Head of Israel's largest shipping co. supports UAE port deal

on CNN now, Wolf reading a letter sent to Hillary by CEO of Zim Integrated Shipping Services praising DP World, claiming there have never been any security problems.

What is not clear is whether the UAE ever had CONTROL OF ISRAEL's PORTS. It sounds like from the letter, that this guy simply works with DPW, and has had a good experience.

Zim and locals provide port services in Israel -- and Zim provides an inner ring of port security in other Ports.

is that most of the people who actually know what they are talking about seem ok with the port deal. And most of the people who oppose it, are opposing it because they are nativist bigots (on the right) or they hate President Bush (on the left).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Why in the flaming hell couldn't this have been done out in the open with all cards on the table to begin with?

Why is it we need post-decision spin doctors telling us to just relax trust our great leader?

We're a little too raw to just sit back and enjoy another round of rape.

proper procedure - but now they are slowing down and following proper procedure, and we all know that isn't going to mollify anybody.

Anyway, how long did it take you to decide this port deal was abad thing? Wasn't it, like, the moment Bush announced he was in favor of it?

we could have hired them on a temporary basis to train our operations and then done a handover

The fact is, they "invested" in this, and the only reason they won the right to invest is that they made an offer we couldn't refuse. The only reason they would invest is because they see a revenue stream worth pursuing.

So break it down, revenue stream to a foreign entity means money out of this country at the expense of this country.

And if they were hiding something to begin with, what makes us think they aren't hiding something now? I can't imagine for one second they didn't expect this to blow up and need that explosion to hide a more important issue.

Remember, it's a British publicly-traded company that is being sold, by its shareholders, to a Dubai government entity.

It would seem then that 'they' are Dubai Ports World, in which case 'we' must mean the shareholders of P&O - the ones to whom the offer was made. Yes, DPW think it's a good revenue stream - the US ports are only 6% of it, but they should still be able to be run at a profit for the operators. But I can't see why you think 'we' (presumably meaning the shareholders) would hire 'them' for training.

Or perhaps you're referring to the gradual acquisition over the years of the port facilities by P&O? But if that's the case, I'm not sure what you think 'they' were hiding. They were just doing business.

Muriel V?

That's fine and intellectually I completely agree with and understand what you are saying, however, the reality on the street here is that it looks shady, and the appearance of impropriety is indistinguishable from impropriety, even if it IS just "business as usual" for all involved.

Speaking as an American (for the time being), we should be running our own ports. The very fact that we aren't moving towards some kind of control of our own ports by our own companies means that we're missing out on opportunities we're affording to foreign companies.

But outsourcing is de rigeur for us, and by us, I mean our deregulated American industries in every sector, so who am I to have an opinion about it? Besides, I work for the PE equivalent of Wolfram and Hart's senior partners - my evil half says outsource everything and he who makes the most profit wins.

My principled side begs to differ though, and remains unconvinced that this is the best long term solution.

If people's position is "we should be running our own ports", which is a perfectly good position, you have to decide if that means "port operations should be run by cities, states or the federal government" - in which case there's a huge amount of purchasing of businesses to be done; or if it means "no majority (or some similar upper limit) foreign ownership of ports; or "no foreign government ownership". Whatever option people want, it needs new legislation. There are no rules at present saying foreign governments can own port operations (though I do think the law does say the '45 day investigation' was compulsory in the case of a foreign government owner).

Bush and/or the committee decided that they were fine with the takeover. They were just one of several governments who made the same decision. I really don't see any appearance of impropriety (apart from possibly the non-use of the 45 day investigation; but that could easily decide it's OK, just as otehr countries did).

And I wouldn't say this is 'outsourcing' in the commonly used sense. It's more the equivalent of Honda setting up a factory in the US. The jobs are still largely in the States; there is some management direction from abroard, and profits, if they make them, will go abroard too. Like the auto industry, it seems that overseas companies have managed to run themselves more efficiently than American ones. It's globalisation; but currently it is normal business practice.

The deal was done in England with the purchase of the English company currently managing our ports.

to control the US-Mexico border-crossing checkpoints along the Rio Grande. How I feel about Bush has nothing to do with how I'd feel about an arrangement like that, which is rather uncomfortable.

I am not a nativist bigot. I was a Port Security Professional - Lieutenant, United States Coast Guard, in the Port Security Office in New Orleans. My sub-specialty - within Port Security - was HazMat and Bulk HazMat. I was also Project officer on the first (red leatherette binding, loose leaf edition) of
<>

BTW - I had (long since lapsed) a Third Mate's License, and a (Marine) General Radio Operaters License with Radar Endorsement. So I know a little bit about the business.

The political issue I have is three fold:

1. The massive amounts of money that Jim Baker, Treasury Secretary John Snow, Carlyle and (rumored) Halliburton stand to make on this transaction.

2. If I have to take my shoes off and empty my pockets and have a colonoscopy at my local airport ...... how come this is not a threat? Stephen Flynn writes that port safety is the big security hole.

3. There are other lega issues that I have posted on, and that have been raised by Gov Corzine and Mayor Bloomberg.

a little bigotry from the left and a little hatred of Bush from the right.

of the U.S. to utilize the UAE as a staging area for an impending invasion of Iran. Thus the secrecy - so as not to stop the deal and thus the support by a guy like this out of Israel - which would support a U.S. invasion of Iran. Somehow maybe even Bill Clinton fits into this.

Israeli interests? Watch very closely as this unfolds.