb little fraud ‘Ed’”
I think King’s message was, ‘Love thine enemies’.
@Ed: ah, but he never met you, Ed. For you he’d make an exception.
Wow. Do I need to educate you on the biblical meaning of ‘to love’ now as well?
@ Ed: You earlier quoted a fabricated quotation from MLK. Now you again use Martin Kramer, offering yet another ‘quotation’ from MLK.
You forced me to waste my time researching your quote & indeed it was taken entirely out of context. King never made any comment about the 1956 War. In fact, the quotation you’ve offered is a general bit of Biblical exegesis meant to comment on the Exodus story in the Bible. There is absolutely no reference to modern Egypt. “Egypt” in this case is meant to be any oppressive nation which keeps another people in chains. I’d guess if alive today MLK would say that Israel was “Egypt.”
You clearly cannot be trusted. As you have passed off one fraudulent quote as real and quoted another out of context, I am moderating you. Only comments that respect the comment rules will be published in future.
@Richard
” you have passed off one fraudulent quote as real and quoted another out of context,”
I have done nothing of the sort. The 1956 quote, came straight from the Jerusalem Post article I linked. As for the ‘Zionism= anti-Semitism’ quote, I don’t believe that the quote was fabricated and there is ample evidence that King in fact, said it. If you should dismiss that evidence, that’s your business, but you should at least allow your readers the opportunity to make their own decision rather than tossing Kramer’s article’s into the bonfire.
The Jerusalem post is a hate filled, untrustworthy rag. You have already made a fool of yourself here, so I suggest you quit quoting from it.
This is no more than a disgusting appropriation of a remark by MLK that has nothing to do with the Suez war or with Israel as a nation state. The depths to which the hasbarists sink… It keeps astonishing me. That the Suez war also took place in 1956 is a mere coincidence.
‘…The depths to which the hasbarists sink… It keeps astonishing me…’
To be fair, they haven’t much to work with.
Thanks, Richard.
Apart from very infrequent amendments, the USA constitution, as text, is invariant. But its interpretation changes from one supreme court to the next. People and courts change opinions according to changes in politics, changes in facts, changes in philosophies, other changes. King presumably would have made changes to accommodate changed facts, views, etc.
When Zionism was being imagined in 1880, colonization including settler colonization was well-regarded in the white European countries (or at least by their governments) much as today’s imposition of free-market capitalism (another form of settler colonization, one might say) is well-regarded by those same countries (or by their governments) today. (Their governments have, of course, been colonized by capitalist money.)
At all events, settler colonialism is not in favor (or not everywhere) today, but Israel is as it must be a settler colonialist enterprise. so those who love Israel today do so against the wide-spread principles otherwise applicable by themselves, whereas those who loved Israel in 1880 or even 1930 or 1948 may have been more-or-less in synch with “the times”. The times they were a-changing but Israel stayed the same (or got much worse).
How is that different than quoting letters between Lehi or Etzel to Nazi leaders in the 30’s, year before the holocaust?
For someone who is obsessed with this, completely ignoring the context and timeline, you are very sensitive when the quote is pro-Israeli.
‘How is that different than quoting letters between Lehi or Etzel to Nazi leaders in the 30’s, year before the holocaust?
For someone who is obsessed with this, completely ignoring the context and timeline, you are very sensitive when the quote is pro-Israeli.’
Is the difference that the Lehi and Etzel letters are genuine, but Ed’s quotations are fraudulent?
You have a point about the date of the Lehi and Etzel letters but it’s irrelevant to what’s at issue here.
@ Ginger: Because the MLK “quote” is invented. The Nazi relationship with Zionists is well-documented.
Didn’t you just write hundreds of words apologizing for MLK and explaining why he will have different approach nowadays?
People with their hearts in the right pace will switch allegiance when more information compels them to do so. My grandparents from my mother’s side hid a Jewish little girl during the Nazi time, where elated when Israel was created, and in their old age became active for the Palestinian cause. There you have the journey right before you. Thinking that King would have travelled a similar path is self evident.
What does that have to do with Richard celebrating some contact before the holocaust of Zionist leaders with the Nazis?
It is clear they would have never do so once they learn about the what were the Nazi doing.
But in the race to blackwash anything related to Zionism, context and timeline is relevant only when you like it but not otherwise.
@ Ginger: Apparently you misunderstood history, what it means and how it’s studied. I didn’t “celebrate” the collusion between the Zionists & Nazis. I didn’t have to. It’s all in the historical record. I merely noted it. That makes you uncomfortable. You’d rather shah-shtil, hush don’t say a word. Then maybe no one else will know it happened. Well, sorry. Cats out of the bag.
As for those Zionists, I’m afraid you’re wrong again. Collaboration with the Nazis lasted through 1943. The Nazis themselves broke it off after the Wandsee Conference when the Final Solution became official policy.
That crack about “celebrating” sticks in my craw. You are officially on notice: your next comment rule violation will bring moderation.
[Comment deleted: after warning, you are now moderated. Only comments respecting the comment rules will be published.]
[comment deleted: In addition to ignoring my request that you stop posting in this thread, I see you use a proxy server, which is not permitted here. Now you are banned.]
‘People with their hearts in the right pace will switch allegiance when more information compels them to do so. My grandparents from my mother’s side hid a Jewish little girl during the Nazi time, where elated when Israel was created, and in their old age became active for the Palestinian cause. There you have the journey right before you. ‘
Hear, hear. To repeat the same journey in a decidedly lesser key…
I was born in 1958. In both 1967 and 1973, I was unthinkingly for Israel. They were ‘one of us,’ in Conrad’s phrase. Even as late as 1975, I thought ‘Exodus’ was a mighty fine book — though the jeeps heroically roaring through Arab villages and machine-gunning everything in sight in ‘Operation Iron Broom’ raised a slight query.
By the later seventies I was shocked to see photos of Israel indiscriminately bombing Beirut, and started to wonder why it was that Palestinian terrorists never actually seemed to make it to trial.
I got on with my own life for a while — then Israel got my attention again around 2000. By now, I’m perfectly prepared to advocate and defend comparisons between Zionism and Nazism. Of course, what’s most troubling about this is not that Zionists are Nazis, but that we’re on their side.
@ Colin Wright:
I’m very uncomfortable with blanket assertions that Palestinians are Nazis or Zionists are Nazis. It’s just too open-ended a parallel and devoid of nuance. I much prefer carefully articulated parallels or analogies rather than blanket statements like the one you made.
One might think before 1967 Israel was accepted by the neighboring countries and Palestinians.
Actually Israel was much closer to apartheid then in these day as Israeli-Arabs was under military law which was lifted in 65/66.
‘One might think before 1967 Israel was accepted by the neighboring countries and Palestinians.
Actually Israel was much closer to apartheid then in these day as Israeli-Arabs was under military law which was lifted in 65/66.’
Here I’ll be frankly subjective. As far as I’m concerned, the BIG difference between whatever Israel did in the fifties and early sixties and what she does now is that back then we here in the US were critical if usually supportive of Israel; now we’re so slavishly devoted to her that we can no longer claim her crimes are not our crimes.
It’s not just what Israel does that troubles me so much as it is that as an American, I am implicated in those acts. It’s the difference between observing the Holocaust from Mexico City and watching it from Munich.
LET the ties between us and Israel be like those between us and Burma — or like those between us and Israel in 1956. Then when I read about what she does I’ll say ‘tut tut,’ and get on with my life. As matters stand, that’s no longer an option.
@ Ginger: Well there you go. You’ve just offered proof that Israel didn’t just become an apartheid state in 2001 or 1967, but that it became one when it instituted martial law against its Palestinian population, all the way back in 1948. I’ve rarely seen a hasbarist strengthen the arguments of her opponents.
[Comment deleted: do not dispute my editorial judgment & do not attempt to argue it here or you will be moderated. Don’t like the rules-no one said you had to be here.]
Censorship not sponsorship
[comment deleted: you are done in this thread.]