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.
For the benefit of those who don’t already know, “controlling oil” means controlling the access to the oil and controlling the flow of the oil in order to control the oil prices. Too little flow results in high prices. Too much flow results in low prices and lower profits in classic supply and demand scenarios.
Libya’s Ghaddafi and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein were not willing to have their oil prices dictated by OPEC and US private oil companies. Neither do the Russians and Venezuelans, today.
Beyond all of this, the world must stop the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, immediately — but that’s unlikely to happen as long as fossil fuels enjoy Trillions of dollars of annual subsidies from the governments of the USA and a few other countries.
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).
Control of access to oil/gas, a military listening post and staging area, a cache of nuclear weapons in the Middle East are some reasons.
These are interests exposed in public records.
Israel exists only at the pleasure of the US government. Without the flow of weapons of mass destruction from the USA, since 1948, the Israelis would have succumbed to the massive numbers of Palestinians, long ago.
There may be other reasons. The Zionists have allegedly had the support of extremely wealthy financiers who want a country they can call their own, without earning it. I have no proof of that.
I am open to your suggestions, but don’t want you to expose any secrets that may cause blowback upon you.
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?
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.
Landru,
For the benefit of those who don’t already know, “controlling oil” means controlling the access to the oil and controlling the flow of the oil in order to control the oil prices. Too little flow results in high prices. Too much flow results in low prices and lower profits in classic supply and demand scenarios.
Libya’s Ghaddafi and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein were not willing to have their oil prices dictated by OPEC and US private oil companies. Neither do the Russians and Venezuelans, today.
Beyond all of this, the world must stop the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, immediately — but that’s unlikely to happen as long as fossil fuels enjoy Trillions of dollars of annual subsidies from the governments of the USA and a few other countries.
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).
Chang Chokaski,
I don’t mean to put you on the spot, publicly.
Control of access to oil/gas, a military listening post and staging area, a cache of nuclear weapons in the Middle East are some reasons.
These are interests exposed in public records.
Israel exists only at the pleasure of the US government. Without the flow of weapons of mass destruction from the USA, since 1948, the Israelis would have succumbed to the massive numbers of Palestinians, long ago.
There may be other reasons. The Zionists have allegedly had the support of extremely wealthy financiers who want a country they can call their own, without earning it. I have no proof of that.
I am open to your suggestions, but don’t want you to expose any secrets that may cause blowback upon you.
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?