Today, some good news: the IDF has recovered the body of the last hostage, Ran Gvili. As I write, his body is being brought back to Israel for burial.
First, I stand by my post about Hamas and the return of the hostages: Bank Robbers Know Where Their Loot Is. Hamas have certainly used the delay in getting to stage two to strengthen their grip on the territory they hold and probably to increase their military defenses (IEDs and the like). Whether this will result in a bitter price to be paid in the future is unknown.
Second, if you had asked me at the start of last year whether we would ever get to a situation in which all the hostages had been returned, I would have said it was unlikely. For many, it’s a miracle. For many, it’s a gift from above.
Third, I fully expect Bibi to claim credit for this outcome. I don’t know what it was that caused Qatar to produce meaningful pressure on Hamas to make a ceasefire deal, but I suspect the source was Trump. Were Bibi the type who accepted responsibility for his failures, I would give him more leeway. However, as far as he’s concerned, when things go wrong, it’s always somebody else’s fault. And when things go well, it’s always because of Bibi! (Yeah, right.) I only hope that he doesn’t win the next election because of misplaced belief that he was responsible for the return of the last hostage.
Much of social media is a sewer. Sure, there are a meaningful amount of good things, but bigotry, racism, and stupidity are in the ascendancy. Here’s one example, from X (formerly Twitter) that has been making the rounds again this week.
Here are some key facts:
Before October 7, Gaza’s population was around 2 million.
Of these, 332,000 were under the age of 5.
This means the claim is that more kids have died in the war than existed!
In the real world, the Gazan population is higher than it was at the start of the war.
Despite the ridiculous claim, this post has had 67k likes and been reposted 36k times. It has had 3 million views.
Did any of these people stop to think where all the dead bodies are? Gaza has been pumping out videos – many fake – about the suffering they are allegedly enduring. Amazingly, with an over-abundance of modern phones with cameras, there are no videos supporting the claims made above. Not one.
The people responsible for these claims – and those promoting them – have blood on their hands.
Once upon a time, I was in Heathrow before a flight home, and my Kindle had died. I needed to have something to read on the plane.
I found a history book whose introduction appealed to me. The author – an academic holding a position at one of the Oxbridge Universities, an expert in their chosen field – had decided to write a book that would be accessible to all and not just history buffs interested in that area. It sounded great.
It was turgid. The writer repeatedly displayed an amazing depth of detailed (far-too detailed) knowledge about the subject. But the writing was plodding, slow, and lacked even a hint of humor or meaningful analysis. The writer could not tell a story. Sad.
A History of the World in 47 Borders, by Jonn Elledge, is the polar opposite: it’s well written, entertaining, and has a decent dose of humor throughout. It’s also packed with glorious nuggets, like noting the connection between Catherine the Great and the Polish King, Stanislaw II August, and what happened to the first (unsuccessful) Black Hand assassin who tried to kill Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
Every chapter delivers something interesting, even when covering well-treaded territory.
I do have one quibble. The (inevitable) chapter about Israel (The Uncertain Borders Between Israel and Palestine) includes this:
…in October 2023, just as this book was going to press, the Hamas terrorists who control the Gaza strip launched the largest attack on Israel in the country’s history, and the Israeli government responded with one of the most vicious attacks in Palestine’s history in response.
I offer the following observations:
So the attack from Gaza’s distinguishing feature is that it was the largest? It was the worst single day loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust. Describing it as ‘the largest’ is, to put it mildly, disappointing.
So Israel’s response was vicious? There are many wars and conflicts mentioned in the book. So far as I can recall, the only one that apparently merited a nasty adjective was Israel’s answer to October 7. Perhaps the author would have preferred if we had invited Hamas round for tea and crumpets first?
It appears to me that this nugget has not been well edited. The sentence features both ‘responded’ and ‘response’ and one is redundant. The sentence could have stopped after ‘history’ with no loss of meaning. I’m going to go into amateur psychologist mode here and suggest the editor (not the author) was so happy at seeing Israel being criticized, they quickly moved onto the next sentence.
There’s a hint in the author’s background (he’s a New Statesman columnist) that he’s unlikely to be pro-Israel. The sources quoted for this part include – of course! – Haaretz articles.
To be fair, the rest of the chapter was a reasonable and fair overview of the situation (though, to be comprehensive, it should have also dealt with the creation of Jordan), even if I didn’t agree with it all. And, to give credit where it’s due, check out the following quote from early in the chapter.
I’m going to confess something at this point:I’ve been dreading this bit. More than any of the chapters about European colonialism messing up the world, more than any of the other chapters at all.
It’s probably my own bias and perspective, but I cannot reconcile that quote, suggesting care and consideration, with a casually dropped insult about Israel’s response to October 7.
My minor irritation should not put you off buying the book. I highly recommend it. Even if history is not usually of any interest, anyone with the slightest curiosity about how the world got to be the way it is today, will find many answers here. Beg, borrow, or steal a copy. You won’t be sorry.
For as long as I have been gaming – and that’s a long time – the WW2 campaign in the east has been one of my favorites to refight. I have a Battalion Combat Series game (Inflection Point – The Battle for Kalach and the Battle of Chir) in the ‘to-be-played’ pile, but it’s a more complex undertaking than I was in the mood for. This meant that a purchase from my recent UK trip, Battles in the East 4: Mius River and Vitebsk, designed by Antony Birkett and produced by Decision Games, touted as part of an accessible game series, was more suitable. And so, it’s now on the table.
Each hex is 5-8km, each turn is 2-3 days, and units are typically regiments, brigades, or divisions. The system is a modern version of PanzeGruppe Guderian and similar games, but with a very neat supply system at its core. In essence, your units only work at full strength when in attack supply. This comes from your HQ units, and – varying from scenario to scenario and turn to turn – is a huge influence on the campaign.
For example, in the Mius River battle, in turns 1-5 the Germans may only have one HQ (of their choice) in what’s called Attack Supply (the best condition) and in turns 6-10, they may have 2 SS Panzer Corps HQ plus any one other HQ in Attack Supply. The Soviets have 5 Shock Army in Attack Supply in turns 1-3, 28 Army in turns 2-3, and 2 Guard Army in 2-4. After turn 4, no Soviet HQ are in Attack Supply. This means the Soviets have to make hay while the sun shines in the early turns and the Germans have to recover their lost ground in the later turns.
While the supply system is simple, it achieves much of what more complex supply systems try to do with far fewer rules and overhead. I like it a lot. It’s not perfect, but it works. Further, you can see how more subtle variations might be utilized in different designs. For example, there might be a game where each side, at the start of the game, has to predesignate which of its HQs are in Attack Supply in which turns. A player might be allowed to change his plan part way through the game, but at a cost in supply availability, victory points, or something else. As another wtist, the rules might limit each HQ to only being in Attack Supply for a limited number of consecutive game turns, reflecting unit fatigue. And so on.
The rest of the mechanics are straightforward: odds-based combat with shifts to reflect terrain and unit integrity (bonuses for keeping formations intact) as well as armor and anti-tank capabilities, leadership, and artillery support.
The physical production standards are good. It has one double-sided, mounted map with excellent graphics, a rulebook printed in color, decent backprinted counters, and play aid charts and tables. The rules don’t seem to have any major holes, though given this is the fourth outing, that’s as it should be. I found two small pieces of errata in the Mius River setup. One was an obvious typo and the other was an extra unit that had been omitted from the setup list.
So, a very playable game, at least superficially. Now I’m going to give it a go and see how it turns out in reality.
Last night I watched the final episode of Stranger Things and enjoyed it immensely. As someone who grew up alongside the arrival of Dungeons & Dragons on the world scene, who had even played the game and also enjoyed it, that shared interest probably boosted the feel good factor. The closing credits really boosted the D&D theme to good effect.
As a whole, the Stranger Things phenomena delivered over its five seasons and ten years some magnificent television. Sure, there were some (but few) limp moments and a partial tendency to get too close to superhero movies. But this was a production with an abundance of well-rounded, believable characters and multiple engrossing story lines to supplement the main adventure. The pacing was pretty damn fine. In addition, the producers absolutely hit the sweet spot with their musical choices.
Stranger Things has set a very high quality bar. Will there ever be a science-fiction saga to top it?
I’m just back from a quick trip to the UK. One of the things I miss most from that place is being able to go to a decent bookshop. There are plenty of bookshops in Israel, but none that are English language only and come anywhere close to matching the extensive stock of any half-decent Waterstones’ branch or, certainly, Foyles. Ra’anana does have the excellent ESRA second-hand bookstore, though, and I have been known to add to its stock from time to time!
On any trips to the English-speaking world there’s always at least one bookshop trip scheduled, even if most of my purchases are ahead of time from Amazon. I love browsing a bookshop. It’s a great way of discovering new authors and books. It’s a real bonus if the store has – like the outstanding Foyles – a cafe to round out the experience.
Here are the (real) books I bought on this trip to join the to-be-read pile. (Simultaneously, based on my browsing, I added several books to my Kindle library and Amazon Wish List.)
I’m looking forward to reading each and every one. Now, where to start…
