| Author |
Message |
    
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2605
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 11:11 am: | 
|
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395502196&pagename=JPost%2FJPArti cle%2FShowFull |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2430
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 12:13 pm: |
|
So does this mean that DPW would not allow Israeli-made goods into the US through the ports that they would control? Or are they simply enforcing the rules of the "host" government which, in the case cited, is the same as their own? |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1595
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 1:36 pm: |
|
If there is one thing about this story is that the reporting has been misleading.
I don't know if this is true, but it would call into question themp's story. Again , tough to tell what the facts are in this.
Dubai Ports World uses Zim connection in US deal
“It's the largest shipping company in Israel. And the president of Zim is very close to our company and supports us”
Ran Dagoni, Washington 26 Feb 06 12:08
Dubai Ports World, the combined United Emirates (UAE) port management company for the Gulf, has stepped up its challenge to win the operating rights of six major ports in the US, by claiming it has strong business ties with Israeli shipping company Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd..
http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000065318&fid=942 |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2608
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 2:38 pm: |
|
I saw that, too. It seems like that might be a relationship that is tolerated rather than embraced.
It is hard too say but good thing there is extra time to review the whole mess. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2441
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 2:39 pm: |
|
Which makes me think it is more likely that DPW is simply enforcing the UAE rules, rather than exporting them to other countries for whom they run the ports.
It is a mess when states own these kinds of companies. |
crabby
Citizen
Username: Crabbyappleton
Post Number: 493
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 3:56 pm: |
|
The problem comes from the fact that the UAE is run by a regime. The current regime is "friendly" and proven itself, but what happens if there's a regime change. That is the question. Doesn't look good. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 747
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 7:57 pm: |
|
Well, it looks like like Bush and the Repubs averted a major political blunder. Sure, the Dems will be able to make some political hay in the port areas but the rest of the country has moved on. Thank you Bush admin for letting this one go. The Republican Congressional candidates thank you. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5265
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 9:36 pm: |
|
Bush is right, you xenophobes. So sayeth Richard Cohen of the DC Post.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/col/v-pfriendly/story/395245p-335106c.html |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2614
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 9:48 pm: |
|
"Well, it looks like like Bush and the Repubs averted a major political blunder"
"averted" means "committed" now? |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 748
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 28, 2006 - 10:27 pm: |
|
themp,
I admit I over estimated the political damage of this most recent "scandal". I should have known these things have the shelf life of a banana. If the illegal wiretap issue had a 2 week life I should have correctly estimated this one had a one week life. My apologies, but I hope you continue to beat it. That way you will be even more shocked when no one cares about it in November. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1619
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Bush today: "...this company is buying a British company that manages the ports. What kind of signal does it send throughout the world if it's okay for a British company to manage the ports, but not a company that has been . . . cleared for security purposes from the Arab world?"
Does he really not understand the difference between a public British company and a company that is run by a government with very recent ties to terrorism? Don't companies with shareholders and governments have different goals? For example, would a British company place on a ban on Israeli goods? No of course not, that'd be stupid for many reasons, not the least of which is economically. And yet the UAE has a ban in place...can anyone explain this? Why is this getting so little press? If the UAE takes over our ports, we could not recieve Israeli goods. It's unfathomable.
(Of course I understand there are many on the board who believe this deal makes Bush the greatest president who ever lived...)
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2474
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 2:31 pm: |
|
RL,
Actually, that is incorrect. DPW enforces the UAE rules in the UAE. However outside the Emirates, they do not restrict access to Israeli goods.
But there are many other reasons this is a bad idea, including the public perception problems it is causing. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5274
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 1, 2006 - 3:42 pm: |
|
I believe that a company -- foreign or private -- has to operate in accordance with the laws of whichever country they are located and do business in.
Now, if Columbia, Princeton, Tufts and Harvard had gone forward and divested from Israel and the UAE ran their cafeterias, then that's another question entirely.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page