Israel & Iranian Oil

Israel's Tehran connection: Israel, while supposedly observing an ironclad boycott of all things Iranian, is happily buying Iranian oil. Richard Silverstein, guardian.co.uk/commentisfree, April 4, 2008.

Quote:

---

"Israel imports Iranian oil on a large scale even though contacts with Iran and purchasing of its products are officially boycotted by Israel. Israel gets around the boycott by having the oil delivered via Europe. A reliable Israeli energy newsletter, EnergiaNews, reported this last week [March 18] ...

"EnergiaNews got the information about the Iran trade from sources with ties to the management of Israeli Oil Refineries Ltd ... According to EnergiaNews the Iranian oil is liked in Israel because its quality is better than other crude oils.

"The report by EnergiaNews editor Moshe Shalev states that the Iranian oil reaches various European ports, mainly in Rotterdam. It is bought by Israelis and the necessary European bill of lading and insurance papers are supplied. Then it is transported to Haifa in Israel. The importer is the Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline Co (EAPC), which keeps its oil sources secret."

---

Quote:

---

"It is not clear if the Iranian exporters know about Israeli purchases of their oil. At the other end, the Israeli buyers and governmental offices are well aware of where the high-grade oil comes from, although it is a blatant defiance of the boycott. The EnergiaNews article even made it through Israeli censorship, which asked only for some changes in the text. The fact that the report cleared the censors increases the credibility of the information. In the past, such reports were forbidden.

"When questioned by Sonntag, an energy expert of one of the leading Israeli papers confirmed the EnergiaNews report: Israel has been importing Iranian oil for many years. The expert stressed, however, that the purchases were made on the free market and not directly from Iran."

---

Hypocrisy anyone ?

Israeli Press TV quotes

Quote:

---

A senior Iranian oil official has categorically denied a recent report that Israel imports oil from Iran on a large scale via Europe.

"Iran's oil laws forbid any buyer of the country's crude to supply oil to the occupied territories," said Hojjatollah Ghanimifard, international affairs director of the National Iranian Oil Company.

His remarks come in response to an April 4 report in the Guardian which claimed that Israeli firm Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline Co. (EAPC) imports Iran's oil from European ports, although contacts with Iran and purchasing of its products are boycotted by Israel.

Ghanimifard said Israel aims to attract publicity by issuing such reports.

---

And the Belfast Telegraph among other things quotes

Quote:

---

Meanwhile an Israeli government minister said yesterday that Israel would respond to an Iranian attack by destroying that country.

"An Iranian attack against Israel would trigger a tough reaction that would lead to the destruction of the Iranian nation," National Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer said.

"Iranians are aware of our strength but continue to provoke us by arming their Syrian allies and Hezbollah."

"Nowhere would be safe from Syrian and Hezbollah rockets."

---

The expert stressed, however, that the purchases were made on the free market and not directly from Iran.

...as anyone who knows anything about commodity trading will tell you. We'll be believing all the "Blood Diamond" rubbish next!

I suspect the intent behind the Guardian publishing this was purely anti-Israeli.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

We'll be believing all the "Blood Diamond" rubbish next!

---

I'm not sure what you think the "rubbish" part of it was, Wilf--due in part to the Kimberley Certification Process Scheme (and the industry consensus that it represents), the amount of illegally-mined conflict-related diamonds on the market has dropped 15-fold (to less than 1% of the total). Moreover, those diamonds that are still illegally extracted and aren't certified command much, much reduced prices.

There are, of course, substantial holes in the KCPS (notably around national standards and enforcement), but I would still argue that it was a strikingly successful (and rather rare) example of international cooperation on these sorts of issues (itself driven by some very effective NGO mobilization that forced the diamond industry to get onside).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

I'm not sure what you think the "rubbish" part of it was, Wilf--due in part to the Kimberley Certification Process Scheme (and the industry consensus that it represents).

---

Very well aware of the Kimberely "process" having been in Sierra Leone in 1993 and written a somewhat lengthy report on the how the diamond extraction was both the source and the fuel of the conflict. The Kimberley process did not stop the war, in Sierra Leone/Liberia and will not stop future wars. It's a distraction. The diamond industry has every interest in promoting the illusion of the efficacy of the Kimberely Process and VERY few folks are in a position to argue with them. They are now totally off the hook

a.) It's easy to get diamonds certificated, if you know how the process works.
b.) There is no way of proving a diamond is a "conflict diamond." EG - It hasn't stopped the problem.
c.) What about the conflict "oil" - as Angola, and/or the Niger Delta, or the Bauxite, Gold, Hardwoods and the 101 other illegally extracted resources? No nice little process's there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

The diamond industry has every interest in promoting the illusion of the efficacy of the Kimberely Process and VERY few folks are in a position to argue with them. They are now totally off the hook

---

I agree that people presume more progress than has actually been made (and certainly accept that the decline of conflict diamonds in the market has more to do with the end of wars in Angola and Sierra Leone than with KCPS per se--I should have noted that at the outset, so thanks for picking up on it).

Nonetheless, it is an ongoing process--given problems in monitoring diamond custody in the supply chain, it is never going to be perfect. It is still, I would argue, better than the situation that existed before and provides a locus for continued engagement for NGOs and national governments that want to further improve on the status quo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

Nonetheless, it is an ongoing process--given problems in monitoring diamond custody in the supply chain, it is never going to be perfect. It is still, I would argue, better than the situation that existed before and provides a locus for continued engagement for NGOs and national governments that want to further improve on the status quo.

---

The "Blood Diamond" issue incense me, precisely because it does not, and cannot work.

If I turn up in West Africa, in a private jet, and have cash to buy diamonds, I can leave in 72 hours with glass jar full on un-cut good 3C diamonds. I can then fly to Buenos-Aries, or a couple of other places and get them cut, and then go and sell them anywhere for cash - and I am completely outside the Kimberley process.

The real culprits in Sierra Leone are still there and still in business, last time I checked. They are both Middle Eastern in origin.

The other part of the myth was that the diamonds were used to buy arms. Yes, arms were brought with diamonds, but an AKM cost $70, and there were no more than 5,000 RUF at anyone time. Even if you assume $1,000 per man for ammunition - that's only $5 million. The RUF never brought any heavy weapons. They couldn't use them, so some $1-200million in diamonds disappeared onto the International market, and the war cost less $5million to fund and could be funded for a lot less.

$1 million a year could fund an apocalyptic insurgency in West Africa, and you can get that easily from stripping out other resources.

... so I for one, am not really sure why the NGOs chalk this one up as a success. I have a very strong suspicion that the Kimberley process was initiated by the diamond industry and then fronted by the NGOs to sugar coat the concept.

It's the standard M.O. for certain political stripe people, and the "one worlders", some NGOs and mush-headed do-gooders to place the blame on inanimate objects, such as oil, diamonds, guns, or freaking fairy dust.

They do this to avoid revealing the fact that some people are evil and just need to be shot in the freaking head. It's hard to join hands and sing the "Coke" song with the bloody corpse of Che Guevara or Castro, after all.