The Bridge with Peter Mansbridge - Who Is Benny Gantz and Why Is Benjamin Netanyahu So Upset At Him?

Episode Date: March 4, 2024

For the first time since Oct 7, a split is open and obvious in the Israeli war cabinet of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Benny Gantz is heading to meetings in Washington against his prime minister's wishes raising questions about Israeli government solidarity and what it means to the situation on the ground in Gaza. All this while a new temporary truce seems imminent. Janice Stein gives us her take on the situation.

And hello there, Peter Mansbridge here. You are just moments away from the latest episode of The Bridge. Who is the Israeli War Cabinet Minister who has Benjamin Netanyahu so upset? And what could that mean? That's coming right up. And hello there, welcome to Monday. It's our regular Monday episode with Dr. Janice Stein from the Munk School of the University of Toronto. And we'll get to the latest twist in the Israel-Hamas story. That's in a couple of moments. But first, a quick update on a couple of things.

Tomorrow, more butts conversation. It's been a month or so since we've had one, and this will be a good one. And it comes on the heels of the death of Prime Minister Mulroney. And listening to both former senior party officials, one in the Liberal Party, one in the Conservative Party, about what Mulroney did to Canadian politics. The impact that he's had that still lasts today. Some say the era's very different, and there are differences in the eras, but there are also some similarities, and we'll get to those tomorrow

on the latest More Butts conversation. Speaking of the death of the Prime Minister, it's got a lot of people thinking in terms of Prime Ministers, past and present, how we feel about them, who's made a mark on your life, on our lives, and who hasn't. So we're going to use that as the question for this week. If you could name one prime minister, just one, who do you think has had the biggest impact on Canada and why?

So the same ground rules apply. Make sure you include your name and the location you're writing from. Keep your answer tight, right? One paragraph, one paragraph. When I get a letter that's like I can tell four, five, six paragraphs long, that's in trouble. The odds on it making it are not good. We're trying to get as many feelings and opinions in as possible.

Also, because of this question, remember we've had almost a couple of dozen prime ministers in the history of the country, not just one or two. There's lots to choose from. So give your answer some time to formulate. Do perhaps a little research. What is it you're looking for in a prime minister and who has met that? It might have been in your lifetime. It might have been before your lifetime. But have a look and send it in with your reason. This wasn't the planned question for today, but then things have changed in the last couple of days.

And I think this is a good one to have to make you think. Right? So do a little research. Come up with your answer. Who's the Canadian prime minister who you think's had the greatest effect on the country? And who you respect most. So one prime minister out of all the ones we've had. And why?

That's your question for this week. Deadline, 6 p.m. Eastern Time, Wednesday. We'll read all the letters on Thursday, or we'll read a selection of the letters on Thursday, and out of that group we will pick a winner. A winner is a, yeah, it's kind of a strange term to use, but it's the letter that I, you know, enjoyed most or felt really hit the mark. And that letter will get a signed copy of one of my books. I do the best I can when you suggest which of the books you'd like.

I only have a certain amount on hand, but I will try to do that for you. All right, let's move on to our regular weekly conversation with Dr. Janice Stein. Munk School, University of Toronto, Foreign Affairs Analyst, Middle East Analyst, Conflict Management Analyst. Janice lives in Toronto but is often away, and she's been away the last few days in California attending a conference on AI, on artificial intelligence. But she's plugged in on the big story that continues to dominate many of the world headlines.

And there's a really interesting story developing in Israel. In some ways, we've been waiting for it for months. Was there going to be some serious political opposition to Benjamin Netanyahu? It seems that is developing now, and that is the focal point of the first part of our discussion this week with Dr. Stein. So let's get right to it. Here's Janice. Janice, I want to start on the Benny Gantz story, which is quite remarkable, really, when you consider this guy, you know, is a major member of that very small Israeli war cabinet,

not a member of Benjamin Netanyahu's party, but agreed to serve in the war cabinet. Now he's clearly showing the differences. He's on a mission to Washington on his own against the prime minister's wishes. What is that telling us? So this is a big break, Peter, in the unity of that small war cabinet, five people. And who's Benny Gantz? Just to set the scene, Benny Gantz is a former chief of the defense staff. And not the first one, when he finishes his term, to go into politics, which he has done. But this is what is really remarkable here, Peter.

Not his first rodeo with Benjamin Netanyahu. They have been in a government before because it was a period of at least two and a half years, five elections, deadlock in the country. Joined Netanyahu, one of his, government in order to break that deadlock. And they made the following deal. Two years first for Netanyahu, and then Benny Gantz would rotate into the office. Netanyahu betrayed him, broke his word, and dissolved that government. So extraordinary, really. And I think under any other circumstances other than the Hamas attack on October 7th, it would have been almost impossible

for Benny Gantz to do it again. He did because of the attack. But there is a history here of distrust between these two leaders. This break is long anticipated and frankly, long overdue. This is a signal, a very, very important signal, first of all, to Washington. I am going to break with this government. It is a signal to Netanyahu

that this government, that he will no longer stay given the absolute lack of willingness of Netanyahu to engage on anything remotely like a political solution. And of course, it's a signal at home. How can he take this risk, you might ask? Overwhelmingly in the polls. You and I both know polls matter.

I mean, consistently, if an election were to happen today, if five members of Netanyahu's government were to cross the floor, Gantz would have one of the largest pluralities of seats in recent Israeli history. So he has

the support of the country. One last thing that might be worth mentioning. This is no flaming radical. He is all about national security. He's cautious, or he never would have been in both these governments this long. He's careful. He believes that Hamas must be defeated militarily. And he is worried about what a two-state solution would look like. But he's reasonable. He's not conflicted in the way that Netanyahu is. What do you think really pushed him over the edge,

if what we're witnessing is having been pushed over the edge? I mean, it does appear, although we've been down this road before, it does appear that we're close to at least a truce of some kind. And yet, in this moment, he defies his prime minister. I think it's really interesting what pushed him over the edge. I think what, and who knows, right? Who knows? Never in anyone else's head. But clearly, the death

of those 100 Palestinians in that when the food trucks were swarmed and the IDF opened fire. Now, why beyond the horrific number of people that were killed? Peter, there's actually an interesting story there that has not gotten the attention I think that were killed. Peter, there's actually an interesting story there that has not gotten the attention I think that it deserves. How did this food convoy get started? The RDF reached out to five local gas and businessmen that they had contact with on the ground. And they did that because the distribution of aid in Gaza is virtually impossible.

Now, trucks were crossing the border, but they were not getting distributed. The food is not getting distributed. And the trickle of aid has slowed to one of the worst since the war started. And the gas and businessmen cooperated. It's their trucks. They organized the convoys. But the arrangement was the IDF would guarantee the security of those trucks. They crossed and they were swarmed, as we saw, in a minute. And that's how the firing started, because the RDF could not guarantee the security.

For Benny Gantz, that would be the thing that would push him over the edge. Not the international outrage. not any of that. It would be a recognition that the RDF is not able to provide security on the ground in northern Gaza because there is no plan and there's no organized collaboration with aid agencies. He would frame it as a security issue. You know, what happened to that food convoy is just, you know, it's terrible. It's hard to believe that those two things could have happened together.

You know, the shootings and the deaths at the time of, you know, trying to put in relief. Now, relief continues to go in a different method now with airdrops by the Americans. Canadians say they are going to, about to do some similar situations. But clearly, at least initially anyway, it appears, although watching some of the footage this morning, you know, they're not exactly swarming these parachute drops, but people are racing together. They're desperate. I mean, they're starving.

That's right. So we'll have to continue to watch that closely. Peter, just one quick comment there. You know, eardrops provide a tiny proportion of what a truck does, right? If you have to supply a desperate population that's starving, it's virtually impossible to do it from the air, frankly. So that is not a solution. So what does this tell you? That there's no on-the-ground security at all.

Hamas is not operating largely in the north to provide security, and the IDF is unable right now, because of the desperation of people, to provide security on the ground. Let me just get back to Benny Gantz for a moment. This clearly would seem to put the Americans in a tricky position on how they handle this visit. I mean, I'm not sure yet, but it appears that he won't be meeting with Biden, but he'll be meeting with Kamala Harris and others,

including Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor. But is this a – do the Americans have to be careful on how they deal with this? I think the frustration with Netanyahu is boiling in Washington. It's finally – the president has finally reached his limits. He, from all the informal chatter, it is, it is, I'm done. I've had enough. We have to find a way here to help the Palestinians on the ground. And I don't think they're going to be too concerned about Netanyahu's sensibilities. I think, Peter, they want this government to break up. And if they can push that along, they will cooperate and do so.

I don't think they're going to be very careful here. Tell me what you think would happen if the government did break up. So this is where, if it could get more complicated, it is. And to come back to Benny Gantz, he is not a very practiced politician. He's a straight shooter. Netanyahu is the ultimate survivor in politics because he knows how to make deals and keep himself in office. These two men are at opposite ends of the spectrum. So the challenge really becomes if the war cabinet breaks up, which is the first step here, what happens in Netanyahu's own party? Has Benny Gantz reached out to those three or four critical members of the Likud in Netanyahu's party and said, cross the floor, join with me? every cabinet position that you want which is what would have to happen here in order to follow a breakup of the war cabinet with the knesset dissolving itself because ultimately

if the war cabinet breaks up but the government doesn't we're in um a more dangerous period. This is when Netanyahu was cornered. Doesn't have in the cabinet making these critical decisions now to experience guise. There will be a hiatus. Who knows how long? So if Benny Gantz hasn't done his political homework in Israel, we're in for a very difficult period here. Like we're not in one now.

But worse. Worse. Yeah. Worse. Because those were the two moderating voices. Benny Gantz, Gaddy Eisenkamp have been the two moderating voices. Benny Gantz, Gadi Aizenkot have been the two moderating voices since that cabinet, war cabinet was stood up. And it was Aizenkot who stopped a preemptive attack on Lebanon, along with the United States a few days after the war.

So they have had tremendous influence because Netanyahu is so afraid of the political signal that it would send it home if they walk. So I would imagine Netanyahu is working the phones fiercely now to prevent any defection from his own party, which is what has to happen if this government is to come down. Should we assume that because Netanyahu is sending out the signals that he

can live with this latest I hesitate to use the word ceasefire, but everybody seems to be using it. This latest ceasefire proposal. Is Netanyahu seemingly lining up support from his side for this proposal because he sees himself in threat right now? You know, he had started before Peter.

He had signaled. Even before Benny Gantz has done what he's aware, is moving to recognize some form of independent Palestinian state. And what he has to do is get those hostages back because if he doesn't do that, his popularity will sink even lower. This deal allows him to do it. And he can still say, I haven't recognized an independent Palestinian state. The Americans have done it. I fought against it. I can't control it. Trust me, vote for me. I'm the only thing that stands between you and an independent Palestinian state. He's getting ready for the electoral campaign against Benny Gantz.

It seems to me that the celebrations, if this deal does come off, will be relatively short-lived. I mean, let's face it, there are still going to be hostages. And they're consigned to yet at least another six weeks as hostages. If not longer. As I was going to say, yeah, if not longer. So that issue is hardly off the table. It is not, but again, six weeks is a long time for a ceasefire.

It's a long time for a ceasefire. It's a long time for a ceasefire. The betting in Washington and Jake Sullivan is the key here. He has wanted to move against Netanyahu, frankly, to make clear the deep displeasure and to make it public for a long time. He's got the president's backing now to do it. I think the United States will go all out to extend that ceasefire. This is a there was a level of cooperation now between the United States, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and they will push Hamas very hard. And Peter, the interesting calculation will be,

how desperate is Hamas? What's their incentive to extend that ceasefire? That horrific story of the Palestinians swarming those trucks tells you two important things. It tells you that the RDF is not able to enforce security on the ground in the north. But it also tells you that Hamas is not operating, that there are no, there are not even effective Hamas police, much less military, that are operating on the ground. So how desperate is Yair Sinwar now? And how much does he want to cease fire extended in the hope that he can reorganize and reestablish command and control with his people? You know, I'll only say this about the storming of the food convoy.

When you've got thousands of starving people, you can't control that. No. I mean, Hamas wasn't the one firing on them. No. But that's the point, right? And I think that's what pushed Benny Gantz to cross that line. It was the clearest message that the IDF could not secure those two convoys coming into gas. That's really what that story tells you.

And that nobody can right now. So if a ceasefire comes, it's entirely possible that Hamas would want it extended because it hopes to reorganize, and that Ghan's Netanyahu would want it extended because if they don't alleviate the desperate situation of Palestinians, this will happen again. This will happen again. It is not a one-off. You know, we've got to take our break here in a second. But one last question before we do that.

The fear all along, and we've discussed it more than a few times, is the threat of a wider war there. And clearly, in the last month, it has become a wider war. But there seems, and maybe I'm missing something here, it seems to me there's a pause in the wider war right now. Is it due to all these other events that are happening and the move towards the ceasefire, even the Benny Gantz trip, all of that? Yes. I think you're absolutely right, Peter.

There is a pause. If you notice, there's still incidents every day, but they're controlled. The number has not gone up. And every, the Houthis, Hispala, have all said that if there is a ceasefire, they will cease firing as well. And that did happen when we had that 10 six-week ceasefire, everybody stands down and the diplomats go to work overtime with a chastened IDF and a mask that recognizes that it's lost effective control as well, over half of Gaza. When do we get ceasefires, Peter? This is what we know over and over again. We could have this discussion about Russia, Ukraine as well. We get ceasefires when people realize that on the ground, they don't have an effective military

option. And that's when the door opens for a ceasefire. And you need people to push through that open door with a huge sense of urgency. Okay, let's take our break and come back. We'll do a couple of things. But let's start with our break. We'll be back right after this. And welcome back. You're listening to the Monday episode of The Bridge. Janice Stein is our guest. Janice is actually in California as we do this at yet another one of the conferences she pops out at. She's a global person, our Janice Stein. at yet another one of the conferences she pops up at.

She's a global person, our Janice Stein. That conference actually is about AI, right? It is. The current one you're at? It is. What are the headlines coming out of that? Well, it has pulled together, the who's who of AI, to talk about what are the prospects of a superhuman intelligence that will be smarter than you and me? That shouldn't be too hard. That should be pretty quick.

That's what I said to them. That's not that high a bar for me. What will happen to our economy? What will happen to work? And it's a mixture, which is what's made it interesting, not only of Joshua Ben-Jol and people like him who have been the creators of AI and are still at the forefront of research, but of economists and a few others sprinkled in to have a look at this.

And I think there are really two or three headlines. One, we have to rethink the meaning of work. Because if these predictions come true within a short time horizon, that's what's changed. What we pay people to do will change because we'll all have digital personal assistants that are doing everything for us. How we pay them will change because so many jobs will disappear, but new ones will be created. But the bigger point that's come out again and again and again, the meaning of people's

lives will change because work won't be as important in defining who they are. And we're not ready for that. We haven't even begun to do that work. The second really important conversation, and it broke out into a explosive debate last night, which you don't really see. They were going at each other in a very civilized way, but boy, the passions were high. And this is around this discussion of the existential risk,

the catastrophic risk. And what is that in simple English? That these AIs will be so smart that at some point they will figure out that human beings are in their way and that they will have the tools to set in motion processes that could eliminate humans as a species, just like dinosaurs were. And this is what, you know, set the plates flying yesterday. And what do you do about that? And the arguments are fierce. So do we pause research now?

I don't think that's a very credible option. We've never been able to stop research once the genie's out of the bottle. Do we invest massively in the science of safety? How do we make these AIs safer? How do we stop them from inventing a bioweapon?

If they could solve mathematically how you pull proteins, well, why can't they solve the mathematical problem of bioweapons and then some rogue rogue actor makes fun without our looking and without our knowing because we don't fully understand. And thirdly, what's the agenda to regulate? Because this is where the political scientists get a voice, right? We need regulation.

But it's a global problem, as you said. If you regulate in the United States, but you don't have collaboration with China, and you incentivize companies to go where the regulation is thinnest? Is there a shared understanding like there was, for example, 70 years ago when nuclear weapons just first really drew people's attention? Is there a shared understanding that if you don't get the biggest powers together and put in place some guardrails, and the most pessimistic, and Joshua and Electra are both in the same place,

if we don't get this done, we are putting the species at risk. Yeah, it must be a fascinating conference. And for somebody like you who's been to a lot of conferences over the years, it must feel kind of strange sitting in that room listening to these discussions and debates, wondering whether you ever thought you'd ever be in a position to be listening to these kind of discussions you know in your in your your lifetime i mean it's quite something my own view on this is i understand that they've got to come to grips with a lot of different issues on the table but in the meantime why don't they just solve cancer or something like that you know if this is the greatest thing ever in humankind, to be able to understand things and develop solutions to things, why don't they start with that one?

Well, that's, you know, there was a lot of discussion about that, right? And frankly, they're closer to creating those tools to do that kind of thing. 10 years probably is the horizon for that, which is short in the history. And again, cancer is a wicked problem because it's so many different problems. But there's also, as always, Peter, there are techno-optimists who tell, you know, there is a chunk of this room that says we're 10 years away from these kinds of breakthroughs. And then there's a whole bunch of people that say, hold on here. This is much more complicated than you're making it out to be. This is much harder.

We are way over-optimistic about the pace that we're going at. So there's that. There's a dispute about pace. The social scientists in the room are saying we need to wrap our heads right now around guaranteed annual incomes for people who lose their jobs. This is not a blue collar problem only. This is a white collar problem. And a way to judge the pace, I think, is to look at these chats, chatbots that are coming out that can now

create, if you saw it, which was just released last week, I don't know if you've played with it yet, but you can. And you put a piece of text up, you upload it, and you get a video. Well, you know what that means. I mean, just imagine that, right? And just imagine if you put a piece of text up and you said, make a video of Janice Stein saying that under no circumstances should there be an independent palestinian state and you could get that video in two minutes flat and release it yeah that's the dystopian and we and there's the capability to do that right now.

So how do you watermark? How do you authenticate? So I would tell you that the majority of the people in the room are with you. Solve problems that we already have where they are. Solve those. Make sure that we can distinguish a deep faith from something that's real. Push on the medical fronts. Do something about election

interference. Focus on the problems that are already. You know, Peter, this is the year of elections. 2024. You and I have chatted also about the democratic regression

we're seeing. There are fewer democracies in the world this year, and this is a trend now. It's not one year and it's not one quarter. AI has played a big part in that, and social media.

I think those stories are connected. So focus all your efforts on solving the problems that we've already created. Use the tools to solve problems that are very real and very important. And the fastest advances are going to come in health care. And let's put these apocalyptic AI scenarios. Let's let people work on them on a separate track, and it's got to be an international track. But let's solve the problems that we already have, that we create without looking and without paying attention.

Okay, here's our last subject for this week. You've been away while the country has been reflecting, and I'm sure you have as well, even though you're away, on the passing of Brian Mulroney. And I wanted to get your thoughts, and we'll kind of restrict it to the area that you are most concerned about, which is foreign policy and foreign affairs and the impact of Canada on the world stage, all of that. When you, and I know you worked with him at different times, as you have had with a number of Canadian prime ministers,

but your assessment on, on assessment, not really, but your reflections on Brian Mulroney in the area that most concerns you. You know, I learned of his death with real sadness, Peter. This, I think, he was Canada's greatest prime minister in foreign policy since Lester Pearson. And that's no small thing to say. He reshaped North America by what he did

on free trade. There's no question. He changed Canada in ways, in so many ways. We are so enmeshed now. Our economies are so enmeshed with the United States. But he built the foundation for a new integrated North America

between Canada and the United States. That's the first. Mexico did not figure large in Mulroney's thinking, but he did that. I think most people know the role he played on South Africa. and he stood up. He stood up in a way that on a big issue of his time and Canada was known and was respected. It was a player in the Commonwealth. And when governments gathered and Brian Mulroney was prime minister, nobody asked, where is Canada?

That's not true any longer, frankly. It's not true any longer, frankly. It's not true. We do not have the same kind of international influence that we had under Mabuni. You know the economic numbers better than I. You know that we are no longer, frankly, among the eight most powerful economies in the world. That's who should be in the G7. We're not actually entitled to be there anymore by our economic performance. So you look back and you say, this was the great era for Canadian foreign policy based on understanding of how important economic performance was, what doors that opens globally, and that if you're not hunting above your weight um those doors don't stay open

well he certainly knew how to do that no doubt about it um yeah you know it was pierre trudeau who was the the leader when we got into the G7. I think it was a G6 at that point. Then it became a G7 with Canada's addition. And there was a G8 for a time. It wasn't Russia sort of in there. But it was really Gerald Ford who was the one who got Canada in, right? That's right.

But then Mulroney, you're quite right. Mulroney took full advantage of that positioning, and he used that clout not only in that conference, but in the Commonwealth, as you say, and going head-to-head with Margaret Thatcher, who was his great friend and mentor to some degree. But on South Africa, he clearly made a difference. There's no doubt.

And, you know, Peter, if I could just reflect for a moment, he left office and there were clearly issues with, you know, behavior that I think he was not proud of, frankly. But when Donald Trump was elected, by the way, Mulroney was the one who told everybody, pay attention to that, Justin. I've seen him operate. Because there was nobody better with a Rolodex than Brian Mulroney. He had the biggest one, and he loved people, and he was on the phone with everybody all the time. And he said, I've seen Justin, pay attention. And so he had

a remarkably good relationship with Justin Trudeau. Think about that in an age of polarization. And when Donald Trump was elected, one of the first people that Justin Trudeau called was Brian Mulroney. And he swung into action again. He was the one who told Jerry Butts and Justin Trudeau, pay attention to Robert Lighthizer. He's the one who's going to have the file. And he worked nonstop to get the NAFTA renewal during that extraordinarily demanding year for us when everything was at stake. Brian Mulroney was at the center working the room from behind for that whole year. You know, he stopped being prime minister in 1993, but in some ways, he never stopped being the prime minister. He never stopped. And you know, he never stopped caring about this

country. No, that's true. Absolutely. Okay, on that note, we're going to call it a day. Enjoy your time in California. It is raining and cold and windy. Sure you are. Just to tell all our listeners, this was a hardship. Take care, Janice. We'll talk to you in seven days.

Next week. Dr. Janice Stein, University of Toronto in California right now at a conference on AI. But as we do every Monday, certainly enjoy and learn from our conversations with Janice Stein. You know, there's a couple of things. You know, whenever I hear the word, and janice used it a couple of moments ago rolodex i think man there's a a term from another age and yet a term that everybody still knows what it means even those young people who are using their uh their smartphones and everything else to catalog all their material. But Rolodex, that term, we all know what it means, and there's no doubt.

He had a great one, filled with names of influential people and not-so-influential people from around the world, but they were influential to him. And he used the knowledge and the conversations gained in those relationships to better all of us in terms of the way he gave advice. Which leads us to the other reminder of the question of the week this week. You know, there's been so many conversations about Mulroney and his impact, but there were a couple dozen, almost a couple dozen other prime ministers

in our history, and they all had impact as well. So the question of the week is, who of all the prime ministers of Canada, as far as you're concerned, had the greatest impact? Was the best prime minister in terms of Canada? I know those are two kind of different questions, but let's focus it on who was best as opposed to who was worst. Who was the best prime minister of Canada? I know those are two kind of different questions, but let's focus it on who was best as

opposed to who was worst. Who was the best Prime Minister of Canada in our history? Spend some time thinking about that one, because there were far more Prime Ministers in the life of this country than in your life. So think about it. Maybe check up on a few things. Give us your number one pick and the reason why. Keep your answer to about a paragraph, no more please. And that doesn't mean, okay, I'll just do a really long paragraph. Just be reasonable. Because what we try to do and we've successfully done so far is read most of if not all of the selection of letters and we're getting we're getting lots of letters in every show and we were able to do that because you're following the rules name location you're writing from deadline 6 p p.m. Eastern Time, Wednesday.

Okay, so you've got three days to come up with your answer. The letter that I choose by the end of the program will receive a signed copy of one of my books. Mail directly to your home. You don't need to fill out your initial letter with your address, just your name and location. If you're a winner, I'll get in contact with you to find out where you'd like the book mailed to. Okay, that's going to wrap it up with a reminder that tomorrow, another great edition of the Moore-Butts Conversations. And this one, too, is kind of a fallout from the passing of Brian Mulroney. And it's more focused on how did he change Canadian politics,

and are those changes still in existence today? So we'll talk about that with two great political minds, James Moore, the former Conservative Cabinet Minister in the era of Stephen Harper, and Gerry Butts, the former Principal Aide, Principal Secretary to Justin Trudeau in his initial term in office, and a former top aide to provincial premiers in Ontario. So if you feel so inclined, we have great conversations with Morin Butts, and the whole idea is to check the partisan nature of their usual comments at the door for this conversation.

And they've been very successful in doing that. So that's tomorrow right here on the bridge. Looking forward to it. I'm Peter Mansbridge. Thanks so much for listening on this day. Talk to you again in 24 hours.