Though there has been some controversy over this, it appears to me to be true that Martin Luther King, Jr, once uttered these words:
And the history of this remark is fascinating. As many recent defenders of King will point out, King had an independent mind on Israel and Palestine, becoming far more critical of Israel after it failed to give up territory taken in the 1967 war. He cancelled a trip to Israel in late 1967, after considerable indecision, but it was well known to the FBI that he was leaning against the trip as soon as it was clear Israel was not going to give back territory it had taken in the war. In this way among others, he stood up for principles opposing Zionism, even at cost to himself.
But you could well say, that even that he was in that position, having originally planned a trip to Israel, was a betrayal of many of his clearly enunciated principles. The students of SNCC had clearly become pro-Palestinian statehood well before that (in in fact, his remarks above, were to an SNCC member or sympathizer). King meanwhile, continued to accept large donations from Zionists, such as Marty Peretz. In fact the above remark was made at a dinner party at Marty Peretz' house, where King was soliciting donations!
King was, like many people at the time, trying to find a middle path with regards to Israel and Palestine. At the time it was still possible to be sincere about this, and he was. I had no clear mind on this issue myself for decades after 1967. It would surely be different now. We've seen what has happened since 1967: the Zionist elimination of Palestine, and all efforts to stop it fail. We've seen the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, the strangulation of Gaza, the apartheidization, and now annexation of the West Bank, and enabling imperial destruction in Syria and elsewhere. King would certainly have been aware of these things now. He was in his time considered the preeminent threat to US culture by the FBI, and ultimately assassinated by them with a well orchestrated coverup by Hoover, who had mastered the art for JFK, but rarely applied it so well.
I still see King in much more flattering terms than, say, Thomas Jefferson (slave owner and fucker, hypocritical "states rights" defender) and even Cesar Chavez (who took over grass roots unions organized by others and turned them into an inextensible top down Alinskyian Organization).
Much of King's work, his organizing and speeches, was heroic and brilliant. I wouldn't rename any streets or pull down statues of King just yet because he once casually seemed to equate anti-zionism with anti-semitism, or met with Zionists.
All the same, he has also perhaps garnered too much attention, attention taken away from other leading figures like Fred Hampton, who's death was not so well disguised. Best not talk about a true radical socialist.
And it may partly be because King was willing to take the dollars, and perhaps a tiny bit of rhetoric from, Zionists and others who might not have fully fit the revolutionary ideals we see in him.*
As a Free Thinker, I sometimes wonder if it it suits me to put much faith in the very faithful King.
But I wasn't a Free Thinker myself, in 1967. And I try to seek an all encompassing and non-parochial view, in which I have a lot of respect for King. We should just realize, King or anybody, doesn't represent any ideals completely. Nor was he ethically and morally perfect by any fair standard. King's gaffes were minor compared with his efforts and achievements. He remains a top figure in US history, perhaps even the most fully worthy of respect of all, or at least along with Jonas Salk.
It turns out, a different attribution, a much longer letter defending Israel and Zionism, purported to be by King, is a fake. Other than that, his most clearly enunciated statement criticizing anti-Zionism, which he well would have understood to be controversial even then, was simply an unplanned remark at a fundraising dinner--which happened to be at a Zionist's house and is recalled only by Zionists.
One question meriting further investigation, might be the relevance of King's trip to Boston to see Peretz and others, vs the cancellation of King's trip to Israel, and/or other subjects at this party. Clearly if Peretz was trying to convince King to go to Israel, Peretz failed to do that. King maintained the stance that he would schedule another trip in the future, but King's assassination occurred before any rescheduling.
My feeling continues that a now often unrecognized sea change occurred around the 1967 war (which, btw, we now know well was orchestrated by Israel as a land grab, not a defensive measure against Arab enemies--see Finkelstein and others). It was in some limited way possible for a universalist to accept Israel when it was arguably not Israel blocking Palestinian statehood. Prior to 1967, the majority of the UN partitioned Palestinian state was in possession of the Jordanians, and in 19 years Jordan had done nothing to enable a Palestinian state. After 1967, the Israelis took that obligation upon themselves, and the clock has long run out. I was persuaded around 1968 to have hope that, unlike "Arab" Jordan, "Democratic" and progressive Israel would get the job done quickly and fairly. But a fair analysis would point out that Jordan is merely another US Vassal state, ineffective at doing anything well for itself or refugees. The notion that the Jordanian government is somehow "Arab" just like Palestinians, and Palestinians should be happy there as a result, is racist. The Zionist POV seems not unlike telling San Franciscans they'll be perfectly happy in Oakland, and Oaklanders will be perfectly happy to take on a few million angry dispossessed San Franciscans.
(*Marty Peretz wasn't the household name we know now either. He was just a nice guy in 1967, a newly enriched antiwar lefty Harvard sociology professor having married a lefty heiress (and not his first such marriage either). He helped pay the bills for early leftish-anarchist antiwar magazine Ramparts. He helped some other civil rights leaders, that was one of his big things then. Not the guy who later became so well known for anti-arab and anti-black racist remarks that Jim Lehrer never once failed to turn down a request for invitation. The same who guy who later purchased and then totally discredited the once leftish The New Republic, turning it into a self-parodying bastion of Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, and unabashed Zionism during his ownership. Which has already become the basis of a fictional drama. So disrespected that as soon as he sold the magazine, his old editor flat refused to publish him anymore. He must have once been smart once, graduating from Brooklyn high school at 15. Or maybe they just wanted him out too, but I repeat myself.)
“Don’t talk like that! When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism!”This is extensively investigated, in a chapter which to me sounds fairly written, by Martin Kramer (a distinguished but right leaning Israeli scholar). He concludes that while these words were probably spoken, we shouldn't take them very seriously, or as anything like King's rather more complex views on the subjects involved. The words may have had a lot to do with the circumstances...
And the history of this remark is fascinating. As many recent defenders of King will point out, King had an independent mind on Israel and Palestine, becoming far more critical of Israel after it failed to give up territory taken in the 1967 war. He cancelled a trip to Israel in late 1967, after considerable indecision, but it was well known to the FBI that he was leaning against the trip as soon as it was clear Israel was not going to give back territory it had taken in the war. In this way among others, he stood up for principles opposing Zionism, even at cost to himself.
But you could well say, that even that he was in that position, having originally planned a trip to Israel, was a betrayal of many of his clearly enunciated principles. The students of SNCC had clearly become pro-Palestinian statehood well before that (in in fact, his remarks above, were to an SNCC member or sympathizer). King meanwhile, continued to accept large donations from Zionists, such as Marty Peretz. In fact the above remark was made at a dinner party at Marty Peretz' house, where King was soliciting donations!
King was, like many people at the time, trying to find a middle path with regards to Israel and Palestine. At the time it was still possible to be sincere about this, and he was. I had no clear mind on this issue myself for decades after 1967. It would surely be different now. We've seen what has happened since 1967: the Zionist elimination of Palestine, and all efforts to stop it fail. We've seen the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, the strangulation of Gaza, the apartheidization, and now annexation of the West Bank, and enabling imperial destruction in Syria and elsewhere. King would certainly have been aware of these things now. He was in his time considered the preeminent threat to US culture by the FBI, and ultimately assassinated by them with a well orchestrated coverup by Hoover, who had mastered the art for JFK, but rarely applied it so well.
I still see King in much more flattering terms than, say, Thomas Jefferson (slave owner and fucker, hypocritical "states rights" defender) and even Cesar Chavez (who took over grass roots unions organized by others and turned them into an inextensible top down Alinskyian Organization).
Much of King's work, his organizing and speeches, was heroic and brilliant. I wouldn't rename any streets or pull down statues of King just yet because he once casually seemed to equate anti-zionism with anti-semitism, or met with Zionists.
All the same, he has also perhaps garnered too much attention, attention taken away from other leading figures like Fred Hampton, who's death was not so well disguised. Best not talk about a true radical socialist.
And it may partly be because King was willing to take the dollars, and perhaps a tiny bit of rhetoric from, Zionists and others who might not have fully fit the revolutionary ideals we see in him.*
As a Free Thinker, I sometimes wonder if it it suits me to put much faith in the very faithful King.
But I wasn't a Free Thinker myself, in 1967. And I try to seek an all encompassing and non-parochial view, in which I have a lot of respect for King. We should just realize, King or anybody, doesn't represent any ideals completely. Nor was he ethically and morally perfect by any fair standard. King's gaffes were minor compared with his efforts and achievements. He remains a top figure in US history, perhaps even the most fully worthy of respect of all, or at least along with Jonas Salk.
It turns out, a different attribution, a much longer letter defending Israel and Zionism, purported to be by King, is a fake. Other than that, his most clearly enunciated statement criticizing anti-Zionism, which he well would have understood to be controversial even then, was simply an unplanned remark at a fundraising dinner--which happened to be at a Zionist's house and is recalled only by Zionists.
One question meriting further investigation, might be the relevance of King's trip to Boston to see Peretz and others, vs the cancellation of King's trip to Israel, and/or other subjects at this party. Clearly if Peretz was trying to convince King to go to Israel, Peretz failed to do that. King maintained the stance that he would schedule another trip in the future, but King's assassination occurred before any rescheduling.
My feeling continues that a now often unrecognized sea change occurred around the 1967 war (which, btw, we now know well was orchestrated by Israel as a land grab, not a defensive measure against Arab enemies--see Finkelstein and others). It was in some limited way possible for a universalist to accept Israel when it was arguably not Israel blocking Palestinian statehood. Prior to 1967, the majority of the UN partitioned Palestinian state was in possession of the Jordanians, and in 19 years Jordan had done nothing to enable a Palestinian state. After 1967, the Israelis took that obligation upon themselves, and the clock has long run out. I was persuaded around 1968 to have hope that, unlike "Arab" Jordan, "Democratic" and progressive Israel would get the job done quickly and fairly. But a fair analysis would point out that Jordan is merely another US Vassal state, ineffective at doing anything well for itself or refugees. The notion that the Jordanian government is somehow "Arab" just like Palestinians, and Palestinians should be happy there as a result, is racist. The Zionist POV seems not unlike telling San Franciscans they'll be perfectly happy in Oakland, and Oaklanders will be perfectly happy to take on a few million angry dispossessed San Franciscans.
(*Marty Peretz wasn't the household name we know now either. He was just a nice guy in 1967, a newly enriched antiwar lefty Harvard sociology professor having married a lefty heiress (and not his first such marriage either). He helped pay the bills for early leftish-anarchist antiwar magazine Ramparts. He helped some other civil rights leaders, that was one of his big things then. Not the guy who later became so well known for anti-arab and anti-black racist remarks that Jim Lehrer never once failed to turn down a request for invitation. The same who guy who later purchased and then totally discredited the once leftish The New Republic, turning it into a self-parodying bastion of Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, and unabashed Zionism during his ownership. Which has already become the basis of a fictional drama. So disrespected that as soon as he sold the magazine, his old editor flat refused to publish him anymore. He must have once been smart once, graduating from Brooklyn high school at 15. Or maybe they just wanted him out too, but I repeat myself.)
No comments:
Post a Comment