The Israel-Egypt Gas Deal Is Highly Advantageous to Both Countries

March 1 2018

The Texas-based firm Noble Energy and the Israeli firm Delek recently concluded an agreement with Egypt’s Dolphinus to export natural gas from Israel’s offshore reserves to Egyptian gas-liquefaction facilities—the only such facilities in the region—and then export it to Europe. As Zvi Mazel explains, the economic benefit to both countries can be substantial, but anti-Israel sentiment could still get in the way:

Egyptian officials were at pains to stress that this was a business deal between private companies, while at the same time emphasizing that it was a first step toward making Egypt a regional gas market. . . . These attempts to preempt accusations of “normalization” [of relations with Israel] were not wholly successful. Questions were asked in parliament; an attorney petitioned the [Egyptian] supreme court to void the deal.

The ink hadn’t dried yet on the deal when Cyprus revealed that it, too, was engaged in negotiations with Cairo regarding the export of gas from its Aphrodite offshore field not far from the coast of Egypt. . . . Aphrodite’s reserves are estimated at some 129-billion cubic meters. Noble energy, Delek drilling, and Avner oil exploration [another Israeli company] hold significant shares in that field.

Several routes exist for optimizing the production of eastern Mediterranean gas fields. . . . Yet significant obstacles lie ahead. Ongoing disputes concern the maritime borders of all parties involved. Cyprus reached an agreement with Egypt regarding the delimitation of its maritime borders in 2003, in 2007 with Lebanon, and in 2013 with Israel. . . . Egypt, [however], has never delimited its maritime borders with Israel. It’s currently not happy with the agreement between Cyprus and Israel, even though its commercial waters are not affected and the coordinates of that agreement conform with internationally accepted criteria. . . .

That said, the enormous gas resources in the eastern Mediterranean could significantly contribute to the economic development and stability of the countries of the region, provided these governments can set aside their conflicts and differences of opinion to work together for their mutual benefit. As things stand, political and religious interests have the upper hand, and it’s hard to see how they could be overcome or avoided.

You have 2 free articles left this month

Sign up now for unlimited access

Subscribe Now

Already have an account? Log in now

Read more at JNS

More about: Cyprus, Egypt, Israel & Zionism, Israeli economy, Natural Gas

 

For Israelis, Anti-Zionism Kills

Dec. 14 2018

This week alone, anti-Zionists have killed multiple Israelis in a series of attacks; these follow the revelations that Hizballah succeeded in digging multiple attack tunnels from Lebanon into northern Israel. Simultaneously, some recent news stories in the U.S. have occasioned pious reminders that anti-Zionism should not be conflated with anti-Semitism. Bret Stephens notes that it is anti-Zionists, not defenders of Israel, who do the most to blur that distinction:

Israelis experience anti-Zionism in a different way from, say, readers of the New York Review of Books: not as a bold sally in the world of ideas, but as a looming menace to their earthly existence, held at bay only through force of arms. . . . Anti-Zionism might have been a respectable point of view before 1948, when the question of Israel’s existence was in the future and up for debate. Today, anti-Zionism is a call for the elimination of a state—details to follow regarding the fate befalling those who currently live in it. . . .

Anti-Zionism is ideologically unique in insisting that one state, and one state only, doesn’t just have to change. It has to go. By a coincidence that its adherents insist is entirely innocent, this happens to be the Jewish state, making anti-Zionists either the most disingenuous of ideologues or the most obtuse. When then-CNN contributor Marc Lamont Hill called last month for a “free Palestine from the river to the sea” and later claimed to be ignorant of what the slogan really meant, it was hard to tell in which category he fell.

Does this make someone with Hill’s views an anti-Semite? It’s like asking whether a person who believes in [the principle of] separate-but-equal must necessarily be a racist. In theory, no. In reality, another story. The typical aim of the anti-Semite is legal or social discrimination against some set of Jews. The explicit aim of the anti-Zionist is political or physical dispossession.

What’s worse: to be denied membership in a country club because you’re Jewish, or driven from your ancestral homeland and sovereign state for the same reason? If anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are meaningfully distinct (I think they are not), the human consequences of the latter are direr.

You have 1 free article left this month

Sign up now for unlimited access

Subscribe Now

Already have an account? Log in now

Read more at New York Times

More about: Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Hizballah, Israel & Zionism, Palestinian terror