For More News, Visit... The Hardcore News Web Site!

Monday, August 18, 2014

Israel, Obama, and other people's oil


If the US stops Genie Energy from going ahead with oil contract, it invites the wrath of myriad pro-Israel groups.

Last Modified: 17 Mar 2013 13:01 - Nadia Hijab - Source: Al Jazeera


Even as it plans to illegally drill for oil in the occupied Golan Heights, "Israel appears to have its eye on the occupied West Bank oil", according to a classified Foreign Office correspondence [Reuters]

The schedule for President Barack Obama's first visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories next week has just been released and it is no surprise that the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is not on his travel agenda. 
And yet Israel put it on the international agenda less than a month ago with its award of a licence to a US energy firm to explore for oil in the Golan Heights. Oil drilling by the New Jersey-based Genie Energy Ltd in the occupied Golan Heights could well result in a lawsuit claiming that Israel is engaged in an illegal act of pillage as defined in the Hague Convention. Perhaps Israel is now so used to living off the fat of other people's land - Palestinian and Syrian soil and water, among other resources - it has seemingly thrown caution to the wind. 
The award puts the US on the spot. If the Obama administration tries to stop Genie from going ahead with the contract, it invites the wrath of myriad pro-Israel groups and their neocon allies, whose strength was most recently on display in the battle to confirm Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. 
And if the administration ignores the oil deal, it leaves US corporations exposed to potential lawsuits for profiteering from Israel's violations of human rights and international law. 
An additional worry for the Obama administration is the cast of characters involved in Genie Energy. The company is headed by former Israeli minister of infrastructure Effie Eitam, who lives in one of the illegal settlements on the Golan Heights, and includes former vice president Dick Cheney as an adviser and Rupert Murdoch as a shareholder. 
Of course, Israel thinks it can get away with it. It has violated international law with impunity since it prevented the Palestinian refugees' return, annexed East Jerusalem, and extended Israeli law to the Golan Heights, among other transgressions. Moreover, although Israel's settlement building in the territories is regularly condemned, international sanctions have yet to be imposed. 
In fact, the US, the European Union and other donor nations effectively subsidise Israel's exploitation of Palestinian resources. Their aid to the Palestinian Authority enables Israel to get on with its colonisation at little or no cost to its budget, and to make a handsome profit from the 
 Golan-based wine industry, beauty products from the Dead Sea, and other natural resources. This ignores the limitations on such exploitation of occupied territory clearly set out in the Annex to the Fourth Geneva Convention and widely recognised as applying to the territories occupied in 1967. 
Follow the latest developments in the ongoing conflict 
A further irony is that Israel makes donor aid necessary by blocking sovereign Palestinian development of their own resources, especially water, but also others such as the potentially lucrative gas field off the Gaza Strip. 
Furthermore, even as it plans to illegally drill for oil in the occupied Golan Heights, Israel appears to have its eye on the occupied West Bank's oil, as revealed by classified Foreign Office correspondenceobtained through the United Kingdom's Freedom of Information Act. As one staffer in Jerusalem wrote, it was "hard enough" to justify to British taxpayers "spending 100 million pounds a year on an economy that would be self-sufficient if able to exploit its own natural resources. Harder still if those resources included oil".  
However, the tide is turning though perhaps too slowly for Israel to notice. EU member states are increasingly nervous about their implication in international law violations. For example, some EU states have been labelling settlement goods as coming from occupied territory. Most recently, EU consuls general in East Jerusalem and Ramallah issued an unprecedented report recommending sanctions on bodies involved in construction in Israeli settlements and much stricter application of the EU-Israel free trade agreement. 
These recommendations have yet to be translated into policy, but the EU consuls' report has pushed the "S" in BDS - the Palestinian-led campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel's violations of international law - further into the mainstream. 
Israel's drilling award is certainly a gift to the global BDS movement, which has scored many successes against companies doing business in the Palestinian territories. So far, campaigns on the Golan Heights have largely focused on Eden Springs water and Golan wines with good results. A US company breaking international law in the Golan Heights would be an obvious target. 
The oil contract will also spotlight the racism of a growing number of Israelis toward Palestinians. Genie Energy's Eitam provides particularly rich fodder. In a 2006 interview, he called for most Palestinians to be expelled from the occupied territories and for Palestinian citizens of Israel to be removed "from the political system". 
Israel may be betting that the international community's preoccupation with Syria will not extend to the Syrian Golan Heights and that it will get away with it again. But it would do well to remember that even slow grinding wheels can produce justice.  
Nadia Hijab is Director of Al-Shabaka: The Palestinian Policy Network.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy. 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/201331785837128494.html


Is the Control of Gaza's Offshore Gas Reserves a Factor in Israeli Military Operations?


Nafeez Ahmed: As Israel's energy issues become more pronounced, repeated military incursions into Gaza show that dominating and exploiting its offshore gas reserves is an increasingly important issue -   August 17, 2014



Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is a bestselling author, investigative journalist and international security scholar. A regular Guardian contributor on the geopolitics of interconnected environmental, energy and economic crises, he is the author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilization and How to Save It, which inspired his documentary feature film, The Crisis of Civilization. His debut science fiction novel inspired by true events is ZERO POINT.

Transcript

Is the Control of Gaza's Offshore Gas Reserves a Factor in Israeli Military 
Operations?ANTON WORONCZUK, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Anton Woronczuk in Baltimore.
The Israeli assault on Gaza has dominated international headlines for weeks. The Palestinian death toll has surpassed 1,800, with more than 60 Israelis dead. But what's gotten less attention is the role that Gaza's estimated 1.4 trillion cubic [feet of] natural gas reserves, valued at $4 billion, has played.
Now joining us from London to discuss this is Dr. Nafeez Ahmed. His recent piece in The Guardian is titled "IDF's Gaza Assault Is to Control Palestinian Gas, Avert Israeli Energy Crisis".
Thanks for joining us, Nafeez.
NAFEEZ AHMED, JOURNALIST, THE GUARDIAN: Thanks, Anton.
WORONCZUK: So let's start off. What documentary evidence exists that the gas reserves are indeed playing a role here in the latest assault on the Gaza Strip?
AHMED: Well, I mean, obviously the history of this whole issue actually goes back to the date that they were actually discovered, which was around 1999 to 2000. And the gas was at that time discovered by the BG Group, which is a British company. Now, obviously, the Israel-Palestine conflict has gone on much longer than that. But what we're seeing is since the discovery of gas, you know, fairly significant gas resources in Gaza, we've seen that those resources have played an increasing role in determining the course of the conflict.
What's happened recently is over the last six, seven years or so, increasingly it seems that as Israel's energy issues have become more pronounced, its repeated military incursions into Gaza appear to have been linked very much to the interest in dominating and exploiting these offshore reserves in Gaza.
Now, there have been many efforts by Israel to come to some kind of an arrangement with its favorite parties, namely the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, run by Fatah, and to kind of ride roughshod over Hamas, which is seen as an entity that they just simply cannot negotiate with under any circumstances. Now, since Operation Cast Lead, it's my view that the control of the Gazan marine where we have these offshore gas resources has been an increasingly important issue. In 2007, the current defense minister, Moshe Ya'alon, wrote an article, a paper, a policy paper through some censor for public affairs where he explicitly called for the need for military action to uproot Hamas in order to begin drilling work to bring these gas reserves in Gaza to production. And he basically indicated not only that was Hamas an obstacle to exploiting these resources, but even the Palestinian Authority. Effectively, the scenario that he put forward was that if there was any situation in which any of these Palestinian entities were allowed to begin to produce these resources and benefit from them economically, this would be a major strategic threat to Israel, and the revenues that they would gain, which have been estimated to be anything from around six to seven billion dollars a year, would end up going to fund the resistance, to fund terrorism against Israel, and that would be unacceptable, and therefore it would be unacceptable to ever allow the Palestinian entities in this way to exploit these resources.
So I think there's two dimensions here. One is basically there is a strategic interest that's simply preventing the Palestinians from actually using these resources for themselves, for their own benefit, and becoming more independent from Israel in that sense and being more viable as an independent entity, independent state. Of course, the other related issue is really to do with Israel's own energy needs.
Now, of course, there have been major discoveries of resources which are inside Israeli territory, the Leviathan field, the Tamar field, which are many, many times larger than what has been discovered in Gaza. However, the difficulty here is is that over the last few years, despite these discoveries, Israel has faced many bureaucratic, regulatory, and even geophysical hurdles in actually bringing these fields to production. Now, in another article that I wrote for The Ecologist magazine, where I updated my investigation that I had originally done for The Guardian, I uncovered some Foreign Office, British Foreign Office files that had been obtained under Freedom of Information by a think tank based in Washington, D.C. Not many people know about these files even though they've been published online. And those files showed that the British Foreign Office was aware and had actually--was involved in a plan effectively to use Gaza's gas as a cheap stopgap while Israel is trying to bring these fields to production. In other words, in the interim period, when we have--it could take up to five years to bring the fields to production. What are they going to do in the meantime? They can use this gas.
Well, the difficulty again was Hamas standing in the way and the terms and conditions that Hamas could put and this overall ideology of denying the Palestinians any kind of role in kind of developing their own resources and moving towards an independent trajectory.
So, in my view, when we piece all this together, it seems clear that the Moshe Ya'alon now--at that time, when he first wrote that article, he was a former IDF chief of staff, but now he's actually again in a senior position in the administration, executing the war plan. It seems clear to me that it's quite likely that he is executing exactly that plan in order to fulfill this agenda of essentially crushing Hamas and gaining some kind of strategic control over Gaza in order that Israel can, on the one hand, ensure that the Palestinians can't develop this gas, and on the other hand ensure that Israel is able to develop this gas for its own interest.
WORONCZUK: Well, then, you say that the purpose of this strategically, then, to control the gas, is also to, as you say, avert the Israeli energy crisis. Can you talk about the energy crisis that Israel is facing?
AHMED: Well, this energy crisis has been referred to in a number of the standard Israeli business publications, although it's not very well known. And that really is to do with the problem of increasing electricity crises and the inability to bring domestic gas resources to production. Now, all the discoveries that have taken place for the last few years, you have many people in the existing oil and gas industry, especially the Israeli oil and gas industry and the U.S. and British oil and gas industry, kind of hyping it up and talking about how Israel is now going to be a major geopolitical force, it's going to become a net exporter of gas in the region, exporting to Jordan, even as far as Europe, according to some people.
However, there was an interesting report that was unearthed by Haaretz, the liberal newspaper in Israel, where they discovered that the committee that had been set up to basically develop policy on how much gas should be exported and how much gas should be used domestically had actually received an interesting piece of research that was formerly sent to them as part of the committee's process by its two chief scientists of the energy and water ministries. And these scientists basically said that they believed that the existing kind of forecasts of production and the existing estimates of how much production could actually increase over the next couple of decades or so were actually vastly overestimated, and in fact that the quantity of gas that could be brought commercially into production was actually much lower. And they believed and they advocated that actually Israel has really only two choices. It can either become a net gas importer, in which case it will not have any gas domestically to use for its own needs, or it will have to use this gas domestically for its own needs and not fulfill these aspirations to be an exporter.
So faced with that choice, Haaretz reported that this very important document had actually been suppressed. It was not published as part of the committee's official reports. It was left out of the website. And it was only after Haaretz publicized the report that the committee published it on the side. So, clearly there was a concern inside the highest level of the Israeli government that this would basically scupper their plans to become a major geopolitical force through this new kind of energy configuration.
So it seems clear to me based on this assessment, if that assessment is correct--and it seems to me that certainly people inside the Israeli administration were worried by it. They saw it as potentially damaging for the reputation, damaging for their potential kind of interests and potential contracts with major companies internationally that were now wanting to invest in Israel, they saw it as something that was dangerous and they needed to suppress, and they were worried--and I do think that it seems that they were worried that it was true, that this gas would not be enough for Israel to both export and meet his domestic needs, so they need something as a stopgap. And this is where the Gaza marine comes in. And according to these FCO files, precisely in this period where we have a gap where there is difficulty in bringing in these existing Israeli fields into production, Gazan marine was seen as basically a potential source that could deal with this energy crisis and allow Israel to have a source of energy, a fairly substantial source, while it's bringing these into production.
So I think that it's pretty clear, based on all of this analysis, that this is real, this is a real issue. If you look at what was happening over the last year or so, there were meetings, secret meetings going on between Israeli officials, Netanyahu's own personal negotiator, and representatives of the BG Group that basically currently holds the right to Gaza's gas. And interestingly, Palestinian officials, not just Hamas, but even from Fatah, the Palestinian Authority, were excluded from this deal. And this was at the same kind of time when we had the Netanyahu giving lip service to the deal, saying that, yes, we want to push forward negotiations with the Palestinians over Gaza's gas, and when Kerry, as part of the peace process, had actually put forward an economic stimulus package, and part of that package was the development of the Gaza marine. So we had Netanyahu playing a double game, effectively, on the one hand saying, yeah, we want to have diplomatic discussions about the gas and about Gaza and about a meaningful two-state solution, and at the same time, in reality, as we now know in hindsight from Kerry officials and people involved in the peace process, that actually Netanyahu had no intention, that he deliberately torpedoed that peace process because he doesn't want an independent, viable Palestinian state, and simultaneously not allowing Palestinian officials to participate in negotiations involving Gaza's gas.
So if we look at all of this circumstantial evidence over the last year to two years, it seems very clear that Gaza's energy resources have certainly played a very important role in Israel's strategic considerations in why it's going into Gaza--not the only role, by many means--many other factors--but that is certainly an increasingly important issue.
WORONCZUK: Okay. Nafeez Ahmed, thanks for sharing your recent work with us.
AHMED: Thanks, Anton.
WORONCZUK: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

End

DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=12244

Friday, July 18, 2014

“The Israeli Dream”: The Criminal Roadmap Towards “Greater Israel”?

By Felicity Arbuthnot Global Research, July 18, 2014

The concept of a “Greater Israel” according to the founding father of Zionism Theodore Herzl, is a Jewish State stretching “’From the Brook of Egypt to the Euphrates.’
Rabbi Fischmann, of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, stated to the UN Special Committee on 9th July 1947 that:
The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon’”, wrote Michel Chossudovsky. (1)
Thus “from the Nile to the Euphrates.” Herzl’s detailed thesis was written in 1904.
Quoted in the same article is Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya on The Yinon Plan (1982) “ … a continuation of Britain’s colonial design in the Middle East”:
“(The Yinon plan) is an Israeli strategic plan to ensure Israeli regional superiority. It insists and stipulates that Israel must reconfigure its geo-political environment through the balkanization of the surrounding Arab states into smaller and weaker states.
“Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centerpiece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which the Yinon Plan discusses.”
At the time Yinon wrote, the eight year, Western driven Iran-Iraq war was into its second year – with another six grinding years of loss, tragedy and heartbreak, valleys of widows, orphans, maimed, on both sides of their common border. The toll on life and health was compared to World War 1. Iraq of course, in an historic error, had virtually been fighting a proxy war for an American regime, even then obsessed with Islam, which, in Iran they had decided was the wrong sort of Islam. What the faith of a nation thousands of miles away had to do with Capitol Hill, remains a mystery.
The day after that devastating war ended, the US replaced Iraq over the then USSR as the country which was the biggest threat to America. A devastated, war torn nation of, at the time, just under seventeen million people. (2)
Then came the dispute with Kuwait over alleged oil theft and Dinar destabilizing with the then US Ambassador April Glaspie personally giving Saddam Hussein the green light to invade should he choose. The subsequent nation paralyzing UN embargo followed, then the 2003 decimation and occupation – another orchestrated downward spiral – and tragedy and now open talk of what has been planned for decades, the break up of Iraq.
File:Greater israel.jpg
Greater Israel” requires the breaking up of the existing Arab states into small states.
“Mission accomplished” for both the US with its long planned redrawing of the Middle East and North Africa – and Israel, through whose friendship with the Iraqi Kurdish autocracy, was set to become pretty well a partner in an autonomous, independent Iraqi Kurdistan. Dream come true, from “the Nile to the Euphrates”, the final fruition of near seventy years of manipulation and aggression for domination of the entire region.
The all is also the vision of the super hawk, dreamer of destruction of nations, Lt Colonel Ralph Peters since the early 1990s. Here is his 2006 version (3.) Peters is a man whose vision of eternal war is seemingly an eternal wet dream. Here, again, for anyone unaware of the Colonel, is a repeat of that dream (US Army War College Quarterly, Summer 1997):
“There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts … around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. (US armed forces will keep) the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing.
“We have entered an age of constant conflict.”
Peters would make some of history’s most megalomaniacal expansionists look like gift offering peaceniks. His cartographic monument to arrogance: “The New Map of the Middle East Project”, of geographical restructure in far away places of which he gave less than a damn, was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006.\
 
It was surely no coincidence that on 1st May 2006 Joe Biden, long time Member of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations – now US Vice President of course – and Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Committee, joint authored a New York Times piece (4) urging the break up of Iraq, dividing the country on ethnic lines: “ … giving each ethno-religious group – Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab …” their own ethnic and political ghettos. Ignorance on wide inter-marriage, inter-relations, until 2003, inter-communities at every level for millennia, mixed  neighbourhoods, shared celebrations, religious festivals, joys and heartaches, boggle the imagination. The deluded article is entitled: “Unity through autonomy in Iraq.” Think non-sequeta, think mixed marriages, does the husband live in a “Sunni” ghetto and the wife a “Shia” one, for example?
“The Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws, administration and internal security.” A “five point plan” of ghettoisation, destruction, delusion and wickedness, the US-Israeli game plan for Iraq, with the UK as ever, tagging along dreaming of days of empire when, with France, Iraq and the region’s borders were imperially tinkered with just short of a hundred years ago (5.)
Aside from the shaming arrogance and illegality of the plan, ignorance is total. Clearly there is no knowledge in the great annals of the US State Department, Department of Foreign Affairs or the CIA of Iraq’s religious and ethnic minorities, also co-existing for centuries: Christians, Mandaeans, Yazidis, Turkmen, Jews, Zoroastrians, Bahai, Kakai’s, Shabaks – and indeed those who regard themselves as non-religious.
By October 2007 Joe Biden had: “attempted to create a reality when an overwhelming majority of the US Senate voted for his non-binding Resolution to divide Iraq in to three parts … (with) the Washington Post reporting that the 75-23 Senate vote was a ‘significant milestone’ ” in the severing of Iraq in to three, wrote Tom Engelhardt (6.)
Engelhardt is seemingly the only eagle eye to have picked up that: “The (tripartite) structure is spelled out in Iraq’s Constitution, but Biden would initiate local and regional diplomatic efforts to hasten its evolution.”
The Constitution, written under US imposed “Viceroy” Paul Bremer, is of course, entirely invalid, since it is illegal to re-write a Constitution under an occupation.
“Only the Kurds, eager for an independent State, welcomed the plan.”
What, ponders Engelhardt, with forensic reality, would be the reaction if Iraq, or Iran for example: “passed a non-binding Resolution to divide the United States in to semi-autonomous bio-regions?”
He concludes that: “such acts would, of course, be considered not just outrageous and insulting, but quite mad.” In Iraq however: “at best it would put an American stamp of approval on the continuing ethnic cleansing of Iraq.”
However, the US Administration’s commitment is clear, Joe Biden, a self confessed Zionist, stated at the annual J Street Conference in September 2013: “If there were not an Israel, we would have to invent one to make sure our interests were preserved.” (7) Think oil, gas, strategic aims.
Biden assured his audience that: “America’s support for Israel is unshakable, period. Period, period.” (sic) He stressed a number of times the commitment that President Obama had to Israel. His own long and deep connections, he related, stretched back to a meeting with then Prime Minister Golda Meir when he was a freshman Senator and latterly his hours spent with Prime Minister Netanyahu. The latest meeting was in January this year when he travelled to Israel to pay his respects to the late Ariel Sharon and subsequently spent two hours alone in discussion with Netanyahu.
It is surely coincidence that subsequently the rhetoric for the division of Iraq accelerated. Israel has had “military, intelligence and business ties with the Kurds since the 1960s” viewing them as “a shared buffer between Arab adversaries.”
In June Netanyahu told Tel Aviv University’s INSS think tank: “We should … support the Kurdish aspiration for independence”, after “outlining what he described as the collapse of Iraq and other Middle East regions …”(8) Iraq’s internal affairs being none of Israel’s business obviously does not occur (apart from their outrageous historic aspirations for the region in spite of being the newly arriving regional guest.) The howls of Israeli fury when even basic human rights for Palestinians in their eroded and stolen lands are suggested for the last sixty six years, however, metaphorically deafen the world.
Of course Kurdistan has now laid claim to Kirkuk, with its vast oil deposits. The plan for the Northern Iraq-Haifa pipeline, an Israeli aspiration from the time of that country’s establishment can surely also not have been far from Netanyahu’s mind. An independent Kurdistan, which indeed it has enjoyed almost entirely within Iraq, since 1992 – and immediately betrayed the Iraqi State by inviting in Israel and the CIA – would herald the planned dismemberment of Iraq.
It is darkly ironic, that whether relating to the break up of their lands or ghettoisation of those of Iraqis and Palestinians, this mirrors the plan of Adolf Eichmann, the architect of ethnic cleansing, who, after the outbreak of Word War II “arranged for Jews to be concentrated into ghettos in major cities …” he also devised plans for Jewish “reservations.”
Additionally he was an architect of forcible expulsion, one of the charges brought against him after he was captured by Israel’s Mossad and Shin Bet in Argentina in 1960. He was tried in Israel, found guilty of war crimes and hanged in 1962. Ironically his pre-Nazi employment had been as an oil salesman (9.)
Can Israel and the “international community” really be planning to mirror Eichmann by repatriating and ethnic cleansing? Will nations never look in to history’s mirror?
Notes

Comments... Please Be Respectful!

Hardcore News Is Brought To You By...

Bookmarks

Facebook  MySpace  Twitter  Digg  Delicious  Stumbleupon  Google Bookmarks  RSS Feed