Senators question Dubai firm's stance on Israel boycott (Kerry & Boxer)

Gawd, I love that woman! Her defense of the Constitution and Dem ideals continues with a true sincerity and intensity...greatly admirable.
So proud she's MY Senator!

Go Boxer!

I don't want my tax money going to a company that practices discrimination and supports a boycott of Israel.

Did the boycott of South Africa for its apartheid practices also constitute discrimination, in your mind? We in the UNITED STATES clearly need to learn and understand more about the situation. And surely our UNITED STATES Senators should not take sides in this matter!

There's a letter from Human Rights Watch to President Bush that explains things about what our UNITED STATES tax dollars are supporting in Israel, that I posted a link to, downthread. Bush, of course, ignored the letter.

We have been conditioned in the UNITED STATES to see Israel as the victim, but that's not really always the case. Where are the UNITED STATES leaders who will tell the full truth about this matter?

(btw, I myself wish to see an end to the violence and think that the only way to accomplish that is for BOTH sides to change, but that's an aside from the issue at hand.)

We won't do business with Hamas or Iran because of their stand on Israel, but the same stance is okay for UAE?

"that practices discrimination and supports a boycott of Israel."

I believe that "we in the United States" clearly do know and understand the situation. Some countries of the middle east want Israel off the map and off the face of the planet because Israel is (mostly) Jews. Some countries of the middle east do not permit Jews to be citizens of their country.

The UAE has tied the recognition of Israel to Israel's recognition of Palestinian rights and a withdrawal from occupied territories. Is that unreasonable??? The UAE is considered one of the most liberal countries in the region; don't fall for spin. Israel and it's supporters may not like the boycott; they may not want to end the occupation and they surely want to avoid scrutiny of their own actions, but the UAE's actions in relation to the boycott aren't something that should, in and of themselves, be a reason to nix the deal.

I haven't.

Everything Wordie said was 110% correct. Y'know, there's folk around who think everything that doesn't paint Israel as some wonder of perfection which is never to blame for anything are falling for the spin. Strange folk...

Violet...

refuses to allow the repatriotization of Jews who had fled to Israel in the 1950s and 1960s to escape persecution. I believe the cut-off year was 1968, or something like that, explicity to prohibit the de-patriated Jews from returning. That's just reprehensible.

It's sad that some DUers defend this crap.

...and you might want to take a moment to reflect that it's exactly the same sort of policy that Israel has towards the repatriation of Palestinians who fled Israel. Oh, but I guess that sort of thing is totally acceptable and not reprehensible when Israel does it...

It's sad that some DUers are so blatant with their double standards...

Violet...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

between two UNITED STATES allies? Why do they assume that Israel is automatically the side that is right in the dispute? Why don't they tell UNITED STATES citizens the whole truth about this situation? As UNITED STATES Senators, shouldn't they know of the UN reports stressing that Israeli actions are illegal and the Human Rights Watch letter to President Bush, urging him to put UNITED STATES economic pressure on Israel in order to stop the same illegal actions that the UAE is protests?
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/12/27/isrlpa12346.htm

UNITED STATES Senators should tell UNITED STATES citizens the whole story.

so eager to allow the UAE to run ports with no viable documentation? What were they expecting in return?? This Israel/Terror meme is a tired old trigger that is used to mis-direct the public..

It's not an either-or situation. They need to press on every legitimate front.

BushInc pays lip service to whenever it suits him politically.

If Israel was part of a national boycott against Arab nations, then it would be right to question their participation in an international deal like the ports deal, wouldn't it?

The UNITED STATES should not be making domestic economic decisions based on the desires of Israel to avoid responsibility for its behavior (and isn't that what a boycott does, attempt to hold a country responsible for its actions, through economic pressure?) Didn't the UNITED STATES itself participate in boycotts against South Africa? And I might add that the abuses on the Israeli side against the Palestinians are far more pervasive and widespread, and have led to violent death, loss of property and severe economic losses. The UAE boycott is mild in comparison. We in the UNITED STATES would be making a mistake to equate the two. The UNITED STATES issues empty statements protesting the Israeli actions, but doesn't ever back them up.

They are not in the same situation. I know that many lazily compare Israel to an apartheid state, but that doesn't mean that what is happening. The "funny" thing, that UAE and Arab ban on Israel prevents many Palestinian goods from ever being exported to Arab nations. So much for their 'love' for the Palestinian plight.

Arab people as well as the Israelis.

This is true not just because it de facto endorses a state of constant war, but it limits the PALESTINIAN economy as well as the Israeli - they're interconnected.

And, the Israeli irrigation and desalinization technology is the best in the world, her medicines are cutting edge - she has so much to contribute to the Arab world.

But what the hey - let's keep enforcing the boycott so everybody can stay poor and at war.

face this.

South African whites (Europeans) attempted to create a democracy in land that was already settled by indigenous peoples. Israel was settled by European Jews fleeing Anti-Semitism in Europe both before and after the Holocaust.

Neither could create a democracy in which they wouldn't be in the minority, so they took the land from the indigenous peoples and placed them in townships/refugee camps, disenfranchising the majority of them, instituting apartheid, army checkpoints, identification cards, even calling them terrorists and outlawing their political parties.

They imprisoned many, who were considered to be terrorists or enemies even in the U.S., and then-Rep. Dick Cheney cast a famous vote against a 1986 resolution calling for the release of a South African named Nelson Mandela and recognition of his party, the African National Congress.

The Ottoman Empire was carved up - and the map redrawn - by some mid level French and British diplomats - who created countries where none had existed before - and destroyed countries that had been part of the Ottoman Empire. - to protect their own trade routes, to protect their own access to oil, to minimally reward their WWI allies. That's how the boundaries of the Mandate were created. Tnen they backed off in 1938.

Ha ha!

The "indigenous peoples" also consist of the Jewish population, and the majority of modern Israelis are of Middle Eastern descent.

Moreover, per Benny Morris' (leftwing) scholarly work, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revised", (Cambridge University Press, 2004), page 17:

"...it is well to recognize that there was also a parallel process at work during the 19th century, namely the immigration to Palestine of tens of thousands of Mahgrebi (North African), Egyptian, Bosnian, Kurdish and Caucasian peasants and beduin tribes, either on their own volition or by Ottoman design. Many of these immigrants established new villages...Later, the relative properity and order of Mandate Palestine drew thousands of additional Arab immigrants from the neighboring countries..."

Although it is impossible to know the exact extent of illegal Arab immigration into the Mandate (because it was illegal), Sachar of Georgetown University estimates it at about 100,000 people - whilst Jewish immigration and land purchases, even during the worst years of the Holocaust, were severely restricted. It is easy to see that the situation is far more complex, therefore, than the one you present.

After 1948, some 900,000 Middle Eastern Jews were expelled from their homes throughout the Middle East. Though some left voluntarily, most really had no choice and lost all their property, their livelihoods and had suffered persecution. These, the Sephardic and Mizrachi Jews and their descendants, are now a major portion of Israel's population whereas the rest of the Middle East is essentially "cleansed" of Jews. Iran's population, though they didn't expel the Jews, had been over 250,000 and is now around 25,000. Jews only recently were even allowed to set foot in Saudi Arabia, whence they'd been expelled during the time of Mohammed.

In effect, a population transfer occurred, not the situation you describe. It must also be noted that some 200,000 Arabs left before the war of 1948 even broke out, in spite of the Yishuv's pleas that they should remain (Karsh, The Arab Israeli Conflict). The fact that these were primarily the townspeople, the wealthier classes, had a profound effect on further events in 1948 and 1949. Once official war broke out in May, 1948, following months of brutal civil war - which in turn had followed decades featuring violence against the Jewish population - and the Mufti of Jerusalem's alliance with Hitler - the Israelis were essentially fighting for their very survival.

This was NOT in any way the case in South Africa and nor were - or are - their motives in any way remotely similar. Israel is home and the only safety net to an historically embattled minority - only 13 million worldwide, over 5 million of whom live in Israel.

Please take a few minutes and study the information via the link below. This is a story few people know.

http://www.jimena.org/

Occupied Territories and into the neighboring arab countries? (More often known as "ethnic cleansing")

Because if you do, I think you should let other people reading this thread know that, so they can better judge the statements here for themselves.

But I was concerned that the 11:34 AM earthquake on the Hayward Fault near Berkeley and Piedmont and Orinda had given some of the "I/P Regulars" the opportunity to move from Berkeley to Seattle or Vancouver.

I trust you came through it okay --- and all is well. My prayers and thoughts were with you.

I didn't get mobilized.

:hi:

First of all, I asked a question of CB, as it has appeared to me that in other statements she has indeed advocated just such a thing. If I was wrong in that, she could easily clear it up, but instead we have a silence from her, and you chiming in instead. Why not let CB answer a question directed at her?

And while I appreciate that you think I have a "normal level of wit," I can assure you that I don't feel that this particular issue is a very humorous one. (I could probably go on at some length about posting at "normal levels" of relevance to the topic and unsolicited personal references, but will restrain myself.)

small nation-state, with whose existence the Arab League has had a serious problem since before it declared independence in 1948. These same nations have been party to several wars and acts of terror in the bloody decades since Israel managed to survive in 1948.

There is no symmetry here Wordie. This also has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is whether we should 1) entrust our ports to foreign powers and 2) break our own damn laws in order to do so.

and the Wall and Occupation is completely wrong? You have more relevant information than Human Rights Watch does? You know better than Human Rights Watch and the United Nations??? You think that the UNITED STATES should further isolate itself in the world by ignoring international opinion about Israel, just as it has about the Iraq war???

Note that Human Rights Watch has suggested to President Bush that the UNITED STATES also put economic pressure on Israel, until it ends its illegal activities. Bush of course has ignored this.

You are completely correct that there is no symmetry, as the highly destructive acts of Israel are infinitely more serious than a boycott by the UAE. And I am addressing the OP's points, which is entirely a reasonable thing to do. If you would prefer that we not discuss whether concerns about Israel are affecting this debate, take it up with the OP, not me.

February 23, 2006

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today sent the following letter to the President:



February 23, 2006

The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20050

Dear Mr. President:

In support of the decision by your Administration to allow Dubai Ports World – a state owned company – to operate U.S. ports, you said that the United Arab Emirates is a country that “plays by the rules and has got a good track record.”

Mr. President, are you aware of the following facts:

Dubai was a key transfer point for shipments of nuclear components that were sold to Iran, Libya and North Korea by the Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan.
Prior to 9/11, the United Arab Emirates was one of only three nations that recognized the Taliban government in Afghanistan.
Two of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were UAE nationals.
The 9/11 hijackers received assistance in financing their activities from two facilitators in the UAE.
The UAE remains a financial center and money transfer hub for terrorists.
Given this record, the Administration’s decision to allow a state-owned UAE company to operate U.S. ports should be revisited.


Sincerely,


Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
http://boxer.senate.gov/news/record.cfm?id=251839


This letter + the UAE boycott are relevant

Several have already been debunked.

Some are guilt-by-association smears.

You know, I keep reading those same talking points as in that letter, in the same order and with the same wording, over and over again here at DU. Where did they originate?

why bring up DUers? Nothing has been debunked. Ask Boxer where she got her info in HER letter.

...coz he said the same stuff is being brought up word for word here at DU.

And seeing yr reposting the letter, surely you must know how many of those talking points are true, so why tell him to ask Boxer where she got her letter??

Violet...

"This boycott not only violates at least the spirit of U.S. law," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., "it is inconsistent with everything we believe in as Americans."

You are surely not suggesting that the illegal actions of Israel are consistent with "everything we believe as Americans," are you, barb? Why shouldn't the UAE oppose such actions?

No, believe it or not, barb, Israel is not perfect, and the UNITED STATES should not support Israel, without question, right or wrong.

Pretty soon, US citizens will wake up, and those that pander, whether they be left or right, will not get elected.

state of Sudan:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/africa/28border.html?th&emc=th

ADRÉ, Chad — The chaos in Darfur, the war-ravaged region in Sudan where more than 200,000 civilians have been killed, has spread across the border into Chad, deepening one of the world's worst refugee crises.


Arab gunmen from Darfur have pushed across the desert and entered Chad, stealing cattle, burning crops and killing anyone who resists. The lawlessness has driven at least 20,000 Chadians from their homes, making them refugees in their own country.

Hundreds of thousands more people in this area, along with 200,000 Sudanese who fled here for safety, find themselves caught up in a growing conflict between Chad and Sudan, which have a long history of violence and meddling in each other's affairs.

"You may have thought the terrible situation in Darfur couldn't get worse, but it has," Peter Takirambudde, executive director of the Africa division of Human Rights Watch, said in a recent statement. "Sudan's policy of arming militias and letting them loose is spilling over the border, and civilians have no protection from their attacks, in Darfur or in Chad."

snip

I would be glad to go through one by one through the states which support this boycott, and check out THEIR human rights violations.

I'm getting so sick of all this sanctimonious 'human rights' crap coming from Americans when it's their country that tortures foreign detainees, has banned abortion in one state with more to come, and where a judge can acquit a rapist coz the victim refused to watch the video of the rape. Then let's look at the thousands of Iraqis who have been killed by the US.

It seems to me that some posters only care to point out human rights abuses when they're committed by Arabs and/or Muslims. Especially when they are the same folk who defend human rights abuses carried out by Israel...

Violet...

"This boycott not only violates at least the spirit of U.S. law," said Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, "it is inconsistent with everything we believe in as Americans."

I will go along with Kerry on this.

Don't try to make this into a "Israel is not perfect" argument when there was never such an argument in the first place, anymore than a "Palestinians are not perfect" argument or a "Bolivia or Peru are not perfect" argument.

It looks like I was wrong...

Violet...

to get rid of Israel since before she was born.

This boycott is another weapon in their already overbalanced arsenal: hundreds of millions of people, vast resources, vast lands, versus 7 million people on a state smaller than New Jersey with ZERO resources.

That's all anybody needs to know.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

war on Israel in 1948, day one of her existence, and invaded with several armies.

This followed rejection of the UN partition in preparation to the creation of Israel, and months of bloody unofficial violence.

Yr post prior to this came across as though the Arab League have consistantly and for no reason at all plotted to destroy Israel. That's wrong, as the Arab League support a negotiated peace:

"Based upon the League Assembly resolution 5092 of the year 1991, the Arab states designated peace as a strategic objective. Throughout the period from 1991 till 2001, a number of updates took place. On top of those, was the announcement of the PLO-Israel Declaration of Principles, signed in Washington on September 13th, 1993."

http://www.arableagueonline.org/arableague/english/details_en.jsp?art_id=777&level_id=279

Considering Israel was created on land that belonged to the Palestinian people, there's nothing particularly evil in the Arab League having gone to war at the time...

Violet...

..it's a surefire sign that some overly simplified and one-sided comment has been made. I used to hear that same 'that's all you need to know' when it came to anti-choicers at Yahoo trying to feed everyone their line that abortion is evil....


But that vast resources vs the zero resources of Israel gave me a bit of a chuckle. You do realise that Israel has a lot of resources, things like nukes, etc?

Violet...

???

Or is it just his UAE ports deal that you approve of? Should I call him "President Bush" as you refer to him? That will be a little hard for me, with the high "disapproval rating" I give him.

the UAE is a treacherous nation-state run by petty oil-rich dictators where no religious or gender democracy exists. it laundered money used for terrorist attacks and 2 of the "young men " came from the UAE.it is not my countries' ally.

israel is an ally.

Not to mention that Israel is the only nation that has attacked the US unprovoked in the past 50 years or so, and yet we did not declare war on them. USS Liberty anyone? With allies like either of these nations, who needs enemies!

"the UAE is a treacherous nation-state run by petty oil-rich dictators where no religious or gender democracy exists. it laundered money used for terrorist attacks and 2 of the "young men " came from the UAE"

The reality is that both the UAE and Israel are US allies. That's just something folk are going to have to cope with, and it'd help to realise that most of the reasons used to argue that the US shouldn't be their ally also apply in much larger scale to the US itself...

Violet...

this and really appalled that some of our fellow DU'ers now find themselves in bed with him.

How progressive.

when their gov't blatantly endorses anti-Semitism and engages in crimes against homosexual couples and women.

Kerry and Boxer are right.

I get bored of trying to sort out who's what, though some are pretty obvious with what their motives are. I guess you won't be supplying any proof that the UAE blatantly endorses anti-Semitism anytime soon, coz I doubt it exists :)

Violet...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.