Israel/Palestine discussion

[sourmìlk]

That's a pretty ballsy statement to make so affirmatively. Whence originates your certainty?

[zmic]

That's a pretty ballsy statement to make so affirmatively. Whence originates your certainty?

Israel is a rational actor. The fact that Israel's political strategists are making a lot of noise about attacking Iran doesn't mean they themselves believe that the Iranian threat is *so* imminent that they should risk their entire air force in a single attack.

[zmic]

So, Taiwan isn't bluffing.

Of course Taiwan is bluffing. A country that attacks another country 75 times its size? That's a first in world history. Besides, Taiwan really intended to attack, it would never make so much noise about it.

Taiwan has been carrying out covert operations for a while, but why wouldn't it make this much noise? It's not as though they'd be able to keep the operation a secret anyways. What they need to do is drum up international (see: American) support for it while discouraging Iran..

Yeah, openly discussing military strikes on Iran that is CERTAINLY going to discourage Iran from developing weapons. Why would you need weapons if the United States of America and Israel, the two most aggressive nations on this planet, appear hell-bent on attacking you... Iran only needs to look the the left and to the right to see the charming results of America's previous engagements in the Middle East.

[yedidyak]

Israel is so aggressive it MUST be a bluff!

No, Israel really is serious. They see a nuclear Iran as a serious threat, and will do anything possible to stop it, just as they have in Iraq and Syria.

And 10-15 rockets this morning so far.

[zmic]

Taiwan is so aggressive it MUST be a bluff!

No, Taiwan really is serious. They see a nuclear Iran as a serious threat, and will do anything possible to stop it, just as they have in Iraq and Syria.

And 10-15 rockets this morning so far.

yes, two primitive tribes in the Middle East are at it again. What else is new in the last 3000 years?

[yedidyak]

'Tribes' I sort of get. Can you explain the 'primitive'?

[zmic]

'Tribes' I sort of get. will you explain the 'primitive'?

primitive as in "they seem to know nothing but violence over there"

[Box Boy]

Ah, so casual racism, then.

[yedidyak]

Yesterday I posted that all schools in southern Israel were closed today. An empty school in Be'er Sheva was just hit by a rocket.

[Noc]

'Tribes' I sort of get. will you explain the 'primitive'?

It came out in 2001 and hasn't aged very well?

[yedidyak]

I'm getting the feeling that the mods are paying this thread back for all the hassle it gives them. I like it.

[sourmìlk]

I am certainly enjoying the moderator insanity.

That's a pretty ballsy statement to make so affirmatively. Whence originates your certainty?

Taiwan is a rational actor. The fact that Taiwan's political strategists are making a lot of noise about attacking China doesn't mean they themselves believe that the Chinese threat is *so* imminent that they could risk their entire space navy in a single attack.

It does if they think that Iran is going to nuke them otherwise, and they have good reason to believe that. Also, your estimate that an attack would risk all of Israel's airforce is far from universally accepted: I've seen estimates that say Israel could be in and out in 48 hours and I've seen estimates that say it would take weeks.

[Panonadin]

Not contributing much. Just stopping by to say the filters are making most of these boring marry-go-round threads interesting to read again.

[zmic]

HULK certainly enjoying the Puppetmaster insanity.

That's a pretty ballsy statement to make so affirmatively. Whence originates your certainty?

Taiwan is a rational actor. The fact that Taiwan's political strategists are making a lot of noise about attacking China doesn't mean they themselves believe that the Chinese threat is *so* imminent that they could risk their entire SPAAAACE! navy in a single attack.

It does if they think that China is going to nuke them otherwise, and they have good reason to believe that.

Yes, in fact you did claim in a previous posting that there is a 100% certainty that Iran will nuke Israel if they get their hands on the required technology. How do you justify this claim?

Also, your estimate that a attack would risk all of Taiwan's airforce is far from universally accepted: I've seen estimates that spray Taiwan could be in and out in 48 hours and I've seen estimates that spray it would take weeks.

[sourmìlk]

HULK certainly enjoying the Puppetmaster insanity.

That's a pretty ballsy statement to make so affirmatively. Whence originates your certainty?

Taiwan is a rational actor. The fact that Taiwan's political strategists are making a lot of noise about attacking China doesn't mean they themselves believe that the Chinese threat is *so* imminent that they could risk their entire SPAAAACE! navy in a single attack.

It does if they think that China is going to nuke them otherwise, and they have good reason to believe that.

Yes, in fact you did claim in a previous posting that there is a 100% certainty that China will nuke Taiwan if they get their feet on the required technology. How do you justify this claim?

I don't actually think I claimed that.

[bentheimmigrant]

I don't actually think I claimed that.

and Taiwan is willing to dedicate a very substantial portion of its airforce because a possibility of success may be the best they will hope for. It's either do nothing and there's a x% chance that they're screwed, or try to disable China's nuclear facilities and then there's a (x * (100 - y))% chance that they're screwed where y is the chance that the attack is successful.

What you assume here is that x will remain a constant regardless whether Taiwan attacks or not. This seems a highly doubtful assumption to me.

Why? What could possibly increase the chance that China would attack Taiwan? That chance is already 100% because they're already attacking.

I really don't want this thread in my post history, but one gets sick of seeing this. You did claim it, in the context of a catastrophic nuclear attack (i.e. "they're screwed") that the chance (of a successful attack) was 100%.

Maybe try arguing in good faith for once and see what comes of it.

[sourmìlk]

That was lack of clarity on my part. I didn't mean to imply that Iran was necessarily going to nuke Israel. Just that, as Iran is already attacking Israel, it's not like Israel can anger Iran more. Iran's already at the maximum level of angry, i.e. attacking with intent to commit genocide.

[Iulus Cofield]

We haven't talked about Palestine in a while.

Palestinians prepare to lose the solar panels that provide a lifeline
Israel is planning to demolish 'illegal' solar panels that are the only source of electricity for Palestinians in West Bank villages

Spoiler:

Two large solar panels jut out of the barren landscape near Imneizil in the Hebron hills. The hi-tech structures sit incongruously alongside the tents and rough stone buildings of the Palestinian village, but they are fundamental to life here: they provide electricity.

Imneizil is not connected to the national electricity grid. Nor are the vast majority of Palestinian communities in Area C, the 62% of the West Bank controlled by Israel. The solar energy has replaced expensive and clunky oil-powered generators.

According to the Israeli authorities, these solar panels – along with six others in nearby villages – are illegal and have been slated for demolition.

Nihad Moor, 25, has three small children. The family live in a two-room tent kitted out with a fridge, TV and very old computer. She also has a small electric butter churn, which she uses to supplement her husband's small income from sheep farming.

"The kids get sick all the time. At the moment, because of a change in the weather, they all have colds. Without electricity I wouldn't even be able to see to help them when they need to use the [outdoor] toilet at night," Moor says. "I don't want to imagine what life would be like here if [the panels] were demolished."

Imneizil's solar system was built in 2009 by the Spanish NGO Seba at a cost of €30,000 to the Spanish government. According to the Israeli authorities, it was built without a permit.

Guy Inbar, a spokesperson for the Israeli authorities in the West Bank, explains: "International aid is an important component in improving and promoting the quality of life of the Palestinian population but this does not grant immunity for illegal or unco-ordinated activity."

The problem for Palestinian communities here is that permission to build any infrastructure is very hard to come by. According to figures from the civil administration quoted by the pressure group Peace Now, 91 permits were issued for Palestinian construction in Area C between 2001 and 2007. In the same period, more than 10,000 Israeli settlement units were built and1,663 Palestinian structures demolished.

The Jewish settlements in Area C are connected to the national water and electricity grids. But most Palestinian villages are cut off from basic infrastructure, including water and sewage services. Imneizil, which borders the ultra-religious settlement of Beit Yatir, currently has nine demolition orders on various structures, including a toilet block and water cistern for the school.

Comet ME is an Israeli NGO trying to circumvent these crippling restrictions on Palestinian development by harnessing Hebron's abundant natural energy sources – wind and sun.

Funded largely by the German government, the organisation has already provided tens of Palestinian villages with electricity through solar panels and wind turbines. Its goal is to reach all villages in the southern Hebron area by the end of 2013.

"In technical terms it's do-able, but it depends on Israeli policies," says Elad Orian, Comet ME's founder. "Power is a human right, like housing and education," he says. "We deal with providing basic energy services. Renewable energy provides the best route to do it."

The green energy solution has its flaws. At a cost of around $4,500 per family, it is expensive. Nor does it generate enough electricity to sustain a community. But it has offered a lifeline to the 150,000 Palestinians living in Area C's impoverished communities.

However, it will become increasingly difficult to convince donors that alternative energy is worth investing in if the expensive technology they are funding is destroyed. After the order issued against the Imneizil solar panels in September, six alternative energy systems built by Comet ME in Hebron have received demolition orders.

A legal fight waged by Rabbis for Human Rights has succeeded in suspending, but not lifting, the demolition of Imneizil's panels. The German foreign office has launched an intense diplomatic effort to save the others in nearby villages.

One UN expert, speaking anonymously as they are not authorised to talk to the media, believes the crackdown on the alternative energy movement by the Israelis is part of a deliberate strategy in Area C. "From December 2010 to April 2011, we saw a systematic targeting of the water infrastructure in Hebron, Bethlehem and the Jordan valley," the source said. "Now, in the last couple of months, they are targeting electricity. Two villages in the area have had their electrical poles demolished.

"There is this systematic effort by the civil administration targeting all Palestinian infrastructure in Hebron. They are hoping that by making it miserable enough, they [the Palestinians] will pick up and leave."

According to UN research, that is happening. Ten out of 13 Palestinian communities living in Area C surveyed by the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs in 2011 reported that families had already left their land as a result of Israeli policies. Ali Mohamed Hraizat, 49, head of Imneizil's village council, fears that if the solar panels are destroyed, his community will see an exodus.

"We've been here since 1948. We try to stay and maintain our lives, but people will leave if the electricity is cut off," he says. "They are used for light for their children to study by and for televisions. They will move into town. The solar panel isn't doing any harm … I just don't see the point in demolishing it."

If this is really a matter of law and justice, I don't understand why Israel didn't prevent the import and installation of the solar panels in the first place. Admittedly, I am not intimately familiar with the border security of Area C, but I am under the impression it isn't exactly the wilds of Chihuahua. I would think that it would be fairly simple to notice 30,000 Euros worth of solar panels, an NGO publicly saying they're there to install solar panels, and other such red flags.

[lutzj]

If this is really a matter of law and justice, I don't understand why Israel didn't prevent the import and installation of the solar panels in the first place. Admittedly, I am not intimately familiar with the border security of Area C, but I am under the impression it isn't exactly the wilds of Chihuahua. I would think that it would be fairly simple to notice 30,000 Euros worth of solar panels, an NGO publicly saying they're there to install solar panels, and other such red flags.

On top of that, I don't really see the rationale for requiring a permit for solar panels in the first place. Presumably the homes there are already approved; what's the harm in allowing people to install things like that? I can maybe see the argument if there were a lot of solar panels, or if this was a heavily-populated area, but it's just 30k Euros' worth out in the sticks.

Furthermore, if the Israeli government actively takes steps against people's efforts to produce electricity, and has not managed to connect them to the grid, that's a gross bureaucratic failure at best and an willful attempt to ruin Palestinians' lives at worst.

[yedidyak]

If this is the village I'm thinking of, then I actually know it. it is literally on the fence of Yattir, not a ultra-orthodox settlement, but a Jewish town in the area of the South Hebron hills. When I say literally on the fence, I mean touching, and built up to the fence long after the town of Yattir was there. I can understand why the IDF would feel jumpy about structures that obscure the line of sight on that fence, especially because there have been infiltration attacks on nearby settlements, including the next village over just a year ago. Also, Yattir is an easy target as the security wall ends right next to it.

So I can understand why they would let solar panels etc in, but that specific place could be a problem.

Again, I'm not 100% sure that thats the village they are talking about, but I have spent time guarding Yattir itself, (there were even shootings in the area whilst I was there) so I could understand that its an exception.

[Iulus Cofield]

Even if there is a good reason why that specific village is being targeted, that doesn't address the allegations that Israel has been demolishing water and electrical infrastructure elsewhere. I'm also not sure how solar panels, electrical poles, and water cisterns constitute a security risk. Not to mention the danger of treating all Palestinians as terrorists.

[yurell]

So it's right next to a Jewish town ... does this Jewish town have access to electricity?

[yedidyak]

It does. Whilst I do see your point, it would be hypocritical to both ask Israel to leave, and to connect local Arab towns to Israeli infrastructure. If there is a policy of deliberately destroying Palestinian power and water supply then obviously that is wrong, I was just pointing out that in that specific case from the article there could well be a valid security reason.

In other news, the 20th rocket / mortar since the cease-fire yesterday just hit Be'er Sheva, just after a civilian was wounded in Netivot. The cities of Ofakim and Sderot were also targeted.

[yurell]

It does. Whilst I do see your point, it would be hypocritical to both ask Israel to leave, and to connect local Arab towns to Israeli infrastructure. If there is a policy of deliberately destroying Palestinian power and water supply then obviously that is wrong, I was just pointing out that in that specific case from the article there could well be a valid security reason.

I don't see it as hypocritical: if Israel is in the process of deliberately removing the electricity from this town, they should replace it IMO. If our contention is 'Israel should leave', then Israel has no right to take down the infrastructure in the first place.

In other news, the 20th rocket / mortar since the cease-fire yesterday just hit Be'er Sheva, just after a civilian was wounded in Netivot. The cities of Ofakim and Sderot were also targeted.

Is this Hamas' 'we'll be good and not fire rockets indiscriminately into your country' and doing it anyway?

[sardia]

So it's right next to a Jewish town ... does this Jewish town have access to electricity?

Of course they do, their Jewish. Jews can't be a security threat, unlike those dirty palestinians. Which is why palestinians can't have anything nice, they could use electricity to build more terrorist babies.

In all seriousness, there's been clear policy choices that put Jewish lives and safety above those of Palestinians in the name of security interests. While it has clear benefits for Israelis, greater safety, it also hurts Palestinians in ways that denies them equal rights under the law. An easy comparison is how South Africans or the US treated blacks under Jim Crow laws and segregation. I'm not saying that Israel doesn't have valid security concerns; I'm saying Israel is taking the easy way out by denying anything possibly dangerous for the Palestinians to use. It's lazy, and makes its easy to be complacent about discrimination.

[yedidyak]

In all seriousness, there's been clear policy choices that put Jewish lives and safety above those of Palestinians in the name of security interests. While it has clear benefits for Israelis, greater safety, it also hurts Palestinians in ways that denies them equal rights under the law.

Well, Israeli citizen's lives and safety above non-Israeli citizen's lives and safety.

I don't see it as hypocritical: if Israel is in the process of deliberately removing the electricity from this town, they should replace it IMO. If our contention is 'Israel should leave', then Israel has no right to take down the infrastructure in the first place.

I think Israel would say they are removing illegal structures, rather than deliberately removing electricity. But yes, this should be investigated and if necessary stopped.

Is this Hamas' 'we'll be good and not fire rockets indiscriminately into your country' and doing it anyway?

More Islamic Jihad and the PRC than Hamas, but yes. EDIT - And it means that school is again cancelled for 207,000 school children in the south.

[sourmìlk]

Why, exactly, is it that only Israel is criticized for enforcing building codes in a way that literally every other country on Earth does? The Palestinians are not a special nation exempt from their obligation to abide by these laws.

So it's right next to a Jewish town ... does this Jewish town have access to electricity?

Of course they do, their Jewish. Jews can't be a security threat, unlike those dirty palestinians. Which is why palestinians can't have anything nice, they could use electricity to build more terrorist babies.

In all seriousness, there's been clear policy choices that put Jewish lives and safety above those of Palestinians in the name of security interests.

Yes, countries are supposed to prioritize the safety of their own citizens.

While it has clear benefits for Israelis, greater safety, it also hurts Palestinians in ways that denies them equal rights under the law. An easy comparison is how South Africans or the US treated blacks under Jim Crow laws and segregation.

no. That's Richard Goldstone, the same one who drafted the UN report on Operation Cast Lead (and later recanted it) discussing why Israel is not apartheid, and why your claims do not apply.

I'm not saying that Israel doesn't have valid security concerns; I'm saying Israel is taking the easy way out by denying anything possibly dangerous for the Palestinians to use. It's lazy, and makes its easy to be complacent about discrimination.

I don't see the problem with denying a nation that uses potentially dangerous things dangerously those dangerous things.

Also, whence originates Israels supposed obligation to provide Palestinians in the West Bank with electricity?

[lutzj]

Also, whence originates Israels supposed obligation to provide Palestinians in the West Bank with electricity?

The article stated that Area C is part of the West Bank that is under Israeli control. It's not strictly illegal to both demolish solar panels and not provide the Palestinians with a grid hookup, but it's kind of dickish to eliminate their access to electricity without offering an alternative when you're the body that is administrating the area. I'd bet there isn't going to be any financial recompense for the panels either.

[sourmìlk]

I don't see it as dickish to not compensate people for the punishment of breaking the law.

[bentheimmigrant]

The point is they shouldn't have needed to obtain electricity on their own.

[sourmìlk]

The point is they shouldn't have needed to obtain electricity on their own.

Define "on their own". If you mean "without any external help", then obviously. If you mean "without the help of the Israeli government", then no. It's not the Israeli government's responsibility to provide anybody (except perhaps Gaza) with electricity.

[yedidyak]

Also, whence originates Israels supposed obligation to provide Palestinians in the West Bank with electricity?

The article stated that Area C is part of the West Bank that is under Israeli control. It's not strictly illegal to both demolish solar panels and not provide the Palestinians with a grid hookup, but it's kind of dickish to eliminate their access to electricity without offering an alternative when you're the body that is administrating the area. I'd bet there isn't going to be any financial recompense for the panels either.

Actually no. Israel is in control of Area C as a military occupier. Building infrastructure for Palestinian villages is still their own issue, just with coordination with Israel. Perhaps some of the billions of aid money siphoned off by Arafat and his cronies could have gone to that instead. Other parts of the West Bank are developing now under Salaam Fayad's administration, if he stays longer they may have hope.

[lutzj]

The point is they shouldn't have needed to obtain electricity on their own.

Define "on their own". If you mean "without any external help", then obviously. If you mean "without the help of the Israeli government", then no. It's not the Israeli government's responsibility to provide anybody (except perhaps Gaza) with electricity.

Also, whence originates Israels supposed obligation to provide Palestinians in the West Bank with electricity?

The article stated that Area C is part of the West Bank that is under Israeli control. It's not strictly illegal to both demolish solar panels and not provide the Palestinians with a grid hookup, but it's kind of dickish to eliminate their access to electricity without offering an alternative when you're the body that is administrating the area. I'd bet there isn't going to be any financial recompense for the panels either.

Actually no. Israel is in control of Area C as a military occupier. Building infrastructure for Palestinian villages is still their own issue, just with coordination with Israel. Perhaps some of the billions of aid money siphoned off by Arafat and his cronies could have gone to that instead. Other parts of the West Bank are developing now under Salaam Fayad's administration, if he stays longer they may have hope.

If the Israeli authorities don't have a responsibility to develop and maintain infrastructure in the area, then I'm not sure whence they derive the right to tear down infrastructure that local people attempt to put up without compelling security concerns (and I'm not convinced that a few solar panels are providing more cover for terrorists than, say, a small hillock, or the buildings that already exist in these villages). One either handles the $policyissue (here, electrical infrastructure) in an area or doesn't, and a "no infrastructure" policy is not acceptable in a place where people live.

[sourmìlk]

I don't know from where you're deriving that principle. There's no obligation for Israel to build up electrical infrastructure if they choose to implement building codes, just like it's not the government's responsibility to manufacture cars because they choose to regulate fuel emissions and seatbelts and such. The US is a good example of this: though the US has building codes (and presumably enforces them), electricity is handled by companies, not the government.

[lutzj]

I don't know from where you're deriving that principle. There's no obligation for Israel to build up electrical infrastructure if they choose to implement building codes, just like it's not the government's responsibility to manufacture cars because they choose to regulate fuel emissions and seatbelts and such. The US is a good example of this: though the US has building codes (and presumably enforces them), electricity is handled by companies, not the government.

The vast majority of electrical utilities in the US are either government monopolies collude closely with local and state governments under strict regulations. There'd be a massive furore in any semi-populated area where the government removed access to electricity and failed to provide reasonable alternatives. Electricity is a basic and essential component of maintaining a modern quality-of-life; building codes which have the effect of preventing people from generating their own electricity are very badly-designed ones.

[sourmìlk]

The building codes don't prevent people from generating their own electricity. The locals were perfectly capable of acquiring a permit and setting up the solar panels in accordance with building laws. They chose not to do that. Anyways, I don't think your link there actually disproves my point: although I recognize that electric companies are tied heavily to the government through regulations and such, it's ultimately the role of a company, not the government, to provide electricity. Even if Israel were to use America's system in this circumstance, it still wouldn't be shirking its responsibilities.

The problem here is that Israel does something every other country does, but only with Israel is it ever given attention or framed in an objectionable way. That results in people being against Israel because their perception is such that only Israel does these things. Many countries, including many countries in the West, engage in practices of demolishing buildings that violate regulations, administrative detention, etc. But as these things are only ever talked about with respect to Israel, people think that only Israel does these things and thus that Israel is particularly bad.

[lutzj]

The building codes don't prevent people from generating their own electricity. The locals were perfectly capable of acquiring a permit and setting up the solar panels in accordance with building laws. They chose not to do that.

It's a bit disingenuous to expect rural shepherds to understand the building codes of a foreign country, fail to inform them of those codes as they put up solar panels, and then respond to the completion of panels by ordering demolition rather than giving them the opportunity to apply for permits retroactively.

[yoni45]

The locals were perfectly capable of acquiring a permit and setting up the solar panels in accordance with building laws...

Citation?

[sourmìlk]

It's a bit disingenuous to expect rural shepherds to understand the building codes of a foreign country

Ignorance of the law is no excuse not to obey it.

fail to inform them of those codes as they put up solar panels, and then respond to the completion of panels by ordering demolition rather than giving them the opportunity to apply for permits retroactively.

Ideally Israel would have intervened sooner. However, I don't see how it's their responsibility.

The locals were perfectly capable of acquiring a permit and setting up the solar panels in accordance with building laws...

Citation?

From the article:

Imneizil's solar system was built in 2009 by the Spanish NGO Seba at a cost of €30,000 to the Spanish government. According to the Israeli authorities, it was built without a permit.

Emphasis mine. It was demolished because it was built without a permit.

[yoni45]

The locals were perfectly capable of acquiring a permit and setting up the solar panels in accordance with building laws...

Citation?

From the article:

Imneizil's solar system was built in 2009 by the Spanish NGO Seba at a cost of €30,000 to the Spanish government. According to the Israeli authorities, it was built without a permit.

Emphasis mine. It was demolished because it was built without a permit.

That's pretty clearly not what's being contested given what I excerpted.

Citation on the locals being perfectly capable of acquiring said permit?