Global, Israel, Politics

Letting Them Off the Hook

JP.o.s. reports,

The parent company of a Dubai-based firm at the center of a political storm in the US over the purchase of American ports participates in the Arab boycott against Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
[…] “Yes, of course the boycott is still in place and is still enforced,” Muhammad Rashid a-Din, a staff member of the Dubai Customs Department’s Office for the Boycott of Israel, told the Post in a telephone interview.

Did you happen to notice Bush’s Saudi friends, even after being admitted to the WTO, are continuing their boycott of Israel?
Oh, and so much for Hamas having to recognize Israel (as we mentioned earlier).
Say, do you remember, last year, when the rebbeim declared it halakha to vote for Bush?

9 thoughts on “Letting Them Off the Hook

  1. I hadn’t realized that a President loses his pro-Israel status if everything he does doesn’t go Israel’s way. Since 1948, we’ve had a great variety of ideologies in our Presidents (three distinct political orientations in the last three Presidencies), and all of them have occasionaly made decisions favoring the Arabs, including the most pro-Israel of them (whichever you think were the most pro-Israel – Truman, LBJ, Reagan or Clinton). Sadly, the Arabs have numbers and oil, and thus influence, and it would be foolish for any President to completely ignore this. The best we can hope for is a skillful balancing act, with the President paying the Arabs lip service and throwing them the occasional bone, while giving Israel the support it needs. In this case, while I disagree with Bush on port security, reality demands that an allied Arab country not be overtly snubbed; refusing to deal altogether with countries that boycott Israel is not realistic; and while having the Palestinians starve doesn’t bother me at all, it’s a bit much to ask of an administration. I don’t mind a running tally of pro and anti-Israel decisions so that we can decide on a President’s stance toward Israel, but this one-strike-and-you’re-out attitude is unrealistic.
    I question the wisdom of rabbis “halachisizing” their congregants’ voting choices, but if you think Bush was a bad choice, who’s the competition? Just on this website alone, we see the Leftist wing of the Democrats bashing Israel constantly.
    Now, on the other hand, if Bush ever calls Israel an apartheid state (or even flosts the matter for discussion), or calls for a boycott of Israeli goods (even if only goods originating in the West Bank), I’ll be the first to denounce him. Vehamayvin yavin.

  2. 1 strike? forgive me for sounding like a jonathan pollard supporter but…
    gush katif, strike one.
    aipac scandal, strike two.
    demanding israeli restraint, strike three.
    funding hamas’ p.a., you’re out.

  3. The guy’s been President for over five years already. If that’s all you have, he’s doing great. And as for Gush Katif, why should we expect any President to override the wishes of the Prime Minister (“more Israeli than the Israelis”)? (And note that although I despise Clinton, I never blamed him for Oslo.) As for the Aipac scandal, how do you know the investigation was initiated by Bush? As for Israeli restraint, which President has not demanded that at one time or another? Come to think of it, which proprietor of Jewschool doesn’t demand it nearly ALL THE TIME?

  4. i’m not arguing my view, i’m arguing the religious right’s view. the man had yiddish campaign posters in crown heights. it’s not about what he did personally, it’s about what’s happened under his watch, and the abuse of those who trusted him with their votes. my goal is to identify the hypocrisy.
    i’m actually suprised by how many times bush has managed to surprise me with a policy decision on israel that i agree with.

  5. “i’m not arguing my view, i’m arguing the religious right’s view.”
    Kind of an about face from the original post, but OK.
    “it’s not about what he did personally, it’s about what’s happened under his watch, ”
    If you’re referring to the AIPAC matter, it’s not clear that that couldn’t have happened under any administration.
    “and the abuse of those who trusted him with their votes. ”
    Obviously, I don’t believe that any such abuse has occurred. There are right-wingers running around claiming this, but this only shows that Leftists don’t have a monopoly on immaturity and lack of realism. (The major share, but not a monopoly.) The American President – ANY American President – is charged with running the affairs of America. While the interests of Israel coincide with America’s most of the time (especially from the perspective of the Conservative Internationalist school of foreign policy), they don’t always, and when this happens, the best we can expect is a skillful balancing act, as I said above. Anyone who expects more is living in dreamland.

  6. Correct me if I’m wrong on this as I’m here in the UK and don’t profess to fully understand US security, but isn’t port security the remit of the US Coast Guard? I don’t support or like the UAE ban on Israel (and won’t fly Emirates no matter how bloody cheap they may be!), but it seems to me that the national security argument as it relates to the UAE purchasing the port running business from P&O is stretching things a bit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.