Posted on 03/05/2006 5:24:02 PM PST by FairOpinion
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - Dubai's government may formally subscribe to the Arab boycott of Israel, but a state-owned company at the center of a controversy over its bid to take over some U.S. port operations says it routinely works with Israeli firms.
It's a contradiction increasingly apparent in the region: Several Persian Gulf states, especially ones entering international markets, mostly ignore the boycott even though they haven't formally ended it and don't recognize Israel.
Countries like the United Arab Emirates, of which Dubai is a part, have also ended secondary boycotts, meaning Israeli products not shipped directly from Israel are allowed to enter their markets.
Several U.S. senators raised the question of the boycott this week as a new twist in the uproar over whether allowing Dubai Ports World to run port facilities in several American cities posed a security risk. U.S. law prohibits companies from cooperating with the boycott.
DP World is owned by the government of Dubai, which on its books supports the boycott. But the boycott has crumbled over the decades, and the UAE does not force DP World to bar Israeli goods and companies from the European, Asian and Mideast ports it manages.
CNN reported Thursday that a prominent Israeli shipping company, ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd., wrote to a U.S. senator noting it does business with DP World and supports the U.S. deal.
"As an Israeli company, security is of the utmost importance to us and we require rigorous security measures from terminal operators in every country in which we operate, but especially in Arab countries. And we are very comfortable calling at DP World's Dubai ports," ZIM chairman Idan Ofer wrote, CNN said.
The letter said ZIM is allowed to operate at Dubai ports despite the formal boycott and that DP World handles ZIM operations in Dubai, according to CNN. Ofer did not specify if those ZIM operations were subsidiaries or directly owned.
In Israel, ZIM's headquarters confirmed that Ofer sent letters to several senators.
"In the letters Idan Ofer explained that the ships of the ZIM company that use ports worldwide that are operated and controlled by the Dubai-based company DP World receive services from the company, including a level of security that cannot be criticized," the company said in a statement.
Under UAE law, trade between its seven emirates and Israel is banned, and Israeli passport holders are not allowed into the UAE. Any company owned by the governments of the emirates also is supposed to abide by the boycott, although that clearly is not enforced.
DP World now runs 15 port facilities outside the Arab world — in Asia, Europe and Latin America — and no reports have surfaced of its preventing Israeli-owned ships, goods or firms from operating there.
"Our company has long-standing business relationships with Israeli companies among our diverse international clients," DP World Senior Vice President Michael Moore said in a statement Tuesday.
"DP World does not discriminate and has not been charged with violating any anti-boycott statutes. DP World, as a global port management company, facilitates trade with many nations," he said.
Moore's office did not immediately reply to a request Thursday for more information on which Israeli companies work with DP World.
DP World's office in Dubai refused to comment on the boycott issue Thursday, as did a senior UAE government official in the capital, Abu Dhabi.
Moore released the statement after Senate Democrats grilled DP World's chief operating officer, Edward Bilkey, about the firm's adherence to the Israeli boycott. Bilkey acknowledged that the Dubai government formally respects the boycott.
"We should not be rewarding companies that support discrimination against our key strategic ally," Sen. John Kerry said during the Senate Commerce Committee hearing.
The Arab League launched the boycott of Israel in 1951, setting up an office in Damascus, Syria, to identify foreigners doing business with the Jewish state and ban them from operating in the Arab world.
At one time, more than 8,500 companies and people, such as Coca-Cola and Ford, were blacklisted. But the boycott frayed as first Egypt and then Jordan made peace with Israel and the Palestinians embarked on the still faltering peace process. All three now trade with Israel.
The UAE, Qatar, Tunisia and Morocco are among other Arab nations that have flirted with relations and trade with Israel in recent years — although they do not formally recognize Israel.
Syria and Lebanon still stick strictly to the boycott, and the Damascus boycott office regularly issues blacklist statements.
"The importance of (the boycott) is more political and diplomatic than it is financial today," said Michael Oren, visiting professor of Jewish and Middle Eastern studies at Harvard and a senior fellow at the Shalem Center, a Jerusalem-based research institute.
___
Associated Press writers Sam F. Ghattas in Beirut, Lebanon, and Mark Lavie in Jerusalem contributed to this report.
That's why it's best to get all the facts first, before a knee jerk reaction.
CNN reported Thursday that a prominent Israeli shipping company, ZIM Integrated Shipping Services Ltd., wrote to a U.S. senator noting it does business with DP World and supports the U.S. deal
I don't think we really want to count on wink and nod to get business as usual done.
Thanks to jec41 for finding this and posting it on the
Cargo Container Security - U.S. Customs and Border Protection Reality
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1590562/posts
thread.
But since there is so much attention and controversy, not to mention incorrect information spread about the Dubai terminal deal, I thought it deserved its own thread.
Well, there goes one of Sean Hannity's main talking points.
UAE is strategically important to us in the ME.
White House Fact Sheet: The United States–UAE Bilateral Relationship
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1590219/posts
You read my mind. I like sean a LOT, but he can be banal at times....
And who knows but their king may die tonight and another one come to power tomorrow who, surprise, says he will enforce that law, and this company now managing our ports goes to pieces.
The Gulf Arabs might hum along the usual anti-Israel tunes, but they don't let it hurt their bottom line. They aren't as psychotic as the Palestinians.
There is always that risk.
Another could come to power and not allow us to use their country as a base.
But you can't make all your plans based on what might happen, then you wouldn't be able to do anything.
You make the best assessment and currently it sure seems that the hysteria over the UAE company managing some of our terminals at some of our ports was an overreaction.
"there is so much attention and controversy, not to mention incorrect information spread about the Dubai terminal deal"
There is plenty of good information on this site to learn about this deal, and there are still valid arguments against it.
I'd want not to count on their winking at their own law.
Oh......but why would you want to do that, Fair........when you can rant and rave and get all that attention BEFORE the facts come in?
Here are more interesting information about it, also posted by jec41, and I can believe it: the Dems protect their unions, have a cover story of being stronger on homeland security than Bush and make Bush look bad.:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1590562/posts?page=12#12
The main reason that the unions are against any new foreign terminal leases is that the X-ray and radiation equipment in our terminals is outdated. At present you can run about 20 containers a hr. through our X-ray equipment. Europe and Dubai are using the latest technology and can run 140 container a hr. though their X-ray machines. DPW has said they would install the new equipment. That a lot of lost a$$ time. Democrats simply protect their own and some republicans of congress are idiots.
12 posted on 03/05/2006 4:02:30 PM PST by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
Just e-mailed this to him...
I see. So the UAE will wink and nod if the price is right. By all means, let them manage the US ports......their business ethic is.....errrr, well.....impeccable.
More Than Meets the Eye: F-16 Sale Precursor to Establishing U.S. Bases in UAE
Luke Warren, Arms Trade Insider No. 29, March 9, 2000
As initially revealed last November the Arms Trade News, the UAE purchase of 80 F-16 Falcon fighter jets from the U.S. will help grease the wheels for a new basing agreement between the two countries. A 7 March memo from the Air Force liaison office regarding the national security rationale for this sale states clearly that, "U.S. forces could respond to the region quicker and more effectively if bases, ports, and the infrastructure they require were available in other countries as well as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The sale of F-16s to the UAE will allow the U.S. to work closer with this coalition partner."
So instead of just being seduced by the vast amount of money this deal offers, (the Pentagon assumes that over the Falcon's 20 year life cycle the deal will be worth $15 billion), we now can confirm that there is a larger seduction. According to Air Force, USCENTCOM's theater engagement plan calls for "enhancing and strengthening the strategic relationship between the US and the UAE...This plan seeks several specific long-term bilateral agreements including improved access to the Persian Gulf's only carrier capable deep-water port."
Arms sales for influence and access. This is not the first time this has been done, but not at this level of weapons technology. Selling weapons more advanced than your own for money and new bases is a dangerous game. Despite the Air Force's claim to the contrary, these F-16s may not "act as a stabilizing influence against forces in the region that could threaten this vital flow of petroleum."(i.e. Iran)
Iranian hard line clerics, who control the military, could react by initiating a pre-emptive strike on the UAE, or increasing terrorist attacks, or by accelerating Iran's research into ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. This sale might also undermine the moderate influences of the Iranian Parliament and President Khatami. That is exactly the opposite of what the U.S. should be doing. The U.S. should attempt to bolster Khatami's reforms and power. Selling the world's best F-16s to the UAE will not accomplish this task.
And neither is setting up bases in the UAE. That will give Islamic radicals more evidence of U.S. encroachment in the Arab world, and hence more reason to launch terrorist attacks against the U.S. It also begs the question; given U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, why do we need access to the UAE?. Is this a hedge against the crown prince of Saudi Arabia not being pro- western? Is it designed to give us a launch point against an increasingly hardline, military government in Pakistan? The U.S. has been able to keep the Straights of Hormuz open for years without bases in the UAE. If so, why undercut the moderate forces in Iran, and possibly increase tension in the already precarious region, by building these bases?
Before this sale goes through, Congress should demand the real reasons for this sale, and if they are not adequate, kill the deal.
Oh great, now I'm on his ****list. ;-)
Seriously, he needs to know.
There are some valid arguments against the ports deal, but the Israel angle is not one of them.
Commerce runs the world not political hacks, MSM, or governments. It has always been so. Even if it was banned by all, it would still occur.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.