If the quotes are accurate then I think my original reply still stands, just without that first paragraph. I don’t understand how anyone could argue that the Israeli army has already achieved all its objectives in Gaza. Maybe it should withdraw because the remaining objectives are impossible to achieve, but that’s a different matter.
I see. That makes this hard to interpret, given that a lot depends on the specific language that he used.
There’s no quote of Gallant saying that the army has achieved all its objectives in Gaza. It’s just something an anonymous source said that he said. What the article quotes him saying on the record is
He reportedly told the families that the idea that Israel must remain in Gaza to create stability was “an inappropriate idea to risk soldiers’ lives over”.
and
“The IDF commander and I said there was no security reason for remaining in the Philadelphi corridor,” Channel 12 reported him as saying. “Netanyahu said that it was a diplomatic consideration; I’m telling you there was no diplomatic consideration.”
That’s strong criticism but far from “nothing left to do”.
(I’m not sure how fighting this war but then withdrawing from Gaza without creating stability would be in Israel’s long-term security interest.)
One day people will be beaming terrifying thoughts directly into their children’s minds and this comic won’t make any sense at all.
Back in my day, my dad thought it was hilarious to deliberately frighten me and I, uh, didn’t like it.
Why do you feel that the joke is outdated?
Update: He’s definitely dead. According to the NYT:
The Israeli military confirmed that Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas, was killed on Wednesday. His body was definitively identified by the Israeli authorities, the military said.
Ah, that’s good to hear. Odd that the article didn’t mention it…
Why would they announce this before they were sure?
The article is not clear. Did the drone actually hit
a training camp of the Israeli Defence Forces’ (IDF) Golani Brigade
Are you aware that Lebanon already has a democratically elected government, and that Hezbollah is not that government? It’s the private army of the Shia minority and effectively an Iranian occupying force. Most people in Lebanon had absolutely no say in its decision to attack Israel, but they are still suffering from the consequences of that decision.
This is what makes me optimistic that Hezbollah can be defeated for good. Other factions in Lebanon have a strong incentive to prevent them from gaining enough power to operate independently from the Lebanese government again.
What happened to bottle rockets? I had one when I was a kid and it was a lot of fun but when I tried to buy one recently for a friend’s kid, I couldn’t find any. Were too many kids failing to aim away from face?
(I know I could make my own…)
It would be foolish for Israel to accept a cease-fire now that the initial attack against Hezbollah has succeeded and permanent destruction of the group as a political and military force is within reach.
The very fact that Hezbollah is making this offer indicates desperation. As for Hezbollah’s leadership: at this rate soon no one of note will be willing to accept the position.
IMO organizing or attending these marches so close to the anniversary of the massacre is itself pretty clearly pro-terror, in the way that people prominently associating themselves with the date of April 20 are also supporting a similar ideology without having to name it explicitly.
It’s not like there are marches every weekend. They specifically chose this weekend.
“I think that today, the priority is that we return to a political solution, that we stop delivering weapons to fight in Gaza,” Macron told broadcaster France Inter. “France is not delivering any,” he added during the interview recorded early this week.
Who is “we” here, if France is already not delivering weapons?
Israel had time to get its jets into the air so I wouldn’t be too surprised if evacuated hangars were not a high priority for the missile defense system.
The article compares coal and natural gas based on thermal energy and does not take into account the greater efficiency of natural-gas power plants. According to Yale the efficiency of a coal power plant is 32% and that of a natural gas power plant is 44%. This means that to generate the same amount of electricity, you need 38% more thermal energy from coal than you would from natural gas. I’m surprised that the author neglects this given his focus on performing a full lifecycle assessment.
Natural gas becomes approximately equal to coal after efficiency is corrected for, using the author’s GWP20 approach. GWP20 means that the effect of global warming is calculated for a 20 year timescale. The author argues that this is the appropriate timescale to use, but he also presents data for the more conventional GWP100 approach, and when this data is adjusted for efficiency, coal is about 25% worse than natural gas.
I’m not an expert so I can’t speak authoritatively about GWP20 vs GWP100 but I suspect GWP100 is more appropriate in this case. Carbon dioxide is a stable gas but methane degrades fairly quickly. Its lifetime in the atmosphere is approximately 10 years. This means that while a molecule of carbon dioxide can keep trapping heat forever, a molecule of methane will trap only a finite amount of heat. This effect is underestimated using GWP20.
Edit: Also the Guardian shouldn’t be calling this a “major study”. It’s one guy doing some fairly basic math and publishing in a journal that isn’t particularly prestigious.
a full-scale total war in the middle east, possibly even beyond that
Who else would enter the war on Iran’s side? It doesn’t have any powerful allies among the other Middle Eastern countries, which rightly perceive it as an ideological rival and a would-be regional hegemon, and its proxies appear to be doing as much as they can already.
I think Iran is vulnerable because it overplayed its hand. Thus a war now may be better than dealing with Iran as a nuclear power later.
What fraction is under 18? It’s hard to tell by looking at the graph. I want to calculate what ratio of combatants to civilians killed a number of 70% implies.