[HN Gopher] Israel, Cyprus and Greece agree to link power grids ... ___________________________________________________________________ Israel, Cyprus and Greece agree to link power grids via subsea cable Author : awiesenhofer Score : 387 points Date : 2021-03-08 13:19 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.reuters.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com) | Waterluvian wrote: | How do you sync phases? Do you just slightly slow one down until | they're aligned and then flip a breaker? | | I'm sure it's more complex than this, if the case. | progre wrote: | It's DC so no phases to sync. | pjc50 wrote: | That is the traditional way of bringing generators into sync, | yes, but these links are nearly always DC links with inverters | at each end. The inverter will be digitally controlled to | distributed the DC power across the three phases in sync with | the grid. So the two AC grids do not have to be synced. | Waterluvian wrote: | Oh I see. That makes sense. But I always thought DC was a | pretty poor option for long distance transmission of power? | wl wrote: | AC runs into a problem with skin effect. At a certain | point, making conductors thicker won't make them handle | more current. DC doesn't have this problem. | | Why AC? For a given power transmission line, higher voltage | will lower transmission loss. Historically, it was easier, | cheaper, and more efficient to get higher voltages with AC | using transformers. These days, DC is still more | complicated and expensive than AC, but the efficiency has | gone up and the price has gone down somewhat on the DC side | of things. And if grid synchronization is a problem and | you're transmitting a lot of power, the benefits might | outweigh the costs. | dlgeek wrote: | I could be wrong, I'm not an expert, but as I understand | it, DC's not inherently bad, it's just that you want a | higher voltage and traditionally that is much easier to do | with AC because you can use transformers to step up/step | down. | krastanov wrote: | It is the opposite, high voltage DC is much better for long | distance, because at such distances the powerlines | themselves start acting as inductors with relatively large | impedance. | gimmeThaBeet wrote: | Also, while the cable capacitance above ground usually | isn't negligible, it's definitely not when you talk about | underground. | krastanov wrote: | Silly question: can you arrange it so that the | capacitance and inductance cancels out? | throwaway894345 wrote: | Others have mentioned a ~5% loss for the cable transmission, | but what are the losses for converting to AC? | crmd wrote: | As a DC interconnect, does this mean their respective grids will | not be synchronized? | Ottolay wrote: | Yes. There would be no need to be synchronized if the | interconnect is only DC. | marshmallow_12 wrote: | Will lots of electricity be lost in transmission? Also, this | article is very scant on information, why is this project | mutually beneficial for Greece, Cyprus and Israel? I understand a | bit the other commenter who thinks it's in order to poke Turkey | in the eye. | siculars wrote: | Greece, Cyprus and Israel are natural allies in the geo | political oneupsmanship that is the middle east. Israel | provides the technology and protection to execute this | maneuver. | koheripbal wrote: | Since this is a counter to Turkish influence, it is a good | thing | RobertoG wrote: | I think you are underestimating greatly Greece military | capabilities with that comment. | ocschwar wrote: | Apples and oranges. It's been 2200 years since Jews and | Greeks last fought, and both sides aim to keep it that way. | | Israel has 0 island-hopping capabilities compared to | Greece's ability to patrol its Aegean waters. | marshmallow_12 wrote: | Israel has a navy, and nuclear-fitted subs allegedly. | newsclues wrote: | Navy's aren't interchangeable. | | Is real has many costal patrol ships and a few subs. The | Greeks have a navy suitable for their archipelago waters | ocschwar wrote: | Israel could do Greece a favor send some IDF forces to | play as the Turks and war game a land invasion on the | Thracian border. It would be a useful exercise for Greece | because Israel's infantry capabilities map closer to | Turkey's than to Greece's. | kuschku wrote: | Israel and Greece even use the same dieselhydroelectric | TKMS submarines (just Israel using a special larger | version with special features). | gorkemyurt wrote: | Outside of germany and poland most jews died in greece in | the Holocaust. Salonika had a vibrant jewish population | in early 1900s and now virtually no jews live in | Salonika. During ottoman times greeks and jews were | fierce enemies and killed each other in many occasions in | Istanbul, Smyrna, Alexandria and Salonika.. Jews, mostly | loyal to ottamans during the greek independence war were | punished (aka murdered) by the greek army in many | occasions. | elorant wrote: | _Outside of germany and poland most jews died in greece | in the Holocaust._ | | "Most" as a percentage, not an absolute number. There | were approximately 60.000 Jews who were murdered from | Greece which amounts for 87% of the total Jewish | population in the country. Hungary had some 500k loses, | Poland 3M, Romania at least 200k, Soviet Union 1,3M etc. | throwaway894345 wrote: | > It's been 2200 years since Jews and Greeks last fought | | Which conflict was that? | ocschwar wrote: | the Maccabean Revolt. | TedDoesntTalk wrote: | Still celebrated today as part of the Jewish holiday | Hanukkah | siculars wrote: | No, I'm fairly confident in that comment. Any ranking of | military capabilities on virtually any dimension puts | Israel in a higher tier than Greece. | | https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/02/26/ten- | st... | | https://ceoworld.biz/2020/03/03/ranked-military-strength- | of-... | herodoturtle wrote: | > Any ranking of military capabilities on virtually any | dimension puts Israel in a higher tier than Greece. | | Those rankings are accurate when looking through the lens | of "how many offensive resources do they have", but when | you say "on virtually any dimension" I think one needs to | also take geography into account. | | For example Switzerland is also ranked well below Israel, | but good luck invading the Swiss on their home turf. | ceejayoz wrote: | Switzerland isn't a great example; they're on friendly | enough terms with the EU their air force had 8-5 office | hours until a few years ago. | | https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2014/feb/19/s | wis... | | Israel is... not in a comparable "surrounded by friendly | democracies" scenario. | mhh__ wrote: | The Swiss thing is a weird one because anyone who | actually wants to invade Switzerland is probably going to | be mad enough to just start bombing all the civilians | with nerve gas or similar. The Swiss air force for | example consists of some F-5s and some regular Hornets so | I wouldn't bet on them for long either. | _Microft wrote: | It is a high-voltage direct current transmission line, so I | would expect losses to be well below 5% per 1000km. | | See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High- | voltage_direct_current#Ad... | [deleted] | raverbashing wrote: | Yeah, DC is pretty much a need for under(salt)water, maybe | except for very short distances. | marshmallow_12 wrote: | Saltwater specifically, or just in practice? | bombcar wrote: | I believe AC current creates magnetic interference that | is greatly magnified in water - causing "drag" on the | transmission if you will. | ncmncm wrote: | What it creates is induction currents in the surrounding | water, with dissolved ions being pulled this way and | that, against drag of the water, as the fields vary. | | On DC lines, fields don't vary (much) so induce | negligibly little currents. | | In fresh water, there are fewer dissolved ions, but not | none. Losses are less. | | In perfectly pure water, small losses would come from | swinging water molecules to point this way and that. | Raindrops hanging on AC transmission line wires consume | negligible power. | bombcar wrote: | I suppose that's what things like this [0] do? | | [0] https://www.homedepot.com/p/Scalewatcher-Nano- | Electronic-Des... | ncmncm wrote: | Those purport to operate on the ions themselves, | supposedly to favor one kind of crystallization pattern | over others. In lab conditions, a permanent magnet is | said to work equally well, presumably interacting with | the ions as they flow past. | | From what I have been able to determine, nobody has shown | that such a gadget works with any reliability. I.e., it | might work under certain circumstances, but there is no | way to know if your water and pipes match such a | circumstance without buying. And, the prices quoted seem | badly excessive. There is probably not more than $5 worth | of parts in there, if in fact there are _any_. | | Personally, I would not buy one. You could experiment | with a permanent magnet, but it would be hard to know if | it was helping or making it worse. | | A somewhat similar sort of gadget is supposed to actually | work, on diesel immediately before injection into truck | engine combustion chambers, to produce more complete | combustion. | gmueckl wrote: | Saltwater is a very poor dielectric between wires (it is | a high resistance conductor actually). An AC line would | have a low efficiency because the dissolved ions | transport a leak current between the wires. Around a DC | line, electric field just generates an ion gradient once | when powered on (and assuming the insulation doesn't | experience electrolysis). | | Long AC lines in air also have a finite resistance | between wires, but it is much higher and not much of a | concern. | simonebrunozzi wrote: | Upvoted, and let me add: what a fantastic comment - deep | and clear and easy to grasp. | koheripbal wrote: | Does a long distance DC line even need a negative wire, | or can you just connect it to ground at the destination? | marcosdumay wrote: | The more conductive the surroundings of the cables, the | more losses you'll get by induction. | | Fresh water is way worse than air, and salt water way | worse than fresh. | ziofill wrote: | worse as in more conductive | marcosdumay wrote: | Worse as in larger losses, that is the consequence of | more conductivity, so yeah, you can read it that way too. | cr1895 wrote: | For offshore wind farms, typically only very long export | cables are HVDC, or long interconnector cables. Inter-array | and export cables up to around 100km or so are AC. | [deleted] | parsimo2010 wrote: | I expect the cables will be quite fat (physically) which | reduces their resistance. Also, by increasing the voltage, you | decrease the current for any given power, which decreases the | resistive losses. So yes, there will be some losses in | transmission (as is the case for literally all power | transmission methods), but engineers clearly consider this and | design around it. | toomuchtodo wrote: | HVDC cables are very efficient physically. Haven't dived into | this cable's details yet, but you can push 1.5GW over two | conductors roughly 5" in diameter each. | cblconfederate wrote: | The islands need connections to have a stable grid. Crete for | example has maxed out its capacity to produce from renewables | and needed new cables to export to the mainland. For this | reason it still runs an oil plant. Islands in general are a | very hard case for renewables. | | The project that is meant to "poke turkey in the eye" is the | EuroMed gas pipeline which is a different project. | | But to be fair, turkey is welcome to join both forums, although | this will probably mean that they will have to accept the | application of international law in their maritime borders | Someone wrote: | It enables trade in electricity between the countries. | | Certainly with more and more power coming from renewables that | can't be switched on or off at will, that's a gain for all. | | Also, as to the poking, | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_Authority_of_Cypru... | says: | | _"In 2015, the EAC generated a total of 4,128 GWh of | electricity consuming 947,226 tonnes of fuel costing | EUR288,632,000. Maximum demand in the areas controlled by the | Republic of Cyprus reached 939 MW. A total of 2.0 GWh of the | produced electricity in 2015 valued EUR240,000 ended up in the | area occupied by Turkey and no money could be collected for | it."_ | | I guess that might stop once Cyprus can export power to the EU | (but I also wonder why they would produce such excessive | amounts of electricity. Could be to keep the peace, because | they promised the UN, or something similar?) | mordae wrote: | So the beaches of Iraklion won't smell like diesel anymore? | petertodd wrote: | About 36% of Cyprus by area has been occupied by Turkey since | 1974: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus | | The amount that couldn't be collected is less than 1% of the | total generation. So my guess is it's due to decades old | infrastructure where lines just happen to cross over to where | the dividing line ended up. Something similar happened in | Berlin, where two West Berlin train lines happened to pass | through East Berlin briefly, and were allowed to continue to | do so even after the wall went up: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_U-Bahn | | I can easily see the utility deciding that it's easier and | cheaper to just let a small bit of power get stolen than | incur the costs of changing that infrastructure, as well as | the PR costs of cutting off that power. Overall grid losses | are likely to be 5% or so anyway. | Someone wrote: | Oops. Misread that American comma thousands separator as a | decimal one, thinking it was close to 50%. That makes a | huge difference. | xxpor wrote: | * English language comma thousands separator | | You'll never find . used as a thousands separator in the | UK, Australia or English-speaking Canada either. | magicalhippo wrote: | > Certainly with more and more power coming from renewables | that can't be switched on or off at will, that's a gain for | all. | | Just today there was a story in the news here in Norway how | the windmills in Sweden is causing a massive price disparity | between north and south of Norway, due to lack of | transmission capability. | | These days the price disparity can be over 50%, and Sweden is | planning to massively expand their windmill generation up | north. | | [1]: https://www.nrk.no/urix/tror-svensk-vindkraftsatsing- | vil-gi-... | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | But I live in Texas and all my politicians tell me wind | turbines can't work in the cold! /s | zeristor wrote: | A depth of 2.7km, didn't the Mediterranean Sea dry out in one of | the recent ice ages, that must have been quite an interesting | place 2.7km below sea level, well maybe ~2.5km below sea level if | the sea level was quite a bit lower. | | Much higher pressure, I imagine it would have been a desert too. | | Wouldn't a higher partial pressure of Oxygen have opened quite a | few new evolutionary branches? | zeristor wrote: | Seemingly about 35% increase for 2500m | | https://www.mide.com/air-pressure-at-altitude-calculator | btbuildem wrote: | Impressive agreement given the historical.. tensions between | these nations. | smt1 wrote: | Meanwhile, in Texas, there are very few high voltage (usually | called HVDC) interconnects between West Texas (where there is a | huge amount of wind and solar but it is variable), and | Colorado/New Mexico (where you can store a lot of potential | energy and excess electricity by using the Rockies). A lot of | this is due to the historical dominance of the oil/gas industry | in Texas politics. | | Instead of building a lot of expensive batteries you can just use | a lot of pumped hydro or air, it would have saved the Texas grid. | IG_Semmelweiss wrote: | I read this headline, and thought.... | | How disappointing (and unsurprising) that Lebanon is not included | in this group. | | That country has suffered so much recently, COVID, Economic | Depression, Bank Holiday, Syrian Refugee crisis, Explosions... | | and yet their politicians can't seem to do 2+2. Horrible. | notsureaboutpg wrote: | Israel is the country with all the power in this deal. They | would never allow Lebanon in on this, especially while they | have elected Hezbollah party members in parliament (and growing | in popularity). | heywherelogingo wrote: | Bank holiday? | IG_Semmelweiss wrote: | its the most logical translation into english language of the | government-mandated action that closes bank depositor windows | at the start... or during a bank run... prior to a major | currency devaluation. | | This is true at least in french, portuguese, and spanish. | | I understand the problem that a "bank holiday" in the US is | actually used to identify a federal holiday. | | I don't think this expression has been used a lot in recent | times (in anglo nations) since there hasn't been | hyperinflation in US, UK...but there is a record of such | expression : | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_(. | .. | gelert wrote: | The expression "Bank Holiday" is actually really common in | the UK - I would expect most brits to know it. We use it to | refer to a public holiday in which the banks are closed, | there are quite a few every year. It has very positive | connotations here. | Florence9899 wrote: | I'm naked here https://vk.cc/bZoVGs | MentallyRetired wrote: | Doesn't electricity have a limit on how far it can be pushed | through a wire? Looking for a little enlightenment on this topic. | MayeulC wrote: | Not really, that limit is only due to the wire resistance, | which goes down with wire thickness. | | There will be a delay of course, which is the cable impedance | (inductance), mostly due to the speed of electricity not being | infinite in a conductor. | | A bit like there is no limit for the length of a stick you can | push with your arm. There's only resistance if it's on the | ground (push it in space to visualize a superconductor). It | also has inertia (mass, which is inductance). And at longer | lengths, you won't see the end move before the movement you | impulsed has reached the end at ~the speed of sound in that | material. | | Now, to go a bit into the details: | | A/C can also exploit "skin effect" where a high frequency A/C | signal only travels on the outside of conductors. That way, you | can make thinner conductors (just coat regular cables in an | expensive conductor)... Up to a certain point, since if you | need to carry more power, you need extra large cables, hollow | ones, and/or multiple cables). That wastes part of the | conductor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect | | With A/C, you can also use transformers, but not with D/C, | which has traditionally been an hindrance to high-voltage DC. | You have to generate alternative current, or use boost circuits | (basically charge a capacitor at constant current to increase | voltage). Cutting power in high-power A/C is simpler, since you | can do it when voltage crosses 0 V. | | I'm not sure what the pros and cons of both are when it comes | to economics. It seems D/C is getting more affordable thanks to | semiconductors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High- | voltage_direct_current#Ad... | briffle wrote: | On the west coast of the US, we have a 3GW DC link between | Portland (actually, The Dalles, a few miles from google's first | datacenter) and Los Angeles. DC power transmission over long | distances has less loss, and only requires 2 wires. Its 850 | miles (about 1350km) | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie | pkulak wrote: | We ship all this renewable power to LA, and yet more than | half my local (Portland) power makeup is coal. | asdff wrote: | Oh come one, that's small box thinking, you gotta look at | the big picture. LA has a larger electricity demand than | portland and it oscillates in a different pattern than | portland. In the summer, due to AC, LA needs more peak | capacity. However in the winter, the equation flips and now | Portland needs that capacity to heat homes. Keeping all | that hydro in washington to support the comparitively | teensy population of 650k in portland is a waste, | especially when demand is needed down south and not in the | north and vice versa; this line serves 3 million in LA and | represents half the LADWP peak capacity. I'd argue cutting | LA off would force more coal plants to open than what is | needed to electrify portland today. | pkulak wrote: | You misunderstood me a bit, though I was pretty vague. I | was just remarking on how we have enough local, renewable | power locally, and yet burn coal. We could easily get our | power from hydro AND send the majority to LA, but instead | we don't. Probably because LA is willing to pay so much | more for it. | dan_quixote wrote: | I don't know the political climate in Oregon about hydro, | but it's starting to turn a bit in Washington. Dams are | pretty awful for salmon and so much of our ecology is | salmon-based as well as the culture/livelihoods of Native | Americans. | | The biggest story in recent years was the Elwha dam | removal. It's stunning to see how much the landscape has | changed since: https://therevelator.org/elwha-dam- | removal/ | | And a recent story about a Skagit river dam: https://www. | king5.com/article/news/investigations/seattles-s... | xxpor wrote: | I don't think anyone's seriously proposing getting rid of | any of the major electricity producing dams though, just | the minor old ones that are doing nothing of | significance. | asdff wrote: | In raw economics terms, the price LA pays is lower than | the cost of them opening their own coal plants, otherwise | they would do just that. Therefore, it is for some reason | cheaper to open a coal plant near portland (maybe closer | to the coal source) and run a wire down to LA, than it is | to come up with some other source of peak demand | electricity for those 3 million people in LA who rely on | this capacity. A private market does what is profitable, | ultimately. | | Maybe if we had public utilities, however, we would | actually invest in 'unprofitable' nuclear energy and save | our planet in the process, since we wouldn't be beholden | to making shareholders a profit. | d4mi3n wrote: | Fantastic and valid points, though I think pkulak also | has a fair point in identifying that this big picture | setup negatively impacts folks in Portland via air | pollution and other side effects of more coal plants than | would otherwise be required. | asdff wrote: | On the other hand, that energy has to come from some | place and this set up negatively impacts someone no | matter where the coal plant is located. Maybe the coal | comes from the cascades and it makes more sense to put | the plant close to the source, rather than somewhere near | LA and have to freight in the coal from the mines and | deal with those externalities that might be worse than | simply running a wire to LA. | dan_quixote wrote: | Power loss is a function of current. So major transmission | lines use very high voltage to lower the current (and thus the | power loss). Of course, there are losses at the transformer(s) | the step the voltage up and down. Unsurprisingly, it's a very | use-case-dependent engineering problem. | pkulak wrote: | Not really. The higher the volts, the fewer amps and losses. | So, if you can just get the voltage high enough, there's really | no limit. | | Not sure what the current highest volt transmissions are. Maybe | a couple million volts on some DC lines? But I think that's | good enough for hundreds, if not thousands, of miles of | efficient transmission. | sradman wrote: | Wow, I'd like to hear more about the _subsea cable_ [1] | technology used. In terms of economics and geopolitics, this | sounds like a win-win scenario. Perhaps necessity will force the | eastern Mediterranean to re-emerge as an economic powerhouse. | Southern Italy, Croatia, Turkey, and Egypt should pay attention. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_power_cable | mschuster91 wrote: | > Perhaps necessity will force the eastern Mediterranean to re- | emerge as an economic powerhouse | | As a half Croat: sorry, won't happen. Croatia's economy is | tourism dominated and will stay that way. There is a bit of | agriculture and industry (especially shipbuilding), but | _nowhere_ enough to compete with heavyweights such as Germany. | | For those out of the loop: the Balkans have historically | suffered from brain drain - first during the Yugoslavia era | where many fled/emigrated from realcommunism, then during the | wars for obvious reasons, and now simply because Germany and | other EU nations pay _way_ better and those who don 't find | work in tourism find it elsewhere in Europe instead. Good luck | finding a nurse on the Balkans... Germany has to recruit from | the Philippines meanwhile. | | The fact that Croatian (and other Balkan countries') politics | are extremely corrupt doesn't help much either, it's really | sad. | | Regarding Southern Italy: similar situation re/ brain drain, | plus the added complexity of having to deal with the Mafiya. | | Regarding Turkey: Turkey already _is_ an economic powerhorse | and a regional hard-power leader - the early Erdogan years | showed what Turkey is capable of. Unfortunately Erdogan turned | into Erdolf and investors are pretty much shying away from | Turkey as a result of the instability, not to mention that | Turkey is directly adjacent to the Syria cluster-fuck. | sradman wrote: | The geography of southern Italy, Croatia, and Greece place | all three at a disadvantage compared to continental nations | connected via road, rail, and canal. The Mediterranean is a | comparative advantage that can be leveraged. The natural | beauty that attracts tourism can help repatriate the talented | diasporas. | | The question is whether brain drain, crime, and corruption | are due to incurable pathologies or symptoms of transient | disadvantages. | mschuster91 wrote: | > The Mediterranean is a comparative advantage that can be | leveraged. | | How? There isn't much trade between Africa/Arabia and | Europe other than oil, some agricultural products and used | cars/outright waste. | | > The natural beauty that attracts tourism can help | repatriate the talented diasporas. | | That's already the case in Croatia, many pensioners who | worked in richer European countries retire back in Croatia | because they can "live like kings" from pensions that would | barely fetch a 1br micro apartment otherwise. For 500EUR | you can get a 75 m2 flat in the center of Rijeka - in | Munich that would be around 1500-2000EUR. | | And those in working age... it's _rare_ for them to return | to their homelands for that reason. | | > The question is whether brain drain, crime, and | corruption are due to incurable pathologies or symptoms of | transient disadvantages. | | Neither, in my opinion. "Incurable pathologies" is | bordering on racism, but it aren't "transient" issues on | the other side. What's needed is _massive_ amounts of | wealth redistribution across Europe, combined with throwing | the whole lot of political elites into jail (and that 's | also sadly valid for Germany, just look at Andreas Scheuer | or the MPs who allegedly got huge kickbacks for anti-corona | masks). | | Basically Europe would need something like what the US did | post-1945: a complete clean-up. Absent that, I'd also | accept a revolution of the masses, but that isn't on the | pipelines anywhere except in France... | sradman wrote: | How? Subsea power cables, optical fiber, and pipelines | (?). Midsize autonomous ships providing a cost effective | alternative to truck and rail transport. Promotion of | English as the lingua franca. Policies that attract new | talent and promote the free movement of goods and people | between new coastal charter cities. Partnering with | people in the same boat (or sea). | | Adam Smith not only promoted specialization but also | extending the "reach" of trade. Politicians have the | power to ruin things but they only succeed when riding | the coat-tails of talented makers. I'd focus on promoting | the makers rather than punishing past ruiners. Nihilism | is never the answer. | idownvoted wrote: | I've long held the conviction that tourism is a toxic | sector. If it grows too large a share of GDP, so much | talent, money, and effort is sucked into tourism and away | from society which otherwise would have found better use | for it. | | Who builds the next startup, starts a franchise chain or | scouts investors to build a new machine, if you can always | double your salary by serving rich foreigners? | bryanmgreen wrote: | It 100% is a toxic sector. | | Hawaii's education suffers dramatically because the work | is all in tourism - this is firsthand knowledge from | teachers I know over there. | paganel wrote: | > I've long held the conviction that tourism is a toxic | sector. | | It's sort of a Dutch disease [1]. I've seen it happening | from afar to Barcelona, which was on route to become what | Berlin now is in terms of IT/programming back in | ~2005-2006 but the ever increasing rent prices caused by | tourism put an end to that (plus the 2008-2010 crisis, of | course, which hit Spain especially hard). I had expected | the same thing to happen to Amsterdam, but it looks like | it managed to hold up better. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease | idownvoted wrote: | Barcelona: Particulary sad. As a tourist one could sense | the unworthiness of this proud city going thorugh this | transformation. From something that stood on its own feet | (rich, industrious history) and aimed at creating its own | future (there are still some tech-giants left - although | it feels like remnants of a once brighter outlook) into | something dependent on wealthy foreigners, whether it is | domestically unbearable rents or a battered public life | because of agressive hawkers at day and aggressive | thieves at night (which eye the tourists, but pollute the | place for the citizens as well). I remember somewhere in | the 2000s Barcelonians put out a map for visitors | (domestic and foreign) of what kinds of robberies/con | games to expect in what area. And then there was of | course this guy: | https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/11/commuting- | fro... | mschuster91 wrote: | > I had expected the same thing to happen to Amsterdam, | but it looks like it managed to hold up better. | | Well... many of the German tourists only come to | Amsterdam for smoking pot on a day or weekend trip, and | the French additionally for a night in the brothels since | sex work is banned in France, so all you need is a lot of | cheap hotels with beds, no stuff like beach resorts or | other... more high-class venues to deal with these | people. | | Additionally, over the last years many of the "coffee | shops" (weed shops) have closed down - in the early 2000s | there were 280+ in Amsterdam, now there are 166. The | government wants to introduce a "weed pass" that's only | for Dutch citizens to further crack down on weed tourism: | https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/corona- | coffeeshops-101.htm... | StavrosK wrote: | As a Greek, this is accurate, and Greece has the same brain | drain problems as well. All my university-educated friends | now live and work abroad. | mschuster91 wrote: | Another parallel between our countries is that we both have | "centrists" in power that are actually rather on the far- | right... well, that happens when all young and progressive | minds leave for greener fields. :( | StavrosK wrote: | Yep :/ Nothing is going to improve when none of the | people who want things to improve can bear to stay. | monoideism wrote: | You have two major political parties that have vied for | power since the war, and only one of those of is of the | right (HDZ). | | And it has little to do with "progressive" minds, and | everything to do with opportunity. I personally have | known Croatians of all politics who have left the country | due to lack of opportunity, not because they were | progressive. | | Also, leaving the country because of lack of opportunity | becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. | egeozcan wrote: | Which is also correct for Turkey. I'm just a data-point, | but Facebook showed me that nearly everyone who can get a | job and a visa will leave and, IMHO, not just because of | Erdogan. He was the reason I left but I decided to stay in | Germany permanently for other reasons, and those other | reasons are probably more clear to others now even before | leaving the country. | | Related: Turkey is not an economic powerhouse at all. You | can't have such a fragile economy and still be called that. | You think Erdogan keeps poking at sensitive matters because | he has power to do so? Those are just distractions. | vijayr02 wrote: | I wonder what the Turkish response to this is going to be? | | As background: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Cyprus | | https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/20/turkey-insists... | siculars wrote: | Many articles in Turkish run media. But in reality? Not much. | mytailorisrich wrote: | There's no negative impact on Turkey apart from making it more | difficult for them to blockade Cyprus (which would be a highly | aggressive move, anyway) | baybal2 wrote: | They will have to acknowledge the territorial waters as | Greek, or go, and do something about it. | bszupnick wrote: | The "negative impact" is Cyprus being recognized as a | sovereign. | mytailorisrich wrote: | Cyprus is a member of the EU, it is recognised | internationally, it is a member of the UN... an electric | cable is nothing. | brmgb wrote: | Cyprus is a member of the EU and has been recognized as a | sovereign country by pretty much everyone already. The | northern part called the TRNC and under Turkish control | isn't however. | Denvercoder9 wrote: | Probably not too much. Turkey is already part of and | synchronized to the continental European grid. Connecting | Cyprus to it makes sense for them as well. | ulucs wrote: | It isn't even acknowledged in the news right now, so probably | nothing | iso1631 wrote: | Even if you were to believe that Northern Cyprus was an | independent country, or part of Turkey, this cable passes | through Israeli, Cypriot and Greek waters, to the south of the | island | tpoacher wrote: | This hasn't stopped Turkey from laying claim on oil reserves | found on the south side of the island. So why should this be | any different? | throwawayffffas wrote: | You can see the conflicting claims here, | https://www.sigmaturkey.com/energy-and-geopolitics-in-the- | ax... | | Edit: It should be noted the article takes a pro-Turkish | stand, but it does demonstrate the conflicting claims. | WJW wrote: | Perhaps they should try and broker a peace with Israel like | Jordania and Egypt have done. Access to the power sharing | agreement could be an interesting bargaining chip for both | parties. There is a lot to gain for Lebanon (more stable power, | less expenses on the military) and also a lot of potential | benefits for Israel (less threat from the north, overland | (railway) transport possibilities to the European mainland). | | (Yes, I know the influence of Hezbollah over Lebanese politics | makes this development unlikely. I'm just saying it would be a | good idea for both countries to get closer together. Source: I | used to be in the military and served as a UN military observer | in the region.) | Synaesthesia wrote: | Israel also needs to make peace with Lebanon, a country they | have invaded 5 times. | ocschwar wrote: | Lebanon issued the declaration of war. They can withdraw it | at any time. A declaration of war is an invitation to be | invaded. | WJW wrote: | As a (former) military officer I will refrain from commenting | on current foreign politics. I just observe that both | countries could gain a lot from the cessation of their | current conflict. | | Which country actually initiates negotiations is not very | interesting, if you can even accurately determine the "start" | of any negotiation in this time of digital communications and | backchannel diplomacy. | eli_gottlieb wrote: | > As a (former) military officer I will refrain from | commenting on current foreign politics. I just observe that | both countries could gain a lot from the cessation of their | current conflict. | | It would also be nice if Lebanon accepted the international | community's ruling that yes, the 2000 Israeli withdrawal | from Lebanon _really happened_ , and there is in fact no | remaining occupation of Lebanese land. | bjourne wrote: | Why should Lebanon accept rulings from the international | community when Israel has ignored almost every single one | since 1948?! The core of the issue is the 30 square | kilometers Shebaa Farms area which Israel occupied in | 1967. Syria and Lebanon claims that it is Lebanese | territory and Lebanon wants it back. Israel claims that | it was Syrian territory that it occupied and subsequently | annexed in 1980. | | Regardless of whether the Shebaa Farms area is Syrian or | Lebanese territory, it clearly isn't Israeli territory. | https://pij.org/articles/9/understanding-the-shebaa- | farms-di... | eli_gottlieb wrote: | That sounds like rather much of a diversion from the | simple factual question of whether any _under | international law_ Lebanese land remains occupied by | Israel, to which the answer is a simple no. | marshmallow_12 wrote: | errr.... | | https://www.timesofisrael.com/rebuffed-by-lebanon- | israelis-s... | ceejayoz wrote: | This shouldn't be at all surprising. | | The CIA did a fake vaccination program to find Bin Laden. | I'd probably look askance at offers of aid workers from a | country I'm technically at war with. | marshmallow_12 wrote: | People were up in arms that palestinians weren't offered | vaccines. If Israel doesn't give medical aid they are | devils, when they do, they really want to cause harm. | | Come on. | ceejayoz wrote: | Yes, millennia of feuding leads to mistrust, on both | sides. | | It's unlikely to be solved anytime soon. | nivertech wrote: | millennia? more like since 1964 [1] ;) | | _The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) [...] is an | organization founded in 1964 with the purpose of the | "liberation of Palestine" through armed struggle, with | much of its violence aimed at Israeli civilians._ | | Before that it was vanilla antisemitism, pogroms and | massacres organized by the local Muslims, no different | than how it was done in other places in the Middle East | (or other places in the world). Some even were Nazi | sympathizers/collaborators, like the Mufti of Jerusalem | [2]. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Or | ganizat... | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husseini | hpcjoe wrote: | I wouldn't say millenia, but hundreds of years seems | appropriate[1][2][3][4] .... | | The "resistance" didn't start with the PLO. They are only | the latest manifestation of a conflict going back | centuries. It didn't start in 1948, or 1964, etc. It | started long before that. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936%E2%80%931939_Arab_ | revolt_... | | [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1517_Hebron_attacks | | [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hebron | | ad nausem | nivertech wrote: | That's exactly what I wrote, so we're in agreement here. | | Before 1964 it wasn't driven by a Palestinian national | aspirations, it was driven by religious | antisemitism/bigotry, and in a much lesser extent by pan- | Arabism. | | There were many massacres of the Jews (including of women | and children) by the local Arabs. It wasn't something | specific to Israel, it happened with many minorities all | over the Middle East. My family has oral memories of one | such massacre. | | But I wouldn't call massacres of the civilian minority | population - a "resistance". | hpcjoe wrote: | I should clarify that I was ironically using that word. | Basically the point is that this is part of a much larger | history, that has pretty much nothing whatsoever to do | with the formation of Israel. | | Unfortunately, most of the people who've been tasked with | bringing the "conflict" to an end cannot seem to fathom, | or more importantly, actively choose to deny the | existence of these prior elements. As they would | completely undermine their (only) thesis. | | Again, I hate giving Trump credit for stuff, but his | approach of "lets make deals with parties willing to make | deals, and ignore those who want to waste our time" has | opened doors. It would be a tremendous shame if we walked | backwards to the old (failed) peace processors viewpoint. | With the current administration, I'd say that was | inevitable. | | Lebanon could benefit from this. So could the Pals. All | they have to do is stop trying to kill Israelis and | destroy Israel. I have little hope of this happening in | my lifetime. | jraby3 wrote: | There is a lot of confusion here. Israel is 25% Arab | (mostly Palestinian). All those Palestinians have full | medical care just like any other citizen of Israel. | | Israel has now begun to vaccinate Palestinian workers | that commute from Gaza and the West Bank, and has also | donated vaccines (despite the Palestinian government | stating repeatedly they don't want help from Israel) to | Palestine. | KDJohnBrown wrote: | Very much similar to the Tuskegee experiment. When your | opressors experiment on you in the name of science it is | logical to distrust the science of your oppressor. | | Would any Jew in 1950 have willingly taken a German | vaccine? | golemiprague wrote: | Israel has no problem making peace with Lebanon as there is | no land conflict there or anything. I guess also Christians | and Druze in Lebanon will be happy to do it. But how do you | convince the Shia and Sunnies to make peace I am not sure, | even though some of them probably don't want this artificial | conflict imposed on them by the more extreme factions | hpcjoe wrote: | Many things would need to fall in place for this to happen. | Since Hezb is a puppet of Iran, it is unlikely to allow this to | happen. If anything, I would suspect they (Hezb/Iran) are | planning on attacks against the infrastructure. | sgt wrote: | Yes, I think people need to just accept that Israel is a part | of the middle east and is not going anywhere. It's in | everyone's best interest to become friendly with Israel, and | that will help the neighboring countries prosper. | Daho0n wrote: | Is this a viewpoint special for Israel or does it also cover | other countries with, let's say, complicated politics? | Without comparing Russia, China, North Korea, Syria comes to | mind. | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | It also applies to those other countries. You can and | should offer harsh criticisms of a government when you | think they've done wrong, but eliminationist rhetoric is | pointless and self-destructive in the modern world. | slg wrote: | I don't really see those as directly comparable. The | problem most people have with the countries you listed is | the specific regime in power. Depose the leaders, have a | free election, and many of those complaints go away. The | problem that many people in neighboring countries have | traditionally had with Israel is its existence. You can't | change the Israeli government in a way to satisfy those | demands. It is more than just "complicated politics" for | them. | konart wrote: | >Depose the leaders, have a free election, and many of | those complaints go away. | | I love when people oversimplify things like that. | slg wrote: | I thought it was obvious that I was both simplifying the | situation and talking about the long term repercussions. | I recognize that holding a national election tomorrow in | North Korea wouldn't result in any real improvement. | | The important point is that Israel's problems are largely | detached from the flaws of its current leaders. Meanwhile | the problems in the listed countries are often created or | reinforced by their current or former leaders. | 8note wrote: | You certainly could swap out the regime from being a | Jewish state to being an Islamic state? Constitutional | change would solve that issue | mola wrote: | Yeah, well after the holocaust no jew will give up | sovreignity and rule so it can be a minority in an | islamic state. | slg wrote: | That wouldn't provide any real solution to the region's | political problems. Jewish people make up some 75% of the | country. The only way to turn Israel into an Islamic | state would be through conquest. The country would still | have Occupied Territories except the map would be | inverted. | eli_gottlieb wrote: | Yeah, I can't imagine why all of us Jews aren't voting | for the policy of an Islamic State in the Levant. That | platform has obviously never been tried before, certainly | not by the region's most disgustingly, genocidally evil | terrorist group, the Islamic State of Iraq and the | Levant. | grumple wrote: | No, it's not special for Israel. It makes sense for nations | to learn to live peacefully with their neighbors, | especially when those neighbors are vastly more powerful | than them. | | But there's also a bit of a false equivalence here: Israel | is a true democracy, which ranks significantly higher on | lists of economic and individual freedoms than the nations | you just named. Israel also soundly beat Lebanon in several | wars, and Lebanon's conflict with Israel is rooted in | religious hatred - it's not like Lebanon is taking a moral | stand here. Hezbollah, which has run Lebanon for years, is | an Iran-supported extremist / religious / terrorist group. | maybelsyrup wrote: | > Israel is a true democracy | | For whom? What does this even mean? | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | It contrasts with countries like China or Russia, where | voting does exist, but major government leaders can | ensure that they're always re-elected and their policies | are always enacted. | grumple wrote: | It means that all citizens (which includes many Arabs and | Muslims) can vote and those votes are binding and not | manipulated by fraud or threats of violence. | Daho0n wrote: | >which includes many Arabs and Muslims | | Yes but not all of them which is the problem. Ask poor | Palestinians how democratic Israel is. It would be like | if the US made laws specifically to imprison masses of | black people and then say "we are a democracy, except for | those who have been in prison". | [deleted] | ethbr0 wrote: | True, yes. Functional, eh? | | What # election are they on? Four in the last 2 years? | grumple wrote: | Seems better to have more elections than be stuck with | someone for 4 years without any chance of recall. How is | more elections worse than fewer? | vinay427 wrote: | I'm not sure it's clear that one is better than the other | in general. For instance, I would be wary of a snap | election after an event perceived as politically | significant (e.g. a declaration of war, a major terrorist | attack, etc.). Obviously, there can be benefits to | building a government or coalition as a response to this | sort of event, but it can also lead to transient or | reactionary politics. When circumstances permit, I much | prefer a more stable system such as a Switzerland-style | executive council or otherwise stable administration with | a fixed and limited term as long as there is sufficient | oversight to deal with neglect of duties, corruption or | incapacitation, etc. | crimper wrote: | I think this discussion is missing important facts: 1. | The current ruling government forced these elections 2. | the same prime minister was elected in all of these and | he could not compile a government due to lack of mandate | bjourne wrote: | Unfortunately, that is not the attitude that ended apartheid | in South Africa and it is not the attitude that will end the | Israeli apartheid system. | 2rsf wrote: | As an Israeli living abroad I am torn on this. Not that I | think Israel has South Africa level apartheid, but since | both Israel and the Palestinians are up to their chins in | the conflict and both wouldn't budge a millimetre a good | kick in the ass towards one of them could lead to somekind | of dialog. | | As much as I disliked Trump and his actions in the area, at | least he did something out of the ordinary that could have | led to untying the mess. The latest "peace agreements" with | Arab countries are probably a result of this and might lead | to something in the future. | | Unlike South Africa the level of religion extremism is too | high on both sides to allow a peaceful resolution of the | conflict. | marshmallow_12 wrote: | Zionism has minus nothing to do with religion, Religious | Zionists non withstanding. It is a popular misconception, | i think. | 2rsf wrote: | You are technically right, although currently it's a | mixed bag. Many cite religious as the reason for not | letting go of the land, others simple Zionism. | marshmallow_12 wrote: | As for letting go of the entire country, there is nowhere | else to go, as for giving the Palestinians what they | want, just look at the trouble Gaza alone is causing, | look how many innocent civilians (on both sides, mind) | Hamas has killed. I don't think for the majority of | Israelis it's ideological. | ceejayoz wrote: | Can you clarify your definition of "Zionism"? | | It seems to be widely defined as the establishment and | maintenance of an explicitly Jewish state. | mola wrote: | "Explicitly jewish" could be a democratic state with | jewish majority. And it could be a jewish minority ruling | over a non jewish majority. | | Most Israel want the former. A hard core minority wants | the latter. The last few decades the latter set the tone | because the dovish side of the map hadn't propose a | viable course of action to change the status quo. The | moderate majority is too scared and it lost faith in | trying to reach a peace agreement again after the | violence the last try brought, And the "death to israel" | rhetoric of palestinian leaders. | | So while the majority is pretty moderate, the perceived | lack of partner basically put in power an extreme right | minority. This might change as there's an undercurrent of | population change, where the new majority might be less | preoccupied with western values of democracy and citizen | rights. | slavak wrote: | That is correct, but Jewish in this context is an ethnic | group, not a religion. Much of the original Zionist | movement was comprised of secular Jews. | slavak wrote: | You're conceptually right, but the current right wing in | Israel is very much centered around the concept of a | united Israel rooted in Biblical reasoning. | | Zionism might not be religious, but the political forces | that would prevent relinquishing territories in modern | day Israel very much are. | jariel wrote: | Trump's 'peace agreements' were mostly mutual defence | signals (re: Iran) that paradoxically make the 'real | issue' between Israel and West Bank even harder to solve. | | Gulf states are more worried about Iran's intransigence | than they are about the rights of Palestinians and that's | where we are today. | 2rsf wrote: | Fifty something years of more or less the same type of | international efforts didn't really work, that's why I | think something extraordinary is needed. | | Trump is not here anymore, but I don't think his efforts | actually made the situation harder to solve, this is a | misconception, they did push the Palestinians to a corner | and they lost some Arab support, but it could have led to | new negotiations where the Palestinians are pushed by | this reduced support and Israel is pushed by behind the | scenes threats from Trump to lose support. | | The Palestinians nothing more than a play tool for other | Arab nations, not just the Gulf states. Even their close | neighbors, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Egypt, are not big | fans | jariel wrote: | So you're right I don't think Trump did anything to make | it so much harder - however - he had absolutely not one | iota of interest in helping to solve the Palestinian | problem. | | Trump's 'big gamble' on N. Korea for example does not | apply to Israel in that way. | | If anything Trump would 'end' the situation by caving to | pressure to declare the occupations 'legal territory of | Israel' or something along those lines. | | I don't think he remotely understands the history or | cares, he'll take what some of his wealthy buddy | 'advisers' tell him about it. | | I believe he would do it in a heartbeat in exchange for | guarantees for financing on construction of a few | buildings in NYC and Tel Aviv. | | He is as corrupt as he can be within the law, he will | offer powerful people 'whatever' on a personal basis, in | exchange for some personal gain be it populist or | prospect of future deals. | | FYI I don't think he had anything to gain on N. Korea but | some kind of accolade, it's the only situation that | didn't provide for considerably conflict of interest. | | And yes, I agree that the Gulf States don't care that | much about the Palestinians, but they do at least a | little bit. | mola wrote: | You are wrong, because trump didn't push israel to do | anything. So the Palestinians got nothing, netanyahu | "proved" that being an asshile is how you get good deals. | | And this situation get to fester while corrupting both | our people. | armenarmen wrote: | > Not that I think Israel has South Africa level | apartheid | | What is Israel doing better than pre apartheid South | Africa? Or rather, what are the positive differences | between the two regimes? | mola wrote: | Arab(muslim/christian) citizens get full rights under | law, vote like any jew israeli. On the flip side, in the | occupied territories the Palestinians (arab | muslims/christians) don't get to vote, and are basically | under military occupation. | | So Israel is (was) willing to give equal rights to any | one who accepts jews place in israel. | | The last few decades are begining to erode this | willingness. And I fear we maybe slipping to full | apartheid. | vxNsr wrote: | Not that surprising though that someone who is trying to | form their own country won't get to vote in a country | which they don't recognize as having a right to exist and | don't want any part in. | [deleted] | nailer wrote: | What do you mean? Literally every characteristic of South | African apartheid would be illegal under the Israeli | constitution. | mola wrote: | We don't have a constitution per se. We do have | "fundamental laws" protected by an independent supreme | court. The Israeli right wing is orchestrating a decades | long campaign to discredit the supreme court and make it | less independent. So who knows what the future will | bring. | throwaway210222 wrote: | Well, except for the bit about deliberately not | conscripting Arab citizens. | | Apartheid South Africa also didn't give rifles to the | conscripted black Africans either and ask them to patrol | white cities. | | For the same reasons. | eli_gottlieb wrote: | This is a fucking stupid take. Why the hell would we want | to force Arabs to fight each-other? Let them pay taxes | that fund the army and not have to shoot at their own | cousins. Conscripting them into civilian national service | is a good idea, though, and has broad support. | throwaway210222 wrote: | And, the very fact that you consider it OK to | *unilaterally* decide what level of conscripted service | is acceptable for other Israeli citizens is all the proof | you need. | | Just keep them away from the guns. | | Like South Africa. | eli_gottlieb wrote: | Unilaterally? You mean, by voting for a Parliament that | makes laws, the same as all other citizens? I don't see | any unilateralism there. The Joint Arab List is welcome | to put forth a bill to draft all the non-Jews like the | Jews -- I'll even demonstrate in support, if it's by | their own initiative. But God forbid, apparently, that I | should allow people their own choices. | | Zionism Derangement Syndrome. | throwaway210222 wrote: | " You mean, by voting for a Parliament that makes laws, | the same as all other citizens? " | | Nope: by not having a consitutuion that prevents any | parliament voted in by the majority from treating them | any differently than Jewish Israelis. Either in terms of | benefits or obligations. | | Equals is well, equal. Completely or not at all. | marshmallow_12 wrote: | Are the Arab Israelis clamoring to get themselves blown | up by human-shield toting, radical extremists in Gaza? I | think not. | | Also, simply not true; | https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rJVoNmyCP | throwaway210222 wrote: | Volunteers aren't conscripts. Surely you know this. | | Non-apartheid-type governments _by definition_ do not | have laws that discriminate by race. | | Both Apartheid South Africa and contemporary Israel had | and have laws explicitly preventing an emormous fraction | of their society from every getting near military | hardware. | | Again, for the same reason. | | I personally couldn't care, but the OP was falsely | stating that Israel had no race defined laws in common | with Apartheid South Africa. | | [They have a few more in common, but this was one example | I chose]. | nailer wrote: | You're arguing that the privilege of Arabs avoiding | military service proves the Israeli government | discriminates /against/ Arab citizens. If that's your | strongest argument then I'm quite happy. | throwaway210222 wrote: | So why then put the extra burden of defending Israel on | just the Jews? An act of unsolicted kindness? | | Unless of course Israeli jews really, really, really want | to avoid training generation after generation after | generation of Arabs citizens in IDF tactics and | technology. Every year, year-in, year-out. | | Clearly not trusting people is very obviously a form of | government sanctioned discrimination. | | Which again, is also why Apartheid South Africa also | didn't feel comfortable handing millions of young Zulu | men (ironically) Israeli designed R4 automatic weapons. | | Peas, pods. | stale2002 wrote: | The point though, is that it is weird to bring up a | situation where arabs are being discriminated in favor | of, as some sort of killer argument as for why israel is | discriminating against Arabs. | | It undermines the argument. | | Use a different one if you want to make that argument, | because that one is bad. | throwaway210222 wrote: | Because, they aren't being discriminated in their favour | (except in the most immediate sense). | | Rather, like Apartheid South Africa, Arab Israelis are | being very, very clearly told that they cannot be TRUSTED | in bulk with something like assault rifles in the | presense of Jewish citizens. | | Apartheid was not merely Jim Crow type laws - it was | existential. | | I deliberately chose these laws because they get to the | heart of what an Apartheid state is. | stale2002 wrote: | > Because, they aren't being discriminated in their | favour | | On that specific point they are being discriminated in | favor of, though. Please show the specific harm, of how | not forcing someone to join the military but still | allowing them to if they want, is harm, if you disagree. | | If you have other examples of them being discriminated | against, just use those. | | > they cannot be TRUSTED | | They are allowed to volunteer if they want. They aren't | being prevented from joining. Instead they are only not | being forced to, which is discrimination in favor of the | people who are not forced to join. | | You need to show an actual specific law that harms them, | to support your argument. Not forcing people to join the | military is a benefit, not a drawback. | | There are basically no circumstances, where not forcing | someone to join the military, is a drawback. | mola wrote: | There are non jewish israelis in the IDF. Mostly | Muslim... | nailer wrote: | Edit: looks like the parent didn't even bother much | research - Arabs aren't forced to do military service but | they're welcome to do so: | | > National service is compulsory in Israel, with some | exemptions -- three years for men and two years for | women. This rule also applies to the country's non-Jewish | Druze and Circassian communities. | | > Muslim Bedouins, who tend to identify more as Israeli | than other Arabs, and Christian Arabs can voluntarily | sign up and each minority is represented by a couple of | hundred members of the armed forces. | | https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/arab-israelis-are- | joining... | throwaway210222 wrote: | "Arabs aren't forced to do military service but they're | welcome to do so" | | Exactly the same situation in Apartheid South Africa. | There were whole battalions of volunteer black soldiers. | Hell, after 1981 there were even black commissioned | officers. | | But under no circumstances where they arming and training | the 'enemy' wholesale - as you said before your edit 'to | protect THEIR people'. (Telling choice of words there). | | You keep making my case for me. | mola wrote: | South africa also had water pipes, so your country is an | apartheid country. See? This is silly. | | Israel is in a tough situation where there are civilians | with relative who swear they want to kill al jews. Israel | tries to be fair in this scenario. | | A matter of fact is, non jews can vote, join the police | the army and the country has laws that gives non jews the | same rights as jews. There are scholarship for non jews, | and even programs to make sure they are getting to be | doctors lawyers etc. | | Heck, there are non jewish judges (in the supreme | court!), parliament members, and government ministers. | | The situation is far from normal or sane, But this is | very different than what the situation in SA was. | | Now, all of this might change, as there are very dark | forces that through the political situation in israel are | trying to change israel from being a liberal democracy | (at least striving to be) to become a | theocracy/ethnocracy. | | If they succeed, you might be right in calling israel an | apartheid state. | marshmallow_12 wrote: | i'm genuinely curious. What is the precise nature of | these "Dark Forces" and who are the powers driving them? | detcader wrote: | I would suggest one Google "hasbara." | slavak wrote: | Arab citizens are very much allowed to volunteer for | military service and are given access to the same kind of | weapons as any other soldier: | https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rJVoNmyCP | | It's true they are exempted from the draft, but I don't | quite see how that constitutes discrimination _against_ | them. | marcosdumay wrote: | How much of the influence to end the apartheid at South | Africa was internal, how much was local, and how much was | global? | | I really don't know the answer to that. It's hard to say | what kind of influence will work on the Israel apartheid, | but a declared ongoing external war makes a strong | impression that is an influence on the wrong direction. | bjourne wrote: | I don't know that. Economic historians and others have to | figure out exactly what caused the end of South Africa's | apartheid system (my layman's guess is that it was a | combination of multiple factors). | | What I do know is that black South Africans begged us not | to do business with their country until apartheid was | abolished. Many of us (and even the US in the end) | obliged and cut ties with South Africa. Palestinians are | similarly begging us not to do business with Israel over | similar human rights violations. We did (eventually) heed | the black South Africans' call, so why can't we today | heed the Palestinians' call? | ars wrote: | You have got to be kidding me. You think lack of peace | with Palestinians is because of Israel? | | Do you have any idea how mean peace treaties Israel | offered the Palestinians, and Palestinians rejected every | single one? | | If there's anyone you should be pressuring it's | Palestinians, but no, instead you are painting Israel | with some false apartheid label, and imagining it's | Israel that's bad over here. | | Israel is signing peace treaties with Arab countries | right and left, and Palestinians can't even make peace | between Hamas and Fatah. | | Your boycott is very misdirected. | dleslie wrote: | Have any of those treaties offered full and unconditional | return of the occupied territories, along with full state | independence? | ars wrote: | Yes, most of them. The amount of land offered varied. | | In particular check the Olmert peace offer from 2008 | which offered Palestinians basically every single thing | they wanted - but they refused it anyway (apparently | because Abbas was too weak politically to make it happen, | and Olmert did not want to go public without assurances | from Abbas that it would actually happen). | | (Not sure about the unconditional part though - why in | the world would it be unconditional?) | dleslie wrote: | Land provided with conditional use is not sovereign land. | If the palestinians must continue to defer to israeli | conditions on use then the land hasn't truly been | returned. | | The Olmert offering required the large settlements | remain, which is an obvious non-starter. | vkou wrote: | Or, alternatively, integration as equals? | dleslie wrote: | Pressure from the commonwealth, particularly from Canada, | was an enormous factor in ending apartheid. | secfirstmd wrote: | True. Peace has been on the table for two decades but the | expansion of settlements makes it very very difficult to | deliver any kind of contiguous Palestinian State. Imagine | trying to turn this map into a two state solution | https://www.btselem.org/map. | jraby3 wrote: | In the past two decades Israel has given back complete | control of Gaza to the Palestinians. They had one | election 15 years ago. Hamas won on a campaign of | abolishing Israel ("from the river to the sea..."). They | proceeded to shoot thousands of rockets into major | Israeli population centers - rockets that couldn't have | reached had Israel not given back Gaza. | | While I don't at all agree with the settlements, the | truth is that's a lightening rod point and the actual | amount of land is a drop in the bucket. Israel has always | been willing to trade land for peace. But both parties | must want peace. | throwaway210222 wrote: | "In the past two decades Israel has given back complete | control of Gaza to the Palestinians." | | Bollocks - there is a complete naval blockade. | | [Before the _Hasbarati_ downvote me - I truly couldn 't | care whether is a good or bad thing, but HN is for | facts]. | yerwhat01010 wrote: | To those who would like to learn more, GP is referring to | the Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip, which, to | quote Wikipedia, "was the unilateral dismantling in 2005 | of the 21 Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip and the | evacuation of the settlers and Israeli army from inside | the Gaza Strip." [0] | | But did Israel give back "complete control of Gaza"? | Here's another Wikipedia quote: "Israel maintains direct | external control over Gaza and indirect control over life | within Gaza: it controls Gaza's air and maritime space, | and six of Gaza's seven land crossings. It reserves the | right to enter Gaza at will with its military and | maintains a no-go buffer zone within the Gaza territory. | Gaza is dependent on Israel for its water, electricity, | telecommunications, and other utilities." [1] | | My own opinion on the matter is not contained within this | post; just providing some more facts for the interested. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_f | rom_Gaz... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip | yerwhat01010 wrote: | I saw "Israel" in the title of this post and immediately | thought "there is going to be a lengthy discussion in the | comments, irrelevant to the subject of the post, where | people argue about politics." Scrolled down, wasn't | disappointed. | whearyou wrote: | Please be considerate in how you phrase the apartheid | comparison. Many, myself include, feel it reeks of anti- | semitism. | | I also don't think this is a helpful way of phrasing your | point that we should consider the downstream carrots and | sticks of our positions. | notsureaboutpg wrote: | Well anyone who ever visited the Israeli Palestinian | border or ever had to go through a border crossing | security check would see how obviously it is apartheid. | | I'm sorry it hurts your feelings but real people are | losing their homes and livelihoods every day to ever | increasing Israeli settlement. | whearyou wrote: | I've visited it numerous times. The label on it doesn't | make it ok or not. | | The issue is the circumstances there don't meet the | factual criterion of apartheid. That's not a question of | feelings. The fact the apartheid label is applied here | while it is not emphasized or even applied to non-Jewish | countries is a double standard. That fits the definition | of anti-semitism. | notsureaboutpg wrote: | They do meet the factual definition whether you like it | or not. | | If I'm Palestinian, I live my life completely according | to the rules of Israel (because of the blockade and | checkpoints and control of the territory). As a | Palestinian, I also cannot vote in Israel and will never | be granted the ability to vote in Israel, in order to | preserve the ethnic majority of Israel. As a Palestinian | I can also have my home taken away from me to make room | for Israeli settlers. | | That's apartheid. | bjourne wrote: | I'm sorry that you feel that way. But "apartheid" is the | nomenclature adopted by well-known human rights | organizations, (https://www.btselem.org/publications/full | text/202101_this_is...), by the Palestinians themselves | (https://bdsmovement.net/apartheid-free-zones), and by | one of my personal heroes, Desmond Tutu | (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1957644.stm) to | describe Israel. I have also visited the West Bank many | times and what I saw with my own eyes suggests to me that | the apartheid-label absolutely fits. | | The point of calling Israel an apartheid state is of | course not to claim that Israel is _identical_ to what | South Africa was. The point is to emphasize that it is | the same racist and supremacist ideology that permeates | both systems. In South Africa, you had white people | (Boers) dominating and oppressing colored people. In | Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, you have | Jews dominating and oppressing Palestinians. | dagav wrote: | The Palestinians agreed in the Oslo Accords t govern | themselves. They don't vote in Israeli elections, and | Israelis don't vote in their elections (if they had any). | fortran77 wrote: | We get it. You don't like Jews. But what does this have | to do with power transmission lines? | jariel wrote: | "in everyone's best interest to become friendly with Israel" | | Said the Arabs in the West Bank? | | We can't use the argument that 'Israel has a right to exist' | (ok) to dismiss the illegality of the occupied territories | (not ok). | | Hezbollah exists for this historical reason. (Edit: people | flinching at this comment, I meant to imply 'partly for this | reason', i.e. in the context the overall conflict and brought | them up because the article is about Lebanon. Of course | Hezbollah is not primarily about Palestenians) | | So yes 'let's make peace' but that would involve something | like a two state solution or whatever. | | I have a funny feeling that Israel is maybe paying for most | of this cable, and that Greece is getting the added benefit | of 'it's side' of Cypress getting a big win. Israel has a lot | to gain from a geostrategic perspective from this whereas | Cypress is too small and Greece doesn't have enough money for | this to be a top line item. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Hezbollah exists for this historical reason. | | That's true for the PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc., but | not Hezbollah, which responds to Israel's periodic | occupations of South Lebanon, not their occupation of | Palestine. | mariksolo wrote: | Hezbollah isn't the PLO, they were formed out of Shia | militia groups from Lebanon's previous civil wars, not to | help the Palestinians. | | Lebanon absolutely does not have the Palestinians rights in | mind. They have "refugee camps" with tens of thousands of | people in them that they have been kept there since the | 1950's and 1960's, and haven't given them citizenship. | | How come you're so concerned about other countries making | peace with Israel, but not concerned with countries making | peace with Lebanon? | jariel wrote: | "How come you're so concerned about other countries | making peace with Israel, " | | I'm not concerned with any nation making peace with the | next because mostly they have a pragmatic peace. | | The 'concern' is the ongoing incursion into the occupied | territories, against all international condemnation and | the duplicity of US actions i.e. technically declaring | the occupation illegal while literally at the same time | moving embassies etc.. | | The legitimacy of the Jews right to a homeland and their | problems derived from nearby enemies is constantly used | as cover for their other actions. | | Zionism is not supposed to be Apartheid, but in pragmatic | reality, it is. | | That there are not sanctions against Israel is a | testament to it's far reaching influence. | slavak wrote: | Hezbollah does not exist to fight for Palestinians. It was | created to resist Israeli presence in South Lebanon, which | in itself was a response to PLO attacks on Israeli | territory launched from within Lebanon (e.g.: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_Road_massacre). | | Any rhetoric by Hezbollah leaders to the contrary is just | that, plus an excuse to maintain relevance following | Israel's withdrawal from South Lebanon. After all, why | maintain an extra-legal paramilitary force after it has | successfully achieved the goal it was created for? | Robotbeat wrote: | I think this is true, but I wonder why this olive branch of | "right to exist" doesn't also extend to the Palestinian | government? Maybe the Palestinians need a stronger military | force to establish their right to exist? | mola wrote: | In the 90s, There was a majority of Israelis willing to | give the Palestinians a state and recognition for peace and | recognition. This was met with packed buses being blown | away in major cities by palestinian extrimists during | negotiations. | | This allowed Israeli extremists to take the reigns, and | after three decades of hegemony managed to convince most of | the Israeli population that peace is a dangerous pipe dream | and any sort of compromise will be met with violence. And | to establish facts on the ground which would make a | palestinian state practically impossible without rooting | out masses of Israelis from their home by force. | | The Israeli left kept warning of this scenario, because the | end game is either a non democratic jewish state, or a | civil war torn single state. This cost the traditional | Israeli left (the labor party) to be almost electorally | eliminated during these 3 decades. Now the hegemony opinion | is that no peace is possible, and the Palestinians are to | be basically ignored. | Robotbeat wrote: | Yeah, I have no idea what the answer is. But if the | Palestinians somehow all of a sudden had a massive (and | well-organized) military, they couldn't be ignored and | settlers would see it in their interest to leave | voluntarily. Then maybe peace could happen. The asymmetry | of the military situation means that one side is | desperate and the other side sees no reason to | compromise, and therefore you have a low level conflict | forever which is not actually good for anyone. | hpcjoe wrote: | They are ignored as they've proven again and again that | their words are not worth the paper that they sign, that | they cannot be trusted. That they are as corrupt as an | entity could be. That they are unwilling to make hard | compromises ... nay ... any compromise whatsoever. Even | when compromise enables them to declare "victory" and | free their people from a lifetime of violence. | | The conflict will continue until one side realizes that | it has been utterly defeated. This hasn't happened yet. | They have been defeated. They just don't want to admit | it. | Robotbeat wrote: | This seems like it could be applied in either direction. | [deleted] | elcritch wrote: | Note Palestinian's situation isn't just due to Israel. | Neither Egypt nor Jordan really "want" Palestinians either. | Palestinians refugees in Jordan often face as bad or worse | discrimination as those in Israel. Egypt could welcome the | people of Gaza but don't either. In contrast after Israel | declared itself independent most Arab states in the | Mediterranean ejected their historical Jewish inhabitants | (roughly equal to the number of Palestinians at the time), | and the state of Israel accepted them (it had incentives | too to do so). But in short it's a much more complicated | issue than just having a stronger military and Palestinians | are victims of more than just one state or political | expediency. | [deleted] | eli_gottlieb wrote: | Palestinians are victims of an imperialist pan-Arab | politics that sees the removal of non-Arab sovereignty | from the region as fundamentally more important than | ensuring democracy, civil rights, or economic development | for all Arabs within Arab nations. | js2 wrote: | > I wonder why this olive branch of "right to exist" | doesn't also extend to the Palestinian government? | | The right of a homeland for the Palestinians has been | recognized since before Israel was even granted statehood | by the U.N as part of the two-state solution. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_solution | | The PA has been recognized since the Oslo accords in 1995. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_National_Authorit | y | | Hamas in the Gaza strip is not recognized by Israel and its | allies, but Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to | exist: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant | mongol wrote: | The assassination of Yitzhak Rabin is said to have been the | most successful political assassination in history. It | changed the tide for real, in the way that the assassin | strived for. | whearyou wrote: | They spent a decade blowing up Israelis in schoolyards and | cafes. I don't think more violence is their path to | freedom. | Robotbeat wrote: | I've always thought that hitting soft targets was a sign | of weakness and desperation. So your point doesn't seem | to contradict mine. | whearyou wrote: | No, not really. You're suggesting more capability for | violence will secure their freedom. I'm noting the | observation of facts at hand suggest the opposite. | Robotbeat wrote: | Does that mean reducing the Israeli military would also | help? | | The goal is for both the Israeli and Palestinian states | to exist and for there to be peace. An Israeli hegemony | over the Palestinian state, with settlers and all, | certainly doesn't help that, and it may be a rational | goal of the Palestinian state to become too much of a | nuisance to be ignored. If peace means subjugation, I | think many Palestinians probably wouldn't be okay with | that. The Palestinians are seeing a lot of "might makes | right" arguments right now about why they should just | accept subjugation. | stale2002 wrote: | Nobody said anything about what is "right". | | Instead, the argument is that the observable fact is that | continued violence has not helped the palestinian cause. | | It simply has not worked. | | That's not a moral statement. It is simply the | descriptive truth that violence for decades has not | helped their cause, and therefore it probably won't in | the future. | Robotbeat wrote: | But the violence by the Israeli military DOES seem to | have worked! Israel exists and no serious person doubts | that Israel will continue to exist for quite a while | because of it. So why would violence help one side more | than the other? Probably because one side is much more | powerful than the other. Hence my asking about whether a | stronger (and more organized) Palestinian military would | help. | [deleted] | whearyou wrote: | Given the two wars of survival the Israelis have fought | in the past 50-ish years it seems very likely that it | would reducing their military would reduce the freedom | and literal existence of the Israelis. | | For the Palestinians, perhaps reducing the Israeli would | increase freedom in the short term. In the longer term, | in the absence of Israel, it seems more likely they would | end up dominated by either larger neighbors like Lebanon | by Syria or experience low-freedom autocracies like | Egypt, Iraq, etc. | Robotbeat wrote: | Who said anything about eliminating Israel? Why eliminate | EITHER side? I think a two state solution makes the most | sense, but right now the one state Israeli right wing has | the upper hand and a near monopoly on violence (and let's | not ignore there has been plenty of targeting of | civilians, including retribution). This doesn't seem to | be a great argument about how freedom-loving the State of | Israel is. An autocratic (or ethnocratic), low-freedom | Israel snuffing out the Palestinian state doesn't seem | preferable to me whereas a peaceful two state solution | seems like it could be super awesome for both sides if | they can just get over themselves. | | And if one can understand why Israel would fight for its | right to exist as a state, then why should it be | surprising that the Palestinian state fights for the same | reason? | hpcjoe wrote: | Hitting these 'soft targets' is and has been a war crime, | but hey ... | Robotbeat wrote: | Yeah, ain't no angels in this conflict. It'd be doing the | world a favor to move everyone out and then sow the | ground with highly radioactive waste making it entirely | uninhabitable for hundreds of years, denying it to | everyone. So much blood spilt over a bit of land no | bigger than Massachusetts (and much of it desert). | skrebbel wrote: | To take this thread further off topic, i feel like | there's some remarkably not-hot-headed people in this | thread so maybe I can finally get an answer to a question | that's been bothering me a long time: | | Why do some Israelis build settlements? I mean, in the | middle of what used to be Palestinian-controlled land? | What's their goal? Also isn't it super risky/scary? | | It seems to me to just be a needless provocation but that | makes no sense, why would anyone risk their family's | safety just to provoke? I'm clearly missing some key | insight. | bjourne wrote: | Over two thousand years ago there were two kingdoms | called Judah and Israel. Judah encompassed the southern | West Bank and Israel the northern West Bank. These | kingdoms were destroyed and became part of the Assyrian, | Babylonian, Persian, and the Roman empires. The modern | State of Israel claims that it is the spiritual successor | to these kingdoms and that it therefore has a right to | the same territory that these kingdoms once encompassed. | Furthermore, Judaism's holy book, the Torah, describes | how God gave his people, the Israelites, this territory. | Many Israeli Jews believe that they are somehow related | to the ancient Israelites. | | While many Israeli Jews (likely a majority) acknowledge | that the West Bank is "occupied", technically, according | to international law, for the above reasons, they insist | that Israel has a legitimate claim to it. The West Bank | is in Israel commonly referred to as "Judea and Samaria" | because those are the names used in the Torah. | | The goal of the settlements is to create "facts on the | ground" to make it harder for future governments to | relinquish the occupied Palestinian territories. As | Israel's former prime minister Ariel Sharon phrased it: | "Everybody has to move, run and grab as many | [Palestinian] hilltops as they can to enlarge the | [Jewish] settlements because everything we take now will | stay ours... Everything we don't grab will go to them." | This is precisely why it is considered a war crime for an | occupying power to transfer parts of its civilian | population into occupied territory. | | Most Israeli settlers live in settlement blocs and it is | not dangerous for the setters to live in them. A smaller | number of settlers are religious extremists and they | establish "outposts" - settlements built without explicit | permission by the government. These settlers are often | well-armed and coordinate with the Israeli military. | Palestinians, on the other hand, are for the most part | not allowed to own firearms. | whearyou wrote: | Originally, security . Israel's economic and population | core is contained within a region as wide the distance | from your average small city to a suburb. It's also | geographically a low plain. It's called Gush Dan and | looking at a map is helpful for understanding how extreme | this geography really is. | | The land on the Palestinian side of that border are | hills. Prior to when Israel conquered that land in 1967, | Arab militants/terrorists would take pot shots at and | occasionally kill drivers of cars and busses driving | along roads in this region. It's really that small, | single digit miles wide. Apparently school busses were a | favorite since they are large bright targets. | | The settlements were originally limited in number and | designed to offer the Israelis opportunity for physical | security. This is still the case today when the preferred | weapon of militants/terrorist is missiles. | | After 1973 when the Right came to power the settlements | adopted a religious connotation. They were massively | expanded as a conscious effort to absorb the entire West | Bank. Since then the problem has only deepened. | Robotbeat wrote: | Right. Irredentism is a lot of the reason as I understand | it. | eli_gottlieb wrote: | Yeah, the Palestinian government and voters should try | pursuing a politics of statehood and independence, rather | than one of "return" to 1946 or the Ottoman period. | http://www.wilf.org/English/2016/12/02/the-war-isnt-over- | yet... | Robotbeat wrote: | Yup, I agree. Same for the Israelis who want peace | shouldn't be pushing for settlement and subjugation of | the Palestinian state. Extremists on both sides don't | want to compromise on their visions. | eli_gottlieb wrote: | Yeah, if I wasn't abroad for my PhD I'd be voting for the | Labor Party this election. They've got a new party head | who's taking a stronger stand against Netanyahu and the | pro-settlement Right than the other parties. | | I do really wish my people's country could come up in the | news without people breaking out in Zionism Derangement | Syndrome in the comments, insisting genocide refugees are | colonizers and racism is when we don't force minorities | to fight in the army if they don't support the state. It | brings to mind that academic crank who once said Israeli | soldiers are racist for not raping Palestinian women. | This kind of ZDS is why Netanyahu keeps winning -- it's | all Israelis and Jews hear from people in other | countries, and it affects our discourse. | solosoyokaze wrote: | Israel commits massive human rights violations and is | aggressively and illegally expanding its borders (which were | a colonization project from the start). No one should support | or work with them and the US should stop funding Israel. | falcor84 wrote: | I don't want to get into the rest of your argument, but | just wanted to say that based on my reading of history, | pretty much all of the borders on Earth "were a | colonization project from the start". | solosoyokaze wrote: | Important to remember but not quite the same as | colonizing a region in the 20th century. This isn't the | distant past, it's actively happening. | ocschwar wrote: | So's the arrival of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, | which is still ongoing. | bzbarsky wrote: | Which is why Poland and Germany constantly fight over the | border that was imposed post-WWII (20th century, yes) and | the population displacement that took place at that time, | right? | | It's really easy to declare things as black and white. | It's seldom accurate. | | (Important note: a large fraction, a majority depending | on how you count it, of Israel's population are | descendants of Jews who were ejected from other Middle | Eastern countries after the establishment of Israel? Are | they to be considered "colonizers" in your framing?) | solosoyokaze wrote: | > a large fraction, a majority depending on how you count | it, of Israel's population are descendants of Jews who | were ejected from other Middle Eastern countries after | the establishment of Israel | | This is not modern history. Yes they are colonizers. By | your logic, anyone could just invade Africa and start a | country there since all humanity's ancestors descended | from the region. | | > It's really easy to declare things as black and white. | | Colonization and genocide are actually pretty black and | white. Israel is violating international law and | committing human rights violations. | bzbarsky wrote: | > This is not modern history. | | Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing: | we're talking about the mass ejections of Jews from | various Middle Eastern and North African countries in the | 50s, 60s, and 70s of the 20th century, right? | | And if that's not modern history, then how is the | establishment of Israel at the same time modern history? | | > Yes they are colonizers. | | They were refugees, more precisely. But just to be | specific, what is your concrete proposal for where they | should have gone? | | > By your logic, anyone could just invade Africa and | start a country there since all humanity's ancestors | descended from the region. | | No, I don't see how that's an analogous situation at all. | My question about Israel is a pretty specific one: I | challenge its presentation as a "European" or "Western" | colonial project. Though maybe that was not your intent? | | > Colonization and genocide are actually pretty black and | white | | We'd have to clearly define "colonization", since I | suspect we disagree on whether specific actions | constitute it. | | Genocide is pretty black and white, I agree. I am opposed | to genocide. We may disagree on whether there is | genocide, or attempted genocide going on in various | situations, unfortunately. | | Concretely: Do you feel that Israel is attempting a | genocide campaign against the Palestinians? Do you feel | that the Israeli electorate supports such a campaign? Do | you feel that the Palestinians are attempting a genocide | campaign against Jews? Do you feel that their electorate | (using that term loosely, due to lack of elections) | supports such a campaign? | | Fundamentally, I disagree with both the "from the river | to the sea" narrative and the "all of Judea and Samaria" | narrative... (And I do note that neither of those is | necessarily genocidal, though both can be nice jumps onto | slippery slopes towards there.) | | > Israel is violating international law and committing | human rights violations. | | Yes, I agree. But just to make sure we're on the same | page, so are the Palestinians, every single country | Israel has a border with (on the human rights violation | parts of the ledger for sure), and quite a number of | other entities. Including, I am 99% sure, the country you | live in. There are questions of scope and degree, of | course. Please don't mention the words "false | equivalence", because I am not claiming that anything | here is "equivalent" to anything else, and if I were we'd | likely disagree on what equivalences are "true" vs | "false". | | More practically, what specific actions do you think | would be required for Israel to stop committing what you | perceive as human rights violations and international law | violations? And if your answer is "dissolve itself as an | entity and have all the Jews go somewhere else", then I | can see how that's a consistent moral position, but that | does not match either international law nor morality as I | perceive it. | | If that's not your position, then were back to trying to | figure out various shades of grey, as far as I can tell, | which we're probably not going to manage to work out in | this sort of discussion. | solosoyokaze wrote: | Israel actively planned to grow its non-native population | and encouraged immigration from neighboring countries: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Million_Plan | | Yes, I think Israel is attempting a genocide against the | Palestinians. The ICC is currently investigating war | crimes: | | https://apnews.com/article/israel-west-bank-palestinian- | terr... | bzbarsky wrote: | Israel encouraged immigration, yes. And the countries the | Mizrahi Jews left did all sorts of things that encouraged | their Jews to leave. | | > Yes, I think Israel is attempting a genocide against | the Palestinians. | | OK, we have that clear. I asked three other questions in | the paragraph where I asked that question, and I'd love | to know what your answers to those are. | | > The ICC is currently investigating war crimes | | As they should, yes. I don't think everything Israel does | is either acceptable or even justified, by any means. | solosoyokaze wrote: | No, I don't think the Palestinians are engaging in | genocide against the Israelis. Yes, I think Israel should | be disbanded. As for what to do with people who don't | want to stay? I'd be more than happy to welcome them to | the US. | bzbarsky wrote: | Thank you, that makes your position quite clear. I | appreciate your continued engagement with this | conversation and the fact that I think we managed to keep | it reasonably polite... | eli_gottlieb wrote: | I admire your ability to bite the bullet and call Mizrahi | Jews colonizers for being ethnically cleansed and fleeing | to their indigenous homeland. | [deleted] | someperson wrote: | I think the point was fair. We try to have a world where | force is not used to reshape borders. Eg, we rightfully | call out Russia's annexation of Crimea and sanction them. | | If we are to call out China's genocide of the Uighers, we | should also call out the Saudi Arabia, Israel and the | United States when they commit human rights abuse. | | It's about applying human rights and international law as | impartially as possible, and using economic might to | sanction any country which breaks the rules. | smachiz wrote: | I mean... economic might is a version of human rights | abuses. | | Ask the Cubans. | | The are no simple applications of pithy thoughts. The | world is messy, subjective and everyone has an inherent | bias to their world view. And most importantly, it isn't | fair or just. We just hopefully try to do better than | yesterday. | solosoyokaze wrote: | There are officially recognized war crimes and crimes | against humanity. There's national sovereignty. These | aren't "pithy thoughts", they're well regarded basics | that Israel regularly violates with the support of the | US. | smachiz wrote: | Officially by whom? | | Go look at the UN Council on Human Rights, which is | historically a literal who's who of human rights abusers. | | The UN Security Council is actually the only UN group | that can officially declare Human Rights Abuses... but of | course a single veto prevents that. | | The ICC has its own host of issues around bias. | | I guess my point is most issues are not as clear cut in | the moment as they are in retrospect. | | Some are clearer than others, of course. But life is | messy, and the victors have always written the narrative | that past events are judged. It's a relatively recent | artifact where we can argue about this stuff in real | time. | watoc wrote: | You're right but that doesn't mean we should accept it. | Why we didn't accept it when Saddam invaded Koweit or | when Russia annexed Crimea? Colonization of Palestine has | very negative direct and indirect consequences on our | world. | smachiz wrote: | Sorry - has something changed with Crimea? Begrudging | acceptance seems to be exactly where we're at.... | watoc wrote: | AFAIK very few countries have recognized Crimea as part | of Russia. So my comment is still valid, most countries | did not accept the annexion. | slavak wrote: | No countries recognize Israeli claims to the Occupied | Palestinian Territories, and even the comparatively tame | annexation of the Golan Heights is recognized by very | few. | | That means, formally, Israeli actions in the OPT are even | less accepted than Russia's annexation of Crimea. | Practically, begrudging acceptance seems to be a very apt | description, arguably of the latter even more so than the | former. | watoc wrote: | Didn't the Trump administration declare that the | settlements were not illegal? Palestine is not even fully | recognized as an independent state. | | Besides the comparaison with Crimea, the point was that | borders throughout history have been shaped by | colonizations and invasions but that cannot be used to | justify colonization itself. | smachiz wrote: | but also haven't really done much about it right? | | We threw some sanctions on them... that appear to be | fairly toothless. | nailer wrote: | Crimea was given by Stalin to Ukraine relatively | recently. Yes, Russia took it back by threat of force, | but it's not like they didn't have some historic claim to | the land, much like Jews do to the Kingdoms of Israel and | Judea. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Crimea#1954_Tran | sfe... | watoc wrote: | That's a very slippery slope if you justify the | colonization of Palestine by Israel because it was part | of a jewish kingdom thousands of years ago. Spain has | been muslim for centuries would that be acceptable if | they settled again there by force? | nailer wrote: | There is no colonisation to justify or otherwise, there | was a continuous use of the land by Jewish people since | this time. The name 'Palestinea' only came about as a | punishment by the Romans for Simon bar Kokhba. | | Not that Wikipedia itself is a good source, but thi has a | bunch of references: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_bar_Kokhba | | > In the aftermath of the war, Hadrian consolidated the | older political units of Judaea, Galilee and Samaria into | the new province of Syria Palaestina, which is commonly | interpreted as an attempt to complete the disassociation | with Judaea. | watoc wrote: | There has been a continuous use of the land by Christians | and Muslims for centuries as well. So because Judaism has | existed the longest they have the right to expel | everybody else or best case scenario, make them second- | class citizen (Law of Return, Jewish National Fund ...). | There has also been a continuous presence of native | Americans for much longer than Europeans in North | America... | | If you're denying that colonization even exists it will | be difficult to have a discussion based on facts. | nailer wrote: | I'm not denying there has been Arabs and other groups | there. The situation regarding expelling is in many cases | more more likely to do with people avoiding tax under the | Ottomans (if you didn't own a field you were using, you | couldn't be taxed on it) than forced expulsion though. | | You're also confusing a religion with an ethnicity in | your comment. The issue is Arabs and Jewish people not | anything to do with Islam, Christianity or atheism. | watoc wrote: | > The issue is Arabs and Jewish people not anything to do | with Islam, Christianity or atheism. | | Religion has a lot to do with the issue. Religion and | ethnicity are often strongly related especially for Jews. | Judaism is the main element that identifies Jews together | and the vast majority of Arabs living in Israel/Palestine | are Muslims. | excieve wrote: | That's a very dangerous position. If you want to go there | you'll find a long list of claims of almost anything. | | Take Crimea for example: the Russian Empire only | conquered it in the late 18th century (relatively | recently too). Should the Turks claim it next (as the | Crimean state was the Ottoman Empire's vassal before) or | maybe Mongols, Greeks, or descendants of Goths, Huns? | | There's a reason for avoiding forceful border carving in | the modern world for "historic justice". It is a phony | cause and leads to a chain of generational violence. Too | bad the modern world never acts to efficiently prevent | it. | | And by the way, Stalin was already dead by 1954 -- | difficult to "give" anything in that state. Not even | mentioning that "giving" in USSR is just an | administrative re-arrangement of a territory within an | empire. By that logic, all the states ever being part of | any empire have a "historic claim" on the other parts. | nailer wrote: | Are you saying there are a lot of Turkish people in | Crimea? | detritus wrote: | Much the same could be said about America, Australia or New | Zealand - or in older days the expansion of the First | Calpihate - but time and humanity blithely blunders on | regardless of critics' mores. | dang wrote: | 'They' = Lebanon. We detached this subthread from | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26385835. | ocschwar wrote: | Lebanon's diversity is the problem. It only takes a veto from | ONE faction. | hnISmongoguy wrote: | OMG! You can't just say bad things about diversity. Diversity | is axiomatically good because it helps prevents unions and | saves big corporations | citrusybread wrote: | Lebanon tried to make peace before the civil war. I think | anyone with Lebanese family can see how Lebanon pre-civil war | and Israel had more in common than Lebanon had with the greater | arab world, or even with Palestine. | | But Israel basically wanted the leadership to bend over further | than they'd be willing to do, and the deal was cancelled. | | Today with a more diverse Lebanon it's still possible. There | would need to be a shift away from Syrian and Iranian interest | but it is definitely possible. | sirmoveon wrote: | Will magnetism underwater have any effect on organic creatures' | livelihood? | anonu wrote: | This is awesome. The real loser in all of this is Lebanon. 30 | years after the end of the civil war there, and 24-hour | electricity is a pipe dream. People still rely on neighborhood | generators that contribute to the already bad pollution. | jablala wrote: | I would also add 'The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' as a | loser. Having to now take electricity from Turkey, further | solidifying this horrible depending relationship. | bjourne wrote: | Why is it awesome? I don't think European countries should | share energy grids with countries that does not respect human | rights such as Israel and Russia. | marshmallow_12 wrote: | Probably, everything you are wearing, plus your | phone/computer, plus the petrol you put in your car come from | countries that abuse human rights, such as china, Saudi | Arabia etc. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | That doesn't mean I (or the person you're replying to) | agree with it. I mean I don't agree with US politics and | their human rights violations, yet here I am, commenting on | a US community on US-designed hardware and US-developed | software. | | "We should improve society somewhat." "Yet you participate | in society. Curious!" | forgotmypw17 wrote: | aside from simplicity in living, this is the second to top | reason why i abandoned buying anything unless it is | absolutely necessary... | marshmallow_12 wrote: | Have you checked under the furniture for the paper your | password was written on? Do you even have furniture:) | cblconfederate wrote: | Turn off your computer and stop using the internet because | someone's rights have definitely been violated for you to | read this comment. | roncohen wrote: | How do you feel about the EU being connected to the Turkish | electricity grid? [1] and Germany being increasingly | dependent on Russian gas? [2] | | [1] https://www.avrupa.info.tr/en/plugging-turkey-eu- | electricity... | | [2] https://www.dw.com/en/nord-stream-2-pipeline-row- | highlights-... | bjourne wrote: | Didn't I cover that in my comment? I feel that that is bad. | But I also feel that the whataboutism argument is overused | when it comes to Israel. We should minimize our incidental | support of repressive regimes wherever they are found. | Especially when we are explicitly called on to do so (see | BDS) by those oppressed by such repressive regimes. | sandworm101 wrote: | Depends on which way the power flows. Perhaps if Israel | becomes depended on European electricity some of its more | offensive behaviors can be moderated. | jraby3 wrote: | Israel does respect human rights. It also has the right to | protect its citizens and borders. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | Even if it used force to establish said borders in the | first place? Israel as the nation we know today only came | about fairly recently, and it was only established as a | modern-day state in 1948. | dogma1138 wrote: | All borders were established by force... Israel is just | more recent, about as recent as every other nation in | that region. Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and essentially | every other nation in the region was formed around the | same period. | | The issue is that unlike other cases they were never left | to their own devices and let sort their own shit out. | eli_gottlieb wrote: | Tell me, when was the unification of Germany, and how did | its borders get the way they are now? I seem to recall | some unpleasantness with American and British planes. | ravenstine wrote: | They took over someone else's land because of a | cultural/religious belief that they need an ethnostate. I'm | sure that they protect their citizens and their borders, | and almost every country would say the same. That doesn't | mean they didn't bring localized conflict upon themselves | by disrespecting the rights of others. | [deleted] | IG_Semmelweiss wrote: | There is a reason for this. | | The first time I ever went to Beirut over 10 years ago, I asked | a partner of a large Civil Engineering firm | | Me : "Why does the power go out all the time?" | | The response: "There is no political will to fix this." | | I didn't understand the reply. Surely there was immense value | in economic development in doing this ? | | I drew parallels to being in South America, particularly | Ecuador, who had the same issue back in the 90's. That caused | so much economic loss. I understood the issue was rainfall | swings drove hydro power outages. They finally built extra | capacity, and now brownouts are a thing of the past. Everyone | benefitted. | | But lebanon had no such luck. Why? | | I didn't understand the undertones of what was being told to | me. But the answer was there. It is a political issue, but not | a question of will. Its a question of money. | | The neighborhood generators now have cartel power over the | generation of electricity. They have a vested interest in the | government NOT producing cheap electricity for the masses. | Anything that disrupts the status quo means their business is | effectively over. | | Full 360: The market response to electricity production during | civil war, gave lebanon electric resilience (via power | generators)...but now with regulatory capture, the incentives | are only to sustain the broken model. | imachine1980 wrote: | as Argentinian , other south American country we have cities | without energy next to power generation plants, and | subsidizes for sector who don needed (residential downtown) | but have political influence, i live in the richest and | biggest cities of my country and i have subside | transportation while,in the north who have a lot less | resource pay the full tariffs only because my cities have | more political influence in national elections. | IG_Semmelweiss wrote: | Thanks I learned too. | | Allow me to contribute a bit and please don't take this the | wrong way. I understand why you are using tariff. You are | using the spanish tarifa. | | The word commonly used to represent bus payments is "fare" | (train fare, etc). Hope this helps!. | | Tariff in english is commonly used instead to refer to the | word "arancel" i.e. the cost to export / import food, etc. | airstrike wrote: | Thanks for the insight. Gives a whole new meaning to the | "Bitcoin farming uses more energy than Argentina" | catchphrase | | I'm not arguing pro or against Bitcoin, just stating | reality is nuanced. | Florin_Andrei wrote: | Regulatory capture is the long-term attractor for any "free | market" system. | | The rule of law needs to put its thumb on the scale if you | want to get rid of the predatory elements. | missedthecue wrote: | seems less like a market problem and more like a government | problem | asdff wrote: | It's more a human nature problem. A perfectly free market | is the jungle, and the most brutal jaguar is king there. | Florin_Andrei wrote: | Which is exactly why you need to add feedback loops to | the system (minimum wage, progressive taxation, etc), to | prevent it from devolving into Bioshock. | Florin_Andrei wrote: | Yes. When the government is too weak, or is government in | name only, or is infected with "free market" true | believers, it becomes the plaything of the great | moneybags. Policy shifts towards "freedom" - i.e. the | freedom to use the brute force of capital for personal | benefit, disregarding the larger and the longer term | outcomes and the greater good. | flak48 wrote: | Lack of will to disrupt the status quo is also the reason why | many new builds in Indian cities like Bangalore/Hyderabad are | forced to rely on the water tanker cartels instead of getting | reliable piped water supply from the local municipal | corporations. | | The icing on the cake is that water tanker cartels steal from | the municipal water supply in the first place. | asdff wrote: | It happens in the US too. 1br rents are like $2000 in LA. 3 | bedroom 1500sqft starter homes are north of $1.5m even in the | worst neighborhoods in the city. If you ask why rents and | housing is so high, it's due to a a lack of political will to | increase supply. It seems backward until you realize the | majority of voters in local elections are homeowners, the | council members in charge of unilateraly approving or | disallowing development in their district are homeowners, and | the lawmakers at the state level are also homeowners, all of | which have a vested interest in achieving exponential gains | on their assets. | | I can't help but imagine how different this state would be if | the governor of California came from a rental apartment, or | from living in their car, and not the latest approved | candidate from the old California political machine (Governor | Gavin Newsom is a respected SF judge's son, Mayor Eric | Garcetti's father was the LA DA for 20 years). Maybe | political priorities would actually shift to the working poor | rather than the landowning elite for the first time ever in | California. | ivraatiems wrote: | I think we should clarify what we mean by "lack of | political will." The stakeholders who don't want (lots of | government-supplied electricity | lots of low-cost housing) | have plenty of political will. Their opponents also have a | political desire, but a lack of political _power_. | | "Lack of will" as a phrase suggests nobody feels like doing | anything about it, when in fact, lots of people want to do | different things and those with more power are winning out | over those with less, regardless of which thing would be | maximally beneficial. | | This isn't a slight against you or the GP for using the | phrase - it's just something that sticks in my craw when I | hear it. Don't even ask me how I feel about the word | "unprecedented." | ocschwar wrote: | It is awesome. Any project that improves daily life for any | part of the Middle East is a way to show the haters that the | world isn't waiting for them to come around. | anovikov wrote: | That's what happens to people who piss Israel too much. | sandworm101 wrote: | >> rely on neighborhood generators | | I often wonder if places like this are where real green energy | revolution will start. Perhaps the greatest motivation for off- | grid solar is not having access to a grid in the first place. | The first targets in many wars are the power plants, plants fed | by fossil fuel deliveries. A country powered by widespread | small "gridless" solar power solutions would be very resilient | in a crisis, much more difficult a target in a war. Maybe | Lebanon can move forward without a reliable national grid. | anonu wrote: | It's a nice idea. But does solar work in a densely populated | city like Beirut where at least a quarter of the population | lives? Or any dense city for that matter? | pgt wrote: | This is becoming true in South Africa due to the unreliable | power supply from state-owned Eskom. | sandworm101 wrote: | I'm seeing it on the other side of the economic spectrum: | rich people building vacation houses on green fields. Other | than Texas, North America has a very dependable grid. But | if your new house is more than a couple hundred meters from | that grid an overkill solar solution will probably be | cheaper than connection cost. So new vacation homes in the | woods/mountains/coastline are installing solar for purely | economic reasons. | richjdsmith wrote: | That's what my parents did. When they built their lake | cottage it was cheaper to tie in sewer and water, but the | cost to tie in to the power grid was going to be over | $30k at which point, they were cheaper to install a full | solar system. So they did. | burlesona wrote: | Wow, check your decency bias. Having lived in California | with rolling blackouts becoming normal in the last five | years, it's hardly fair to say that Texas has a uniquely | bad electrical grid. Texas got hit by a freak weather | event that people weren't prepared for. We can have an | interesting discussion about why they weren't prepared | and what could be done about it, but to imply that Texas | grid is unreliable in general is just silly. | [deleted] | Qwertious wrote: | > But if your new house is more than a couple hundred | meters from that grid an overkill solar solution will | probably be cheaper than connection cost. | | If this becomes a thing without charging non-users a flat | fee for the electricity grid, then the grid will fall | into a death spiral as renewables+storage become cheaper | - namely, fewer people using the grid will increase the | relative cost for each remaining user, encouraging them | to go off-grid which further increases the relative cost | of grid-attachment. | OldHand2018 wrote: | The grid is already in trouble in places where it makes | little economic sense to keep it reliable (rural regions, | especially California/West Coast). | | The ex-Texas US grid is reliable because of economic | reasons (especially industrial) and the Texas grid is not | that reliable for economic reasons! | | If you leave the interstate system and drive the state | and national highways, especially east of the Mississippi | River, you'll see industrial facilities all over the | place in small towns and cities, etc. They consume a lot | of electricity, so it is in the national interest to have | a good grid. West of the Mississippi: go read the | Bershire Hathaway annual report from a few weeks ago. | Warren Buffett spends quite a bit of space writing about | how and why they are spending billions on the future of | the grid. | mschuster91 wrote: | > The grid is already in trouble in places where it makes | little economic sense to keep it reliable | | This is why regulation is needed and competition on the | lowest level of infrastructure a bad idea. | | In Germany, we have a legal mandate (per SS36 EnWG, | https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/enwg_2005/__36.html) | for the dominant local utility to provide the core gas | and electricity network upon which the customer can | choose any utility to provide gas and electricity (with | this utility then paying a set rate for using the network | to the local utility). Additionally, SS11 EnWG | (https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/enwg_2005/__11.html) | forces all network-operating utilities to keep their | network operation "safe, reliable and free of | discrimination" - and the authority BNetzA has the legal | power to actually enforce this. | | Events like the shoddy maintenance that led to a number | of wild fires in California or the lack of winterization | that led to the Texas debacles in 2011 and 2021 simply | would not happen here. | rhodozelia wrote: | Not sure why you are downvoted. Utilities are natural | monopolies. It makes sense for one entity to provide the | network. The risk is that the monopoly gets fat and lazy, | but there are many examples of failures from both | approaches. | | And I also believe Germans would not produce or tolerate | the California or Texas debacles. | mschuster91 wrote: | > Not sure why you are downvoted | | Probably because I'm advocating for government owned or | at least heavily regulated infrastructure. | | > The risk is that the monopoly gets fat and lazy, but | there are many examples of failures from both approaches. | | Agreed (and California is a perfect example)... with a | monopoly situation (and in "captive market" situations | such as housing where people can't go without the | services of the market) regulation agencys need teeth. | Basically you want pitbulls, not poodles. | NullPrefix wrote: | You say it like it's a bad thing. | sandworm101 wrote: | >> without charging non-users a flat fee for the | electricity grid | | With hookup cost to a new property often measuring in the | tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars, the non- | connection fee/penalty would have to be very high. | | In pacific northwest, estimate 10-15k per electrical | pole. Plus any necessary upgrades to the system. Plus | easements. Plus maintenance costs. Plus cutting the | trees. Plus then paying for power. ... A kickass solar | rig and backup generator is very cheap by comparison. | cblconfederate wrote: | Lebanon could join in the future as could other countries, if | this project goes through | marshmallow_12 wrote: | Lebanon is in an awful state. they seem to be little more than | a satellite of Iran via Hezbollah. I haven't heard anything | about them since that terrible explosion in Beirut. i hope they | get sorted out soon. | anonu wrote: | You got downvoted by others - maybe because your comment | isn't super additive to the conversation. But the general | sentiment is right. They have a strong control over the | country no matter which way you look at it. They build | parallel infrastructures to that of the state: different | phone systems, power systems, healthcare, etc... so they are | shielded from the corruption and complacency that happens in | the government - all while contributing to it. | marshmallow_12 wrote: | -maybe because your comment isn't super additive to the | conversation. | | You are correct, but i felt i should draw attention to an | issue i think is extremely serious. Also, there is the | possibility to explore that Hezbollah may sabotage the | project. | solosoyokaze wrote: | Do you feel the same desire to point out Israel's war | crimes and genocide? | | _That_ is a serious issue that needs attention. | Especially because they are in large part funded by the | US. | megaman821 wrote: | My understanding is most the aid given to Israel is spent | on American military equipment. Israel is ok with it | because they get free military equipment, and the US | likes it because it funnels aid money to the military. | ceejayoz wrote: | The US also likes the live testbed for anti-insurgency | tech. | underdeserver wrote: | Defense contractors, surely, not the US military? | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Defense contractors, surely, not the US military?_ | | Both. We get allied assets in the region. We also get | purchasing volume for military hardware, which feeds R&D | budgets for things we want. | typesystem wrote: | answering to your other comments as well, Israel fulfils | American interest in the area as I understand it. It is | the best freedom-per-dollar the US can get, except maybe | south-Korea. between all of American attempts to | establish their dominance and their believes in the | world, you pointed to one of their more successful | investments. for this topic. If you want to reduce the | violence in the area of the middle east, joint local | economical ventures are a perfectly good start. hopefully | one day with Lebanon too. disclaimer I'm Israeli. | solosoyokaze wrote: | As an American I don't want my interests fulfilled at the | expense of other's human rights, basic peace and | sovereignty. | typesystem wrote: | I'm not going to debate US politics with American but | this page [0] shows me Israel is not exception in | American policy. As I said before probably one of the few | successful attempt to encourage a democracy. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_U | nited_S... | solosoyokaze wrote: | I don't know what point you're trying to make with that | link. The US normally sanctions countries committing | human rights violations, it doesn't typically fund them. | Israel is an outlier there. | adventured wrote: | Israel isn't particularly funded by the US. They receive | a small amount of money from the US, as do about 100 | other nations around the world, including several | prominent nations that have historically disliked Israel | (see: Egypt, Pakistan). | | Israel is now one of the most prosperous nations in world | history. Their GDP per capita will soon be among the | highest of any nation. They passed Japan, Britain and | France recently on that metric; next they'll pass Canada | and Germany. They're entirely free-standing economically | at this point and do not require US funding (even though | the US will obviously continue to have deep economic ties | with Israel, including militarily). | solosoyokaze wrote: | The US gives Israel billions of dollars every year: | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel- | United_States_relatio... | adventured wrote: | The US has given Egypt $80 billion over the last 40 | years, which is about what the US has given Israel over | 70 years. | | Of course the US gives Israel some money still, mostly | related to its on-going military relationship with Israel | in developing weapons systems and technology. There isn't | anybody in this thread that doesn't already know that. | And the US gives money to a lot of other nations too. | | None of that negates what I so precisely worded to try to | avoid this follow-up response. I failed unfortunately. | | Israel has a $400 billion GDP at this point. As I noted, | the US does not particularly fund Israel. US funding to | Israel represents a now trivial part of their economic | system. They do not require the US, they are free- | standing. | snypher wrote: | Israel received $3.8b in the covid bill passed a few days | ago. If they don't need it, send it back because we could | sure use it here. | solosoyokaze wrote: | > Of course the US gives Israel some money still, mostly | related to its on-going military relationship with Israel | in developing weapons systems and technology | | This is the problem I have with funding Israel. We're | literally giving them money to commit war crimes and | illegal military action. We should be sanctioning them | (if we want to be consistent), not funding them. | slavak wrote: | War crimes and illegal military action seem to very much | be the preferred business of the American military- | industrial complex. Most of the US foreign aid given to | Israel can only be spent on purchasing US military | hardware. The people who benefit from funneling | additional billions into the MIC are the same ones that | benefit from ongoing American military actions on foreign | soil... | marshmallow_12 wrote: | here's a better link, i think (Sam i am). | | https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf | solosoyokaze wrote: | Thanks. From the link: | | _In 2016, the U.S. and Israeli governments signed their | third 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on | military aid, covering FY2019 to FY2028. Under the terms | of the MOU, the United States pledged to provide--subject | to congressional appropriation--$38 billion in military | aid ($33 billion in Foreign Military Financing grants | plus $5 billion in missile defense appropriations) to | Israel. This MOU followed a previous $30 billion 10-year | agreement, which ran through FY2018._ | marshmallow_12 wrote: | My pleasure! Always happy to discuss facts. | yostrovs wrote: | Israel and Egypt are always pointed to as recipients of | greatest US aid. But that is only because the US military | that is stationed in South Korea, Japan, and a bunch of | other countries is not counted as aid. And all that | military is very expensive, like in the tens of billions | or maybe even hundreds. I don't know how much it costs to | maintain an aircraft carrier fleet to protect the Arabs | from the Persians. | yostrovs wrote: | And on a similar note, when comparing overall spending on | the military, the perception of the size of the US | military is inflated because in China and many other | countries there's a draft, so they pay their soldiers | next to nothing while the US has to pay theirs a | prevailing wage, which is somewhere around the highest in | the world. | [deleted] | [deleted] | koheripbal wrote: | Hezbollah has a strong influence in the south of Lebanon, | and consequently proportionate control in parliament, but | the other half of Lebanon is strongly anti-Iran. | | The civil war is over, but divisions and complexity | continues. | baybal2 wrote: | How it is? It's a majority christian country! | anonu wrote: | Using a 1932 census. Let's get real... | ceejayoz wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon#Government_and_politi | c... | | > Lebanon is a parliamentary democracy that includes | confessionalism, in which high-ranking offices are reserved | for members of specific religious groups. The President, | for example, has to be a Maronite Christian, the Prime | Minister a Sunni Muslim, the Speaker of the Parliament a | Shi'a Muslim, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Deputy | Speaker of Parliament Eastern Orthodox. | | > Lebanon's national legislature is the unicameral | Parliament of Lebanon. Its 128 seats are divided equally | between Christians and Muslims, proportionately between the | 18 different denominations and proportionately between its | 26 regions. | fennecfoxen wrote: | This is the country with multiple cabinet ministers from | Hezbollah. Perhaps "how" is through these and similar | vehicles. | marshmallow_12 wrote: | https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/lebanon-in-crisis/ it | seems the UK government is also worried that Iran/Hezbolla | are too powerful in Lebanon. that's just from a quick | search. | SpicyLemonZest wrote: | I'm not sure where you heard that from exactly, but their | unique confessionally-sharded politics mean claims like | that often won't be deeply scrutinized within Lebanon. They | won't conduct a new census to check, multiple Muslim groups | claim that they have the majority, and most observers who | aren't constrained by Lebanese politics think it's closer | to 30% Christian. | sjakobi wrote: | How does Lebanon lose from this project? | eschulz wrote: | They don't directly lose from Greece, Cyprus, and Israel | cooperating further with each other. However, they are | missing out on something they need, and this shows how | Lebanon is diplomatically struggling to cooperate with other | nations in the region to help them improve their | infrastructure. This is the ideal project for them to join | and help the Lebanese people, but unfortunately it's just | another potential missed opportunity. | StavrosK wrote: | I have a geopolitical question I haven't been able to answer: | Greece claims its EEZ includes Kastelorizo and extends near | Turkish shores (which is unreasonable, IMO). Turkey claims | islands have no EEZ, and Turkish EEZ extends below Cyprus and | past all the Greek islands to about the middle of the Aegean | (extremely unreasonable and counter to basically all of UNCLOS, | which everyone else recognizes). | | Greece, Cyprus and Israel agreed to construct the EastMed | Pipeline[0], which crosses into the Turkish EEZ and even | territorial waters. Does that run counter to the UNCLOS or not? | | Also, please correct me if I got anything in my understanding | wrong. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EastMed_pipeline | cblconfederate wrote: | the eastmed is passing though what is greek and cyprus EEZ, not | turkish. According to the UNCLOS (at least according to the | reading that Greece does) turkey does not have a maritime | border with Egypt because of kastellorizo. | | That being said, Turkey has been invited to join the eastMed | pipeline | StavrosK wrote: | Agreed, but from the images I've seen, the EastMed doesn't | "dip down" under the Turkish EEZ (in the corridor between the | Turkish EEZ and the Egyptian EEZ), it goes straight from | Cyprus to Crete. Maybe the images are simplified, though. | cblconfederate wrote: | There is no final plan yet, but it won't pass through | Turkey's EEZ unless they join the eastMed forum. | | Here s another image | https://trendsresearch.org/insight/turkey-and-the- | geopolitic... | StavrosK wrote: | That clarifies things, thanks! | karpierz wrote: | Isn't EEZ more about resource extraction (fishing, oil) rather | than construction? I don't think running undersea cables for | example would violate EEZ. | StavrosK wrote: | I think so too, but territorial waters isn't the same, no? | You can't cross into those without some sort of | authorization, AFAIK. | [deleted] | throwawayffffas wrote: | I think the owner of the continental shelf (the bottom of the | sea under the EEZ), has the right to deny the installation of | cables or pipelines. That's how I read paragraph 3 of article | 79 of UNCLOS. | | See here https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/t | exts/unc... | koheripbal wrote: | Isn't the entire Mediteranean Sea on the continental shelf? | I don't think it's comparable to the shelf off the Atlantic | and Pacific. | karpierz wrote: | They have the right to limit it in their territorial sea (h | ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters#Territorial | ...) but outside of that, their complaints are only valid | if the pipelines would affect the state's ability to use | its EEZ. | yellowapple wrote: | Which they might, if the cable happens to sit right on | top of a drilling spot. | | The likelihood of that seems astronomically slim, but | it's still a possibility. | mattjaynes wrote: | EEZ: Exclusive Economic Zone | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone | | (new acronym for me, and I imagine a few others too) | yellowapple wrote: | But once you know it, it's EEZ to remember. | throwawayffffas wrote: | Slight correction, I don't think the EastMed pipeline would | cross turkish territorial waters. Territorial waters only | extend 12nm (22 km) from the shore. The pipeline would | definitely not venture that close to the turkish shores. | StavrosK wrote: | Very likely, I'm going by maps like this one: | | https://fanack.com/wp- | content/uploads/sites/5/2014/10/natura... | | There's a "nose" that drops down from Turkey, and the EastMed | pipeline goes straight from Cyprus to Crete, so it would | cross into that "nose". It says "territorial waters" there, | so I'm confused as to whether that's so or, if not, what it | is. | [deleted] | throwawayffffas wrote: | Indeed this is a rather confused map, the zones demarcated | in that map are the EEZ(Exclusive Economic Zones). As they | are claimed by Greece and Cyprus. Two hundred nautical | miles from their shores or the middle line where they | overlap with the Turkish EEZ. | | The crux of the dispute though is that while that's how | Greece and Cyprus interpret their rights, there is no | provision in UNCLOS for handling overlaps, it only says | there should be an agreement. | | As far as the pipeline is concerned, I think the Greek plan | would be to make the pipeline, a bit more to the south | where Greek and Cypriot zones meet. | StavrosK wrote: | Okay, that makes sense, thanks. I was wondering why those | "Territorial waters" looked much the same as the EEZ | claims. | Qahlel wrote: | I don't understand Greece's actions in this matter. Why is Greece | so keen on poking Turkey rather than working together? There is | no winners in this lose-lose scenario. | | This is like trying to go Manhattan from NJ without entering NY. | I mean... it's impossible. | | (Greek nationals doesn't seem to like this comment) | siculars wrote: | Na. Turkey needs to be counterd by others. And others need to | defend themselves from Turkey. These the are natural allies in | this region for obvious, not so obvious, subtle and not so | subtle reasons. There is a very long history of unhappiness | between Turkey and these three countries. | jo6gwb wrote: | To go from NJ to Manhattan without entering other boroughs one | would simply take the Lincoln Tunnel, Holland Tunnel or GWB. | Alternatively one can take a ferry or even a railroad barge. | Qahlel wrote: | I didn't say without entering other boroughs. Manhattan is in | NY. You can't go to Manhattan without being in NY. | ceejayoz wrote: | But... you _can_ go from Israel to Cyprus to Greece without | entering Turkey, even if you accept their claim to | _Northern_ Cyprus. | gregoriol wrote: | It's more likely that Israel here has interest into linking | with the European grid (Cyprus being just in the middle), and | not Greece linking with Israel's | Grazester wrote: | Don't Turkey and Greece have issues with one another? Why run a | backup line through a country you have grievances with? Every | time you enter Manhattan from NJ using the tunnels or the | George Washington bridge you are directly entering the City of | New York(which is in the state of New York). | StavrosK wrote: | Turkey has a history of claiming an EEZ way to the south of | Cyprus (and also claiming an EEZ even past Crete in the | Aegean), not wanting to work together and then accusing | Greece of not working with them when Greece signs treaties to | pass undersea cables in areas that Turkey claims as Turkish | EEZ. | | It's all a bit of a clusterfuck, I'm not even entirely clear | on what areas Turkey claims and what areas Greece claims. | Turkey also refuses to go to the ICJ to resolve this, which | would have been a good solution, in my opinion. | Jochim wrote: | I'm not Greek, but your question seems to be disingenuous | considering the fact that the long running dispute between | Cyprus and Turkey is fairly common knowledge. See this[1] for | why ethnic Greeks might consider Turkey to be disinterested in | working together. | | [1]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03526/Turkey_ | ... | dudul wrote: | Sure, the country who invaded and has been illegally occupying | 1/3 of another country for half a century is the one being | poked at. | deftnerd wrote: | [1] this episode of the Caspian Report (an excellent Youtube | channel on international affairs) discusses how Israel and | Turkey are trying to establish stronger diplomatic ties in | order to directly connect their maritime EEZ's and block Cyprus | from the Mediterranean. | | It would give the both access to undersea hydrocarbon deposits, | and Israel was going to support route changes of pipelines to | pass more through Turkey. | | I suspect this project and goal is somehow intertwined, but I'm | not versed enough with international relations to see the big | picture. | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOMSTElVHk | cblconfederate wrote: | Worth noting that Caspian Report is made by an azerbaijani | guy who is, not very objective, with regards to matters that | have to do with turkey | | The video you talk about is probably talking about a proposal | that Turkey made to Israel which runs counter to every | international maritime law (it was promptly rejected by | israel) . AFAIK they made similar proposals to egypt | m000 wrote: | > Greek nationals doesn't seem to like this comment | | Yes, they also seem to have bribed foreignpolicy.com [1] to | slander the peace-keeping efforts of Turkey in the region. | | [1] https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/08/turkey-military- | overstr... | ddddq wrote: | Turkey should not invade foreign countries, then they can | talk about peace. | m000 wrote: | I was obviously being ironic above. | | The point is that as long as Turkey is opportunistically | involved in every military conflict they believe they can | get gains from, they can't be seen as a trusted partner by | their neighboring countries. | csunbird wrote: | All countries (also people) do that. If you have power, | you put in use. See USA(Iraq), Russia (Crimea), Germany | (WW2), Britain (colonies) etc... I do not support war or | occupation but countries behave like high school children | - bullies are going to bully. | | But, you find all those countries that I listed above, | "trustworthy", is that correct? | | The problem here is, "trustworthy" does not mean anything | in international relations. It is all about having the | outcomes you want, one way or another. If peace gets you | what you want, its great. If war, then you go to war. | | That is why European Union removed the borders, unified | the economic area, so that they will be too | integrated/extremely hard to decouple to have war again, | because treaties or trustworthiness is meaningless in | scale of countries. | chr1 wrote: | It's not completely random, e.g. it would be very hard | for a politician in USA to convince population that it is | a good idea to bully Canada. And it would not require any | convincing for Turkish citizens to accept any action | against Greece. So being extremely suspicious of Turkey | is the only possible policy for Greece. | 1234throwaway wrote: | is also isreal decision | | reality is turks are often... detach from reality politically. | such is life in 2nd world countries like lebanon, turkey, | malaya, indonesia etc | PartiallyTyped wrote: | Things would have been better had Turkey tried to actually | cooperate for once, instead of repeatedly provoking and going | as far as invading Greece's and Cyprus' EEZs. | p_papageorgiou wrote: | Whys is this considered poking? I think the interpretation of | this is highly linked to political interpretation. | ddddq wrote: | Because turks are really nationalistic and they see | everything as a threat and they see themself always a victim. | Like they see a country with a population of 10 millions | provoking a country with 82 million inhabitants, just because | Israel wants to link their power grid to Europe. Talking of | poking and insecurity, how is it even possible to see Israel | connecting their power grid to Europe as poking by Greece? | Why should Greece, Cyprus and Israel ask Turkey first, if | doesn't go through turkish sea and land? | csunbird wrote: | Disclaimer: I am Turkish and I live in Europe. | | I mean, the dispute between Turkey and Greece mostly is | about the islands that are literally 5 to 10kms away from | Turkish mainland and Greece trying to claim the whole Aegan | See for themselves, citing the islands are her waters and | there a LOT of islands, enough to cover Aegean See and | isolating Turkey's west shores. It causes a dispute, since | if Greece would have their way, Turkey would not even be | able to use her west shores. | | Greece invading west Turkey in WW1 does not help either. | | The conflicts are really feels like children arguing with | each other. Both parties needs to stop, but I think both | governments/ruling parties enjoy nationalist votes from | fueling this dispute. Other countries, who have interest in | this dispute, does not help either. | eruci wrote: | Incorrect! Greece did not invade Turkey in WW2. It was | itself invaded by Italy & Nazi Germany in WW2. | csunbird wrote: | I mistyped WW1 as WW2 - thank you! It is now fixed. | ziofill wrote: | Not to mention that Turkey is preventing Cyprus from accessing | their own offshore oil reserves: | https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-warns-turkey-over-oil-dri... | pjc50 wrote: | > Greece so keen on poking Turkey rather than working together | | Turkey has not yet withdrawn from what is legally Cypriot | territory on the north of the island. That would be the bare | minimum of cooperation required. | | (No connection to Greece myself) | | https://www.europarl.europa.eu/enlargement/briefings/1a2_en.... | [deleted] | apples_oranges wrote: | EE noob question: Could it be dangerous if a cable were damaged | in the (salty) sea? | srs_sput wrote: | Underwater high power cables are a mature technology. The | operators would have equipment distributed across the line to | monitor the cable. Any shorts or opens would be detected and | breakers would be used disconnect the section of the cable. | stmw wrote: | The cables are well-protected, but if they are damaged - same | as with HV overhead lines - there is protection circuitry on | both sides that trips and shuts off the power. So it will limit | the damage to the rest of the grid, but you probably wouldn't | want to be scuba-diving next to the cable when that happens. | marshmallow_12 wrote: | also, what's stopping an antagonist from severing the cable? | doctoboggan wrote: | Same thing that is stopping them from cutting other power | lines: laws, and punishment for breaking those laws. | marshmallow_12 wrote: | I mean countries in time of war. Presumably that is one of | the Emergencies for which this cable is intended. | ceejayoz wrote: | No, not really. In a war footing, the power plants | themselves would likely be targets; the cables are fairly | irrelevant. This sort of interconnect lets spikes in | consumer demand get smoothed out. | petertodd wrote: | The cables are extremely relevant: it is far harder to | protect hundreds of kilometres of underwater cable, of | which any part can be cut by a difficult to detect | submarine, than it is to protect power plants. | ceejayoz wrote: | The cables aren't critical, though. They're nice to have | for peacetime, but given it _hasn 't happened yet_ it's | clear each nation is able to at least function without | them. In a war, there'll be bigger concerns than | "everyone turned on their AC in Israel and we'd like to | buy energy from Greece". | petertodd wrote: | One of the biggest goals of the many undersea cable | projects around the world is to enable much higher | dependence on unreliable renewable power. They may not be | critical yet. But they will be. | nradov wrote: | No there's really no way to protect civilian power plants | against modern stand-off weapons. It's just impractical | at any reasonable cost. | petertodd wrote: | There is no such thing as a perfect defence, against an | enemy with unlimited resources. But it is much more | expensive to attack an enemy's power plants with $1 | million cruise missiles than it is to cut their | underwater cables by dragging anchors over them. Also, | you can plant bombs on underwater power lines and set | them off later - that's a huge problem re: how much | energy capacity could go down at once. | | Anyway, we definitely can protect installations from | stand-off weapons: CIWS systems like the Phalanx can | shoot them down these days, and they're relatively cheap. | It's not perfect protection - eventually one will get | through - but it does raise the cost of a successful | attack substantially. | Cthulhu_ wrote: | It, and any kind of infrastructure, would be a prime | target - assuming that is what they want. But | infrastructure represents value, destroying a country's | powergrid and connections like that is only a thing if | your aim is complete destruction. | | Ideally, in war, you destroy their military, or at least | damage it enough for the other party to concede and | discuss peace terms, and leave the rest alone. | | WW2 was, I believe, the last war where they went for | complete destruction of infrastructure, industry, and | civilians. The Allies firebombed Dresden and nuked | Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is estimated that 50-55 | million civilians died in WW2, of which part due to | disease and famine. No conflict since has had that high a | civilian casualty rate. | andy_ppp wrote: | The armed forces of these nations. | marshmallow_12 wrote: | not across 1,700km | bawolff wrote: | They dont have to directly prevent them, just you know, | shoot anyone who tries after the fact. | | Military is a deterent because of the threat of | retalitation, not because they literally prevent other | countries from doing things in the moment. | 1234throwaway wrote: | 1700km is fuck all. 2 hour flight for commercial | airliner, less for pointy aeroplane. even eurocopter can | go 300-400 kmh, not a problem | Cthulhu_ wrote: | 1700km underwater? | maratc wrote: | The navies of these nations, then. | throw1234651234 wrote: | The same thing that's stopping them from cutting the under- | ocean internet cables, I imagine - political and military | repercussions. | siculars wrote: | Israel has the means to detect and prevent such shenanigans. | pardavis wrote: | Unrelated but fun story about antagonists and undersea cables | that I saw in some Cold War history book in college. | | The CIA had cooked up a bonkers covert mission to send a | submarine with an airlock right into the soviets' top | submarine harbor. There, divers were to place a tap an | underwater data cable that fed the nearby submarine base--a | crown jewel of Soviet sub deployment intel. | | The CIA knew the cable passed through the harbor somewhere. | But where? | | To search the entire harbor for a tiny cable would have taken | too long. The mission planners were stuck on this problem | until one day one of the CIA planners is out on his personal | boat. He sees a sign that says "WARNING: Undersea Cable" and | has a moment of clarity. | | They brought a translator, popped up the periscope in the | Soviet harbor, and spotted an equivalent sign which they used | to carry out the mission successfully. | | For extra credit they had to go back to exfiltrate the data | if my memory serves. | dmos62 wrote: | I think you're misremembering the part with the signs. The | guy came up with the idea to look for a sign on the beach | that forbids anchoring. They found it and the cable proved | to be there. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Ma | n%27s_Bluff:_The_Untol... | pardavis wrote: | It sounds like you're right. Also, that's the book I read | way back then! Neat, I'll have to pick it up again. | marshmallow_12 wrote: | Operation Ivy Bells | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ivy_Bells | pardavis wrote: | >The large recording device was designed to detach if the | cable was raised for repair. | | Clever! | _Microft wrote: | This has a Wikipedia entry already: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EuroAsia_Interconnector | algorithm314 wrote: | Which is mostly an advertisement. Probably the main author is | linked to the Euroasia Interconnector. | | Also note that there is little reference for the Greek part of | the interconnector for which there was a great debate. Greece | decided to create the part connecting Crete with Attica on it's | own citing delays that cost Greece hundrends of millions a year | because it is forced to operate diesel plants in Crete. | | Also Greece also has the longest and deepest AC connection in | the world under construction (2 cables connecting Peloponesse | with Crete). One of the cables is already operational. | capableweb wrote: | > Which is mostly an advertisement. Probably the main author | is linked to the Euroasia Interconnector. | | Maybe, but judging by the history page(https://en.wikipedia.o | rg/w/index.php?title=EuroAsia_Intercon...), it was initially | created by someone in the US and later edited by a diverse | set of editors. So unlikely the entire page is an | advertisement. If you see some specific snippets you think | don't fit on Wikipedia, Be Bold and delete them | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold) | algorithm314 wrote: | The person I was refering is Karaol. Even the top image | that is described as his own work and is used in the main | Euroasia site without any attribution. You can see the | image in the main site here https://euroasia- | interconnector.com/at-glance/the-big-pictur... | | The article fails to address the controversy between Greece | and Euroasia interconnector. The only reference I can find | is that in the top image, the line connecting Attika and | Crete became dashed at some time. Also Greece cited that | Ariadne interconnector is a company with only 25k capital | and no previous completed project. | _Microft wrote: | Yandex.com reverse image search might help if you want to | investigate that. | sorokod wrote: | Something for Turkey to think about. | hourislate wrote: | I have a suspicion that this might have something to do with the | large Leviathan Gas field find off the coast of Israel along with | some recent finds. | | https://www.haaretz.com/largest-natural-gas-reserve-discover... | | _The reserve, Leviathon, is the largest amount of natural gas | discovered in the world in the last decade and is located in | approximately 5,400 feet (1,645 meters) of water, about 130 | kilometers offshore of Haifa and 29 miles (47 kilometers) | southwest of the Tamar discovery._ | | It would certainly make sense for Israel to get into the | generation business and sell power to others. The country is too | small to otherwise make use of 16 trillion cubic feet of NatGas | for personal consumption. I was also under the assumption they | were building a gas pipeline to Europe. | golemiprague wrote: | Israel sells the gas, although Israel is small it provides | energy also to the west bank and Gaza so about 13 million | people altogether. A lot of energy goes into desalination and | now with electric cars growing in sales it will increase the | local demand even more. So I don't think Israel will have any | spare production, the cable is more for backup purposes for | extreme cases | cblconfederate wrote: | there is another project, the eastMed pipeline for the transfer | of natgas to europe | GekkePrutser wrote: | Will this benefit the Turkish side of Cyprus as well? | | That would surprise me. Greek Cyprus and Greece aren't exactly | friends with Turkey. To put it mildly. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-03-08 23:01 UTC)