mormont

The GC has about 10,000 men but there's no need to assume they all act as one unit all the time. They likely take on multiple smaller contracts and send out smaller sub-units to take those on. They couldn't guarantee the demand for huge contracts.

Yeah, it was never likely that Israel was involved in that attack IMO.

You could indeed do any of those things, but you're not reading DeSantis correctly. When he says he refuses to 'smear [Trump] personally', he means:

'I understand that any criticism of Donald Trump would anger GOP voters and I don't have the balls to risk that. So I'm going to pretend this is about me taking a principled stance, particularly as any valid criticism would automatically be regarded as a 'smear' anyway'.

46 minutes ago, Ran said:

But more than anything, it's the minds of the Palestinians who will have to change the most.

This is objectively not true.

We've spent two pages talking about why Israelis are more pessimistic about the two state solution and not talking at all about why Palestinians are also more pessimistic about it. There are a number of reasons for this but one is that, though we don't talk about this, the Palestinians' opinion is of limited importance.

The lesson of the past thirty years and particularly the last ten is that Israel is the decision maker here. Israel can decide whether a two state solution happens and what it looks like if it does. Palestinians can only agree or refuse, and honestly I'm not sure whether that's even still true. Israel dictates whether there is even a conversation about a two state solution. They refused to have one, and the US said 'OK'.

Now, normally pessimism is Kal's bag, not mine. But on this, I can see nothing to be optimistic about. There's no sign that Israel as a nation actually wants what people here keep suggesting they should want, i.e. a two state solution. And as long as they don't, no-one else has the power to push them into it.

There's a feeling, I think, that they have to go that route because there is no alternative. But there are alternatives. They're just ones we would rather not think about, may even believe are unthinkable. But I believe there are people in Israel thinking about them, just the same.

All of which is to say what I've said before: as bad as things are, they can get a lot worse.

But the point is, it's Israeli opinion that has to change before there can even be a conversation about a two state solution. So it's the minds of Israelis that have to change the most.

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Perhaps it could be because the other side has gotten more extreme, no? Hard to make a peace deal with a new state when the people that will lead it still say they want to kill you. 

The same was true ten years ago, when Israelis were much more optimistic about both questions. And the change in attitudes predates October 7th, so that wasn't it.

A more credible reading is that the side that has got 'more extreme' during this shift in Israeli attitudes is, well, Israel. This change in attitudes happens over the period when the US basically drops pressure on Israel for a two state solution and doesn't do anything of substance to push for peace, the Israeli right decides on the policy of divide and rule, the Israeli left stops talking about peace, and Israeli voters became more right wing. Since for much of that time Hamas' behaviour (deplorable as it is) doesn't change, it's not credible to assign blame to that factor.

Not that I know of.

Polling data:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/547760/life-israel-oct-charts.aspx

Quote

One in four Israeli adults currently support the existence of an independent Palestinian state, while most (65%) oppose it. This is almost a complete reversal of where they stood on the issue a decade ago, when twice as many Israeli adults supported an independent Palestinian state (61%) as opposed one (30%).

Quote

Between 2006 and 2017, 29% of Israelis, on average, thought lasting peace was possible. Since the Oct. 7 attack, less than half as many (13%) hold on to the hope that it could still happen, while a record-high 74% do not expect a permanent peace between the two sides.

There's been a lot of talk in this thread about two state solutions and reconstruction of Gaza and so on, but Israelis appear unwilling to buy a bar of it.

Similarly, Netanyahu’s notorious corruption is only one of the numerous reasons why any sane Palestinian, or for that matter American, European or other, would regard his government as a useless partner in insuring the restoration of Gaza and security for Gazans and Israelis alike.

1 hour ago, Ran said:

they see overcoming Netanyahu's issues with Fatah as largely rooted in Abbas's corruption

To check if this is true, I recommend entering ‘Benjamin Netanyahu corruption’ into Google. This is sure to verify how much he hates corruption.

16 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I was wondering why Hamas would advertise the death of senior leadership so actively. Normally they don't say this sort of thing. The reason is that they're trying to use it to bring Lebanon and more importantly Iran into the war. 

https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-01-02-24/h_984020e4402e49c3660d1c39c10a8e7a

 

Yeah, that seems obvious. It's also likely that Netanyahu authorised the strike with a similar objective, to heighten tensions if not draw either country in. Netanyahu has consistently acted as if his priority is to prolong and intensify the conflict, IMO, and that would work for him politically.

RFK Jr is what you get if you take all of Trump's negatives, and all of Biden's negatives, and put them together in one candidate.

15 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

coming from an ivory tower position as someone who never interacts with immigration personally

As tempting as it may be, to make assumptions about a stranger's life is never a good idea. But putting aside my personal life, which you have no knowledge of, I've already said that I've spent decades working with students, who are here on student visas, and are by definition the recipients of graduate visas. And I am an employer and have sponsored employment visas. I would say I have more interaction with immigration than most people you'll meet.

I'm sorry, but these comments show you don't really have the understanding of the basic facts about the university sector to discuss this, and I'm not inclined to spend the time laying them out. I've spent nearly three decades in the sector as a student and a member of staff. I understand the topic. Take my word for it: universities across the UK, and not just the ones you think, are on the verge of going broke as it is. Take away the one source of funding this government has literally driven them toward, and the results will be disastrous.

You are correct, though, that philosophically I don't see migration as inherently bad. If capital can move freely, labour must be able to also. If our prosperity as a country is based on our current values and not our historic exploitation of others, we should not be afraid of others coming here. Migration is a litmus test of who we are as a country: are we selfish hypocrites or do we believe in ourselves?

My goodness. I barely know where to start ripping that piece to shreds.

First of all, assuming this is the same Neil O'Brien who is a current MP and has served in Tory governments, it's literally beyond belief that he didn't already know all the stuff he starts with about what data is available on immigration. All of those opening paragraphs are the time-honoured tactic of a person stating what he and everyone else in government has known for years as if he found it out yesterday, purely for effect.

The reason we have such poor data on this is because gathering that data would be expensive but also quite intrusive - not just to immigrants but to everyone. Employers, tourists and business travelers (both entering and leaving the UK), landlords, service providers, the government itself, and indeed just ordinary people (since to get truly accurate data on immigrants you need data on everyone in the country). The benefit of having that data is outweighed by the impact and cost, which is why it isn't collected, which Mr O'Brien already knows.

The same is true of much of the rest of the article.

Calling graduate visas 'a disaster we were warned about' is a classic example of begging the question, and belies his earlier attempt to rise above "the terrible “is immigration good or bad” framing we too often seem trapped in". His own framing here is literally 'immigration is bad'.

As Mr O'Brien knows, and I'm going to be saying that often, the two year graduate visa is intended to allow graduates to look for graduate work in the UK. And they're allowed to take work to live while they do! Getting a 'Deliveroo job' is and always was part of that.

As for 'universities marketing themselves on post-study employment potential rather than educational quality', every single HE minister since the Tories came to power 13 years ago - and there have been many - has failed to distinguish between these two things in policy terms, whether for overseas or domestic students. Every incentive universities have been given has focused on post-study employment potential. It's the key metric as far as the government are concerned of whether a course is worthwhile, whether an HE provider is succeeding or failing, and (outside of research funding) whether it gets any money. We can't complain about HE providers marketing themselves on this when they have to do so to survive: and again, it's not an immigration issue.

More to the point, if we want to cut overseas student numbers - even by a little - or remove the graduate visa, which amounts to the same thing we have two choices: fund universities properly with public money, or watch many of them go under. The reason the growth is highest in 'cheapest' universities¹ is because those are the universities with least research funding, so they are most dependent on teaching funding, which can only increase through overseas recruitment because 'tuition fees' for domestic students are no such thing. They are a graduate tax with an up front discount for the wealthy.

The reason most of these students are coming from poorer countries is that international competition for students from countries like China is increasing, while their domestic universities are improving. (This is also why spending on agents has increased.) Again, if he'd rather we were attracting students from China, his government needs to fund UK universities. Students being from poorer countries does not make them worse students academically anyway: the dog whistle here is that if they're poor, they must be frauds.

In short: this is a weak attempt to appear reasonable but amounts to the same old complaints with no acknowledgement that the implied solution (he hasn't the courage to propose one explicitly) would require a complete reversal of his government's entire HE policy, with significant investment in UK HE. If he means what he says and really believes in it, he has to come out and say whether he would rather close universities or fund them.

¹(not at all sure what this means: he does not explain. Overseas fees? The data he is quoting is about 'least selective' unis, not the same thing)

[mod] That’s quite enough of that, thanks, from both. If you have a personal message for someone there is a personal message system. Stick to the topic, and the topic is not what we think of each other. Thanks. [mod]

I realise some folks are genuinely pleased to get an honour, but the honours system is at best meaningless rubbish and at worst a corrupted remnant of privilege anyway. I genuinely feel a bit disappointed when someone I like accepts an honour. I don't respect people because they have one. It's not a sign of any actual worth or merit.

I’m always amazed at who they do get. Cate Blanchett? Wow 

I’m going to assume part of it is contractual requirements. 

Those they don’t, I imagine it’s a combination of cost, time, and it not being in their contract. Which would make sense because it’s mostly the OG Avengers, with the exception of Hemsworth. 

2 hours ago, Jace, Extat said:

It seems to me that there are only two likely outcomes.

Your best case is that the Israeli government and some coalition of U.N.-led allies participate in a reconstruction of Gaza and support of a responsible government therein. Think Berlin in 1946, with different governments taking responsibility for different projects and management. This is your path towards something that maybe could be long term peace.

The Israeli government has ruled out both outcomes, so I don't believe either is 'likely'.

As for Ty's flight of fancy, as I've said before, it's a 'solution' that nobody involved is contemplating and that doesn't satisfy anyone. Israel doesn't want it, the Palestinians don't want it, the international community don't want it, nobody wants it. Whatever its other merits or demerits, that makes it not a solution. A solution nobody wants isn't a solution!

People can talk about it if they like, but the point of discussing it for pages and pages (as we have done in this thread and other iterations) utterly escapes me. You might as well be discussing the idea of relocating Palestinians to live in a giant balloon.

13 minutes ago, Ran said:

Imagine how much richer and more beautiful Gaza would have been if militant groups didn't funnel untold hundreds of millions of dollars into weapons, terrorism, and underground tunnel networks, and instead spent it on good governance, public works, economic expansion, etc.

The role of successive Israeli governments in creating and maintaining that situation should not be ignored.

I'll freely admit to being oversensitive on the subject, but since without gluten-free food my strapping football-playing healthy adult son would be a sickly invalid (assuming he survived the malnutrition that saw him lose 25% of his bodyweight at the age of 2), I do react to any suggestion of it being used as a punchline.

Still, we should get back to the topic.

3 minutes ago, Ran said:

Tell me the olds are having a conniption over the latest youth trend

When are they not?

I'm an old, and I work with students, and I'm about sick to my teeth of hearing my generation run young folk down. Young people today are, in my experience, pretty bloody amazing. And a good deal more savvy about media, social or otherwise, than people in the 40+ age bracket.

18 minutes ago, Ran said:

Let them eat gluten-free cake.

Why the 'gluten-free' crack?

Speaking as someone who raised a coeliac child, that's not cool.

Don't you people have families to argue with? It is Christmas after all.

18 hours ago, Darryk said:

@GrimTuesday

If you want a one-state solution, too fucking bad. It ain't happening.

I think this would be news to Netanyahu and his government, who have said in no uncertain terms that a two state solution ain't happening either.

But you're not wrong that they don't envisage a single state solution either, not at this stage. I think they envision a one state plus no state solution, i.e. an Israeli Jewish state existing beside Palestinians living without a state, powerless to resist further Israeli settlement of their land and resources. That's the optimistic scenario. The less optimistic is a one state solution achieved by driving the Palestinians out of their land.

11 hours ago, Ran said:

21% of Israel is Arab citizens and permanent residents. They do just fine.

But these are the Arab citizens who are happy to see Israel be a pluralistic, multicultural democratic state. This is not what most Palestinians want when they talk about "from the river to the sea". They do not want a binational state, they do not want a confederated state, they want an Arab state.

First of all, while it's true that the majority of Israeli Arab citizens say they feel part of the country - up from 48% to 70% since the start of this conflict - it's also true that only 27% of those folks feel optimistic about the future of Israel.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-arab-minority-feels-closer-country-war-poll-finds-2023-11-10/

Over half of Israeli Arabs do not believe they are treated well enough - and over half of Israeli Christians agree.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/israeli-attitudes-of-israeli-arabs-005-present

Oh, and this poll is a few years old, but it does suggest that nearly half of Jewish Israelis want to expel that Arab minority.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/plurality-of-jewish-israelis-want-to-expel-arabs-study-shows/

So I'm not sure it's fair to say that Israeli Arabs are 'doing just fine', and if they do want to see Israel as a pluralistic, multicultural state, I don't think they feel that it is, and I think they have reason to believe that it isn't.

Sorry folks, but however you greet your friends and even if there's no malice in it, I'm not keen on folks addressing each other in that manner. It's too easy for people to misread or abuse things if we tolerate it. I know there's no harm intended but I'm removing it anyway.

Merry Xmas, Festivus, or whatever.

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

I don't know the why, but it seems like they are doing the same thing they did with Trump's taxes. They know they are going to to rule against Trump because the argument is so laughably bad. They knew it with the taxes and now they know it with his "Presidents get to crime all they want with full immunity" argument. So they're letting it play out in courts all the way. And courts are naturally slow unless the SC intervenes to speed things up.

The why? I don't know, but possibly being partisans as that's how they usually roll. They're not willing to completely destroy their reputations to help Trump, but they can help him delay everything. That's just my guess.

Look, all it would take is for Biden to jaywalk or maybe throw some litter or something. The SC will vote on this tomorrow. Even though it's Christmas. :p

44 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Debating Trump is like mud wrestling a pig. You get dirty and he loves it.

He doesn't, though. He hates it. And as I've said before, that renders the whole question of whether Biden should debate Trump moot, because there will not be a debate.

Honestly, if a pub owner or a director of a security firm had made that kind of remark in private, it would be legitimate news.

I think that grown-ups recognise that you have to accept responsibility for the things that you say, privately and publicly, because you chose to say them, and that includes poorly judged attempts at humour.