Dubai Company Works With Israeli Firms

AP/Yahoo News ^ | March 5, 2006 | TAREK AL-ISSAWI

[FairOpinion]

Well, I bet most people had no idea of this.

That's why it's best to get all the facts first, before a knee jerk reaction.

[fooman]

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

---

gets tangled all the time.

[The Red Zone]

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.

I don't think we really want to count on wink and nod to get business as usual done.

[FairOpinion]

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.

[Dog Gone]

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.

Well, there goes one of Sean Hannity's main talking points.

[FairOpinion]

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

[fooman]

You read my mind. I like sean a LOT, but he can be banal at times....

[The Red Zone]

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.

[Democratshavenobrains]

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.

[FairOpinion]

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.

[Canedawg]

"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.

[The Red Zone]

I'd want not to count on their winking at their own law.

[ohioWfan]

That's why it's best to get all the facts first, before a knee jerk reaction.

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?

[FairOpinion]

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)

[pookie18]

Just e-mailed this to him...

[ScreamingFist]

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.

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.

[ScreamingFist]

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.

[ScreamingFist]

UAE is strategically important to us in the ME. And the US is what, chopped liver to them?

[Dog Gone]

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.

[jec41]

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.