Israel To Become Major Exporter Of Oil

The new energy order is founded on rock – the shale that traps vast stores of energy in deposits around the world. One of the largest deposits – 250 billion barrels of oil in Israel’s Shfela basin, comparable to Saudi Arabia’s entire reserves of 260 billion barrels of oil – has until now been unexploited, partly because the technology required has been expensive, mostly because the multinational oil companies that have the technology fear offending Muslims.

“None of the major oil companies are willing to do business in Israel because they don’t want to be cut off from the Mideast supply of oil,” explains Howard Jonas, CEO of IDT, the U.S. company that owns the Shfela concession through its subsidiary, Israel Energy Initiatives. Jonas, an ardent Zionist, considers the Shfela deposit merely a beginning: “We believe that under Israel is more oil than under Saudi Arabia. There may be as much as half a trillion barrels.”

www.worldjewishdaily.com...

This is a good thing. i don't want us in the Middle East and this might help us get out of Saudi Arabia, at the very least. The only real reason we're there is for the oil.

The more independence we have, the less involvement in the Middle East, the less angry militant Islamists there are.

Mod Edit - Using External Content

Any involvement we have with Israel will keep us in the Middle East. It's not like Saudi Arabia and Israel are across the world from one another. They are practically, if it wasn't for Jordan, neighboring countries.
I don't think it matters who we deal with over there for oil. As long as we are in that hemisphere we will be involved with the turmoil. Especially if Israel is threatened. It would be Kuwait all over again.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone

. . . 250 billion barrels of oil in Israel’s Shfela basin . . .

That isn't Israel.
It is land seized by Israel and illegally occupied.

ETA: I should be a little more specific to say that the above statement is in reference to the 1947 "proposed" boundaries of a "Jewish" state. Once they declared themselves a "state" the Israelis immediately overran the territory that was planned to be ceded to them. The Shfela basin falling within that section not planned to be given to them, but was taken by force.

reply to post by jmdewey60



It's still 250 billion barrels of oil though.

Which if true [I'm going to take it with a grain of salt] would be a regional game changer and may even calm the situation way down.

Hey, I can hope.

THIS is from 2006:

JERUSALEM – Does Israel have beneath its surface an enormous oil reserve mapped out in the Old Testament that when found will immediately change the geopolitical structure of the Middle East and confirm the validity of the Bible to people around the world?[/QUOTE]

www.wnd.com...

reply to post by jmdewey60

The Shfela basin falling within that section not planned to be given to them, but was taken by force.

How are you able to say that when the land won was won in a defensive war?

reply to post by dontreally

How are you able to say that when the land won was won in a defensive war?

According to Israeli propaganda (that they were only defending themselves) since proven to be false (the Arab attacks were in response to the "preemptive" attacks by the Israelis, who apparently had other plans than what the UN was going to allow).
So where is the international law dealing with "winning" land through warfare?
Oops, there is none, because it is illegal to just take land.
Israel is not a state but a criminal enterprise which gets a wink and a nod by TPTB as a new world order colony.

reply to post by jmdewey60

According to Israeli propaganda (that they were only defending themselves) since proven to be false (the Arab attacks were in response to the "preemptive" attacks by the Israelis, who apparently had other plans than what the UN was going to allow).

And where do you get this history from???

This is 1947-48 you're speaking of, correct?

So where is the international law dealing with "winning" land through warfare?

It's an implied rule of war. If there were no punishments for the aggressor, what would prevent people from starting wars?

reply to post by dontreally

It's an implied rule of war. If there were no punishments for the aggressor, what would prevent people from starting wars?

You can imply any "rule" you want in your own mind but it carries no weight, there being no allowance in international law for one country to "punish" another by taking their land, operating as their own judge, Jury, and executioner.
In fact international law forbids punishing innocent people for crimes they did not themselves commit, making your version of vigilante justice a crime itself and the perpetrators of the crimes against humanity in the Israeli government properly belong in prison or hung.

And where do you get this history from???

There are several books on the topic available on Amazon if you took the trouble to do some browsing.
I have the feeling you are quite content feeling smug in you illusionary world where your side is "right".
As an example, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

The renowned Israeli historian revisits the formative period of the State of Israel. Between 1947 and 1949, over 400 Palestinian villages were deliberately destroyed, civilians were massacred, and around a million men, women, and children were expelled from their homes at gunpoint. Denied for almost six decades, had it happened today it could only have been called "ethnic cleansing". Decisively debunking the myth that the Palestinian population left of their own accord in the course of this war, Ilan Pappe offers impressive archival evidence to demonstrate that, from its very inception, a central plank in Israel's founding ideology was the forcible removal of the indigenous population. This book is indispensable for anyone interested in the Middle East.
Amazon

All i am going to say is this - this is not a first time that different companies create a lot of hype about huge deposits of oil or gas in Israel or near its shores.
Hype draws investors and ctr, but after real data is released the deposits shrink (in best cases) or totally vanish (usually).
Just take it into consideration.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Was there Palestine after 1948? Nope. After local and foreing Arab armies declared war on Israel in 1948 and REFUSED the partition plan (you can dance around this all you want -but it is a clear fact,war was declared not due to real or imaginary evil Zionist plans to attack Arabs but due to creation of Israel) , no Palestine was established on Palestinian lands that Jordan and Egypt got after the war.
Palestinain (and to much lesser extent Jewish refugees) and lands taken by force from individuals - are a sad fact. Ethnic cleansing did happen.
However land as a political entity being taken - it is not so. There was no politcal entity because rulers of neighboring Arab states were not interested in that, only in removing Israel. And local Palestinain political forces were practically non-existant. Even local armies were not called Palestinain armies.

reply to post by jmdewey60

You can imply any "rule" you want in your own mind but it carries no weight, there being no allowance in international law for one country to "punish" another by taking their land, operating as their own judge, Jury, and executioner.

I meant it's implied because it is necessary.

Who was the aggressor in this war? You say "zionist" history - which is in fact history - is propaganda, a manipulation of the actual facts.

But if there is an aggressor in war, logic dictates that in order to deter other's from starting wars, that if the aggressor happens to lose the war, that he not have his lands 'handed back to him'. This is a punishment that INTERNATIONAL LAW RECOGNIZES as valid. To give the land back teaches the aggressors nothing, and in fact accords to them a monopoly mentality of "go back to GO", after the first failed attempt.

Hence, look at the lands taken from Germany after WWI.

Each time a peace plan was offered, the Arabs rejected it; they rejected the partition of 1947; they rejected Israels offer to return all the lands gained after the 6 day war in return for peace, in which the Arab league responded with it's 3 famous no's: no to peace, no to negotiation, no to recognition. It rejected the 2000 Taba plan of Ehud Barak which offered the whole Gaza strip, 95% of the west bank and east Jerusalem as a capital; Arafat rejected it.

As an example, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

I've read Illan Pappe, I have his book in my library.

Have you read Benny Morris' 1948: a History ? Illan Pappe exaggerates in order to demonize Israel and Zionism, while Benny Morris gives a more realistic assessment. Some Palestinians were 'forced' out through fear tactics, while the majority left because of Arab persuasion. Hence, the BBC report after the '48 war which saw Palestinians angry at ARABS for telling them to leave, now leaving them homeless.

The simple facts are, the Jews had no intention nor designs to grab the land that now is in their possession. The land set for them by the 1947 UN partition of Palestine, which they accepted, and the Arabs REJECTED - hence, why they were the aggressors, was really all they wanted. Chaim Weizmann said he would have been content with a 'tablecloth', in jest, obviously, but he meant it to point out that the Jews just wanted a piece of land in which Jews could as well say "we have a country to call home".

reply to post by dontreally

You are just rationalizing in a highly biased way and none of your arguments have legal bearing.
How is it "right" to punish the Palestinians for something a mythical "The Arabs" did?
It's not, and not only is it not right but is a crime punishable by death for those responsible.
There seems to be a de facto amnesty for criminals in Israel because of their connection with the self-appointed Global elites.
This oil shell will most likely result in more travesties by the Israelis, displacing whatever Palestinians may still be in the area. (and giving nothing to the true owners of this resource)

reply to post by jmdewey60

You are just rationalizing in a highly biased way and none of your arguments have legal bearing.

What do you think is the basis of all legal injunctions? Reason. When reasoning upon how why an aggressive country should be penalized it becomes plain that the aggressor is actually no different from the particular example of someone harming someone else; here, in law, we punish the aggressor in order to show that we care about maintaining public order, and that those who harm the public order harm the whole of the society they live in.

When an aggressive country attacks another country, they force upon them a situation that the defensive country does not want to be in. So, if after the war ends, and in an international tribunal the situation can be adjudged, it should be clear that the aggressor should be treated in the same manner as in a particular case. The guilty party should not have a right to ask for his land back, because waging war implies the possibility of losing, i.e loss of land. This should, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the professor of Harvard Law Alan Dershowitz - as well as in Hugo Grotius' view - aggressors in war should be treated.

I know it completely dismantles your argument, so I suspect you will either ignore this fact, or shift the conversation to another area in which your hatred towards Israel can be justified.

How is it "right" to punish the Palestinians for something a mythical "The Arabs" did?

"The Arabs" is also called the Arab League. And before 1948, there was no such thing as "Palestinians" - they had no sense of national identity - which was created only post 1948, and they really had no culture or religious proclivity to differentiate them from other Arabs in the region (such as "Jordanians", and "Syrians", and "Lebanese"...as other's have mentioned, at that point in Arab history, all people to that religion were more or less known as "Syrians"; and their administrative center was not in Palestine, but in Damascus.)

So when the Arab League issued commands, they issued them to the general Arab population.

You may not know, but back in the late 40's, 50's and especially the 60's, Pan-Arabism was the rage in the Middle East. Why do you think Iraq, Egypt and Syria have such similar flags?

There seems to be a de facto amnesty for criminals in Israel because of their connection with the self-appointed Global elites.

Oh, so more antisemitic theories. That is essentially the crux of your position.

Why is Israel anymore 'connected' to the global elites than any other country? Because "Jews control the world"?

This oil shell will most likely result in more travesties by the Israelis, displacing whatever Palestinians may still be in the area. (and giving nothing to the true owners of this resource)

Firstly, almost all of the deposits are in the Negev. One or two may be in the west bank, the rest are in the far south, and a few in the center. Jordan too has many of these oil rock deposits.

Come on guys, this is not an Israel oppresses the Palestinian thread. I'd would appreciate it if you would please stay on topic.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


I'm sorry.

Yes, this is an interesting position. Is the God of Israel blessing Israel again??

If this turns out to be true, that's quite amazing. I've never really paid much attention to 'shale' rock and the possibility for oil extraction.

I do know that extraction of oil is in itself a very unenvironmental activity, for instance, the oil sands in Alberta. More bio-hazardous product is released in the process of extraction than in simple drilling for oil. On the other hand, the world should always maintain the oil option, since oil is more dependable than electricity (in terms of base operation), so it's nice to have some. Yet, I would prefer the world try to go in the direction of electrical energy.

A blessing from God

I would be worried though that it might damage the economy by raising the Shekel's price and destroying export if it's not done carefully.