In what sense? I do agree with you that the objectives are different to the stated objectives but I think almost any long term or even short term occupation will be a total disaster

If the Israeli objective is to create a security zone in South Lebanon that's objectively hilarious. They occupied the area for 15 years up to 2000 and achieved nothing.

Have we considered that is generally easier to maintain military bases in remote parts of the world with local governments support or are various right-wing commentators acting as if no one but the UK has agency again

"Why are we surrendering territory to a Chinese aligned country who hate us?" Because this deal solves the problem of them hating us, and the economic aid pulls them out of China's orbit.

The Chagos deal seems a fairly good bit of diplomacy

My favourite part of Dominic Cummings posts is he hasn't realised the general public hates him

To be fair that prediction makes more sense than you would expect

This is like lots of Bold Predictions from the 60s etc, which sometimes got the tech right but the society wrong - 'Mr Smith uses the Personal Computer console to send correspondence and also provide a stipend for his wife to manage the household as its far too complicated for her of course '

60s sci fi where everybody smokes. I remember an old I think from 1900 prediction that the top hat would be a required item of dress to conceal the aerial everyone would need for the personal radio they would carry around.

My only complaint is the breathiness in her singing can be a lot sometimes