Follow us on social

|

On Gaza: What would Martin Luther King do?

He insisted in 1967 that it was morally imperative for the US to stop its role in the Vietnam war. He would be calling for Biden to demand a ceasefire now.

Analysis | Global Crises

As we celebrate the life and legacy of Reverend Martin Luther King today, we cross the 100-day mark in the devastating war in Gaza. If Dr. King were alive today, I feel certain he would have joined marches this weekend and used his voice and his pulpit to press the United States government to do everything in its power to persuade or pressure the government of Israel — which it has backed politically, diplomatically, militarily and financially — to agree to a ceasefire in its war in Gaza.

That war, waged in response to the deadly cross-border attack by Hamas and other militants on October 7 into Southern Israel has resulted in at least 23,000 Palestinian deaths and massive destruction, to date, as well as a punishing blockade preventing adequate food, water, medicine and other critical care to the two million people penned into the Gaza strip. As they seek shelter from artillery or bombs, more than 90 percent of the population is now at near term risk of starvation.

All of this horror is transpiring before our eyes — in much the way that the nightly network TV news brought reports from Vietnam in the 1960s. On April 4, 1967, Rev. King spoke out against the deadly impacts of America’s role in the Vietnamese civil war at the Riverside Church in his historic “Beyond Vietnam” speech, declaring “my conscience leaves me no other choice.” Rev. King insisted that it was morally imperative for the United States to take radical steps to halt the war — or at least its role in the war.

Inspired by his example, in early November more than 1,000 Black Christian leaders joined me to call upon President Biden to support a ceasefire in Gaza. Several of us met with White House outreach staff before publishing our call in a full page ad in the New York Times, urging them to use America’s leverage to actively work for a bilateral ceasefire and the release of all hostages held by Hamas and its allies, an increase of humanitarian aid and a peaceful resolution of the crisis. Among the signers were Rev. King’s daughter, Bernice A. King, Bishop Leah Daughtry and Rev. Dr. Freddy Haynes.

We called for “the safe and immediate return of all hostages still held in Gaza, the restoration of water, electricity, and urgent humanitarian relief to Palestinians commensurate with the scale of need created by this war.” We expressed concern that unless there is an immediate ceasefire by both Hamas and Israel, the conflict in Gaza will escalate into a regional war resulting in the continued death and injury of countless Palestinian and Israeli civilians, particularly children. Our fears are now being realized, as the U.S. government has launched missiles or dropped bombs on Syria, Iraqi militias, and — most recently — unleashed a barrage against the Yemeni forces who are disrupting shipping in the Red Sea, in an effort to put pressure on states to end Israel’s slaughter in Gaza. And war with forces in Lebanon appears highly probable.

Our call on the Biden Administration to “see the deaths and hear the cries of both our Palestinian and Israeli siblings whom all deserve to live safe from harm,” appear to have fallen on deaf ears. Beyond a temporary seven-day ceasefire in November, President Biden and the U.S. representatives in the UN have largely been unwavering in their support of Israel. While saying that he wants the war to end “as soon as possible.” Biden has not presented a timeline for ending the war. In a recent UN vote calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza, the US was one of only 10 nations to vote against the resolution.

When we published our NYT appeal, “only” 10,000 residents of Gaza had been killed. We were told that President Biden is quietly applying pressure. Yet two months later, that toll stands at over 23,000 people killed. By the time Biden's “quiet strategy” bears fruit, there may well be nothing left of Gaza and we may have a regional war.

Against this backdrop, I and other Black American church leaders welcomed the moral leadership of the government of South Africa in bringing to the International Court of Justice an allegation of intent by Israel to commit genocide against the Palestinians of Gaza. Their request for rapid assessment of Israel’s compliance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention was heard in the Hague and viewed with interest around the world this past week.

This leadership by South Africa is especially poignant to Black clergy, many of whom actively campaigned in the 1980s to force the Reagan White House to end its support for the racist, apartheid government in South Africa. That work paid off, finally, in 1987, when Congress overrode President Reagan’s veto of a bill requiring comprehensive sanctions by the US government against the racist apartheid government that denied people of color their basic rights.

South African president Cyril Ramaphosa, who was a leader in that struggle in South Africa, explained the decision to bring the World Court case by saying, “As a people who once tasted the bitter fruits of dispossession, discrimination, racism and state-sponsored violence, we are clear that we will stand on the right side of history."

As Rev. King reminded us in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” As people of moral conscience and as citizens of the United States, Black Christian leaders and so many other moral voices will continue to do all that is within our power to end U.S. support for the indiscriminate war and to press urgently for the return of the hostages and humanitarian assistance to the children, adults and elderly of Gaza.


Martin Luther King Jr., March on Washington, Aug. 28, 1963 (public domain)

Analysis | Global Crises
Luís Inácio Lula da Silva
Top image credti: Isaac Fontana / Shutterstock.com

Trump's tariffs against Brazil over Bolsonaro will backfire, on us

Latin America

Various members of the Brazilian government have been trying unsuccessfully to reach their counterparts in Washington ahead of August 1. That is the date Donald Trump has set for the imposition of 50% tariffs on all Brazilian exports unless the administration of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva finds a way to meet two very controversial conditions set by the U.S. president.

Those conditions include dropping charges against Lula’s far-right predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro, who faces a possible prison sentence for his role in an alleged conspiracy to undermine the 2022 election and adopting a more lenient stance towards U.S.-based social media companies operating in Latin America’s largest nation.

keep readingShow less
Sentinel
Top image credit: www.afnwc.af.mil
Air Force conducts third Sentinel static fire test > Air Force ...

The expanding gravy train for the new land-based Sentinel nuke

Military Industrial Complex

The Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) nuclear weapons program, in which the Air Force is moving to replace its old land-based nuclear missiles with new ones, has been troubled from the start.

Running at more than 80% over-budget, the Sentinel’s gargantuan costs and slow development pace even triggered a critical DoD review under the Nunn-McCurdy Act, which says if a program exceeds a 25% cost overrun it must be terminated unless the Pentagon determines it meets the criteria to continue. The DoD insisted the Sentinel would continue.

keep readingShow less
Lindsey Graham, Elbridge Colby Mitch McConnell
Top photo credit: Sen. Lindsey Graham (Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons); Elbridge Colby (Photo by Michael Brochstein/Sipa USA); Sen. Mitch McConnell (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Summer of the 'isolationist' smear: Colby and restraint in crosshairs

Washington Politics

When reports surfaced in early July that Donald Trump’s administration would be pausing some U.S. aid to Ukraine, it didn’t take long for the knives to come out.

Anonymous officials inside the administration, as well as critics on Capitol Hill who disagreed with the policy, pointed the finger at Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon’s top policy official and a longtime advocate of refocusing U.S. military power to the Pacific.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.