Martin Luther King, Jr. might have been pro-Israel at that time, but now, if he was still alive, on which side he would have been?
Ironically, nowadays, not many Blacks are fond with the Jews and usually side with the Arab Muslims against Israel.
Any idea why?
I’ll tell you why:
Because they compare themselves with the so-called “oppressed Palestinians under Jewish occupation.”
Whites and Jews are same to the Blacks: racists and oppressive.
Racism is alive and well in America, especially on the Black side.

Independent Conservative on January 19, 2009 at 12:03 pm

Hey man, don’t think that all blacks are like that. I damn sure aren’t, and I’ve always sided with jews against the crap they’ve had to put up with for years and years. Besides I wouldn’t be hitting on the conservative goddess if I had those hateful views!!
I’m 110% sure MLK Jr would still side with Israel had the man still be alive.

Squirrel3D on January 19, 2009 at 12:35 pm

Squirrel3D, I have no problem reading what I actually wrote.
How about you? It doesn’t seem to be the case.

Independent Conservative on January 19, 2009 at 12:44 pm

It is certainly possible that if King were alive today, his views would have shifted. One thing that increases this possibility is the general shifting of the Democratic party towards terrorists and enemies of this country — many black officeholders, if for no reason other than opportunism, have made this shift as well.
Nevertheless, King died in 1968, a year after the New Politics convention whih noisily declared itself anti-Israel, and one year after the 1967 War, which was a watershed event in the left’s hostility to Israel. During the year he was alive after these two events, King did not waiver in his support of israel, so, at the very least, he was above many other ‘movement’ figures of the time.

c f on January 19, 2009 at 1:16 pm

King’s support for Israel was a smoke screen. To get sympathy for his communist cause.
Alan Stang along with Julia Brown were covering the King story for CBS , what they uncovered was a complete sham.
CHECK THIS OUT !
There are five important aspects of Martin Luther Kingís career: 1) his Communist Party activities; 2) the violence that always erupted in a King demonstration; 3) his plagiarism; 4) his sexual pathology; 5) his pagan beliefs. Despite the fact that, by now, all this is known, the same putative ìconservativesî who demean Joe McCarthy continue to genuflect at the shrine of Martin Luther King.
King was a Communist. Itís Very Simple talks about Bayard Rustin, Kingís sodomite ìsecretary,î who spent his entire life in Communist Party activities, and who demanded that ìmore bloody Negro suffering should be encouraged so that squeamish Northern Negroes would be horrified into line. . . .î
I participated in a modest effort to defuse some of this, as the only white member of a strike team that would travel to a targeted town and explain the scheme before Kingís terrorists arrived to foment animosity. For instance, King chose Sandersville, Georgia as a target and Julia Brown and I went there to do what we could.
Mrs. Brown had served as an F.B.I. undercover agent in the Communist Party for many years in Cleveland. Another member of our team was Leonard Patterson, Communist Party boss Gus Hallís roommate at the Lenin School of Political Warfare in Moscow, where Leonard learned the art of fomenting race warfare here.
Mrs. Brown and I traveled and worked together many times. The Love Priestess and I were honored to have her stay at our home. She would delight in telling people I was her grandson, which raised some eyebrows among people too polite to ask how a black lady could have a grandson as white as Herman Talmadge. Needless to say, I did not correct her. A man would have to be enormously stupid to get crossways with his grandmother.
Complete Story
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan183.htm

Johnny V on January 19, 2009 at 1:35 pm

While it is good to let the Islamo-Nazis know about MLK and his stance towards Jews and Israel, I think is even more important to let blacks, especially the followers of Farrakhan/Jackson/Sharpton/Wright, know about it.
In fact, we may be surprised soon. Michael Medved (The Radio Host/Movie critic) was at my Synagogue this weekend. I asked him a question, and as part of his response he told me he believes that Obama will speak out shortly against anti-semitism in the Black community. I don’t think it will do any good, but at least the problem will be exposed for what it is even among many Jews who are not aware of it.

i_am_me on January 19, 2009 at 1:43 pm

Medved is an opportunist who shifts with the political wind, is opposed to immigration enforcement, and any serious attempts to make the Republican party more responsive to the American people as a whole. Obama may well speak out against black anti-semitism, the same way Bush occasionally says he’s pro-Israel, pro border-enforcement, etc. It will be just words. Maybe Medved wants a new White House invitation. He is arrogant and demagogic.
In addition to my comments in the blog above, while King had many faults, the violence at many of his demostrations as was the case in much of the South at that time, was due to civil rights opponents and Souther sheriffs. King was basically non-violent, and while he did wink at pro-violent black during the mid and late 60s, it is a distortion to blame him for the violence at demonstrations. The biggest one, in Detroit the summer of 1963, for instance, was peaceful.
As I indicated, while King certainly had connections to the Communist Party at various stages of his career, it is a distortion, and an example of conspiratorial politics to portray him as fundamentally Communist-led.

c f on January 19, 2009 at 2:12 pm

Dear Debbie,
According to the “While You Were Away” April 1968 publication in the Harvard Crimson, “The Rev. Martin Luther King was last in Cambridge almost exactly a year ago–April 23, 1967”. Clearly he could never have uttered the words you attribute to him in the time and place that you claim if he was not there to begin with.
I’ll borrow this argument, to convey the importance of something known as “context”. “One of the principal arguments of Lipset’s 1969 article is that the split between blacks and Jews “stems much more from the American situation than from the Middle East Conflict.” He identifies Jews as a dominating force within the civil rights movement. Black nationalist leadership wanted to distance themselves from Whites in the movement, Lipset argues. In Lipset’s own words, he summarized what Black nationalists were saying: “We don’t want whites, but we particularly don’t want Jews, and we are expressing antagonism to Jews in the form of opposition to Israel.”
(source – http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2356.shtml)

DEMOSTHENES12 on January 22, 2009 at 2:12 am