Israel/Palestine discussion

[sourmìlk]

If a permit weren't able to be acquired for it, then the objection wouldn't be that they were building without a permit, but rather that the construction was itself illegal. It's like if a person rapes somebody, you wouldn't say that the problem was that he didn't have a permit, because there is no permit that can be acquired for rape. The fact that the demolition is due to a lack of permit implies that there is a permit that can be obtained.

[yoni45]

If a permit weren't able to be acquired for it, then the objection wouldn't be that they were building without a permit, but rather that the construction was itself illegal. It's like if a person rapes somebody, you wouldn't say that the problem was that he didn't have a permit, because there is no permit that can be acquired for rape. The fact that the demolition is due to a lack of permit implies that there is a permit that can be obtained.

The existence of a permit for something is a far cry from Palestinians being "perfectly capable" of obtaining it.

[sourmìlk]

Given that many structures are built in area C legally, and that permits are handed out, the permit is both extant and obtainable. But really, the assertion that there might be a permit that there's no way to obtain is kind of silly and doesn't constitute an argument.

[sardia]

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


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

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

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

The article you quoted said that there is discrimination, but it is hyperbole to call it apartheid. Meaning he agrees that it is discriminatory to treat Palestinians this way, but it's not at the level of apartheid or Nazis. I say it's still pretty bad and Israelis are being really lazy about how to judge security dangers. Remember how hard it was for Palestinians to rebuild after Cast Lead? The reason was they were denied access to materials due to it being a security threat. The thing is, concrete and timber are kinda ubiquitous. They can be used to build anything, from homes to bunkers and tunnels. It's pretty lazy of Israelis to deny everything that could be of use for security reasons when you declare essential materials as security threats.

I'm not saying it's illegal to put the interests of your citizens over the interests of other citizens, but there's usually a base level of treatment expected. I wouldn't expect other countries to be ok with how Alabama treats its immigrant population of Mexicans. But by your logic, we can easily discriminate them because of the security threat they pose. Some Mexicans are gang members, so we should treat all of them as security threats that gang members deserve. I say Israeli officials are being lazy because they don't even bother to strike a balance between the need for security and being humane? Practical?
It be like the US shutting down gun stores all across the border area, (The majority of guns is smuggled in from the US) in order to boost security on the border. Would it be effective? No doubt, but it would also violate a core law of the US, the 2nd amendment. Instead, the US boosts regulation and have sting operations in order to combat the flow of guns to Mexico. That's called balancing security needs with the needs of the people.

Lastly, don't expect to be treated like any other country, expect to be treated like a country occupying/in a war with another country. It's easier to compare Palestinian lands like Iraq after the US invasion. It's not US land, but at the same time, America has a huge influence over what happens there.

[yedidyak]

Again, Area C isn't Israel. In Israel of course all towns, Jewish or Arab have electricity infrastructure provided by the government. (There are exceptions in some Negev Bedouin villages but thats a different story) In Area C building infrastructure for non-Israelis is not Israel's responsibility, and since Oslo its the PAs. In Area C they have do coordinate with Israel, but its still the PA's job. Except that they haven't done so, instead, many PA officials are now very very rich.

As to the construction materials in Gaza - you are forgetting one crucial fact. The government of Gaza is Hamas. All construction materials that go into Gaza go through Hamas, an obvious danger to Israel. They used what they got to build new bunkers, launch sites etc. Without Hamas being in charge things would have been very different.

[sourmìlk]

The article you quoted said that there is discrimination, but it is hyperbole to call it apartheid. Meaning he agrees that it is discriminatory to treat Palestinians this way, but it's not at the level of apartheid or Nazis.

No, that's not what it means. There is racism in Israel, but it isn't de jure racism. And you compared it to South Africa, which as this article points out, is an invalid comparison. And anyways, even if this were discrimination against the Palestinians, that's still not racism because it's not discriminatory against a race or national origin, it would be discrimination against a nationality. Israel provides electricity to Israeli Arabs.

I say it's still pretty bad and Israelis are being really lazy about how to judge security dangers. Remember how hard it was for Palestinians to rebuild after Cast Lead? The reason was they were denied access to materials due to it being a security threat. The thing is, concrete and timber are kinda ubiquitous. They can be used to build anything, from homes to bunkers and tunnels. It's pretty lazy of Israelis to deny everything that could be of use for security reasons when you declare essential materials as security threats.

No, it's not. First, Israel allowed materials into Gaza for specific projects, like rebuilding hospitals etc. Second, even if Israel had let materials in (and some did get in, illegally, through tunnels), Gaza still wouldn't have been able to rebuild because Hamas would have used those materials for bunkers. It's not that the materials could be used for bunkers etc., it's that they were being used for those purposes. And third, Gaza doesn't get to complain about a lack of building materials if they're using what they have to build luxury shopping malls, luxury restaurants, and olympic-sized swimming pools, bunkers, and tunnels. If they use those materials on necessities and find it isn't enough, then they might be able to complain.

I'm not saying it's illegal to put the interests of your citizens over the interests of other citizens, but there's usually a base level of treatment expected. I wouldn't expect other countries to be ok with how Alabama treats its immigrant population of Mexicans. But by your logic, we can easily discriminate them because of the security threat they pose. Some Mexicans are gang members, so we should treat all of them as security threats that gang members deserve. I say Israeli officials are being lazy because they don't even bother to strike a balance between the need for security and being humane? Practical?

Israel tends not to make things more difficult on the Palestinians than is necessary to preserve their security. There are exceptions obviously, but even most of those exceptions are due to lack of Palestinian cooperation.

It be like the US shutting down gun stores all across the border area, (The majority of guns is smuggled in from the US) in order to boost security on the border. Would it be effective? No doubt, but it would also violate a core law of the US, the 2nd amendment. Instead, the US boosts regulation and have sting operations in order to combat the flow of guns to Mexico. That's called balancing security needs with the needs of the people.

See above.

Lastly, don't expect to be treated like any other country, expect to be treated like a country occupying/in a war with another country. It's easier to compare Palestinian lands like Iraq after the US invasion. It's not US land, but at the same time, America has a huge influence over what happens there.

Israel is meeting its obligations to the territories it occupies. And enforcing building codes doesn't suddenly become a crime because it's within a territory temporarily occupied with consent of the occupiers (see: Oslo and refusal to ever give Israel a route out of occupation).

[bentheimmigrant]

Sourmilk, I'm not sure if you understand how an electric grid works, but it's not provided by locals, but is generally administered by national government. So if Israel is in charge of such things, then they should provide it. If they are not in charge of such things, why are they still in charge of building codes?

Given that many structures are built in area C legally, and that permits are handed out, the permit is both extant and obtainable. But really, the assertion that there might be a permit that there's no way to obtain is kind of silly and doesn't constitute an argument.

One can only imagine you've not read Catch 22.

The article you quoted said that there is discrimination, but it is hyperbole to call it apartheid. Meaning he agrees that it is discriminatory to treat Palestinians this way, but it's not at the level of apartheid or Nazis.

No, that's not what it means. There is racism in Israel, but it isn't de jure racism. And you compared it to South Africa, which as this article points out, is an invalid comparison. And anyways, even if this were discrimination against the Palestinians, that's still not racism because it's not discriminatory against a race or national origin, it would be discrimination against a nationality. Israel provides electricity to Israeli Arabs.

Why is it so important to separate the semantics of discrimination? If someone is being discriminated against it doesn't make it OK just because you can use some weasel words to get away from it being overt racism.

[yedidyak]

Sourmilk, I'm not sure if you understand how an electric grid works, but it's not provided by locals, but is generally administered by national government. So if Israel is in charge of such things, then they should provide it. If they are not in charge of such things, why are they still in charge of building codes?

Not building codes, but for security reasons building permissions. Are you saying that Israel should be connecting Palestinian villages to their national grid? Thats tantamount to annexation. Yet, as a military occupier they do have a duty/right (in Area C, not A or B) to allow only security acceptable building.

[bentheimmigrant]

I'm saying that removing a power source from them is a bad thing, and is depriving them of what is generally considered a necessity in this day and age. The fact that they've cited a lack of permits as opposed to security measures doesn't help the "military occupier", as if they are in control of such civic areas, why are they not in control of others? It seems fairly arbitrary to me.

[sourmìlk]

Sourmilk, I'm not sure if you understand how an electric grid works, but it's not provided by locals, but is generally administered by national government. So if Israel is in charge of such things, then they should provide it. If they are not in charge of such things, why are they still in charge of building codes?

The electric grid is not necessarily administered by the government, that's my point. In America, though electricity is heavily regulated, it is ultimately provided by businesses. The Israeli government is under no obligation to provide the Palestinians with electricity. If the Palestinians want it, they should have gotten a permit, I fail to see how enforcing building codes is Israel's fault. The Palestinians are the ones who broke the law. I really don't understand this sympathy for people who are rightfully punished for reasonable laws that exist almost universally.

Why is it so important to separate the semantics of discrimination? If someone is being discriminated against it doesn't make it OK just because you can use some weasel words to get away from it being overt racism.

It's not just a semantics thing. Sardia is saying that there is systematic racism, i.e. that there are racist policies inhibiting Palestinians from functioning, but that's pretty much not true. There are certainly racist people, but that doesn't equate to policies that disable the Palestinians.

[bentheimmigrant]

The UN expert and the guy from the village in the article disagrees with you.

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

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

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

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

[yurell]

The sad thing is that that doesn't surprise me, given Israel's previous activities it's quite in line with the country's character.

[yoni45]

Given that many structures are built in area C legally, and that permits are handed out, the permit is both extant and obtainable. But really, the assertion that there might be a permit that there's no way to obtain is kind of silly and doesn't constitute an argument.

How many structures? How many permits? How many applications?

Again, citations?

The idea that there might be a "permit" that Israel would make near-impossible to actually acquire is hardly silly -- you claimed that the Palestinians are "perfectly capable" of acquiring these permits. Where's the evidence for that?

[sardia]

Given that many structures are built in area C legally, and that permits are handed out, the permit is both extant and obtainable. But really, the assertion that there might be a permit that there's no way to obtain is kind of silly and doesn't constitute an argument.

How many structures? How many permits? How many applications?

Again, citations?

The idea that there might be a "permit" that Israel would make near-impossible to actually acquire is hardly silly -- you claimed that the Palestinians are "perfectly capable" of acquiring these permits. Where's the evidence for that?

The article itself says that a judge has suspended some of the demolitions. We'll see where that leads, either to a reversal so the demolition can proceed or to a permanent injunction. Who knows, maybe they'll find someone sympathetic who will provide a permit. They could easily deny permits on security grounds or delay them until the war on terror is over. But that's at best an educated guess.

[sourmìlk]

Given that many structures are built in area C legally, and that permits are handed out, the permit is both extant and obtainable. But really, the assertion that there might be a permit that there's no way to obtain is kind of silly and doesn't constitute an argument.

How many structures? How many permits? How many applications?

Again, citations?

The idea that there might be a "permit" that Israel would make near-impossible to actually acquire is hardly silly -- you claimed that the Palestinians are "perfectly capable" of acquiring these permits. Where's the evidence for that?

So, if you're going to say that a permit is impossible to get, the burden of proof is on you to show that. If there exists a permit, the default assumption is that it's obtainable. Of course, Palestinians have gotten permits for buildings, thus conclusively proving that Palestinians can get building permits.

The UN expert and the guy from the village in the article disagrees with you.

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

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

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

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

I think I've demonstrated why the UN's analysis of Israel's actions can't be trusted. they did the same thing with Operation Cast Lead, where they deliberately interpreted Israel's actions in the worst possible light without evidence. I would like to see the logic behind this analysis. And furthermore, Israel has continuously been offering the Palestinians better infrastructure and more stability, and they've consistently rejected it with terrorism.

To be honest, although I think Israel is acting appropriately here, I don't think it's acting ideally. I support the judge's decision, not because the demolition is illegal or even necessarily immoral, but because it's a fight I don't think Israel should bother picking.

[yoni45]

So, if you're going to say that a permit is impossible to get, the burden of proof is on you to show that...

And if you're going to claim that the Palestinians are "perfectly capable" of getting those permits, the burden of proof is on you to show that.

The idea that you'd, by default, assume that an occupation force that has often been anywhere from indifferent to outright hostile towards Palestinian needs would make it relatively easy for Palestinians to get permits for this kind of thing (or really, anything) is at best naive.

[sourmìlk]

That's beside the point. The default assumption when being informed there is a permit is that the permit is possible to obtain. If it isn't, show it isn't. Assuming otherwise violates Occam's razor, in that it assumes that there must be additional entities (i.e. obstructions to obtaining the permit) without evidence.

[yoni45]

The default assumption when being informed there is a permit is that the permit is possible to obtain...

Your default assumptions given the context are amusing.

[sourmìlk]

That's not an argument, it's an assertion. Would you care to back that up?

Also I have another thing to say, and this goes for a few of you: you often disagree with me, and when you disagree with me you often think I'm nuts. However, there are points at which we agree and when we agree we usually also accept each other's arguments. If I'm able to make proper arguments when we agree, perhaps you could respect me and my arguments more when we don't. Like with Yoni, he and I tend to share arguments when it comes to Israel's defensive actions, but he ridicules me when it comes to Israel's actions respecting settlements and West Bank administration.

[yoni45]

That's not an argument, it's an assertion. Would you care to back that up?

Also I have another thing to say, and this goes for a few of you: you often disagree with me, and when you disagree with me you often think I'm nuts. However, there are points at which we agree and when we agree we usually also accept each other's arguments. If I'm able to make proper arguments when we agree, perhaps you could respect me and my arguments more when we don't. Like with Yoni, he and I tend to share arguments when it comes to Israel's defensive actions, but he ridicules me when it comes to Israel's actions respecting settlements and West Bank administration.

There's nothing to respect here. You made an unsubstantiated assertion that you believe requires no substantiation, and I think that's amusingly naive at best (and I doubt I'm the only one).

[sourmìlk]

I explained my argument in terms of Occam's razor. If you want to continue this discussion, you owe me an explanation of your point that mine is wrong.

[yoni45]

I explained my argument in terms of Occam's razor.

No, you haven't -- you've yet to show that it applies. No one owes you anything when it comes to you substantiating relevant questionable points of your argument.

[sourmìlk]

I absolutely did. Occam's razor states that you shouldn't create extra and unproven entities to back up your argument. Your assumption that something could be preventing the Palestinians from obtaining a permit creates extra unproven entities, those entities being any barriers between Palestinians and the permit. Thus, given the existence of a permit, the default assumption that involves the fewest assumed entities is that the permit is obtainable.

Yoni, when you argue with a person you cannot simply assert that he is wrong. That isn't argument, that's contradiction. You need to provide a reason. You could cite an example of a specific fallacy I made, enter opposing data, or even say that I haven't substantiated my argument and tell me why. But simply saying I'm wrong doesn't constitute an argument.

[EdgarJPublius]

As much as it shocks and surprises me to say this, the troll is almost correct here. If there is a permit, there exists some sort of procedure with requirements and/or prerequisites to obtain the permit.
That doesn't mean or even necessarily imply that the permit is 'obtainable', but it does put the burden of proof on the idea that it isn't.

It would be perfectly valid to argue that the procedure for obtaining the permit is designed to prevent it from actually be obtainable, or that the issuing authority rejects applications that are otherwise valid and correct. It may also be argued that the issuing authority doesn't or shouldn't actually have the authority to issue such permits and/or that it shouldn't actually be necessary to obtain the permit to perform the permitted action and that the Palestinians are justified in ignoring the permit requirement.

[sourmìlk]

Indeed, I think it's totally possible to make those arguments if you have the relevant data. But those data need to be provided.

[Radical_Initiator]

As much as it shocks and surprises me to say this, the troll is almost correct here. If there is a permit, there exists some sort of procedure with requirements and/or prerequisites to obtain the permit.
That doesn't mean or even necessarily imply that the permit is 'obtainable', but it does put the burden of proof on the idea that it isn't.

It would be perfectly valid to argue that the procedure for obtaining the permit is designed to prevent it from actually be obtainable, or that the issuing authority rejects applications that are otherwise valid and correct. It may also be argued that the issuing authority doesn't or shouldn't actually have the authority to issue such permits and/or that it shouldn't actually be necessary to obtain the permit to perform the permitted action and that the Palestinians are justified in ignoring the permit requirement.

Agreeing with EdgarJPublius here (and sourmìlk), and at the risk of repeating his arguments, it would seem to me that the burden of proof rests on the provable assertion that discrimination exists; to suggest otherwise is to say that for every instance of a permit applied for and rejected, you require sourmìlk to prove that it wasn't part of a larger effort to deter Palestinian settlement. It's almost impossible to prove a negative.

[yoni45]

I absolutely did. Occam's razor states that you shouldn't create extra and unproven entities to back up your argument.

Then if you're going to follow it, avoid creating the unproven proposition that just because a permit exists that a given party must be "perfectly capable" of obtaining one.

As much as it shocks and surprises me to say this, the troll is almost correct here. If there is a permit, there exists some sort of procedure with requirements and/or prerequisites to obtain the permit.
That doesn't mean or even necessarily imply that the permit is 'obtainable', but it does put the burden of proof on the idea that it isn't...

I'd say the burden of proof lays on whichever claim is made one way or the other. I see little reason to believe that just because a permit exists that Palestinians are "perfectly capable" of acquiring it.

[yoni45]

Agreeing with EdgarJPublius here (and sourmìlk), and at the risk of repeating his arguments, it would seem to me that the burden of proof rests on the provable assertion that discrimination exists; to suggest otherwise is to say that for every instance of a permit applied for and rejected, you require sourmìlk to prove that it wasn't part of a larger effort to deter Palestinian settlement. It's almost impossible to prove a negative.

Or, perhaps just to show that a significant number of such permits actually see the light of day.

I see little reason to believe, by default, that Palestinians would have no problem acquiring the relevant permits.

[zmic]

Whatever may be the case, let's hope that Israel and Palestinians will be able to cooperate and come to a constructive solution. I don't see why those solar panels would have to be destroyed. Surely they can be dismantled and mounted somewhere else, after the necessary permits have been obtained, so that the Palestinians may enjoy the use of electricity.

[sourmìlk]

I absolutely did. Occam's razor states that you shouldn't create extra and unproven entities to back up your argument.

Then if you're going to follow it, avoid creating the unproven proposition that just because a permit exists that a given party must be "perfectly capable" of obtaining one.

My point is that that doesn't require assumptions (or at least requires far fewer than your stance).

As much as it shocks and surprises me to say this, the troll is almost correct here. If there is a permit, there exists some sort of procedure with requirements and/or prerequisites to obtain the permit.
That doesn't mean or even necessarily imply that the permit is 'obtainable', but it does put the burden of proof on the idea that it isn't...

I'd say the burden of proof lays on whichever claim is made one way or the other. I see little reason to believe that just because a permit exists that Palestinians are "perfectly capable" of acquiring it.

Not if the claim is what should be, by default, assumed. If the claim would have to be supported by refuting a negative, then it's not the claimer's burden to prove his statement, because we shouldn't logically assume things until proven otherwise.

Whatever may be the case, let's hope that Israel and Palestinians will be able to cooperate and come to a constructive solution. I don't see why those solar panels would have to be destroyed. Surely they can be dismantled and mounted somewhere else, after the necessary permits have been obtained, so that the Palestinians may enjoy the use of electricity.

I can't object to this. Even though I think Israel is acting appropriately here, it isn't acting ideally, and I really think that a solution can be easily reached.

[bentheimmigrant]

Combining the facts of Israel's occupation, and the continued building of illegal settlements it is not a logical stretch to say that Israel's policy is to obtain all of Palestine. Thus, it is in their interest for the Palestinians to desire to be elsewhere. There are not many assumptions there, besides my general cynicism towards the powerful in government.

But sourmilk, the reason people tend to reject your points is the way you make them. You claim to have "demonstrated" and "shown" things in a completely subjective discussion. You made the initial claim that permits we're easy to obtain. Back it up. That's how claims work.

[sourmìlk]

Combining the facts of Israel's occupation, and the continued building of illegal settlements it is not a logical stretch to say that Israel's policy is to obtain all of Palestine. Thus, it is in their interest for the Palestinians to desire to be elsewhere. There are not many assumptions there, besides my general cynicism towards the powerful in government.

Considering that Israel has offered many, many times and continues to offer to give away almost all of the West Bank (and then some), I don't think it's entirely reasonable to say that Israel wants to grab all of Palestine. The settlements don't actually even claim much more land, they're generally built within area that Israel already controls and that would have gone to Israel in any agreement anyways. But even if it weren't a stretch to say that's Israel's goal, it is still a substantial claim to make, and one that really has to be proven such that the only explanation of Israel's actions is that.

But sourmilk, the reason people tend to reject your points is the way you make them. You claim to have "demonstrated" and "shown" things in a completely subjective discussion. You made the initial claim that permits we're easy to obtain. Back it up. That's how claims work.

I shouldn't have included "easily". But they are obtainable, and if you think otherwise, it's your responsibility to prove it.

[yoni45]

My point is that that doesn't require assumptions...

That's a pretty poor point then, since you're clearly assuming that the mere existence of a permit makes a given party "perfectly capable" of obtaining it.

I shouldn't have included "easily". But they are obtainable...

This is about the ease of obtaining them, not about whether they "could" be obtained under some ideal conditions.

[bentheimmigrant]

I didn't make a claim about the permits either way, beyond implying that I think it naive to assume they're easy to obtain. It may be the default position in a representative democracy, but their goals aren't necessarily the same as an occupying force. Israel may well decide that it is easier to control the residents by imposing unassailable levels of red tape.

[sourmìlk]

My point is that that doesn't require assumptions...

That's a pretty poor point then, since you're clearly assuming that the mere existence of a permit makes a given party "perfectly capable" of obtaining it.

Okay, I suppose I'm assuming the null hypothesis, but I don't think that's considered an assumption in the way you're thinking of it. Assuming the null hypothesis is perfectly valid in an argument.

I shouldn't have included "easily". But they are obtainable...

This is about the ease of obtaining them, not about whether they "could" be obtained under some ideal conditions.

I disagree. If they could have obtained permits for solar panels, even if it were difficult, then it is their fault if the panels are taken down because they didn't have a permit.

benitheimmigrant: the article you linked made many claims about the motivation behind Israeli action. If you don't necessarily think those points of view are definitively correct, you should have specified.

[bentheimmigrant]

I have linked zero articles.

[sourmìlk]

Sorry, I meant the one you quoted.

[yoni45]

Okay, I suppose I'm assuming the null hypothesis...

It's not.

I disagree. If they could have obtained permits for solar panels, even if it were difficult, then it is their fault if the panels are taken down because they didn't have a permit.

This is so very obviously wrong, if only for the fact that Israel could have included "single-handedly defeat three grizzly bears in mortal combat" in its requirements.

[sourmìlk]

Okay, I suppose I'm assuming the null hypothesis...

It's not.

It is and I've explained how. It's the hypothesis that assumes the fewest things.

This is so very obviously wrong, if only for the fact that Israel could have included "single-handedly defeat three grizzly bears in mortal combat" in its requirements.

That makes it unobtainable. If you think that such a barrier to obtaining the permit exists, show that it exists. Otherwise you shouldn't assume those barriers. I, on the other hand, am justified in assuming a lack of barriers because it is not my burden to prove a negative. If something has not been shown to exist, I can treat it as though it doesn't exist. You think these barriers exist, prove it. Otherwise we will assume that they do not and that a permit is obtainable. Seriously, you're asking me to prove a negative. I assume you know the problem with that, so hopefully my identification of that will help you reform your argument.

But if I did have to prove that, I could by pointing out that Palestinians have actually obtained building permits.

[yoni45]

It is and I've explained how. It's the hypothesis that assumes the fewest things.

Not really -- assuming that there the permits are easily or reasonably acquirable and assuming that the permits are not easily or reasonably acquirable both require that one respective assumption.

This is so very obviously wrong, if only for the fact that Israel could have included "single-handedly defeat three grizzly bears in mortal combat" in its requirements.

That makes it unobtainable...

No, that just makes it "difficult".