| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Iraq steps up anti-Israel boycott |
| 2007-03-20 |
| The US-backed Iraqi government is enforcing the Arab boycott of Israel with increasing frequency, The Jerusalem Post has learned, with the number of boycott-related incidents involving US firms operating in Iraq nearly quadrupling last year, according to official US statistics. Some people might say that this shows what the democratization process in Iraq is worth. |
| Posted by:gromgoru |
| #17 Shipman .... "watch the hand, not the mouth", as the Arab expression goes. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2007-03-20 23:19 |
| #16 +1 to what Crusader said. Bottom line: is there more, or less, Islam in the world since we invaded Iraq? Almost certainly there is more. Which ain't good. |
| Posted by: Ebbereck Brown5372 2007-03-20 20:42 |
| #15 What Crusader said. I no longer care if muslims are "free". This is a memetic plague and public health measures must be taken to eradicate it. A nuclear powered islam means it is the light or the dark; the West or a new Dark Age and nothing in between. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-03-20 19:34 |
| #14 pose, posture, put on paper Where'd you get that? If original my apologies and slam down a © on that puppy. PPPOP. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-03-20 18:55 |
| #13 The problem is Islam. The problem will continue to be Islam. "Solutions" that don't acknowledge that the problem is Islam won't solve anything. "Liberating" a country while not liberating it from Islam isn't liberation at all. We had our chance, and chose to ignore the obvious. |
| Posted by: Crusader 2007-03-20 17:06 |
| #12 what the Arabs say [pose, posture, put on paper] is way different than what they DO. If a buck can be made, it will. |
| Posted by: RD 2007-03-20 14:53 |
| #11 Israel produces half the fresh produce and fruit consumed in the Middle East. Those nations that boycott Israel have to buy their fresh produce and fruit from somewhere else, usually India, South Africa, or South America. It's not quite as "fresh" as the Israeli products. As the result of the boycott, more Israeli products are sold to Europe, at a greater price. The only people being hurt by the boycott are the people doing the boycotting. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-03-20 12:55 |
| #10 I wouldn't be too worried about it. The Kurds have extensive contacts with the Israelis and have no intention of boycotting them. They're also the ones with a functioning economy. Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2007-03-20 10:05 |
| #9 I agree with you about consistency. However, I don't see anything in my comment about knocking democracy. If we look at democracy as delivering what the will of the Iraqi people is, what does that portend for American soldiers, given that consistent majority percentages of Iraqis think American soldiers are legitimate targets for attack? Is American policy, in supporting the democracy in Iraq, simultaneously buttressing the idea that it is ok to attack American soldiers? I am not saying it is, but there is a serious disconnect going on there. |
| Posted by: Jules 2007-03-20 09:07 |
| #8 Not trying to be obtuse, NS. Of those countries boycotting Israel, what are the consequences? Not trying to be obtuse, either, Jules, but the fact that there are no consequences for boycotting Israel was exactly my point. If they suffer no negative consequences why should any of them, including Iraq, change their behaviour? I don't see how you can knock Iraqi democracy for doing what the Iraqi people want it to. That's how it's supposed to work. Nor do I see how we can treat Iraq significantly worse than we treat Arab tyrannies for the same behaviour. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-03-20 08:54 |
| #7 Not trying to be obtuse, NS. Of those countries boycotting Israel, what are the consequences? From http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Arab_boycott.html "In late 2005, Saudi Arabia was required to cease its boycott of Israel as a condition of joining the World Trade Organization. After initially saying that it would do so, the government subsequently announced it would maintain its first-degree boycott of Israeli products. The government said it agreed to lift the second and third degree boycott in accordance with an earlier Gulf Cooperation Council decision rather than the demands of the WTO. In June 2006, the Saudi ambassador admitted his country still enforced the boycott in violation of promises made earlier to the Bush Administration (Jerusalem Post, (June 22, 2006)." |
| Posted by: Jules 2007-03-20 08:45 |
| #6 So what negative "consequences" is Iraq experiencing by boycotting Israel? The same ones every other country that boycotts Israel suffers. Maybe there ought to be a lesson in that for the US and Israel. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-03-20 08:35 |
| #5 So what negative "consequences" is Iraq experiencing by boycotting Israel? |
| Posted by: Jules 2007-03-20 08:18 |
| #4 We were going to liberate these folks and then they were going to have a light flash in their eyes on the way to Damascus and all love each other. Right. This is who they are. Democracy allows them to express it, suffer the consequences, learn and, hopefully, improve. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-03-20 06:49 |
| #3 Remember when Kuwaiti officials suggested that relations with Israel would be different once they got back their country from Saddam? |
| Posted by: John Frum 2007-03-20 06:44 |
| #2 Yea... I have had this B.S. session with my friends a couple times... Wouldn't it be great if we could impose order in Iraq with some sort of secular strong-man? He'd have to be a Sunni, of course, to counter the growing Iranian factions, but you know, a Sunni who doesn't really go in for all the Wahabbi nonsense of the Saudis... Yeah, that would be great... kind of reminds me of somebody... |
| Posted by: garbagecowboy 2007-03-20 02:21 |
| #1 Sadly, there are few truly desirable elements in Iraq. The best we can hope for is to weaken and disempower the worst elements, from the Sadrists to al Qaeda types. In truth, even Saddam Hussein had a few positive qualities - under him Iraq stood as a bulwark against Iran's imperial ambitions, and since he was a secular fascist (as opposed to the Islamofascists now ascendant in the region) women enjoyed a greater degree of personal freedom than in many Middle Eastern countries. |
| Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2007-03-20 01:17 |