Jewish Group Calls For Freeze of UAE Port Deal

[kpete]

Last update - 23:51 28/02/2006
ADL to U.S.: Freeze seaport contract with UAE due to Israel boycott

By Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz Correspondent, and The Associated Press

The Anti-Defamation League is demanding the American administration prevent a Dubai-owned corporation from operating seaports in the United States until the United Arab Emirates issues an official statement indicating it has abandoned the boycott of Israel.

"Dubai continues to be an active partner in the economic boycott of Israel," ADL Director Abraham Foxman told Haaretz on Tuesday.

"This fact alone is reason enough to suspend or even cancel the implementation of the contract ," Foxman said.

U.S. President George Bush said Tuesday he remains supportive of a UAE-based company's takeover of some U.S. port operations, even though a new, more intensive investigation of the deal's potential security risks has yet to begin.

Bush is the final arbiter of that second review. Yet, he said after an Oval Office meeting with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi that "my position hasn't changed" on support for transferring control of management of some major U.S. port facilities from a British company to Dubai-owned DP World.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/688591.html

[WhiteTara]

1. to which master will * bow? n/t

[onenote]

2. I'd like to see the Jewish community pressure Lieberman on this

This gives Joe an out to back away from statements supporting the deal. Doubt he'll take advantage of it, but pressure should be brought to bear.

onenote

[xultar]

3. Frankly I don't see why Israel would care to ship to the UAE.

The Dubai company can't pull that shit in the US though.

All this mayhem is a moot point anyways. The deal is done.

[slor]

4. Israel cannot ship to Dubai can they?

As far as Dubai is concerned, they do not exist.

[xultar]

5. Right. So Israel wants the deal stopped because of the boycott.

I don't get why they care.

[slor]

7. I thought that was clear from my post...

Dubai is an enemy of Irael, and Dubai is about to own a big part of us, their biggest ally.

[xultar]

8. I know. But if * made the deal surely he kept Israel's needs in mind

:sarcasm:

[NoMercy]

6. Frank Gafney began the "Arabs buy our Ports" campaign -- what do

you think is going on here?

It is clearly in line with the anti-arabist NeoCon campaign,
regardless of the real security issues.

You haven't heard of Sadaam and the "mushroom cloud."

[Coastie for Truth]

9. Under The Arab League Boycott

If, hypothetically, a Liberian or Panamanian or Taiwanese freighter came in - with containers from Haifa, Dubai Ports World could refuse to offload (refuse to permit the stevedores it has "hired" offload) the containers.

As a practical matter - given the US 1976-78 Anti-Boycott legislation - this isn't very likely. Dubai World Ports would be violating the terms and conditions of their lease with the Port Authority ("...to be and remain in compliance with all applicable, local, state and federal laws..."). Remember, the Port Authority still owns the land under the cranes and rail road tracks and asphalt and the land the warehouses sit on.

Would another port operator complain and bring pressure on the Port Authority to enforce the terms of the lease? If it's a profitable port, you can believe that other operators (Chinese COSCO, Danish Moller-Maersk, Evergreen, Hyundai, etc.) would demand termination for breach of a material term or condition.

[Colorado Blue]

10. Yes - however wouldn't we also be breaking our own laws by

doing business with Dubai under these circumstances? The J Post article said as much.

[Coastie for Truth]

11. That is the other side of the Corzine-Bloomberg argument.

They are readying to terminate the P&O agreement for a "material breach."

[Colorado Blue]

13. Can you explain?

What material breach?

[Coastie for Truth]

15. The contract between

the operator (P&O or DPW) and the "owner" (Port of New York and New Jersey Authority) states that the "operator agrees to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws". Standard term.

If the port operator is observing the Arab League Boycott, then the port operator is not complying with Federal law (the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the 1978 Anti-Boycott Laws. That is a "material breach."

[genie_weenie]

16. Well, could DPW get around

a material breach by not observing the boycott in US ports but continuing to support it in regards to other ports? Is this logistically feasible?

What I've read concerning the boycott is The primary aspect of the boycott prohibits the importation of Israeli-origin goods and services into boycotting countries(however, not all Arab League members participate in the boycott). The secondary boycott prohibits any entity in Arab League members from engaging in business with U.S. or other foreign firms that contribute to Israel’s military or economic development.

So, it seems to me that DPW could get around the boycott. Any thoughts?

[Norquist Nemesis]

12. Not hearing much about the UK judge's decision over the deal

He may just be the savior for the whole thing as it's his final decision whether the sale goes through or not. If he decides no, it could throw the whole deal overboard.

[Clarkie1]

14. I agree with them. This alone shoud be a deal-breaker. n/t