Links 26: Israel-Palestine, and Suella Braverman

British diplomats can't speak Arabic

The Daily Mail reports that most British diplomats to Arab countries can't speak Arabic:

Only a third of British diplomats stationed in Arab countries can speak Arabic, a new study has revealed. By comparison, 64 per cent of American diplomats in the region can speak the language.
The figures are to be included in a review of UK Middle East policy by the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM). James Sorene, its CEO, said: 'To do diplomacy properly, you have to speak the language.

Indeed. A diplomat who can't speak the local language is useless, and the host country may well perceived it as insulting; at any rate they will have a low opinion of Britain's competence.

If the issue is lack of money, it would be better not to have an embassy in some countries than to have an inadequate one.

Prediction Markets

Scott Alexander and Dylan Metthews discuss the future of prediction markets, and how journalists can be convinced they're useful sources of evidence for truth:

In his earlier Prediction Market FAQ Scott Alexander wrote:

Even if nobody uses them for anything important, prediction markets’ existence has a salutary effect on the discourse.
There’s something about framing a question as “at what odds would you bet on this in a prediction market?” that seems to make people smarter. Some lifelong Democrat will be going on about how the Democrats can’t possibly lose the next election and then you ask “at what odds would you bet on this in a prediction market?” and they suddenly backtrack.
Even the idea that we can think of events as occurring at some specific probability seems nonintuitive to a lot of people, and encountering prediction markets is the best way I know of to make those people understand this.
Prediction markets also do really well at communicating a sense of how you’re not always right. A lot of people list off all the things they and their political side have been right about, cleverly eliding or making exceptions for every time they were wrong. Thinking more in terms of “How much money would you have been able to make on a prediction market using your skill of magically always being right?” seems to sometimes snap these people out of it, and help them avoid overconfidence.
I would love if everyone on all sides of a debate had some prediction market experience, even if we weren’t able to use prediction markets to settle the debate directly.

Prediction markets raise the sanity waterline, they make it harder from politicians and commentators to bullshit, and for that reason I support them.

Germany vetoes Typhoon sales to Saudi Arabia

The Sun (via @MrHarryCole) reports that Germany is vetoing sales of the Eurofighter Typhoon to Saudi Arabia:

Germany - who has a large stake in the Eurofighter Typhoon programme - is sticking to its veto of selling to the desert Kingdom due to fears they will be used to bomb Yemen.
And France is now in line for the massive investment as the Saudis eyes buying their Rafale fighter instead.

I'm sure Yemenis will be sooooooo grateful they're being bombed by French aircraft instead of British/German/Italian/Spanish ones. The British/German/Italian/Spanish workers who lose their jobs, less so.

And this is a problem with European integration in general -- too many decisions require unanimity, which makes it hard for things to get done. Consider, for example, Turkey vetoing Swedish membership of NATO.

Moreover, the more successful an international collaboration is, with more members, the more the requirement for unanimity drags it down. It thus becomes a victim of its own success.

I am reminded of the liberum veto in 18th century Poland. This meant that any parliamentarian could veto any measure (for example if Russia bribed them to do so -- hybrid warfare is not a new phenomenon). This made it impossible to get anything done, which is why there wasn't a country called Poland between 1795 and 1918. Future European collaborations must have this in mind.

The UK will phase out more than 100 Typhoons from 2025, to be replaced by US-made 47 F-35B Lightnings.

A ridiculously short-sighted decision, but also one that's typical of UK defence mismanagement.

there is a £15 billion risk to the UK’s “combat air industrial base”, with Typhoon production lines to close “without further orders” and “theoretical GCAP production not ramping up until the 2030s.” More than 6,000 Brits are employed directly by the Typhoon programme, with a further 28,000 in the supply chain.

Germany to ditch France, go with Britain?

Aerotime reports that Germany might be ditching France as a defence partner:

In a surprising development, Germany is contemplating leaving the Future Combat Air System or FCAS project with France and Spain and instead joining the British-led Tempest program, recently renamed Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP).

Background: FCAS and GCAP are both projects to develop stealth fighter aircraft. These are both major, long-term and very expensive projects, and the aircraft they will produce are intended to be in service well into the 21st century. FCAS is a partnership with France, Germany and Spain; whereas GCAP is Britain, Japan and Italy.

So why is Germany considering jumping ship:

Additionally, Scholz is concerned about the alleged preferential treatment given to French aerospace companies during the early stages of the FCAS project.

This is very typical of France in defence projects. They very often want the lions share of the work and control over the project. This is the reason why France produced its Rafale jet in competition with the Eurofighter Typhoon: France wanted more control over the project than the other nations were prepared to give it.

Germany have a card up its sleeve in negotiations with Britain:

To negotiate Germany’s entry into the GCAP program and join the United Kingdom, Italy, and Japan, Scholz has a powerful card up his sleeve: the pending export of 48 Eurofighter Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia.

(See story above)

It may be that Germany is serious in moving from FCAS to GCAP, or it may simply be a negotiating tactic to get Germany better terms on the FCAS project. Time will tell.

Nicholas Drummond on light armoured vehicles

On the subject of future light armoured vehicles for the British army, Nicholas Drummond writes:

These vehicles share many things in common. They're all simple and inexpensive to produce. They offer high levels of protection and good off-road mobility. They are ideal for personnel who don't need to ride around in a Boxer. They can mount weapon stations on rooftop mounts. Flatbed versions can be used as missiles launchers or for towed mortar systems. They can be used for patrol tasks, reconnaissance, command, joint fire control, liaison, as weapon carriers, and for logistical support. They are relevant to both conventional and asymmetric warfare.
Most important of all, less complex vehicles of this type might be the only thing we would be able to produce quickly domestically if we got involved in a serious conflict. Britain definitely plans to acquire this type of vehicle, but whatever we choose should be manufactured and supported here. Our automotive industry is well resourced and ready to build such a platform. Let's do it.

The vehicles in question:

My reply (on twitter):

I predict that:

whatever Britain buys will have numerous additions and changes made to it making it expensive. The spec will continually change, pushing up cost further.
it's quite likely a foreign country/company will own the IP and Britain will need to get their permission to sell/export/modify it
the production run will be small, bumping up unit costs
once they're all produced the army's needs will have changed so they'll all be sold or scrapped for a fraction of the cost
no effort will be made to create a permanent facility for manufacturing light vehicles. If we want to do the same thing again in the future we'll have to start from scratch again (more cost!)

Israel explicitly calls for genocide

Novara Media reports that Israel's leader Benjamin Netanyahu is explicitly calling for genocide of Palestinians:

The bible verse Netanyahu refers to is 1 Samuel 15:3:

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

Given that (1) The Israeli constitution says they're a Jewish state, and (2) the Jewish bible (the Tanakh) explicitly says that God is good and that God exhorts Israelis to commit genocide, I don't think the Israeli government have any just reason to complain when people liken them to Nazi Germany, and when they get angry at people using expressions like "Jewish Supremacist State" and "Zionazi Entity", deep down it's because they know those expressions are close to the truth.

What Gazans think of Hamas

William Spaniel has a video on what Gazans think of Hamas:

Spoiler: 67% distrust it.

Is Suella Braverman evil?

James O'Brien wonders if Suella Braverman is 'actually evil':

To answer the question: Yes.

As one of the commenters put it: Interesting how more people "choose" to be homeless when Tories are in power.

Rishi Sunak has "full confidence" in Suella Braverman

Sky news reports that Rishi Sunak has "full confidence" in Suella Braverman:

When a PM says they have "full confidence" in a minister, that's a clear sign the minister is in serious trouble and likely to be sacked within a week.

Pontifex Minimus

Discussion about this post