I have a friend working for a company whose biggest clients are in the Emirates. One of said client is the government, and it is asking them to buy some very specific equipment, knowing fully well this equipment is only sold in Israel.
However, the Emirates cannot trade with Israel, and refuse to pay for any equipment labelled as coming from this country. Calling one of the officials, they asked for a solution. They told them to ship everything first to the UK. There, they should unpack every single object, and package them again with different country labels. Once the box has passed custom, nobody will raise the topic about the equipment origin.
Citizens of many countries would be in big trouble if they have a stamp from Israeli customs on their passports. Customs apparently issue a separate document not to put a stamp on the passport as a result. This enabled many tourists who are "not supposed" to go there to nonetheless go there.
Something similar happens in Turkish occupied Cyprus.
The Turkish airport in Turkish Cyprus is not recognized by Greek Cypiriot government, so if you do fly from Turkey to Cyprus, it is not considered a valid port of entry.
Thus you will get a stamp on a piece of paper, which you need to leave the country back to Turkey.
When traveling between the Turkish and Greek side of the island, the checkpoint guards will inspect your passport. As Greek Cyprus is part of the EU, EU laws require all EU Memberstates to allow free travel for any EU citizen. Likewise, due to agreements between the US, Cyprus and the EU, US citizens are too allowed free-travel. Citizens from other countries run the risk of being denied entry.
Before they started doing that, my dad was able to get a second passport just for Israel. Technically you were not allowed to have more than one passport (Ireland, 70s), but they made an exception.
I’m not sure if they still do but you used to be able to hold two passports simultaneously. One that was ‘clean’ for countries that didn’t recognise Israel and another for Israel.
Differs by country, but certainly true some places. Norway for example allows you to apply for a second passport, and the need for a "clean" one is one of the valid reasons you can give.
I meant citizens of the other countries that don't have diplomatic relations trying to go to Israel. They only have one passport and would be in trouble if they visited as their passport would be stamped, thus the scheme of a separate document. Meanwhile, the government buys things from Israel that transit via some nearby country to "simplify imports" through "creative incoterms" and naming and all.
I was annoyed by this - I wanted the stamp as a souvenir. The first time I went to Israel I got the "stamp on a sticker" thing, but the second time I just asked and they explained the reasoning, I affirmed my intent, and they stamped it.
That passport is since expired (it only had 3 years on it, at time of stamping), and my new passport book will get me wherever I happen to go. The souvenir sits safely in my safe.
This is also what used to happen when a citizen of the US (and anyone else who requested it) entered Cuba. Cuban immigration would take a little piece of paper, place it in the passport, and then stamp the piece of paper.
If the traveller happened to remove that piece of paper once the returned from Cuba, so be it.
Citizens of middle eastern countries that are hostile to Israel would care the most, but other international travelers also benefit from avoiding the Israel passport stamp to avoid unnecessary difficulties if they need to visit those middle eastern countries in future.
Tell your friend to tread carefully with requests like this.
My yearly "Business Conduct Training" (required by my employer) explicitly lists things like this as against company policy, a fireable offence, not to mention potentially illegal (circumventing embargoes, trade restrictions or sanctions).
Americans have extra rules to follow, so they simply can't do work like this and they are done by other companies who are either not subject to such rules, or exist in countries that won't enforce those rules.
It's a play on Club Med (which is more of a European thing, Med being short for Mediterranean, and here Fed short for Federal, as in Federal crime/prison).
I had never heard the term before today, but did appreciate its cleverness.
This is no longer true. The UAE normalised relations with Israel, almost two years ago[0]. There are even Israeli VCs, like Entree Capital, funding startups in the UAE.
I know some storys with relabeling some products in Switzerland to. A country would not deal with the EU. So stuff came to Switzerland, got a new label and got shipped.
International trading is a kind of funny place. I know a women who works on a company who make also things for large gas pipes (process industrie). She said, long before the war started, funny thing happened with a lot of involved companys.
Yes and now. Maybe this was a bad example. The start here was short after the war started, true.
Since I also don't know any names by myself, I can't tell much more.
But it was the only example in the media.
Also interessting is, but I never read why somewhere, Rheinmetall Defense for ex., they made year for year the same amount of money (10 years back). Until two years before the war, they made much more and one year before the war, more much more money again.
Also I know a guy who workes there sometimes. He said they had all hands full of work ti produce munition at least a year before the war started.
There is this human convention about "can/cannot" that assumes the reader is able to figure out the nuance of it.
If I say, "I can't walk it the street naked", I'm expecting you to understand the underlying causes. I'm not expecting that I have to explain to you that, yes, nothing prevent me physically to walk in the street naked, but indeed, I chose every day not to do it because I don't want to pay the social and/or legal price for it.
In the same way, given that tensions in the Middle East are pretty famous and that political issues between Muslim & Jews have implications in international trades, I'm making the assumption readers understand what "cannot" means here.
My point is that the UAE is a sovereign country. The only law that prevented trade with Israel was the one they made themselves. There wasn't any legal price for repealing it.
Indeed, and again, I'm expecting you to understand that they are making this choice because they don't want to pay the consequences of it. And that "cannot" is a short way to state that.
Now, from reading your comments, I'm going to assume you are in good faith, and you simply can't see what consequences they can face.
Although we can't know for sure such things without being an expert in middle-east politics, one can understand that if two groups of people have been at odds with each others for a long time, suddenly doing business with the opposite party is going to have political consequences.
E.G: assuming you are American. If you are a republican group, you can get financed by a left-leaning institution, but this will have political consequences.
> they are making this choice because they don't way to pay the consequences of it. And that "cannot" is a short way to state that.
I don't think that's a short way of saying the same thing though, for the kind of consequences you mean at least. Imagine if I were a vegan for ethical reasons. It'd be fine for me to say "I don't eat meat", but a lie to say "I can't eat meat", since I'd be perfectly capable of doing so, and be fine if I did, and just not want to anyway. Contrast this with if I had alpha-gal syndrome and someone me offered me a steak. In that case, I could truthfully say "I can't eat that".
Being neuro-atypical, I understand the desire to be "technically correct, the best kind of correct". It would be so much better if we used each word for their exact meaning.
But that's not how most human communication work. When people say "I cannot come tomorrow", they usually don't mean they can't. If you gave them one billion dollars to come, chances are they would.
This is a fairly common convention, and most people in the English language are using this approximation and assumption.
You can chose to ignore it of course.
I consider I've done my part in this conversation, and wish you a nice day.
> But that's not how most human communication work.
It's not even how it can work. See the Malicious Genie problem for a memorable demonstration of the fundamental problem. Chasing "precision" beyond what's necessary tends to harm communication, not aid it. Norms and context are super-important.
So then since relations have been normalized, no there would not be significant consequences to them engaging in trade, so it would be mean that yes they can trade.
Using the definition that you gave, yes they would be able to trade, because many of those bad consequences of trading have gone away.
Sure. What I was trying to distinguish was between something that would cause real harm for reasons outside of your control, versus something that goes against some principles you made up for yourself but with no other consequences.
> Contrast this with if I had alpha-gal syndrome and someone me offered me a steak. In that case, I could truthfully say "I can't eat that".
If the person said: "eat this steak and I'll give you a billion dollars or don't, and I'll kill everyone on this planet in the most painful way imaginable, including you", I doubt your response would be "I can't eat that".
There are no political issues between muslim and jews. You maybe meant :
- there are political issues between the jewish state and it's muslim majority neighbours
- there is a conflict between jews and muslims in Palestine and Israel
> there is a conflict between jews and muslims in Palestine and Israel
There's a conflict between the settlers/gentrifiers (and their police State, military industrial complex, and security apparatus) and the rest of the population. From what i hear there is still an anti-nationalist/anti-colonization/anti-war jewish movement in Israel, what remains of a once-strong internationalist socialist/anarchist jewish movement.
Yeah makes sense. I love the politics like this where everyone is firmly in solidarity but everyone is making deals out the back door. Like Europeans at war with Russia but buying gas, Americans hating China but spending all their money on stuff made there, Communist leaders hating America but sending their kids to school there.
I'm not sure that, at least historically, that would be looked upon amicably by their neighbouring countries or populations. That has changed over time though which has allowed this to happen.
Unlike in the US, where it is expressly against federal law to remove origin marks, and sure to attract enthusiastic prosecution, the UK has no law – Act of Parliament or secondary legislation – which generally requires products to be origin marked. The exception to this is food which is required to be origin marked under EU Regulation 1169/2011. Origin marking for all products other than food is voluntary. So that is why.
However, the Emirates cannot trade with Israel, and refuse to pay for any equipment labelled as coming from this country. Calling one of the officials, they asked for a solution. They told them to ship everything first to the UK. There, they should unpack every single object, and package them again with different country labels. Once the box has passed custom, nobody will raise the topic about the equipment origin.
And so this is what they do.