Friday, March 17, 2017

Accusations of Apartheid Israel


Last week, Israel was accused by a UN agency of instituting an “Apartheid Regime” within its borders. This is the first the the UN itself has definitively charged Israel of such human rights violations. The report included that a variety of aspects of Israeli life was influenced by “strategic fragmentation” of the the two people groups living there: the Palestinian Arabs and the Israelis. The report goes on to describe “racial domination” with different sets of laws for the two people groups, vastly favoring the Israelis. The reality of the situation is that Palestinians are directly subjected to oppression of not being Jewish. Education, healthcare, where they can live and work are all affected under the oppression of this “apartheid regime.”

The UN Economic and Social Commission of Western Asia (ESCWA), the agency responsible for the report, has recently tried to distance itself from the report and its findings, even resulting in the resignation of the UN official responsible and the removal of the report from the agency's website. Apparently the report was issued without any consultations with the UN Secretariat, and “does not represent the views of the Secretary General” of the UN. The UN-Israeli ambassador commented that it is “despicable” and "constitutes a blatant lie.” He went on to compare it to an anti-semeti, Nazi propaganda publication "Der Sturmer."


This report and the reality of its controversy is one of many pieces of the ongoing debate over Palestinians self-determination and the sovereignty that Israel has had over the region. Officials in the UN have said that there is growing anti-Israel sentiment among certain departments and the resignation of the official responsible for the report was a step in the direction of "fairness". Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said on thursday that “the issue of terrorism can’t be handled without solving the Palestinian question,” making very clear the severity of the situation in Palestine. Hopefully this discounted accusation will drive more awareness and support into actively trying to remedy the Palestinian conflict for the long term.


-Written by Steven Rayburn

Sources:





Climate Change and the Middle East

Climate change and global warming have both been extensively studied by scientists around the world. Scientists have warned many nations and governments that climate change could lead to huge problems down the road. Of course, the first thing we think of when we hear this is rising temperatures and sea levels. Rising sea levels threaten the biggest cities around the world, as these cities tend to be coastal. However, another significant impact that climate change is already having on the world is its role in increasing conflict. In fact, new studies are showing that Syria’s civil war was likely hastened into being by climate change in the region.
Syria’s Civil War has been raging since 2011. It was and is an incredibly complex involvement that has involved numerous local factions and foreign powers. The results from the war have been devastating, killing upwards of 400,000 syrians and causing millions to flee to Europe and other parts of the world. But how did it start? The general cause was civil unrest. It started with government protest that turned violent. These eventually escalated into war. The people were tired of the Assad regime, and they wanted him out. But that begs another question. Why now? A study done by Scientific American may have some answers. From 2006 to 2011, Syria experienced the worst drought in its recorded history. This drought destroyed agriculture all around the country, and forced people to leave their farms and villages and head into more urban centers, adding to the unrest. The drought also shot up food prices, further increasing struggle for those in poverty or near poverty.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis recently spoke about how climate change is already destabilizing parts of the world where US troops are located. The Scientific American study also looked at other parts of the middle east, saying that the entire region is suffering greatly, and will continue to suffer due to effects from climate change. Water will become a huge problem as it gets hotter and droughts continue.  Saudi Arabia is already having water troubles, increasing the cost of living for its citizens. Obviously, climate change is a real problem that needs an answer as soon as we can find one. Unfortunately, a lot of damage has already been done.


By Nicholas Tenreiro




Sources:




Picture:

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Operation Protective Edge


Palestinian Mother and Daughter Shown Amidst Destruction, taken from source [4]

In class the past few weeks we have discussed the creation of Israel and Palestine’s “day of catastrophe.”  For my blog post, I decided to dive into a more recent controversial power struggle between Israel and Palestine, Operation Protective Edge, which occurred in 2014.  On July 7, Israel launched an attack on the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.  This occurred directly after Hamas, a fundamentalist Palestinian organization, kidnapped and murdered three Israeli teenagers.  In addition, tensions had been growing between the Hamas and Israel due to increased threat of violence from the Hamas.  The Hamas built a series of tunnels leading from the Gaza Strip into Israel allowing for ground attacks, and Hamas rockets were within range to hit the homes of nearly 70% of Israeli homes.  Throughout the conflict, almost 4,500 Hamas rockets and 5,000 Israeli rockets were launched toward opposing forces and civilians killing 70 Israelis and 2,100 Palestinians.  Israel was able to identify and destroy 32 tunnels used by Palestinian ground forces. 
Attacks such as Operation Protective Edge gray the line of morality and legality when it comes to war practices.  In some respects, it is understandable that Israel attacked the Hamas in order to maintain safety for its citizens, however many of the actions taken by both militaries can be considered war crimes.  According to the law of war attacks against civilians should be avoided whenever feasible and both sides repeatedly disregarded this throughout the conflict.  As shown in the photo above, the civilian population was directly impacted by the combat taking place.  Not only did attacks kill innocent civilians, but it also destroyed their homes and property.  The question remains if this can be considered acceptable in a wartime situation such as this.  Upon conclusion of the conflict in August of 2014 several high-ranking Israeli military officials were investigated for war crimes regarding these infractions. 

-Andrew W.

Sources:
[1]: http://www.merip.org/mero/mero102615
[2]: https://www.idfblog.com/operationgaza2014/#Genralinformation
[3]: http://www.jpost.com/Operation-Protective-Edge/50-days-of-Israels-Gaza-operation-Protective-Edge-by-the-numbers-372574

[4]: https://www.rt.com/op-edge/178932-genocide-israel-ethnic-cleansing/

Friday, March 10, 2017

‘Iran could adopt fully renewable electricity system by 2030'...But can it really?

By James Ryan Purvis

Solar power plant at Alzahra University in Tehran, Feb 2016 (Source: Mehr News Agency) Solar panels at Alzahra University in Tehran, taken from source article [5].

A recent study by researchers at Lappeenranta University of Technology (LUT) have determined that many countries in the Middle East can make large profits off of renewable energy sources within the next 20 years [1]. This is great news for a region where the majority of its wealth comes from fossil fuels. In particular, Iran could cut energy costs by around 50% by the year 2030. Similar strides in the rest of the Middle East could have a profound impact on sustainable development and climate change. Not only would they be utilizing large amounts of low-to-no carbon energy sources, they would also be profiting from it. In fact, Iran has even recently, in early February, approved foreign investments totaling $3 billion for building solar plants [2]. Iran currently has goals to increase renewable energy sources to 7.5 GW (gigawatt) by 2030. The proposed scenario in source [1] totals 147 GW.

For Iran, the reduction in cost would be to about $63 per kWh (kilowatt-hour) , compared to $116 per kWh for Nuclear and $127 per kWh for Carbon Capture, two other low carbon emission energy methods researched. The proposed energy spread for achieving this is 77 GW of wind, 49 GW of solar photovoltaic (PV), and 21 GW of hydroelectricity. However, this is relatively unfeasible, and if you paid attention to how both I, and similarly the article, worded it, does not actually represent a reduction in cost or turning a profit. It is reduced cost compared to other low-emission sources, not from maintaining their current energy production. It is still great, but a little misleading.

As for the feasibility of this proposed endeavor by the LUT researchers? Well, life-cycle carbon emissions and land-use are definitely factors that should have been considered. Maybe they were in the actual published paper, but as for the news article about it, they clearly weren't. In terms of life-cycle carbon emissions, it turns out, that actually no energy source is devoid of greenhouse gas emissions. Table A.II.4 on page 982 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2012 report [3] shows that 50th percentile estimates of emissions in gram-equivalent of CO2 per kWh for solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, and coal are 46, 12, 4, 16, and 1001 respectively. This means that wind, hydro, and nuclear, are great, solar isn't as great, and coal is, obviously, terrible. With carbon capture methods, the minimum lifetime emissions for coal get reduced to 98, which is a huge reduction, but still terrible. In terms of land-use, based on estimates in the US, which, obviously, will differ considering climate and geographical differences, detailed in a report by the US energy utility Entergy [4], it can be extrapolated that based on the LUT researchers proposed energy spread, there would be about 7000 square miles of wind turbines and about 600 square miles of solar PV cells. This is about the size of New Jersey. and roughly 1% of Iran's total land area.

My only qualms are that, first, these estimates and projections should include likely scenarios, such as ones with nuclear, but strongly supported by large amounts of solar, wind and hydro, as opposed to just a a so-called "ideal" scenario, and second, news articles should not be so shady in how they describe these scenarios. Again, I'm just reiterating the point that the original news article, source [1], makes it seem, intentionally or not, that this transition is a reduction in cost compared to present day energy costs, when in fact, its a reduced cost between other potential low-emission sources to invest in and replace present energy systems. But this is just an issue all media seems to have these days.

Just to reiterate, this is a great idea, but the news articles about it are a bit misleading. I do believe this would be a great asset to Iran. Renewable energy sources are very safe, much of the infrastructure is already existing in Iran, and the sources are all useful for energy security and independence, something that many countries strive to have. In fact, a journal article referenced in source [5] explains how Iran has great potential to be one of the best countries for solar energy considering their “three hundred sunny days per year on two-thirds of its land area.” I hope that more foreign investment continues to pour into Iran to bulk up their solar power production along with all other renewables, not just the $3 billion already approved. If the estimates are true that this $3 billion of investments is equal to about 1.5-5 GW energy production, Iran is definitely going to need a lot more to get up to the levels of even 50 GW. I hope that the rest of the world continues such renewable energy investments into Iran and into the rest of the Middle East, as well.




Sources:
[1] http://www.technicalreviewmiddleeast.com/power-a-water/renewables/iran-could-adopt-fully-renewable-electricity-system-by-2030
[2] https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/08/iran-approves-3-billion-worth-foreign-renewable-energy-investments/
[3] http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srren/SRREN_Full_Report.pdf
[4] http://www.entergy-arkansas.com/content/news/docs/AR_Nuclear_One_Land_Use.pdf
[5] http://muftah.org/study-explores-irans-potential-for-solar-energy/#.WMJc5n9Ud-A

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Political Conflict in Libya


Many people may not be aware of the current political unrest in Libya, and the militant fight for power since 2014. Libya has been in a state of civil war since 2014, with multiple rival parties fighting for control of Libya and its resources. Most recently however, there has been a battle over the highly lucrative oil terminals located in Libya. The terminals were originally under the control of Field Marshal Khalid Haftar. Haftar is the leader of the Libyan National Army (LNA), and gains his support from Eastern Libya as well as countries like Russia and Egypt. The “attackers” who took control of the oil terminals were led by the Benghazi Defense Brigades (BDB). The BDB is made up mostly of Libyans who were forced to leave their homes as a result of Haftar’s takeover of Benghazi. This week the BDB both took over control of the Al Sidra and Ras Lanuf oil ports, but also launched multiple air raids on many cities in Eastern Libya.


Since there is a split government ruling body, there are constant conflicts from armed militant groups. Countries like Egypt are calling for a cease-fire and have condemned these attacks on Libya’s oil terminals, however both parties are reluctant to come to a compromise. Libya currently produces approximately 700k barrels per day, however this number may be subject to change due to the geopolitical issues in Libya. The Libyan National Oil Corporation (NOC) has not released an official statement, however oil production in Libya is suspected to decrease throughout 2017.

- Allison Kosic

Sources: