MLK and Zionism
To bring them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey
Today is both our national holiday honoring Martin Luther King and the second day of a fragile cease fire in the war between Israel and Hamas. There is a contest between people on the legacy of King regarding antisemitism and Zionism.
We participate in the Holy Eucharist in a parish that has an icon of Blessed Martin above the pulpit and names him and Blessed Absalom Jones along with St. Clement of Rome as patrons. For Dr. King to be honored rightly requires a mix of truth and restraint. And, to do sound social ethics requires us to acknowledge the different views in our national conversation and to discern within that the truth. We’ll begin by noting those differing views and then share our own assessment.
MLK and Zionism
The resurgence of anti-Semitism in the West and an unprecedented ideological assault against Israel in recent years have aroused debate over the historical relationship between Israel and the Black American community. Against the hills and valleys of Black-Jewish relations during the past century, controversy also surrounds the legacy of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King’s stance on Israel and the Jewish people. Some voices in the Black American community have attempted to recast Dr. King as a harsh critic of Israel, who, if he were alive today, would join a chorus of the Jewish state’s toughest adversaries. However, these claims falsify the historical record. Dr. King was a staunch Zionist. The historical record speaks for itself. Reaffirming Dr. Martin Luther King’s Zionist Legacy, Joshua Washington
The fact that King explicitly linked colonialism and segregation suggests that he would indeed recognize the expansion of the occupation as a settler-colonial project. If he did, he would then have to reevaluate his support for Israel pre-1967, as so many others have in recent years. He might well have come to recognize the absolute continuity between the 1948 dispossession, exile, and colonization of Palestinians and the post-1967 occupation. What MLK Actually Thought About Israel and Palestine, David Palumbo-Liu
What would Martin Luther King say now?
We’ll begin by saying that we’ve never been a fan of the “What would Jesus do?” (WWJD) logic. It seems a bit simple minded and presumptuous. What would Becket make of our Title IV process and sending clergy to prison for child abuse? What would Frances Perkins make of President Trump’s support for Social Security? What would Julian of Norwich make of trigger warnings for students at Harvard? Really!
What we can know is what any of them did and said during their lifetime. We may also have some understanding of the underlying social ethical assumptions they held. Beyond that is mere speculation. In doing our social ethics we may use speculation to inform our conscience. But finally, at that stage of things we are responsible for our own doing and saying.
What did Martin Luther King say?
Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all of our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel, and [I] never mind saying it, as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land almost can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality. Dr. King speaking at the annual convention of the Rabbinical Assembly in the Catskills, where he was introduced by Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel
“When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism!” Corroborating MLK's Quote on anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, Martin Kramer
Reinhold Niebuhr’s Influence on MLK
Given his influence upon King, it’s important to recall the vigor with which Niebuhr supported both the establishment of Israel and its right to defend itself. He had expressed sympathy for Zionism as early as 1929, and in 1942 he founded the Christian Council on Palestine, a pro-Zionist association that grew to include thousands of (mostly Protestant) clergymen. In 1946, he testified in favor of a Jewish state before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine. “The fact that the Arabs have a vast hinterland in the Middle East,” he said there, “and the fact that the Jews have nowhere to go, establishes the relative justice of their claims and of their cause.” …Here again King echoed Niebuhr. After the Six-Day War, the civil-rights leader (who by then had won a Nobel peace prize) was asked what should be done to promote peace in the Middle East. He replied that, for Israel, “peace means security and . . . territorial integrity.” But the Arabs required something different: “a kind of economic security that they so desperately need.” MLK – “These nations . . . are part of that third world of hunger, of disease, of illiteracy. I think that as long as these conditions exist there will be tensions, there will be the endless quest to find scapegoats. So there is a need for a Marshall Plan for the Middle East, where we lift those who are at the bottom of the economic ladder and bring them into the mainstream of economic security.” Where MLK Really Stood on Israel and the Palestinians, Martin Kramer
Leftwing Antisemitism
This is from a much longer description of the issue in Antisemitism is like crabgrass
Far left antisemitism seeks to delegitimize the state of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people. The effort usually works at focusing on the faults of Israel in a manner that suggests it is an especially evil nation...
Hiding the antisemitism. The approach on the left seems to be, “Simply say, ‘I’m not antisemitic,’ and then assume that ends the discussion.” Like a magic incantation, the words are said and what you see disappears. The inability to see and address its antisemitism makes it difficult to have a discussion with those on the left holding these views…
Now Israel’s very existence must be denounced. Bari Weiss explains the “bargain” progressive American Jews are asked to make. “In order to be welcomed as a Jew in a growing number of progressive groups, you have to disavow a list of things that grows longer every day. Whereas once it was enough to criticize Israeli government policy, specifically its treatment of Palestinians, now Israel’s very existence must be denounced. …Whereas Jews once had to convert to Christianity, now they have to convert to anti-Zionism…[A]nti-Semitism that originates on the left is a far more subtle and sophisticated enterprise. It’s typically camouflaged in language familiar to Jewish tongues and ears: the language of social justice and anti-racism, of equality and liberation.” (Bari Weiss, How to Fight Anti-Semitism.)
Our view
We have no idea what Blessed Martin thinks now about Israel and Zionism. None. Martin knows and God knows. Our task is to decide what we think. To inform our conscience and act upon that.
Both Robert and Michelle have been very influenced by the civil rights struggle in the ‘50s and ‘60s, Robert as a direct participant, Michelle through family history, experience, and study. We’ve both studied the history of the Middle East and Israel within that. We have a deep appreciation of liberal democracy without believing it to be a Utopia. We both tend to accept that we all live in imperfect systems. We hope to find ways to support human flourishing and human dignity without denying the imperfections or pretending that a perfect option exists. We’ve considered just war theory, the laws of war, and arguments about Israel’s use of force and Hamas’s strategy of increasing civilian deaths. We’ve read numerous criticisms of Israel, both in connection with the 19th century origins of Zionism, the country’s modern formation, and its actions as a sovereign state since 1948. And we pray the Daily Office.
Here’s where we find ourselves:
Israel has a right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people.
Israel has a right to defend itself. The fact that Israel does that well isn’t a reasonable argument against Israel.
Civilian deaths are to be avoided but are inevitable in all wars. In the Israel-Hamas War the proportion of civilian to military deaths is consistent with what we see in similar wars. Tragic, but not a war crime.
War crimes always occur in all wars. Israel is currently investigating about 100 cases of IDF actions. Hamas is investigating none on its side.
The Palestinian people need an economic Marshall Plan and something comparable to the denazification effort of the Allies after the Second World War. Such a successful effort may reopen the possibility of a second state solution. Israel needs a reasonable party with which to negotiate issues such as a second state, settlements, and an end to an occupation. None of that appears likely in the short run.
Thankful for a pause in the fighting.
Niebuhr’s view about the impact of Israel in the Arab nations and Palestinians appears to still be true. Their opposition to the Jewish state rises from the way that it exposes their weaknesses and their inclination for authoritarian political forms. Niebuhr wrote, “[t]o support Arab opposition [to Israel] is but supporting feudalism and fascism in the world at the expense of democratic rights and justice.” That is not to say anything about how the large number of Arab nations are required to rule themselves, but it does point to a significant difference in outlook, structure, and aims between Israel and Arab nations generally.
At the moment we are more focused on the antisemitism coming from the left because that is our tribe.
We also find ourselves asking for the prayers of Blessed Martin and offer this prayer for him “And we also bless thy holy Name for all thy servants departed this life in thy faith and fear especially Blessed Martin Luther King, beseeching thee to grant them continual growth in thy love and service.”
In all our views, the most fervent for ourselves, Martin, and all of us is “continual growth in thy love and service.” Because no matter our current views — some of them will finally prove to be quite mistaken.
This abides,
Brother Robert, OA & Sister Michelle, OA