≡ Menu

Speaking Tonight to Seattle’s Fellowship of Reconciliation

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Speaking Tonight to Seattle’s Fellowship of Reconciliation”.

{ 8 comments… add one }

  • Joel March 18, 2012, 2:45 PM

    I read how Seattle gays just muzzled the free speech of visiting Israeli gays.

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017771557_israeligays17m.html

    I hope your speech tonight isn’t similarly effected.

    • Richard Silverstein March 19, 2012, 1:13 AM

      Don’t be ridiculous. Israel wanted to pinkwash its blemishes by touting a gay delegation visiting the States where it would likely brag about Israel as a gay mecca. And Seattle gays refused to meet with them. That’s not muzzling free speech. That’s maintaining Seattle’s freedom to associate (or dissociate) from whoever it wishes. The fact that they didn’t want to bread bread with a pinkwashing delegation fr Israel has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with Israel’s grossly exploitative hasbara campaign.

      • Deïr Yassin March 19, 2012, 3:24 AM

        Concerning “pinkwashing”, there’a website called “The Israeli Laundry” :-)
        You’ve got pink-, green-, and bluewashing. They need to add blackwashing though.
        http://www.israelilaundry.org

      • Joel March 19, 2012, 4:21 AM

        To quote the article I linked:

        ” A group of gays in Seattle pressured the Seattle LGBT Commission to cancel a Friday reception for a delegation of gay Israeli leaders, citing Israel’s human-rights record with the Palestinian”.

        That sounds like a freedom of speech issue, not a freedom of association issue.

        • Richard Silverstein March 19, 2012, 1:14 PM

          Who says an official Seattle govt commission has to meet with Israeli gays? Especially if they determine that the Israeli govt has sent them on a world tour to promote the notion of Israel as a mecca for gay rights as part of a campaign to discredit Arab states? There’s no rule that Seattle govt commissions have to aid & abet Israeli hasbara.

          Oh & who brought us this hasbara dog & pony show? Rob Jacobs & our good friends at Stand with Us of course. ‘Nuf said.

  • dickerson3870 March 18, 2012, 4:12 PM

    RE: “I’ll be speaking later today to the Fellowship of Reconciliation on the threat of an Israeli attack against Iran. ~ R.S.

    ALSO SEE: Are Obama’s Efforts to Justify Drone Warfare Aimed at Iran? ~ By Thomas Darnstädt, Marc Hujer and Gregor Peter Schmitz, Der Speigel, 3/15/12

    (excerpts)…In his Chicago speech, Holder addressed the question of when the United States could avail itself of its “inherent right of national self-defense” by using lethal force against individuals. Under international law, an “imminent threat” represents the earliest point at which a country has the right to use such force. According to Holder, “the evaluation of whether an individual presents an ‘imminent threat’ incorporates considerations of the relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States.”…
    Laying the Legal Groundwork for Iran
    Given these views, experts fear that Holder’s argument in support of the war on terror could also serve as a rationale for possible future military strikes ordered by Obama. Claus Kress, a Cologne-based professor of international law and an internationally renowned expert on the US’s stance on the laws of war, believes that it is “not inconceivable” that, in justifying the drone war, Obama’s top lawyers may have already set their sights on an altogether different target: Iran.
    Legally speaking, a military strike against the mullahs’ nuclear program — which Obama believes is conceivable should it become verifiably clear that there is no other way to stop Iran from building a bomb — would only be possible with the permission of the United Nations Security Council. But the Russians and the Chinese would probably veto any such consent. As a result, the United States would have to invoke its “inherent” right of self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter. Still, this requires that Iran has essentially raised its weapon against Israel or the United States.
    Indeed, in the conventional sense, a planned or even a completed nuclear bomb alone would not qualify as an imminent attack. But the world of experts on the laws or war could also theoretically accept that a preventive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities is the last option for preventing the uncontrolled spread of nuclear weapons and the imminent destruction of Israel.
    Perhaps that was what Holder was trying to tell the world with his justification of the war on terror.

    ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,821151,00.html

  • dickerson3870 March 19, 2012, 4:35 AM

    RE: “I’ll be speaking later today to the Fellowship of Reconciliation on the threat of an Israeli attack against Iran.” ~ R.S.

    SEE: Hawks Steering Debate on How to Take on Iran, By Eric Lichtblau and Mark Landler, New York Times, 3/18/12

    (excerpts)WASHINGTON — Even before President Obama declared this month that “I have Israel’s back” in its escalating confrontation with Iran, pro-Israel figures like the evangelical Christian leader Gary L. Bauer and the conservative commentator William Kristol were pushing for more…
    . . . Urging diplomacy are liberal groups like J Street, which is helped by $500,000 a year in contributions from the liberal philanthropist George Soros, and Tikkun, a Jewish journal that has begun running newspaper advertisements here and abroad that urge, “NO War on Iran and NO First Strike!” Tikkun, based in Berkeley, Calif., is hoping to link its antiwar message with the Occupy protests.
    “A lot of people talk about the ‘Israel lobby’ as if it’s a monolithic thing,” said Dylan Williams, head of government affairs for J Street. “It’s a myth. There is a deep division between those who support military action at this point and those who support diplomacy.”
    Clear fissures have developed among pro-Israel groups — not only between hawks and doves over whether to use military force against Iran, but among hard-liners themselves over just how aggressively to confront it.
    Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire casino owner who is a staunch supporter of Israel, was once a major donor to Aipac. But because of Aipac’s support for American aid to the Palestinian Authority, he has broken from the group. This year, Mr. Adelson has given at least $10 million, along with his wife, to support Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign…

    ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/world/pro-israel-groups-differing-approaches-on-iran.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Leave a Comment