Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

News
Port Deal Slammed By Jewish Groups
By Marc Perelman
February 24, 2006

The Bush administration’s decision to hand over control of American ports is drawing criticism from three Jewish organizations generally aligned with the White House on foreign-policy issues.

B’nai B’rith International essentially reprised the arguments raised by many Democratic and Republican lawmakers who argue that the decision puts the country at risk by granting control to a country with a mixed record on terrorism. The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs took a wider approach, arguing that no foreign-owned firms should be permitted to run American ports. After reports emerged that the Dubai company taking over the ports has backed the Arab boycott of Israel, the Anti-Defamation League also spoke out against the bill.

In a statement released Wednesday, Tom Neumann, Jinsa’s executive director, said that such foreign control amounted to a “fox guarding the henhouse” and should be avoided altogether.
“It’s a terrible political decision, and it’s a terrible security decision,” Neumann told the Forward.

In an effort to head off criticism, the White House’s public liaison office sent a memo out to “Jewish leaders.” The memo detailed the bilateral ties between America and the United Arab Emirates, quoting Bush’s earlier description of the UAE “as an ally in the War on Terror.”

Last week, the ADL said it did not have a position on the issue. But Tuesday, the ADL’s national director, Abraham Foxman, said that “Dubai continues to be an active partner in the economic boycott of Israel” and that is “reason enough to suspend or even cancel the implementation of the contract [for the operation of the seaports].”

Foxman said that “even if solutions are found for the other problems, the administration and Congress must demand that Dubai formally renounce its participation in the boycott of Israel in order to be worthy of a contract with the American government.”

In its statement, B’nai B’rith echoed the most prevalent lines of criticism being raised against the deal.

“In this post-9/11 age of terrorism, the United States can’t take any chances with its assets,” stated the group’s president, Joel Kaplan. “When you allow a foreign nation — and a nation known to have harbored anti-American and anti-Israel terrorists — to take control of one of your most valuable resources, you leave your country and the world vulnerable. There is no compelling reason to take this risk.

“Surely there are American companies capable [of] and interested in managing these ports. We need to look internally first, to better ensure the security of our nation in these tenuous times.”

Jinsa also expressed concern over the general lack of attention to the issue. But instead of calling for additional funding, it objected to the “lack of concern” over foreign control. It noted that the Department of Homeland Security still was trying to determine the ownership of terminal management in all 361 American ports, and that Chinese companies were running terminals at two major West Coast ports and in New Orleans — where America imports most of its fuel. The organization questioned why there hadn’t been scrutiny of the original British company “when there are probably as many jihadists in Britain today as there are in Dubai?”

“The issue of Dubai Ports World owning the firm running U.S. ports has led me to conclude that it is time to have a real policy to protect the management of our ports from all foreign ownership,” Neumann said in the Jinsa statement.

Know that we all know who runs America and has been running America for atleast the last 50 years... what i want to know is why are these rich spoiled dumb Arabs from the investing 80% of their wealth in America rather than investing in educating or making the living condition of their own people better or why not invest in Muslim states with large population, ex. Pakistan, Iran, Turkey or emerging superpower that is not controlled by Zoinist scums like China and India.

Why are the gulf Arabs investing in country that sees all of them terrorist, country that helps Zoinist Jews hunt Palastinian like deer, a country that is responsible for killing over 100000 of their Arab brothers in Iraq, a Country that refuses Arabs investing in its Ports, natural resources, but at the same time Americans want to control natural resources in Arabia, to occupy Arabs since they can't take care of themself....

Why do business with Americans???

This is How Americans see you

TREASON-HAND OVER USA PORTS TO TERRORIST NATION


posted 02/16, by Kathy Chapman (viewed 695 times) | Scope : National
Popularity : 16 (16 encourage, 0 discourage)
Relevance : 115

This is the most insane policy of the Bush regime yet.

On Monday it was announced that the Operations of six of our ports, New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Pennsylvania to Dubai Ports World in the United Arab Emirates.

The Bush administration is fighting to protect this contract and the only hope we have is that it will be stopped by the totally ineffectual Sommitte of Foreign Investment of US, who approved secret missile technology to China, and other traitorous deals under both Clinton and Bush.

As someone who has followed all of the pre 911 and post 911 investigations, the following is of major concern. Clinton was actually trying to kill Bin Laden and had many plots cooked up in the Situation Room. Many were stopped by the Pentagon, CIA or attorneys. So...Bin Laden was targeted and it was stopped because he was with two Princes of the United Arab Emirates.

The next two posts will tell the entire story...I hope they all stay together.

Lou Dobbs has been covering this story as well as C-SPAN.

Check out the headline "Terrorist lovers controlling our Ports" 40 years ago it used to be "Nigger Lovers"...nothing has changed in the good old America...were people still believe that everything good is American and everything bad is not...even though America has killed more people around the world than any other empire or civilization...the first country to use Nuke on populated city full of woman/children, but know its proventing Iran who has never invaded any other country, who has never used nuke on anyone from developing NUkes. Hyprocrites...






Is This DailyKos or LGF? Terrorist Lovers Controlling Our Ports!






by Soj
Tue Feb 21, 2006 at 01:25:10 AM PDT
The Arabs are controlling our ports! They're lovers of terrorism and sponsors of fundamentalist Islam and George Bush sold out American security to the highest bidder! This is the kind of bigoted claptrap I expect at Little Green Footballs, not DailyKos. Instead of panicking, let's look at the facts.

Soj's diary :: ::
There is a British company (not American) called the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company or P&O for short. Before 9/11 and until this year, this entirely foreign company was operating six maritime ports in the United States. A company called Dubai World Ports (DWP) spent a few billion dollars (close to 7) and bought P&O, which means that DWP is now the third largest port operator in the world.

DWP also operates terminals and/or ports in Australia, China, Hong Kong, Romania, Germany, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Djibouti, India and Saudi Arabia. Notice anything odd about those countries? There have never been any international terrorist incidents in any of them. If DWP was such a terrorist-lovin' company, why haven't their sprung their hordes of Qur'an-wavin' suicide bombers on all those other despicable, capitalist, western imperialist nations?

The reason of course is that DWP will no more "control" or "own" the six ports in the United States than it does in Romania or Australia. Let's review exactly what these companies do.

The ports (in America) are all owned by the local governments, whether in Baltimore or Miami. They didn't belong to P&O and they won't belong to DWP. The title on the deed down in the courthouse will still show the owner to be the local American government. Not only that, but as an international port of entry into the United States, the American government has full sovereignty and jurisdiction over all cargo and vessels entering the said ports. This means that there will be Customs and Border Protection (formerly U.S. Customs Service) agents working there. American law enforcement at all levels will have the same jurisdiction over these ports as they did six months ago when the British company operated them.

DBP is and proposes to be a port operator not port owner or port controller. The easiest way to understand this is to look at your local airport. I'll use JFK International (serving New York City) as an example as it is the busiest airport in the country. It is built on land that is owned by the local governments. American law enforcement from CBP to Port Authority police to the FBI to ICE to the TSA all have jurisdiction and operate unhindered at this airport. Yet it is actually "operated" by a company called JFK International Air Terminal LLC (JFK-LLC).

Did you know that? And did you know that JFK-LLC is a private company, owned by a consortium of businesses incuding LCOR Incorporated, the Lehman Brothers and Schipol USA? Schipol USA is a subsidiary of a company called the Schipol Group, which is a Dutch company that is also the operator of Schipol airport in Amsterdam (the capital of the Netherlands). Lehman Brothers is a global bank with shareholders from all over the world.

So what exactly does JFK-LLC do then? Well they do something very similar to what P&O currently does and DWP proposes to do. They manage the place. They handle the contracts for the various companies who want to do business at the terminal. They often invest money in infrastructure upgrades or repairs. They make their profits by renting vendor space to the horde of private companies that operate at these terminals. If Burger King, for instance, wants to operate a restaurant at JFK Airport, a portion of their rent money goes to JFK-LLC. Similarly, if an American shipping company wants to operate at the Baltimore port, a portion of their rent goes to P&O (and would go to DWP).

Many American ports are operated by international companies, including Hutchison (based in Hong Kong), Maersk (Denmark), Temasek (Singapore) and P&O (Britain). For example SSA Marine, a global company based in the United States, is the terminal operator at Stockton but is also a terminal operator in Mexico and Panama. SSA Marine also operates two terminals at the port in Seattle (18 and 25). I could go on and on.

A port that is used primarily for cargo works essentially like this - ships from all over the world dock at one of the terminals. These ships then pay a fee to the operator of the terminal. The cargo is then offloaded by longshoremen, who are sometimes called stevedores. 100 years ago this was largely a job requiring a person to physically carry off the cargo but today it is done with cranes and sophisticated equipment. The majority of longshoremen in America are both American citizens as well as members of a union. It doesn't matter who owns or operates the port, the American, unionized longshoremen will be unloading the cargo.

The cargo is then moved out of the port by a wide variety of shipping companies either by rail or by truck. Some of these companies are small, local outfits and others belong to very large, international companies. None of this will change if a UAE-based company is the terminal/port operator or if its an American one or British one. Nothing!

There is an excellent website called Homeland Security Watch which is hardly "liberal" or "progressive" in outlook. They raise the issue that people should be talking about:

http://www.burningspearuhuru.com/0403_arabdisunity.html



False Decolonization: the Root Cause of Arab Disunity!
by Mammo Muchie

The Arab rulers are hopelessly divided. The rulers of Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain openly provide bases to the U.S. and British regimes to attack Iraq. In the middle are states like Jordan, Saudi Arabia and others that seem to provide support to the invasive forces. The Arab public is united more than at any time in history against the U.S.-British violation of the Arab nation and dignity.

Consequently the Arab street is exploding with anger and resistance. There is a new dialectic: Arab ruling circle disunity and growing Arab public unity. This may create an Arab national renaissance. I propose that the current war against Iraq could never have taken place had there been a strong Arab nation in the first place, as envisaged by the first generation independent Arab leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser.

If the departure for the renewed unity of the Arab public and disunity among rulers is the Iraq war, the destination must be the real birth of the Arab nation.

The Arabs and Africans suffer from the failure of the National Project
Gamal Abdel Nasser wanted to create a strong Arab nation. Kwame Nkrumah wanted to create a strong African nation. The idea behind their visions was to avoid the kind of humiliation that the Arab nation is subjected to right now by an all-out invasion by forces from other hemispheres and internal elites, such as the rulers of Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait, aligned to foreign interests.

Instead we have now either an Arab nation badly divided or a nation whose birth is so protracted that it may not even be born as a unified entity in the foreseeable future. The birth of a united Arab nation seems like one of the longest pregnancies in the world.

Often when we speak of decolonization gone wrong vivid images of African fragmentation and impotence spring to mind. Now to this ugly image one is reminded cruelly how impotent the Arab nation is in the face of danger to its security and survival.

To the false decolonization of the African, I have added the false decolonization of the Arab. The Arab may feel different from the African for having enslaved the latter in yester years. In actual fact, Arabs are in the same boat as the Africans — they have at the moment only the power of the weak: the kind of power that is displayed in the TV images served as a daily diet to an anxiety-stricken world by Iraqis since the start of this unjust, immoral and illegal war.

We must wonder about the false start in Arabia — its false decolonization that has invited its present humiliation. Like Africa, it is fragmented with official Arabia serving imperialist interests and the grassroots marching and dying to give birth to independent and free Arabia. Like our wish to create free Africa, the ordinary people of Arabia, by their actions, are trying to create free Arabia.

Free or emancipated Arabia can be a potential ally to free an emancipated Africa. Fragmented and falsely decolonized Arabia is no ally to free Africa as unfree Africa is no friend to Iraq at present.

The imperialist powers know this and they leave no stone unturned to weaken states by breaking them. The most dramatic break up in recent years is the former Soviet Union. Smaller break ups in Africa occurred in my own country: Eritrea and Ethiopia. Both the Arabs and Africans have to confront head on the false decolonization that has made them prey to the misfortune of war, insecurity and unending conflict.

Humiliation is a function of false decolonization of the Arab and African
I have been thinking about the false decolonization of the Arab and the African.What is it about them that they are perceived so weak by the imperialist powers that massive force is made to rain over them with disdain and contempt? The Indian nation is born; the Chinese nation is born. I cannot imagine the imperial powers waging punitive wars to disarm these two nations to remove their weapons of mass destruction.

They would not dream of regime change in China. India, of course, is a democracy and it may be envied for possessing weapons of mass destruction, but the regime follows democratic principles for making lawful transitions of power. Both India and China have not only been born as nations, but they have stood up and grown. They risk no pre-emptive strike!

We cannot speak so confidently even about the birth of the Arab nation. Like the African nation, the Arab nation is not yet born as a unified nation. The innocent blood of the Iraqi people may accelerate the birth of an independent Arab nation.

Africa has the African Union. The Arab states have the Arab League. One would have thought that these two unions, theAfrican Union and the Arab League, would come together and oppose the doctrine of pre-emptive strike and regime change in principle. Regimes must be changed by the Arabs in Arabia and Africans in Africa and not by far away powers by flaunting international law and displaying arrogant power with stunt and irrational exuberance.

Oh lord!!! So much zeal u exhibit that u posted five of em only to see few browsing through some of em.

This should be in the Religion and Politics forum anyway.

kanelli wrote:This should be in the Religion and Politics forum anyway.

this has nothin to do with religion - kekeke see LionHeart I proved my point- ppl dont usually read when u post a huuuuuuuuge article all at once.

But..DUH, maybe it has something to do with Politics????

GAB wrote:But..DUH, maybe it has something to do with Politics????

God dman somebody must change the forum title cos religiona and politics must b different.

Hmmm...that was fun!!

sniper420 wrote:

kanelli wrote:This should be in the Religion and Politics forum anyway.

this has nothin to do with religion - kekeke see LionHeart I proved my point- ppl dont usually read when u post a huuuuuuuuge article all at once.

I guess you are right maybe people don't read huge articles..maybe I should have posted smaller articles. In either way surprised that citizens in Dubai or any Arab state would do anything America asks of them, but at the same time their Ally America openly calls them all terrorists/raghead, or whatever they could think of.

Lionheart wrote:

sniper420 wrote:

kanelli wrote:This should be in the Religion and Politics forum anyway.

this has nothin to do with religion - kekeke see LionHeart I proved my point- ppl dont usually read when u post a huuuuuuuuge article all at once.

I guess you are right maybe people don't read huge articles..maybe I should have posted smaller articles. In either way surprised that citizens in Dubai or any Arab state would do anything America asks of them, but at the same time their Ally America openly calls them all terrorists/raghead, or whatever they could think of.

well u have to see the views from all sides. Yes ppl there are concerned of their security. The media, washington post and other newspapers are brainwashing ppl saying 2 terrorists were from UAE. In that case their fears are justifiable. If the deal goes through and everything goes well it will prove that an Arab company is efficient and care abt security as any other nation. So let's wait and see

sniper420 wrote:

Lionheart wrote:

sniper420 wrote:

kanelli wrote:This should be in the Religion and Politics forum anyway.

this has nothin to do with religion - kekeke see LionHeart I proved my point- ppl dont usually read when u post a huuuuuuuuge article all at once.

I guess you are right maybe people don't read huge articles..maybe I should have posted smaller articles. In either way surprised that citizens in Dubai or any Arab state would do anything America asks of them, but at the same time their Ally America openly calls them all terrorists/raghead, or whatever they could think of.

well u have to see the views from all sides. Yes ppl there are concerned of their security. The media, washington post and other newspapers are brainwashing ppl saying 2 terrorists were from UAE. In that case their fears are justifiable. If the deal goes through and everything goes well it will prove that an Arab company is efficient and care abt security as any other nation. So let's wait and see

I think its hypocrisy for America to question the security threat posed by UAE, but the blindedly ignore the security threat they pose to everyone in the middleast...lets see

America controls many oil reserves in Saud Arabia/Kuwaite/Baharian/UAE/etc

America tells who the countries in middleast could do business with...if they disagree with American policy in the case of Iran and Syria, they are either threatened with sanctions first than invasion...

America has interfered with the politics in Middleast..they have supported for decades dictators who do their bidding..

America says it supports democracy in the Middleast..but America has failed to recognize the only true elected officials in the MIddleast...Hamas and Iranian head of state..

America has invaded a soveriegn nation that posed no threat to America with false pretence( WMD?)...

America supports the occuppation of Palastinian people..and has no intention of ever being a fair peace broker..


KNow who is threat to who...

kanelli wrote:This should be in the Religion and Politics forum anyway.

EXECUSE ME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and where do you think he posted that ???? in another website ???? it is in the religion and politics forum "anyway"

It was moved to this forum by a mod or admin Castellano

kanelli wrote:It was moved to this forum by a mod or admin Castellano

oh ,, then sorry !!!! i didnt know that

That's okay Castellano.