*novoukraine
Is it clear? Seems profitable to own that clay - the pipeline infrastructure connects Asian oil with European markets, and whoever controls it can charge rent and leverage favors. For example, back in the day when Russia used to own it, they tried using it to extort the EU, begging for ridiculous concessions and threatening to shut down the pipeline if their silly demands aren’t met.
in Russia, they call them “democracies”
They would do the same everywhere if they could get away with it. For example, the right wing corporatists of USA are perpetually in pursuit of the deregulation that lets this kind of medical malpractice thrive, and they constantly whine, bitch, and moan when the “deep state” won’t let them.
Gimli on sinking the submarine of Theseus: That still only counts as one
I submit that their efforts to subdivide and subsequently subdue their subjugated subordinates by subtly subsidizing subversives is no substitute for substance and will substantially subtract from their ability to keep their reputations afloat.
deleted by creator
Poland: “I’ve seen this one before.”
I know how gerrymandering works in USA’s system - the last two far-right Presidents were elected despite the center-right candidate getting more votes. But the margins were tighter in those contests - a few percentage points not double digits. I’m curious about the peculiarities of the French system that lead to such an apparently wide gap between votes versus representation.
How is it that a French political party can get 15% fewer votes than a rival party, and end up with 8 more seats in Parliament than that rival party?
that would threaten Monsanto’s patents
Its the other cancer peddling shitheel this time. Syngenta owns the patent, making it completely justified for Greenpeace to prevent them from gaining control of the food supply, even if they have to use BS arguments about food safety to do so.
You don’t need to take my word for it. Its spelled out in the agreement that you’ve provided a link to, in Annex V.1.a.
One month after the signing of this Agreement - 50% of the revenues collected during this month from import taxes on goods, the final destination of which is the West Bank, and from excise on petroleum purchased by the Palestinian side for the West Bank.
The companies importing the goods into Israel pay the tax - that’s how excise taxes work. Israel agreed to give an amount of that tax revenue to the governments of Gaza and the West Bank, and that amount was calculated based on how much of those goods would later be exported from Israel to Gaza and the West Bank. Without the agreement, the governments of Gaza and the West Bank would be underfunded unless they levied their own import and excise taxes, which would have the effect of increasing prices for Palestinians.
Israel agreed to the deal that kept prices low for Palestinians and provided funding for the governments of Gaza and the West Bank at Israel’s expense. A cynic might believe they did so, at least in part, to cause dependency and to gain leverage rather than exclusively out of a spirit of humanitarianism, nevertheless they did agree to the deal and it did materially help the Palestinians and the governments of Gaza and the West Bank.
the sources I’m finding frame the issue
Yep. Reasoning out why its getting framed that way is an exercise I’ll leave up to the readers, but those same sources have confirmed the facts even if they are getting framed differently - the goods are taxed when they get imported into Israel, and the tax is paid by people in Israel. If those good are then exported from Israel to Gaza or the West Bank, then the governments of those places would be within their rights to tax it again. However, the 1994 deal kept that tax burden off the Palestinians while maintaining their access to Israeli logistics and infrastructure as opposed to importing goods from Egypt or Jordan, or shipping them into Gaza directly from the Mediterranean. The governments of Gaza and the West Bank became dependent on the free money, and that gave Israel leverage which it is now choosing to use.
Those customs and import taxes referenced in the article are on goods that get imported into Israel, and they get paid by people in Israel. Until now, a portion of that revenue was gifted to the governments in Gaza and the West Bank.
As far as I can tell, Israel does not actually collect money from people living in Gaza or the West Bank. The local governments of those places collect taxes themselves.
Israel taxes imports into Israel, and made a deal with PLO in 1994 to gift them some of that revenue. That deal expired in 1999, but until now Israel kept giving them free money anyway.
There are no left wing political groups in the US. Closest thing we’ve got is a centrist named Bernie who has no political party supporting him, and a ‘squad’ of Democrats pretending to be progressive while they support culturally conservative politics, virulent ethno-nationalism, and violently ignorant theocracy in other countries.
Wouldn’t branding the Iranian military a “terrorist organization” be equivalent to saying the Iranian government is illegitimate and a terrorist organization? And how would that differ from simply declaring war on Iran or deciding to engage in war with Iran without a formal declaration?
People are so worried about the AI alignment problem, but the corporate alignment problem is a much bigger threat
🤯