The murky quagmire of Israeli politics

It feels like I've been writing about Benjamin Netanyahu forever, and none if it has been good. The guy is a criminal and a menace to society. And, although he would no doubt call me antisemitic if he were ever to read my comments (because that's what he always does to deflect any and all criticism), his religious and cultural beliefs have never been at issue. It's his politics I dislike.

Now, though, after Israel's recent general election, Bibi's crooked and racist rule looks like it is finallly grinding to a halt. The October 27th election actually ended in a stalemate, with neither Netanyahu's religious-nationalist coalition nor Gadi Eisenkot's opposition grouping achieving a majority vote, leaving neither man with a clear oath to.power.

Enter Israel's long-standing President, Isaac Herzog. The presidency, in Israel's Byzantine political system, is a largely ceremonial role, but one thing it is responsible for is the nomination of a new government after an election. And Herzog has chosen Eisenkot's bloc, even though it gained slightly fewer votes than Netanyahu's. This was largely on the back of endorsements from Israel's small Arab parties, which have supported Eisenkot (or, rather, opposed Netanyahu), even though he has publicly vowed not to join forces with these same Arab parties! Like I said, Byzantine.

So, who is this Eisenkot? 

Eisenkot is 66 years old and the son of Moroccan immigrants. (Some of Netanyahu's supporters branded him as a "Misrahi Moroccan" and a "monkey", during the election debates, which gives some of the flavour of the nastiness of Israeli politics.) He grew up in Tiberias and Eilat, far from the centre of political power in Jerusalem, a consummate outsider. He had a storied career in the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), and worked his way up the hard way to become Israel's top general, and chief of staff to Netanyahu.

His 25-year old son was killed by an explosive device in northern Gaza in 2023 and he also lost two of his nephews in the conflict, and this seems to have galvanized his move into politics. He has vowed to "continue the mission" in Gaza, so don't expect much of a change on that front. But he has accused Netanyahu of endangering democracy, so maybe we can hope for some reform there.

The main point is that Eisenkot is not Netanyahu. But he is far from being the anti-Netanyahu. He is willing to start a commission of inquiry into the security failures of October 7th (which Netanyahu has long avoided), and he will ensure that ultra-Orthodox Jews will not be able to avoid mandatory national service. But he is almost as hawkish as Netanyahu when it comes to the operation in Gaza and his attitudes towards the great enemy Iran. He too rejects a two-state solution to the Palestine problem, although he has vowed to crack down on settler violence in the occupied West Bank.

Eisenkot now has 28 days (with a possible 14 day extension) to try to cobble together a functional government. But his options are stark: either join together with the Arab parties that have supported him (but which he has refused to conscion thus far), or hold his breath and negotiate with some of the smaller radical far-right ultra-Orthodox parties.

It is, then, far from a slam-dunk that Eisenkot will be able to make this work. And, waiting in the wings is the shadowy figure of Netanyahu, down and dogged by long-standing corruption charges, but still not out.

To compute or not to compute

In recently years, the word compute has gone through quite an evolution. Or maybe an augmentation.

It used to be just a verb, meaning to calculate, or to use a computer. It's been in use in English since at least the 14th century (computer has been in the English lexicon since the 17th century, but meaning a person who calculates, rarher than a machine or programmable device).

Nowadays, though, compute is more likely to be used as an adjective (or a "noun adjunct") to mean relating to processing power, hardware or even resources required to run programs. It is particularly used in relation to cloud infrastructure and artificial intelligence. Thus, "We need more compute power", "the amount of computer capacity", "compute time fell dramatically". It can even be used by tech types as a kind of group noun, as in "we need more compute". It fairly howls of tech bro.

I know it's a relatively new usage, and I'm not necessarily against the evolution of the language per se (except where that happens due to sloppiness and errors, like the new meanings of momentarily, etc). Somehow, though, it still sounds awkward and ostentatious. In most cases, existing words like computing and computer would work just as well; there is just no need to invent a new connotation of an existing word.

But then, inventing is what tech bros do, I guess. I kind of just wish they would stay in their own lane.

An all-Canadian electric concept car

I've often wondered why Canada doesn't have its own home-grown auto industry, and more specifically its own EV industry. If countries like Korea, India, Sweden, France, even Czechia, have their own vehicle design, manufacture and assembly industries, you'd think we could too, right?

After all, we've been beavering [sic] away building cars and trucks here for American, Japanese, Korean and European cars for decades, so we have the labour force and the expertise, and even quite a sizeable market. So, why no Saab, no Kia, no Skoda? No Tesla, no Togg (a homegrown EV designed and manufactured in Türkiye, of all places)?

Well, it turns out we kind of do (but only kind of). Project Arrow - named after the ill-fated Avro Arrow fighter jet, designed and built in Canada in the 1950s, and abandoned and destroyed in controversial circumstances - promises to be the first ever Canadian-made concept electric vehicle. And a good-looking beast it is too. 

With an innovative drive train, a 3D-printed chassis and a state-of-the-art navigation system, it caught many eyes when it was displayed at Canada's Pavillion at the COP28 climate conference in Dubai a couple of years ago. In 2026, it showcased its Vector and Borealis models at the Canadian International Auto Show in Toronto. The Vector is a sporty 650-horsepower crossover with a 550 km range. The Borealis is a driverless shuttle with a range of up to 1,500 km.

Project Arrow was initially launched in 2020 and spearheaded by Canada's Automative Parts Manufacturers Association (APMA), under the leadership of Flavio Volpe, using $12 million raised from the Canadian auto sector and $8 from all three levels of government. (Just for context, US EV maker Rivian had raised about US450 million in equity and debt by the time it brought its first vehicle to market 8 years ago.) Its original goal was not to launch a commercial vehicle, but to demonstrate the strength of Canada's EV supply chain to the world. As Mr. Volpe says, "With Project Arrow, Canada shows it has the technology and the people to do an 'all- Canadian' car". APMA originally figured it could have a compact SUV model Arrow available for a very reasonable $35,000 by 2029. 

In recent months, though, the industrial landscape has changed out of all recognition in Canada, specifically with the US's u-turn away from EVs under Donald Trump and the trade war that followed. Now, the Canadian auto sector is wondering whether it can survive at all. To a large extent, Canada is subject to the whims of the American auto industry and of Trump himself. There has been a pull-back from electric vehicles, mainly due to American influence, and several EV and battery projects in Canada have been shelved in favour of ICE vehicle production. 

Some industry insiders now believe that the only future for Canadian-built EVs is for military vehicles, and that is indeed the focus of Arrow 3.0. For one thing, it lines up with Canada's new increased NATO spending commitment of 5% of GDP, so there could well be development money available. But also EVs have untapped potential in the military sphere: they are quiet and harder to detect in stealth operations, can cut down on vulnerable fuel-resupply challenges, and they are able to power the various on-board sensors and electronics that are increasingly part of modern military defence. (Most of this is taken from an article by Stephen Baldwin for the Corporate Knight's magazine that does not seem to be available online.)

It seems ironic - or perhaps fitting, depending on how you look at it - that the Arrow car should go the same way as the original Avro Arrow plane. But maybe that's just the way the winds are blowing these days. Let's hope it's not dogged by the same kind of controversy as the Avro Arrow.

Some big losers in the US mid-terms (and just generally)

Elon Musk donated to Republican Party midterm candidates an estimated $474 million. Given what transpired yesterday, you have to feel a bit sorry for him. 

Hold on, scratch that. You don't have to feel at all sorry. He deserves everything he got, and everything he might still get in the future as a result of the Blue Tsumani that hit Trump-weary USA. And especially the Blue Wave in Texas, where Musk moved most of his operations because he didn't like paying taxes. Musk's stock holdings in Tesla and Spacex are now worth significantly less than they were, as both companies' share prices took a dive immediately after the midterm results.

Someone else we shouldn't feel sorry for? Haley Stevens, who lost the Michigan Democratic Party primary to Abdul El-Sayed, and promptly endorsed the Republican candidate, Mike Rogers. It seems she is more pro-Israel than she is pro-Michigan, certainly more than she is pro-Democrat. Mr. El-Sayed won Michigan for the Democrats anyway, and Ms. Stevens' reputation and career is in tatters (unless she moves to Israel). God, these people!

And another loser? Donald J. Trump.

The case for an apology and reparations for slavery

It's a tricky one. King Charles III of Britain has been trying to thread the needle at the Commonwealth meeting in the Caribbean over the issue of historical slavery. In his usual, and I think perfectly genuine, heartfelt manner, the king acknowledged "the great suffering and injustices in the past in these islands and beyond". He was careful to qualify it with, "We cannot change the actions of those who came before us", and certainly fell short of an official apology or any talk of financial reparations.

Many of the Commonwealth Caribbean nations feel this was a missed opportunity, and see it as a slight to them. They have long called for an apology and reparations. As one member put it: "Acknowledgement is like when somebody hits your car and says, 'Oh, I'm sorry!' But the apology when they hit your car and say, 'I'm sorry and here is my insurance'. It's the difference between recognizing that something bad has happened, and holding yourself accountable for it".

Fair enough, I guess. But should today's nations be held accountable for the sins of the past? Do a few words of official apology outweigh years of acknowledgements of past transgressions? Are they really more interested in the filthy lucre of reparations than the moral imperative of an apology? Lots of open questions. 

Britain was not alone in its pursuit of the lucrative slave trade. France, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark and the United states. For what it's worth, Britain was actually the first of those countries to outlaw the slave trade, in 1807, and its early changes galvanized the other counrties into action. Thus far, the Netherlands is the only country to have apologized and no country has agreent to pay reparations.

Recently, new British Prime Minister Andy Burnham - not a man you could accuse of having a weak moral compass, I'd argue - came out publicly on the issue. He says he may be open to making an apology, but definitively ruled out reparations, arguing that they were not the right answer". In his words, "I do not think that British people today can be held liable for historical wrongs, however heinous, that happened in a different age under different laws and in which they played no personal part".

This seems to be the view across the political spectrum in Britain and abroad, and other is a compelling, almost irrefutable, argument. Making a formal apology, on the other hand, costs nothing and can be done with conviction and sensitivity. So, it should definitely be done, in my view.

Why attack a freezer?

 There has been a new rash of cyberattacks on Europe's supermarket fridges and freezers. After attacks on French refrigeration systems last month, the latest attacks ranged from Sweden to Netherlands to Belgium to Ireland. The perpetrators are unknown and the motives are equally obscure. There have been no extortion or political demands.

Why would anyone want to spoil thousands of euros worth of food? What would be the point? And why just a few supermarkets out of the hundreds that most of the supermarket chains that could.have ben targeted? The randomness of it all maybe points to the antics of nerdy kids with too much time on their hands. Most (all?) of the attacks targeted Danish temperature-control system manufacturer Danfoss, so a disgruntled employee or ex-employee? Why no statement of complaint, then? I suppose a maverick state like Russia, North Korea, Iran or China could be behind it, but it's a very strange choice of targets in that case.

The other things that strikes me is: why do fridges and freezers need to be internet-enabled anyway? The Internet of Things is expanding apace these days, but sometimes it seems to be doing it for no good reason, technology for its own sake. It's easy to change the temperature on supermarket fridges - even twenty or thirty supermarket fridges - manually. And how of often would it ever need changing anyway? Is there really a compelling need to have a fridge AI-controlled?

I see this as just another example of technology leading and humans scrambling to keep up. Other examples are the whole AI thing, 5G cellphone systems, cloning, and probably many more. I'm not anti-technology, it just seems like some technological changes are introduced for no particular reason, solutions in search of a problem, just because we can. Blame it.on capitalism if you like (and you may be right), but it seems to me that more oversight andnregulation is needed. However, that's not how 21st century capitalism rolls.

A 106-storey supertall skyscraper approaches completion in Toronto

It's kind of hard to believe, but at the foot of Yonge Street, in downtown Toronto, a 106-storey building is gradually coming to completion. For context, that's just four storeys shy of New York's ill-fated World Trade Centre twin towers, and we know how that ended.

At over 350 metres, the Pinnacle Skytower is Canada's tallest building, and an example of a "supertall skyscraper". The top of the building is at about the same height as the observation deck of the CN Tower, clearly visible just across downtown. It doesn't compare to some of the skyscrapers rising up in China and elsewhere in Asia, but it's pretty damned high. The first 12 stories will be house a fancy hotel, and the 13th to the 105th floors will contain 958 apartments. (It doesn't bear thinking about how much they will cost.)

I guess it's not a bad thing to be ambitious. But I can't help worry about hubris. You certainly wouldn't catch me living there, even if I could afford it.

Russia to be allowed back into international hockey competitions

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has suddenly made the inexplicable and unwelcome decision to allow Russia back into international ice hockey championships. The Court says there is a "lack of sufficient evidence" to support the security concerns of the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF), although surely that is not the only issue at play here.

Russia has been banned from international sports since it illegally invaded Ukraine back in 2022. As the war approaches its five year mark, and Russia continues to pound Ukraine daily wih missiles and drones attacks, it's not clear what has changed that would merit such a decision. My guess is that pressure has been applied behind the scenes (by Putin? Trump?), although it wouldn't surprise me if money had also changed hands.

The IIHF has objected to the CAS decision, which it has to abide by. The IIHF has already excluded Russia from events for 2026-7, like the men and women's World Championships, and the World Juniors which are to be held in Alberta later this year. The high profile men's World Champuonsip next year is a particular concern because Ukraine has already qualified to play (for the first time in 20 years). Does Ukraine get excluded to allow in Russia? The draw has already been made, so how is Russia to fit into it? Might Ukraine and Russia end up actuallyblaying each other (it's anybody's guess how that might go).

Several other national associations, including Finland, Sweden, Germany, Czechia and of course Ukraine (but not Canada so far), have come our strongly against the decision. It's quite possible that boycotts may occur if the decision is allowed to stand. The Canadian government has also registered its objections, which is heartening, albeit in diplomatic terms like "very unwelcome" and "disappointing".

This seems to be part of an unfortunate broader movement towards reintegrating Russia into international sports competitions, including the Olympics, swimming, volleyball, and possibly even football. Again, what is driving this change is not clear, but you have to assume that money and Trump are involved somewhere along the line.

UPDATE

Into this political morass strides Mark Carney, who has just unequivocally barred Russia from playing hockey anywhere in Canada, including in this year's World Juniors.

Carney: "While Russia and Belarus are supporting this illegal, unjustified and horrific war in Ukraine, as long as that's going on, there will be nine of those athletes competing for their countries in this country. So, if you're specifically asking about the World Juniors, the Russians will not be there."

Seems pretty clear. Up yours CAS!