The Use and Abuse of Martin Luther King Jr. by Israel's Apologists

[durutti]

http://www.counterpunch.org/kiblawi01172004.html

In formal logic, Argumentum Ad Verecundiam refers to arguing a point with an appeal to authority. This type is categorized as a logical fallacy. Citing one seemingly authoritative source is simply not conclusive evidence, even if the authority is seen as an expert on the given subject.

For the sake of clarity, there are three degradations of this maxim enumerated in this essay. First, it is especially fallacious as proof when the quoted authority demonstrates no special knowledge on the subject. Second, when the authority who is not an expert on the given subject is also quoted out of context, the argument is even weaker. Third, the lowest violation of this formal logic principle is when an advocate uses a false rendition, or a fabricated quote, by the same authority who can claim no expertise.

This is the best framework for understanding how various exponents of Israel have used Martin Luther King Jr. to promote their cause.

Dr. King's expertise as a non-violent civil rights leader and visionary are unparalleled in U.S. history. However, that does not make him an informed commentator on Middle Eastern affairs or on the ideological facets of Zionism. As impressive as the references to his views on Israel may seem, this is a textbook example of Argumentum Ad Verecundiam.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mmm]

3. Very interesting, and I agree:

I doubt that King ever made that malicious statement
against anti-zionism.

[durutti]

11. I don't know...

He may or may not have spoken out against anti-Zionism. But the most important point, I think, is made in the first few paragraphs: it's irrelevent. Just because King said something doesn't make it so. One could just as easily cite Malcolm X's staunch anti-Zionism. Of course, I don't know why you would -- either way, it's just an appeal to authority.

[JohnLocke]

4. A Special Bond: Martin Luther King, Jr. and Israel

A Special Bond: Martin Luther King, Jr., Israel and American Jewry
By Stuart Appelbaum

This year, U.S. Jews, like other Americans, will mark Martin Luther King, Jr. Day by remembering him as a powerful voice against racism and for civil rights. But, for Jews, Dr. King was also something else: a uniquely important ally in the fight against anti-Semitism and for a secure Israel.

(...)

Dr. King spoke and wrote often about Israel. However, the true depth of Dr. King’s commitment to Israel was readily apparent in a September, 1967 letter he sent to Adolph Held, then president of the organization I now lead, the Jewish Labor Committee. Dr. King wrote Held after the Jewish leader contacted him regarding press accounts of a conference that Dr. King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference participated in. At the meeting, strongly worded resolutions blasting Zionism and embracing the position of the Arab powers had been considered.

Understanding Held’s worries, Dr. King explained that, beyond offering opening remarks, he had no part in the conference. But, Dr. King said, had he been present during the discussion of the resolutions “I would have made it crystal clear that I could not have supported any resolution calling for black separatism or calling for a condemnation of Israel and an unqualified endorsement of the policy of the Arab powers.”

“Israel’s right to exist as a state is incontestable,” Dr. King wrote. He then added, almost prophetically, “At the same time the great powers have the obligation to recognize that the Arab world is in a state of imposed poverty and backwardness that must threaten peace and harmony.”

Referring to the stake U.S. oil companies have in the Middle East, Dr. King went on to note that “some Arab feudal rulers are no less concerned for oil wealth and neglect the plight of their own peoples. The solution will have to be found in statesmanship by Israel and progressive Arab forces who in concert with the great powers recognize fair and peaceful solutions are the concern of all humanity and must be found.”

Were Dr. King’s comments to Held intended only to soothe a miffed supporter? Hardly. In a March 25, 1968 speech to the Rabbinical Assembly, Dr. King said: “peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.” Less than two weeks later, on April 4, Dr. King was murdered while organizing support for striking sanitation workers in Memphis, Tennessee.

(...)

www.rac.org/social/opedmlk.html

[Comadreja]

6. King stood for the oppressed

In today's Palestine, that would be the Palestinians. He would support a non-violent solution, not the U.S.-supported military victory pursued by Sharon. He would therefore encourage the U.N. to take over, an obvious solution that Sharon and the settlers oppose because it would force them to deal with the Palestinians as equals rather than vassals.

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. Oh bull

King would do this, King would do that.

Dr. King was a friend to the Jewish people and to Israel. Of course he would want a peaceful solution. Sometimes those aren't available to you. There are no peaceful solutions when faced by such as Yassin and the suicide bombers who seek maximum destruction.

Ah, yes, sure bring in the UN. We know the history of that body and how many member nations give one damn about the lives of Jews in their own nations or elsewhere.

[Comadreja]

9. But they ARE available

Unfortunately, Sharon wants no solution that leaves Arabs in Palestine. Just what do "we" know about the U.N. that proves it is against the Jews as you imply? You think every other nation on earth is anti-semitic? Sounds dreadfully paranoid to me. Your real objection is no doubt that besides the U.S., every other nation on Earth objects to Israel's disgusting infliction of violence and terror on the (semitic) Palestinians.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Arabs out of Palestine?

You are looking at the wrong side if you wish to complain about ethnic cleansing boyo. There are 1 million Arabs in Israel. That's a 1 with six big freakin' zeros after it. Tell me, how many Jews are left in all of the Arab world? In the West Bank or Gaza?

What we know about the UN is that it consistently votes against any Israel interests and that there are dozens of either Arab or Muslim nations that despise Israel and are members of that "august" body.

No, I don't think EVERY nation on Earth is anti-Semitic. Many are or perhaps even most. But not all.

Why should Israel risk its security to anyone who is not 100% sure it wants to protect it? Why should Israel give up the security of having the best trained troops protecting its women and children?

My real objection is that the Palestians never offer real peace. All they offer is continued war and a pretend peace.

[durutti]

13. Who knows?

Why bicker over what he would or wouldn't say? It's impossible to know, and not really productive to debate.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. There is a record

Of things he said and things he did.

[durutti]

29. That's not the point.

I don't know (and I don't think you know) which statements attributed to MLK are true and which are false. That said, it may well be that he was a supporter of Zionism.

The reason I posted this article was because of the first few paragraphs. The examination of whether or not MLK actually expressed these sentiments doesn't concern me so much.

I just would like to see people acknowledge that it doesn't really matter what MLK said, precisely because this is an appeal to authority -- not a logical argument. People should examine both sides of the issue and make up their minds based on the available evidence. Relying on what any number of "great men" have said isn't enough.

[The Magistrate]

34. Have A Care, Mr. Durruti....

If this topic were to be debated only by persons with a well rounded knowledge of the matter, we would hear a good many crickets down here for hours on end....

[bemildred]

60. Indeed Sir.

There is no fun in that now, is there?
:thumbsup:

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. So why worry about, facts, just focus on opinion

That seems to be the crux of your argument.

There is nothing wrong with looking to great men or women for guidance in some of the most difficul problems faced by our world.

As for logic, there is little of it in the racial hate the infects the terrorist cause.

[durutti]

27. Response

King would do this, King would do that.

You're making my point for me. What King (or Malcolm X, or Caesar Chavez, or whoever) would do is irrelevent.

Dr. King was a friend to the Jewish people and to Israel.

He was unquestionably a friend to the Jewish people. But was he a friend to Israel? The "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend" is an obvious fraud, and the infamous dinner conversation may be as well. In response, you and John Locke have provided a link to an article by an offer who offers no corroborating evidence.

Of course he would want a peaceful solution. Sometimes those aren't available to you. There are no peaceful solutions when faced by such as Yassin and the suicide bombers who seek maximum destruction.

Maybe not. But suicide bombers don't exist in a vacuum.

The tactics of Palestinian terrorists are reprehensible, and should be condemned. However, they are neither the aggressors nor the oppressors.

It was the Zionists who, collaborating with absentee landlords, threw the Arab peasants off their land.

It was the Zionists who committed acts of terrorism that killed hundreds when segments of the British government and Arab public began to oppose the colonization scheme.

It was the Zionists who drove 700,000 people from their homes, killing and raping as they went and overtook 78 percent of Palestine, and tried to arrange (unsuccessfully) to give the rest to Jordan.

It was the Zionists who started the wars of 1956, 1967, and 1982.

It was the Zionists who engaged in smaller campaigns of ethnic cleansing in 1956 and 1967.

It was the Zionists -- led by the current Prime Minister -- who slaughtered Arab villagers in Qibya in the 1950s.

It was Kahane and the Jewish Defense League that attacked Arab and Palestinian-sympathizing civilians in the U.S. and abroad.

It was the Zionists who directed Sabra and Shatila.

It was the Zionists who killed 10 Palestinians for every killed Israeli in the first Intifada, most of them armed with nothing more than stones, and 3 Palestinians for every killed Israeli in the second Intifada, 80 percent of them civilian noncombatants.

It was the Zionists who outlawed Arab political parties until the late 1960s.

It was the Zionists who kept Arab citizens of Israel under military rule for 20 years, and residents of the Occupied Territories for the last 37.

It was the Zionists who doubled the number of settlements throughout the "relative calm" of the 1990s.

It is the Zionists who continue to utilize torture and collective punishment, destroying people's homes and economic livelihoods, frequently with little or no reason.

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. What would King do?

Why is that irrelevant? It might be to you. From your comments, I'm guessing he carries little personal authority with you.

You fail to realize how much the Jewish people ARE Israel and Israel is them. Dr. King was a friend to both.

There is an easy solution to your complaints about Israel's ways to handle terrorists. Peace.

The day that a Palestinian offers peace will be the first. Peace MUST include shutting down the terror network -- first. Without that happening, there can be no peace.

The rest of your post attempts to demonize all who support Israel. The word for such people is Zionist.

It was the ARABS who prosecuted the war that destroyed partition and cost the Palestinians their state. They should address their grievances there.

The wars of 1956, 1967, and 1982 were wars of self defense as was 1948 and the perpetual war against terror.

[Gimel]

36. Let's go over that again

He would support a non-violent solution

That leaves out the Palestinian militants which dominate the "Palestinian Cause".

not the U.S.-supported military victory

A military "victory" would lead nowhere, and everyone knows it.

encourage the U.N. to take over, an obvious solution

Talk about "occupation". A real occupation when foreigners take over.

and the subject line...
King stood for the oppressed

Oppression by violence is no solution. So King could not have supported the Palestinians in the Intifada.

[bluesoul]

37. Neither would he support

RW wackos like Sharon and his policy of brutality against a whole nation, that's for sure...

[Gimel]

40. A policy

Brutality in suppressing terror... using force to oppose force. Maybe the Hague will look favorably on the wall, it is a peaceful solution, although a Sharon policy. I wouldn't be so sure that MLK would object to the separation of a nation from one that harbors terrorists that strike at it daily.

[bluesoul]

41. Daily?

One attack in few months is daily? While countless Palestinians do die, weekly or even daily...

[Muddleoftheroad]

43. Yes, daily

You only focus on the attacks that score victories and leave pieces of dead Israelis littering the ground.

But the IDF stops terror attacks on a daily basis.

[bluesoul]

45. Sure

they do. In the meantime Palestinians die...

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. It's a choice really

Both sides make it.

The Palestinians make the choice by tolerating the terrorists in their midst. They support them and their leadership certainly does. That means, they get the full range of benefits and detriments.

Israel also makes a choice. It makes a choice to not sit there and just wait for terrorists to kill more Israelis and watch their people die by the thousands as they do nothing. There ONLY choice then is to fight back and root the terrorists out of their hiding places like footing out a cancer. To cut it away, some good tissue might die as well, but the cancer must be cut out.

[bluesoul]

49. This makes me

:puke:

[Muddleoftheroad]

51. Glad to hear it

[bluesoul]

52. Palestinians now being cancer

now that's the low point that I have heard anywhere...

[Muddleoftheroad]

53. Nope, just Palestinian terrorists

You sort of ignored that point.

[durutti]

12. Could be.

But the important point, I think, is not whether or not he said these things (which he very well may have), but the fact of his saying or not saying them doesn't strengthen or weaken the arguments of either camp.

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. Counterpunch

It seems this latest bit of Counterpunch swill gets to stay. I refrained from comment until I was sure.

This is a classic piece of propaganda. I imagine that Jack has a wonderful Latin term for trying to claim all rights to anybody who ever had a thought so others can't use their statements, their beliefs. I will simply say it is an attempt to hijack a great man for the delusional dreams of the gang at Counterpunch.

I grew up at a time of the Civil Rights movement. I was born too early to ever see Dr. King in person. That thrill was denied me in 1968 by an assassin's attack.

That attack was the culmination of 400 years of anti-black actions in America. Four hundred years. Not a lifetime, not even several. By modern definition, that is 20 generations. When you factor in how short lifespans used to be, it is probably 30 or more.

Most of that history was spent enslaved. Once we were rescued from that, our old masters did their best to re-enslave us and that again lasted 100 years. In some ways it persists today. During that time, we had allies, but many wanted our troubles and the ongoing persecution to simply go away.

During the Civil Rights movement, African-American churches throughout the South organized our people to stand up, to fight after centuries of oppression.

The first allies we found were Jewish men and women who came down South to help. They offered their time, their knowledge, their money and sometimes even their lives.

They brought with them a stunning legacy. They had overcome not just 400 years years of abuse and slavery, but thousands of years. Every black man and woman who had read the Bible knew that these were another people who, like us, had been enslaved. For those of us who are religious, we do believe that our God brought the Jewish people out of Egypt.

But their time in Israel came to an end when the Romans destroyed their city. These people fought 2,000 years to find freedom and a land they could call their own.

They found instead death, hatred, war and anti-Semitism. But they persevered. They built a home in the dessert and made it flourish. They built a nation and made it a democracy. They built a people and made them strong and proud allies of America against a Soviet menace that sought to conquer the world.

Now, here we are almost 36 years since the death of Dr. King and many on the left and even in African-American community would turn their backs on the Jewish community and the nation of Israel.

I can't stop that. I am one voice. But I am one voice that will not be silenced. I know who stood up for our rights. My momma made sure of that. I also know what the terrorists really stand for. I remember the 1972 Olympics when Palestinian terrorists even went so far as to murder Israeli athletes.

I recall the Achille Lauro and the almost endless terror attacks since. The suicide attacks. The blown up women and children. And most of all, the deliberate attempts to prevent peace and harm not just Israelis, but the Palestinian people to keep their terror nightmares thriving.

I know who my friends are. I stand with Israel against those who seek to destroy it, against those who seek to abandon it. I stand where all African-American men and women should stand. I stand where Dr. King would have demanded we stand.

For those of you who want to know more where Dr. King stood on Israel:

http://www.rac.org/social/opedmlk.html

Understanding Held’s worries, Dr. King explained that, beyond offering opening remarks, he had no part in the conference. But, Dr. King said, had he been present during the discussion of the resolutions “I would have made it crystal clear that I could not have supported any resolution calling for black separatism or calling for a condemnation of Israel and an unqualified endorsement of the policy of the Arab powers.”

“Israel’s right to exist as a state is incontestable,” Dr. King wrote. He then added, almost prophetically, “At the same time the great powers have the obligation to recognize that the Arab world is in a state of imposed poverty and backwardness that must threaten peace and harmony.”

Referring to the stake U.S. oil companies have in the Middle East, Dr. King went on to note that “some Arab feudal rulers are no less concerned for oil wealth and neglect the plight of their own peoples. The solution will have to be found in statesmanship by Israel and progressive Arab forces who in concert with the great powers recognize fair and peaceful solutions are the concern of all humanity and must be found.”

[meti57b]

8. motr, that is an awesome post and I thank you for it!!

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. Thanks Meti

I wish more grasped it.

[durutti]

14. Please, Muddle...

The writer doesn't cite a single source in his article.

You dismiss as "propaganda" anything that doesn't match your predetermined views.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. In this case

I actually make a citation, something the writer seemed unable to muster.

No, as an African-American, I am NOT willing to let someone steal a leader away from us and say we can no longer reference him.

[bluesoul]

17. I am sure many other African-Americans

would disagree with you, especially since many of them are Muslims themselves and would have a bit to say about Palestinians and their suffering...

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. They are entitled as well

I don't claim Dr. King for my personal exclusive use. I simply rebel at that piece of dung Counterpunch's claim I can't.

[GabysPoppy]

19. The shame of it is

the fact that many do not seem to grasp what you are saying, Muddle.

[durutti]

20. Speaking of propaganda...

The Institute for Propaganda Analysis identifies a number of common propaganda techniques. Let's review:

Name-calling: "anti-Semite", "Nazi", "terrorist"

Glittering Generalities: "democracy", "peace", "security"

Euphemism: "homicide bomber", "transfer", "security fence", "peace wall", "Judaea and Samaria", "extremist" (used instead of "terrorist" when referring to violent Israeli Jews)

Transfer: likening a people's resistance to colonial occupation to the Holocaust. Likening the suffering the suffering of an oppressor nation at the hands of the oppressed to that of an oppressed people at the hands of oppressive regimes.

Fear: Examples of this one are too numerous to list.

You'll find none of the above in the CounterPunch article. You will, however, find copious examples in the publications of AIPAC, CAMERA, the ADL, and their ilk.

No, the article consisted mostly of logical, well-argued points -- which is apparently what passes for "propaganda" in right-wing Zionist circles.

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. The institute

I couldn't give a damn about what the institute has to say.

You attack me for being "right-wing," because I value Martin Luther King. Because I value the interwoven history of African-Americans and Jews. That has to be the most baffling thing I have ever seen here.

You attack uses of the words: "anti-Semite", "Nazi" and "terrorist," when they are entirely appropriate for the discussion.

You criticize as "Glittering Generalities" the terms "democracy,, "peace," and "security" when they are clear and valid nouns with equally clear and valid meaning.

While your agenda is clear, to disgrace any opposition to the Palestinian cause, your methods are most amusing.

The article that started this thread cited not an iota of proof. You haven't addressed that whatsoever.

[JohnLocke]

23. Good post, Muddle.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JasonDeter]

33. I stand where Dr. King would have demanded we stand.

I know he would have said Amen to your post. He would have betrayed who he was as a Christian not to.

[bemildred]

24. I thought we had beat this to death already.

This fellow makes three salient points, that I can see:

1.) Dr. King was no ME expert, even at the time, and hence his
opinions on the matter do not carry much weight.

The premise seems clear enough, I'm not sure I accept the
conclusion, I think Dr. King's opinions wil carry weight with
many on any subject he might have chosen to express himself about.
Nevertheless, the author is correct that as a matter of logic it is
questionable. Rather like Mandela commenting on the I/P conflict,
as an example from the other "side".

2.) There are no existing primary sources attributable to Dr.
King that support the claims about his attitudes towards Israel
and Zionism, there is only hearsay testimony of apparently recent
origin.

If this was such an important matter to Dr. King, one
would have expected him to write about it, and if the testimony
is true, one would not have expected it to suddenly come to light
thirty years later on.

3.) The State of Israel has, so far, failed in it's stated mission
of providing a safe, secure, and peaceful home for the Jewish people.

One may well argue that the Palestinian refugees have been kept
in the status of refugees as a bone on which the State of Israel
will choke. But, so what? It has worked rather well. It is a policy
failure of great consequence that the Government of Israel has failed
effectively to defuse that problem, to swallow or cough up the
bone.

[Comadreja]

25. King's own words

These are excerpts from his speech on Vietnam: "They watch as we poison their water, as we kill a million acres of their crops. They must weep as the bulldozers roar through their areas preparing to destroy the precious trees. They wander into the hospitals, withat least twenty casualties from American firepower for one "Vietcong"-inflicted injury. So far we may have killed a million of them---mostly children. They wander into the towns and see the children degraded by our soldiers as they beg for food."
"Now there is little left to build on---save bitterness. Soon the only solid physical foundations remaining will be found at our military bases and in the concrete of the concentration camps we call fortified hamlets. The peasants may well wonder if we plan to build our new Vietnam on such grounds as these? Could we blame them for such thoughts? We must speak for them and raise the questions they cannot raise. These too are our brothers."
I don't think the answer could be clearer, though there is much more in his speech that hammers home the point, that MLK would denounce the oppression of the Palestinians and condemn the militaristic elements in Israel and the U.S. that would continue down the immoral racists path of Sharon and the Likud.

[Muddleoftheroad]

26. Funny

Why stretch Dr. King's words from another situation to fit your designs. Why not use his REAL words:

Dr. King said: "peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality." Less than two weeks later, on April 4, Dr. King was murdered while organizing support for striking sanitation workers in Memphis, Tennessee.

http://www.rac.org/social/opedmlk.html

[Comadreja]

31. Sow Justice, Reap Peace

<http://store3.yimg.com/I/united-states-flag_1772_4697998>

I agree with King. Peace and security for Israel does not not preclude the same for the Palestinians. Non-violence was a constant in his speech and actions. As you say, he was shot in 1968 and didn't live to witness the full-scale application of violence as the Zionist solution for the Palestinian problem. Do you claim he would approve of what Sharon and his ilk have done?

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. Boy I love that term

"Ilk." It's such a loaded term.

Since Dr. King's murder, Israel has gone on the best it could. It has fended off enemies and even made peace with two long-standing opponents.

During that same time, the PLO/PA/Hamas/Islamic Jihad/PFLP/Hezbollah/Etc. terror network had made war not just on Israeli soldiers, but Israeli civilians and Jews throughout the world. Dr. King was lucky enough in some ways to never see the monstrous acts of Palestinian terror -- the Munich Olympics, the Achille Lauro, suicide bombings, etc.

I think anyone who has a rational thought would realize that there is no peace with such monsters.

[bluesoul]

35. he was lucky not to see

all the Israeli terror against the Palestinians. He might reconsider some of the things he said back then if he knew everything...

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. Interesting

Dr. King died in 1968. I find it interesting to note that you don't consider Israel's victory in the 1967 war to be "terror" against the Palestinians. It seems, shall we say, inconsistent.

[bluesoul]

46. In 1967

they fought against who?

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Loaded terms...

There's nothing loaded about the word 'ilk'. It may be distressing for those who are fans of Sharon to be faced with the prospect of their Man Of Peace being labelled a warmongering racist with the intelligence of a garden slug, and knowing that when someone speaks of the ilk that surrounds him, they're labelling them the same, but it's not a loaded term. A loaded term is something like: 'Only a racist would disagree with my views on immigration'. It's loaded because if someone were to disagree with the views expressed, they've already been labelled a racist, regardless of whether their disagreement makes them racist or not....

Let me get this straight. You actually are claiming that he would approve of what Sharon has done? You are aware that people can be strongly opposed to the terrorism you described and still be opposed to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians? The problem with taking a public symbol who's not around anymore to say what they actually think is that people have a tendency to project their own personal views onto that person and claim that's what they would have thought. I've seen the same thing done to long-dead early feminists, and it was equally unimpressive and unconvincing...

From reading this thread, if Dr. King could be brought back and interviewed on his views on the I/P conflict, this is the stance that some would have us believe he'd have. Comes across as awfully familiar sounding, doesn't it?

Dr. King, with yr strong track record in civil rights and fighting for the oppressed, what's yr view on the occupation by Israel of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the oppression of the Palestinian people?

Thanks for asking me, Violet. I never got around to saying much at all while I was alive, but I do have a secret diary stashed away in a basement that, if all goes to plan, a pro-Israeli journalist should find in another thirty years and share with the world. Being dead has put me behind the eight-ball when it comes to keeping up with the conflict, but let's get one thing straight. It's not an 'occupation', it's a transition. Have I mentioned yet that Israel's the only democracy in the Middle East? That bears repeating...constantly! The Palestinians can choose peace, but they don't, and until they do Israel has an inherent right to continue the transition. I support the fight against oppression and Israel is being oppressed!

But aren't the Palestinian people being oppressed?

They may or they may not be. I just don't have time to go looking for articles about any 'oppression' they may or may not face. I can only do one thing at the time, what with me being dead and all, and with the world-wide anti-Semitism, the anti-Semitic UN, the anti-Semitic left-wing media, and that Israel-hating Ayrab Al-Jazeera to keep an eye on, I don't have time for much else! Besides, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and the Peace Fence pretty much rests my case! Ariel Sharon is a brave and fearless leader and everything that's done is in the name of security, whether it's shooting children, demolishing homes, or dropping bombs on residential areas in the middle of the night. Those Palestinians have to learn to stop hiding those terrorists in their midst!

;)

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Loaded alright

Perhaps Dr. King's perspective is a little easier to appreciate as an AFrican-American. Maybe you missed the part of my post about how Jewish people were our strongest allies in the crusade for Civil Rights. Maybe it slipped past you that Dr. King DID discuss Israel while he was alive or that the 1967 war happened BEFORE he was killed, so there was plenty of opportunity for comment.

As for "ilk," of course it's a loaded word. Again, here in America, it is used as a negative term.

I have never claimed Sharon is a "Man Of Peace." He ain't. He's a soldier fighting a war. Israel had a man of peace and Arafat spit in his face and the idea of peace fell by the wayside. Thus we have Intifada I and II. And since the Palestinians went to terror, Israel chose a man of war to defend itself.

It was a good choice.

You talk about approval, I talk about survival. And THAT Dr. King would have understood. I don't think even Sharon "approves" of everything he MUST do. But he must do it nevertheless or risk hundreds or thousands of Israeli women and children ending up torn to bits by the psycho fanatic Islamic terrorists coming from the West Bank.

Actually, if Dr. King were alive today, perhaps HE would have tried intervening in the Mideast and maybe, just maybe, some Palestinian leader would have enough courage to actually stand up and be counted.

That is what this situation lacks -- ANY Palestinian leader who will offer peace and, so doing, challenge the terrorists who threaten Israel every single day.

I was in Maryland yesterday to see the "Battle of Algiers." If you have any doubts about what works or what doesn't in fighting terror, try watching that movie some time. To win, you have to be a bastard. The only other choice is to lose.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Perhaps not...

No-one, no matter what colour, ethnicity, or religion they are, can project their own views onto a figure who's not around to say what they thought, and pretend that those views are those of the figure. He's dead. No-one knows what he would have said or thought. Me, I don't really care. If he'd not shown some empathy for the Palestinian people and been a fan of Sharon's way of doing things, I'd think he was a bit of a wanker. Is that clear enough for you?

You didn't bother answering my question. Unless you believe it's not possible for people to support the existance of Israel and oppose the terrorism you listed, there's plenty of people who support Israel's existance, oppose that terrorism, and also oppose the actions of Israel in the Occupied Territories. So, why do you believe that someone couldn't oppose Sharon's policies, yet feel the way I said about the first two?

Ilk isn't a loaded term. Learn what loaded term is, Muddle. Negative terms are something different and I'm a bit surprised that someone here in a progressive left-wing forum would have a problem with Sharon being called what he is, which is a right-wing creep with the intelligence of a garden slug who has no interest in peace, and who's a racist...

I never claimed you claimed Sharon is a Man Of Peace, Muddle...

What the situation doesn't have is an Israeli leader interested in offering peace. You keep on forgetting to mention that, I've noticed. And this may come as a shock but the Palestinians did have a PM who was interested in peace until Israel's continual ignoring of their obligations under the Roadmap kissed him goodbye. And Israel has this habit of assassinating or imprisoning moderates...

Life isn't a movie, Muddle. It's not Good Guys vs Bad Guys. Palestinian and Israeli civilians are dying. They're all real people, not just Israelis. And who needs a movie to tell them that Israel's way of handling terrorism isn't working? All you need to do is read the articles posted here to see that nothing's going to change until both Sharon and Arafat are gone, and leaders on both sides genuinelly interested in peace replace them...

[Muddleoftheroad]

55. English

Your first point is entirely wrong. It should read, "EVERYONE," Not no one.

Of course people project views on the famous people of history. We cite Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, Adams and others so often it's amazing they don't come back from the dead and demand royalties.

And, though you don't really care what he said or thought, many of us do. Hence the debate.

I did answer your question. Israel has two choices -- win or lose. It prefers to win. To do so is not always pretty. To lose is far worse.

LOL, I love it when someone who doesn't understand something and then tries to tell ME to learn. Tell you what V, come to America sometime and we'll teach you all about things here. Until then, you have to realize you don't know all there is to know about our society, our culture or our use of the language.

Till then, ilk is NOT necessarily a negative term. It is however one often, but not always used in a negative way. As such, it is loaded. (For those of you with the home game version of DU, that means: "To charge with additional meanings, implications, or emotional import.")

As for your endless anti-Sharon rant, it is what it is -- frivolous, biased and downright silly. Sharon is a military man. I know that doesn't carry much weight for some on DU, but it does in the real world. You have to be smart to get where he has gotten and you have to be tough, something the Palestinian terrorists no doubt wish wasn't true. He is not racist and his interest in peace is through victory -- pretty typical for anyone with a military mindset. But the Israeli people are different. If real peace (that elusive concept so elusive it has baffled the Palestinians throughout the last 37 years), then Israel would AGAIN choose another leader who would offer peace in return.

Of course life isn't a movie. That doesn't mean there aren't good guys or bad guys. Dr. King for instance was a good guy. No, he wasn't perfect. But he was still a good guy.

The Palestinian terrorists are clearly the bad guys.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. Please don't try to correct my English...

It's no-one, and this isn't an essay-writing exercise, and maybe you should take note that some of us type Global English...

Yr mistaken. I never said I don't care care what he would have said or thought while he was alive. What I don't care about is what people claim, based on their projecting their own personal views onto him, what he would have said or thought now. And what I don't care about is anyone claiming they have more right than other people to project their thoughts onto someone who's dead. No-one can know what him or any other historical figure would have thought...

Muddle, the word ilk as used in the post you replied to was used in a negative way. There's no need to patronise me or insist I have to visit the US to know what a word means. There's dictionaries for that. What I was explaining to you was that it's not a loaded term...

Sorry, but how I described Sharon wasn't a rant. He IS a racist, he's not intelligent, and his only idea of peace is through totally crushing and humiliating the Palestinian people. That's not peace. He deserves criticism just as much as Arafat, and he'll get it, despite attempts to defend him. The Israeli and Palestinian people are seeking the same sort of enduring peace, and to claim that one group of people isn't is ignoring reality. Hey, last time Israelis elected a leader who was interested in real peace, an Israeli assassinated him. Hope that doesn't happen again...

No, life isn't Good Guys vs Bad Guys, especially when some get so confused over what constitutes terrorism that they define attacks on military targets as terrorism being carried out by the Bad Guys. There's fault on both sides in this particular issue, and divvying things up into Good vs Bad doesn't allow anyone doing so to look at the issue with any depth at all...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

57. This is a site generally about America

So, I corrected your English only after you tried to tell me mine was incorrect. I guess that makes me a bad guy? Go figure.

You can use global English all you want. Sometimes you will be quite wrong when you discuss stuff related to America.

We don't know what historical figures thought. We don't even know what current figures think. We only know what they say. It is the right of anyone and everyone to use those statements to learn from and comment with. However, when they disagree with actual statements on the subject at hand, that is a problem.

We can debate what Sharon is or isn't. But you who think him so dumb should be reminded that he got elected to head an entire country. Next time you muster an achievement of like stature, please let us know. I will be the first to congratulate you. Add to it, he rose to great power in the military. Another similar achievement that I doubt you can claim.

As I said, Sharon is a military man. They go for victory. That is what he is doing. That's why the Palestinian position continues to deteriorate because he is trying to win.

I think you forget a bit of history. What about Barak? He proposed peace. Arafat rejected it.

Some of life IS Good Guys vs Bad Guys and the fact that you refuse to acknowledge it says more than I ever can.

[GabysPoppy]

58. Why waste yr time?

[bluesoul]

61. True

a waste of time with such simplistic and black/white thinking. Good vs evil BS...

[Violet_Crumble]

63. Easy...

Because I do live in hope that anyone interested enough to post here will sometimes walk away having given things some thought when it comes to the I/P issue. After all, that's what I thought this place was for and that's why I do enjoy the occassional constructive discussions that happen. Plus, I'm bored tonight...

Oh. You weren't talking to me? ;)

Violet...

[bluesoul]

59. Your thinking is is simplistic

....

[Violet_Crumble]

62. Nope...

This is a site for Democrats and progressive from anywhere are welcome. And I didn't bring nationality into this, Muddle. You did. Most words mean the same thing in every English-speaking country, and ilk is one of them, which is why there was no need at all to reply in that way. Read the original post you first commented on again. Show me how in any way the sentence 'ilk' was in could have possibly been construed as positive. It was meant to be negative, and Sharon and his cronies deserves the criticism...

Show me where I said you couldn't comment on statements that a person actually makes, as opposed to projecting personal views onto them long after they're dead and acting as though that's how that person would have thought. I never said anything of the sort...

No, we can't debate that Sharon is a stupid racist man who's not interested in a peaceful and fair resolution to the conflict, because that's what he is. And it doesn't take any sort of IQ to be elected to lead a country. Look at Bush if you want an example of stupid leaders...

Nope. Didn't forget any history at all...

No, the fact that I don't see life as some Good Guys vs Bad Guys melodrama merely says that for folk like me, we're prepared to examine the issue in some depth. That's why you'll never see me telling people they should watch a movie to see what works when it comes to terrorism...

Violet...

[Lithos]

64. Locking

Enough, tis enough.

****************************************

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity. But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free.

One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land.

So we have come here today to dramatize an appalling condition. In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.

This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation.

So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of the Negro. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights.

The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges. But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. we must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" we can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair. I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring." And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania! Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California! But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee! Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"