[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)