That's right, Israel has a collection of new friends and they include Greece, Cyprus, Canada and Russia. And, who knows, Italy may join the group. So, what's this all about? The usual: money, or more specifically, the money to be made from energy.
First, let's review some old news; namely the large natural gas discoveries off the coast of Israel in the Mediterranean. This brought together Israel, Greece and Cyprus. Then in June of 2012, Russia's Gazprom and Israel jointly announced plans to cooperate on gas extraction. That's new. With Russia having a stake in this pie, it becomes a bit more difficult for Turkey to create problems. As for Italy, it's racked up some really big bets on Iran. Rome, may well decide that it would be far more advantageous to work with someone closer and more dependable.
But, we now have a big new thing. It's the potential that's been uncovered in shale oil under the land of Israel itself. It appears that Israel may have the third largest largest shale oil deposit in the world, something like 250 billion barrels. This according to the World Energy Council, a global forum with affiliates in 93 countries. And, so, at about the time that Russia entered into a cooperation agreement with Israel on the gas, Canada entered into an agreement with Israel to cooperate in the exploration and development of what apparently could be Israel's vast shale oil reserves.
Canada has already shown itself to be a solid friend of the Jewish people. Israel's agreement with Russia was accompanied by a remarkably cordial visit from President Vladimir Putin. In the course of his visit, President Putin put on a kippah and went to the Western Wall to pray. One report quoted him as saying to one of the Russian Jews present, "I came her to pray that the Temple should be rebuilt, and I wish that your prayers will be fulfilled." He also said to his Israeli hosts, "Here, we see how the Jewish past is itched into the stones of Jerusalem." Needless to say, the Arabs went bonkers.
This information was taken from an article by Walter Russell Mead that appeared in the American Interest, July 2, 2012. In his article Mr. Mead did mention that besides the gas in the Mediterranean Sea, there has also been identified 5 billion barrels of recoverable oil. American Companies were involved with those finds.
Not mentioned by Mr. Mead, but clearly apparent to me is that Israel's new friends seem a lot warmer towards Israel than Barak Obama. What special relationship remains between the US and Israel is the one being held together by the Congress. Obama, would seem, has left the building.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Presidential Debate No. 1 : Obama's Regal Style Exposed
It's the day after the debate and the pundits are analyzing and dissecting the whys and wherefores of Obama's poor showing in his debate with Mitt Romney. It's that he didn't face his opponent. It's that he felt he was in the lead and he just wanted to sit on that lead. Obama is really uncomfortable having another person responding to his statements, he much prefers giving a speech. He didn't want to appear too aggressive. Mr. Lehrer, the moderator, allowed Mitt to walk all over him. Etc. etc. etc.
I think they were a little hard on Lehrer, but they may well have been correct in their other observations. But, I'd like to add one other observation I didn't hear being offered by any other political analyst; namely, the exposure of Obama's imperial style. In the course of this his first debate in 2012, Obama said something, to the following effect: If someone has a good idea that they want to bring to his attention, he's willing to listen.
That, in a nut shell, exposes the greatest flaw in Obama's presidency. He views himself as the regal commander. Should someone in his realm bring something up that he wasn't aware of, or something that he hadn't considered, or a new approach to some existing problem, he'd be willing to listen.
What Obama doesn't seem to realize is that that's not how our American system works. We know the problems; namely, high unemployment, a huge and growing federal deficit, a creaky and ineffectual system of education, a tax code that's inefficient and unfair, and a system for delivering health care that's unsustainable. And, we know that solving these problems, either by Republicans or Democrats will be daunting. And, we do want a president who recognizes the problems and is prepared to take up the challenge. But, he's got to do it within the American system.
We don't have an opaque bureaucracy like China's, we don't have one-man rule like Russia, and we don't have a king like Morocco. Also, while I respect the British parliamentary system, it's not our system. In America, our political parties may have very different ideas of how America should be governed and very different ideas as to how our problems can best be solved, but at the end of the day the two parties have to work together and compromise in order to get the job done. We don't have a king who knows best but is willing to allow his subjects to offer suggestions as to how to improve his master plan. That's just not the American way.
And, this explains why our three branches of government, when divided as to parties, actually works best. In his first two years in office, Obama had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives. He used those two years to push through his Obamacare, a deeply flawed piece of legislation. When Eric Kantor, a Republican offered his thoughts, Obama told him, in essence, elections have consequences and we won.
Technically, Obama was correct. The Democrats had a clean sweep. And, quite true, from those facts did follow numerous consequences. But, it wasn't a good for America. If they could have jointly hammered out a healthcare program acceptable to both sides, America might have begun to solve one of its most intractable problems. In short, when both sides have skin in the game, the outcome is invariably better. It's a lesson both parties must soon get to learn. It's a lesson Romney learned in Massachusetts when he served as governor. It's apparently a lesson you don't learn in Chicago.
I think they were a little hard on Lehrer, but they may well have been correct in their other observations. But, I'd like to add one other observation I didn't hear being offered by any other political analyst; namely, the exposure of Obama's imperial style. In the course of this his first debate in 2012, Obama said something, to the following effect: If someone has a good idea that they want to bring to his attention, he's willing to listen.
That, in a nut shell, exposes the greatest flaw in Obama's presidency. He views himself as the regal commander. Should someone in his realm bring something up that he wasn't aware of, or something that he hadn't considered, or a new approach to some existing problem, he'd be willing to listen.
What Obama doesn't seem to realize is that that's not how our American system works. We know the problems; namely, high unemployment, a huge and growing federal deficit, a creaky and ineffectual system of education, a tax code that's inefficient and unfair, and a system for delivering health care that's unsustainable. And, we know that solving these problems, either by Republicans or Democrats will be daunting. And, we do want a president who recognizes the problems and is prepared to take up the challenge. But, he's got to do it within the American system.
We don't have an opaque bureaucracy like China's, we don't have one-man rule like Russia, and we don't have a king like Morocco. Also, while I respect the British parliamentary system, it's not our system. In America, our political parties may have very different ideas of how America should be governed and very different ideas as to how our problems can best be solved, but at the end of the day the two parties have to work together and compromise in order to get the job done. We don't have a king who knows best but is willing to allow his subjects to offer suggestions as to how to improve his master plan. That's just not the American way.
And, this explains why our three branches of government, when divided as to parties, actually works best. In his first two years in office, Obama had a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House of Representatives. He used those two years to push through his Obamacare, a deeply flawed piece of legislation. When Eric Kantor, a Republican offered his thoughts, Obama told him, in essence, elections have consequences and we won.
Technically, Obama was correct. The Democrats had a clean sweep. And, quite true, from those facts did follow numerous consequences. But, it wasn't a good for America. If they could have jointly hammered out a healthcare program acceptable to both sides, America might have begun to solve one of its most intractable problems. In short, when both sides have skin in the game, the outcome is invariably better. It's a lesson both parties must soon get to learn. It's a lesson Romney learned in Massachusetts when he served as governor. It's apparently a lesson you don't learn in Chicago.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)