GAZA / EASTERN MEDITERRANEAN — The Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement says its campaign has scored a significant result after Scotland-based Dana Petroleum became the second international energy company reported to have withdrawn from an Israeli-led offshore gas exploration consortium operating in waters claimed by Palestinians.
Dana’s reported departure follows the withdrawal of Italian energy company Eni in March 2026. The BDS movement and supporting campaign groups say sustained pressure from unions, environmental organisations and Palestine solidarity networks in Scotland, South Korea and Italy helped push the companies away from the project. The movement announced Dana’s exit on November 11, describing it as a major campaign victory. The BDS movement’s statement sets out the campaign’s account of the withdrawals.
However, the project has not simply disappeared. Israel’s latest licensing arrangement names Israeli company Ratio Energies and US-based Murphy Offshore Oil, each with a reported 50 per cent stake in the exploration programme, with Murphy acting as operator. The change means campaigners are now directing pressure towards Murphy. The details of the revised consortium were reported by The New Arab and Ynet.
What Is The Gas Project At The Centre Of The Dispute?
The immediate controversy concerns offshore exploration licences in an area identified as Zone G, close to Gaza’s coastline in the eastern Mediterranean. Israel awarded exploration licences to a consortium in October 2023. Palestinian legal and human rights organisations argue that a substantial part of the licensed area overlaps maritime territory claimed by the State of Palestine.
Adalah, an Israeli human rights organisation, said in a 2024 legal challenge that approximately 62 per cent of Zone G falls within the maritime boundaries declared by Palestine in 2019. It argued that issuing licences in that area without Palestinian consent violates Palestinian rights to natural resources and international law. That is the position of the petitioning rights groups; Israel disputes Palestinian statehood and the validity of its maritime claims. Adalah’s legal analysis explains the basis of the challenge.
Who Owns Gaza’s Gas Reserves?
The question requires an important distinction: the Gaza Marine gas field and the newer Zone G exploration licences are not the same project.
Gaza Marine is a separate, discovered gas field located roughly 30 to 36 kilometres off Gaza’s coast. Discovered in 1999–2000, it is estimated to contain about one trillion cubic feet of natural gas, equivalent to roughly 28–32 billion cubic metres. The Palestine Investment Fund describes it as a Palestinian natural gas project and says its development is central to Palestinian energy security. The field’s development structure has involved the Palestine Investment Fund (PIF) and Consolidated Contractors Company (CCC), with an Egyptian consortium also involved in development discussions. The Palestine Investment Fund’s project description outlines the field and its estimated reserves.
In a 2025 peer-reviewed legal article, scholars Mutaz Qafisheh, Jinan Bastaki and Victor Kattan argued that Gaza’s maritime zones form part of the State of Palestine and that Palestine holds sovereign rights over resources such as Gaza Marine under the law of the sea. Their analysis says Palestine can enter contracts for exploration and development. Other academic analysis has noted that the field’s legal and political status has been complicated by the absence of effective Palestinian control over the coastline and by Israel’s security and maritime restrictions. The Leiden Journal of International Law article sets out the legal argument in detail.
The Palestinian position is also reflected in the Palestine Investment Fund’s description of Gaza Marine as a field in the Palestinian maritime zone. The dispute is not simply about who can physically reach the gas: it concerns sovereignty, maritime boundaries, the rights of an occupied population and who has authority to authorise exploration and receive the proceeds.
Why The Zone G Licences Are Contested
In February 2024, Adalah, together with Palestinian human rights organisations Al-Haq, Al Mezan and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, challenged the licences and called on the companies involved to refrain from operating in parts of Zone G that overlap Palestinian-claimed maritime areas. They argued that Israel, as occupying power, cannot use domestic licensing procedures to take control of natural resources belonging to the occupied population.
Israel’s position is different. It does not recognise Palestine as a sovereign state with authority to declare the maritime boundaries in question and has treated the licensing area as falling within its own offshore licensing system. The absence of an agreed maritime delimitation and the competing legal positions are central to why the project remains contentious. The Business & Human Rights Resource Centre’s review summarises the competing claims and company responses.
The International Court of Justice’s July 2024 advisory opinion found that Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful and addressed Israel’s obligations concerning Palestinian self-determination and natural resources. The opinion did not decide the precise boundary of Zone G or rule specifically on the current consortium’s licences. That distinction matters when assessing legal claims about this particular exploration area.
Why The BDS Movement Is Claiming A Victory
The BDS movement says the withdrawals demonstrate the influence of coordinated public pressure on international companies considering involvement in projects connected to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Friends of the Earth Scotland and the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign have also welcomed Dana’s reported exit, pointing to demonstrations, workplace engagement and cross-border organising. Friends of the Earth Scotland’s statement describes the campaign activities and its interpretation of the decision.
Still, the public evidence does not establish that activism was the sole reason for either company’s withdrawal. The BDS campaign attributes the decisions to sustained pressure, while corporate and regulatory considerations also form part of the wider project background. Dana’s owner, South Korea’s Korea National Oil Corporation (KNOC), had reportedly indicated in August that it intended to withdraw, without providing a clear timetable, according to campaign materials and reporting.
The earlier exit by Eni was reported in March. The Business & Human Rights Resource Centre records Eni’s confirmation that it had withdrawn, alongside responses from other companies contacted about the controversy.
What Happens Next?
With Murphy Oil and Ratio Energies now identified as the companies holding the latest reported licences, the next questions concern whether exploration will proceed, whether the legal challenges will affect the licences, and whether the companies will publish further details about their plans.
For Palestinians, the stakes extend beyond a single consortium. Gaza Marine has remained undeveloped for more than two decades despite its potential to provide domestic energy, reduce dependence on imported electricity and generate public revenue. The Palestine Investment Fund estimates the field contains around one trillion cubic feet of gas, but commercial development has been repeatedly delayed by political, security, investment and legal obstacles.
The central issue, therefore, is not simply which energy company enters or leaves a consortium. It is whether Palestinians can exercise meaningful control over the maritime resources they claim under international law, participate in decisions about their development and benefit from the revenue. Until the competing claims and practical restrictions are resolved, the gas off Gaza will remain both an energy opportunity and a major point of political and legal dispute.
Watch: Al Jazeera’s report featuring Mikail Malik and campaigners.