 | DrumBeat: July 13, 2006 | The Oil Drum | "If there was nothing to be worried about, then there would be no (oil) price increases." |  |
And So It Begins...
Posted by Prof. Goose on July 13, 2006 - 1:42pm
For the all of you new folks coming in, and those who want to pass around links to their friends, I would suggest two key links:
- Why are oil prices going up? Because there's no extra supply. Why is that? Here's our "first time here?" link.
- What can we do about it? Here's our brief on changing the political discourse on energy.
“So one may almost say that the theory of universal suffrage assumes that the Average Citizen is an active, instructed, intelligent ruler of his country. The facts contradict this assumption.”
—James Bryce (1909, 35)
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Dusty: Bill, it's coming! It's headed right for us!
Bill: It's already here!
which may be an unfortunately appropriate model for what will unfold, whose Act I Scene ii begins:
"Thou, nature, art my goddess; to thy law
My services are bound. Wherefore should I
Stand in the plague of custom, and permit
The curiousity of nations to deprive me,
For that I am some twelve or fourteen moonshines
Lag of a brother? ..."
This tragedy is barely commenced; see,
The audience is yet spare and still crowds
Sweatily through our playhouse' portals.
Far more have seen and heard nought, meander
Abroad in supine ignorance knowing not
This balmy breeze stirring spring leaves forebodes
A tempest to rip the world asunder.
But I get ahead, our play is just begun.
On oil price, it should put on another couple of $ tomorrow, Friday 14th, since little is likely to wind down tension on Israel / Lebanon / Palestine / Iran / North Korea / Nigeria / Iraq soon and it's a G8 meeting in St Petersburg, Russia this weekend. But it shouldn't top $80 before next week unless a further turn for the worse happens. Next week could see $85 if any problems rachet up at all.
My own thinking is, the really radical Jihadists can see that relatively low-level warfare is only gradually sapping their strength and while they're getting better at killing Americans, Americans are getting better at killing them too - not fun. Look at the new weapon the US has, called a SMAW or something like that, vaporizes buildings. Ow.
So, if you're a really radical Jihadist, who doesn't mind losing a bunch of your own people too, you get USrael involved in a real, large-scale war. That's the one thing that can solve your problems. No. 1, Israel gets its money and weapons etc from the US. And the US economy can't stand fighting a real, large-scale war right now. This won't be your grand-dad's war, with the US as huge oil producer and US farms and factories producing tons of the stuff needed to fight a large scale war. Today's US is a debtor nation, which produces very little, and can't afford to lose say 30% of its oil imports - or more. Sure the US can keep chugging along, but fighting a real, serious, war will mean WWII type gas rationing and so on, the conditions of a real war, and what made us stronger in the 1940s will put us in a hospital bed in the 2000s. Dollar collapse, here we come. The US in a "hospital bed" means the US unable to keep the war toys flowing to Israel, unable to keep the war toys flowing to its own troops, and the same kind of isolationism and near-revolution we had in the 1930s. The US won't be able to afford to be in the ME, we won't be under a real Cuba style powerdown, but it will be close.
If you're a real hardcore Jihadist or just an ordinary Joe Blow in the ME you believe with every justification that it's only a matter of time before USrael wipes you out and your people so why not?
Now if you are comparing the Rapture to anything else, then IMHumbleO you are just plain fooling yourselves.
I dislike when some people or group make a bad name for the rest of us. I am a Christian. From all my reading The End does not look like the "left behind" series. IT IS THE END Period.
But I could debate with some people till it happened and not get anything good out of it.
Just try not to Lump all us Christians in the same boat as others who call themselves Christian. "You will know them by their love!" not hate, not back biting, not hoping for the rapture so they get to say i told you so, none of that. Test the things that Christians say by their actions and by the Bible, and Christ's Teachings in the Bible.
Just so those that read here, know we have all kinds posting.
Charles E. Owens Jr. AKA Dan Ur (A charactor in a short story, by above author)
I neither judge nor test people by their religion; people are welcome to their beliefs and delusions, a person is how a person be. I am anti-monotheist, pantheist, pagan-ish, and tolerant-ish.
Posting agian.
Just to take your minds of peak oil if this is real the Artic Ocean just melted.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/arctic.jpg
But you exaggerate! There are 6 days of arctic sea ice left, plenty of time to call Superman...
Funny the graphs are fixed now ...
They were broken for days.
I think we know were some readers of theoildrum work.
I did look at the photo archive, too. Comparing 2005 and 2006 I'd say that 12th July 2006 most closely approximates to 20th July 2005 and that the annual minimum looks to be around 15th september 2005.
Hopefully superman will fix the link on the Candian Archipelago image map thats broken.
:)
Looks to me like seasonal melt, nothing more than usual, or very slightly increased at most. (I am not a numbers junkie. This is just an observation from the graph.)
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/archive.html
You can see there that while the whole Arctic is not going to melt in six days, what is happening now is unprecedented.
Hudson Bay will be entirely ice free in a couple of days, that never happens till late August. The White Sea was ice free already in mid May, never happens until mid July. And so on.
Their sums of area melted from the graphs don't add up for some reason.
How people find the site:
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=sm6peakoildrum&r=55
Moving average of page views (really shows an upswing):
http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=sm6peakoildrum&r=57
90% of visitors however do NOT find the site via a search engine. I think that should probably be changed.
Sorry, you guys may be right, this may be the BIG IT, but that's reading a lot into a story that could have been copied forward from 1948, 1956, 1973, 1982, etc, etc. This is "fear factor" stuff.
"Peak oil" is different from the run of the mill Isreali run in with their old enemies, that is as regular as clockwork...
Geological Peak, the real Texas style, North Sea style, I don't care if no guns are blazin', we can sink all the wells we want and the OIL WILL NOT COME OUT ANY FASTER style peak, is what we should be interested in.
Hubbert really didn't seem to care that there were no wars going on in the lower 48 states, peak was going to occur anyway.....that's peak, the real thing, that's when it begins. War is only a distraction if that happens.
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
Hezbollah wouldn't make any move without Iran's approval. It could even be at Iran's request. The question we need to ask ourselves now is this:
Why would Iran's leadership do this now?
Are these fundamentalists really this crazed? Is it designed to raise oil prices, a calculated risk?
For the new people visiting TOD, I will mention that there is no spare oil capacity in the world supply right now. This means essentially that any major loss of supply, which I will define arbitrarily as 1.0/mbd (million barrels per day) or more, will cause shortages somewhere and lower the quantity demanded somewhere. The system must come into balance.
As you say, time will tell. And maybe quickly. We'll see.
Israel says they have "concrete evidence" of what Hizbollah is up to. How would they know? Only by having omniscient and omnipresent spies inside Hizbollah. They had this with PLO, why not with Hizbollah? When you have spies with that presence you also have some level of control.
Do not trust BBC so much. They work for Tony Blair now. Half the old BBC stringers are with alJazeera now, the worlds most trusted news source.(that last not a joke)
My guess (it's a guess) is that we are at maximum game playing right now. Iran has ins with Hizbollah but so does Mossad. What we are about to find out is who wants war. It is impossible to get a clear read on what is happening when there is a reasonable case that multiple actors are suicidal. With everything else going their way for many months it's hard for me to believe that Iran is the most suicidal of the players. Iraq is falling apart completely just now, the elections (US) are coming up, it is the USA and Israel who are ready for desperate action.
And it is desperate action in a hall of mirrors
But it's possible that this is orchestrated by the US and/or Israel. There is no possible way we could tell at this point - we may never be able to. Perhaps the best indication of who is in control at this early stage will be to watch who appears to be best prepared vs. who seems to have been caught flat-footed.
We shall see if this involves Iran directly, or Syria, or anyone else. Just tipped over $78 per barrel. Sigh - I hope this does not go the way it could - I'm not ready yet.
Hmmm, you think Israel bombing Lebanon might be orchestrated by Israel? Don't you think that's a stretch?
The bad scenarios, well let your mind go, it gets pretty ugly very quickly.
I have no idea if Bush is going to do this but I would not put it beyond him. We lack the ground forces to fight a major land war in the Middle East so we either concede the fight or we escalate. Iran may believe we are incapable of escalating. Iran should remember that there has already been one (short) nuclear war and that the US was the only one that used such weapons. To presume that the US would not use them again would seem to me to be a foolish position.
Breaking the taboo on nuclear weapons would then make the world overall much less safe and that is especially true for small countries such as Israel. This is so since Israel has enemies who state that they would like to eradice the country and surprise attacks to kill the maximum ammounts of civilians would probably weaken their ability to mobilize their army much more then harder precission attacks against their military bases. This do of course only leave Israel with the MAD option and a large part of the region will go up in flames if they return fire.
You realy do not want to let this genie out of its bottle.
That might be a good idea.
Perhaps modernism has failed in Iran. Perhaps they are going back 1,000 years no matter what--no democracy, no rights for women, no rule of law, no electricity, etc.
I really think there will be a convential war between the US and Iran long before Nuclear Weapons are and issue.
Looks like we just gave the Israeli's a green light to secure there independence this will bring Iran in which brings us agianst Iran. We will destroy the nuclear facilaties as a side show. So the game has changed ...
Maybe thats why Russia and China are suddenly into sanctions over the nuclear side show.
It looks like WWIII is Oil consumers vs Producers with Russia on the fence.
I'm not sure you have to look at this as a "plot" as much as it is the inevitable outcome of two very rigid worldviews that are in direct collision.
If I was President, Leanan would be my Chief of Staff.
But lets try one more time, hezbollah has no ability to throw the Mid -East into chaos. Attacking a military base and taking two soldiers hostage isn't destablizing, unless Israel responds as it has and destroys Lebanon's infrastructure, sounds smart to me.
The next step is to provoke an Israeli attack against Syria, which lets Iran come to the defense of Syria against the "Zionists" whom they constantly decry. Then Iran gets to wear the badge of defender of Palestine, defender of Islam, defender of the Middle East against the Zionist aggressors. This part may be harder than they expect though.
Actually, Israel has already been moving against the Hamas government, and all of Gaza, for some time. Lots and lots of shells have been heading into Gaza, long before that soldier was captured. They just needed a pretext to go in full force.
Robert Fisk thinks this is Syria's attempt to get Israel to punish Lebanon for kicking them out - I'm not sure I buy that.
Anyway, my point about someone's plan unfolding was only in regard to this particular move, and it trying to understand who moved first. In the end I agree conflict is inevitable, that's why I've been expecting something. Perhaps we shall get lucky, and this will cool off and end in a prisoner exchange and withdrawal.
Remember, suicide bombs was also a trend that started in a single incident, and then spread like wildfire because it was so effective in the minds of the people who used it. Israel won't risk another "effective" trend, but personally, I doubt that they can stop it.
Wrong. See history of Hezbollah in Lebanon 1980-present. To be clear - A) Kidnapping is a tool they have used for 25 years. B)They have always needed Iran, otherwise they would be Al Qaeda.
No offense to you, but the armchair Middle-East analysts really need to give it a break, here. Go read a book. No, newspapers don't count. You've been outclassed and outgunned for days now. Beat it.
Again, nothing against you Vintermann. More aimed at your friends. You actually frame the points better than they do. Still. I'd be happy to list a bibliography. Unfortunately, most of your friends won't read anything but Mein Kampf.
I didn't mean to say there had never been kidnappings of Israeli soldiers in this conflict, but... there certainly hasn't been many in recent years that I know of.
I don't have the grasp on the issues that you and others have. I do think the discussion benefits hugely from a fact-based discussion.
I am a WASP in remission and live in the only country that didn't even bother to show up for the 1947 partition vote, so I definately don't have a dog in this fight.
One state was absent: Thailand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan
Oil CEO's "Booklist to Understanding the Mid-East" shall start with this - The Koran. More to follow.
The Koran is a fascinating book. And it is actually a short read. Follow it with the Haditha. My understanding of the Koran is that nobody actually understands its order as far as the chapters go. It is usually published in an order that its publishers figured most readers would be able to deal with. From shortest to longest. Or whatever. Comments totally called for here. I think we are breaking new ground on TOD.
If you've never read the Koran, you need to.
I should probably have shut my mouth after the last sentence(If not sooner - Allah will certainly help us with that determination) - but, tell me - Is the Koran all about oil? But it should be, right? I mean if the mid-east and Iraq is about oil, shouldn't there be something in the Koran about oil, or at least how to deal with it?
I mean, there is one God, and his name is Allah. I understand that? but shouldn't he have said something about Light Sweet Crude? Or at least the Heavy Sour shit. Or do I have no right to broach this topic? Am I blaspheming?
The "Koran" is one of my favorite books; I have three English language editions of it.
In my opinion, my Egyptian friend was correct: Namely and to wit:
Of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Islam is the best.
Why?
Because it incorporates all the good things from the earlier religions and adds much more, such as the Divine duty to be kind to animals (not found explicityly in either Old or New Testaments).
The greater the wisdom, the greater are the possibilities of perversions by fanatics.
Alas.
Babylon.
With all due repsect, may I present a different perspective? Demanding allegiance from unquestioning masses is definitely not the hallmark of a "great" system - religious, economic, political, philosophical or whatever.
By that same token, the aforementioned three religions have been the stumbling blocks to critical thinking for a huge section of humanity. People like me, who were born and brought up in systems where, at least at a philosophic level, one's beliefs were not decided by a set of rules written down in ancient times, tend to see these three rigid religions as systems designed to control the "faithful".
Sorry to bring religion into TOD, but I hope it adds to the variety of perspectives :-)
The greatest ideas of the best thinkers will be perverted 180 degrees from the intent of these people (Moses, Jesus, Mahomet, St. Thomas Aquinas, Marx, etc.) by fanatics.
Each great man spins in his grave.
http://www.dispatch.co.za/2006/07/14/Foreign/ableb.html
BTW, Saudis have been known to finance Hizbollah too. Of course, it's not good to publicly blame an oil friendly nation!
I'll second Twilight here for starters. But more to the point. There is plenty of spare capacity. And I'm sure you are aware of this(if only subconciously). Please read Jim Jubak's piece on MSN Money today. I'll find link later. Trust me, you will like it.
Let's all stick together. This is a smaller community than we would all like to imagine. When Goose ran that poll last week there were only 244 responses when I ckecked in. This pales in comparison to the 10,000 hits per day some like to quote.
I only count the guys, and 3 gals I talk to. This is what Lenin would call a Vanguard - not a majority.
Sincerely,
Knucklehead
A 10% Reduction in America's Oil Use in Ten to Twelve Years
An Overlooked, Practical, and Affordable Approach Using Mature Existing Technology
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm
and a related paper with a few more details
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2005-02.htm
Yep, I know the drill well: bend over, put your head between your legs, and kiss your sweet arse goodbye.
Actually, I am old enough to remember practicing duck and cover in grammar school during the early 1950s, a time when the spectre of nuclear annhiliation was a very real thing in the mind of the average American. I kinda thought it was a lot of fun.
Civil Defense was a big deal at the time. In retrospect, it was next to useless and was mainly intended to make people believe that the government was capable of protecting them. How the US and the Rooskies managed to get through almost 50 years of cold war without nuking each other is, in my opinion, a minor miracle.
I remember a lot of friends whose parents built really elaborate bomb shelters back then. Anybody ever buy a house with one of those? Looks like they could be fashionable once again really soon . . .
My first thought is that those of us here who have been predicting steady increases in price with no change in demand appear to be correct over any multi-week time frame. We base this on dwindling supply coupled with an inability of the US consumer to reduce consumption.
It has been at least 9 months now that the promised (by some posters) reduction in crude price should correct the oil market. There are lots of noise in the run up in price over the last year but I see no change in the trend of higher prices going forward.
So why are higher prices not activitaing the twin economic forces of increased supply and reduced consumption to moderate oil prices?
And no waffling about our ability to absorb higher costs in any answers. Prices are much higher than a 3 years ago so by textbook definition supply should increase dramatically or demand must decrease drastically or both should occur. Either the economic model is wrong for unique finite resources or it is going to take a long, long time to kick in.
Price of crude now at $77.42 (after hours.)
Andrew McKillop predicted increasing economic activity until oil prices are over $100 per barrel or so. He thinks that prior recessions, that coincided with rising oil prices, were actually caused by interest rate increases.
http://www.energybulletin.net/2940.html
Energy Transition and Final Energy Crisis
Published on 31 Oct 2004
by Andrew McKillop
Conclusions
The strengthening likelihood is that oil prices will easily exceed 75 US dollars/barrel, in the absence of any war, sabotage or hostile action, solely because of `structural undersupply' and almost certainly by 2008. This itself will powerfully draw attention to study and action for firstly slowing the growth of oil and gas demand, then reducing demand for these fossil fuels.
Only at genuinely `extreme' oil prices, well above USD 100-per-barrel, will there be a rapid and uncontrolled fall in fossil energy demand, firstly in the OECD countries, triggered by economic crisis.
This will come too late to offer any chances of organized and efficient economic and energy restructuring, especially in the OECD economies and societies, which are the most oil-dependent due to their high or extreme average per capita rates of oil demand.
Laisser-faire scenarios will necessarily include a new `Great Depression' to a backdrop of already serious tension and low-level but increasing international conflict and warfare focused on the Middle East (`war against terror' and `war for oil'). De-globalization, or increased self-reliance will necessarily feature in longer-term restructuring of the world's energy and economic systems. The sooner that internationally agreed targets, frameworks and structures for managing energy transition can be set, the greater is the chance of avoiding endgame energy resource conflicts, and achieving long-term sustainability.
The likely, near-term oil shocks due in final analysis to emerging supply deficits will be `salutary crises' if they bring coherent action to head off irremediable crisis.
All articles by McKillop on Energy Bulletin:
http://www.energybulletin.net/news.php?author=andrew+mckillop&keywords=&cat=0&action=sea rch
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/mckillop/2006/0713.html
I've given it a decent glance but not read thoroughly, looks resonable and is specific. eg. "There will have to be large cuts in the fossil energy intensity of the richworld countries : this can come through crisis or it can be planned or programmed, we still have the choice but soon wont."
"At present, we do not have major signs or `signals' of high oil and high energy prices adversely affecting the world economy. In fact we find many signs of rising energy prices faster driving the world economy, and we badly need to explain and understand these signals to find the areas and sectors for best, most productive investment and development."
It can be found at http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=55724.
A complete listing of his articles at. http://www.vheadline.com/search_results.asp
Oh yah, that reminds me of this mckillopism from July 31 2003:
AM: "In other words, when gold is cheap nobody wants it, when its $600 or
$1000-per-ounce everybody wants it! Thats just like oil you know
Keeping oil cheap really did limit demand growth through about two-thirds
of the 1986-99 Cheap Oil interval. After 1999 with oil prices tripled,
world oil demand growth has strengthened"
AM: "Another apparent illogical thing, that I have figures to prove, is that low
oil prices tend to reduce oil demand growth, while high oil prices tend to
increase oil demand growth (up to certain extreme price levels)."
AM: "No way do I say "go out and buy gold, physical or paper". FiendBear and
UrbanSurvival both published my bit on how a 1929-style is likely or
possible this Sept/Oct 2003. To me its primarily a Kondratiev cycle thing
with oil price trimmings"
AM: "My contention is that really this fall ( artfully crafted by European
business media, TV, press, radio as uniquely and solely due to OPEC's
despicable cut, right on the verge of Winter - when it gets cold despite
Global Warming) is nothing more or less than an outrider to a classic
bourse crash. For people who want definitions/ A big crash = 60% fall in DJIA over a period able to be under 10 trading days (meaning 500 + points per day some days)."
AM: "Take either (or both) the 1929 and 1987 bourse crashes and try to find one
main or critical cause or trigger: you wont find it. Logically speaking
both these crashes were illogical, but also the fruit of long-term,
underlying real economy events, pressures and factors. So nothing at all prevents an October 03 crash from happening, while the hamfisted "management" by the economics team around G W Bush is so laughable its like they are doing their durndest to make a crash ever more plausible"
AM: "High oil and gas prices will therefore maintain what are essentially
'inflationary growth trends in the world economy'. This doesnt at all prevent a stock market crash in the USA or Europe just anytime. However, a stock market crash would in the current international context probably now act like an oil shock - on balance increasing world economic growth rates, because of an outfall of capital from Norethern markets, to so-called regional stock exchanges."
A McKillop (energyresources)
FH - i don't have to say a word...
http://www.energybulletin.net/18084.html
Published on 11 Jul 2006 by Thesis & Antithesis. Archived on 14 Jul 2006.
Coping with high oil prices
by Nikos Tsafos
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Andrew McKillop deserves some recognition for predicting early on that high oil prices will drive economic growth - up to a point. Here's some excerpts from some of McKillop's articles published on Energy Bulletin:
Increasing oil and gas prices, up to levels around $75/bbl or barrel-equivalent ($10-13/million BTU) will certainly be called `extreme', but will not in fact choke off world energy demand.
The likely net impact of price rises to $75/bbl, if interest rates in the OECD countries are not `vigorously' increased to double-digit base rates, will be increased world oil demand due to continued and strong economic growth. This `perverse' impact of higher prices will therefore tend to reduce the time available for negotiating and planning energy and economic transition.
Only at genuinely `extreme' oil prices, well above US$100-per-barrel, will the pro-growth impact of increasing real resource prices be aborted by inflationary and recessionary impacts on the world economy.
This will come too late to offer any chances of organized and efficient economic and energy restructuring, especially in the OECD economies and societies, which are the most oil-dependent due to their high or extreme average per capita rates of oil demand.
( 22 September 2004) and
Higher oil prices increase world economic growth by raising `real resource' prices, through what we can call `the revenue effect.' The pro-growth impact of oil does not stop there, because fast increasing values of world merchandise trade due to higher `real resource' prices directly leads to fast growth of world liquidity ... the quantity of money in circulation. The trend for world liquidity is close-linked to oil price changes (both up and down), but in the current context there is also growing world liquidity due to fast industrialization of, and growth of exports from China, India and other countries. This directly translates to additional growth of the value and volume of world trade. World trade is now growing at its fastest rate for over 15 years, which again is concrete, cast iron proof of fast economic growth.
(21 September 2004)
-AF
There now. See? We can all do the ad hominem thing, right?
I've been told that the Aryan Nation website has visitors from over 100 nations and links all over the internet too. Does that make them more credible than you?
In other words, your prior post contributed little. Care to try again? Maybe with a bit more substance instead of vituperative bile?
P.S. Your keyboard should have a shift key. Learn to use it.
P.P.S. The P.S. was expressly for you, since you seem to have a hangup about nitpicking.
He stopped posting to that group long before you stopped posting to it, I left there about Oct of last year, Bob Shaw and several others that post here I am sure can back up my memory of things.
I have read several of his Posts found through Google news searches he still talks the quotes that WesTexas is talking about even up until the last one I read long after I had left EnergyResources ( which can a bit heavy in genetics and other over the top thinking man's drinking games type of debates ).
Dan Ur aka ceojr1963 aka Charles E. Owens Jr. Author at large.
Not noted in today's threads: Nigeria rebels are taking advantage of the situation.
Silence from Iran. Silence from Hugo in Venezuela. Silence from the Saudis.Also, Beijing joins Moscow in moving Iran issue to UN. Support for Iran is weakening. Their presumed gambit may not pay off.
Maybe the sales will, but the planes won't!
I've seen intolerance on both sides of this war. And to be honest the heart of the problem is the refusal of the militants to live with Israel.
Look at what Ghandi and MLK accomplished and look at what the years of bloodshed in the ME has done. The ME culture including Isreal can't accept taking the approach that Ghadi took and thus the endless bloodbath caused at the end of the day by simple pride and racism.
If it wasn't for ANC's armed struggle (or Algeria's brutally savage war of liberation), the white colonists would have never eased their perverted idological grip over the native population.
Palestinians are struggling for a similar outcome. Israel/Palsetine should become a secular state where Jewish colonists do not have "first class citizen rights" over the native Arabs.
- Jews are native to the area as well. Jesus was a Jew after all. Jews lived all across the Middle East until fairly recently, when they were persecuted in virtually every regional country. In fact Jews were there before Christians or Muslims, because it is the older of the religions.
- Not all Palestinians are Arabs
- A portion of the Palestinian lands are held by other Middle Eastern countries, especially Jordan. The Palestinians there are treated worse than those in Israel. So why isn't that an issue for you?
I am not a strong advocate of either side of this issue and think there have been numerous wrongs on all sides. I do, however, have a lot of sympathy of Israel. I also have a lot of sympathy for the Palestinian people, who are victims in the whole affair. Neither am I an expert on this issue. However, it does seem to me that a number of stark inaccuracies fuel this debate, so I wanted to provide some factual clarification.Gonna call me a troll again? I'm not "adding anything to the debate"?
Let's see whatcha got.
Another 7 on trial today. Pity Milosevic couldn't stick around.
Duh Smekhovo --Dead Sea Scrolls ? remember? written in ancient Hebrew, the language of "the Jews"? Hello? Anyone home?
Click on the image to the right to read more. Better yet, since you probably refuse to believe in anything that the evil Z-word pro-Israel posters put up here, Google it for yourself
- I said I am not an expert. I do think discussion on this point has already brought some clarity that the original post did not. But you don't deny that the Jews were indigenous people of the Middle East persecuted by Muslims and to a large degree chased out of the countries where they had lived.
- I got the "not all Palestinians are Arabs" data from Wikipedia. I can't vouch for it beyond that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians3. The 1947 UN plan partitioned Palestinian lands into two almost equal halves. Israel is one of them. Where is the other?
Again, I am not an expert and am learning as I go here. There are a range of different opinions that I can respect. I do think that the situation is far more complex than the original post, which appeared to be ignorant propaganda, made it out to be.
You are probably better off going here (Wiki on Palestine).
Funny, the sailor-teacher just made me do my homework on this very question elsewhere. Read it and pretend to weep: Expulsion of Jewish populations from ME countries
I present authorative support.
And you respond with another one of your
Islamo-crazed circus performances
Of all racial cultures Jews have probably been the most persecuted and wronged. Sadly the state of Israel seems intent on behaving much as Jews' persecutors have in the past.
According to Ottoman statistics from around the turn of century, about 10% of the inhabitants of Palestine were Jewish. Of these, a significant number had just come there escaping Russian pogroms. Zionism, the movement for establishing little Jewish colonies or communes was clearly not by (or for) the native Jews.
If you want to make a Biblical argument, fine. Palestinians are the people the Bible refers to as Cananites. So according to the Bible, it was their land before the Jews captured it (after Exodus)!
But the Biblical arguments are really very silly anyway, and rational people like us should not go there. For most people in the world, the Bible is nothing but the Judeo-Christian mythology, no better or worse than so many other myths from various other cultures--mostly based on actual history--often claiming some distant land as their sacred ancestoral homeland.
Anyway, what makes Zionism and Apartheid similar is that (1) they were developed by persecuted European minorities, (2) colonizing land when colonialism was romanticized, and (3) holding on to it brutally and via an irrational ideology. Who in their right mind thinks that an American Jew from Brooklyn has more rights to living in Palestine than the Palestinian who has lived there for hundreds of generations? Probably the same ones who thought Whites had the right to own land in South Africa while Blacks didn't.
European-descended Jews are now at home in Palenstine/Israel. It is as much theirs now as it is the Palestinians'. But the regime there should be changed so that Jews and Arabs have equal rights. It's really quite logical and it will solve lots of problems.
Thanks for reading!
I've sadly concluded that there will be no true peace in the mid east while Israel exists there. I don't mean that as a criticism of Israel or the arab nations, although I would strongly criticise both, just a statement of bald fact.
Israel is currently systematically destroying the infrastructure of Lebanon. That is just morally wrong, inappropriate and ultimately counterproductive.
I strongly support a jewish state and the jewish cause generally. It would be better for the world if that jewish state were in the USA.
Oil hits new record US$78.35 a barrel in after hours electronic trading
Oil traders are going to be very nervous about the weekend. The weekend effect, combined with short covering, could easily send us over $80 tomorrow.
Nominal oil price has reached as high as ever before.
That will lead a lot of "Oil drum" readers and contributors to get very excitable. This is an internet forum. Pronouncements will be made - some may suggest civilisation is over.
The Middle east has been politically and violently volatile - relative to oil prices for decades. Low. High. Middling.
Machinations and subterfuge.
What is different now?
World oil supply may have little (or no real) room for current expansion, or even substitution if any disruption occurs. That's why 'The Oil Drum' is here.
So as oil prices rise, so may petroleum.
If we lack something we want and are willing and able to pay - we pay more. We can pay in much more than currency.
Is it a good idea to do so? who knows?
I was quite astonished that they put it that way.
While I'm at it, it is more than curious that Israel got all the "settlements" out of Gaza, and got the Syrians out of Lebanon, all within the past couple of years. And then today happened. Hmmm...
Farewell, American way of life.
They've just finished raising capital for a large factory. There appear to be more of these giant projects in the future.
I can't help but see the former American middle class living in FEMA camps or plantations if and when they lose their jobs and homes.
How else to explain something like this?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/HG14Dj03.html
It is a good analysis of Putin's energy strategy as a whole: divert the Iran gas to the east so that Russia can hold on to its supply monopoly to the West. (The Iran energy watchers will recall the Khatami administration's plans to exports gas to Europe by extending the Iran-Turkey pipeline.)
Hang on tight!
$80 is a 40% probability for Friday and 75% within a week. $85 is 60% probability within 60 days, $95 a 30% probability, $100 close to 25% before mid December.
As it unfolds it will be interesting but once it has the mundane reality will probably be less so.
Although anything could happen, I base my remark on the fact that we are close to entering the peak season for hurricanes, and am using the 2005 model for an oil price runup. I suspect something similar is in the works here.
What we are witnessing abroad is bad enough. Throw in a brewing tropical storm in the gulf, and watch out!
Not for much longer. Soon, just north of $80, a nominal dollar price record will be a real dollar price record. Then we officially have the most expensive oil ever. Maybe someone will notice.
From my understanding, adjusted for inflation in 1980 dollars we need to get to $95 because records are truly broken.
I'm actually going to present a piece on PRICE soon in which I will amazingly prove everyone right. Everyone. Stay tuned. There will be a very pretty graph included as well. But no quotes from Mr. Yergin. Several from Shake Your Booty.
Wow. I was only aiming for decisive.
...nah...I did, I meant it, you're right. Unless I'm wrong. And I have established here that you are aiming for something. That comes as positive news for many of us. Cheers.
But at $78, unleaded gas is now $2.34, up 0.04 (www.321energy.com). The pot full of frogs is very accurate. Only a major gas tax will shock consumer behavior.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/07/14/lebanon/print.html
Wonderfull reporting. Any thoughts on stopping the Bush war machine? How do I stop paying taxes to fund this? No, it is not off topic, it is all about oil. We know that.
Light rail, and switch grass may be interesting, but how do we stop the carnage?
A JHK nightmare come true.
Oral sex works better and is cheaper.
One of the forgotten side notes of history was UN 181 of November 1947 that created the state of Israel after the UK abandoned the Mandate of Palestine - after years of terrorist attacks against the British there, viz. the Irgun, Stern Gang etc. (Begin, after Deir Yassin, proudly proclaimed himself "the world's number one terrorist.") Immediately after the passage of 181, both Ben-Gurion and Begin flatly rejected the UN borders and said Israel would fight for Eretz Israel - "all of it." While "Greater Israel" is now loosely spoken of as the territory "from the Nile to the Euphrates," Herzl in Diaries had a map of Eretz Israel with the following boundaries: Start at Alexandria and go down the Nile about 400 miles. The boundary then goes north east through Saudi Arabia ending at the Persian Gulf at Kuwait, then up the Euphrates, then another line to the Med at the southern Turkish border, then down to Alexandria. Hence we have: Eastern Egypt (indluding half of Cairo), the northern half of SA, Kuwait, about a third of Iraq, most of Syria, all of Jordan, all of Lebanon. The Arabs didn't buy into this vision in 1947, hence the 1948 War. Memmel sees the problem as "the refusal of the militants to live with Israel." Perhaps the other way around: Gaza is the world's largest outdoor prison camp, and immediately after Sharon's settler withdrawal (done for purely economic motives as it was costing about $3 billion a year to maintain the military in the area for the benefit of 7,000 settlers)an economic seige was launched - crossing points closed (Karni)and the winter crop harvest left to rot in situ. Israel was putting the economic screws on Gaza before Hamas was elected. As for the Palestinians in the West Bank, like living a Kafkaesque nightmare. Read Jeff Halper's (Ben Gurion University) "Matrix of Control." The "Palestinians in Jordan are treated worse then in Israel" [?] For sure.
There is no crude oil in Israel. (Just olive oil.)
There is no crude oil in Gaza. (Just let-not-live oil.)
There is no crude oil in Lebanon.
The I-P conflict is a red herring just as is the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. It has nothing to do with supplying the global population with sufficient quantities of crude to satiate market "demands". It has everything to do with making up irrational excuses about above-ground externalities.
Antoinetta III
Yeah right.
And the members of the OPEC cartel went crying boo hoo all the way to the bank because that horrid friendship between USA and the democratic z-word people had forced the peace-loving, free-market loving members of OPEC into the dreadful position of constraining supply and forcing prices higher even though their belief in free markets is almost religous like. Yes, I think I too can almost remember it that way.
When I was in Israel years ago I saw a guy wearing a tshirt that said," Don't ask a Jew why we don't trade land for peace,,ask an American indian."
The issue of one people having a right to exclude another from being in a certain territory is going to get more poigniant as our oceans continue to rise, our costal lands recede and our resources run out. Millions of refuges from environmental and resource reduction will be looking for new places to call home. What would Jesus do? What would Mohammed do? Interesting questions to ponder over.
How many Jews live in neighboring countries as full citizens under the rule of law?
Far, far more Jews were expelled from Arab countries during the past fifty years than vice versa.
Please check the facts.
I am insulted.
It is a well known fact that Syrians openly let Jews hang around in their midst. Please Check your history.
Do you know why?
Do you have the faintest idea how many Jews lived in Syria in 1900.
Please do your homework.
BTW, do you know why no Jews now live in Hebron?
Also, they might be a bit too chubby and cheery during Ramadam.