Anti-Defamation League to Snow: FREEZE the Port Deal or CANCEL it...

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

Last update - 02:57 01/03/2006
ADL to U.S.: Freeze seaport contract with UAE due to Israel boycott
By Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz Correspondent, and The Associated Press

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

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.

In a letter addressed to Treasury Secretary John Snow, Foxman wrote: "According to the Department of Commerce, as recently as 2005, the government of Dubai was alleged to be asking U.S. companies to certify that goods shipped to Dubai were 'neither of Israeli origin nor do they contain Israeli materials, nor are being exported from Israel.'

"For decades, the United States has been a leader in the fight against the economic boycott of Israel... Dubai, an adherent to this boycott, should not benefit from America's open trade policy.

[Lerkfish]

1. now, see...this is the schizophrenic nature of neocons I just don't get.

they are pro Israel, but they support those who are anti Israel.
I personally think Israel should be treated no differently than any of our other allies, but I don't understand what the neocons really want to do with Israel-related issues.

[mom cat]

2. They are not so Pro Israel as they are pro having a well armed ally

in the middle east. This puts Bush right in the middle of a no win.He cannot afford to alienate the pro Israeli lobby and he can't afford to alienate the middle east monarchs either. :popcorn:

[Wordie]

11. I think it may depend on which particular neocons...

There are some that apparently see very little difference between the interests of Israel and those of the United States; others who are hawkish generally, and/or more pro-business.

...but you're right about the pickle that Bush is in. :popcorn:

[mom cat]

12. DUers are going to need to go on a diet!

That is the 25th container of popcorn I have seen today! I think that I will have some too! :popcorn:

[Wordie]

13. There's an old Chinese curse...

May you live in interesting times.

Sure fits.

[mom cat]

14. It fits better than my jeans do.

Damn all this :popcorn: anyway.
You are so right about the interesting times. No one would ever believe a movie as strange as the ports deal. It looks like there are some major cracks in the political alliances in the Rebub camp over this. Ok. pass the :popcorn:. I can't resist!

[Wordie]

3. Why should anyone complain about a boycott due to an illegal occupation

of someone else's land??? The Israeli occupation is condemned by the international community, the United Nations and Human Rights Watch. A boycott was very successful in the case of South Africa. And the UAE is an American ally, too. Why should we take sides in this dispute between two allies?

Israel should not be a central issue in the debate over the port issue.

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

6. True, but somewhere in all of this...

...Israel is appealing to Bush's pro-Israel sentiments.

What Israel doesn't understand, however, is that George W. Bush only does what is in the best interests of George W. Bush.

Everyone else, including Israel, can go Cheney themselves.

[Coastie for Truth]

15. Boycott began before 1948 and pre-dated the State of Israel

.

The "Tertiary Boycott" goes all way the down to individuals - like the Nuremburg Laws-- by University of California alumnus and University of California at Davis faculty member Joe Lockard- viz., -

<<<SNIP>>>
The original boycott was xenophobic in that it represented a political and economic strategy to contain, isolate, monitor and eventually destroy what it perceived as an alien presence. Inviolable borders had to be maintained against subversive infiltration. It sought to preserve a hegemonic definition of territory as Arab, rejecting peaceful relations with an entity deemed fundamentally illegitimate. A boycott was a weapon to eliminate an "artificial" presence that had no right to exist.

Boycott officials in Damascus pored over corporate reports from around the world to identify both intercorporate links (e.g. did your company deal with another company that had dealings with Israel?) and Jewish agents of power. Routine administrative forms circulated to collect information on the religion and national origin of corporate employees. The Central Boycott Office issued "non-Jew" certificates to foreign organizations.

A Jewish name was enough to ensure that you would not be hired at large firms with major projects in Arab countries; a new class of closeted Jews appeared in response and there was a run on false baptismal certificates. (emphasis not in original)

The boycott's intellectual terms were changing, however. In 1975 came UN Resolution 3379 (repealed in 1991) equating Zionism with racism and apartheid, which served as the political analogy that would justify maintaining an isolation containment around that alien presence. The Arab League affirmed its solidarity with the then-rising anti-apartheid boycott and began conceptually re-positioning its own boycott. What changed was less the original purposes and methods of the anti-Israel boycott, more its rhetorical references that relied on stigmatizing one nationalism among all others.
<<<SNIP>>>

you might also consider this enforcement action (note: the oil companies do not voluntarily request this kind of guidance)---->

Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation Settles Antiboycott Case

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement Michael J. Garcia announced today that Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation in Baltimore, Maryland has agreed to pay the maximum $10,000 civil penalty to settle charges that it violated U.S. antiboycott laws by discriminating against an individual in support of the Arab League boycott of Israel. Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation voluntarily disclosed the incident and cooperated fully with the subsequent investigation.

"As Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security Kenneth I. Juster recently made clear, the Commerce Department will vigorously enforce our antiboycott laws," Assistant Secretary Garcia noted. "This case demonstrates that resolve."

The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) had charged that in 1995, Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation discriminated against a U.S. person because she was Jewish. The person had been seeking a position in the company's International Services Department, which markets medical services around the world, including in the Middle East. BIS believes that the discriminatory conduct was motivated by the company's concern about having a Jewish person in that position because of the Arab League boycott of Israel.

The antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations prohibit U.S. persons from complying with certain aspects of unsanctioned foreign boycotts imposed or fostered by foreign governments, including taking discriminatory actions on the basis of religion or national origin. In addition, the antiboycott regulations require U.S. persons to report their receipt of certain boycott requests to the BIS's Office of Antiboycott Compliance (OAC), which investigates alleged violations, provides support in administrative or criminal litigation of cases, and prepares cases for settlement.

Assistant Secretary Garcia commended Senior Compliance Officer Cathleen A. Ryan who conducted the investigation of this case for OAC.

See also

NOTE TO MOD: THIS IS A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRESS RELEASE AND THEREFORE NOT SUBJECT TO COPYRIGHT

You might also want to look at "The Economic War Against the Jews" by Walter Henry Nelson.

I have stuck with articles that have a good narrative. In order to avoid antagonism, I have avoided reference to Jewish community newspapers, and to PNAC-Neocon periodical (such as Commentary).

BTW - what are your thoughts on the tertiary boycott as applied to individuals - and hiring decisions (Consider the 1978 laws as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964).

[gordianot]

4. I suspect there are two schools of neo cons.

The old blue blood WASP Neo Con Nazi supporters, who have learned maybe to suppress racist urges of their Grandfathers.

Then there are those Neo Con who really serve their masters agenda well and overlook the racism of those they serve. Someday their number will come up.

[TomInTib]

5. Come Thursday- this is a done deal.

Just watch.

They will make some noise about "if this isn't the right thing, we will revisit the issue".

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. I doubt it. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

8. I doubt it. nt

[gordianot]

9. In some ways that would be great, this could become the neo con wedge.

This just might be a real treat to watch.


:popcorn:

[TomInTib]

10. Prezactly. It will go through or there will be hell to pay from..

the top down.

Arms are being twisted to the breaking point. Witness Mr Frist's about face.

But the real hell will come later from the bottom up.

[Coastie for Truth]

16. The real hell will come from the local governments -

especially NY/NJ and Philadelphia.

Consider this hypo-- 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.