As noted in Ira Stoll's FAFSA WSJ article , the law about FAFSA "now says that “in order to be eligible for Federal financial aid,” the applicant “shall provide” information about “Race or ethnicity.”"
Note the wording "shall". As detailed at https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/conversational/shall-and-must/ using the term "shall" instead of "must" merely suggests an action, but does not impose a requirement. This is why there the “prefer not to answer” option that the Stolls chose.
Ira Stoll is correct that the FAFSA form should not collect information about race or ethnicity, but until the law is changed a question about this must be on the form, though no answer can be required. In the meantime, people should choose the option "prefer not to answer". When there is an option to write in an answer, I've chosen "nonracist".
Note the difference between Trump's formulation of releasing the hostages and Avivi's formulation of a hostage "deal". Trump puts the responsibility on Hamas to act unilaterally, while Avivi hints at Israel making some concessions without specifying what those concessions will be.
Will Israel have to release thousands of security prisoners? Will Israel have to re-open the Philadelphi corridor and its Rafah crossing to renewed arms smuggling from Egypt? Will the security arrangement be such that Hamas can return to power?
The details matter. We need to ask those who refer to a "hostage deal" without specifying the quid pro quo what they mean. Are they being capitulationists and sweeping under the rug concessions that will endanger Israel for many decades into the future?
Avivi is pretty solid. If you look at his direct quotes they are mainly about release/home. “Deal” was my word in the headline for concision. My understanding is that Israel knows where many of these hostages are but can’t figure out how to rescue them without risking them getting killed a la Hersh. So some sort of “deal” seems necessary to achieve the war aim of their return. Your point about the terms of the deal being important is a good one and I agree with it. If the offer is safe passage of the remaining Hamasniks out of Gaza with the $5 million reward that’s been offered it seems like a reasonable trade especially if Israel retains the option of killing the captors later if needed.
As noted in Ira Stoll's FAFSA WSJ article , the law about FAFSA "now says that “in order to be eligible for Federal financial aid,” the applicant “shall provide” information about “Race or ethnicity.”"
Note the wording "shall". As detailed at https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/conversational/shall-and-must/ using the term "shall" instead of "must" merely suggests an action, but does not impose a requirement. This is why there the “prefer not to answer” option that the Stolls chose.
Ira Stoll is correct that the FAFSA form should not collect information about race or ethnicity, but until the law is changed a question about this must be on the form, though no answer can be required. In the meantime, people should choose the option "prefer not to answer". When there is an option to write in an answer, I've chosen "nonracist".
Note the difference between Trump's formulation of releasing the hostages and Avivi's formulation of a hostage "deal". Trump puts the responsibility on Hamas to act unilaterally, while Avivi hints at Israel making some concessions without specifying what those concessions will be.
Will Israel have to release thousands of security prisoners? Will Israel have to re-open the Philadelphi corridor and its Rafah crossing to renewed arms smuggling from Egypt? Will the security arrangement be such that Hamas can return to power?
The details matter. We need to ask those who refer to a "hostage deal" without specifying the quid pro quo what they mean. Are they being capitulationists and sweeping under the rug concessions that will endanger Israel for many decades into the future?
Avivi is pretty solid. If you look at his direct quotes they are mainly about release/home. “Deal” was my word in the headline for concision. My understanding is that Israel knows where many of these hostages are but can’t figure out how to rescue them without risking them getting killed a la Hersh. So some sort of “deal” seems necessary to achieve the war aim of their return. Your point about the terms of the deal being important is a good one and I agree with it. If the offer is safe passage of the remaining Hamasniks out of Gaza with the $5 million reward that’s been offered it seems like a reasonable trade especially if Israel retains the option of killing the captors later if needed.