Today's discussion about the news

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

DeVlaeminck said:

The point made on Question Time by Sayeeda Warsi was slso made today by Rory Stewart - so two rabid left wingers! - that Netanyahu has actually encouraged Hamas because it gives him a reason not to negotiate with the Palestinian authorities.

A very good point made by some journo I heard today - rather than the usa giving unconditional support to Israel make it conditional on not one more israeli settler moving to Palestinian land. If Israel wont agree let Netanyahu double taxes on Israelis to pay for his war. That serms to me something with zero reasonable arguments against it unless you agree with ethnic cleansing.

The US doesn't follow reasonable arguments on the subject. It will be seen as being anti-Israel and supporting terrorism. EU sanctions are another unlikely approach.

One opton that has not been suggested for saving Palestinian lives is for Hamas to give up. Whether they go into prison or exile they would save many thousands of lives.

They could bunk up with the rest of the leadership in the 4 Seasons in Doha

How does this help with settlements in the West Bank which was DeVlaeminck's point? Or are just trying to show how it would play out in the US?

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Stevo_666 said:

First.Aspect said:

Credit Brian for his prescience.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/tory-mp-arrested-on-suspicion-of-rape/ar-AA1iTz0x?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=e9edc4a99c45451c9661f64277292eca&ei=10

Has the Cake Stop kangaroo court not already found him guilty?

Law of averages.

Noted, Skippy.

Joking aside, I know absolutely nothing about the circumstances other than the salacious headlines. There, though, two charges - drug possession (which you would imagine depends very much on whether or not there were drugs, and so somewhat cut and dried one way or the other) and rape. Upon which there probably will not be any comment for some time, quite rightly.

Blunt has been pretty open about his drug use.

Jezyboy

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

Question time audience is pretty pro palestine

It's trendy.

I suspect that those sympathetic to the Palestinian side have been better at using modern media methods, and exploiting the algorithms that Nadine Dorries is concerned about.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

DeVlaeminck said:

The point made on Question Time by Sayeeda Warsi was slso made today by Rory Stewart - so two rabid left wingers! - that Netanyahu has actually encouraged Hamas because it gives him a reason not to negotiate with the Palestinian authorities.

A very good point made by some journo I heard today - rather than the usa giving unconditional support to Israel make it conditional on not one more israeli settler moving to Palestinian land. If Israel wont agree let Netanyahu double taxes on Israelis to pay for his war. That serms to me something with zero reasonable arguments against it unless you agree with ethnic cleansing.

The US doesn't follow reasonable arguments on the subject. It will be seen as being anti-Israel and supporting terrorism. EU sanctions are another unlikely approach.

One opton that has not been suggested for saving Palestinian lives is for Hamas to give up. Whether they go into prison or exile they would save many thousands of lives.

They could bunk up with the rest of the leadership in the 4 Seasons in Doha

How does this help with settlements in the West Bank which was DeVlaeminck's point? Or are just trying to show how it would play out in the US?

It was a way of saving civilians

TheBigBean

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

DeVlaeminck said:

The point made on Question Time by Sayeeda Warsi was slso made today by Rory Stewart - so two rabid left wingers! - that Netanyahu has actually encouraged Hamas because it gives him a reason not to negotiate with the Palestinian authorities.

A very good point made by some journo I heard today - rather than the usa giving unconditional support to Israel make it conditional on not one more israeli settler moving to Palestinian land. If Israel wont agree let Netanyahu double taxes on Israelis to pay for his war. That serms to me something with zero reasonable arguments against it unless you agree with ethnic cleansing.

The US doesn't follow reasonable arguments on the subject. It will be seen as being anti-Israel and supporting terrorism. EU sanctions are another unlikely approach.

One opton that has not been suggested for saving Palestinian lives is for Hamas to give up. Whether they go into prison or exile they would save many thousands of lives.

They could bunk up with the rest of the leadership in the 4 Seasons in Doha

How does this help with settlements in the West Bank which was DeVlaeminck's point? Or are just trying to show how it would play out in the US?

It was a way of saving civilians

So nothing to do with settlements in the West Bank. Just a "but, it's all Hamas's fault" argument.

Jezyboy

The conflict does become remarkably easy to solve when you just assign all fault to one side.

TheBigBean

Jezyboy said:

The conflict does become remarkably easy to solve when you just assign all fault to one side.

Only if you are happy with genocide, because its all their fault.

pblakeney

Fundamentalism is incompatible with pragmatism.

wallace_and_gromit

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

DeVlaeminck said:

The point made on Question Time by Sayeeda Warsi was slso made today by Rory Stewart - so two rabid left wingers! - that Netanyahu has actually encouraged Hamas because it gives him a reason not to negotiate with the Palestinian authorities.

A very good point made by some journo I heard today - rather than the usa giving unconditional support to Israel make it conditional on not one more israeli settler moving to Palestinian land. If Israel wont agree let Netanyahu double taxes on Israelis to pay for his war. That serms to me something with zero reasonable arguments against it unless you agree with ethnic cleansing.

The US doesn't follow reasonable arguments on the subject. It will be seen as being anti-Israel and supporting terrorism. EU sanctions are another unlikely approach.

One opton that has not been suggested for saving Palestinian lives is for Hamas to give up. Whether they go into prison or exile they would save many thousands of lives.

They could bunk up with the rest of the leadership in the 4 Seasons in Doha

How does this help with settlements in the West Bank which was DeVlaeminck's point? Or are just trying to show how it would play out in the US?

It was a way of saving civilians

So nothing to do with settlements in the West Bank. Just a "but, it's all Hamas's fault" argument.

I forget the exact quote, but a prominent figure in the NI peace process said something along the lines that it's only possible to achieve peace once everyone has stopped trying to allocate blame.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

DeVlaeminck said:

The point made on Question Time by Sayeeda Warsi was slso made today by Rory Stewart - so two rabid left wingers! - that Netanyahu has actually encouraged Hamas because it gives him a reason not to negotiate with the Palestinian authorities.

A very good point made by some journo I heard today - rather than the usa giving unconditional support to Israel make it conditional on not one more israeli settler moving to Palestinian land. If Israel wont agree let Netanyahu double taxes on Israelis to pay for his war. That serms to me something with zero reasonable arguments against it unless you agree with ethnic cleansing.

The US doesn't follow reasonable arguments on the subject. It will be seen as being anti-Israel and supporting terrorism. EU sanctions are another unlikely approach.

One opton that has not been suggested for saving Palestinian lives is for Hamas to give up. Whether they go into prison or exile they would save many thousands of lives.

They could bunk up with the rest of the leadership in the 4 Seasons in Doha

How does this help with settlements in the West Bank which was DeVlaeminck's point? Or are just trying to show how it would play out in the US?

How on earth do their current actions do anything other than entrench the existing settlements?

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

DeVlaeminck said:

The point made on Question Time by Sayeeda Warsi was slso made today by Rory Stewart - so two rabid left wingers! - that Netanyahu has actually encouraged Hamas because it gives him a reason not to negotiate with the Palestinian authorities.

A very good point made by some journo I heard today - rather than the usa giving unconditional support to Israel make it conditional on not one more israeli settler moving to Palestinian land. If Israel wont agree let Netanyahu double taxes on Israelis to pay for his war. That serms to me something with zero reasonable arguments against it unless you agree with ethnic cleansing.

The US doesn't follow reasonable arguments on the subject. It will be seen as being anti-Israel and supporting terrorism. EU sanctions are another unlikely approach.

One opton that has not been suggested for saving Palestinian lives is for Hamas to give up. Whether they go into prison or exile they would save many thousands of lives.

They could bunk up with the rest of the leadership in the 4 Seasons in Doha

How does this help with settlements in the West Bank which was DeVlaeminck's point? Or are just trying to show how it would play out in the US?

How on earth do their current actions do anything other than entrench the existing settlements?

Who is they? The Palestinians (and others such as Bedouin) in the West Bank haven't done much in a while other than get shot, be evicted and have little legal recourse. Would you like them to be evicted in another fashion? Would you prefer they fight back and get shot in larger numbers, so that they can be blamed? DeVlaeminck's point was that the US should do something about this by reducing the money they send to Israel.

TheBigBean

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

DeVlaeminck said:

The point made on Question Time by Sayeeda Warsi was slso made today by Rory Stewart - so two rabid left wingers! - that Netanyahu has actually encouraged Hamas because it gives him a reason not to negotiate with the Palestinian authorities.

A very good point made by some journo I heard today - rather than the usa giving unconditional support to Israel make it conditional on not one more israeli settler moving to Palestinian land. If Israel wont agree let Netanyahu double taxes on Israelis to pay for his war. That serms to me something with zero reasonable arguments against it unless you agree with ethnic cleansing.

The US doesn't follow reasonable arguments on the subject. It will be seen as being anti-Israel and supporting terrorism. EU sanctions are another unlikely approach.

One opton that has not been suggested for saving Palestinian lives is for Hamas to give up. Whether they go into prison or exile they would save many thousands of lives.

They could bunk up with the rest of the leadership in the 4 Seasons in Doha

How does this help with settlements in the West Bank which was DeVlaeminck's point? Or are just trying to show how it would play out in the US?

It was a way of saving civilians

So nothing to do with settlements in the West Bank. Just a "but, it's all Hamas's fault" argument.

I forget the exact quote, but a prominent figure in the NI peace process said something along the lines that it's only possible to achieve peace once everyone has stopped trying to allocate blame.

The NI peace process is pretty remarkable. It was proven to be possible to negotiate with terrorists.

wallace_and_gromit

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

DeVlaeminck said:

The point made on Question Time by Sayeeda Warsi was slso made today by Rory Stewart - so two rabid left wingers! - that Netanyahu has actually encouraged Hamas because it gives him a reason not to negotiate with the Palestinian authorities.

A very good point made by some journo I heard today - rather than the usa giving unconditional support to Israel make it conditional on not one more israeli settler moving to Palestinian land. If Israel wont agree let Netanyahu double taxes on Israelis to pay for his war. That serms to me something with zero reasonable arguments against it unless you agree with ethnic cleansing.

The US doesn't follow reasonable arguments on the subject. It will be seen as being anti-Israel and supporting terrorism. EU sanctions are another unlikely approach.

One opton that has not been suggested for saving Palestinian lives is for Hamas to give up. Whether they go into prison or exile they would save many thousands of lives.

They could bunk up with the rest of the leadership in the 4 Seasons in Doha

How does this help with settlements in the West Bank which was DeVlaeminck's point? Or are just trying to show how it would play out in the US?

It was a way of saving civilians

So nothing to do with settlements in the West Bank. Just a "but, it's all Hamas's fault" argument.

I forget the exact quote, but a prominent figure in the NI peace process said something along the lines that it's only possible to achieve peace once everyone has stopped trying to allocate blame.

The NI peace process is pretty remarkable. It was proven to be possible to negotiate with terrorists.

Indeed. You make "negotiate with terrorists" (*) sound like a failing, whereas actually it's a huge achievement in what is otherwise a proven intractable problem. Very different to hijackings etc. where there are tried and tested methods for resolving the situation with a broadly favourable outcome for the non-hijacker faction.

(*) And the same must be said for those who negotiated in good faith with what had been (in their view) the occupying army for many decades.

Jezyboy

pblakeney said:

Fundamentalism is incompatible with pragmatism.

I think given the number of Arab nations who have opened up diplomatic relations with Israel, fundamentalism can move towards pragmatism.

focuszing723

Renewables will provide half the world’s electricity by the turn of the decade, according to the latest annual report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), released on Tuesday.

The global energy watchdog says major shifts will mean a “considerably different” global energy system by 2030, with demand for oil, coal and gas forecast to peak in the next seven years.

Among its more positive predictions – based on current policy settings of governments worldwide – are a tenfold increase in EVs on the roads, solar PV generating more electricity than the entire US power system does currently, and three times more cash invested in offshore wind than in coal and gas-fuelled plants.

https://www.positive.news/society/good-news-stories-from-week-43-of-2023/

TheBigBean

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

DeVlaeminck said:

The point made on Question Time by Sayeeda Warsi was slso made today by Rory Stewart - so two rabid left wingers! - that Netanyahu has actually encouraged Hamas because it gives him a reason not to negotiate with the Palestinian authorities.

A very good point made by some journo I heard today - rather than the usa giving unconditional support to Israel make it conditional on not one more israeli settler moving to Palestinian land. If Israel wont agree let Netanyahu double taxes on Israelis to pay for his war. That serms to me something with zero reasonable arguments against it unless you agree with ethnic cleansing.

The US doesn't follow reasonable arguments on the subject. It will be seen as being anti-Israel and supporting terrorism. EU sanctions are another unlikely approach.

One opton that has not been suggested for saving Palestinian lives is for Hamas to give up. Whether they go into prison or exile they would save many thousands of lives.

They could bunk up with the rest of the leadership in the 4 Seasons in Doha

How does this help with settlements in the West Bank which was DeVlaeminck's point? Or are just trying to show how it would play out in the US?

It was a way of saving civilians

So nothing to do with settlements in the West Bank. Just a "but, it's all Hamas's fault" argument.

I forget the exact quote, but a prominent figure in the NI peace process said something along the lines that it's only possible to achieve peace once everyone has stopped trying to allocate blame.

The NI peace process is pretty remarkable. It was proven to be possible to negotiate with terrorists.

Indeed. You make "negotiate with terrorists" (*) sound like a failing, whereas actually it's a huge achievement in what is otherwise a proven intractable problem. Very different to hijackings etc. where there are tried and tested methods for resolving the situation with a broadly favourable outcome for the non-hijacker faction.

(*) And the same must be said for those who negotiated in good faith with what had been (in their view) the occupying army for many decades.

My point was Northern Ireland disproves the argument "you can't negotiate with terrorists". This is true even if you think it was the British Army and UVF who were the terrorists.

wallace_and_gromit

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

DeVlaeminck said:

The point made on Question Time by Sayeeda Warsi was slso made today by Rory Stewart - so two rabid left wingers! - that Netanyahu has actually encouraged Hamas because it gives him a reason not to negotiate with the Palestinian authorities.

A very good point made by some journo I heard today - rather than the usa giving unconditional support to Israel make it conditional on not one more israeli settler moving to Palestinian land. If Israel wont agree let Netanyahu double taxes on Israelis to pay for his war. That serms to me something with zero reasonable arguments against it unless you agree with ethnic cleansing.

The US doesn't follow reasonable arguments on the subject. It will be seen as being anti-Israel and supporting terrorism. EU sanctions are another unlikely approach.

One opton that has not been suggested for saving Palestinian lives is for Hamas to give up. Whether they go into prison or exile they would save many thousands of lives.

They could bunk up with the rest of the leadership in the 4 Seasons in Doha

How does this help with settlements in the West Bank which was DeVlaeminck's point? Or are just trying to show how it would play out in the US?

It was a way of saving civilians

So nothing to do with settlements in the West Bank. Just a "but, it's all Hamas's fault" argument.

I forget the exact quote, but a prominent figure in the NI peace process said something along the lines that it's only possible to achieve peace once everyone has stopped trying to allocate blame.

The NI peace process is pretty remarkable. It was proven to be possible to negotiate with terrorists.

Indeed. You make "negotiate with terrorists" (*) sound like a failing, whereas actually it's a huge achievement in what is otherwise a proven intractable problem. Very different to hijackings etc. where there are tried and tested methods for resolving the situation with a broadly favourable outcome for the non-hijacker faction.

(*) And the same must be said for those who negotiated in good faith with what had been (in their view) the occupying army for many decades.

My point was Northern Ireland disproves the argument "you can't negotiate with terrorists". This is true even if you think it was the British Army and UVF who were the terrorists.

Thanks. I think we are in agreement!

rick_chasey

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

DeVlaeminck said:

The point made on Question Time by Sayeeda Warsi was slso made today by Rory Stewart - so two rabid left wingers! - that Netanyahu has actually encouraged Hamas because it gives him a reason not to negotiate with the Palestinian authorities.

A very good point made by some journo I heard today - rather than the usa giving unconditional support to Israel make it conditional on not one more israeli settler moving to Palestinian land. If Israel wont agree let Netanyahu double taxes on Israelis to pay for his war. That serms to me something with zero reasonable arguments against it unless you agree with ethnic cleansing.

The US doesn't follow reasonable arguments on the subject. It will be seen as being anti-Israel and supporting terrorism. EU sanctions are another unlikely approach.

One opton that has not been suggested for saving Palestinian lives is for Hamas to give up. Whether they go into prison or exile they would save many thousands of lives.

They could bunk up with the rest of the leadership in the 4 Seasons in Doha

How does this help with settlements in the West Bank which was DeVlaeminck's point? Or are just trying to show how it would play out in the US?

It was a way of saving civilians

So nothing to do with settlements in the West Bank. Just a "but, it's all Hamas's fault" argument.

I forget the exact quote, but a prominent figure in the NI peace process said something along the lines that it's only possible to achieve peace once everyone has stopped trying to allocate blame.

The NI peace process is pretty remarkable. It was proven to be possible to negotiate with terrorists.

Indeed. You make "negotiate with terrorists" (*) sound like a failing, whereas actually it's a huge achievement in what is otherwise a proven intractable problem. Very different to hijackings etc. where there are tried and tested methods for resolving the situation with a broadly favourable outcome for the non-hijacker faction.

(*) And the same must be said for those who negotiated in good faith with what had been (in their view) the occupying army for many decades.

Depends how you do it.

Doing it right now would incentivise terrorism to bring the other side to the table, no?

Dorset_Boy

As an aside, what is the current situation in Syria?

rick_chasey

Dorset_Boy said:

As an aside, what is the current situation in Syria?

Kurds came to a deal with Turkey and Syrian gov't (brokered by Russia). Still some low level fighting across the north and West.

Jezyboy

rick_chasey said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

DeVlaeminck said:

The point made on Question Time by Sayeeda Warsi was slso made today by Rory Stewart - so two rabid left wingers! - that Netanyahu has actually encouraged Hamas because it gives him a reason not to negotiate with the Palestinian authorities.

A very good point made by some journo I heard today - rather than the usa giving unconditional support to Israel make it conditional on not one more israeli settler moving to Palestinian land. If Israel wont agree let Netanyahu double taxes on Israelis to pay for his war. That serms to me something with zero reasonable arguments against it unless you agree with ethnic cleansing.

The US doesn't follow reasonable arguments on the subject. It will be seen as being anti-Israel and supporting terrorism. EU sanctions are another unlikely approach.

One opton that has not been suggested for saving Palestinian lives is for Hamas to give up. Whether they go into prison or exile they would save many thousands of lives.

They could bunk up with the rest of the leadership in the 4 Seasons in Doha

How does this help with settlements in the West Bank which was DeVlaeminck's point? Or are just trying to show how it would play out in the US?

It was a way of saving civilians

So nothing to do with settlements in the West Bank. Just a "but, it's all Hamas's fault" argument.

I forget the exact quote, but a prominent figure in the NI peace process said something along the lines that it's only possible to achieve peace once everyone has stopped trying to allocate blame.

The NI peace process is pretty remarkable. It was proven to be possible to negotiate with terrorists.

Indeed. You make "negotiate with terrorists" (*) sound like a failing, whereas actually it's a huge achievement in what is otherwise a proven intractable problem. Very different to hijackings etc. where there are tried and tested methods for resolving the situation with a broadly favourable outcome for the non-hijacker faction.

(*) And the same must be said for those who negotiated in good faith with what had been (in their view) the occupying army for many decades.

Depends how you do it.

Doing it right now would incentivise terrorism to bring the other side to the table, no?

I'm not sure there's ever a good time though? Prior to this would someone taking the opposite side say that opening negotiations was legitimising the illegal settlements?

Jezyboy

focuszing723 said:

Renewables will provide half the world’s electricity by the turn of the decade, according to the latest annual report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), released on Tuesday.

The global energy watchdog says major shifts will mean a “considerably different” global energy system by 2030, with demand for oil, coal and gas forecast to peak in the next seven years.

Among its more positive predictions – based on current policy settings of governments worldwide – are a tenfold increase in EVs on the roads, solar PV generating more electricity than the entire US power system does currently, and three times more cash invested in offshore wind than in coal and gas-fuelled plants.

https://www.positive.news/society/good-news-stories-from-week-43-of-2023/

It's certainly odd seeing stories such as this, when there's a backdrop of anti net zero rhetoric from our current politicians.

pblakeney

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

Fundamentalism is incompatible with pragmatism.

I think given the number of Arab nations who have opened up diplomatic relations with Israel, fundamentalism can move towards pragmatism.

Is it possible for fundamentalists to stop being fundamentalists? Yes.
Is it possible soon in this case? Unlikely.

TheBigBean

Jezyboy said:

focuszing723 said:

Renewables will provide half the world’s electricity by the turn of the decade, according to the latest annual report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), released on Tuesday.

The global energy watchdog says major shifts will mean a “considerably different” global energy system by 2030, with demand for oil, coal and gas forecast to peak in the next seven years.

Among its more positive predictions – based on current policy settings of governments worldwide – are a tenfold increase in EVs on the roads, solar PV generating more electricity than the entire US power system does currently, and three times more cash invested in offshore wind than in coal and gas-fuelled plants.

https://www.positive.news/society/good-news-stories-from-week-43-of-2023/

It's certainly odd seeing stories such as this, when there's a backdrop of anti net zero rhetoric from our current politicians.

Renewables provide the cheapest energy in a lot of places.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

DeVlaeminck said:

The point made on Question Time by Sayeeda Warsi was slso made today by Rory Stewart - so two rabid left wingers! - that Netanyahu has actually encouraged Hamas because it gives him a reason not to negotiate with the Palestinian authorities.

A very good point made by some journo I heard today - rather than the usa giving unconditional support to Israel make it conditional on not one more israeli settler moving to Palestinian land. If Israel wont agree let Netanyahu double taxes on Israelis to pay for his war. That serms to me something with zero reasonable arguments against it unless you agree with ethnic cleansing.

The US doesn't follow reasonable arguments on the subject. It will be seen as being anti-Israel and supporting terrorism. EU sanctions are another unlikely approach.

One opton that has not been suggested for saving Palestinian lives is for Hamas to give up. Whether they go into prison or exile they would save many thousands of lives.

They could bunk up with the rest of the leadership in the 4 Seasons in Doha

How does this help with settlements in the West Bank which was DeVlaeminck's point? Or are just trying to show how it would play out in the US?

It was a way of saving civilians

So nothing to do with settlements in the West Bank. Just a "but, it's all Hamas's fault" argument.

without delving into history, what is the immediate problem?

surely it is that a bunch people committed a series of barbaric acts and that they ran off and hid in a heavily populated area. The inhabitants of that heavily populated area are now going to become collateral damage in the IDF's attempt to wipe out the barbarians.

I have seen many words written about how civilian deaths could be avoided by stopping the IDF from retaliating.

Why does nobody talk about the other option which is for Hamas to remove itself from the heavily populated area?

Jezyboy

pblakeney said:

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

Fundamentalism is incompatible with pragmatism.

I think given the number of Arab nations who have opened up diplomatic relations with Israel, fundamentalism can move towards pragmatism.

Is it possible for fundamentalists to stop being fundamentalists? Yes.
Is it possible soon in this case? Unlikely.

The idealistic answer is it's unlikely if you always take that attitude.

I think the slightly more thoughtful one is that these changes tend to happen quite quickly, and that ultimately once it does happen, it should be a reinforcing situation, because very few Israelis benefit from feeling at risk of terrorist attack, and very few Palestinians benefit from being at risk of IDFs robust self defense.

Jezyboy

TheBigBean said:

Jezyboy said:

focuszing723 said:

Renewables will provide half the world’s electricity by the turn of the decade, according to the latest annual report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), released on Tuesday.

The global energy watchdog says major shifts will mean a “considerably different” global energy system by 2030, with demand for oil, coal and gas forecast to peak in the next seven years.

Among its more positive predictions – based on current policy settings of governments worldwide – are a tenfold increase in EVs on the roads, solar PV generating more electricity than the entire US power system does currently, and three times more cash invested in offshore wind than in coal and gas-fuelled plants.

https://www.positive.news/society/good-news-stories-from-week-43-of-2023/

It's certainly odd seeing stories such as this, when there's a backdrop of anti net zero rhetoric from our current politicians.

Renewables provide the cheapest energy in a lot of places.

Is this largely because the pricing doesn't take into account storage, or having to have spare non renewable supply for when renewables aren't producing?

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

surrey_commuter said:

TheBigBean said:

DeVlaeminck said:

The point made on Question Time by Sayeeda Warsi was slso made today by Rory Stewart - so two rabid left wingers! - that Netanyahu has actually encouraged Hamas because it gives him a reason not to negotiate with the Palestinian authorities.

A very good point made by some journo I heard today - rather than the usa giving unconditional support to Israel make it conditional on not one more israeli settler moving to Palestinian land. If Israel wont agree let Netanyahu double taxes on Israelis to pay for his war. That serms to me something with zero reasonable arguments against it unless you agree with ethnic cleansing.

The US doesn't follow reasonable arguments on the subject. It will be seen as being anti-Israel and supporting terrorism. EU sanctions are another unlikely approach.

One opton that has not been suggested for saving Palestinian lives is for Hamas to give up. Whether they go into prison or exile they would save many thousands of lives.

They could bunk up with the rest of the leadership in the 4 Seasons in Doha

How does this help with settlements in the West Bank which was DeVlaeminck's point? Or are just trying to show how it would play out in the US?

How on earth do their current actions do anything other than entrench the existing settlements?

Who is they? The Palestinians (and others such as Bedouin) in the West Bank haven't done much in a while other than get shot, be evicted and have little legal recourse. Would you like them to be evicted in another fashion? Would you prefer they fight back and get shot in larger numbers, so that they can be blamed? DeVlaeminck's point was that the US should do something about this by reducing the money they send to Israel.

Sorry, should have clarified. Hamas.

rick_chasey said:

Dorset_Boy said:

As an aside, what is the current situation in Syria?

Kurds came to a deal with Turkey and Syrian gov't (brokered by Russia). Still some low level fighting across the north and West.

Hamas also now mates with Assad despite him getting the Russians to bomb the locals.

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

Hamas also now mates with Assad despite him getting the Russians to bomb the locals.

Residents of gaza are indeed familiar with what it's like for the authorities to bomb the locals.

TheBigBean

Jezyboy said:

TheBigBean said:

Jezyboy said:

focuszing723 said:

Renewables will provide half the world’s electricity by the turn of the decade, according to the latest annual report from the International Energy Agency (IEA), released on Tuesday.

The global energy watchdog says major shifts will mean a “considerably different” global energy system by 2030, with demand for oil, coal and gas forecast to peak in the next seven years.

Among its more positive predictions – based on current policy settings of governments worldwide – are a tenfold increase in EVs on the roads, solar PV generating more electricity than the entire US power system does currently, and three times more cash invested in offshore wind than in coal and gas-fuelled plants.

https://www.positive.news/society/good-news-stories-from-week-43-of-2023/

It's certainly odd seeing stories such as this, when there's a backdrop of anti net zero rhetoric from our current politicians.

Renewables provide the cheapest energy in a lot of places.

Is this largely because the pricing doesn't take into account storage, or having to have spare non renewable supply for when renewables aren't producing?

If you want to read about it the key search term is levelised cost of electricity (LCOE). The graph below shows this cost. View it with caution as gas prices are volatile and solar/wind vary by location, so aren't a simple number.

Anyway, to answer your question. This is just to produce and doesn't consider the cost of storage or intermittent generation, and if a gas generator can only run for 12 hours a day because it can't compete for the other 12 hours, then its levelised cost will increase (and perhaps this should be added to the cost of intermittent generation).

In most cases though, cheap energy wins (from the view point of the consumer/government). The main danger to the generator is cannibalisation where the price collapses in the periods of cheap energy. See the Californian Duck Curve below (price follows the curve).