[Martin Luther] King…had this to say in 1968 about anti-Zionism at Harvard University: “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews; you are talking anti-Semitism.”
Today, Gandhi’s influence is still keenly felt globally. Yet it is interesting to note that India today rejects its spiritual founder’s worldview. A nuclear power, it has adopted Israel’s approach to threats from suicide bombers and other terrorists.
So with all due respect to Tutu, Israel and the Jewish people are clear about the lesson of the Holocaust: that never again will the destiny of our people be placed in the hands of others. For 2,000 years, Jews depended on pity; they had no land and no army, and what they got in return were inquisitions, pogroms and the Nazi genocide. The Holocaust also taught us that freedom and justice come to those who are prepared to fight for them.
I must admire these authors for speaking so clearly, especially in the likes of the L.A. Times!
Consider if we in the US were threatened with annihilation by a nearby country; say, Canada. Would we tolerate the criticisms of other nations for seeking to protect ourselves? Or what if a segment of our population; say, the people of Montana (I apologize to Montanans; I mean no ill will to them!) supported and fomented terrorist acts within our borders – would we appreciate lectures from other countries about how our seeking to protect ourselves from this internal threat was wrong?
I agree with the late Reverend Martin Luther King (may God rest his soul!) Opponents of Zionism are anti-Semites. And chief among them are the leadership of 815.
With respect, the authors distort what Gandhi says when they report him as telling the Jews of Germany to accept joyfully the Nazi onslaught. Twisting words like this is sad. What Gandhi says, in the quotation, is that even if the Jews of Germany face an onslaught, they can rejoice in the knowledge that the moral high ground is theirs and that history will vindicate them. Here, at least, the parallel with Martin Luther King in the 1960s is clear.
It strikes me as incoherent that the authors compares the political strategy of a resistance group that is attempting to overturn the unjust policies of a particular government with the policies of nations attempting to mediate differences between each other.
Surely the alternative to what King proposed during the civil rights movement would have been the tactics of groups like the SDS or the Black Panthers, which the writers would no doubt just as vigorously condemn for their willingness to use violence to achieve their ends.
King’s non-violent resistance operated within a specific context. To the best of my knowledge, he never suggested that governments themselves should become pacifist. After all, the advances of the civil rights movement would have been pointless without a national government that was willing to enforce such things as the Voting Rights Act with more than kind intentions.