Thursday, March 09, 2006

What No One Is Saying About the Dubai Back-Off

 
There's a lot of coverage (see Junkyard Blog, here, for "Dubai Yields") of the United Emirate's decision to divest itself of its American holdings. What no one seems to be paying attention to is that the deal violates our agreement with Israel not to do business with companies that are owned by states which embargo trade with Israel.

The UAE has been doing just that for a long time: Israel is not on their list of trade buddies.

So, here we have just one more oversight of that Committee in charge of vetting foreign investments in this country.

What is wrong with Washington? Never mind -- that list is too long. Better question: what is it doing right lately?

As for DPW's decision to get out of Dodge: while late is better than never, they lost some advantage in waiting so long. It must have been a lucrative deal for them to try to wait it out...wouldn't you love to know the real story?

Hey, somebody, call Claudia Rosett; put her on this sorry mess.

6 comments:

sirius_sir said...

What no one seems to be paying attention to is that the deal violates our agreement with Israel not to do business with companies that are owned by states which embargo trade with Israel.

Thanks, Dymphna. I confess I did not know that. I think it was wrong to oppose the UAE ports deal on the basis of fear (or racial distrust, which seems uncomfortably close to the matter) but if the argument for opposition had been formulated on the basis of fairness to Israel then I would have supported it, with little or no reservation.

But the way this thing played out makes us seem--instead of honorable--merely insular, xenophobic, even paranoid. I am just a little embarrassed for my country right now.

reliapundit said...

the boycott is ineffective and nobody pays attention to it. i posted on this - with a link to an article from the jpost.

uae and dubai do lots of wuiet biz with israel.

like the rest oif this controversy this angle was totally bogus.

all the best.

Scott said...

I've never heard of this so called agreement with Israel. Is it a law or executive order or what?

Certainly the US government itself has been doing business with states that embargo Israel and, I would surmise so has Boeing and host of other US companies. I mean Aramco et. al. don't produce their oil field equipment. US companies like, yes, Halliburton do.

The UAE may not be the Switzerland of the Middle East but it is about as good as it gets in that part of the world. For the US to give them the back of its hand over this deal is not going to go down well in the Arab/Muslim world.

If the Arabs decide to eschew US goods, investment or even the dollar itself that is going to have
real consequences in the US. As the Arab market is far larger than the Israeli one I don't see how revving up a trade war is going to
redound to Israel's advantage.

Freedom Fighter said...

Two things...first of all, for Scott, Sirius and reliapundit..the boycott is very much in force. It is against US law that makes it illegal for US companies to comply with a boycott against any US ally..including Israel.

As can be seen from this post, Dubai does not even allow israelis in the country!J O S H U A P U N D I T: No Jews need apply : Israel's Shahar Peer Not Allowed in Dubai Open

Another little tidbit is that Dubai continues to not only fund Hamas, a terrorist organization but to give funds directly to homicide bombers.

As well as the government funded Zayed Center, the source of some of the most virulent ly anti-Semitic and anti-American literature in the world.

J O S H U A P U N D I T: Is Dubai breaking another US law and providing material support to a terrorist group?

What was that again about being against those who harbor terrorism, Dubbya? Kinda makes a mockery of the Bush Doctrine, no?

Perhaps if the Preident had properly briefed Congressional leaders about the quid pro quo Bush offered the UAE for this deal, that might have been one thing..but he simply tried to shove it through, and it looks like that was a major error on his part.

sirius_sir said...

Thank you, Senators Schumer and Clinton for opening your stately blowholes and fanning the flames of xenophobia and ignorance.

My sentiments, exactly.

Cato said...

If you read freedomfighter's comment, he undercut's Dymphna's statement that:

"...the deal violates our agreement with Israel not to do business with companies that are owned by states which embargo trade with Israel."

That's not the basis of our agreement at all. Furthermore, what does the actual agreement have to do with the ports deal? Do you imagine the ports would be permitted to discriminate in employment on US shores?

US companies are not forbidden form doing business with Arab companies - nor should they be.

The boycott idea was a transparently late addition to the "case" against the deal - opposition that was largely based on misinformation, political posturing and wildfire rumors.

There's been a lot of ugly talk on this topic - "Conservatives" accusing the president of selling out. People need to get a grip.