The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Is A Deal Close on Gaza?

Episode Date: January 29, 2024

Talks in Paris between Israel, Qatar, the US and Egypt began over the weekend and optimists feel they could lead to a deal to stop the fighting in Gaza within days. Dr Janice Stein gives us her take on what's possible and what's not. Also, Ukraine and North Korea add to today's agenda.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. It's Monday, Dr. Janice Stein is here, our world and what to make of it, that's coming right up. And that's right, from the University of Toronto's Munk School, Dr. Janice Stein is with us, because it's Monday right here on the bridge. And, you know, as I said in the tease at the top, she tries to make sense of our world for us. And we've been doing that by focusing in on two main areas. And that, of course, is Israel-Hamas as one,

and Russia-Ukraine as the other. And a few weeks ago, by popular demand, we brought back a segment within a segment of Dr. Stein's What Are We Missing? So in other words, what part of the world is getting crowded out in the news because of the overwhelming focus on those two main issues? And some of them are small, some of them are big. All of them are important.

So we'll deal with that as well today. But before we get to Dr. Stein, the advisory on this week's question of the week. This has been very interesting to watch and just sense how you are participating in this because many of you are far more than ever before in terms of the mail that's coming into the Mansbridge podcast at gmail.com.

Lots of entries each week. And I don't think it's about the prize. The prize is one of my signed books. But I think it's the whole sense of, you know, participating in, you know, times that are an important question of our times, but also sometimes it's just fun, like last week's talk about winter, and we had a lot of entries on that question. Well, today is getting a little back to the substantive side.

You may recall about a week ago we did a good talk on whether or not immigration and all the questions surrounding it has become the issue of the day. Well, we're going to try and use that in today's question, I guess immigration obviously is important to the life, blood, soul, heart of any nation, certainly ours. Our history is built on it. Remember that John Kennedy saying, we're all, you know, aside from the indigenous peoples, we're all immigrants or descendants of immigrants, all of us.

So immigration clearly has meant something to our country. And at a time now when the focus is on 500,000 new immigrants a year in Canada, it raises questions of housing and everything, jobs, you name it. So here's the question for this week. Name the one thing you'd want to tell a new immigrant about Canada. All right. So I'll say it again. Here's the question for this week.

One thing you'd want to tell a new immigrant about Canada. So we're looking for your thoughts on that. And the rules are simple. And most of you are following the rules, the guidelines for this. And they are, one, make it brief. A paragraph at the most, and a normal paragraph, not an extended paragraph. All right?

To the point. Include your name. Include the location you're writing from, and get it in before 6 p.m. Eastern Time, Wednesday. So you've got lots of time. You've basically got three days here. The question, once again, one thing you'd want to tell a new immigrant about Canada.

And you send it to themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com Look forward to hearing from you. Okay, time for Dr. Janistein. And, well, enough already. Okay, time for Dr. Janice Stein. And, well, enough already. Let's get right to it. Here we go.

Dr. Stein for this week. Well, you've always predicted that by the end of January, there could be something in terms of some form of stoppage in the war. Not necessarily a complete ceasefire, but certainly something that winds things down. Everything now seems to be hinged on talks that are going on in Paris between the U.S., Israel, Egypt, and Qatar. Tell me about what you're hearing. First of all, you're cutting me too much slack here, Peter.

I thought we'd be further along than we would be. Then we are now. But I'm cautiously optimistic about these talks that are happening in Paris. What's the gap that's holding back the ceasefire? One question. Is it a permanent ceasefire? Is this war over or is it 60 days? Hamas wants a permanent ceasefire.

Israel is pushing for a 60-day ceasefire. Frankly, I think there's theater involved here. I think if the firing stops for 60 days, it will not resume in the way that we've seen it since October the 7th. So I'm cautiously optimistic. I don't want to put a date on it because I've seen talks

break up sometimes over things that you wouldn't believe, but the four of them are in Paris. The top U.S. botch, William Burns is there, David Barnail. It's the heads of intelligence agencies, Kamal from Egypt. These are your most senior guys that you send in when you think the going is really getting serious.

They're talking about a staged return of hostages. don't think we're far now peter burns is the cia director and it's been interesting because he's been heavily involved all along here for the last three months in a way that we've talked about this before but in in a way that, you know, the kind of diplomatic negotiators used to be. Here it is the intelligence, the head of Mossad was there. You know, there are some heavy duty intelligence people involved. It's really interesting because Bill Burns

has had diplomatic experience, number one. But the real reason he's there, Biden trusts him. And not trust in that shallow way, but trust because he's sober. He doesn't overpromise. He delivers when he says he's going to deliver. He's developed very good relationships

with his counterparts in different countries. He's what you would call, and, you know, sometimes when I talk this way about intelligence people, because this public stereotype is, oh, they're all spooks. They're all bad guys. That's not accurate, as you know. Bill Burns is a super professional. And that's why that's almost a sign when he goes out and leaves his day job

and goes to Paris to work on something like this. We know we're getting very close. Okay. Let's talk for a minute about who's not at the table. And that's Hamas. They're not directly at the table um cutter well it doesn't speak for them but sort of is the is the go-through to them in terms of of getting information to them but obviously whatever they agree at the table still would need the agreement of hamas and hamas isn't

one guy or one group as you've told us you know you got the military wing you got the political wing you got the guy who's kind of in charge in Gaza so this is a complicated process this is not a something that's going to suddenly you know get the okay in Paris yeah you know I think in this case it's the peak Seymour and the the people very few people really close to Simor that are going to make this decision. He's the guy in Gaza right? He's the guy in Gaza Yair Simor he is running he

designed the October 7th attack he hasn't left Gaza he's somewhere I'm sure in a tunnel under southern Gaza. And his wing is the most militant wing of Hamas. So what he agrees to, the political wing, which is in Beirut, which is in Doha, which is in Istanbul, too, as well, they will go along with it. My guess is that before Bill Burns agreed to go to Paris,

Qatar must have gotten some pretty good instructions from Seymour before he came. How do they communicate? I mean, we live in a world where everybody can listen to everybody else i mean even if he's in a tunnel underneath the southern end of gaza i mean you kind of assume that somehow the americans or the israelis or somebody knows what they're saying well i think it's hard i you know the, in many ways, the story of this war. We should never focus on one thing that explains a good outcome or a bad outcome from a military perspective.

But if there was a difference maker here, Peter, it was the tunnels. And one of the reasons the tunnels are so important, if you have Wi-fi installed in the tunnels um it's very hard to get good reception when you go three or four feet underground but more to the point um satellites overhead have a lot of trouble picking up uh what you're saying, can't see you moving. So they're able to move underground without being observed. And that was part of the reason October the 7th was such a surprise, frankly. There were plenty of telltale indicators that Australian intelligence missed. There's no doubt about that.

But having an underground city is a way to insulate yourself against people listening to your conversations but i i assume that if if they're talking to cutter in some fashion yeah so how would they do it so if you have a trusted courier yes send that courier through the tunnels and you they they know which you know shafts down to the tunnels the israelis have blown up maybe a third maybe a third of those tunnels two-thirds are still open that person walks out of that tunnel melts into the crowd and then finds a way to communicate. That's how it operates. But the conversation is underground. Can't pick them up.

Right. It's kind of similar in some ways to the way bin Laden was able to communicate for all those years before they finally found a courier that they kind of tracked. Yeah. Yeah. But I would say hold tight, maybe within a week and the longer and I think this is what's really important

the longer the deal Israel started this negotiation 30 days it's now for all intents and Hamas wanted it forever. They're now at 60. The longer the ceasefire the harder it becomes to and Hamas wanted it forever. They're now at 60. The longer the ceasefire,

the harder it becomes to restart this war in the way that we're seeing it now. But it does seem hard to believe that Hamas would be prepared to give everybody up. I mean, the basic structure seems to be women and whatever children are left, and then the elderly in the first month and the second month would be men and whatever children are left or then the elderly in the first month and the second month would be men and israeli soldiers it's yeah it's that second month that i look at and i go really are they really going to do that well you know for sure sinmar wants four or five key

people left at the end of all this because that's his fundamental security but it also depends who israel releases right so i know i have not seen the list let me say that i have not that hamas has submitted but i would be shocked if marwan barghouti um is not at the top of that list marwan barghouti is not at the top of that list. Marwan Barghouti started his career organizing, I'm going to use these words, security services for Arafat. I don't have to say much more, do I? Right. Yeah. But rebelled against Arafat because of the corruption

and is currently serving four life sentences in jail for having killed four Israelis. But his life in jail is better than most. Sends messages, people send messages in, and of everybody in Palestinian public opinion polling, he's the top of the list, Marwan Barghouti. He has the street credibility that no other Palestinian leader has. Now, part of it is having served jail time.

Part of it is having showed his toughness because he came up through the security ranks. But he's also the one who who the day after October the 7th said all two societies have to live side by side. There's no point in this. It'd be interesting to see where on the list he is and if Israel decides to let him go. If I were Israel, I would let him go in a minute

because he is part of the broader political solution. decides to let him go. If I were Israel, I would let him go in a minute because he is part of the broader political solution. And when there's many, many times in history, think about Kenyatta, right? In Kenya, during the independence period, certainly killed people.

More Nelson Mandela. Sure. These people have a capacity when they come out to bring others with them. And this is only going to work. We're going to be back here less than five years from now, Peter. It will only work if at the end of all this, there's a political path forward. In other words, two-state solution or something similar to that. Yeah, yeah.

A solution for the Palestinian state. Yes, a political solution. Yeah. Where does the, you know, over on, was it Friday or Thursday, the story came out about the UN employees in Gaza who were working under the Palestinian Relief Agency for Refugees, that 10 or 12 of them had taken part in the October 7th attacks. The US, Canada, Australia, and others, I think. Finland, Finland.

Finland immediately said, we're holding back funds from that UN agency. And over the weekend, the head of the UN said, I don't know, we've got to reinstate that. We've got to get these people back. We've got to get it back organized. It's too important right now. We will investigate this situation.

So I want to try and understand how this plays i mean it's an interesting coincidence is all happening at the same time but how does this that story play into the um i was going to say the bigger story it's not necessarily a bigger story but it it's definitely a story how how do these two things play into each other well again the agency you're talking about un relief works agency was set up in 1949 interestingly enough and probably haven't talked about this enough hamas fundamentally ceded to all governance, everything to do, maybe with the exception of schools, because schools were such an important part of religious education for Hamas. But it ran Gaza, right? It provided 50% of the population of Gaza is dependent on UN assistance

in some way or another. And so it provided the food, it provided the hospitals. It functionally was a civilian government. And when a Hamas spokesperson was asked about three weeks ago, aren't you concerned about this horrific level of civilian casualties among Palestinians as a result of the attack? He said, no, that's the UN problem. Let them worry about it.

That's their problem. Which shows you really the disconnect between Hamas as a governing authority and Hamas as a military movement whose goal was to attack Israel. Israelis have long complained about UNRWA, and the complaints really fell on deaf ears. You may remember, under

Harper, Canada reduced its funding to UNRWA, but this time it's a really interesting story, because that information about these 12 employees who actually joined the attack on October the 7th,

this is not sympathized with Palestinians, which of course they would do given the situation which Palestinians find themselves in. They joined the attack. Israel uncovered that information, has been investigating, and just look at this story. Does this make your spidey sense tingle? Israel and the United Nations investigated the attack and only communicated the information to the United States last week. That's not the usual way things happen. How did they get the information?

Because there's already you know some concerns that this was kind of squeezed out of prisoners so there's no doubt that israel has gotten an enormous amount of tactical information since the war started because it interrogates palestinian prisoners and we've seen pictures of detainees. And it's not, you know, Gaza's not huge. People know each other. That is, I think, the most obvious way that that would have come. There's also satellite pictures, open satellite pictures

that, and depending on the coverage at the particular time of day, you then match, you functionally use versions of AI now to match pictures of fighters to photographs that you have. So it would take some time. I think it's a combination of the two. It just, you know, Guterres, in other words, knew about this before the United States knew about this. The timing, I would suspect, it's not coincidental

that it came out the weekend of the court decision. You know, here was a decision which um required israel it doesn't not to make every best effort which is the language some of the orders use no such qualification in the order to provide humanitarian relief and assistance to gas well the vehicle for doing that is unrun there is nothing else this comes out a day later when i when i use the word squeeze it out of prisoners i was being you know maybe i was being too well too nice i mean you know the the the concern is that the people were tortured to get this information yeah um again um there are there are allegations of that from some palestinians who have been let go and who have come back into gaza and are now receiving medical assistance in gaza i've certainly read some of that but

you know you don't even need that, Peter. What do you mean? Because, I mean, there are multiple ways to get information out of prisoners. And torture is the least effective, frankly. We know that. Because when people are tortured, they lie. And they make up information in order to end the torture. But if you're in prison and you want to go back to your family and somebody said, well, provide me the names of people

who are doing this for Hamas or that for Hamas, people do it all the time. And then they're released and they go home. That's, you know, making a friend of a prisoner is a far better strategy to extract information than torturing a prisoner. So you believe the story?

Yes. I mean, it's not like we, this is suddenly a new thing. Yes. As you said, it's been kind of a dark rumor around for years. For years. And, you know, the head of UNRWA acknowledged that he's investigating no denial from him, Mazzarini, at all. And Guterres, the head of UNRWA acknowledged that he's investigating no denial from him, Masrini,

at all. And Guterres, the Secretary General. You would have, if there, if it had been, and you know, any stories you and I both know now could be fabricated. But if there had been reasonable doubt,

you wouldn't have heard. You would have heard from one of the two of them, especially in view of the decisions to cut funding for UNRWA at the worst possible time when there's no other agency on the ground, really, that can deliver the assistance. UNRWA has the infrastructure to do it. So Lazzarini would have protested, and he is protesting about a cut in funding.

But he's not denying the allegations. What about the, you mentioned the court decision. Is there anything else that we should keep in mind about it and how it's, I mean, all these things happening at the same time. You know, coincidence works to a certain point. Then you start saying. Well, you know, it's actually, in a point then you start saying well you know it's actually in a sense fortuitous right peter if you get the court decision and

frankly is badly embarrassed by this there's no question and the secretary general is embarrassed by this that this is going on uh inside the un that's when you begin to get a push this is not going well there's stories that are starting there this is not going well maybe we've gotten enough on the battlefield maybe it's time for a pause so actually i think these things are helping the push toward the ceasefire. And look at the court decision. It's not a decision, as we know. It did not investigate the allegations. It's not designed to do that. But everybody walked away having lost and having won.

Those are very good judges. That's all I'll say. When they can do that. Yeah. Boy, they looked tentative when they walked in the room there i didn't know some of them were going to make it to their seats they were oh boy and did you notice by the way which broke precedent and i think that was the thing that intrigued people most was that the israel's representative on the court uh justice barack former president of their Supreme Court, voted in favor of two of the orders,

one for humanitarian assistance, which is not what many people would have expected to happen, frankly. That's a good sign for the court that that could happen. Okay, we're going to move on to Ukraine, but a quick last one on Israel in particular. Is there anything new on the Netanyahu front? I mean, we talked last week about the growing opposition, the huge opposition in the streets, but also the concern within that cabinet. Anything new this week? No, no. new this week no no we you know as i said five mps five members of parliament have to cross that

floor now if there's a prolonged ceasefire does he start the investigation which everybody is calling for that will that will be front and center And that's partly why he's resisting. Okay. We're going to take a quick break, come back, and get the latest on the situation in Ukraine. That's right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to the Monday episode of The Bridge. Janice Stein is with us.

We're trying to deal with our world. And we deal with the Middle East as best we could in the first block. Now we're moving on to the Ukraine situation. Increasing talk. I should say you're listening on Sirius XM, channel 167, Canada Talks, or on your favorite podcast platform. Glad you're with us. On Ukraine, you know, you keep hearing,

and you've heard it in the States, you hear it in Kiev, you hear it in London, that the Ukrainians are running out of weapons. They're almost empty. It's true, not true not true if almost means the next month no definitely not not true um do they have so right now what let me back up for one second. What the Ukrainian strategy right now is, we could call it going on active defense, giving up the hope right now of any offensive after last summer,

digging in and betting that they can defend against a Russian offensive until they get more equipment and more men, because they're very short of men as well. You need less than, Peter, when you're in active defense, usually. And there are stockpiles that will see them through the winter. And so that's why I said not now. If Ukraine is to have any hope of launching. So, and I think 24, the whole year,

will be a largely defensive one for the Ukrainians, which is a blow because they were so hopeful about that counter-offensive last summer. They have to retrain and they have to get more equipment. Now, what do they need? We talked about this before. Artillery shells, that is most important and much better.

They need missiles for air defense against the Russians. Without that, if they get into 25, and that's not that long from now, when you're trying to produce these stocks of equipment, I think they could lose the war, frankly. Not just being a stalemate, which is where we are now, but actually lose without that resupply. Now, just look at the year

in the United States that we got ahead of us, 24, in an election where the United States that we got ahead of us, 24, in an election where the United States turned inward. Who's going to stand up in NATO and supply that volume of equipment? The second area

where Ukraine is stronger than it looks, but not strong enough, they have this incredible capacity for technological innovation. You know, you've heard about it. I've heard about it. So they are going to have to do much better on drones, and it will probably be largely internally driven.

And you and I have also talked about much better jamming equipment as this war becomes more and more one of electronic warfare. That's what Zalusi was talking about when he went public, frankly. So it's a big hill to climb to get ready for 2025. It's not impossible. But the United States, frankly, even though this is an election year, the United States will have to weigh in. If it can't get anything through Congress, which would be a disgrace, it really would,

it's got to push its NATO allies to fill in the gap in 2024. Because if it doesn't, then I think, then I frankly think NATO and the United States will have handed Russia a strategic victory. Well, some of the NATO allies have really bellied up to the bar. We did initially, but our cupboard's pretty bare right now. Yeah, we have nothing in it. We're shipping over Second World War stuff, I think. Yeah. war stuff i think yeah um the part of the the difficult situation that they're in is that while the ukrainians are having trouble convincing some of their allies namely the u.s uh to to to come up with more for them the russians who have the same kind of problem in terms of running out of stuff, including men,

they have, they are able to look at Iran. They're able to look at North Korea. North Korea. Yeah. And they're, you know, they're getting,

they are getting help. China, not so much, you know, you know, ultimately when you look at what actually drives change in the United States, it's always been when they see a coalition standing up against them, right? Sad but true, what I'm saying. Sad but true.

It's not the merits of Ukraine or even the huge favor Ukraine is frankly doing the United States by exhausting the Russian army at such, relatively speaking, low cost to the United States. Anybody who is looking at this from a strategic perspective would say, well, this is a bargain. What I think will eventually get the United States going, and, you know, we can speculate from here on in, is it a Trump-led United States? Is it a Biden-led United States? Is it a Biden-led United States?

Because presumably they'll be different. But when you begin to see these tightening relationships, which the United States has in part driven, but they're there now between Russia, Iran, and North Korea, and the kind of military supply that Russia will be able to get in 2024, will that be enough to break through the political stalemate? Will that be enough to get those MAGA Republicans on board to allow legislation to go through Congress?

Because that's not a world that is friendly to the United States when that is happening, frankly. It was interesting to look at the UK again this week because last week we saw the new defense secretary give his speech about, you know, we're not in a post-war period anymore, we're in a pre-war period. And this week he was kind of joined in that

by one of his generals uh british general doing the we got to get our act together we got to be ready for war yeah it is a very alarmist view that that the you know that in a sense the rich developed world is on a trajectory back to fighting wars. And I say it's alarmist because the kinds of wars that would be fought here dwarf anything that we saw in the last century. It would be catastrophic, frankly.

You know, Britain, and you know Britain well, but Britain is a country looking for a mission right now. It's out of Europe. It's on its own. The glory of Brexit and the trade that it promised is not fulfilled, really, for the Brits. And so from a conservative secretary, from a conservative minister of defense and a military establishment, it's not hard to understand why they would be among the more alarmist, frankly. They're outside of Europe.

They're looking at the United States that is increasingly likely to be in disarray for all of 2024 because that is very bellicose, war- like language. You know, there was an interesting discussion that circulated after Rishi Sunak pulled David Cameron out of the private sector, put him in the House of Lords, and made him the foreign secretary. Foreign minister. Where's he in all this? I keep looking for, know Cameron says blah blah blah but I don't see it

I don't think he would join that course I don't think that's not where he's coming from and he's actually very busy right now talking about development assistance

and in the middle east urging the parties to come together so that's the other side you're not dissimilar pier in a way i think the conservative party right now in the uk has the full spectrum of political views that we have across the liberals and the conservatives in Canada. It's got parties within parties because they've gone through so many leaders, there are factions in that party that are empowered and they're looking out at who the next leader is, especially if they lose in the next election. And I think that's part of what we're hearing.

But I think it's also fair to say this is what's happening in Ukraine for NATO to go all in and encourage Ukraine to stand up against the attack. And then the Ukrainians paid this huge price in men and in their larger society. And then for the supply of NATO equipment to run out, if this is the best that NATO can do, that is not an alliance that is fit for purpose in the world

that we're moving into. Yikes. Okay. You know, let me just say one more thing on this one, Peter, because so many people will say, well, there's no victory for Ukraine in this. What we should be doing is encouraging Ukraine to go

to the table and negotiate. You can make that argument without cutting ukraine off at the knees on military equipment in fact you're more likely to get ukraine to go to the table if you supply that equipment and by what we're doing now this is frankly feckless it's funny because you know as much as the Lenski ever since has started has said, he's not going anywhere to talk to anyone. Um, he looks more like a guy who's ready to go talk to them.

Oh, you know, every leader says that Peter, every leader says that. And sooner or later, everyone talks to everyone. Cause that's the way we end wars. And they end.

Yeah. Okay. We have time for Janice Stein's What Are We Missing segment. Well, I looked over at North Korea

and watched their dear leader come out and make a statement, which he has not made this way before. Korea has given up on the peaceful unification with South Korea. We need to take that objective out of our constitution. We will conquer them. The only way to reunify Korea is through war and through force. I thought to myself, oh boy, now, does that mean he's going to do that tomorrow? But again, it's part of what we've been picking up throughout this whole discussion, that change in conversation, the readiness to talk about using force to achieve objectives.

He tested missiles three or four days after we made that comment. So this is not all just talk. One of them is a salt fuel intercontinental ballistic missile that's advanced that will make the Japanese very uneasy and it will frankly make Washington very uneasy. Iran and North Korea. What is absolutely fair to say is we are seeing a much more warlike Tong right now coming from all three of those leaders who are also working together and supporting each other. Big country. It's not at the table. Has to join this party. China. That's I think the good news story of the year.

Yeah, and China is kind of, they're not happy with what's happening in North Korea. No. They've always been cautious about North Korea anyway, but they're not happy right now because of North Korea making increasing, sounds like it wants to help the Russians out in Ukraine. But you're right about this sort of in the process with South Korea.

I think not only the testing missiles, but then they cut down. There's a big statue there on unification between the two countries. And he lopped it off at the ankles there of whoever the statue was off. None of that looks good. But the China positioning is really interesting about what role they are going to play over this next little while. I mean, not that there isn't a reason to fear China because of Taiwan. But it's... It's actually right now a moderating force among that trio of Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

China is the moderating force. I guess that's something to accomplish something, right, Peter? You know, it's the moderating force while the discussion centers around certain things, but not on other things. That's right. That's right. For sure. For sure.

What a complicated world we live in, right? No. And, you know, one that is kind of on the edge right now in so many different areas, and that's what's most worrying because as we all know the littlest thing can spark yeah and I think what makes this such a tense time

and frankly a tense year is the presidential election in the United States because there's so much uncertainty it's it conceivably can be so close it's surely to say yet but it's And it conceivably can be so close. It's surely to say yet, but it's, what now, nine months away?

And there was, you know, it's close between the candidates and it has so much consequence. It is so consequential for every single issue we talked about. I don't know what you're worried about. Trump has said he can solve all of these things in 24 hours. One day, right? One day. The one day wonder. All right, Janice.

I don't know whether I'm feeling good or feeling more depressed. Next week, I'm going to find a positive story that we're missing. Okay. I'll look forward to that we're missing. Okay. I'll look forward to that. Thanks Janice. We'll talk to you in seven days. Bye now. Well,

there she goes. Dr. Janice Stein, University of Toronto, the monk school. She makes our Mondays. And I know, I know how much all of you appreciate the time we get to spend with Janice.

It's terrific. Okay. How are we doing on time? We have time for a quick end bit. Something totally different. And, you know, some of these end bits are drawn out of my own personal experiences. The headline on this one, it's from NPR, National Public Radio, in the U.S.,

hearing aids may boost longevity, study finds, but only if used regularly. Now, you would assume that if you go to the trouble of getting a hearing aid, you use it. Well, you might assume that, but it's not always the case. And, you know, I Well, you might assume that, but it's not always the case. And, you know, I'm an example of that. I've had a hearing aid now for the last year and a half, two years almost. But I don't use it enough. I need it. I clearly need it. Just ask anybody

I'm with. Ask my wife how many times I say, can you just turn that TV up a little bit? And she's already saying it's too loud. Or you're at a dinner party, or you're at some event where there are a lot of people in the room, or if there's somewhere that there's music playing, sort of crowding the conversation a bit, and it's tough. And so you use a hearing aid, and that helps. You get one, you know, especially designed for your needs, and there's no doubt it helps. But you have to use it.

And I either forget it most of the time, or I go, oh, you know, I'm not really going to need it tonight. You need it. And the thing about this study in NPR is that, look, if you don't use it and you need it, you're leading yourself to other problems. This is a long item. You can find it on the NPR website. But some of the important facts.

Among the roughly 40 million adults in the United States who have hearing loss, most don't use hearing aids. This means they may be missing out on more than just good hearing. Research shows hearing loss of left untreated can increase the risk of frailty, falls, social isolation, depression, and cognitive decline. One study from scientists at John Hopkins University found that even people with mild hearing loss doubled their risk of dementia.

That should be enough to convince people, including myself. If you've got it, use it. Use it or lose it. One of the study researchers for this, John Hopkins' study, says it's stunning how few people with hearing loss wear hearing aids regularly. Just 12% according to her study. And listen, the list of after effects carries on. Let's put it this way.

If you need a hearing aid, get one. If you have a hearing aid, use it. And as I said, I've got to learn that myself. The study researchers say here's the best way to do it. If you get a hearing aid, use it every day for 30 consecutive days to get used to them. Don't use a little bit here, a little bit there, because that is only going to lead to less here and not enough there.

So wear it 30 days consecutively. You'll get used to it and you'll realize the benefits from it. There's a lot more in this article, and if you're so inclined, you can go to NPR to find it. That's npr.org, and then go to Health News and then look up the hearing aid study. All right, going to wrap it up for today. Remember, question of the day is,

if you could tell a new immigrant to Canada one thing about Canada, what would that be? So the immigrant arrives, and the first person they meet is you, and you say, hey, it's great. Welcome to Canada. Here's something you should know. Bang. What is it?

All right? So that's what we're looking for. Remember, keep it short. Remember to include your name and your location you're writing from. And you've got until 6 p.m. Wednesday to get your answer in. The potential is a signed book from one of the books I've been involved in. The place to write, themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com. themansbridgepodcast at gmail.com.

Very special program tomorrow. We've talked and Janice has talked about the one area we're missing is Sudan and South Sudan in particular. Sam Nutt has just been back there again, the head of War Child Canada. She just got back a couple of days ago. She's going to spend the hour with us tomorrow. And she's going to walk us through this. And as I will tell you tomorrow, have a map in front of you

because there are too many people who have no idea about where some of these places are that we talk about. So you just need a basic map of Africa, or northeast Africa at least. And we'll walk through how you get there, what happens when you do get there, what you see on the ground, and what we should know about what's happening on the ground. All right, that's tomorrow.

Dr. Sam Nutt, War Child Canada. Great guest. Look forward to seeing her again tomorrow. All right, I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening today. Have a great evening. And we'll talk to you again in 24 hours. How does that sound?