Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

The UAE Boycotts Israel

Hmm...

The parent company of a Dubai-based firm at the center of a political storm in the US over the purchase of American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The firm, Dubai Ports World, is seeking control over six major US ports, including those in New York, Miami, Philadelphia and Baltimore. It is entirely owned by the Government of Dubai via a holding company called the Ports, Customs and Free Zone Corporation (PCZC), which consists of the Dubai Port Authority, the Dubai Customs Department and the Jebel Ali Free Zone Area.

"Yes, of course the boycott is still in place and is still enforced," Muhammad Rashid a-Din, a staff member of the Dubai Customs Department's Office for the Boycott of Israel, told the Post in a telephone interview.

"If a product contained even some components that were made in Israel, and you wanted to import it to Dubai, it would be a problem," he said.


The fact that the UAE boycotts products from Israel is troubling, but hardly the deal-breaker some are making it out to be. Lots of countries place trade embargos on other countries for all sorts of reasons. America, for instance, does not trade with Cuba.

I disagree with the UAE's decision to boycott Israel. I think it is a foolish decision based more on race hatred than anything else, but whatever. The UAE is a sovereign nation capable of making its own decisions. They are still, despite all their flaws, one of the most moderate Muslim nations in the middle-east. They are head and shoulders above many of the other countries we deal with in the region in terms of cooperation with U.S. foreign policy and dedication to human rights. They aren't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but isn't it fair to say that the longer they cooperate with America and tie their own interests to ours the more likely it will become that their society will begin to look more and more like our own?

It won't happen overnight, but they've already come a long way since 9/11. I think they should be encouraged further, rather than discouraged, by our cooperation on this ports deal. If we work with the long enough we may even give ourselves to leverage to begin pressuring the country into beginning normal diplomatic relations with Israel.

Comments

Avatar for FreeRepublicans.com

What would the deal break for you be? 

 

 

FreeRepublicans.com on February 28, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Avatar for Bat One

"What would the deal break for you be?"

Taken logically and objectively, that’s really a pretty dumb question.  For most people, it would make far more sense to examine the facts as they are, evaluate them, and then make a determination as to the acceptability of the proposed outcome, rather than trying to list specific potential objections first, and then search for a reason to disapprove the deal.

Your thought process is faulty, the intellectual equivalent of the ponderous old Soviet dialectic materialism that’s smoked one joint too many. 

Bat One on February 28, 2006 at 01:16 pm
Avatar for FreeRepublicans.com

Your thought process is faulty, the intellectual equivalent of the ponderous old Soviet dialectic materialism that’s smoked one joint too many.

Wow, Chomsky would be proud of that complicated sentence. 

FreeRepublicans.com on February 28, 2006 at 01:25 pm
Avatar for CHOMSKY

AND I AM…

CHOMSKY on February 28, 2006 at 01:42 pm
Rob
Rob
17182 comments
Send a private message

Wow, Chomsky would be proud of that complicated sentence.

Free, you’re the one here arguing against free markets.  Bringing up Chomsky probably isn’t in your best interest right now. 


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on February 28, 2006 at 01:45 pm
Avatar for FreeRepublicans.com

Free, you’re the one here arguing against free markets.  Bringing up Chomsky probably isn’t in your best interest right now.

I’m argueing against Free Trade, not Free Markets.

And is it so wrong to have read a book not written my Ann Coulter. 

FreeRepublicans.com on February 28, 2006 at 01:49 pm
Rob
Rob
17182 comments
Send a private message

Free, if you knew me you’d know that I am no Ann Coulter fan.

And how can you have a free market without free trade? 


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on February 28, 2006 at 01:51 pm
Avatar for FreeRepublicans.com

And how can you have a free market without free trade?

Do you have about 6 hrs?

We’ll have a fun time debating at the convention I’m sure.

The Market historically was given a locality.  So a Free Domestic Market has nothing to do with Free Trade.

Now, I am not a Protectionist either.  I would be along the lines, of again, Buchanan-like Fair Trade.

I dont think that our goods be tarriffed at 42% in China and theirs at 3% here.  

I could go deeper but I have to talk to reporters. 

FreeRepublicans.com on February 28, 2006 at 01:55 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Geez, and I thought tammi was confused.

2Hotel9 on February 28, 2006 at 02:14 pm
Avatar for Bat One

"Wow, Chomsky would be proud of that complicated sentence."

Your reference to Noam Chomsky is patently gratuitous… but then so is Chomsky.

As for sentence structure, if it will help with your comprehension, I’ll be happy to put my thoughts in simpler and less complicated sentences.  A (Free) trade of sorts, perhaps.  I’ll put more thought into simplifying the structure of what I say, if you’ll put some thought into the content of what you say.

Bat One on February 28, 2006 at 02:31 pm
Avatar for ellinas

Boycott shmoycott. The fact of the matter is that our generals and their support staff were stationed in the UAE during the invasion of  Iraq. They (the UAE) gave us something and now  are getting something in return.

ellinas on February 28, 2006 at 07:39 pm
Avatar for EdMcGon

The boycott is a deal breaker for me. If this company plans to enforce the Israeli boycott on our ports, then they would be acting in violation of our laws. If they are going to run our ports, they must respect our laws. That is not up for negotiation.

EdMcGon on March 1, 2006 at 04:57 am
Rob
Rob
17182 comments
Send a private message

Ed, this boycott only applies to items imported into the UAE.  It would not apply to our ports.


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on March 1, 2006 at 05:05 am
Avatar for 2Hotel9

The Israel boycott is on products from Israel into Arab League nations. Arab traders have always been willing to move anybodies goods, just not to use them theirselves. In truth many products from Israel make it into Arab countries, just through the back door, with labels changed.

2Hotel9 on March 1, 2006 at 05:38 am
Avatar for CV Rick

Still in favor of the deal?  This is a letter from al-Qaida to the UAE Government delivered in May or June of 2002.  Read the whole thing, but the key is: 

You are well aware that we have infiltrated your security, censorship, and monetary agencies along with other agencies that should not be mentioned. Therefore, we warn of the continuation of practicing such policies, which do not serve your interests and will only cost you many problems that will place you in an embarrassing state before your citizens.

 Is the source reliable?  It’s from The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point but I don’t know who did the translation.  

Of course, it’s all just business.  Wasn’t there some other time that our corporations did a lot of business with a Totalitarian Anti-Semetic Regime engaged in oppressing its own populace?  It was just business then, too. 

CV Rick on March 1, 2006 at 03:13 pm
Rob
Rob
17182 comments
Send a private message

Isn’t the fact that al Qaeda is threatening the UAE tell us that maybe the country isn’t in league with the terrorists?

I don’t think this means what you think it means. 


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on March 1, 2006 at 03:56 pm
Avatar for CV Rick

It may not, Rob.  But does that necessarily translate to it meaning what you think it means? 

However the Coast Guard said,  

"There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment" of the potential merger, an unclassified Coast Guard intelligence assessment said.

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities,"

 Source

CV Rick on March 1, 2006 at 04:01 pm
Avatar for 2Hotel9

Ricki? yur hate for America is all consuming. Take the razor and cross the tracks, don’t go up&down the road, loser.

2Hotel9 on March 1, 2006 at 05:20 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.