Could gas fields off coast of Gaza be a factor behind Israel's incursion???

I've never seen anything so astonishing. Hubby watched the video with me. He's blown away by it, as am I.

There's all sorts of video footage like this on the net. (probably for both sides)

However this video was in the last few days, and very obvious that war crimes are happening before millions of eyes. Once again- it's probably happening on both sides, but one is a little worse and known for it.

Anyone see the sniper get instant karma? : )

He pulled a round off, the recoil was too much for him standing and it kicked back into his trigger hand. haha He started shaking it in pain afterwords. Mind you- he too was aiming at the group of kids...

For clarity...

[link to www.iasps.org]

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Following is a report prepared by The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies’ "Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000." The main substantive ideas in this paper emerge from a discussion in which prominent opinion makers, including Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser participated. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," is the framework for a series of follow-up reports on strategy.

Israel has a large problem. Labor Zionism, which for 70 years has dominated the Zionist movement, has generated a stalled and shackled economy. Efforts to salvage Israel’s socialist institutions—which include pursuing supranational over national sovereignty and pursuing a peace process that embraces the slogan, "New Middle East"—undermine the legitimacy of the nation and lead Israel into strategic paralysis and the previous government’s "peace process." That peace process obscured the evidence of eroding national critical mass— including a palpable sense of national exhaustion—and forfeited strategic initiative. The loss of national critical mass was illustrated best by Israel’s efforts to draw in the United States to sell unpopular policies domestically, to agree to negotiate sovereignty over its capital, and to respond with resignation to a spate of terror so intense and tragic that it deterred Israelis from engaging in normal daily functions, such as commuting to work in buses.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s government comes in with a new set of ideas. While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform. To secure the nation’s streets and borders in the immediate future, Israel can:


--Work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats. This implies clean break from the slogan, "comprehensive peace" to a traditional concept of strategy based on balance of power.

--Change the nature of its relations with the Palestinians, including upholding the right of hot pursuit for self defense into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat’s exclusive grip on Palestinian society.

--Forge a new basis for relations with the United States—stressing self-reliance, maturity, strategic cooperation on areas of mutual concern, and furthering values inherent to the West. This can only be done if Israel takes serious steps to terminate aid, which prevents economic reform.

This report is written with key passages of a possible speech marked TEXT, that highlight the clean break which the new government has an opportunity to make. The body of the report is the commentary explaining the purpose and laying out the strategic context of the passages.

A New Approach to Peace

Early adoption of a bold, new perspective on peace and security is imperative for the new prime minister. While the previous government, and many abroad, may emphasize "land for peace"— which placed Israel in the position of cultural, economic, political, diplomatic, and military retreat — the new government can promote Western values and traditions. Such an approach, which will be well received in the United States, includes "peace for peace," "peace through strength" and self reliance: the balance of power.

A new strategy to seize the initiative can be introduced:

TEXT:

We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behavior of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading "land for peace" will not secure "peace now." Our claim to the land —to which we have clung for hope for 2000 years--is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, "peace for peace," is a solid basis for the future.

Israel’s quest for peace emerges from, and does not replace, the pursuit of its ideals. The Jewish people’s hunger for human rights — burned into their identity by a 2000-year old dream to live free in their own land — informs the concept of peace and reflects continuity of values with Western and Jewish tradition. Israel can now embrace negotiations, but as means, not ends, to pursue those ideals and demonstrate national steadfastness. It can challenge police states; enforce compliance of agreements; and insist on minimal standards of accountability.

Securing the Northern Border

Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil. An effective approach, and one with which American can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by:

--striking Syria’s drug-money and counterfeiting infrastructure in Lebanon, all of which focuses on Razi Qanan.

--paralleling Syria’s behavior by establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.

--striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper.

Israel also can take this opportunity to remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime. Syria repeatedly breaks its word. It violated numerous agreements with the Turks, and has betrayed the United States by continuing to occupy Lebanon in violation of the Taef agreement in 1989. Instead, Syria staged a sham election, installed a quisling regime, and forced Lebanon to sign a "Brotherhood Agreement" in 1991, that terminated Lebanese sovereignty. And Syria has begun colonizing Lebanon with hundreds of thousands of Syrians, while killing tens of thousands of its own citizens at a time, as it did in only three days in 1983 in Hama.

Under Syrian tutelage, the Lebanese drug trade, for which local Syrian military officers receive protection payments, flourishes. Syria’s regime supports the terrorist groups operationally and financially in Lebanon and on its soil. Indeed, the Syrian-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon has become for terror what the Silicon Valley has become for computers. The Bekaa Valley has become one of the main distribution sources, if not production points, of the "supernote" — counterfeit US currency so well done that it is impossible to detect.

Text:

Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria’s require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side’s good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naively with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive toward its neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organizations.

Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan "comprehensive peace" and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program, and rejecting "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights.

Moving to a Traditional Balance of Power Strategy

TEXT:

We must distinguish soberly and clearly friend from foe. We must make sure that our friends across the Middle East never doubt the solidity or value of our friendship.

Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq. This has triggered a Jordanian-Syrian rivalry to which Asad has responded by stepping up efforts to destabilize the Hashemite Kingdom, including using infiltrations. Syria recently signaled that it and Iran might prefer a weak, but barely surviving Saddam, if only to undermine and humiliate Jordan in its efforts to remove Saddam.

But Syria enters this conflict with potential weaknesses: Damascus is too preoccupied with dealing with the threatened new regional equation to permit distractions of the Lebanese flank. And Damascus fears that the 'natural axis' with Israel on one side, central Iraq and Turkey on the other, and Jordan, in the center would squeeze and detach Syria from the Saudi Peninsula. For Syria, this could be the prelude to a redrawing of the map of the Middle East which would threaten Syria's territorial integrity.

Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq, including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon.

Most important, it is understandable that Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey’s and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.

King Hussein may have ideas for Israel in bringing its Lebanon problem under control. The predominantly Shia population of southern Lebanon has been tied for centuries to the Shia leadership in Najf, Iraq rather than Iran. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein.

Changing the Nature of Relations with the Palestinians

Israel has a chance to forge a new relationship between itself and the Palestinians. First and foremost, Israel’s efforts to secure its streets may require hot pursuit into Palestinian-controlled areas, a justifiable practice with which Americans can sympathize.

A key element of peace is compliance with agreements already signed. Therefore, Israel has the right to insist on compliance, including closing Orient House and disbanding Jibril Rujoub’s operatives in Jerusalem. Moreover, Israel and the United States can establish a Joint Compliance Monitoring Committee to study periodically whether the PLO meets minimum standards of compliance, authority and responsibility, human rights, and judicial and fiduciary accountability.

TEXT:

We believe that the Palestinian Authority must be held to the same minimal standards of accountability as other recipients of U.S. foreign aid. A firm peace cannot tolerate repression and injustice. A regime that cannot fulfill the most rudimentary obligations to its own people cannot be counted upon to fulfill its obligations to its neighbors.

Israel has no obligations under the Oslo agreements if the PLO does not fulfill its obligations. If the PLO cannot comply with these minimal standards, then it can be neither a hope for the future nor a proper interlocutor for present. To prepare for this, Israel may want to cultivate alternatives to Arafat’s base of power. Jordan has ideas on this.

To emphasize the point that Israel regards the actions of the PLO problematic, but not the Arab people, Israel might want to consider making a special effort to reward friends and advance human rights among Arabs. Many Arabs are willing to work with Israel; identifying and helping them are important. Israel may also find that many of her neighbors, such as Jordan, have problems with Arafat and may want to cooperate. Israel may also want to better integrate its own Arabs.

Forging A New U.S.-Israeli Relationship

In recent years, Israel invited active U.S. intervention in Israel’s domestic and foreign policy for two reasons: to overcome domestic opposition to "land for peace" concessions the Israeli public could not digest, and to lure Arabs — through money, forgiveness of past sins, and access to U.S. weapons — to negotiate. This strategy, which required funneling American money to repressive and aggressive regimes, was risky, expensive, and very costly for both the U.S. and Israel, and placed the United States in roles is should neither have nor want.

Israel can make a clean break from the past and establish a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership based on self-reliance, maturity and mutuality — not one focused narrowly on territorial disputes. Israel’s new strategy — based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength — reflects continuity with Western values by stressing that Israel is self-reliant, does not need U.S. troops in any capacity to defend it, including on the Golan Heights, and can manage its own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past.

To reinforce this point, the Prime Minister can use his forthcoming visit to announce that Israel is now mature enough to cut itself free immediately from at least U.S. economic aid and loan guarantees at least, which prevent economic reform. [Military aid is separated for the moment until adequate arrangements can be made to ensure that Israel will not encounter supply problems in the means to defend itself]. As outlined in another Institute report, Israel can become self-reliant only by, in a bold stroke rather than in increments, liberalizing its economy, cutting taxes, relegislating a free-processing zone, and selling-off public lands and enterprises — moves which will electrify and find support from a broad bipartisan spectrum of key pro-Israeli Congressional leaders, including Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

Israel can under these conditions better cooperate with the U.S. to counter real threats to the region and the West’s security. Mr. Netanyahu can highlight his desire to cooperate more closely with the United States on anti-missile defense in order to remove the threat of blackmail which even a weak and distant army can pose to either state. Not only would such cooperation on missile defense counter a tangible physical threat to Israel’s survival, but it would broaden Israel’s base of support among many in the United States Congress who may know little about Israel, but care very much about missile defense. Such broad support could be helpful in the effort to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.

To anticipate U.S. reactions and plan ways to manage and constrain those reactions, Prime Minister Netanyahu can formulate the policies and stress themes he favors in language familiar to the Americans by tapping into themes of American administrations during the Cold War which apply well to Israel. If Israel wants to test certain propositions that require a benign American reaction, then the best time to do so is before November, 1996.

Conclusions: Transcending the Arab-Israeli Conflict

TEXT: Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them.

Notable Arab intellectuals have written extensively on their perception of Israel’s floundering and loss of national identity. This perception has invited attack, blocked Israel from achieving true peace, and offered hope for those who would destroy Israel. The previous strategy, therefore, was leading the Middle East toward another Arab-Israeli war. Israel’s new agenda can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response.

Israel’s new strategic agenda can shape the regional environment in ways that grant Israel the room to refocus its energies back to where they are most needed: to rejuvenate its national idea, which can only come through replacing Israel’s socialist foundations with a more sound footing; and to overcome its "exhaustion," which threatens the survival of the nation.

Ultimately, Israel can do more than simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict though war. No amount of weapons or victories will grant Israel the peace its seeks. When Israel is on a sound economic footing, and is free, powerful, and healthy internally, it will no longer simply manage the Arab-Israeli conflict; it will transcend it. As a senior Iraqi opposition leader said recently: "Israel must rejuvenate and revitalize its moral and intellectual leadership. It is an important — if not the most important--element in the history of the Middle East." Israel — proud, wealthy, solid, and strong — would be the basis of a truly new and peaceful Middle East.

Participants in the Study Group on "A New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000:"

Richard Perle, American Enterprise Institute, Study Group Leader

James Colbert, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Johns Hopkins University/SAIS
Douglas Feith, Feith and Zell Associates
Robert Loewenberg, President, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Jonathan Torop, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Meyrav Wurmser, Johns Hopkins University

Back to Publications

Hmmm...maybe I need to clarify..
What does oil have to do with this military action by Israel against HAMAS and or it's puny gas field?

Or do you mean that maybe if Israel finally eliminates the Islamic fucktard brigade that maybe more international oil companies might actually want to do business with GAZA and them for a change?

I'd ask what that has to do with any Natural gas but I already know your extent of knowledge is only as deep as your own far more domestic supply.

Actually, my meaning has to do more with Israeli control over gas and oil in the region. You know, that whole "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" thing.

I started the thread because bells and whistles were going off when I read the AC's thread about gas (and the links).

TX PATRIOT reminded me that I had a thread from TWO YEARS AGO that addressed Israel's push to control gas and oil in the region.

And then I have the CFTC oil manipulation/speculation thread, ya know?

So I am beginning to see that the gas, oil, and stock markets could be tied to this whole idea of Israel breaking out from under the largesse of the USA and venturing into self-support. I think that Israel is working damned hard to control all the energy resources within reach and within the ancient ERETZ YISROEL...
/sarcasm on
because why would anyone argue that God told them it was theirs?
/sarcasm off

Well, you are you aware of the Ashkelon history and Israel's partner in this pipeline, yes?

For those who don't know: None other than Iran.

Quite an interesting history...especially when relationships fall apart with the overthrow of the placed Shah. Israel just couldn't get out of the contract and through arbitrators and development of managing companies, Israel remains in bed with Iran in this regard.

Excerpt from two sources (of the same essay) providing the history:

"Thus Trans-Asiatic Oil was established, a company under joint ownership of the Israeli government, through the Finance Ministry, and the Iranian National Oil Company. The Israeli government gave the company an exclusive franchise to transport and store the oil. The main fear of Iranian opponents of the initiative was that if the cooperation were to be exposed, the Arab countries would use it to criticize Tehran. Therefore, in order to maintain secrecy, the company was registered in Panama. The owners of Trans-Asiatic, as they appear in the Israeli Registrar of Companies, are the Eilat Corporation and another company, both of which are also registered in Panama.

In Israel, Trans-Asiatic operated as though it were a foreign company. It acquired the pipeline to Be'er Sheva from the Rothschild family and laid a larger pipeline, with a diameter of about one meter (42 inches), alongside it, from Eilat to Ashkelon, where they also built terminals for loading and unloading the oil."

<Snip>

[link to www.iran-press-service.com]

[link to zionism-israel.com]

.

Interesting stuff.

Undersea gas pipeline from the rig in the med to the port is what I referred to.

I used my favorite meta-search to look for "Trans-Asiatic Oil."

First article...

[link to www.haaretz.com]

Sun., October 21, 2007

Inside Intel / The story of Iranian oil and Israeli pipes

By Yossi Melman

In recent months, Israel and Iran have been playing a game of cat-and-mouse. This is not the predictable game of intelligence, counter-espionage and field security. Such games have been taking place for years. Israel's intelligence community tries to obtain information about the development of Iran's nuclear program, and is preparing in case it has to attack Iran; while Iran tries frustrate these efforts.

But alongside this routine game, Israel and Iran are working feverishly in an entirely different area: Iran is trying to locate property and assets belonging to the Israeli government and three Israeli oil firms abroad, and Israel is trying to thwart it. This affair arises from an international arbitration that determined more than three years ago that the Paz, Sonol and Delek oil companies must compensate the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) hundreds of millions of dollars.

The three companies were government-owned in the 1970s, but since then have been privatized. The oil companies have appealed the arbitration decision and are trying to create a delay, and are succeeding for now. The NIOC has not yet succeeded in enforcing the ruling and in collecting the debt. Parallel to this appeal, legal proceedings are still continuing in another two arbitrations on similar issues.

All these legal proceedings have been taking place in Europe (in Switzerland and Holland) for more than 20 years, and are related to the activity of a legal entity called Trans-Asiatic Oil. This was a top-secret partnership that existed between the Israeli government and the NIOC during the period of the Shah. This partnership operated the Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline Company, the oil terminals in Eilat and Ashkelon, and a large fleet of giant tankers for transporting oil. After the Shah was expelled from Iran and Khomeini came to power, in February 1979, the Islamic Republic cut off all ties with Israel and stopped shipping Iranian oil.

In 1985, the NIOC filed huge lawsuits (today worth several billion dollars) against Israel and the oil companies. The lawsuits were discussed in three separate arbitrations. The NIOC claims that Israel owes it huge sums for the partnership. Haaretz first reported on the Iranian victory in December 2006, and now Prof. Uri Bialer of Hebrew University in Jerusalem is publishing a study on the circumstances under which Trans-Asiatic Oil was established.

Bialer's study, "Fuel Bridge across the Middle East - Israel, Iran, and the Eilat-Ashkelon Oil Pipeline," is based on documents that have been declassified in the Israel State Archive and in the British National Archives, and on interviews with leading figures involved in the issue. It provides a rare glimpse at a particularly interesting chapter in the history of the State of Israel. The study was published in the latest issue of the periodical Israel Studies.

Until the mid-1950s, Israel received its oil from the Soviet Union, Kuwait (under British rule) and international oil companies. But in 1955-1956 these ties were severed, and Israel was forced to find new sources. Israel maintained secret ties with Iran, and wanted to turn it into its main oil supplier. Iran hesitated, for fear of undermining its relations with the Arab world, but after the 1956 Sinai Campaign, the Iranians were convinced and agreed to supply oil to Israel.

With the help of pumps and pipes "confiscated" - meaning stolen - from an Italian company and a Belgian company operating an oilfield in Ras Sudar in Sinai, Israel built a pipeline from Eilat to Ashkelon. The pipe, 40 centimeters in diameter, was paid for by Baron Edmund de Rothschild. The initiative was called Tri-Continental. By demand of the Iranians, who wanted to conceal their involvement in selling oil to Israel and in the joint company, the parties established a secret partnership called Fimarco, which was registered in July 1959 in the tax shelter of Lichtenstein. Iran owned 10 percent of the partnership. Tankers transported the oil from Iran to Eilat, and from there it was sent to Ashkelon through the pipeline.

But over the years Israel's needs increased, and the Finance Ministry formulated a plan to replace the small pipe with a large 40-inch (106 centimeter) pipe and to set up a genuine partnership with Iran. Foreign minister Golda Meir, who secretly visited Tehran in August 1965, brought up the subject with the Shah and with Fatollah Nafici, one of the directors of the NIOC and the person in charge of the company's clandestine ties with Israel. In order to demonstrate the seriousness of its intentions, Israel appointed Felix Shinar, one of the architects of the reparations agreement with Germany, as the project manager. Working with him were deputy defense minister Tzebi Dinstein; Dov Ben Dror, who was involved in the energy market; and Mossad operative Avigdor Bauer. NIOC president Manuchar Akbal joined the negotiations on behalf of Iran. The talks were conducted in Israel, Iran and Switzerland.

According to Bialer's article, the turning point in the talks came after Israel's victory in the Six-Day War and the closing of the Suez Canal. The Shah, who was referred to by the code name "Landlord" in the Israeli correspondence, was persuaded to establish a fifty-fifty partnership between the Israeli government and the NIOC. The company was called Trans-Asiatic Oil and was registered in Switzerland, at Iran's request, in order to conceal the Israeli partner and to make it appear to be a foreign company.

After the Shah gave his consent, the main problem was finding funding for the initiative, which was expected to cost $85 million, a huge sum in those days. Baron de Rothschild refused to fund the project, claiming that it would not be profitable, but the Iranians thought that he said no because he was insulted Israeli representatives had kept him in the dark about two years of contacts with Iran. An Israeli attempt to interest American oil billionaire David Rockefeller, the Chase Manhattan Bank president, also failed.

In the end, thanks to his connections, Shinar obtained funding from the German Deutsche Bank, through which some of the reparations money had been transferred to Israel in the 1950s and the 1960s. Shinar and Nafici met in Geneva and Zurich with Hermann Josef Abs, chairman of the board of Deutsche Bank, and discussed the loan conditions with him. Abs had a Nazi past: He was responsible for the bank's foreign operations from 1938, and after World War Two he had been imprisoned for several months. Apparently, however, this did not prevent Israeli representatives from enjoying close, friendly ties with him.

Early in 1968, the German bank agreed to give a low-interest, $22 million loan to finance the project. On February 29, 1968 a contract establishing the company was signed; its exact details are still considered a state secret. The contract was signed by then-finance minister Pinhas Sapir on behalf of the Israeli government and by Akbal on behalf of the NIOC. The operational contract was set for a period of 49 years. In 1969, the pipeline between Eilat and Ashkelon was completed, and huge tankers were purchased to transport the oil. In December 1969, Iranian oil began flowing through the large pipe. A small percentage of the oil was earmarked for Israel. Most of it, however, was loaded onto tankers at the Ashkelon terminal and sent to consumers in Europe, mainly Romania, the only Soviet bloc country to continue maintaining diplomatic ties with Israel.

In 1970, 162 tankers brought 10 million tons of oil to the pipeline. That was the pipeline's peak year, but the ambitious goal of 50 million tons a year was never achieved. At the end of 1978, with the fall of the Shah, the oil stopped flowing, and the ties between the two countries deteriorated into the hostility that characterizes them to this day. The NIOC has sued for payment for the last three months of oil and for the value of shared assets, such as oil tankers; Israel counters that it is owed money because Iran broke its contract.

For the Shah's Iran, the initiative had financial value only and was even a political burden. But for Israel it was a national enterprise, another vision produced by the Mapai government (the forerunner of Labor), and its main importance was strategic.

Trans-Asiatic, which still operates the pipeline, informed Haaretz that the arbitration decision concerns the oil companies. The oil companies, for their part, refused to respond to this article.

Why wouldn't they? they have good access to the Med and the Red Sea, why not be a means of transport via a pipeline as an alternative to the Suez canal. I would think lot's of oil transports would use it, Arab ones too. It wouldn't give them "Control" unless the Suez canal was shut down, and that will never happen, but it would give another avenue through as the canal often gets bogged down with traffic. If they want to do more business and do that? good for them, it's only that much better for the world and if they want to spend the bucks for storage etc, then so what? They're never going to "control" gas and oil, because they don't have any, you can't store a significant enough volume to hold anyone hostage anyway and even if they did? things go back to as they are right now. Like I said, talk about 1000 other energy aspects if you want to, but the current Military action against HAMAS has zip to do with GAZA's puny gas field.

What is the name of this gas line?

.

That one paragraph could be one of the big reasons there's such a push by the NeoCons and Israel for the invasion of Iran. LOL!

It's your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I don't agree with you.

Yes, that is almost the same piece written by the same person in the two links I provided, which provides quite a historical account.

Following is another article I had in my files but the piece is not dated, and I haven't researched it further to see what, if anything, has transpired. I bookmarked this back in June 2008.

Israel proposes crude pipeline from GEORGIA to Eastern Asia

By Avi Bar-Eli


Israel may be on its way to becoming a crude oil transport bridge to the Far East. The Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline Company (EAPC) is leading an international initiative to channel crude oil from Jihan in southeast Turkey to eastern Asia, using its infrastructure in Israel. A consortium of energy firms and international shipping companies will manage the initiative, and a memorandum of understanding is expected to be signed within three months.

The oil would be pumped in Georgia and Azerbaijan, and be brought to Turkey by pipeline. From Turkey it will be shipped by tanker to Ashkelon, whence it would be transported by pipeline to Eilat. In Eilat, the oil wilbe be loaded onto a new set of tankers for transportation to eastern Asia.

The Ashkelon-Eilat Pipeline Company is a privately owned firm, owned jointly by Israel and the government of Iran. Tehran is currently not an active partner, and it and Israel are involved in international arbitration.

EAPC recently completed a trial run. A Turkish tanker of crude oil came to Ashkelon, and EAPC transported the oil to Eilat. A tanker owned by an international trading company awaited the shipment at the petroleum distillates port in Eilat, loaded the oil, and took it to an east Asian port. Loading of the tanker in Turkey, shipment to Israel and subsequent piping to Eilat was completed in about five days.

The project's entrepreneurs calculate that the savings to East Asian oil importers in time and costs generated by a regular transport line between Turkey and Israel could amount to $4 per ton, when compared with the cost of using the Suez Canal. Such a savings justifies investment in the project, as the cost of oil soars and growth rates in the developing nations of East Asia, and China and India in particular, continue to rise.

The EAPC aims to reach a final agreement on establishment of a regular transport line with leased 250,000-ton tankers ("shuttles") moving the oil between Turkey and Israel, and 280,000 to 320,000-ton tanker shuttles used to transport through the Red Sea to the east. Shipment through the Suez Canal is limited to tankers with a maximum capacity of 130,000 tons.

The initiative includes construction of a reservoir farm for storage of oil in Jihan, and infrastructure at Jihan port, in southern Turkey, for loading oil into tankers. The cost is expected to reach an estimated $200-$300 million, and the company is already in final stages of partnership negotiations with Turkish firms and an Indian energy company, for financing of the project. Simultaneously, the EAPC's board of directors has approved expansion of its reservoir farm on the Ashkelon coastline by 20%, at the cost of an estimated at $60-$80 million, to be self-financed by the company.

The company is currently able to pipe about 20 million tons of oil to Eilat annually. According to its business plan, construction of another pumping station, at a cost of $10 million, will double its capacity to 40 million tons of oil, thus generating tens of millions of dollars in additional revenues each year. The initiative was conceived with the completion of the BIC project, the 1,760-kilometer pipeline connecting Baku, Azerbaijan, on the Caspian Sea, to the Jihan port. The pipeline is now used to transport some 30 million tons of top quality "Azeri Light" crude oil annually, an amount scheduled to increase to about 50 million tons annually within the next few years.

Establishment of the pipeline will bring an increase of 20% in the amount of oil moving in the Mediterranean area, and is expected to result in lower prices, and attract the interest of Far Eastern countries eager to expand their sources.

Turkey also intends to lay another pipeline, between Samsun, on the Black Sea coast, and Jihan. According to the plan, the line will be set to transport an annual 60 million tons of crude oil to Jihan within two years, making the project even more lucrative. The Pipeline Company is currently considering participation in this $1.5-billion project as well, together with other international energy firms.

"This initiative will constitute a breakthrough for the global energy market and the fabric of international relations, which will place Israel as an intermediate country connecting Eurasia and the East, and make a strategic contribution to reducing dependence of the entire world and particularly Eastern Asian countries, on oil from the Persian Gulf," the chair of the Ashkelon-Eilat Pipeline Company, Oren Shachor, told TheMarker early this week. Shachor will present the initiative at the eighth annual Herzliya Conference of the Institute for Policy and Strategy. The conference, which takes place January 20-23, will deal with the balance of Israel's national security.

[link to www.haaretz.com]

.

Who doesn't have any gas or oil? The mystical ERETZ YISROEL has fabulous oil and gas reserves. There's control there, plenty of money, and the ability to direct the NWO from there.

Naaahhhh...Red, as evidenced by history, you know they simply want to regain control of Iran's resources. The above would only be sweet champagne icing. ;)

.

Ummm...let's see...starting wars for such control and redirection of resources "is what".

Yeah, I gotta little prob with that.

.

It deals with it because it was brought up on ethics of war in a post. Video posted- OP commented on said video. I commented on a part of that video.


I'm not sorry you didn't like my context to the OPs comment to me, and my comment to her. But, as I said- I don't care what you think SHR. I am not breaking forum rules....

Another excellent thread of yours. From an industry perspective, one possible answer to your question is that oil companies needed/need the $ to pursue their deep drilling, increased exploration and new technologies while keeping their profit margins at parity. Couldn't miss one of those Swiss Alps family vacations, now could they?? ;)

Not saying they did...no proof...but the higher market prices certainly didn't cause them injury on their balance sheets....

.

Haaretz, Jan. 17, 2008?

And as a sarcastic aside...all roads lead to Israel.

I do believe you are establishing that Israel is attempting to control the ENERGY resources (gas and oil) for the region.

Despite what others here say, I tend to believe that the Gaza incursion is far more important than just some rockets hitting sidewalks and causing some Israelis to require treatment for fright.

My bad.

LOL!

Okay, I made a dreadful error just before TX PATRIOT began adding to this thread...I took my melatonin. My eyes are crossed, and I'm scared to death I'll end up with another "J" on my forehead (I slept in my office chair last night...I don't wanna do it again tonite).

I'll be back to this in the morning.

TX PATRIOT, thank you for helping me...stress really can rob the brain, but you directed me back to what I already knew, and I thank you.

PS TO ALL: I do still believe that my question is valid, and as each moment passes, its merit becomes more clear...
COULD GAS FIELDS OFF COAST OF GAZA BE A FACTOR BEHIND ISRAEL'S INCURSION????

Niters, all.

Who knows, it's probably called Tethys Sea 1 or something, do you know? see if you can find it. It's a non descript gas transfer line from the Tethys Sea platform to the storage depot at the port of Ashkelon. Does the name of it matter?

[link to www.haaretz.com]

Red, that must be one helluva comfortable office chair! By all means, get to bed and take advantage of that melatonin...good stuff. I don't think we will be resolving any of these issues tonight. ;)

I do, however, have one up on ya in that the time is only 4:30 in the afternoon here. The day is young! (But raining like hell....blah)

I'm not yet convinced on the Gaza connection, but considering the other energy connections, it warrants exploration.

.

Sooo then you think this whole invasion is to what? Take over Gaza's meager gas feild that they only have 10% of the right to develop? Ummm...here's a thought...why wouldn't Israel just go and suck it out the seabed since they are already there in a coniguous gas field already and never fire a shot? Or just say...no that isn't yours it's ours, and do the same thing? You can disagree, but then you are agreeing to something to has absolultely zero basis in reality.

Did you actually read what was written there? Tell me how an alternate route...and a secondary route, is going to control or redirect anything when they virtualy go to the same place? Go look at a map. And what would this "War" which it isn't by far, have to do with the Ashkelon pipeline?

ROFLMAO....oh yeah...Zetas right again!

Go to bed...LMAO!

I'm not talking about the "Ashkelon" gas pipeline, SHR, but you know that don't ya?

What is the name of the gas line to which you are referring, btw?

.