Taxi Drivers before Regular Drivers.
Capitalism is truly an amazing thought experiment and it often makes intelligent people write the most gormless things.
The correct title one presumes ought to be “The coming autonomous driving revolution.” I presume that is what it ought to be, because of the chronological order of logically arranged events. In this case, the order in question is the question: “What comes first: the Robotaxis or General Autonomous Driving for Everyone?”
Yet, you know: Capitalism. If we can only prove it can make money, honey then we’re golden. If it’s just driving for the masses, then it’s not proof that the contraption actually works. In other words, even the proof of concept must be rooted in taking away someone’s job. If there is no suffering, how can we say it’s actually happening? I don’t hear any taxi drivers trying to defend their jobs, trying to suggest things on TV about how they’re better suited to take people to the morgue and so on.
In the logical order of things, the way to structure the world would be: okay let’s start selling autonomous cars for everyone, after they’ve been thoroughly vetted by the professional authorities and then consider what we can do about the cabbie problem. The fact that Waymo cars are not available for sale, but are available to drive people around is because of what exactly? Surely some glitch exists somewhere no? Then why the rush?
And please don’t get me wrong, I am not for replacing jobs with robots. Or for robots to jump in bed with your wives and husbands. Come on, admit it, you might enjoy watching such a scene. Yeah give Angie a slap, Robbie. Make her moan robottie. Uh, uh, uh, uh…
This video, presented by Mehdi Hasan, discusses a recent report from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz regarding the lead-up to the October 7th attacks and the subsequent hostage situation.
Key revelations from the report:
Prior Warning: The report indicates that Netanyahu received an explicit warning from the UAE president, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, about a "major event" being planned by Hamas days before October 7th, but allegedly failed to act on it (0:06-0:51).
Hostage Release Offer: The video highlights that Hamas reportedly offered to release all civilian hostages on the evening of October 7th, but this offer was not pursued by the Israeli government (1:03-1:48).
Rejection of Negotiations: Hasan argues that the Israeli government prioritized the military elimination of Hamas over negotiating for the release of hostages, contradicting repeated public claims that the war’s primary objective was the return of the hostages (2:02-2:40).
Key Takeaways:
The host asserts that the narrative claiming the war could end instantly if Hamas released the hostages was "a brazen, shameless, demonstrable lie" (2:41-3:12).
He references Haim Rubenstein, a former spokesperson for the hostage families, who stated that the government rejected a proposal by Hamas to release civilians in exchange for the IDF not entering the Gaza Strip (3:39-3:56).
The video concludes by criticizing the government's approach, accusing officials of using the hostages to justify the destruction of Gaza (4:02-4:28).
The New York Times and other American newspapers still haven’t caught up with Haaretz yet in terms of bombshell revelations. All I can do as a pattern matchmaker is the following: there were warnings before 9/11 that were painstakingly ignored. And there were warnings before October 7th that were ignored. Again, it doesn’t mean causation or even connection, it simply means the pattern is present in both cases. Clear warnings that were clearly ignored.
Ok look, here’s something that does bother me (the above doesn’t because that’s the System at work). Presumably American newspapers are supported by American intelligence services because that’s how we communicate and we always have Leyla. Yet the newspapers clearly use their editorial status in certain very specific ways. It’s not unlike how Hollywood has historically portrayed Arabs. It could be because they’re scared to not do so. That’s the most generous interpretation I can offer them.
Speaking of Hollywood, thank you for the multiplicity of programs reader’s sent my way when watching movies. Either those were programs that became suddenly visible to my mind (previously embedded in the movie) or sent fresh, as manna from heaven or freshly made mozzarella on tomato. At least I know you read this stuff. The Google trackers I have embedded in this site, continue to insist that no one reads these essays.
A September 2026 report in Haaretz by journalists Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval revealed that UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed personally called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu roughly 10 days before the October 7, 2023 attacks to warn him that Hamas was planning a major "earthquake" operation. [1, 2, 3]
Key Claims of the Report
The Warning: UAE ruler Mohammed bin Zayed allegedly warned Netanyahu of a major incoming Hamas threat. The intelligence lacked precise operational details, but originated from communications involving deceased Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar telling an intermediary to warn the UAE of an impending "mother of all surprises". [1, 2]
The Dismissal: Netanyahu allegedly dismissed the warning, believing he had the situation under control and viewing the West Bank as a greater immediate threat for destabilization. [1]
The Hostage Claim: The Haaretz reporting (tied to a forthcoming book, Hostages: 843 Days of Abandonment) also claimed Hamas immediately offered to release all civilian captives right after October 7 with no return demands, but Israeli officials rejected it. [1, 2]
Reactions and Denials
Netanyahu and Likud's Response: Netanyahu’s office vehemently denied the report as an "absolute lie" and "complete fiction," stating that no such warning was given directly by the UAE to the prime minister. Likud claimed the article's primary source was exiled Fatah rival Mohammed Dahlan and threatened a libel lawsuit and criminal investigation against the authors. Haaretz stated it stands by its reporting. [1, 2, 3, 4]
International & Regional Responses: U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken dismissed parts of the reporting as "complete fiction," while the UAE Foreign Ministry declined to directly confirm the call specifics—noting generally that intelligence is shared when necessary—which commentators pointed out was not an outright denial. [1, 2]
Political Fallout In Israel: Israeli opposition leaders released a joint statement demanding a full investigation, increasing pressure on Netanyahu to establish an independent state commission of inquiry. [1]
If you want to explore this further, I can provide details on:
The political pressure and domestic calls for an Israeli state commission of inquiry
Reactions from families of hostages regarding the reported immediate post-October 7 release offer
The background of the journalists (Shlomi Eldar and Ruth Yuval) and their sources
