Thursday, May 29, 2008

Will Seattle Be The First US City To Divest From the Iraq War And Israel?


It will if a coalition of Leftard activists have their way and get Initiative 97 on the ballot and the city's voters approve it.

Seattle activists hope to ask voters this fall to approve a measure they say would block the city from investing its pension funds in corporations that benefit from the Iraq war, or from certain other Middle East military occupations.

{...}

In a stance against apartheid, the city and the University of Washington had policies years ago against owning stock in companies that did business in South Africa.

The latest proposal would prohibit the city from investing employees' retirement funds in corporations that participate in or profit from the U.S. occupation of Iraq or the Israeli government's activities within the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

Also disqualified would be corporations with a presence in Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Finally, the measure would require the city to divest from Israeli government bonds should Israel launch a military attack on Iran.


There's a fair amount of hypocrisy going on here, as the measure's backers reassured Seattle's voters that the measure would not restrict City investments in Boeing, the largest Seattle area employer(which works with Israeli defense company Elbit Systems, as well as our military in Iraq). It also would leave out another large Seattle area employer, Microsoft, which has a multi-billion dollar investment in Israeli hi-tech.

Instead, the initiative takes aim specifically at Halliburton and Caterpillar, according to its supporters.

And the suporters themselves are an interesting bunch. They include:ANSWER Coalition, Seattle; Green Party of Seattle; Jewish Voice for Peace, Seattle Chapter(all five of them); Palestine Solidarity Committee, Seattle; SNOW, Sound Nonviolent Opponents of War ; The ISM, International Solidarity Movement (or as I like to call them, I Support Murderers); and the Rainier Valley Unitarian Universalist Congregation.

And I'm sure some of the other Usual Suspects will soon join in.

You'll notice that aside from the US military, the initiative only targets Israel and has no mention of say, Myanmar, Darfur, or China's ongoing occupation of Tibet. That says a great deal about these people's actual motivations. Scratch an 'anti-Zionist' and you almost always find a Jew hater...and you normally don't have to dig very deeply.

I personally would be very surprised if it passed, but the idea that it would seriously be considered is disturbing, to say the least.

2 comments:

B.Poster said...

I hope and pray it does not pass but I would certainly not find it at all surprising if it did pass. Clearly the people behind this resolution do not support liberty and justice. Israel is the freest country in the Middle East, if not the entire world. For Israel to be destroyed would a huge setback for the cause of liberty every where.

Also, now would be the wrong to turn against the soverign government of Iraq. They are FINALLY taking some steps in fighting Al Qaeda and trying to limit the influence of Iran. If the US troops depart now, this government would fall to either a proxy of Iran, Al Qaeda, or both. This would be a huge set back for the cause of liberty. It seems very clear that the people pushing this resolution are not supporters of freedom.

B.Poster said...

Iraq is not really under a classic occupation. Iraq has a soverign government that is in charge of the country. The US is no longer in charge of Iraq, if in fact it ever really was. What ever US troops are in Iraq they remain there at the pleasure of the Iraq's soverign elected government. Israel's situation in "Palestine" is even less of an occupation than the American presence in Iraq. There are no Israeli troops in "Palestine." They withdrew. The Palestinian government which is part Hamas and Fatah have full control over the area. Of course "Palestinian" shills will make up lies and try to pretend other wise.

The US situation in Iraq and Israel's situation in "Palestine" are not a military occupation in the classic situation. The Chinese situation in Tibet is a classic occupation. Tibet is run by China for the benefit of China and at the expense of the people of Tibet who have no say in the matter. Iraq is run by Iraqis. The American and Coalition forces are there at the pleasure of Iraq's elected government to defend this government against people who would over throw the elected government. There is no Israeli military presence in "Palestine" and Israel has no control over it of any type. It is controlled by a combination of Hamas and Fatah who are essentially the same except they have a different name and different methods.

Now one may not like American or Israeli foreign policy and one may not like the Iraqi or "Palestinain" governments, however, to refer to America's situation in Iraq as a classic occupation is incorrect. It is also incorrect in the case of Israel as well. If these people really supported liberty, it would make much more sense to protest Chinese policy regading Tibet or Russian policy regarding the former Soviet Republics. These people are either a.)horribly misguided or b.)they are opposed to American and Israeli attempts to defend themselves and to attempt to survive, or some combination of a and b. I suspect it is some combination of a and b.