I guess I'd like you to state, quite simply, that you deny that Gandhi was an anti-Zionist, and then we can argue that. I will state quite simply that he was an anti-Zionist, that his contemporaries recognized it, that his writings reflected it, etc., etc., etc. If there is no denial of the claim that he was an anti-Zionist, then I think it is appropriate to balance the introduction's accusation from Martin Luther King with a comment that another important civil rights leader stood on the opposite side of the question. 

 I dislike, I have to say, the tone of your "secondary arguments" sentence. It gives the impression that you have decided, regardless of what is appropriate, that you want the reference to Gandhi suppressed, and that you will make whatever argument you feel you need to make in order to accomplish that goal. Can we not decide before we discuss facts how exactly the matter of including the reference should be decided? I'm sorry if it leans toward failing to assume good faith, but I don't want to have the rules repeatedly changed on me in discussing this matter, and your "secondary arguments" sentence gave me a bad impression. 

 Again, and more clearly this time, I think the determining matter should be whether or not Gandhi was by any reasonable interpretation an anti-Zionist. If he was, then the statement from MLK to the effect that all anti-Zionists are really anti-Semites should be balanced with this information.