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?
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?