Exclusive: Dubai ports firm enforces Israel boycott

[kpete]

Feb. 28, 2006 2:55 | Updated Feb. 28, 2006 14:08
Exclusive: Dubai ports firm enforces Israel boycott
By MICHAEL FREUND

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.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395502196&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[mtnester]

1. Uh oh...stand back

Can this thing get worse? I think so.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. Finally, a reason to use the popcorn icon

:popcorn:

The Arabs and the Israelis are going to have a power play and on our soil. This I've got to see.

[Skidmore]

2. Well, now, that does it....

that REALLY makes me sure I don't support this deal.

[Wordie]

19. Why? eom

[htuttle]

3. Wonder if they're willing to handle Israeli cargo at US ports?

Has anyone asked them?

[C_U_L8R]

6. That question

should be asked often

and loudly

[Wordie]

13. Apparently, ZIM, an Israeli company, is a good customer of theirs.

See my post downthread...

Really, let's not make this about Israel, ok?

[helderheid]

24. excellent question!!

[seemslikeadream]

4. Delicious and Refreshing

[rodeodance]

5. there was an article last week that talked of this--the WH knew and

have known all along.

[Cronus Protagonist]

7. but but but it's racist to say things like that

:sarcasm:

Educate Your Local Freepers Today!
Buttons, Stickers, Magnets for brainy people
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[babylonsister]

8. What say you now, Lieberman? nt

[robbedvoter]

9. Well, at least the threads blaming Israel for this will thin out somewhat

As one of those being on the selling block all I can say is

[tecelote]

10. Anybody know how to send this to Jon Stewart?

[Wordie]

12. Unreasonable to boycott country that's in violation of international law?

Much of the rest of the world recognizes that the occupation of Palestinian land by Israel is illegal under international law; the United Nations has determined this to be so.

Human Rights Watch recommends that the US put economic pressure on Israel. Why should we condemn the UAE for doing so?

Further, it appears they continue to do business with Israeli companies:

Asked in an interview last week with “CNN” reporter Wolf Blitzer whether Dubai Ports World was doing business with Israel while the UAE refused to recognize Israel, Bilkey replied, “One of our very sound customers is Zim line. It's the largest shipping company. And the president of that company is very close to our company and supports us, because we have good relations with all of our clients.

” We handle their operations in a number of ports throughout the world because it's good commercial business for us. They wouldn't come to us unless we did a good job,” added Bilkey.

http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/DocView.asp?did=1000065318&fid=1725

Should we be making ports decisions based on this? The average American is completely unaware of the illegality of Israeli actions, and the fundamentalists support Israel in the hopes of bringing about armageddon and the rapture. What kind of country have we become?

[converted_democrat]

15. I want to know why you think this is such a good idea..

You show up on every thread that talks about this issue, and you defend the deal at every turn.. Why are so convinced that this is such a good idea?

[Wordie]

18. That mischaracterizes what I've been saying...

I have been saying that there may be reasons to oppose the deal, but we shouldn't make up our minds on it based on half-truths, misinformation, demagoguery or out-of-context information.

I think that there is a lot more to learn about what's going on with this deal. I want to learn it before getting married to any POV. If you'll go back and read what I've actually said, I was not defending the deal, per se, but trying to refute those reasons to deny it that I see as being the result of five years of Bush's "terra terra terra" meme.

I want to see all aspects of this deal presented in a rational manner and a thorough airing of the actual merits or problems. Since only one side is presented in so many threads here now, I'm trying to add a little balance.

Is that unreasonable?

And please answer my earlier question, too: is it unreasonable to boycott a country that's in violation of international law?

[converted_democrat]

20. It isn't unreasonable to see all sides of a story before one draws a

conclusion.. I just find it odd that the vast majority of your posts have been in support of the deal, per se, or otherwise..

[Wordie]

23. Maybe you're just seeing it that way, because you aren't used to anyone

questioning what seems to have become the unquestionable.

[converted_democrat]

25. Nope, that's not it.. I spend alot of time on this board, and I like to

look at trends and themes..

[mom cat]

30. Then we should start boycotting the US also. It is by far the biggest

violator of international law in the world. Israel ranks in the list also, but is not anywhere close to the level of abuses as the US, much less what the US aspires to do.

[Wordie]

34. Hey mom cat!

:hi:

I think you came in a little late to this, and since we've gone a bit off track, maybe you don't see where this started. The point is that in the debate about the port deal, this is a bad reason to deny it: that the UAE won't recognize Israel until it ends the Occupation, and has instituted a boycott of Israel until they do.

Not that there may not be other reasons the deal isn't good, it's just that this isn't one.

[mom cat]

41. Hi wordie... This whole thing is getting curiouser and curiouser.

Now even more has been thrown into the pot with the ADL coming out against the deal. Evidently so did the Coast Guard before the deal was struck, but their report never made its way to the decision makers. It is all putting Bush in a catch 22 ... no matter what he does, he will incur some wrath.
As you well point out, this deal is being argued on side issues instead of merit. I have heard enough in the last few days to think that we should be in charge of our own ports. That said, probably Halliburton would get the contract. :shrug:

[shance]

14. Could this be a manufactured, intented design to produce

the necessary division and backlash racism against Muslims for boycotting Israel, or is it what it seems? What is apparent is it is all too convenient to bring further division between individuals in the Middle Eastern region, not to mention here.

Who would benefit from this?

In other words, why would they do this? Is everything really what it seems or is this a division by design in order to build sympathy to all the port deal to go through?

Who owns this company?

[NoMercy]

16. Of course DPW supports the customs laws of countries in which the operate

Dubai customs is different than DP World. The U.S. has a boycott against Iran. So DPW does not facilitate breaking that boycott either.

[Wordie]

17. Human Rights Watch suggests that the *US* put economic pressure on Israel

because of the illegal occupation and the Wall, so why shouldn't the UAE? Is it unreasonable for the UAE to take a stand against an occupation that's illegal under international law? Why do people act as if this is something unspeakably horrible? It seems to me that it's reasonable.

Take a look at this recent letter to President Bush from Human Rights Watch:

Israel: Expanding Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Letter to President George W. Bush

December 27, 2005

Office of the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Bush,

I am writing to you with respect to multiple Israeli announcements of its plans to continue expanding settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). This directly contravenes international law and Israeli commitments under the Road Map.

You recently reiterated Israel’s obligations to stop expanding settlements when you said, on October 20, 2005, following your meeting with Palestinian President Abbas: “Israel should not undertake any activity that contravenes its road map obligations, or prejudices the final status negotiations with regard to Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. This means that Israel must remove unauthorized outposts and stop settlement expansion.” Israel has acted contrary to these obligations, escalating the building of settlements in 2005. According to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, in the first half of 2005, there was a 28% increase in settlement housing starts compared to the same period in 2004. Israel now proposes to further expand West Bank settlements in the coming year.

We urge you to use U.S. diplomatic and financial influence to stop this trend in 2006. (emphasis mine)

On December 26, the Ministry of Housing released tenders for the construction of 228 housing units in the West Bank settlements of Beitar Ilit and Efrat; on December 19, , the Ministry of Housing published tenders for constructing 137 new housing units in the West Bank settlements of Ariel and Karnei Shomron; and on December 14, Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz’s approved the construction of approximately 300 new homes in the West Bank settlements of Maale Adumim, Bracha and Nokdim. Maale Adumim is one of the largest and fastest growing settlements in the West Bank, with some 30,000 inhabitants. The settlement is located east of Jerusalem and adjacent to the much-publicized area of “E-1,” the last remaining site for potential Palestinian development around settlement-encircled East Jerusalem. The Israeli government also has made clear that, despite U.S. opposition, it plans to build 3,500 housing units in E-1 and to include Ma'ale Adumim and E-1 on the western side (the “Israeli side”) of the metal and concrete barrier that Israel is building, mostly inside the OPT (hereinafter, the “wall”). Such actions would effectively sever the West Bank in two by cutting the already limited Palestinian north-south access routes through the West Bank. In addition, a wall encircling E-1 and Ma’ale Adumim would make access to East Jerusalem, the center of Palestinian economic and religious life, virtually impossible from the rest of the West Bank, except through limited checkpoint crossings in the wall, most of which Israel has not yet funded or built.

Israel’s continuing settlement activity is a violation of international humanitarian law (IHL), United Nations Security Council resolutions, and Israel’s own commitments under the U.S.-sponsored Road Map of April 2003. The Israeli government’s policy of encouraging, financing, establishing, and expanding Jewish-only settlements in the OPT violates two main principles of IHL: the prohibition on the transfer of civilians from an occupying power's territory to the occupied territory, and the prohibition of creating permanent changes in the occupied territory that are not for the benefit of the occupied population. In particular, Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that "he Occupying Power shall not …transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Under the road map, Israel agreed to freeze all settlement activity, including “natural growth,” and to dismantle all settlement outposts created since March 2001.

No one but Israel disputes the fact that its settlement policy violates IHL. Yet the international community, including the United States, has failed to hold Israel accountable to its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention to, at the very least, immediately cease current Israeli settlement activity. The wrongfulness of the settlement expansion is compounded by evidence stemming from the construction of the wall within the OPT that suggests an Israeli intention eventually to annex the territory in question. Israel claims that the wall is being built for security reasons, but the deep intrusion of the wall into West Bank territory, and the capture of major settlements on the ”Israeli side” of the wall, suggest otherwise. The International Court of Justice, in a view shared by many international legal commentators and every major human rights organization in the world, concluded in its June 2004 advisory opinion that Israel’s construction of the wall within the boundaries of the OPT contravenes IHL and is tantamount to an illegal annexation of the settlements on the Israeli side of the wall. (emphasis mine)

Peace Now has published a list of seven settlements where large-scale construction (hundreds of units) is occurring. All but one of them are located on the Israeli side of the wall. In a similar list of seventeen settlements where medium-scale construction (tens of units) is occurring, all but three are on the Israeli side of the wall. In addition, two Israeli human rights organizations, B’Tselem and Bimkom, recently published a report that documents the fact that 55 settlements, including 12 in East Jerusalem, housing approximately 75% of all settlers, would fall on the Israeli side of the wall. The report shows that Israeli officials established the wall’s route hundreds to thousands of meters east of the existing boundaries of these settlements to allow for maximum future expansion. The organizations conclude that “contrary to the picture portrayed by the state, the settlement-expansion plans played a substantial role in the planning of the Barrier's route."

The Israeli government has recently sought to justify its construction of the wall inside Palestinian territory, and beyond the Green Line, as based on its sovereign duty to protect Israeli citizens, notwithstanding their presence in settlements. But Israel can well protect these citizens by dismantling the settlements and bringing its settler citizens back within the legitimate borders of its state. Such a measure would satisfy Israel’s duty to protect its citizens without undermining its duty to respect and uphold international law and would end the severe humanitarian and economic harm inflicted on the Palestinian population by virtue of the wall’s construction.

Even the Israeli government has now stated that the wall is not being built just for security purposes but also to establish its territorial claims on OPT land. On December 1, news reports quoted Tzipi Livni, the Israeli Minister of Justice, as saying that the future borders of Israel will roughly follow the route of the wall. This statement by an Israeli public official was the first to explicitly link the route of the wall with Israel’s political, not security, aims.

We urge you to take immediate action to end U.S. support of Israel's unlawful policies. According to an investigative report by the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, based on government ministry budgets, Israel spends about NIS 2.5 billion a year ($550 million) for the non-military aspects of settlement maintenance and expansion. Furthermore, the Knesset has projected that Israel will spend about $3.4 billion in total on construction of the wall, 80% of which is inside the occupied West Bank. (Israel has not made public a breakdown of the portions of the costs attributable to construction of the wall inside the West Bank, on the Green Line, or inside Israel). Recent experience with the Rafah border-crossing deal confirms that when the United States is determined to change problematic Israeli conduct, Israel will comply. To avoid U.S. financial complicity in policies that the U.S. Government opposes and that international law prohibits, we therefore call on you and other key government officials, first, to state in unequivocal terms that the United States will not tolerate any further settlement expansion and, second, to announce that the administration will deduct from U.S. financial aid to Israel - about $2.58 billion in fiscal year 2005 -- an amount equal to Israel's expenditures on the settlements and on the construction and maintenance of such portion of the wall that is inside the West Bank. (emphasis mine)

Yours sincerely,


Sarah Leah Whitson
Executive Director, Middle East North Africa Division
Human Rights Watch

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/27/isrlpa12346.htm

(Please note that I want peace in the region, and that the only way for that to happen will be for both sides to do what it takes to achieve it.)

[converted_democrat]

21. Personally, I don't see how the UAE has much room to criticize any

country on human rights.. Giving lashings to women that have babies out of wedlock, strapping 2 and 3 year old boys onto the backs of camels so thy can be jockeys in races, and their sex slave trade are not exactly glowing examples of a country that gives a rats ass about human rights..

[Wordie]

22. One can find similar examples of bad bhvr for most countries, including

Israel (did you know there is a thriving sex slave trade there, too?), and China, which is another foreign country that holds a great number of similar U.S port leases. Yet the outcry is only over the UAE. Israel, after all, is engaged in a decades-long illegal occupation of another peoples' entire territory! Shouldn't we be consistent?

And I don't think the issue is whether the UAE criticizes Israel anyway. The issue is whether it's reasonable to deny the ports deal to the UAE because of it's boycott of Israel. Since there are legitimate reasons for the boycott, I don't think this is a reason to deny the deal. (There may be other reasons, it's just this isn't one.)

[converted_democrat]

26. "There may be other reasons, it's just this isn't one."

Here's a couple..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x533574

edited to correct link..

[Wordie]

27. Now, why not spend some time researching the accuracy of those claims

in that post. Are some accurate? Perhaps, but there are enough innaccuracies for me to question the purpose of that thread. Is it to lead us to greater undertanding of the issues, or to spin us? I for one, don't like being spun.

[converted_democrat]

28. Who is trying to spin who?

You defend a group involved in 911 on any level? Sorry, but I don't trust you..

[Wordie]

29. Apparently you've already been spun very badly.

I don't think any reputable source is saying that the UAE was "involved in 9/11"! It isn't me you shouldn't trust. Do some research. Don't take my word for it. Check out reputable sources, not somebody's opinion blog, or sites with an agenda.

[converted_democrat]

31. Please...

I'm sorry, I don't trust YOU.. You're willing to glaze over major issues as if they don't exist. If some one brings up their terrible human rights record you deflect to Israel and China.. If someone brings up their connection to 911 you call bunk, but prove nothing yourself.. I'll be quite honest, in todays world I find anyone willing to do the President's bidding for him suspect.. Lou Dobbs has been following this for nearly 2 weeks now.. I trust him, I don't trust YOU.

[Wordie]

32. Lou Dobbs?

Haven't you noticed his tendency to play on the emotions??? There are times I agree with Lou Dobbs, and respond to his populist arguments, but I sure wouldn't trust him as my primary source on any issue. Or believe his every word.

And I think you miss the point of what I was doing. I was saying that it appears to me that there are those who bring up questions about the human rights record of the UAE, while for some reason, glossing over that of other countries whose record is the same or worse. The question I ask is why the outrage over Dubai, when there has been no similar outrage over those other countries? After all, China owns LOTs of port leases in the US.

And you are the one who said a connection to 9/11 was "proven"!!! It isn't. At all. If you believe it's proven, then maybe you ought to post a link to show me that it's really true (and I mean not to an opinion piece on the issue, but real "proof"). Or will the "proof" turn out to be coming from spinners who are trying to do a "guilt by association" sort of thing on very specious grounds? Or maybe they're just looking for ratings.

It's interesting to note that the pressure against this deal started with an editorial by a neocon, someone on the right, not the left. And if you think I'm doing GWB's bidding, well, I invite you to do a search for my posts prior to this debate.

I'm not asking you to trust me, btw, I'm asking you to go out and hunt down the info yourself, using reliable sources.

[converted_democrat]

33. I'm sorry, I don't trust YOU.. Do us both a favor, and save your breath..

I don't trust anyone who sides with the president at this point.. He's lied too many times.. He could go out tomorrow and offer to fund everyone's retirement and buy everyone puppies and I still would wonder "What's he really after?" I trust Lou Dobbs, and he says there is a connection.. Perhaps this is a good deal, but I don't believe that it is, and the vast majority of America feels the same.. It isn't my fault he has lied about everything under the sun.. I'm sorry, I don't buy what he says or anyone that agrees with him says.. That isn't anyone's fault but his own..

[Wordie]

36. Again...I'm not asking you to trust me.

Bush lied about "terra terra terra"...why let his fear mongering continue to influence us? That's what I think a lot of this ports stuff really is.

You don't need to trust me on that though, just listen to what Will Pitt has said:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=504839

[converted_democrat]

37. Sorry, don't trust anyone that takes the side of the President at this

point.. I trust Dobbs, and my gut.. Thanx anyway.. I don't trust that the UAE are clean, and nothing you've said has made me feel remotely better.. You keep putting links up going thread to thread trying to sell something few if any want to buy.. Sorry..

[Wordie]

38. And I don't trust arguments based on fear-mongering, rather than truth.nt

[converted_democrat]

40. Dobbs says there is a connection, I trust him..

You've time and time again glossed over the issues and then you have the gall to get all self righteous? Give me a freaking break.. I don't want my country to do business with any country that straps 2-3 year old boys on the backs of camels.. I don't want my country to do business with a country that has a sex slave trade.. I don't want my country to do business with a country that lashes women that has a baby out of wedlock.. I don't care what Israel does.. I don't care what China does.. We already are dealing with them and there isn't much that I can do about it at this point.. But I can throw a fit about this country and I will...

You've never given good reasons why this IS a good deal, when you have been asked on several occasions to explain why..When I tried for a straight answer you deflected.. I've had alot of experience with people that lie, and that is a huge siren going off in the back of my head.. I'm sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling.. Go peddle it to someone who will...

[Behind the Aegis]

35. That fact will make the deal even sweeter for some. n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

39. Barbara Boxer asked the operating officer from DPW about that a little

while ago in the senate hearing. She also brought up that they didn't have any women in top positions.