zimFurther to the Dubai based company running strategic ports in the US, Jewschool cited a Jerusalem Post article that claimed that the UAE company supported the heinous boycott on Israel. Mobius then went on to criticize those who, following rabbinical advice, voted for Bush. The gorgeously designed Cross-Currents blog, many of whose writers probably agreed that it was indeed “halakha to vote for Bush” also cited the Jerusalem Post article and concluded that “I still don’t see any serious security ramifications of Dubai Ports’ purchase of the stevedoring business” while grudgingly, through undoubtedly clenched teeth, admitted that the article “provides us with enough good reason to oppose [the sale] in any case.”

But this is what I mean when I talk about lack of nuance. These two posts from writers of very different orientations, demonstrate very clearly the greatest weakness of blogs – to whit, bloggers, who don’t have information gathering resources and who write from the comfort of their respective computers, don’t know shit.

Anyone who does business at a certain level in Israel, knows full well that but for a few countries, the Arab boycott of Israel is a joke. I mean I don’t know shit either, but I do have friends with high level corporate jobs in Israel who have been the guests of Saudi Royalty in order to discuss business opportunities – friends who have been to the UAE to visit clients etc. American Apparel just opened a store in Tel Aviv and is planning a store in Dubai – no one there has said boo. These countries’ representatives in the UN make a big deal of their support for the Palestinian cause, but in private call the Palestinians whiny bitches while doing deals that support the Zionist oppressors.

And sure enough… it’s not even a secret! The unfortunately named Micahel Moore, Dubai Ports’ Senior Vice President stated it quite plainly the other day, “Our company has long-standing business relationships with Israeli companies among our diverse international clients.” He stated this despite the fact that the company is government owned and

Under UAE law, trade between its seven emirates and Israel is banned, and Israeli passport holders are not allowed into the UAE. Any company owned by the governments of the emirates also is supposed to abide by the boycott, although that clearly is not enforced.

Clearly indeed. Unless you have an ideological agenda that, you know, blinds you to the facts. And just to drive the nail further in, no less than Israeli shipping giant ZIM has weighed into the debate, stating in a letter to Hillary Clinton that:

We are proud to be associated with DP World and look forward to working with them into the future … During our long association with DP World, we have not experienced a single security issue in these ports or in any of the terminals operated by DP World.

If DP World is good enough for ZIM, then they are good enough for me – that’s because despite the fact that I am a blogger, I don’t know shit about shipping security, but ZIM sure does.

And I don’t even like Bush.

Follow me

About the author


Founder and Publisher of Jewlicious, David Abitbol lives in Jerusalem with his wife, newborn daughter and toddler son. Blogging as "ck" he's been blocked on twitter by the right and the left, so he's doing something right.


  • Maybe we should start with Dubai Ports guarding Haifa and all other Israeli ports. Would you be okay with that?

  • why does the US have to outsource port management.

    who runs Israel’s ports?

    I don’t care if DP World has a section of its coporotion devoted to fighting terrorism CTU style I think its a important to keep US security in the hands of the US.

  • I have no problem with Israeli Arabs in the IDF or in the Police force. Luckily, Israel doesn’t need to outsoource its security to anyone so it’s really not an issue. Besides, we all know the DP World deal brouhaha has has more to do with election-year political posturing than making ports safe. The whole Arabs watching ports thing is less interesting than the involvement of the Bush family related Carlyle Group with Dubai International Capital. But mind you, the very Jewish Kohlberg Kravis Roberts has also received significant investment cash from Dubai International Capital, so what do I know? Again, I am just a stupid blogger!

  • “Luckily, Israel doesn’t need to outsoource its security to anyone so it’s really not an issue.”

    No nation should outsource its security.

  • There’s something else going on here that we don’t know about (yet). Perhabs Dubai said that our military can’t park there unless they get this contract or they’re just collecting an owed favor from W.

    But I just find it hard to believe that they’re the BEST and ONLY company for this job.

  • No nation outsources security, and ours does not outsource security either. The US Coast Guard, one of the most professional and well funded security forces in the world, provides security for our ports. If there is an attack on American ports, it will be because the Bush Administration has made no attempt to beef up security. It won’t be because a professional, well-organized, profitable port management company has an executive who prays to Allah.

    To the responder who asks: Are they the Best company for the job… What are you talking about? DP purchased the British company that owns the management rights for those ports. It isn’t about “choosing” the best for the job. It’s a free-market decision. If you were awake at all in your economics class, you’d understand that capitalism isn’t about getting it ‘right’ by selecting winners. It’s about competition picking the winners. We don’t get to pick the winner.

    That said, if Bush chased off the competition as a favor to Dubai, then we have a problem. It wouldn’t surprise me.

  • Nick is right, IMO. This is about free markets.

    The issue, in part, is whether ports should be under the purview of foreign owners in the first place. At a time when only 2% of shipping containers ever get checked for security purposes before landing ashore (or even thereafter, as far as I know) I don’t see the situation improving under US ownership, especially since the ports function as private corporate entities. Corporations have no loyalty other than to the bottom line, and even if a company did put US security ahead of profits, how would you identify that company in the first place?

    Attacking a Dubai company is convenient, but the general anger seems to be directed at whether the Administration did its job in vetting the deal. If Bush seems vulnerable on this issue, it might have something to do with a 4.5 year public information war directed by the Administration about terrorism and security for America. It has come to the point where laws are changed, long-time legal standards modified, an American spy outed (by the Administration), journalists (and Jewish lobbyists) targeted for criminal investigations probably intended to muzzle the culture of open information exchange which is so vital to this democracy, and, of course, we find ourselves in an Iraq quagmire. There is an ongoing bombardment of anti-terror and security-oriented public comments and justifications for actions taken by this Administration, but when it comes to this particular deal, suddenly they are confused that people might not understand how they let a Muslim/Arab company gain control over some key US ports. So it’s not about Dubai, ports or security as much as it is about the perceived dichotomy between what we’ve been told and what is actually happening.

  • TM,

    You said,

    “This is about free markets.”

    I would say this is about privatization gone wild.

    “Corporations have no loyalty other than to the bottom line, and even if a company did put US security ahead of profits, how would you identify that company in the first place?”

    Corporations are not people, but they are run by people. The people who work at corporations do have loyalties. I would prefer the senior managers as well the workers to be American in all security positions.

    You are correct that the ports are not secure at all. This deal will not make them more so.

    And in terms of economic policy,while I cannot and would not stop businesses from outsourcing, that doesn’t mean I want to offer the Federal or local governments that same option.

Leave a Comment