Topical Rambling

UK Missile Defence Solution

Mar 3rd, 2025
More Air Defence Destroyers

The full cost of a missile defence system for the UK would be in the tens of billions of pounds. It would also be complex, subject to cost overruns, and require a raft of new operating procedures and personnel.

It would be faster, cheaper and more straight forward to build and operate, say, 20 additional, modernised, Type 45 destroyers or specialised anti-air version of the Type 26 frigate.
- £1 – 1.5B to build each one, spread over a number of years
- £50M/Ship/Year to operate = £1B/year to operate upon reaching full strength.
- This would be at the absolute lowest end of any land based ‘iron dome’ type system cost estimate.
These are a known quantity, with a known cost, with developed and implemented operations. Rotating in, 5 or 6 ships could provide basic coverage at all times, and execute training exercises to stay sharp. During times of increased threat additional ships could be added to the roster for more complete security.

There are other benefits for an increased fleet as well – these would effectively come for free, thrown in as part of the missile defence budget
- They would also provide additional protection for undersea cables and pipelines that are vital to Britain’s and Europe’s economies
- Improved protection for the UK’s two aircraft carriers.
- Additional redundancy for repairs and refits
- More security options for overseas territories, such as the Falkland Islands
- Improved response in case of natural disasters and extreme weather events
- A more capable ally for European and global military partners, and a more effective contribution to a self sufficient European security apparatus.
Agreements could be explored with other European costal countries (The Nordics, The Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal, Italy, etc.) for additional ships and sharing of costs.

Being an Island means that Britain has military requirements and costs that countries like Poland and Germany don’t. It does however also enable solutions that are not available to them. Britain should take advantage of that.
Boosting UK and French Defence Budgets to 5%: A Strategic Approach

Feb 23rd, 2025
How can the UK and France increase defence spending to 5% of their GDP?

The answer is already out there, and provided by the US. They should take the deal that the US proposed of taking $500B of Ukrainian rare earth minerals, and adjust it so that it works for them (UK and France that is) and Ukraine.
1. Take loans for the increase in spending , and use the future revenue from extracting these minerals as loan guarantees. This means that other spending will be less dramatically impacted by the need for additional defence spending. The money should be ring fenced to separate it from the rest of the budget.
2. Agree something that is mutually beneficial to Ukraine rather than the all AND nothing deal the US offered. Something like
  - Provide arms, ammunition, expertise and logistics as long as needed. This would mean quickly ramping up production, and in the short term giving pretty much everything they have in reserve, and back filling with that new production. Seems doable.
  - Expanding defence industries and including Ukrainian companies in partnerships to help them develop. They could also utilise current Ukrainian expertise and manufacturing, particularly in drone design and production
  - Agree a long term deal – such as a 50/50 split of revenue between Ukraine and the UK/France, from the raw materials for the next 50 years – the 3×50 plan! (Exact details would depend on the number crunchers). This would support long term increases in defence spending, and if there was extra, paying down national debt.
3. This would have the added benefit of decreasing the European/UK dependence on the US security guarantees and US defence industries. That would be inline with the US priorities. It does, however, seems clear they would not be happy about this approach, but can they have it both ways?
Trump and US Global Influence

Jan 26th, 2025
26 January 2025 – 1 week into the second Trump presidency

The United States has been the world’s most influential nation for decades now. How will this change now that Mr Trump is back in office? What are the implications for allies, adversaries and United States itself?

Already there is clear discombobulation among governments and global elites at the pace and aggressiveness of Mr Trump’s policy actions. Apparently they didn’t believe that he was going to do what he said he was going to do at the speed he is doing it. He is using the power of his office to dominate the global conversation and to bend others to his will. The nodding heads, worried looks and lack of push back from his audiences – from Las Vegas to Davos – suggests he appears to be succeeding. This however is likely a short to medium term reaction. As global leaders are able to take a breath and identify strategies and alliances, this will gradually change.

Mr Trump appears not to believe in the value of alliances and multinational organisations in the traditional sense. Where the allied nations combined strengths are greater than the individual elements of it. For him, organisations such as NATO, IMF, WHO and even the UN are forums that cynically take advantage of the United States’ wealth and generosity. He doesn’t seem to recognise the immense wealth and power the United States has accumulated within these global structures – or at least considers that it has been accrued in spite rather than in partnership with them. Because of this outlook his position is that the United States needs to be in the most powerful position possible to cope with future global challenges – most pressingly from China. When push comes to shove, after all, he believes that others will just be looking out for themselves, just as he would. To that end he has and will identify what he can do to bolster that strength through acquisition of strategic territory, resources or technology.

When it comes to allies, there are two approaches that are being taken
1. Just take what they have. People seem to thinking he is joking about absorbing Canada into the US – he is probably not. It is unlikely he has a solid plan on how to do this, but he will be vigilant for opportunities to create openings where such a thing becomes at least an option that is no longer considered ridiculous. Greenland and Panama are already being actively pushed. Diego Garcia, the Azores, Iceland, maybe smaller south sea island nations may be next.
2. Incentivise the behaviour you want. In reality it would better be described as coercion. Using the threat of large and wide spread trade tariffs or exclusion from the world’s biggest market as the primary weapon of choice, but also removal of security guarantees or cutting off of aid. This has already happened to Columbia for turning back a plane full of migrants, and will happen to NATO countries who Mr Trump feels are not spending enough on defence. Egypt and Jordon will likely also be targets if they don’t take Palastinians being forced out of Gaza. There will almost certainly be myriad other examples over the next four years.
The problem with both these approaches is in their transactional nature. If allies think that the dominant party is only in it for themselves then they will co-operate as necessary, but they aren’t true friends, and will not be there when your back is against the wall and you don’t have leverage – you get what you give. Her allies may view the United States as no longer a trusted partner that stands for democracy and global human well-being, but a self centred entity, suspicious of everyone’s motives.

The other major problem is that no one likes to be on the wrong end of a coercive relationship. The countries that are, or consider themselves to be, will develop strategies to mitigate that. They will also develop relationships of the like minded to counter that influence. This will lead to fragmentation within previously strong organisations. A lack of sharing of information and knowledge will be very dangerous. Because the United States will not have ears on the ground within those organisations, either because they have left, or because they are not trusted sufficiently, they may not find out until it is to late that things are going badly wrong. In the end both the United States and her allies will be weaker and less able to manage natural or man-made crises – climate change related migration, war, future pandemics, run-away AI are just a few possibilities that spring to mind.

For adversaries of the United States the status quo probably changes much less. As someone else said ‘as the architect of a new building it is much easier to influence the person trying to build it, than the arsonist trying to burn it down‘. However, the lack of cohesion and leadership in organisations that maintain the current rules based order, will most likely provide openings for trouble makers to disrupt, or offer alternative options that fit more with their strength-is-king view of the world.

Mr Trump rightly identifies that change is needed, and many institutions are too inward looking and ineffective. The hard work would be to stay and fix them, but the US has the wherewithal to do that. Unfortunately America First is in danger of becoming America Only. That would make the world a much more complex, fragmented and dangerous place.

MT
Joe Biden, the Democrats and the urgent need for action for the 2024 election

Jul 9th, 2024

It’s going to hurt, but Joe Biden stepping aside is the only logical option. It is the least bad choice for him and his party. He should also do it very soon (9th July is the time of writing). It is almost certain that he won’t be the nominee come November, and the longer he (and his advisors and confidents) take to realise and act on this, the more compressed and compromised the replacement process will be. The more the voters will lose trust in the disingenuous messages currently coming out of the party.

So why is it almost certain the Biden won’t be the nominee? To everyone who watched the debate a few days ago, and the panicy damage limitation exercise since, it is clear that Joe Biden’s cognitive functions are seriously impaired. One more significant episode (and there will be one, given the deterioration, and glaring press scrutiny) will make continuing completely untenable. The party excuses of jet lag, over preparation, a bad night, etc. will be totally exposed for what they are. Joe’s lack of fitness for office beyond 2024 will be beyond question.

There is clearly a risk that a replacement candidate will not beat Donald Trump (and this essay is not arguing one way or another on his fitness), but it is clear a replacement will be required. Prevaricating and delaying is only making things worse. It also seems clear that even should Joe make it all the way to November, there is a very serious chance he will lose to Trump himself. As a side note, ultimately it is in the best interests of democracy itself that both parties put up the strongest candidates.

The final consideration is that even should Joe make it to November and win the election, his cognitive failure will become undeniable 6 months or one year into his second term, and America will either have to default to the vice president or limp along for years with a figure head rather than a functioning chief executive. The voters will surely punish the party at the following mid terms and general election for such negligence. This short sightedness does them no favours in the medium term.

What should happen? The party and Joe’s people need to quickly come up with face saving messages that enable him to graciously back out of the contest and come up with a structured and effective plan that they can all buy into to find a replacement they can unify behind as soon as possible.

What will probably happen? Joe will hang on as long as possible, but ultimately back down in humiliating fashion, leaving the party to scramble to find a replacement and explain the fiasco to a dubious electorate. An electorate that will then fail to show up in droves in November, gifting a win to the Republican Party, potentially of both houses as well as the presidency.
What’s wrong with the Big Bang Theory

Jan 15th, 2024
This is not unfortunately going to present a brilliant theory on the origins (or maybe the everlasting nature) of the universe. It is also not going to argue for some Devine origin. The idea of a creator that exists outside the universe, for instance in the ‘everything is a simulation’ postulation, or in most religious origin stories, seems very unlikely.

However the Big Bang Theory has some serious holes, and seems likely to be proven incorrect over time. It maybe that many cosmologists have followed the basic maths to what appears to be its logical end without stepping back and asking ‘does this make any sense at all?’ In order to do this they have also papered over a number of very significant cracks.

Fully appreciating Neil deGrasse Tyson‘s adage that the universe is under no obligation to make sense to us, and that we may just not be smart enough to get it, it seems it should obey some fundamental principles.

Something from Nothing

The idea that subatomic particles continuously pop in and out of existence randomly in a pre-universe empty void is certainly strange (and goes against the principle that matter/energy can not be created or destroyed), but nonetheless does not seem outrageous in a place where the rules of our universe had yet to come into being.

What is a startling claim is that enough matter to create the entire universe all came into being at the exact same time in a single point in (pre-universe) space. On top of that, if the idea that matter and anti-matter were created at the same time, which mostly destroyed itself, and only a tiny variance in percentage between the two was what made the universe we see, is true, then the amount of stuff created at that time would be orders of magnitude bigger than the already vast universe we inhabit today.

The extrapolation that because the universe appears to be expanding now, then it must have been smaller before, and therefore must have a begun in a singularity seems simplistic and lacking in imagination.

Cracks, meet paper

Cosmic Inflation: The idea that the early universe expanded faster than the speed of light is used to explain the observed patterns of universal radiation. The reasoning that E=mc2 does not apply when universes begin appears to be that it would explain what we see within the overall theory, rather than suggesting that the theory itself is suspect.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are concepts conjured up to explain the apparent increasing rate of the expansion of the universe and the spin rates of galaxies that would otherwise fly apart. For many these seem to be real things that make up some 95% of the matter/energy of the universe. These things therefore just need to be found. More realistically they should be treated as placeholders from which improved theories can be built. Researching them as potential real is surely worthwhile – it may turnout to be true, or it may lead to new discoveries that get nearer the truth. But surely it seems much more likely that there is a fundamental flaw in the theories which require such shenanigans, or a fundamental flaw in the way that the expansion of the universe and spin rates of galaxies are measured – maybe the doppler effect gets weird at universal scales? Is there something ‘basic’ that is taken for granted as being true, which is actually not?

The increasing rate of expansion of the universe itself is really entirely at odds with the idea of a big bang.

The Future of Universal Understanding

Assumptions in this arena are often presented as facts. This is unfortunate, and blocks the way for new and interesting research and development of alternatives
1. Cosmic Background Radiation is the faint remnant glow of the Big Bang. This is not a fact, this is an assumption. The fact is that there is Cosmic Background Radiation, and it is being interpreted as the faint remnant glow of the Big Bang.
2. The universe will end in Big Crunch or a Cold Death. This ‘fact’ is built on the assumption that once the course of the universe is set, then it will never change.
There are lots of theories of multiple universes being put forward. Maybe external pressures of jostling universes cause periods of expansion and contraction of our universe, or maybe universes expand and contact naturally like an organism breathing or tides on a beach being impacted by an external force.

One day, hopefully, the next Einstein will be able to make a leap of thinking that will help explain everything, but it seems clear that trying to expand on current ideas is not going to find the answer.

MT
Global Population – Are there too many people, or too few?

Jan 15th, 2024
There is a lot of conversations on this topic recently, and the answer is probably yes. At the moment there are probably too many people, but once we are able to live in harmony with nature and each other, and especially once we start expanding beyond the Earth (as and when that ever happens), then the capacity for more people should be almost limitless.

If an each person stood in a 10 square foot / 1 square meter space, the entire human race would fit on the island of Jamaica with room to spare. The limiting factor is therefore much more about resource availability/consumption than physical space.

The world’s population was half it’s current size only less than 55 years ago, and only 1/8th its size 220 years ago, so clearly human societies can exist perfectly well with far fewer people than currently exist. The difficulty is in the shrinkage, not in the fundamental population size.

If you conduct the thought experiment of weighing up the pros and cons of a population half the size of today, or twice the size, which would be better would seem to be an obvious choice. Technology and policy could help mitigate both scenarios, but fundamentally unending growth within a constrained environment is always going to tip in to disaster at some point.

The problems of population shrinkage are well documented, revolving around the working age to retired age population ratios causing financial disfunction, and epidemics of abandoned towns and villages, old age loneliness and declines in economic growth due to labour shortages amongst many other things. However what is seldom considered in the proffered doomsday scenarios is the human capacity for innovation and adaption. Innovation and adaption will be required, and will be forthcoming as populations become smaller as current projections forecast.

This is not an anti-human rant – humans are quite possible the only, or one of very few scientifically aware populations in the entire Milky Way galaxy, and therefore a tiny island of meaning in a mind-boggling large ocean of stars and solar systems. Brian Cox has a truly transcendental take on this. If we buy into this logic, then humanity is of cosmic importance, and its ability to survive, grow and thrive is paramount. Nor it is a criticism of natalist policies. Families should be supported and children brought up without wanting for food, warm shelter, education, healthcare and affection.

Medium term shrinkage in the human population is probably inevitable given current trends, and the, again well documented, underlying reasons behind those trends remaining in place. However it is not a phenomenon that is happening in isolation, and needs to be considered as part of much broader societal change. Two of the biggest are
1. AI. Artificial Intelligence has the capacity to change society in fundamental, and probably unknowable ways. It can be reasonably assumed however that it will replace a significant number of well paid jobs in a lot of industries. It also offers opportunities to tax companies in different ways to top up national coffers.
2. Robotics. Combined with AI, robotics offers potential solutions in manufacturing, service industries, and in caring for the old and infirm (and probably many other areas both considered and not yet even thought of).
3. Extended healthy life span. It’s been said that the first person to live to 200 years old may well have already been born. Clearly this will make current population projections redundant. Not only by the reduced number of natural deaths (for at least a time), but people would be much less concerned about balancing career and family, there would be time for both, potentially stabilising the population in the long term anyway.
A declining population will also potentially mitigate some existing problems (some of which are really existential in nature). These include
1. Aggressive expansionism. The issues associated with a shrinking population may make expansionist leaders think twice about invading others. Why expand into other territories if you have millions of empty houses in your own country? There will also be a problem of a lack of soldiers to wage that war (however see AI/automation). Of course it may go the other way, and wars of conquest maybe waged to distract a population from problems caused by its decline.
2. Climate change, bio-diversity, deforestation. Consider the size of these problem if the world population was to continue to grow as it has done in the last 50 years. It maybe that a population growth slow down will give us the breathing space to transition to a more sustainable relationship with our plant.
3. Inequality. Inequality is a complex subject with various takes on how much of problem it is. However what is clear is that billions of people look to the west with their cars and A/C and meat rich diets and want a piece of that. Is it fair to deny people that progress? The larger the population the bigger the impact is on the plant’s ability to absorb that resource consumption and emission production. Again, moving to more sustainable path would mitigate this problem.
As well as the potential mitigation of existing problems that will need to be overcome by competent and considered government policies (yes, the problem there is clear)
1. Dying towns and cities, and perhaps even countries. Management of such decline and the ability to let go of the emotional side of this, and turn some areas back to nature in a fruitful way will be needed
2. Labour shortages will have to be mitigated with robotics and AI. Policy and markets will need to redirect people into professions that are not suitable for automation.
3. Looking after the elderly. Again robotics and AI should be especially effective here. An AI helper will be more patient with someone suffering from dementia or memory problems than a person could ever be. It is quite possibly a solution to an epidemic of loneliness that is already haunting society.
4. GDP growth. Growth need to change from being an absolute measure for each country to a relative measure against a population. Growth in harmony with resource management should enable wellbeing for everyone.
5. Tax Revenue will shrink if tax if labour remains the predominant policy. This will clearly need to change such that taxes on things such as accrued wealth, property and a company profits are a bigger contributor. This will also require a society wide shift. Clearly capitalism works, because incentives drive almost all human behaviour, so coming up with a system that rewards the brightest and most productive people without leaving everyone else in the dirt will be a key challenge. It should be noted that labour shortages beget an increase in the value of that labour which will help with this issue.
6. Old (and rich) people voting for old (and rich) people facing policies. Agreeing on what makes up the greater good, and then getting people on board with that will be tough. Unfortunately history suggests it will take a catastrophe of some kind (and there are no shortage of candidates) for a significant majority to pull together to that end.
Humanity has truly epic, cosmic even, possibilities. We just need to survive long enough to be in a position to achieve them.

MT
Why the prevalence of patriarchal societies?

Dec 17th, 2023
There is an interesting question posed in Yuval Noah Harari’s excellent book Sapiens about why almost all human societies seem to have been patriarchal in nature, and he admits that there seems to be no known answer.

A reason that may well explain this was mentioned, seemingly in passing, by Louise Perry in her interview by Chris Williamson in one of his podcasts. Here she suggests that perhaps in order for a (pre-modern) society to be successful it could only be a patriarchy. This makes a lot of sense and provides an interesting perspective on recent culture, because the reasons are really no longer factors in the modern world.

So why would a pre-modern society really have no other path than a patriarchy?
1. Early agricultural societies led to the gradual effective extinction of hunter gathers largely because such structures could support many more individuals in a given group, and could thus push out hunter gathers just by weight of numbers. Organised aggression from a 200 strong group will mostly beat a group of 50. So although it can be argued that the life of a hunter gatherer was better than an early farmer, the farmers were the ones that won that history
2. In order for an early society to grow and be successful, it needed quite a few children, and given the level of child mortality 10,000 (or even 100) years ago, each woman would on average need to have a lot of children.
3. Being pregnant, giving birth and raising a baby are all extremely hard on a woman’s body as well as taking up a significant amount of time and mental resources. Obviously there was no access to effective pain medications, and complications would have been common place. This would have effectively removed women from decision making forums and leadership roles for extensive periods. Given that men are generally more aggressive and physically stronger that women, those men who would have taken these roles in their place would probably not have been keen to give those back as and when the woman was ready. The woman would not have been able to force that either, however much more competent she may have been.
4. There would have been little opportunity for women to develop and prove themselves either. Child bearing and rearing would have happened from a young age. When young men would have been being mentored and developed as potential leaders, young woman would have been out back having their next baby or feeding their last one.
5. There is then a circular path between men being in positions of power and ‘masculine’ activities being more revered than traditional feminine ones, and for men to put themselves into positions of influence and thought leadership.
Some of the factors that may explain the shifts in expectations that today’s societies have for women’s contributions in leadership roles in all walks of life, include;
- The choices that women now have when deciding on how many children to have and when
- The dramatic reduction in infant mortality
- The pain and after effects of giving birth and breast feeding (as well as maternal mortality) have been mitigated to a significant extent by modern medicine
- The ability for men to look after children and feed them with formula and for organised day care options
At least on the surface there seems to be a direct correlation between number of children born per woman and the level of gender equality in a society. This may change in very modern, urban societies, but does seem to hold true over recent history and between developed and developing nations.

MT
Israel / Hamas Conflict – What to do?

Oct 24th, 2023
Were Hamas’ actions justified? Clearly no – there is no circumstance where kidnapping and murdering women, children, babies and men too can be justified.

Is Israeli fury justified? Absolutely – the pain of this kind of loss is unimaginable, and the desire for retribution for such unspeakable acts must be overwhelming.

Is the determination of a nation’s security policy based on anger and revenge the right approach? No it is not. This is a time to step back and understand the full problem and the reasons behind it. Lashing out may be cathartic, but it will just perpetuate the cycle of violence. Surely this is a lesson that must be learnt from the aftermath of 9/11 and the disastrous ‘war on terror’. Instead, this is a time for cool headed leadership that can address both the immediate national pain, and set a course that will turn the tide towards peace and justice.

So what is the underlying problem? At its most basic, Mutual Generational Hatred. Of course there are many underlying religious and historical grievances, but they just feed the divisions. A clear indication of the level of animosity is the jeering crowd heckling injured, objectified and terrified kidnap victims. As well as perceived revenge against a much stronger enemy, it epitomises the hatred that burns in Palestinian hearts. This also explains the continued presence by ballot of Hamas whose pledge to free the Palestinian people of the apparent oppression by Israel overrides, in the minds of voters, the self evident ineptitude and corruption of their leaders, and ultimately undermines any efforts towards improving the well being of that community.

However, this is an opening that can be used to turn the tide of violence, and because they have almost all power, the only party that can take advantage of that opening is Israel. This will require hard choices, and it will require facing down hardline elements that will use rousing and emotive rhetoric to rile people into demanding vengeance. However blood begets blood, and it is time for the Israeli government to step up and take meaningful action towards peace that history can look back as a turning point. In some sense it is time to turn the other cheek.

So what should Israel do next?
1. Recognise this is not a war, and avoid any language that suggests it is. Calling it a war dignifies sadistic criminals with the title of solider. These are not war crimes, but they are rape, torture, kidnapping and murder, and should be treated as such. In addition treating this like a war gives validation to those who would choose to side with the terrorists and stand against the violated. Finally it makes it much more difficult to separate the perpetrators from the rest of the population and enable them to recognise the moral high ground occupied by those that don’t use human shields, kill without discrimination and revel in violence.
2. Provide immediate security. That includes sealing the breaches in the boarder with Gaza and ensure that the Iron Dome missile defence grid is resupplied and as effective as possible. There will be more attacks before this cycle is over.
3. Stop the bombing and shelling of Gaza and refrain from a ground invasion. Even if the task of eliminating every member of Hamas was achieved there is no possibility to extirpate the sense of hopelessness of hundreds of thousands of young men. Killing their friends and family members will only fuel the fire. Even appearing to act out of spite or revenge will justify reciprocation in the minds of your enemies. Bombing and shelling until they realise you aren’t really that bad is not a thing.
4. Begin the task of separating the people of Gaza from the Hamas leadership. This will require communication, and action plans with timelines and demonstrable results. If there is to be no two state solution – which realistically seems an impossible lift, then the people of Gaza, and potentially the West Bank, need to see the Israeli government as their government, not as an occupier. The fact that is not how Israel sees itself also needs to change – and they need to persuade the Palestinians to see see them that way. The difficult circle to square in all of this would be the maintenance of a Jewish state with a large muslim population. (The inherent incompatibility of a religious nationalist government with a modern, inclusive society is for another blog post).
5. Make the security and well being of the Palestinians one with the security and well being of the rest of Israel. Showing mercy to the merciless takes a huge amount of strength and courage. However mercy can be used to elicit concessions from neighbouring Arab countries. This will be particularly important in securing the release of the hostages taken at the start of the current violence, and bringing the Hamas terrorists and leadership to justice (clear and unequivocal justice – probably by a third party, maybe the dutch in Den Haag)
6. Make Gaza a tolerable place to live. Invest in infrastructure and services. Enable business and opportunity and allow an, at least, partially self sustaining economy to develop. Provide opportunities for young Palestinians to find meaningful employment and the ability to support their families. Ultimately show the people of Gaza how much better off they would be with a competent government who had their best interests at heart. The disaster of trying to crush Germany after the First World War in comparison to the rebuilding and rehabilitation after the Second World War offer clear lessons for a way forward. This process will of course take decades. Northern Ireland is probably a window on how entrenched relatively minor differences can be, and the violence that they can generate – but it also shows there are solutions to the most intractable problems if there is a willingness to put in the work and suffer the set backs but stay the course.
7. Communicate the change of approach. Make sure it is clear that perpetrators will be brought to justice, but that there is a commitment to fundamental change. It must be clear that this is a statement of strength of the Israel nation and confidence in their just cause, not a weakness that can be exploited. America and Saudi Arabia should join Israel and echo that message. It should also be followed by clear next steps and a timetable for delivering the initial steps. Part of this will entail recognising that the latest attack did not happen in a vacuum – that is not in anyway to justify the outrages committed. However to deny that honestly is just naive, but is more likely to be done in bad faith. It also prevents a thoughtful approach to solution options.
What will most likely happen?

Israel will try to take the opportunity to try to crush the Palestinian will while they have the world’s sympathy. This will continue until the world can no longer stomach the death and suffering broadcast on global televisions, and pressure the Israelis to stop. Another generation of Israelis and Palestinians will then be fully drenched in mutual hatred. It will then be more decades of the same – but probably worse.

Additional Notes:

26 Nov ’23
- The comparison of Germany after the two world wars does have its issues. The war with Germany was not an ideological one, and the Germans and (western) allies did not fundamentally hate each other. Before the first world war began many officers from the UK and Germany did exchange tours with each other for instance. Once the war was one there was no deep seated animosity to overcome. The story is somewhat different between (West) Germany and Russia, but even their after the Cold War was won, almost immediately there was co-operation if only grudgingly.
- A two state solution is really the only viable option for a permanent solution. However there are hardliners on both sides that want everything – from the river to the sea, and would rather have permanent conflict than give up that goal.
- Neither side can denounce or address the religious extremism on the other side, because they both have the same powerful factions themselves. Separating this hard line religious element from government would require drastic action that would draw an incredibly vocal and violent backlash, if only from a minority of people. These last two points explain the Israeli policy of trying to suppress Hamas despite its self defeating nature – what other option do they have unless they decide to stand up to those in their own ranks that refuse to compromise? It also suggests a very depressing future for the region.
MT