The oilfields in Palestine are insignificant to the energy resources of the rest of the MENA region (same goes for natural gas).
The British Empire did NOT colonize the MENA region (including Palestine) due to oil (at least not until the first quarter of the 20th Century, and by then their colonial empire was already declining). If you look at the history of the Ottoman Empire (Turks) and Western colonization of West Asia, it began way before OIL was discovered in the MENA region. (https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/oil-discovered-middle-east)
The British Empire colonized the MENA region because that's what they attempted to do EVERYWHERE - Africa, Asia, Americas, etc.
Insignificant compared to the wealth of fossil fuels in the region maybe, but not insignificant.
'Israel’s invasion of Gaza in December 2008 brought the Palestinian gas fields under Israeli control—without regard for international law.'
'The total oil and gas reserves were valued at a staggering $524 billion in 2019. But Israel does not have sole legal entitlement to the $524 billion, according to a UN report published in the same year. Not only is some of the $524 billion sourced from within the Occupied Territory of Palestine, much of the rest sits outside national borders in the deep sea, and thus should be shared with all relevant parties. The report questions the national right to these resources given they took millions of years to form—and that Palestinians occupied the whole territory until Israel’s recent formal creation.'
Still irrelevant. The oil and gas in Palestine is not (and has never been) the reason behind Israel's settler-colonial policies in the greater Levant.
The 'oil and gas narrative' is a red herring. Israel would STILL be pursuing similar policies and agendas regardless of the presence of 'oil and gas' in Palestine. Also, don't forget the importance of water in the region (i.e. ground water reserves) in Palestine (before it was Israel).
but don’t forget Israel would STILL be pursuing similar poliices and agendas regardless of the preseence of ‘ground water reserves’. No one is saying they wouldn’t I am merely saying that the presence of gas is not insignificant to Western interests.
>>"I am merely saying that the presence of gas is not insignificant to Western interests."
And I'm directly contesting that. The presence of gas (in and around Palestine) are relatively insignificant (in proportionality) in the realm of all other things considered. It's like the cherry-on-top of the cake. Good, yes. Most important reason or predominant cause, no.
I think demented Genocide Joe revealed that out loud on video. "israel our unsinkable aircraft carrier. If israel did not exist we would have to invent it." Yes, the corner stone to controlling oil of the entire Middle East. So many papers written about destroying the seven countries for control. Ask Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi what he thinks, oh you can't.
I don't think I'm qualified enough (or have enough detailed knowledge of the inner workings of the U.S. Empire) to pick ONE THING as the most important cause.
There are many variables, all permutating and combining in various ways - some of these serve the interests of the U.S. Empire, while others don't.
What is important for people to understand (above and beyond everything else) is that Israel exists (and is allowed to get away with what it is doing currently) ONLY because it serves the interests of the U.S. Empire (in too many ways to go into it here). And to reiterate, I said here U.S. EMPIRE - not America, not American people. THE U.S. EMPIRE (empire managers and global corporations).
For those who may be interested, here are some pertinent links to the history of Palestine that pertain to the oil/gas interests. The Wikipedia entries are not very explicit about the oil/gas interests include in secret agreements, including Sykes-Picot, but the "Sykes-Picot line" did include consideration for access to petroleum for the Royal Navy.
"Imperial strategists maintained that this was necessary to protect the northern approaches to the Suez Canal (and therefore the routes to India), as well as to keep control of the oil fields around Abadan (which gained greatly in strategic importance once the Royal Navy made the shift from coal to oil in 1914). "
{In his doctoral thesis, Gibson discusses the part played by oil in British strategic thinking at the time and mentions the Mosul vilayet as the largest potential oilfield and France's agreement in 1918 to agree to its inclusion in the Iraq Mandate (the Clemenceau Lloyd George Agreement) in exchange for "a share of the oil and British support elsewhere".[55]}
As Chang Chokaski has stated, there were a myriad of issues behind the capture of Palestine. The British and French governments had ambitions to capture the entire Levant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant
All of this may appear to be boring, today. Let me simplify by asking "cui bono" -- or "Who benefits", from the illegal invasions of Palestine and other countries of the Levant, today?
The fossil fuels companies have commercial interests in the Levant. The defense contractors have interests in selling more weapons of mass destruction to the US government, to be conveyed to Israel. Those defense contractors also want their weapons to be sold to any buyers in the Middle East and North Africa, but our current focus is upon Palestine.
Businesses that rely upon shipments through the Suez Canal and the Straits of the Bosporus certainly want the protection of the US Navy, even though the Canal and Bosporus are not US properties. Such security was a major concern, a century ago, when the British Navy was far superior to that of the USA. Is it still a concern, today. What does any of that have to do with Palestine, aside from the fact the Israel is a de facto US military base that monitors all pertinent international activity of the Middle East and Russia?
The argument that Palestine must be purged in order to make a home for Jews is bogus. The British Empire created Eretz Israel as a home for Zionists -- not Jews. The British and American Empires were not eager to accept Jews and Jewish refugees, a century ago. Several Jewish scholars have written that most Jews, if given a choice, did not prefer to emigrate to Israel, but Zionists did.
Again, who is benefiting from the slaughter of Palestinians who are defending their traditional homeland of the past 2,000 years?
In addition to its global imperial ambitions, the British Empire also wanted strategic control of all commerce through the eastern and of the Mediterranean Sea all the way to India and China, long before the discovery of petroleum in the Levant region of the Ottoman Empire.
While WWI allegedly ended in November of 1917, the British continued to fight against the Turks until sometime in the year 2022. John D. Rockefeller of Standard Oil proposed that the Brits didn’t need to conquer Asia Minor for petroleum. Standard Oil would establish oil rigs and pipelines built by Turkish labor, and would pay approximately half of the oil proceeds to the “Young Turks” government.
The American Empire was okay with that and conceded with the British and the Turks to support the ethnic cleansing of Greeks, Jews and remaining Armenians from Asia Minor, via the “Population Exchange” of 1922-1923 as part of the deal.
The current location of Eretz Israel is a strategic base of the USA, serving as a listing post and staging area for military control of access to all oil fields of the Middle East.
Today, control of oil is still significant to the US global corporate empire. That significance will become moot as the world transitions to clean energy.
CK, why are you relaying factual information to me that is NOT relevant to the crux of the argument? - i.e. "Palestine has oilfields. That’s why the British Empire colonized it" which I directly REFUTED.
None of the 'factual information' has anything to do with the point of contention.
I don’t refute your factual statements. I believe that most people reading this are unaware of most of the narratives that you and I have posted.
Perhaps I should clarify by stating that the British imperialist motives for colonizing Palestine — coincidentally at the time of discovery of oil — are no longer pertinent. The American Empire, however, is still motivated by the fossil fuels industries’ desire to control access to all of the oil and gas fields of the Middle East. Eretz Israel is a convenient cover for the US military operations, there.
The USA also has military bases in other nearby countries, but Eretz Israel may be the only other one that possesses nuclear weapons.
My argument is that when fossil fuels become insignificant, Palestine and all other countries of the Middle East will become insignificant for exploitation.
I'm often challenging the 'U.S. supports Israel primarily for the energy resources of the MENA region" narrative (that is so dear to many).
(A thorough/exhaustive discussion/explanation would be too long and inadequate for presentation on platforms like Substack comments sections).
Knowing the history of MENA fairly well, there are MULTIPLE factors behind the involvement of colonial forces (initially European, later American) in the Middle-East region, oil and gas being just one of several.
Too many people are blinded (or overly focused) on "oil and gas in the MENA region" as an explanation for everything. They miss too many other intersecting and interweaving narratives that affect the dynamics and geopolitics of the region.
I don’t deny the complexity, but the US fossil fuels industries have powerful lobbyists, as do the US defense contractors, to keep the wars going to seize control of all oil and gas of the Middle East.
I have studied this for decades.
The general public wants a simple explanation. The propaganda says, “Muslims are bad. Jews are good and Zionists = Jews = Zionists.”
The extremely absurd propaganda says, “Nazis murdered millions of Jews, therefore Jews must annihilate Palestinians”, but millions of the ignorati believe that.
The U.S. obviously has interest in the energy resources of the Middle East. They would have such interests regardless of the existence of the state of Israel.
If all the U.S. wanted was oil/gas, then there are much easier ways to get such resources than supporting Israel in the region.
You're confusing two things together (like many are). The U.S. Empire supports Israel for MANY reasons. Also true is that the U.S. (actually Europe even more) is interested in the energy resources of the area. But just because these two things are true DOESN'T MEAN that one is the cause of the other.
The oilfields in Palestine are insignificant to the energy resources of the rest of the MENA region (same goes for natural gas).
The British Empire did NOT colonize the MENA region (including Palestine) due to oil (at least not until the first quarter of the 20th Century, and by then their colonial empire was already declining). If you look at the history of the Ottoman Empire (Turks) and Western colonization of West Asia, it began way before OIL was discovered in the MENA region. (https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/oil-discovered-middle-east)
The British Empire colonized the MENA region because that's what they attempted to do EVERYWHERE - Africa, Asia, Americas, etc.
Insignificant compared to the wealth of fossil fuels in the region maybe, but not insignificant.
'Israel’s invasion of Gaza in December 2008 brought the Palestinian gas fields under Israeli control—without regard for international law.'
'The total oil and gas reserves were valued at a staggering $524 billion in 2019. But Israel does not have sole legal entitlement to the $524 billion, according to a UN report published in the same year. Not only is some of the $524 billion sourced from within the Occupied Territory of Palestine, much of the rest sits outside national borders in the deep sea, and thus should be shared with all relevant parties. The report questions the national right to these resources given they took millions of years to form—and that Palestinians occupied the whole territory until Israel’s recent formal creation.'
Still irrelevant. The oil and gas in Palestine is not (and has never been) the reason behind Israel's settler-colonial policies in the greater Levant.
The 'oil and gas narrative' is a red herring. Israel would STILL be pursuing similar policies and agendas regardless of the presence of 'oil and gas' in Palestine. Also, don't forget the importance of water in the region (i.e. ground water reserves) in Palestine (before it was Israel).
but don’t forget Israel would STILL be pursuing similar poliices and agendas regardless of the preseence of ‘ground water reserves’. No one is saying they wouldn’t I am merely saying that the presence of gas is not insignificant to Western interests.
Your interest seems to be in being contrary.
>>"I am merely saying that the presence of gas is not insignificant to Western interests."
And I'm directly contesting that. The presence of gas (in and around Palestine) are relatively insignificant (in proportionality) in the realm of all other things considered. It's like the cherry-on-top of the cake. Good, yes. Most important reason or predominant cause, no.
Chang Chokaski,
In your opinion, what is the most important or predominant cause?
I think demented Genocide Joe revealed that out loud on video. "israel our unsinkable aircraft carrier. If israel did not exist we would have to invent it." Yes, the corner stone to controlling oil of the entire Middle East. So many papers written about destroying the seven countries for control. Ask Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi what he thinks, oh you can't.
I don't think I'm qualified enough (or have enough detailed knowledge of the inner workings of the U.S. Empire) to pick ONE THING as the most important cause.
There are many variables, all permutating and combining in various ways - some of these serve the interests of the U.S. Empire, while others don't.
What is important for people to understand (above and beyond everything else) is that Israel exists (and is allowed to get away with what it is doing currently) ONLY because it serves the interests of the U.S. Empire (in too many ways to go into it here). And to reiterate, I said here U.S. EMPIRE - not America, not American people. THE U.S. EMPIRE (empire managers and global corporations).
Jo Waller,
For those who may be interested, here are some pertinent links to the history of Palestine that pertain to the oil/gas interests. The Wikipedia entries are not very explicit about the oil/gas interests include in secret agreements, including Sykes-Picot, but the "Sykes-Picot line" did include consideration for access to petroleum for the Royal Navy.
https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/sykes-picot-agreement/
"Imperial strategists maintained that this was necessary to protect the northern approaches to the Suez Canal (and therefore the routes to India), as well as to keep control of the oil fields around Abadan (which gained greatly in strategic importance once the Royal Navy made the shift from coal to oil in 1914). "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
{In his doctoral thesis, Gibson discusses the part played by oil in British strategic thinking at the time and mentions the Mosul vilayet as the largest potential oilfield and France's agreement in 1918 to agree to its inclusion in the Iraq Mandate (the Clemenceau Lloyd George Agreement) in exchange for "a share of the oil and British support elsewhere".[55]}
https://theses.gla.ac.uk/3160/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine
As Chang Chokaski has stated, there were a myriad of issues behind the capture of Palestine. The British and French governments had ambitions to capture the entire Levant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant
All of this may appear to be boring, today. Let me simplify by asking "cui bono" -- or "Who benefits", from the illegal invasions of Palestine and other countries of the Levant, today?
The fossil fuels companies have commercial interests in the Levant. The defense contractors have interests in selling more weapons of mass destruction to the US government, to be conveyed to Israel. Those defense contractors also want their weapons to be sold to any buyers in the Middle East and North Africa, but our current focus is upon Palestine.
Businesses that rely upon shipments through the Suez Canal and the Straits of the Bosporus certainly want the protection of the US Navy, even though the Canal and Bosporus are not US properties. Such security was a major concern, a century ago, when the British Navy was far superior to that of the USA. Is it still a concern, today. What does any of that have to do with Palestine, aside from the fact the Israel is a de facto US military base that monitors all pertinent international activity of the Middle East and Russia?
The argument that Palestine must be purged in order to make a home for Jews is bogus. The British Empire created Eretz Israel as a home for Zionists -- not Jews. The British and American Empires were not eager to accept Jews and Jewish refugees, a century ago. Several Jewish scholars have written that most Jews, if given a choice, did not prefer to emigrate to Israel, but Zionists did.
Again, who is benefiting from the slaughter of Palestinians who are defending their traditional homeland of the past 2,000 years?
Chang Chokaski,
In addition to its global imperial ambitions, the British Empire also wanted strategic control of all commerce through the eastern and of the Mediterranean Sea all the way to India and China, long before the discovery of petroleum in the Levant region of the Ottoman Empire.
While WWI allegedly ended in November of 1917, the British continued to fight against the Turks until sometime in the year 2022. John D. Rockefeller of Standard Oil proposed that the Brits didn’t need to conquer Asia Minor for petroleum. Standard Oil would establish oil rigs and pipelines built by Turkish labor, and would pay approximately half of the oil proceeds to the “Young Turks” government.
The American Empire was okay with that and conceded with the British and the Turks to support the ethnic cleansing of Greeks, Jews and remaining Armenians from Asia Minor, via the “Population Exchange” of 1922-1923 as part of the deal.
The current location of Eretz Israel is a strategic base of the USA, serving as a listing post and staging area for military control of access to all oil fields of the Middle East.
Today, control of oil is still significant to the US global corporate empire. That significance will become moot as the world transitions to clean energy.
CK, why are you relaying factual information to me that is NOT relevant to the crux of the argument? - i.e. "Palestine has oilfields. That’s why the British Empire colonized it" which I directly REFUTED.
None of the 'factual information' has anything to do with the point of contention.
I don’t refute your factual statements. I believe that most people reading this are unaware of most of the narratives that you and I have posted.
Perhaps I should clarify by stating that the British imperialist motives for colonizing Palestine — coincidentally at the time of discovery of oil — are no longer pertinent. The American Empire, however, is still motivated by the fossil fuels industries’ desire to control access to all of the oil and gas fields of the Middle East. Eretz Israel is a convenient cover for the US military operations, there.
The USA also has military bases in other nearby countries, but Eretz Israel may be the only other one that possesses nuclear weapons.
My argument is that when fossil fuels become insignificant, Palestine and all other countries of the Middle East will become insignificant for exploitation.
I'm often challenging the 'U.S. supports Israel primarily for the energy resources of the MENA region" narrative (that is so dear to many).
(A thorough/exhaustive discussion/explanation would be too long and inadequate for presentation on platforms like Substack comments sections).
Knowing the history of MENA fairly well, there are MULTIPLE factors behind the involvement of colonial forces (initially European, later American) in the Middle-East region, oil and gas being just one of several.
Too many people are blinded (or overly focused) on "oil and gas in the MENA region" as an explanation for everything. They miss too many other intersecting and interweaving narratives that affect the dynamics and geopolitics of the region.
Chang Chokaski,
I don’t deny the complexity, but the US fossil fuels industries have powerful lobbyists, as do the US defense contractors, to keep the wars going to seize control of all oil and gas of the Middle East.
I have studied this for decades.
The general public wants a simple explanation. The propaganda says, “Muslims are bad. Jews are good and Zionists = Jews = Zionists.”
The extremely absurd propaganda says, “Nazis murdered millions of Jews, therefore Jews must annihilate Palestinians”, but millions of the ignorati believe that.
The U.S. obviously has interest in the energy resources of the Middle East. They would have such interests regardless of the existence of the state of Israel.
If all the U.S. wanted was oil/gas, then there are much easier ways to get such resources than supporting Israel in the region.
You're confusing two things together (like many are). The U.S. Empire supports Israel for MANY reasons. Also true is that the U.S. (actually Europe even more) is interested in the energy resources of the area. But just because these two things are true DOESN'T MEAN that one is the cause of the other.