Did I understand the US ports' story ?

While the US- Dubai port imbroglio was raging I let it be..why ? because it was futile , it was not going to happen and will not happen for a long while. The US was not going to hand out its ports to 'Arabs & Muslims', the result was so to speak written on the wall. The trouble was just how to blurt it out without sounding non-politically correct. Translation: without being racist and biased - despite my thiking that they did not have to do it with kid gloves. I'm sure many bloggers and journalists handled this issue but this article explains what many Arabs think has happened. It makes it sound like another conspiracy , which I'm sure it was not, people were just being themselves here .....
As usual it is the Jews' fault , however I'm finding that the points raised do make sense, Jews or other it's simply people wanting to look out for their best interests. It's all about big bucks .

Well here is the article anyway make up your own mind :

"The US Ports and their Concerns by Abdel Wahab Badrakhan Al-Hayat - 15/03/06//

The US ports management issue winded up in the withdrawal of the "Dubai Ports World - International" (DPW.YY) and the triumph of the reactionary and fanatic within the US Congress. These were not concerned with the security of the ports but with the interests of the Zionist-Israeli lobby, in addition to the interests of some US companies. This is the rule adopted in the stances of the members of the Congress and not the legal or economic - or of course ethical - principles with respect to the legislations submitted thereto. In fact, most of the arguments seemed to express the "US first" motto, akin to what we hear in some small nations.
Henceforth, the Americans could better confine their affairs to a pure US framework; rather to a WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) pit. They should not preoccupy the world with their President who went lame early on or with Hillary Clinton who initially conveyed fierce opportunism, in addition to the rest of the politicians working at the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee "AIPAC" or any other shop for racist incitement and hatred globalization. There is no need for the Americans to pretend that they are the masters, rather the pioneers, of the open business for everyone. They better announce beforehand the list of countries, individuals, and companies excluded from dealing with their transactions. This is the lesson that can be deduced from the ports story.
The problem does not lie in the fact that the "Dubai Ports World - International" (DPW.YY) or any other company lost one or another deal, since the world of business is wide-reaching, available, and free from the US intricacies and complexities. The problem lies in the fact that the Americans want to draw all the money of the world, especially the Arab world. In fact, they are exploiting politics to blackmail transactions; they even often resort to punish countries that dare to serve their economic interests with non-US partners. Businessmen, and the investing countries, are aware that, in one (legal) way or the other, they are compelled to pay a sort of masked "backhander" to a certain US party in order to ward off its evils. Despite everything that has been said in rejecting the criticism of the arguments opposing the conclusion of the ports deal, the blackmail approach will not stop because it basically stems from the tone of the same political arrogance. This in turn stems from the colonial legacy that still considers other peoples and countries at the service of the superpower.
The issue is not particularly, or necessarily, related to what is dubbed as the post-9/11 fears. We cannot deny the repercussions of this horrendous US event and the ensuing security obsessions. No country can be criticized for its security precautions. Moreover, it is better to say that the Americans are free when it comes to who operates their ports, but to show sympathy, admiration, and appeal to a "friendly nation" and then subject it to all kinds of criticism, defamation, and accusation; this is definitely inane. The Americans authorized those who are accusing them of what they are, as well as what they are not, i.e. the Iraqi who claims they are striving to trigger a civil war in his country is not utterly wrong, and the Sudanese who is exasperated by the flare-up of Darfour war because they did not welcome the oil deal between his country and China is not wrong either, not to mention what the Lebanese, Palestinian, Syrian, and Egyptian may say...
The utmost irony is what we are witnessing now, following the struggle to stamp out the UAE deal, after the US representatives got what they want, is that they are trying to justify the hysteria that afflicted them since the opinion polls showed an opposition to the deal ranging between 58 to 68%. These polls were undertaken when the representatives voiced lavish statements in order to wipe out the deal, and even attempted to harm their friends and defame their security reputation. In other words, the public opinion built its stance on what it heard. Some of them were so unstable to say that "we will not hand in our ports to the devil." Notwithstanding, some stark opponents said that their stances does not reflect hostile feelings vis-à-vis the Arabs. Those have just started they journey back to reality, hoping to please US categories that consider themselves afflicted, though morally, by the insults and sham during the past three weeks. These can duly be referred to as the French adage says, "they want the butter and the price of the butter."
In any case, the issue involves a significant lesson to those who want to come acquainted with the extent of the US seclusion and its inconsistency with the lectures it gives on economic globalization."