6 ms·

off toppic. basically people installed solar panels, which require proper authorization, which they didn't have, so authorities are going to dismantle it. how

by tovmeod 15y ago

off toppic. basically people installed solar panels, which require proper authorization, which they didn't have, so authorities are going to dismantle it. how this is news? just because it is in israel? so what? couldn't care less, this would happen in any part of the world, whatever. then article goes on talking about politics. why this was even posted on hacker news?

philco 15y ago
So don't vote it up! I find it funny to read this comment while the number 1 post on HN is about a magician and his tricks...hehe. I really enjoyed both articles though. Just vote for what you like and don't click on things you don't care about.
- Vivtek 15y ago
  Cognitive bias is arguably more germane to HN than international energy politics.
  - philco 15y ago
    My point is that voting determines what's relevant. Voting has put this on the front page. It's not about what you think, or whether you would argue that cognitive bias "is arguably more germane to HN", it has to do with what HN readers think is valuable and vote for.
    - lotharbot 15y ago
      the HN guidelines determine what should be submitted. The flag option exists in part because some HN readers submit or upvote stories that the guidelines say don't belong here.
      - philco 15y ago
        I stand corrected!
  - rdtsc 15y ago
    Cognitive bias when discussion certain political articles on HN but not others and how some political topics are acceptable but others are not, even in forums frequented by supposedly rather rational individuals, is also interesting. At this point, this discussion is more interesting to me at the meta-level more than its original topic.
ComputerGuru 15y ago
Because Israel limits the amount of power going into Gaza purposely. Not only are they refusing to provide them with power (they're obviously paying for it, not "taking" it from Israel), but they're also preventing them from generating their own electricity as well. Depending on where you are in Gaza, you have anywhere from four to eighteen hours of power a day under normal circumstances. When the tensions rise, you'll be lucky to have two hours of power a day.
- Peaker 15y ago
  This article is about the West Bank, not Gaza.
- davidkatz 15y ago
  Two questions: (1) Why do you think Israel should be obliged to supply electricity to a hostile territory, ruled by a government that explicitly states it's desire to destroy it [1], backed up with routine rocket fire into Israeli population centers? (2) How exactly is Israel preventing the generation of electricity in Gaza? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant EDIT: grammar correction
  - batista 15y ago
    (1) Why do you think Israel should be obliged to supply electricity to a hostile territory Why do you think a newly found state (~65 years) has any right to claim the territory it occupies (except of the might makes right variety)? ruled by a government that explicitly states it's desire to destroy it [1] As opposed to a government that occupied the land from the previous inhabitants and has been steadily displacing them for decades? backed up with routine rocket fire into Israeli population centers? Backed up with routine genocide tactics...
    - davidkatz 15y ago
      Sorry, but I can't see any actual response to my questions here, just further hate mongering. Israel does not claim Gaza. It withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005, and gave full control over to the Palestinian Authority. Israeli NGOs even invested tens of millions of dollars in boosting the Palestinian economy after the withdrawal. Either way, it's probably going to be very hard to have a reasoned discussion, so I'll just stop here.
nedwin 15y ago
Might not necessarily be relevant to Hacker News under pg's charter but I would suggest reading why these people can't get permits for their solar panels. "basically people installed solar panels, which require proper authorization, which they didn't have"
yew 15y ago
True. On the other hand, we aren't talking about a thoroughly developed community here. This sort of exacting law enforcement has its costs, and the balance of those costs should be evaluated in context. Given the limited industrial resources of this particular community I would be inclined to promote the retention of local infrastructure regardless of legal niceties. It's also true that Israel has a history of limiting Palestinian development, of course. Sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not. All in all I disagree that it's not relevant here. Maybe inflammatory, though.
lninyo 15y ago
BTW, Did the Jews have "authorization" to barge into someone else's country, commit genocide, ethnic cleansing and a 50 year war against the original inhabitants? (aside from that old rag called "The Old TEstament") ... Jus sayin'
- tkahn6 15y ago
  You should look up the Balfour Declaration and the Treaty of Sevres. The answer to your question, disregarding your hyperbole and nonsense (what is this pre-existing country you speak of), is yes.
  - imran786 15y ago
    What utter nonsense. The Balfour Declaration was something between BRITAIN and a Zionist organisation (during WW1). How does BRITAIN have the right to give land to European Jews, when said land was the home of Palestinian Arabs, under the then sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire? Simple answer, they didn't have that right. And the ONLY reason they were able to actually exercise it, was because the Arabs (whom they had double-crossed) were instrumental in defeating the Ottomans.
    - davidkatz 15y ago
      The Treaty of Sevres, which adopted the Balfour Declaration, was signed between the Allies and the Ottoman Empire, which, as you so pointed out, had sovereignty over the territory at the time.
      - imran786 15y ago
        Sevres was, like Versailles, the final treaty imposed on the losers by the victors. The INHABITANTS OF PALESTINE were not party to it. The Balfour Declaration was one of the most blatent acts of perfidy and outright dishonest double-crossing in modern history. At the SAME TIME that the British promised that they would uphold the rights of Arabs to self-determination - in return for the Arabs fighting (and defeating) the Ottomans - they also effectively bartered away land that WASN'T THEIRS to a 3rd party - the Zionists. This was all in response to someone trying to pass off the above act of basic dishonesty as legitimate authorisation for Israel, and every bit of nonsense that has followed. The only authorisation that "Occupied Palestine" (aka Israel) ever had, from a moral perspective, was the old story of white European has guns, white European wants your land, white European will come and take it. Whatever the reason for why the Europeans wanted it (resources, more space, or "our holy book says it belongs to US") really doesn't matter. The whole thing is a sham, which is why 60 years after the fact and after countless beatings, you still haven't "convinced" the natives that you're right. And while we're all lecturing each other about the finer points of history, might I point out that this isn't the first time that Europeans came and took that strip of territory from the locals. And eventually, the locals took it back, lock stock and barrel ....
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

by tovmeod 15y ago

philco 15y ago

So don't vote it up! I find it funny to read this comment while the number 1 post on HN is about a magician and his tricks...hehe. I really enjoyed both articles though. Just vote for what you like and don't click on things you don't care about.

Vivtek 15y ago
Cognitive bias is arguably more germane to HN than international energy politics.
- philco 15y ago
  My point is that voting determines what's relevant. Voting has put this on the front page. It's not about what you think, or whether you would argue that cognitive bias "is arguably more germane to HN", it has to do with what HN readers think is valuable and vote for.
  - lotharbot 15y ago
    the HN guidelines determine what should be submitted. The flag option exists in part because some HN readers submit or upvote stories that the guidelines say don't belong here.
    - philco 15y ago
      I stand corrected!
- rdtsc 15y ago
  Cognitive bias when discussion certain political articles on HN but not others and how some political topics are acceptable but others are not, even in forums frequented by supposedly rather rational individuals, is also interesting. At this point, this discussion is more interesting to me at the meta-level more than its original topic.

ComputerGuru 15y ago

Because Israel limits the amount of power going into Gaza purposely. Not only are they refusing to provide them with power (they're obviously paying for it, not "taking" it from Israel), but they're also preventing them from generating their own electricity as well. Depending on where you are in Gaza, you have anywhere from four to eighteen hours of power a day under normal circumstances. When the tensions rise, you'll be lucky to have two hours of power a day.

Peaker 15y ago
This article is about the West Bank, not Gaza.
davidkatz 15y ago
Two questions: (1) Why do you think Israel should be obliged to supply electricity to a hostile territory, ruled by a government that explicitly states it's desire to destroy it [1], backed up with routine rocket fire into Israeli population centers? (2) How exactly is Israel preventing the generation of electricity in Gaza? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant EDIT: grammar correction
- batista 15y ago
  (1) Why do you think Israel should be obliged to supply electricity to a hostile territory Why do you think a newly found state (~65 years) has any right to claim the territory it occupies (except of the might makes right variety)? ruled by a government that explicitly states it's desire to destroy it [1] As opposed to a government that occupied the land from the previous inhabitants and has been steadily displacing them for decades? backed up with routine rocket fire into Israeli population centers? Backed up with routine genocide tactics...
  - davidkatz 15y ago
    Sorry, but I can't see any actual response to my questions here, just further hate mongering. Israel does not claim Gaza. It withdrew completely from Gaza in 2005, and gave full control over to the Palestinian Authority. Israeli NGOs even invested tens of millions of dollars in boosting the Palestinian economy after the withdrawal. Either way, it's probably going to be very hard to have a reasoned discussion, so I'll just stop here.

nedwin 15y ago

Might not necessarily be relevant to Hacker News under pg's charter but I would suggest reading why these people can't get permits for their solar panels. "basically people installed solar panels, which require proper authorization, which they didn't have"

yew 15y ago

True. On the other hand, we aren't talking about a thoroughly developed community here. This sort of exacting law enforcement has its costs, and the balance of those costs should be evaluated in context. Given the limited industrial resources of this particular community I would be inclined to promote the retention of local infrastructure regardless of legal niceties. It's also true that Israel has a history of limiting Palestinian development, of course. Sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not. All in all I disagree that it's not relevant here. Maybe inflammatory, though.

lninyo 15y ago

BTW, Did the Jews have "authorization" to barge into someone else's country, commit genocide, ethnic cleansing and a 50 year war against the original inhabitants? (aside from that old rag called "The Old TEstament") ... Jus sayin'

tkahn6 15y ago
You should look up the Balfour Declaration and the Treaty of Sevres. The answer to your question, disregarding your hyperbole and nonsense (what is this pre-existing country you speak of), is yes.
- imran786 15y ago
  What utter nonsense. The Balfour Declaration was something between BRITAIN and a Zionist organisation (during WW1). How does BRITAIN have the right to give land to European Jews, when said land was the home of Palestinian Arabs, under the then sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire? Simple answer, they didn't have that right. And the ONLY reason they were able to actually exercise it, was because the Arabs (whom they had double-crossed) were instrumental in defeating the Ottomans.
  - davidkatz 15y ago
    The Treaty of Sevres, which adopted the Balfour Declaration, was signed between the Allies and the Ottoman Empire, which, as you so pointed out, had sovereignty over the territory at the time.
    - imran786 15y ago
      Sevres was, like Versailles, the final treaty imposed on the losers by the victors. The INHABITANTS OF PALESTINE were not party to it. The Balfour Declaration was one of the most blatent acts of perfidy and outright dishonest double-crossing in modern history. At the SAME TIME that the British promised that they would uphold the rights of Arabs to self-determination - in return for the Arabs fighting (and defeating) the Ottomans - they also effectively bartered away land that WASN'T THEIRS to a 3rd party - the Zionists. This was all in response to someone trying to pass off the above act of basic dishonesty as legitimate authorisation for Israel, and every bit of nonsense that has followed. The only authorisation that "Occupied Palestine" (aka Israel) ever had, from a moral perspective, was the old story of white European has guns, white European wants your land, white European will come and take it. Whatever the reason for why the Europeans wanted it (resources, more space, or "our holy book says it belongs to US") really doesn't matter. The whole thing is a sham, which is why 60 years after the fact and after countless beatings, you still haven't "convinced" the natives that you're right. And while we're all lecturing each other about the finer points of history, might I point out that this isn't the first time that Europeans came and took that strip of territory from the locals. And eventually, the locals took it back, lock stock and barrel ....

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]