RSS
Could This Gas Field Benefit Israel?
Illustrative: London-based Energean’s drill ship begins drilling at the Karish natural gas field offshore Israel in the east Mediterranean May 9, 2022. REUTERS/Ari Rabinovitch
The Aphrodite gas field was discovered in 2011, and its gas potential is estimated at 124 billion cubic meters. Ownership is divided among three companies: Chevron owns 35%, Shell 35%, and New Med (formerly Delek) 30%. The field is approximately 170 km south of Limassol and 30 km from the Israeli gas field Leviathan.
A small part of the Aphrodite field is in Israel’s economic waters, which means it is a joint, or cross-border, field – a fairly common situation in the global energy arena. The Israeli part is owned by three Israeli companies. Israel and Cyprus have held multiple talks in order to reach an agreement about the field but were not successful, and appear to have left the matter to the companies that are commercially concerned. The likely reason is that the two countries do not want to cloud their close relationship with a dispute over the gas field.
The Aphrodite field has not progressed towards the development stage for a variety of reasons, some of them economic. The reservoir is not particularly large, but it is commercial. No less importantly, it has implications for the “Cyprus problem” — that is, the conflict over the future of the island, which has been divided ever since the Turks invaded it in 1974.
The companies, led by Chevron, and the Cypriot government, represented primarily by its Minister of Energy, conducted complex rounds of negotiations that involved much hand-wringing on the part of the Cypriot minister. A few months ago, the minister went so far as to threaten that if the companies did not return to the original development plan submitted in 2019, he would withdraw the franchise.
Chevron, an American company and one of the largest in the world, won the support of the American government during the negotiations. The President of Cyprus met with the senior Chevron officials and with President Biden’s special envoy, Amos Hochstein, and promised to settle the differences of opinion.
The main dispute concerns the number of wells that will be operated above the field, a matter that reflects the question of supplying gas from the reservoir not just to the export market but to the Cypriot market as well. There was no dispute regarding the export of gas to liquefaction facilities in Egypt (and from there to the local market or other export markets). The updated proposal requires the companies to take on an additional economic cost, along the lines of the original development plan.
The companies’ U-turn on this issue seems to be due to several factors:
Gas discoveries in the eastern Mediterranean have become more attractive since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, especially for Europe, considering gas prices on the world market. No less important is the Egyptian market, which urgently requires gas for both local consumption and re-export for the purpose of obtaining foreign currency, a vital need for the faltering Egyptian economy. The Egyptian market is a stone’s throw from the field.
The proximity of the Aphrodite field to Israel’s Leviathan field, one of the world’s largest gas discoveries of recent years, is a great advantage. The possibility of connecting to Leviathan, one way or another, is on the table (theoretically at least, but with a considerable economic rationale). It depends on an Israeli decision about its preferred export alternative.
The Cypriot Minister of Energy has wisely leveraged the interest that international companies like BP (British Petroleum) and the UAE’s Adnoc have expressed in stepping into the shoes of the field’s current owners should the negotiations fail. These companies have made their interest clear, and contracts have even been reported to purchase 50% of the Leviathan field (the purchase never took place, perhaps due to the war). It was also reported that the Energean company, which operates the Karish field in Israeli economic waters, has signaled to the Cypriot government that it has an interest in the Aphrodite field.
While the dispute between the Cypriot Minister of Energy and the companies has been settled, the devil is in the details. There is still the “elephant in the room” – the conflict over the future of the island. Negotiations surrounding the reunification of the island have failed time and time again. The Greek part is recognized by the whole world (except Turkey) as the Republic of Cyprus, a member of the European Union. The Turkish part is not recognized internationally by any country other than Turkey. After the last failure in 2017, the Turkish position toughened. In recent years, Ankara has said the only alternative is to divide the island into two countries.
The dispute over the utilization of the proven energy potential in Cypriot economic waters, and its distribution between the two communities on the island, has not been resolved as the island’s future remains unclear. The question constantly in the background is Turkey’s position. Will Ankara allow the Cypriot field to be developed, or will it take assertive steps to make that development conditional on political agreements? It can be argued that the involvement of a huge American company – one that will have the support of the American government in case of tensions or disputes – should soften Turkish opposition. To this must be added the significant improvement that has recently taken place in the relationship between Turkey and Egypt. As mentioned, the latter is in dire need of gas, and the Aphrodite field is close by.
However, the Cypriot conflict is seen by Ankara as a matter of prime strategic importance. The secular opposition parties often take an even more rigid and nationalistic stance than does the Erdogan administration. To this must be added the uncomfortable situation in which Turkish foreign policy finds itself regarding the war in Gaza and its exclusion from any involvement in it.
From a regional perspective, the development of the Aphrodite field, and its connection to Egypt, highlights a fascinating regional relationship that has been forged in recent years following the gas discoveries. This will strengthen Egypt’s current position as well as its ambition to be a regional energy hub (though this would not greatly please Turkey).
Is all of this good for Israel? The answer is yes.
From a political point of view, the strategy that has developed in recent years of strengthening the regional architecture, with Israel occupying a central place, is in line with Israeli interests. So is the strengthening of Egypt and Cyprus. The Turkish alternative to exporting Israeli gas is not on the agenda, certainly following the war in Gaza.
From an economic point of view, the dispute surrounding the Israeli part of the Cypriot field will be resolved in commercial negotiations among the companies and will not necessarily require government involvement. This is good for the Israeli companies concerned and for Israel itself.
The development of the field and its connection to Egypt may strengthen the feasibility of connecting it to the Leviathan reservoir, but this does not reduce Israel’s room for maneuver regarding other possible alternatives, whether a liquefaction facility at sea (FLNG) or another alternative (connection to the liquefaction facility on the Cypriot coast, for example).
Despite the progress that has likely been made between the companies and the Cypriot government, challenges remain. All the parties concerned, companies and governments alike, will have to conduct proactive and creative diplomacy to turn the development of a relatively small but commercial gas field in a highly complex region into a reality.
Ambassador (ret.) Michael Harari joined the Israeli Foreign Ministry and served more than 30 years in a range of diplomatic roles in Israel and abroad, including (among others) in Cairo, London and Nicosia. His final position abroad was as Israeli Ambassador to Cyprus (2010-2015). Today he serves as a consultant in the fields of strategy, policy and energy and lectures in the Political Science Department at the Jezreel Valley College. A version of this article was originally published by the BESA Center.
The post Could This Gas Field Benefit Israel? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll
Harvard University president Alan Garber attending the 373rd Commencement Exercises at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, May 23, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
A recently published Harvard Crimson poll of over 1,400 Harvard faculty revealed sweeping opposition to interim university President Alan Garber’s efforts to strike a deal with the federal government to restore $3 billion in research grants and contracts it froze during the first 100 days of the second Trump administration.
In the survey, conducted from April 23 to May 12, 71 percent of arts and sciences faculty oppose negotiating a settlement with the administration, which may include concessions conservatives have long sought from elite higher education, such as meritocratic admissions, viewpoint diversity, and severe disciplinary sanctions imposed on students who stage unauthorized protests that disrupt academic life.
Additionally, 64 percent “strongly disagree” with shuttering diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, 73 percent oppose rejecting foreign applicants who hold anti-American beliefs which are “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence,” and 70 percent strongly disagree with revoking school recognition from pro-Hamas groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC).
“More than 98 percent of faculty who responded to the survey supported the university’s decision to sue the White House,” The Crimson reported. “The same percentage backed Harvard’s public rejection of the sweeping conditions that the administration set for maintaining the funds — terms that included external audits of Harvard’s hiring practices and the disciplining of student protesters.”
Alyza Lewin of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law told The Algemeiner that the poll results indicate that Harvard University will continue to struggle to address campus antisemitism on campus, as there is now data showing that its faculty reject the notion of excising intellectualized antisemitism from the university.
“If you, for example, have faculty teaching courses that are regularly denying that the Jews are a people and erasing the Jewish people’s history in the land of Israel, that’s going to undermine your efforts to address the antisemitism on your campus,” Lewin explained. “When Israel is being treated as the ‘collective Jew,’ when the conversation is not about Israel’s policies, when the criticism is not what the [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism] would call criticism of Israel similar to that against any other country, they have to understand that it is the demonization, delegitimization, and applying a double standard to Jews as individuals or to Israel.”
She added, “Faculty must recognize … the demonization, vilification, the shunning, and the marginalizing of Israelis, Jews, and Zionists, when it happens, as violations of the anti-discrimination policies they are legally and contractually obligated to observe.”
The Crimson survey results were published amid reports that Garber was working to reach a deal with the Trump administration that is palatable to all interested parties, including the university’s left-wing social milieu.
According to a June 26 report published by The Crimson, Garber held a phone call with major donors in which he “confirmed in response to a question from [Harvard Corporation Fellow David M. Rubenstein] that talks had resumed” but “declined to share specifics of how Harvard expected to settle with the White House.”
On June 30, the Trump administration issued Harvard a “notice of violation” of civil rights law following an investigation which examined how it responded to dozens of antisemitic incidents reported by Jewish students since the 2023-2024 academic year.
The correspondence, sent by the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, charged that Harvard willfully exposed Jewish students to a torrent of racist and antisemitic abuse following the Hamas-led Oct. 7 massacre, which precipitated a surge in anti-Zionist activity on the campus, both in the classroom and out of it.
“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” wrote the four federal officials comprising the multiagency Task Force. “Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.”
The Trump administration ratcheted up pressure on Harvard again on Wednesday, reporting the institution to its accreditor for alleged civil rights violations resulting from its weak response to reports of antisemitic bullying, discrimination, and harassment following the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre.
Citing Harvard’s failure to treat antisemitism as seriously as it treated other forms of hatred in the past, The US Department of Educationthe called on the New England Commission of Higher Education to review and, potentially, revoke its accreditation — a designation which qualifies Harvard for federal funding and attests to the quality of the educational services its provides.
“Accrediting bodies play a significant role in preserving academic integrity and a campus culture conducive to truth seeking and learning,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “Part of that is ensuring students are safe on campus and abiding by federal laws that guarantee educational opportunities to all students. By allowing anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Harvard Faculty Oppose Deal With Trump, Distancing From Hamas Apologists: Crimson Poll first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun attends a joint press conference with French President Emmanuel Macron at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, March 28, 2025. REUTERS/Sarah Meyssonnier/Pool
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun on Friday carefully affirmed his country’s desire for peace with Israel while cautioning that Beirut is not ready to normalize relations with its southern neighbor.
Aoun called for a full Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, according to a statement from his office, while reaffirming his government’s efforts to uphold a state monopoly on arms amid mounting international pressure on the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah to disarm.
“The decision to restrict arms is final and there is no turning back on it,” Aoun said.
The Lebanese leader drew a clear distinction between pursuing peace and establishing formal normalization in his country’s relationship with the Jewish state.
“Peace is the lack of a state of war, and this is what matters to us in Lebanon at the moment,” Aoun said in a statement. “As for the issue of normalization, it is not currently part of Lebanese foreign policy.”
Aoun’s latest comments come after Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar expressed interest last month in normalizing ties with Lebanon and Syria — an effort Jerusalem says cannot proceed until Hezbollah is fully disarmed.
Earlier this week, Aoun sent his government’s response to a US-backed disarmament proposal as Washington and Jerusalem increased pressure on Lebanon to neutralize the terror group.
While the details remain confidential, US Special Envoy Thomas Barrack said he was “unbelievably satisfied” with their response.
This latest proposal, presented to Lebanese officials during Barrack’s visit on June 19, calls for Hezbollah to be fully disarmed within four months in exchange for Israel halting airstrikes and withdrawing troops from its five occupied posts in southern Lebanon.
However, Hezbollah chief Sheikh Naim Qassem vowed in a televised speech to keep the group’s weapons, rejecting Washington’s disarmament proposal.
“How can you expect us not to stand firm while the Israeli enemy continues its aggression, continues to occupy the five points, and continues to enter our territories and kill?” said Qassem, who succeeded longtime terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah after Israel killed him last year.
“We will not be part of legitimizing the occupation in Lebanon and the region,” the terrorist leader continued. “We will not accept normalization [with Israel].”
Last fall, Israel decimated Hezbollah’s leadership and military capabilities with an air and ground offensive, following the group’s attacks on Jerusalem — which they claimed were a show of solidarity with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas amid the war in Gaza.
In November, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-brokered ceasefire agreement that ended a year of fighting between the Jewish state and Hezbollah.
Under the agreement, Israel was given 60 days to withdraw from southern Lebanon, allowing the Lebanese army and UN forces to take over security as Hezbollah disarms and moves away from Israel’s northern border.
However, Israel maintained troops at several posts in southern Lebanon beyond the ceasefire deadline, as its leaders aimed to reassure northern residents that it was safe to return home.
Jerusalem has continued carrying out strikes targeting remaining Hezbollah activity, with Israeli leaders accusing the group of maintaining combat infrastructure, including rocket launchers — calling this “blatant violations of understandings between Israel and Lebanon.”
The post Balancing Act: Lebanese President Aoun Affirms Hope for Peace with Israel, Balks At Normalization first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide
Chef and head of World Central Kitchen Jose Andres attends the Milken Institute Global Conference 2025 in Beverly Hills, California, US, May 5, 2025. Photo: Reuters/Mike Blake.
Renowned Spanish chef and World Central Kitchen (WCK) founder José Andrés called the Oct. 7 attack “horrendous” in an interview Wednesday and shared his hopes for reconciliation between the “vast majority” on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide who are “good people that very often are not served well by their leaders”
WCK is a US-based, nonprofit organization that provides fresh meals to people in conflict zones around the world. The charity has been actively serving Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank since the Oct. 7 massacre in southern Israel. Since the Hamas attack, WCK has served more than 133 million meals across Gaza, according to its website.
The restaurateur and humanitarian has been quoted saying in past interviews that “sometimes very big problems have very simple solutions.” On Wednesday’s episode of the Wall Street Journal podcast “Bold Names,” he was asked to elaborate on that thought. He responded by saying he believes good meals and good leaders can help resolve issues between Israelis and Palestinians, who, he believes, genuinely want to live harmoniously with each other.
“I had people in Gaza, mothers, women making bread,” he said. “Moments that you had of closeness they were telling you: ‘What Hamas did was wrong. I wouldn’t [want] anybody to do this to my children.’ And I had Israelis that even lost family members. They say, ‘I would love to go to Gaza to be next to the people to show them that we respect them …’ And this to me is very fascinating because it’s the reality.
“Maybe some people call me naive. [But] the vast majority of the people are good people that very often are not served well by their leaders. And the simple reality of recognizing that many truths can be true at the same time in the same phrase that what happened on October 7th was horrendous and was never supposed to happen. And that’s why World Central Kitchen was there next to the people in Israel feeding in the kibbutz from day one, and at the same time that I defended obviously the right of Israel to defend itself and to try to bring back the hostages. Equally, what is happening in Gaza is not supposed to be happening either.”
Andres noted that he supports Israel’s efforts to target Hamas terrorists but then seemingly accused Israel of “continuously” targeting children and civilians during its military operations against the terror group.
“We need leaders that believe in that, that believe in longer tables,” he concluded. “It’s so simple to invest in peace … It’s so simple to do good. It’s so simple to invest in a better tomorrow. Food is a solution to many of the issues we’re facing. Let’s hope that … one day in the Middle East it’ll be people just celebrating the cultures that sometimes if you look at what they eat, they seem all to eat exactly the same.”
In 2024, WCK fired at least 62 of its staff members in Gaza after Israel said they had ties to terrorist groups. In one case, Israel discovered that a WCK employee named Ahed Azmi Qdeih took part in the deadly Hamas rampage across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Qdeih was killed in an Israeli airstrike in Gaza in November 2024.
In April 2024, the Israel Defense Forces received backlash for carrying out airstrikes on a WCK vehicle convoy which killed seven of the charity’s employees. Israel’s military chief, Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, said the airstrikes were “a mistake that followed a misidentification,” and Israel dismissed two senior officers as a result of the mishandled military operation.
The strikes “were not just some unfortunate mistake in the fog of war,” Andrés alleged.
“It was a direct attack on clearly marked vehicles whose movements were known by” the Israeli military, he claimed in an op-ed published by Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot. “It was also the direct result of [the Israeli] government’s policy to squeeze humanitarian aid to desperate levels.”
In a statement on X, Andres accused Israel of “indiscriminate killing,” saying the Jewish state “needs to stop restricting humanitarian aid, stop killing civilians and aid workers, and stop using food as a weapon.”
The post Peace Meals: Chef José Andrés Says ‘Good People’ On Both Sides of Gaza Conflict Ill-Served By Leaders, Food Can Bridge Divide first appeared on Algemeiner.com.