Bobad: martin Luther King was a mighty fine man, but that doesn't mean he was right about everything. Case in point: "the same Romans who cruelly murdered Our Lord" ....uh, actually it was a section of the Jewish population, headed by the priestly sect known as the Pharisees, who murdered Our Lord. Pontius Pilate (the Roman governor at the time) actually offered to release Jesus and have a convicted murderer called Barabbas, crucified instead. He explained that he could find no fault in Jesus. But the mob, incensed to hate and riot by the Pharisees demanded the blood of Jesus "His blood be upon us and our children!" they shouted. And so Pilate washed his hands of the fate of Jesus and handed him over to be crucified. Ever after, Pilate's name was associated with 'washing your hands of some situation with which you do not wish to be involved". I'm not making this up - you can check it for yourself in the Gospel (see Luke: 18:28 - 19:17 for example). Interestingly Jesus (who was a Jew, as you know) was hated by the Pharisees precisely because He tried to tell them His 'kingdom was not of this world' - in other words, it was not a political kingdom. The Pharisees and many Jews had wanted a political leader who would free them from the Romans. They thought they had found one in Jesus. But once they realised what he was about they turned on Him.

""Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land"

As I've said before, zionism is in fact basically nationalism. I've also said that nationalism in measure can be a good thing, being proud of your country etc., But in excess leads to the xenophobia typical of the British imperialist, or the notions of racial supremacy emnating from Nazi Germany (just two examples, there are many more). Put the way Martin Luther King put it, zionism sounds as wholesome as granola, and indeed could be. But his rhetoric hides another reality - dispossession and harrassment of Palestinians. In an interesting parallel, Hitler spoke in glowing terms of 'Lebensraum' - literally, 'living space'. And who could argue with such a wholesome concept? Except that of course, nice terms hid genocidal reality, as this living space came at the expense of Poles, Bylorussians, Ukranians etc., just as Israeli 'lebensraum' is currently achieved at the expense of the West Bank Palestinians. The Nazis, too, made it sound as if they were settling into empty space to make it a productive haven.

And does being anti-nazi also mean being anti-German? Or being opposed to Bush's war in Iraq mean hating Americans? That's the argument of those who want to shout down any criticism of what Bush and his gang are up to. I suppose that the Americans who are opposed to Bush's war (and apparently there are many of them) should be called 'self-hating Americans'! Yes, that has a nice ring to it!
That is the logic of phrases like 'being anti-zionist is being anti-semitic'. Let's distinguish here: zionism is a form of nationalism. Semites are a race of people (including the arabs).

Martin Luther King might also have reflected a bit more (perhaps he didn't know) on how Jewish organisations and some middle-upper class Jewish communities in the USA worked hard AGAINST the interests of black civil rights movement; when the civil rights movement moved from demands of political and legal to economic equality (see for example Norman Finklestein, "The Holocaust Industry" p.36 / ISBN 1 85984 773 0)

Wolfgang: "I see what you mean but I strongly disagree that this thinking should be applied between nations without consideration of the consequences. It would be disastrous when applied to Europe. German Neonazis argue the same way in this question"

I think I understand what you are saying. In effect, that past wrongs, if they are of a sufficent scale, cannot be rectified without upheaval in the present. But as you know, certain Jewish organistaions have been zealous in recovering money, art and property that was seized from Jews over 60 years ago by the Third Reich. The sums are vast, running into the billions of dollars. Obviously, this kind of repatriation cannot be achieved without some degree of upheaval to those affected. Nonetheless, in an absolute sense, I'm sure you'll agree that it is the correct thing to do where - especially where ownership of the property can be proved. While you speak of no right of return for offspring (I don't agree you here though) you msut accept hat there are yet Palestinian refugees alive who still have the title deeds and keys to their houses. Why are these not allowed return? If someone is illegally occupying their house or farm, that shouldn't be the refugees problem - rather the government that allowed it to happen. They should be brought to account for allowing (and actively encouarging) the situation to arise in the first place. Of course they are hoping that all these refugees will die off and apathy will do the rest.

"German Neonazis argue the same way in this question" - So? Are you trying to say 'guilty by association'? G.W Bush says he reads the Bible - that doesn't mean I'll stop reading it myself!