Palestinian baby killed by Zionists

All this misery just because Israel refuses to give the Palestinian People their freedom and allow them to have a small State on their own land...
For Possible Solution to this Horrific Problem take time to read the following:
CLICK HERE > http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1605768.php

You have been brainwashed by the media.
Israel does not refuse to give the palistinians a state.
they refuse to give the palistinians the state that they want right now.
why? security.

A child inside his home shot. The horror never goes away, does it?

A state of their own? Naa, it's easier to kill them, isn't it, Scottie? Especially when they are infants and toddlers.

May God forgive them.

Thanks for watching! Bill will be sending you an autographed "The Factor" baseball cap. Enjoy!

Thanks for watching! Bill will be sending you an autographed "The Factor" baseball cap. Enjoy!

When the U.S. Military goes on a war mission it knows that some of the people in the military may die as a result of that mission. If they really believe that something is wrong and they are willing to die for it, it is considered noble.
But let the Palestinian say they are willing to die for their homeland and their freedom and it is considered terrorism. Why are they not allowed to fight for somthing that fair and just for them???

angie - "A state of their own? Naa, it's easier to kill them, isn't it, Scottie? Especially when they are infants and toddlers. "

Look at the statistics of what age groups of israelis and palistinians die as a result of attacks. the palistinian deaths are heavily in the young men bracket.. the israeli deaths more or less reflect population with infants todlers and old people.
Why would that be angie? can you explain it?
ok assuming you are a little slow it is because one group targets everyone while the other tries to avoid killing innocvent civilians if that was not true then palistinian death statistics would be the same distribution as israeli ones.

As to why one is nobel and the other is not it is because they want to take land from others and give it to themselves (whatever its ancient history might be).. that is not what the US military is doing in Iraq.

If we follow your logic where anyone who fights for a cause they believe in is noble then we have to consider Hitler "noble"

Read the few lines I posted above and tell me where I said anything about "noble"??? Please don't put words in my mouth. God knows I have enough of them already, but thanks for your comments. It's important to be able to share views and ideas even if we disagree. Take care.

With almost 3,000 Palestinians slaughtered and over 700 Israelis slaughtered, what are you saying? That someone is taking care not to kill innocent civilians? Please tell us more.

And you are interested in an exchange of ideas? It certainly doesn't sound like it from your comments throughout this piece.

Give up the character assassination, Hi. Nothing is gained by it. Instead of attacking me and others who have different views, why not attack the issues?

Angie = ANGEL = Wendy Campbell, a anti-Israel nutcase. Why is she obsessed with the existence of a Jewish state? Who knows. She appears to be unemployed, spending all her time on Indymedia or at anti-Israel rallies. She is constantly begging for money. Perhaps she believes that wealthy Muslims or Nazis will finance her life of hatred. Perhaps they already are. But don't debate this idiot because you are wasting your time. Israel will survive long after she is forgotten.

How damn sad that a discussion with respect to the death of a Palestinian infant has deteriorated into a character assassination of myself. But it is only what I expect.

Who knows? People who have written views contrary to people like yu and others have not only had their character asassinated, but have also received death threats. Is that what I can expect next, hmm?

You're not as clever as you think you are, Bob (fi thats' your real name). I have no idea who Angel is, nor do I have any knowledge of who Wendy Campbell (gasp) is. In fact, I've never heard of her.

I do appreciate, however, Angel's attempts to rise above the rhetoric of you and others on this board. and
be constructive in her (his) views.

Nowhere in any of my comments have I said Israel should not exist. Nowhere have I ever condemned the ordinary Israeli citizen. I have condemned their government and its tactics, and I will continue to do so here and everywhere else.

So go ahead and vilify to your heart's content. It is a sad reflection on you and others. I won't be responding to your wild and baseless accusations in the future.

Imagine all of this because I asked earlier who was responsible for Hamas. Don't want anyone to know, hmm? Well, poeple can read all about it for themselves in history books and libraries.

Now if you'll excuse me, I must return to work. Good luck to you, sir.

This is what i was replying to
[in the context of hypocracy
[U.S. Military] - If they really believe that something is wrong and they are willing to die for it, it is considered NOBLE. (emphasis mine)

But let the Palestinian say they are willing to die for their homeland and their freedom and it is considered terrorism.

OK you are now offering a suggestion that equally US are terrorists or Palistinian terrorists ae noble (otherwise the hypocracy title is inapropriate)

Why are they not allowed to fight for somthing that fair and just for them???
- and here you are suggeting that you are leading towards the positive response which is "NOBLE"

geezzz

This whole line of discussion makes me think of Mark Twain's "The War Prayer" in which the representative from the man upstairs said the other side of the prayer that the pastor and the congregation were giving up to God.
http://www.warprayer.org/

"Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth into battle--be Thou near them! With them--in spirit-- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended in the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames in summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it--

For our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimmage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, strain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet!

We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts.

Amen.

The Jewish people will never live under the rule of the Palestinians, and the Palestinians will never live peacefully under the Israelis. The only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Crisis is for the occupation to end and the Palestinian People are allowed to have their own State. The Israeli Army should be used to guard the borders after a Two State Solution is obtained, not used to go into Palestinian areas and confiscate Palestinian land and demolish Palestinian homes. The only way for the atrocities to stop is if there is a Palestinian State that the Israeli’s cannot cross into whenever they choose where the Palestinian can govern themselves, have a say on who can enter their country without the approval of the Israelis and the list goes on and on…..
We do not have to be anti-Israel or anti-Palestinian or anti Semitic to know that a fair and just solution needs to be reached.
ANGEL does not want or need money from anyone.
Israel: We have to confiscate Palestinian land and demolish Palestinian homes because there are suicide bombers???
Palestine: We have to defend ourselves because Israel is slowly confiscating all our land and demolishing our homes, We have no military to defend ourselves and our land. If we do nothing, we will soon have nothing at all???
End the conflict by ending the cause of the conflict.
For Possible Solution:
CLICK HERE > http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1605768.php

Forgive me, my friend, but for the life of me I have no idea what you are saying in this post.

Where did this "noble" bit come from? It wasn't me.

Maybe we are saying the same thing, are we? I await your reply.

Israeli Zion David, 53, father of six was shot dead by a Palestinian ambush while driving his car.

Is now the point we're supposed to start cheering and shouting "free Palestine?"

I was talking to ANGEL either that is you or it isnt if it isnt I wasnt talking to you if it is then I was..
Ill leave it at that and not get into "accusing" you of being a particular person

It wasn't me, but it was a general post due to the topic of this indymedia article. It is common here on Indymedia... every article of a Palestinian slain is posted with slews of comments. But no mention of Israeli victims is ever made.

You will notice that T.V. and Major Newspapers always cover every suicide bombing to great lenghts by very little is heard of the deaths of the Palestinian, it takes something horrific like a little innocent baby.
Since the intifada started till mid April 2003:
724 Israelis were killed (This includes innocent children).
2382 Palestinians were killed (This includes innocent children).
Who has KILLED THE MOST PEOPLE??
In the mid 1800s there were fewer than 6000 Jewish People living in the area now known as Israel, West Bank and Gaza, this was not an empty land but a land with hundreds of thousand Palestinians, both Christian and Muslim.
The reason there are refugees is because their land and homes that were in what now is Israel were confiscated and taken from them. The least that can be done is to help them settle into a Palestinian State.
Have you heard about the So called Road Map that is supposedly being worked on??
Both the U.S. and Great Britain have been tossing around the idea of a two-state solution….
For a Possible Solution where both sides can win:::
CLICK HERE > http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1605768.php

I think the details of that solution is politically difficult however there are a couple of other solutions I have seen on here that would be slightly easier in practice and have the same "jist".
Most important however is that "right of return" is a non starter.. and essential is full aceptance (and all the implications therein) by both sides of both states (possibly gradually). The rest is just how to get there.

"Since the intifada started till mid April 2003:
724 Israelis were killed (This includes innocent children).
2382 Palestinians were killed (This includes innocent children).
Who has KILLED THE MOST PEOPLE??"
That does not in itself mean that the Israelis have killed all of those 2382 people directly..
some of them I assume are suicide bombers who killed themselves others are people who intentionally stayed in houses when warned to leave others are people who attacked men with machine guns with intent to cause serious injury and not surprisingly found themselves guned down. Not sure how they count it but there are many other options. How about palistinians killed as jewish conspirators? etc etc

Uh, Palestinians started their intifada against a much stronger opponent. An opponent who resists killing them in massive amounts, but will fight as necessary. When a stronger opponent offers you peace, and you respond by attacking, chances are more of you are going to die than the stronger opponent.

Palestinians are attacking Israel, but Israel is stronger, so more Palestinains die. It's logical, you idiots.

More germans died in WW2 than americans. So does that mean germans are the good guys?

When Israel kills innocents, it's embarrassing, and they apoligize about it. Israel aims for terrorists. When Palestinians kill innocents, they TAKE PUBLIC CREDIT for it and brag about it. And you sf.indymedia loons support them.

>When a stronger opponent offers you peace, and you respond by attacking, chances are more of you are going to die than the stronger opponent.

As the Vietnamese, and the Mau-Mau before them, proved beyond doubt, that does NOT mean you are going to lose.

"As the Vietnamese, and the Mau-Mau before them, proved beyond doubt, that does NOT mean you are going to lose."
The Vietnamese did not "win" they got slaughtered. The US lost a rear guard action against liberals within its country.
The vietnamese (chineese) relied upon the fact that the US had "humane people" that would stop the war based on "war is bad" principles.. hmmm so we have one more option you win a war by being more evil than the other person.
however there is one situation where that doesnt work.. where the territory in dispute is the home territory of the stronger side for example in WWII we did not surender even though we were not more evil than the enemy (although we certainly tried at the beginning of the war)? why? because they wanted everything and we knew it (or at least had it beaten into us).

You sound like a Nazi explaining how Germany lost WWI.

The US was driven out of Viet Nam by force of arms. The Vietnamese took horrific losses and never won a battle till the end. But who wins a war is not a matter of who wins the most battles or who had the higher casualties, but by who achieved their political goals. The Vietnamese achieved their political goals. The US did not. Ergo, the Vietnamese won, and the US lost.

The US's political goal was to stop the "domino effect"
the domino effect did not occur ergo the US achieved its goal (whether or not the domino effect was a real problem)

The Vietnamese achieved their political goals.

In a sense.. maybe they won also.

That's absurd. Have you never heard of Laos and Cambodia?

http://www.earendil.ath.cx/radical/atheism.html

Tourism Minister Benny Elon has proposed a new outline for peace in the Middle East, entitled: "In the Wake of the War in Iraq - A Historic Opportunity for a Regional Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict."

Elon, successor to the assassinated Rehavam Ze'evi as head of the Moledet Party in the National Union, conceived the plan as an alternative to the Road Map currently under consideration. He says that the Road Map is merely a "rehashing of the decades-old goal of trying to seat two peoples on the western side of the Jordan River" - an objective he calls "unworkable" and "dangerous." Giving the Arabs of Yesha a quasi-state will not solve the fundamental problems of borders and refugees, Elon says, but will instead guarantee the next round of terrorism and warfare.

Elon's plan offers what he calls "the genuine and original two-state solution," proposing that it encompass the full extent of Mandatory Palestine on both sides of the Jordan River. Its six points include the following:
1. The Palestinian Authority will be dissolved;

2. Israel will put a firm end to Palestinian terrorism by expelling terrorists, collecting weapons, and dismantling terror-hotbed refugee camps;

3. The international community will recognize the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan as the sole representative of the Palestinians, and will help it economically as it absorbs a limited number of refugees;

4. Israel will become sovereign over Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and the Arabs living there will be Jordanian citizens living under a form of autonomy to-be-determined;

5. The exchange of Jewish and Arab populations begun in 1948 will be completed, and the international community will help rehabilitate the refugees in their new countries;

5. Israel and Jordan-Palestine will declare the conflict ended and will work together as neighbors.

The intifadah will broaden, and come to include the entire billion-strong Muslim world. Righteous Americans will begin to see the evils perpetrated by Zionists, and tensions will escalate in this country between the pro-Zionist power-elite and the middle and working class majority.

Driven by the memory of martyrs like Rachel Corrie, Americans will come to see the fight against injustice in Palestine as the only righteous cause in that part of the world. Sharon and his ilk will order the killing of more American activists, hoping that it will increase anti-Semitism in the West and thus hasten Aliyah, counting on the continued support of bought politicians to prop up the Israeli economy.

More 911 style atrocities will spill onto the shores of America and Europe, and the political climate will become increasingly revolutionary and unstable as the gap between rich and poor grows. Zionists will prove their inability to let go of their supremacist goals, and this will eventually hasten their demise.

The ultimate goal is the Zionist seizure of the remaining super-giant oil fields on the Arabian peninsula, but this will prove to be too much even for the lackeys who currently lend their support to the neocons.

The current situation has all the makings of an epic disaster. Those who blindly support the Zionists for reasons ranging from religious zealotry to delusions of grandeur are bringing us all closer and closer to a global catastrophe.

The only way to avert this is to stamp out Zionism before it sacrifices all of us on the bloody altar of racial supremacism.


"Solution
by Eric Friday May 16, 2003 at 12:34 AM



Tourism Minister Benny Elon has proposed a new outline for peace in the Middle East, entitled: "In the Wake of the War in Iraq - A Historic Opportunity for a Regional Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict."

Elon, successor to the assassinated Rehavam Ze'evi as head of the Moledet Party in the National Union, conceived the plan as an alternative to the Road Map currently under consideration. He says that the Road Map is merely a "rehashing of the decades-old goal of trying to seat two peoples on the western side of the Jordan River" - an objective he calls "unworkable" and "dangerous." Giving the Arabs of Yesha a quasi-state will not solve the fundamental problems of borders and refugees, Elon says, but will instead guarantee the next round of terrorism and warfare.

Elon's plan offers what he calls "the genuine and original two-state solution," proposing that it encompass the full extent of Mandatory Palestine on both sides of the Jordan River. Its six points include the following:
1. The Palestinian Authority will be dissolved;

2. Israel will put a firm end to Palestinian terrorism by expelling terrorists, collecting weapons, and dismantling terror-hotbed refugee camps;

3. The international community will recognize the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan as the sole representative of the Palestinians, and will help it economically as it absorbs a limited number of refugees;

4. Israel will become sovereign over Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and the Arabs living there will be Jordanian citizens living under a form of autonomy to-be-determined;

5. The exchange of Jewish and Arab populations begun in 1948 will be completed, and the international community will help rehabilitate the refugees in their new countries;

5. Israel and Jordan-Palestine will declare the conflict ended and will work together as neighbors."

You tend to use the phrase Zionist Supremacy.

Let me clarify something

Zionism = national liberation of the Jewish people in its ancestral homeland

Zionist = anyone who supports its objective, whether he is Jewish or not.

There is no Zionist Supremacy. People who support the idea of Jews having their own country is not "above" anyone. They are not the "Pure" aryan race. Zionists include many people such as Bill Clinton and Martin Luther King, both non-Jews. People tend to think that all Zionists in Israel are Europeans who carried home their fascist ideas. Wrong again. Over 50% of Jews in Israel come from North Africa and the Middle east. Some are white, some are black, some are brown. All are treated equally and all support the Jewish state. So the Idea of ZIonist Supremacy is completely baseless and wrong

Regarding Angie's remarks...
You will notice that T.V. and Major Newspapers always cover every suicide bombing to great lenghts by very little is heard of the deaths of the Palestinian, it takes something horrific like a little innocent baby.
Since the intifada started till mid April 2003:
724 Israelis were killed (This includes innocent children).
2382 Palestinians were killed (This includes innocent children).
Who has KILLED THE MOST PEOPLE??

She continues her debate by asking us "Who has killed the most people"??
Lets go over some words here...are not those who are killed in the cross fire or by homocide bombs, "innocent"?
On both sides of the conflict, PEOPLE are murdered, either by unneeded military force, or by planned murder.

Angie, your entire argument against Israel is by far the worst and utterly insane.

Please, sir or madam, STOP, STOP, STOP the insanity yourself, and while you're at it, perhaps you can learn to read.

MY NAME IS ANGIE.

Your comments should be addressed to ANGEL. (Read the above comments again, please). We are not the same person.

Now kindly apologize for yelling at me for no damn reason and direct your anger at the right party.

I'm getting heartily sick of this nonsense. I thought this was a board where one could make one's views known, exchange ideas, and learn something. Alas, in my dreams, perhaps.

"Zionists include many people such as Bill Clinton and Martin Luther King"

MLK was never a zionist. Sounds like you've been duped by the zionist propaganda machine. You ought to be more careful about them.

.................................

"And it is a tragedy that instead of King himself, we are burdened with charlatans like those at the ADL, or the Des Moines Jewish Federation, or Rabbis like Marc Schneier who think nothing of speaking for the genuine article, in a voice not his own."


January 20, 2003
By Tim Wise

Rarely am I considered insufficiently cynical. As someone who does anti-racism work for a living, and thus hears all manner of excuse-making by those who wish desperately to avoid being considered racist, not much surprises me. I expect people to lie about race; to tell me how many black friends they have; to swear they haven't a racist bone in their bodies.

And every January, with the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday just around the corner, I have come to expect someone to misuse the good doctor's words so as to push an agenda he would not likely have supported.

As such, I long ago resigned myself to the annual gaggle of fools who deign to use King's "content of their character" line from the 1963 March on Washington so as to attack affirmative action, ostensibly because King preferred simple "color-blindness."

That King actually supported the efforts that we now call affirmative action--and even billions in reparations for slavery and segregation--as I've documented in a previous column, matters not to these folks. They've never read King's work, and they've only paid attention to one news clip from one speech, so what more can we expect from such precious simpletons as these?

And yet, even with my cynic's credentials established, the one thing I never expected anyone to do would be to just make up a quote from King; a quote that he simply never said, and claim that it came from a letter that he never wrote, and was published in a collection of his essays that never existed. Frankly, this level of deception is something special.

The hoax of which I speak is one currently making the rounds on the Internet, which claims to prove King's steadfast support for Zionism. Indeed, it does more than that.

In the item, entitled "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," King proclaims that criticism of Zionism is tantamount to anti-Semitism, and likens those who criticize Jewish nationalism as manifested in Israel, to those who would seek to trample the rights of blacks. Heady stuff indeed, and 100% bullshit, as any amateur fact checker could ascertain were they so inclined.

But of course, the kinds of folks who push an ideology that required the expulsion of three-quarters-of-a-million Palestinians from their lands, and then lied about it, claiming there had been no such persons to begin with (as with Golda Meir's infamous quip), can't be expected to place a very high premium on truth.

I learned this the hard way recently, when the Des Moines Jewish Federation succeeded in getting me yanked from the city's MLK day events: two speeches I had been scheduled to give on behalf of the National Conference of Community and Justice (NCCJ).

Because of my criticisms of Israel--and because I as a Jew am on record opposing Zionism philosophically--the Des Moines shtetl decided I was unfit to speak at an MLK event. After sending the supposed King quote around, and threatening to pull out all monies from the Jewish community for future NCCJ events, I was dropped.

The attack of course was based on a distortion of my own beliefs as well. Federation principal Mark Finkelstein claimed I had shown a disregard for the well-being of Jews, despite the fact that my argument has long been that Zionism in practice has made world Jewry less safe than ever. But it was his duplicity on King's views that was most disturbing.

Though Finkelstein only recited one line from King's supposed "letter" on Zionism, he lifted it from the larger letter, which appears to have originated with Rabbi Marc Schneier, who quotes from it in his 1999 book, "Shared Dreams: Martin Luther King Jr. and the Jewish Community." Therein, one finds such over-the-top rhetoric as this:

"I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth."
The letter also was filled with grammatical errors that any halfway literate reader of King's work should have known disqualified him from being its author, to wit: "Anti-Zionist is inherently anti Semitic, and ever will be so."
The treatise, it is claimed, was published on page 76 of the August, 1967 edition of Saturday Review, and supposedly can also be read in the collection of King's work entitled, This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. That the claimants never mention the publisher of this collection should have been a clear tip-off that it might not be genuine, and indeed it isn't. The book doesn't exist.
As for Saturday Review, there were four issues in August of 1967. Two of the four editions contained a page 76. One of the pages 76 contains classified ads and the other contained a review of the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's album. No King letter anywhere.

Yet its lack of authenticity hasn't prevented it from having a long shelf-life. Not only does it pop up in the Schneier book, but sections of it were read by the Anti-Defamation League's Michael Salberg in testimony before a House Subcommittee in July of 2001, and all manner of pro-Israel groups (from traditional Zionists to right-wing Likudites, to Christians who support ingathering Jews to Israel so as to prompt Jesus' return), have used the piece on their websites.

In truth, King appears never to have made any public comment about Zionism per se; and the only known statement he ever made on the topic, made privately to a handful of people, is a far cry from what he is purported to have said in the so-called "Letter to an Anti-Zionist friend."

In 1968, according to Seymour Martin Lipset, King was in Boston and attended a dinner in Cambridge along with Lipset himself and a number of black students. After the dinner, a young man apparently made a fairly harsh remark attacking Zionists as people, to which King responded: "Don't talk like that. When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking Anti-Semitism."

Assuming this quote to be genuine, it is still far from the ideological endorsement of Zionism as theory or practice that was evidenced in the phony letter.

After all, to respond to a harsh statement about individuals who are Zionists with the warning that such language is usually a cover for anti-Jewish bias is understandable. More than that, the comment was no doubt true for most, especially in 1968. It is a statement of opinion as to what people are thinking when they say a certain thing. It is not a statement as to the inherent validity or perfidy of a worldview or its effects.

Likewise, consider the following analogous dualism: first, that "opposition to welfare programs is forever racism," and secondly, that "when people criticize welfare recipients, they mean blacks. This is racism."

Whereas the latter statement may be true--and studies would tend to suggest that it is--the former is a matter of ideological conviction, largely untestable, and thus more tendentious than its counterpart. In any event, as with the King quotes--both fabricated and genuine--the truth of the latter says nothing about the truth or falsity of the former.

So yes, King was quick to admonish one person who expressed hostility to Zionists as people. But he did not claim that opposition to Zionism was inherently anti-Semitic. And for those who criticize Zionism today and who like me are Jewish, to believe that we mean to attack Jews, as Jews, when we speak out against Israel and Zionism is absurd.

As for King's public position on Israel, it was quite limited and hardly formed a cornerstone of his worldview. In a meeting with Jewish leaders a few weeks before his death, King noted that peace for Israelis and Arabs were both important concerns. According to King, "peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity."

But such a statement says nothing about how Israel should be constituted, nor addresses the Palestinians at all, whose lives and challenges were hardly on the world's radar screen in 1968.

At the time, Israel's concern was hostility from Egypt; and of course all would agree that any nation has the right not to be attacked by a neighbor. The U.S. had a right not to be attacked by the Soviet Union too--as King would have no doubt agreed, thereby affirming the United States' right to exist. But would anyone claim that such a sentiment would have implied the right of the U.S. to exist as it did, say in 1957 or 1961, under segregation? Of course not.

So too Israel. Its right to exist in the sense of not being violently destroyed by hostile forces does not mean the right to exist as a Jewish state per se, as opposed to the state of all its citizens. It does not mean the right to laws granting special privileges to Jews from around the world, over indigenous Arabs.

It should also be noted that in the same paragraph where King reiterated his support for Israel's right to exist, he also proclaimed the importance of massive public assistance to Middle Eastern Arabs, in the form of a Marshall Plan, so as to counter the poverty and desperation that often leads to hostility and violence towards Israeli Jews.

This part of King's position is typically ignored by the organized Jewish community, of course, even though it was just as important to King as Israel's territorial integrity.

As for what King would say today about Israel, Zionism, and the Palestinian struggle, one can only speculate.

After all, he died before the full tragedy of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza would be able to unfold.

He died before the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel; before the invasion of Lebanon and the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla; before the 1980's intifada; before Israel decided to serve as a proxy for U.S. foreign policy--funneling weapons to fascist governments in South Africa, Argentina and Guatemala, or helping to arm terrorist thugs in Mozambique and the contras in Nicaragua.

He died before the proliferation of illegal settlements throughout the territories; before the rash of suicide/homicide bombings; before the polls showing that nearly half of Israeli Jews support removing Palestinians via "transfer" to neighboring countries.

But one thing is for sure. While King would no doubt roundly condemn Palestinian violence against innocent civilians, he would also condemn the state violence of Israel.

He would condemn launching missile attacks against entire neighborhoods in order to flush out a handful of wanted terrorists.

He would oppose the handing out of machine guns to religious fanatics from Brooklyn who move to the territories and proclaim their God-given right to the land, and the right to run Arabs out of their neighborhoods, or fence them off, or discriminate against them in a multitude of ways.

He would oppose the unequal rationing of water resources between Jews and Arabs that is Israeli policy.

He would oppose the degrading checkpoints through which Palestinian workers must pass to get to their jobs, or back to their homes after a long day of work.

He would oppose the policy which allows IDF officers to shoot children throwing rocks, as young as age twelve.

In other words, he would likely criticize the working out of Zionism on the ground, as it has actually developed in the real world, as opposed to the world of theory and speculation.

These things seem imminently clear from any honest reading of his work or examination of his life. He would be a broker for peace. And it is a tragedy that instead of King himself, we are burdened with charlatans like those at the ADL, or the Des Moines Jewish Federation, or Rabbis like Marc Schneier who think nothing of speaking for the genuine article, in a voice not his own.

Source: ZNet at http://www.zmag.org

Bravo! Well done!

Lets sue the receiving party of the letter, for authenticity verification.

The author of "the diary o' Anne Frank" took otto frank all the way to the supreme court and won the case!!!