Archive for January, 2011
Monday, January 24th, 2011
By David Isaac
AFSI Chairman Herbert Zweibon
“At that time , too, the effective management of the AFSI [Americans for A Safe Israel] was taken over by Herbert Zweibon, a business-like business-man, whose self-effacing exterior hides an unusually high intelligence, a wide store of knowledge and deep devotion to the cause of Israel.” – Shmuel Katz, The Hollow Peace (Dvir Co. Ltd., 1981)
Shmuel once spoke to this writer about the enigmatic role of personality in world affairs; it’s a mysterious thing, but when individuals connect it can sometimes lead to great things. Shmuel and Herb certainly connected and forged a warm friendship that lasted half a lifetime. The two met through this writer’s parents, who launched Americans for A Safe Israel in 1971.
As Rael Jean Isaac said at Herb’s funeral Friday, “Like Herb my husband and I were members of the Greenburgh Hebrew Center. And that’s how it came about that my husband roped Herb into assuming the leadership of AFSI. That included transferring to him the mentoring-hectoring of Shmuel Katz. Only half-jokingly Herb would often say that we had inflicted on him Katz’s curse. Katz’s curse was the single-minded commitment and dedication to a cause that brooked no rest.”
AFSI’s purpose was to spread the ideas of the Land of Israel Movement in the United States. This movement, which included Israelis from across the political spectrum, had developed in the aftermath of the Six Day War, and maintained that all lands won by Israel in that war must remain in her hands. The movement also emphasized that a strong, territorially defensible Israel was essential to U.S. interests in the region.
Herb loved working at AFSI, which he built into a national organization with chapters around the country. He worked with many fine and dedicated people who devoted their energies to defending Israel. He became especially close to Shmuel, whom he would often host at his home on his frequent trips to America.
As Herb wrote in Outpost, the periodical of Americans for A Safe Israel, in an issue commemorating Shmuel’s passing, “For me, meeting Shmuel Katz was a life transforming experience…. [M]y life has been immeasurably enriched, as I have taken my part, at Shmuel’s side, in seeking to bring to pass what Israel Eldad called The Jewish Revolution, ‘the salvation of the Jewish people in its homeland.’ It has been a great adventure, bringing me in contact with a range of people I would never have dreamed I would come to know – from the true heroes of Israel, the much maligned ‘settlers,’ particularly those dedicated people living in places like Hebron, to Knesset members; from U.S. Congressmen to evangelical Christian leaders. Above all I have been privileged to meet AFSI members from every walk of life who believe that the Land of Israel is the birthright of the Jewish people.”
Herb helped finance Shmuel’s masterful two volume biography Lone Wolf, the most comprehensive account of the life of Vladimir Jabotinsky and subsequently, through AFSI, took a major role in its distribution. He also funded the distribution of many other books of Shmuel, including especially Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine and The Aaronsohn Saga.
Herb felt Shmuel’s loss keenly. Indeed, this Web site was Herb’s idea. He wanted to keep Shmuel’s ideas alive for a new generation. As The New York Sun editorial honoring Herb noted: “Much of his attention in recent years was devoted to the younger generation. This is typified by a story that appears in the latest number of the Outpost under the headline ‘A Banner Day for Zionism.’ It reports on a ceremony at which hundreds of Israeli high school students packed the Knesset to witness the awarding of prizes to the winners for the year 2010 of an essay contest for works about Jabotinsky’s ideas and deeds. The contest was one of the things that Zweibon created that he most loved, and when the prizes were presented, remarks were made about the importance of Jabotinsky by both Israel’s education minister and the speaker of the Knesset.”
Herb considered the contest a great success, one whose larger impact remains to be seen. As a direct result of the contest, the Education Ministry has agreed to introduce an in-depth Zionist history review into the high school curriculum – a major achievement given that Zionism has been undercut for decades in Israeli high schools by the teaching of universalist, often blatantly anti-Zionist myths.
Herb was proud of AFSI and helped it achieve many things. But, as was said at the funeral ceremony, “What was most important to Herb was that AFSI never equivocated, never trimmed sails, never bowed to the popular or the expedient. For example, there were one or two other Jewish leaders who were dubious about the famous scene on the White House lawn with Clinton beaming as Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin shook hands. Behind the scenes they would say it was politically impossible to oppose the Oslo ‘peace process’; all that could be done was to insist on ‘compliance’ by Arafat with its terms. But Herb didn’t mind being a voice in the wilderness in denouncing Oslo as a snare, a delusion and a moral disgrace – he said and did what was right in his own eyes.”
It may be that Herb’s and AFSI’s impact is yet to be felt on a grand scale. Who knows but that a young idealistic student has been influenced by the Jabotinsky contest and will go on to great things?
As The New York Sun concluded, “[N]either Zweibon nor AFSI were part of what might be called the Jewish establishment in New York. Zweibon pointedly parked his organization on the idealistic margin of the secular Zionist struggle. We were drawn to him not only on the substance but also on the principle that the long time editor of the Wall Street Journal, Robert Bartley (himself now gone, alas), articulated to his own happy band of idealists — change happens on the margin. And there is no doubt that as the principles for which Jabotinsky stood gain ground among the rising generation, a share of the honors will go to Herb Zweibon.”
Tuesday, January 18th, 2011
By David Isaac
“…they assigned Bezer in the wilderness upon the plain out of the tribe of Reuben, and Ramoth in Gilead out of the tribe of Gad, and Golan in Bashan out of the tribe of Manasseh.” – Joshua 20:8
Soldiers enjoying view on Golan Heights
In “Golan: More Than Geography” (The Jerusalem Post, March 5, 1993), Shmuel Katz wrote of then-U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher’s first visit to the Golan Heights.
He was taken on a study tour by helicopter and, apparently for the first time in his life, he was enabled to see the full extent of Israel within the “Green Line” and to assess the significance of the Golan Heights towering over Israel’s Galilean plain. Coming away from his tour, he immediately gave voice to a confession with clearly far-reaching implications. “There is no question,” he said, “that the geography complicates the matter, and changes the situation very greatly.” (The Jerusalem Post, February 25) Christopher was manifestly surprised by what he had seen.
Christopher’s revelation was short-lived. Returning to the United States, the secretary of state was no doubt enlightened by his professional underlings at Foggy Bottom, who explained the ‘complexities’ of the matter and pulled one of their ready-made plans off the shelf and handed it to him, saving him the time and trouble of having to think up one himself, perhaps one that would have been based in reality.
Despite the fact that the Golan Heights was formally annexed by Israel in 1981 and that it has been developed beautifully by the Jews who have settled there over the past 45 years, it has been popping up in the news in worrying ways.
On Dec. 26, WorldNetDaily reported that, “The Obama administration is pressing Israel to enter into negotiations with Syria aimed at compelling an Israeli retreat from the strategic Golan Heights.” According to the report, White House envoy Dennis Ross visited Israel and Syria “to discuss specifics of a deal” that would give Syria the Golan. (For a Shmuel Katz criticism of Ross, see “Dennis Ross Confesses”)
And on Dec. 31, Ha’aretz revealed that soon-to-be-retired Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi will leave the Israel Defense Forces, and “go charging after the next objective: peace with Syria. … The price of this deal is known: withdrawal from the Golan Heights in return for security arrangements and normalized relations.” Ashkenazi thus appears poised to join the ranks of other former soldiers, such as Ehud Barak, who reached their level of incompetence the moment they set foot into politics.
Matters are not helped by strong evidence that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attempted to negotiate away the Golan as part of an agreement with Syria during his first term in office, making it likely he will be willing to do so again.
In a 1999 article for the New Republic, Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, wrote, “[I]t is clear that, during 1998, Netanyahu became deeply involved in a secret negotiation with Assad over the terms and conditions under which Israel would transfer the Golan Heights, taken from Syria in the 1967 Six Day War, back to Syrian control.” Pipes adds: “Anyone who has followed Netanyahu’s career will instantly recognize in this episode the man’s well-established pattern of speaking loudly but carrying a small stick.”
Although one after another of Israeli prime ministers have shown an astonishing willingness to sacrifice the Golan, whether because of outside pressure, or to extricate themselves from their own political problems, to do so would be an unmitigated strategic disaster.
As Dr. Erich Isaac, Professor Emeritus of Geography at the City University of New York, writes in Outpost, the periodical of Americans for A Safe Israel (June, 1995), “[W]hile few may know this, in the course of recorded history more than 60 assaults on the Land of Israel west of the Jordan were launched from, or through, the Golan. In fact, throughout history, control of an area much larger than what is generally called ‘Golan’ today was a vital concern of those entrusted with the defense of the land west of the Jordan.”
In “Mr. Prime Minister, Do Not Abandon the Golan” (The Jerusalem Post, Aug. 9, 2008), Shmuel wrote of the history of assault in recent memory.
Here is a record of Syria’s three aggressions. No more than three years after the Syrians gained their own independence from French trusteeship, Syria in 1948 freely entered into the alliance with six other members of the Arab League to prevent by force of war the birth of the State of Israel. The towering Golan Heights were a first-class natural base for Syria’s onslaught. This was in 1948.
Miraculously, Israel survived against tremendous odds and suffering heavy casualties, but Syria retained the Golan; and then during the following 19 years, despite the armistice of 1949, playfully used the Heights as a launching-pad for lobbing shells down onto the Galilee.
It is a part of Israeli folklore that in those 19 years children in Galilee did much of their schooling in underground bunkers for protection from those shells. Partaking as targets for those attacks were also the fishermen of the Lake of Galilee.
Then in 1967, in company with Egypt and Jordan, Syria joined in a new assault on Israel. This was advertised well in advance, by Egyptian president Nasser, to be a ‘war of annihilation.’ Heavily buttressed, the Golan naturally played its part in the attack. This time however, Israel decisively won the war and was able to say ‘enough is enough.’ This time the Israeli Defense Force climbed and captured the Heights.
Israel, however, was given little respite. Six years later, and that on Yom Kippur, Syria, again in company with Egypt, made war on Israel. In hard fighting Syria failed to win back the Golan Heights and, indeed, lost an additional slice of territory to the east. Negotiations followed and, under pressure from US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, Israel returned that slice, and a border was delineated between Israel and Syria.
That border, incidentally with Damascus in its sights, has ever since 1974 assured Israel of peaceful relations, such as they are, with Syria. That border emphasizes the truth, for which a heavy price in blood has been paid, that only with the Golan in Israel’s hands can peace be maintained.
The Israelis have done wonders with the Golan, in sharp contrast to the Syrians, who did virtually nothing to develop the area and merely treated it as a large artillery platform from which to shell the Israelis below. The Jews, on the other hand, have made the region flourish, building first-class wineries, as well as developing agriculture and a mineral water industry.
Such development is unfortunately no proof against a weak, opportunistic Israeli leadership. Despite accounting for 15% of Israel’s agricultural exports, Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip was evacuated and its buildings razed to the ground in eight days.
But the Golan’s Jewish population is 23,000 and growing. Recently, young Israeli families have been moving to the region. Two thousand Israelis moved into the town of Katzrin alone in the last year, swelling the town’s size from 6,000 to 8,000.
Sami Bar-Lev, the mayor of Katzrin, believes it’s the region’s Jewish history that will ensure the Golan remains a part of the State of Israel.
In “Golan: More Than Geography”, Shmuel writes of the “moving ‘Charter of the Golan’” signed by virtually all of the 4,000 pioneers who first came there after 1967. It read, in part:
“We have returned to the Golan to build and be rebuilt. Every furrow of soil has been sanctified by the blood of our sons. In the basalt rocks we have anchored the foundations of our homes, and into the fertile soil we have set our roots. Here are our homes, and this is our legacy; we shall never forsake them.”
That is the sound of Jewish settlement starting out on the right foot. If the new residents imbibe the spirit of the old, then the Golan’s best line of defense won’t be Jewish history, but the living Jewish present.
Monday, January 10th, 2011
By David Isaac
Forced evacuation from Gush Katif -- August, 2005
“We have frankly said, and always will say: If there is an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, we won’t agree to the presence of one Israeli in it,” Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority, remarked
on December 25th.
Of course, even as Abbas demands that all Jews get out of a future PLO Arab state, he also insists that millions of Arab “refugees” be admitted to Israel as part of a “Palestinian right of return” – code words for Israel’s destruction. The number of these so-called refugees keeps growing – is it 4, 5, or 6 million now? As University of Haifa Professor Steven Plaut points out, such an influx would “derail Israel demographically and turn it into the Rwanda of the Levant.”
The story of the Arab refugees, as purveyed by the Arabs, is itself a fraud. In his book “Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine” (Bantam Books, 1973), Shmuel Katz devotes a chapter to “Arab Refugees”, in which he writes:
Only a George Orwell or a Franz Kafka could have done justice to the story of the Arab refugee problem. …
The Arabs are the only declared refugees who became refugees not by the action of their enemies or because of well-grounded fear of their enemies, but by the initiative of their own leaders. For nearly a generation, those leaders have willfully kept as many people as they possibly could in degenerating squalor, preventing their rehabilitation, and holding out to all of them the hope of return and of “vengeance” on the Jews of Israel, to whom they have transferred the blame for their plight. ….
The Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone. The vast majority left, whether of their own free will or at the orders or exhortations of their leaders, always with the same reassurance – that their departure would help in the war against Israel. … Most pointed of all was the comment of one of the refugees: “The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in.”
The world’s movers and shakers ignore this fact and choose instead to support false Arab claims, judging the Arabs who fled Israel during the 1948 War of Independence and the 1967 Six Day War to have been forcibly evicted. And so, over the years, politicians from Europe and elsewhere have expressed their support for the Palestinian Arab demand to “return” to their homes in Israel, or at least to receive compensation if they choose not to return.
Yet, these same politicians, when Jews are forcibly evicted from their homes, have a completely different reaction. In 2005, when Israel transferred some 9,000 of its Jewish citizens from Gush Katif, many of them dragged from their homes kicking and screaming, European Union officials like EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, had this to say: “Three days into disengagement, I am pleased to note the orderly conduct of the withdrawal operations so far. I commend the real courage and the determination of the Israeli government.”
Defending its support for the transfer of Jews, but not that of Arabs, the world argues feebly that Jews are relatively new to the region while Arabs have lived there for centuries. But as Joan Peters documents in “From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine” (Harper & Row, 1984), most of the Arabs in Palestine were of recent arrival, having come in response to the new economic opportunities created by Jewish immigrants.
Rather than counter the Arabs’ false narrative, which the world eagerly buys, Israel’s government instead continues to evict Jews from their homes.
On Dec. 15, for example, in Tekoa, Yigal and Mayan Carlebach were woken at 4 a.m. to the sounds of Israeli policemen preparing to tear down their home. The young couple had not received an eviction warrant. Nor were the policemen fazed when Mayan told them she could barely stand and was recovering from a Caesarean section she’d undergone a month before. The policemen simply told her that they already knew that and escorted the two from the house they had built from scratch for the last two years. Yigal and Mayan watched helplessly as an Israeli bulldozer razed it to the ground.
International outrage will not be forthcoming. Jews can be pulled from their houses. Arabs cannot. Many have pointed out that such a double standard – one rule for Jews, one for everyone else – is one of the perverted pillars on which classic anti-Semitism rests.
In “Kosher for Both or for Neither” (The Jerusalem Post, Aug. 20, 1993), Shmuel wrote:
Who can forget the uproar made by scandalized journalists and orators and, most of all, by members of the Knesset at the very mention of the name of Maj.-Gen. (res.) Rehavam Ze’evi – “Gandhi” – who believes that the rational most just solution to the dispute between Israel and the Arab nation is the movement of a large segment of the Arab population into Eastern Palestine (Jordan) and other neighboring Arab states. In short, “transfer.” Moral revulsion and horror came not only from Mapam and the rest of the left but even from some in the Likud. There were MKs who walked out of the House when Ze’evi was about to speak.
Here was a great demonstration of moral superiority not, of course, only over “Gandhi” but also over almost every Zionist leader of the Mandate period. These included Weizmann, Ben-Gurion, Katznelson – indeed the whole Mapai leadership – when transfer was proposed by the British Royal Commission of 1936-37 and a long, long list of movements, bodies and personalities, including the Conference of the British Labor Party. (Jabotinsky was a notable exception – but he never vilified or boycotted his opponents.)
Now we are in 1993, and the proposition that “for the sake of peace” Jews will “have to be transferred from territory which the Rabin-Aloni government proposes giving away (also “for the sake of peace”) is so self-understood that it does not even have to be discussed. What does this mean, if not that the transfer of population is permissible and morally acceptable? Or does it mean that only the transfer of Jews is permissible (and there has been one example in our generation – the forcible expulsion of Jews from Sinai in 1979)? Does this mean, in other words, that Israel accepts the age-old anti-Jewish principle of the “double standard” and is prepared to serve as the prime promoter on a grand scale of end-of-century anti-Semitism? This is not acceptable. By all criteria of logic, of equity, there is every reason why the proposition that the “Palestinian” Arabs should relocate in Eastern Palestine, or in some other neighboring Arab territory, should be seen as being at least as kosher as the proposition that the Jews of JSG and the Golan will “have to be” transferred.
Will Israel bend its knee once more to this anti-Semitic double standard and carry out still another forcible transfer of Jews? – this time on an unprecedented scale as supporters of such a policy, like Defense Minister Ehud Barak, talk about the resettlement of some 80,000 to 100,000 Jews. Barak gives as one of his reasons the need to counter Western “moral” pressure. But what kind of morality commends the destruction of homes and transfer of population for one and condemns the same for another? The Jews should have only one answer for such a twisted morality. It’s the answer Shmuel gave. Either it’s kosher for both or for neither.
Jacob remains in his house. Whether Esau likes it or not.
Monday, January 3rd, 2011
By David Isaac
The Arabs are always talking about driving the Jews into the sea. So it’s with delicious irony that Jews in Israel can now read about a discovery in that sea that could make them energy independent. A natural gas find 84 miles off Israel’s coast called Leviathan has been confirmed as a “supergiant”.
On December 29, Noble Energy, Inc., which operates the field, “confirmed its earlier estimates that the field contains 16 trillion cubic feet of gas — making it the world’s biggest deep water gas find in a decade, with enough reserves to supply Israel’s gas needs for 100 years,” according to the Wall Street Journal. It’s “easily the largest exploration discovery in our history,” the Houston-based company’s CEO Chuck Davidson said.
Leviathan is just one part of an area termed the Levant Basin, which has an estimated 122 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.7 billion barrels of “undiscovered, recoverable oil”. It’s a remarkable turn of good fortune for a country about which Golda Meir had quipped, “Let me tell you something that we Israelis have against Moses. He took us 40 years through the desert in order to bring us to the one spot in the Middle East that has no oil!”
Unfortunately, what’s set to mar this happy news is the potentially third-world behavior of Israel’s government. One of the main reasons energy companies took a chance on exploring the region was a 1952 Israel petroleum law that granted generous royalty and tax benefits to exploration companies. Now that those companies have actually found something – at great expense and risk – Israel’s government wants more of the action.
Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz is debating whether to change the terms of the lease retroactively so that the government could get better terms. The Wall Street Journal quoted Noble Energy’s Davidson as saying a retroactive change would be “egregious”. Davidson said such a move “would quickly move Israel to the lowest tier of countries for investment by the energy industry”.
To defend its interests, Noble pulled in the State Department and former President Bill Clinton. “Mr. Clinton raised the issue in a private meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in New York in July, according to a Clinton aide. ‘Your country can’t just tax a U.S. business retroactively because they feel like it,’ the aide said Mr. Clinton told Mr. Netanyahu,” according to the Journal.
Whatever Bill Clinton’s faults, he’s certainly in the right in this case. If Israel wants to create new rules going forward that’s one thing, but to alter prior agreements simply to get its hands on more lucre is unacceptable.
This sort of double-dealing is an old story and the U.S. isn’t without its own examples. In the latter part of the 1800s, for instance, the Southern Pacific Railroad, eager to get people to settle the land, promised those who came that they could buy it reasonably ($2.50 to $5.00 an acre), and that any improvements they made would belong to them, only to raise the prices by an astronomical amount ($35 to $40 an acre), and demand payment for the settlers’ improvements, such as homes, barns and orchards, once the official land grant came through.
It’s not the first time Israel has demonstrated poor judgment on energy. The quote from Golda Meir above was no doubt amusing when it was still fresh, but it wasn’t altogether true. The New York Times mentioned Golda’s remarks on June 10, 1973 when she reportedly made them at a dinner honoring West German Chancellor Willy Brandt.
This means that the Sinai Peninsula had already been in Israel’s hands for five years. With the Sinai came the Abu Rodeis oil fields, which produced some 85,000 bpd (barrels per day), enough to supply 60% of Israel’s domestic needs. (The remaining 40% came from a then-friendlier Iran.)
Displaying a deplorable lack of sense, Israel relinquished this vital resource in 1975 as part of the second disengagement agreement with Egypt.
If any nation should have absorbed the lesson of the criticality of a reliable, independent supply of energy, it should have been Israel. The country’s leaders had 20 years to figure it out, watching firsthand as the Arabs bent the West to their will with the weapon of oil.
Shmuel pointed out the stupidity of Israel’s actions when the Iranian revolution was in its early stages – the Khomenists promised that one of their first acts in power would be to stop selling oil to Israel. In “Irresponsible Attitude On Oil” (The Jerusalem Post, Dec. 8, 1978), Shmuel wrote:
Indeed the crisis in Iran throws into bold relief the almost incredible amateurishness, the light-hearted abandon, with which Israeli governments have handled the problem of the country’s supply of oil, today the indispensable commodity for the progress and the security of the peoples of the world.
It’s one thing to joke about your nation’s poverty of energy sources, but it’s another thing to abandon those resources you do have. Israel not only relinquished Abu Rodeis, but a few years later, as part of the Camp David Accords, forfeited the Alma oil fields in the Gulf of Suez. Unlike Abu Rodeis, which had been in operation prior to Israel’s conquest of Sinai, this was a field that Israel had discovered and developed on its own.
Yet, as Shmuel reveals in the same article, Israel let it go.
…William Levitt, a well-known businessman active in Israel’s cause in the US … was one of the early investors 10 years ago in the search for oil in Sinai.
After some characteristic vicissitudes, Levitt and his associates were accorded a 12 per cent share in the consortium which subsequently discovered, and has been operating the Alma oilfield in the Suez Gulf.
Another US company has 25 per cent, and the Israel government 63 per cent. The total amount invested so far amounts to about $100m.
Results have been good: the yield today is some 15 per cent of Israel’s requirements. Prospects are better: with the exploitation of proved resources, the yield will provide half of Israel’s present consumption.
Surveys already made beyond that, suggest a far greater potential, more than Israel’s requirements. This could have a tremendous impact on Israel’s security, a healthy effect on her economy and, in the best case, a substantial lightening of her economic dependence.
What government in the world, even the government of a country which was not surrounded by a coalition of countries threatening her destruction, would agree to relinquish these vital assets, existent and potential?
Following the Camp David agreement, William Levitt and his associates took up the matter of the Alma oil with the Defence Minister. Accepting Camp David as an established fact, they expected at least a rational explanation for the Israeli government’s not having made even a serious effort to ensure that the oil Israel had discovered would remain in her hands.
Logic alone, commercial ethics alone, surely dictate that — having made the unprecedented gesture of recognizing Egyptian sovereignty — Israel should be granted the right (through her National Oil Company, which had discovered the oil) to continue operating the field and handling the distribution.
Egypt would receive her income and would not lose a cent. Israel would receive the minimal recompense for her enterprise, and her security concerns, as far as oil supplies are concerned, would be assuaged.
Why, if Sadat really wants Israel to live in peace, should he refuse this reasonable, equitable arrangement? Levitt and his associates received a three-word reply from the Minister, breezy and illuminating: “Forget about it!”
The truth appears to be that while cardinal elements of Israel’s basic security were surrendered with at least some ripple in the negotiations with Egypt (before and during Camp David) the question of oil (like the claims for restitution of the 75,000 Jews who were forced to flee Egypt after 1948 leaving behind wealth estimated today at nearly $2b.) was not raised seriously and perhaps was not raised at all.
On the matter of Israel and energy, when did bad luck end and bad judgment begin? Let’s say it started in 1975 with Abu Rodeis. It continued with the surrender of the Alma oil fields. It continues now with the potential retroactive rewriting of lease terms to fill her coffers.
Rather than discourage energy investment, as such a move would surely do, Israel should express its gratitude to the exploration companies for their tremendous discovery of Leviathan. And the best way to do that is by honoring her agreements with them.