Thanks for the prompt apology. Let's see where we are:
1. You do withdraw the claim that Lipset's December 1969 Encounter article doesn't exist, right? So why do you later refer that same article as "in a publication NO ONE has save (sic) a copy of"? Is there some OTHER publication at issue here??
2. I certainly don't "think it’s highly unlikely extreme neocons would conspire to plant their ideology into martin’s mouth." In particular, Martin Kramer (a Zionist neocon) was getting confirmation from Martin Peretz (another Zionist neocon) about an alleged MLK quotation from 50 years earlier. Assuming they were lying, what risk were they taking that the lie would be exposed half a century after MLK's death? It's Lipset, not Kramer or Peretz, who's the key Martin here. He published his MLK quote in a magazine less than two years after MLK's death. Sure, he was a committed Zionist and he was sympathetic to neocon ideas. But as I emphasized earlier he was also a prominent Harvard scholar with a high reputation to consider. I just don't think it's plausible that he'd have jeopardized that reputation by making a very public false claim that might easily be definitively falsified so soon after MLK's death. To support your case, you have to suppose that Lipset was both a liar and a reckless risk-taker. (Though I don't think Kramer's honesty is an important factor here, for the reason I've just explained, I actually don't think he's a liar. I don't think every Zionist, however dismissive of human rights, is ipso facto also a falsifier of evidence.)
3. Just because this allegedly "fake news has been rehashed more times than potatoes" (good one, Annie!) doesn't mean it really is fake, however frustrating the rehashing may be.
4. I don't understand why authenticity of the MLK quote would be so threatening to the equal rights cause in Palestine. Numerous commenters, here and elsewhere, have explained why Michelle Alexander's invocation of MLK's Riverside Church address was completely legitimate even if the MLK anti-Zionist quote was authentic. There's considerable evidence, as even Kramer discusses, that MLK was increasingly aware of Israel's abuses at the end of his life.
It's George (smithgp). Sorry I'm responding so late. I've been busy.
I'm puzzled by your statement that "absolutely no one has ever come up with an actual edition of this particular story in Encounter magazine (the paper kind) that actually verifies this bullsh*t fake story was ever published in the magazine, i’d say .. prove it. because no one has thus far." A few minutes on the Internet turned up an archived scan of Lipset's December 1969 article in Encounter: http://www.unz.com/print/Encounter-1969dec-00024/. The MLK quote is right there where it should be, on the first page (p. 24 in the magazine). Sure, this isn't the "paper kind" of authentication you insist no one has ever come up with, but it's pretty good evidence, wouldn't you say? Actually, our University of Missouri library catalog says that the paper copy exists on one of its shelves, in case you think Unz created a scan of a fake Lipset article. Then again, who's to say that our University didn't make a fake issue of Encounter?
It's true that Lipset might have published, and Martin Peretz might have verified, a fake MLK quote. Martin Kramer might have knowingly joined the conspiracy decades later. This seems highly unlikely, though. Lipset in particular was a prominent Harvard scholar with a good reputation to consider. Would he have jeopardized it for the Zionist cause, by publishing a lie that might easily be falsified?
Also, how did you arrive at the supposition that I'm a Zionist troll bent on "stealing martin’s legacy for [his] zionist aims"? Doesn't the language of my post make it clear that I have no such aims? You might read the Mondoweiss Editors' article about me four months ago: https://mondoweiss.net/2018/10/celebrate-scientist-palestinian/.
Martin Kramer, a right-wing American-Israeli neocon, has published a pretty convincing case that Martin Luther King Jr. did say something close to “When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You’re talking anti-Semitism!” (https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/martinkramer/files/words_of_martin_luther_king.pdf). The occasion was a dinner on October 27, 1967, at Martin Peretz's house in Cambridge, Massachusetts, attended by King, Andrew Young, Peretz's senior Harvard colleague Seymour Martin Lipset, and others. Lipset reported the quotation in Encounter magazine in December 1969, and Peretz confirmed the quote to Kramer decades later.
MW readers will understandably be skeptical of this work, considering the Zionist politics of Kramer and the ultra-Zionist politics of Peretz. Still, we mustn't let ad-hominem animus cloud our judgment about Kramer's credibility in this matter. I should point out too that Kramer spells out King's misgivings about Israel at some length. If King was a "Zionist," he was a Zionist of the most unreliable sort--one who seemed very likely to change his mind within a few years if he'd only lived that long.
Even if the quotation is authentic, it hardly discredits Michelle Alexander's (and Nadia Elia's) invocation of King's Riverside Church speech as inspiration for Alexander's breaking her silence about Zionism. The parallelism between the two cases of principled silence-breaking is obvious.