Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced Australia will recognise Palestine as a state at the United Nations leaders’ week in late September.

Unlike some other countries, the government has put no conditions on the recognition, relying on assurances received from the Palestinian Authority, the current Palestinian governing body in the West Bank.

Announcing the decision on Monday, Albanese said he had spoken to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last Thursday. In what Albanese said was a long call, Netanyahu argued the case against the proposed Australian action.

“I put the argument to him that we need a political solution, not a military one, because a military response alone has seen the devastation in Gaza, and that has contributed to the massive concern that we see from the international community,” Albanese said.

Albanese told a joint news conference with Foreign Minister Penny Wong “a two-state solution is humanity’s best hope to break the cycle of violence in the Middle East and to bring an end to the conflict, suffering and starvation in Gaza”.

Asked whether this was a symbolic gesture, Albanese said, “This is a practical contribution towards building momentum. This is not Australia acting alone. What we are seeing is a range of countries engaging in detailed dialogue.”

Albanese said that over the past fortnight, he had discussed the issue with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Luxon and Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba.

He also had a call last week with the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Albanese said the Palestinian Authority had committed to there being no role for Hamas in a Palestinian state and reaffirmed it recognised Israel’s right to exist, as well as making other pledges.

Shadow Defence Minister Angus Taylor said there is a risk the decision would be rewarding Hamas for its attacks on Israel on October 7 2023.

When asked earlier about such criticism, Albanese said “Hamas don’t support two states”.

“This is an opportunity to isolate Hamas, that has been forged by the very clear statements of the Palestinian Authority on June 10, and the very clear statements of the Arab League,” he said.

Before the announcement, Netanyahu strongly condemned the move.

He said it was “shameful” and “disappointing” that European countries and Australia would “march into that rabbit hole” and buy “this canard”. He made it clear Israel would not be deterred.

Asked about Australia and other countries moving to recognition, he said, “Well, first of all, those who say that Israel has a right to defend itself are also saying, ‘but don’t exercise that right’.”

He said Israel was applying force judiciously and “they know it”.

“They know what they would do if right next to Melbourne or right next to Sydney you had this horrific attack. I think you would do, at least what we’re doing – probably maybe not as efficiently and as precisely as we’re doing it.”

The Albanese government’s decision, which was reported to a cabinet meeting early Monday, followed years of pressure within the Labor party which has ramped up dramatically in recent months.

Wong spoke at the weekend to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio about Australia’s proposed course.

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry said in a statement about the announcement: “Israel will feel wronged and abandoned by a longstanding ally. The Palestinian Authority will feel that a huge diplomatic prize has been dropped in its lap, despite its consistent failures to reform, democratise and agree to peaceful coexistence alongside a Jewish state. Hamas and other Islamist groups will see that barbarity on a grand scale can lead to desired political transformation”.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Australia to recognise Palestine state next month at the United Nations – https://theconversation.com/australia-to-recognise-palestine-state-next-month-at-the-united-nations-262602

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Martin Kear, Sessional Lecturer, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

Australia will recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly meeting in September, joining the United Kingdom, Canada and France in taking the historic step.

Recognising a Palestinian state is at one level symbolic – it signals a growing global consensus behind the rights of Palestinians to have their own state. In the short term, it won’t impact the situation on the ground in Gaza.

Practically speaking, the formation of a future Palestinian state consisting of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem is far more difficult to achieve.

The Israeli government has ruled out a two-state solution and reacted with fury to the moves by the four G20 members to recognise Palestine. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the decision “shameful”.

So, what are the political issues that need to be resolved before a Palestinian state becomes a reality? And what is the point of recognition if it doesn’t overcome these seemingly intractable obstacles?

Settlements have exploded

The first problem is what to do about Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which the International Court of Justice has declared are illegal.

Since 1967, Israel has constructed these settlements with two goals in mind: prevent any future division of Jerusalem, and expropriate sufficient territory to make a Palestinian state impossible. There are now more than 500,000 settlers in the West Bank and 233,000 in East Jerusalem.

Palestinians see East Jerusalem as an indispensable part of any future state. They will never countenance a state without it as their capital.

In May, the Israeli government announced it would also build 22 new settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem – the largest settler expansion in decades. Defence Minister Israel Katz described this as a “strategic move that prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger Israel”.

The Israeli government has also moved closer to fully annexing the West Bank in recent months.

Geographical complexities of a future state

Second is the issue of a future border between a Palestinian state and Israel.

The demarcations of the Gaza Strip, West Bank and East Jerusalem are not internationally recognised borders. Rather, they are the ceasefire lines, known as the “Green Line”, from the 1948 War that saw the creation of Israel.

However, in the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel captured and occupied the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula (since returned), and Syria’s Golan Heights. And successive Israeli governments have used the construction of settlements in the occupied territories, alongside expansive infrastructure, to create new “facts on the ground”.

Israel solidifies its hold on this territory by designating it as “state land”, meaning it no longer recognises Palestinian ownership, further inhibiting the possibility of a future Palestinian state.

For example, according to research by Israeli professor Neve Gordon, Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries covered approximately seven square kilometres before 1967. Since then, Israeli settlement construction has expanded its eastern boundaries, so it now now covers about 70 square km.

Israel also uses its Separation Wall or Barrier, which runs for around 700km through the West Bank and East Jerusalem, to further expropriate Palestinian territory.

According to a 2013 book by researchers Ariella Azoulay and Adi Ophir, the wall is part of the Israeli government’s policy of cleansing Israeli space of any Palestinian presence. It breaks up contiguous Palestinian urban and rural spaces, cutting off some 150 Palestinian communities from their farmland and pastureland.

The barrier is reinforced by other methods of separation, such as checkpoints, earth mounds, roadblocks, trenches, road gates and barriers, and earth walls.

---

Read more:
Explainer: what is the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

---

Then there is the complex geography of Israel’s occupation in the West Bank.

Under the Oslo Accords of the 1990s, the West Bank was divided into three areas, labelled Area A, Area B and Area C.

In Area A, which consists of 18% of the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority exercises majority control. Area B is under joint Israeli-Palestinian authority. Area C, which comprises 60% of the West Bank, is under full Israeli control.

Administrative control was meant to be gradually transferred to Palestinian control under the Oslo Accords, but this never happened.

Areas A and B are today separated into many small divisions that remain isolated from one another due to Israeli control over Area C. This deliberate ghettoisation creates separate rules, laws and norms in the West Bank that are intended to prevent freedom of movement between the Palestinian zones and inhibit the realisation of a Palestinian state.

Who will govern a future state?

Finally, there are the conditions that Western governments have placed on recognition of a Palestinian state, which rob Palestinians of their agency.

Chief among these is the stipulation that Hamas will not play a role in the governance of a future Palestinian state. This has been backed by the Arab League, which has also called for Hamas to disarm and relinquish power in Gaza.

Fatah and Hamas are currently the only two movements in Palestinian politics capable of forming a government. In a May poll, 32% of respondents in both Gaza and the West Bank said they preferred Hamas, compared with 21% support for Fatah. One-third did not support either or had no opinion.

Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Palestinian Authority, is deeply unpopular, with 80% of Palestinians wanting him to resign.

---

Read more:
The politics of recognition: Australia and the question of Palestinian statehood

---

A “reformed” Palestinian Authority is the West’s preferred option to govern a future Palestinian state. But if Western powers deny Palestinians the opportunity to elect a government of their choosing by dictating who can participate, the new government would likely be seen as illegitimate.

This risks repeating the mistakes of Western attempts to install governments of their choosing in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also plays into the hands of Hamas hardliners, who mistrust democracy and see it as a tool to impose puppet governments in Palestine, as well as Israel’s narrative that Palestinians are incapable of governing themselves.

Redressing these issues and the myriad others will take time, money and considerable effort. The question is, how much political capital are the leaders of France, the UK, Canada and Australia (and others) willing to expend to ensure their recognition of Palestine results in an actual state?

What if Israel refuses to dismantle its settlements and Separation Wall, and moves ahead with annexing the West Bank? What are these Western leaders willing or able to do? In the past, they have been unwilling to do more than issue strongly worded statements in the face of Israeli refusals to advance the two-state solution.

Given these doubts around the political will and actual power of Western states to compel Israel to agree to the two-state solution, it begs the question: what and who is recognition for?

Martin Kear does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Beyond recognition: the challenges of creating a new Palestinian state are so formidable, is it even possible? – https://theconversation.com/beyond-recognition-the-challenges-of-creating-a-new-palestinian-state-are-so-formidable-is-it-even-possible-262493

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Heather Ford, Professor, Communications, University of Technology Sydney

Last month, the American non-profit organisation behind Wikipedia issued draft guidelines for researchers studying how neutral Wikipedia really is. But instead of supporting open inquiry, the guidelines reveal just how unaware the Wikimedia Foundation is of its own influence.

These new rules tell researchers – some based in universities, some at non-profit organisations or elsewhere – not just how to study Wikipedia’s neutrality, but what they should study and how to interpret their results. That’s a worrying move.

As someone who has researched Wikipedia for more than 15 years – and served on the Wikimedia Foundation’s own Advisory Board before that – I’m concerned these guidelines could discourage truly independent research into one of the world’s most powerful repositories of knowledge.

Telling researchers what to do

The new guidelines come at a time when Wikipedia is under pressure.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk, who was until recently also a senior adviser to US President Donald Trump, has repeatedly accused Wikipedia of being biased against American conservatives. On X (formerly Twitter), he told users to “stop donating to Wokepedia”.

In another case, a conservative think tank in the United States was caught planning to “target” Wikipedia volunteers it claimed were pushing antisemitic content.

Until now, the Wikimedia Foundation has mostly avoided interfering in how people research or write about the platform. It has limited its guidance to issues such as privacy and ethics, and has stayed out of the editorial decisions made by Wikipedia’s global community of volunteers.

But that’s changing.

In March this year, the foundation established a working group to standardise Wikipedia’s famous “neutral point of view” policies across all 342 versions in different languages. And now the foundation has chosen to involve itself directly in research.

Its “guidance” directly instructs researchers on both how to carry out neutrality research and how to interpret it. It also defines what it believes are open and closed research questions for people studying Wikipedia.

In universities, researchers are already guided by rules set by their institutions and fields. So why do the new guidelines matter?

Because the Wikimedia Foundation has lots of control over research on Wikipedia. It decides who it will work with, who gets funding, whose work to promote, and who gets access to internal data. That means it can quietly influence which research gets done – and which doesn’t.

Now the foundation is setting the terms for how neutrality should be studied.

What’s not neutral about the new guidelines

The guidelines fall short in at least three ways.

1. They assume Wikipedia’s definition of neutrality is the only valid one. The rules of English Wikipedia say neutrality can be achieved when an article fairly and proportionally represents all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources.

But researchers such as Nathaniel Tkacz have shown this idea isn’t perfect or universal. There are always different ways to represent a topic. What constitutes a “reliable source”, for example, is often up for debate. So too is what constitutes consensus in those sources.

2. They treat ongoing debates about neutrality as settled. The guidelines say some factors – such as which language Wikipedia is written in, or the type of article – are the main things shaping neutrality. They even claim Wikipedia gets more neutral over time.

But this view of steady improvement doesn’t hold up. Articles can become less neutral, especially when they become the focus of political fights or coordinated attacks. For example, the Gamergate controversy and nationalist editing have both created serious problems with neutrality.

The guidelines also leave out important factors such as politics, culture, and state influence.

3. They restrict where researchers should direct their research. The guidelines say researchers must share results with the Wikipedia community and “communicate in ways that strengthen Wikipedia”. Any criticism should come with suggestions for improvement.

That’s a narrow view of what research should be. In our wikihistories project, for example, we focus on educating the public about bias in the Australian context. We support editors who want to improve the site, but we believe researchers should be free to share their findings with the public, even if they are uncomfortable.

Neutrality is in the spotlight

Most of Wikipedia’s critics aren’t pushing for better neutrality. They just don’t like what Wikipedia says.

The reason Wikipedia has become a target is because it is so powerful. Its content shapes search engines, AI chatbot answers, and educational materials.

The Wikimedia Foundation may see independent and critical research as a threat. But in fact, this research is an important part of keeping Wikipedia honest and effective.

Critical research can show where Wikipedians strive to be neutral but don’t quite succeed. It doesn’t require de-funding Wikipedia or hunting down its editors. It doesn’t mean there aren’t better and worse ways of representing reality.

Nor does it mean we should discard objectivity or neutrality as ideals. Instead, it means understanding that neutrality isn’t automatic or perfect.

Neutrality is something to be worked towards. That work should involve more transparency and self-awareness, not less – and it must leave space for independent voices.

Heather Ford receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She was previously a member of the Wikimedia Foundation Advisory Board.

– ref. Wikipedia’s ‘neutrality’ has always been complicated. New rules will make questioning it harder – https://theconversation.com/wikipedias-neutrality-has-always-been-complicated-new-rules-will-make-questioning-it-harder-262706

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Karyn Healy, Honorary Principal Research Fellow in Psychology, The University of Queensland

Bullying in schools can can have a devastating impact on victims. Research shows it can lead to reduced academic performance depression, anxiety and even suicidal behaviour. So, preventing and reducing bullying is an urgent priority for governments as well as families and schools.

However, a common obstacle to addressing bullying is that parents and schools often disagree about whether a particular situation constitutes bullying.

A study in Norwegian schools found that when parents think their child is being bullied, around two-thirds of the time, the school does not agree. There are also cases in which the school says a child is bullying others, but the child’s parents don’t agree.

Why is it so complicated? How can parents approach this situation?

What does ‘bullying’ mean?

When we look at the definition of bullying, it is not surprising disagreements occur. Identifying bullying is not clear-cut.

The definition used in Australian schools captures the key elements defined by international research. Bullying is a form of aggression that:

• is hurtful for the victim

• happens repeatedly over time

• involves an intent to harm

• involves a power imbalance, with victims feeling unable to stop the problem.

---

Read more:
With a government review underway, we have to ask why children bully other kids

---

After a report of bullying, what does the school do?

When a student or parent reports bullying, usually the first thing a school does is talk with students, teachers and parents, and observe interactions between students.

However, there are many challenges in working out whether behaviour is bullying.

First, bullying often occurs when adults are not around and students often don’t tell teachers, so direct observation is not always possible.

Second, even if a teacher is present, social forms of bullying can be very subtle, such as turning away to exclude someone, or using a mocking facial expression, so it can be easily overlooked.

Third, determining whether there is “intent to harm” can be difficult as students accused of bullying may claim (rightly or wrongly) they were “only joking” or not intending to hurt or upset.

Fourth, the issue of power is not easy to determine. If the student is older or physically bigger, or if multiple students are involved in bullying, a power difference may seem apparent. But when power is based on popularity, a power difference may not be clear. There are also cases in which students may deliberately accuse others of bullying to get them into trouble (which may in itself constitute bullying).

Finally, not all aggressive behaviour is bullying. For example, conflict that involves arguments or fights between equals is not bullying, as there is no power imbalance. However, this situation can still be upsetting.

A more difficult situation occurs when the victim of bullying reacts aggressively – such as when they lash out angrily to taunts. The aggressive response of the victim may be more visible to teachers than the bullying that provoked the outburst, and this can make the direction of bullying difficult for schools to ascertain.

What if the school and parents disagree?

A school may not prioritise limited resources to resolve cases they do not see as bullying. This can leave the student languishing and can be very distressing for families.

However, research shows parents’ reports that their child has been bullied predict an increased risk of later child anxiety and depression, regardless of whether school staff concur or were even asked if the child was bullied.

So whether or not the school initially agrees a child is being bullied, it is important to improve the situation.

What can be done?

Sometimes, by taking steps to address the situation, the school can find out if bullying is occurring.

For example, sometimes children are upset by behaviours that may seem innocuous – such as humming, tapping or standing close. If this behaviour is not intended to hurt, we would expect children to reduce this when made aware it is upsetting. However, if the behaviour increases or continues, even with reminders, there would be more reason to believe it is deliberately intended to provoke (and is bullying).

One helpful strategy for parents is to keep a careful record of the child’s experiences – exactly what the child experiences and how it impacts them. This can help establish a pattern of hurtful behaviours over time.

It’s important for parents to maintain a good relationship and ongoing communication with the school (however difficult). As bullying can be a complex and evolving issue, good communication can help ensure issues are promptly managed.

The parent can coach the child to manage the situation – for example, to ask in a friendly and confident way for other students to stop when they are doing things they don’t like. The parent can also help the child plan when they would ask a teacher for help.

By working together, and understanding the problem better over time, schools and families can address behaviour that is hurtful – whether or not there is initial agreement it is “bullying”.

---

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800.

Karyn Healy has received funding from QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, the Australian Research Council and Australian government Emerging Priorities Program and is an honorary Principal Research Fellow with The University of Queensland. Karyn is a co-author of the Resilience Triple P parenting program. Resilience Triple P and all Triple P programs are owned by the University of Queensland. The university has licensed Triple P International Pty Ltd to publish and disseminate Triple P programs worldwide. Royalties stemming from published Triple P resources are distributed to the Parenting and Family Support Centre, School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences and contributory authors. No author has any share or ownership in Triple P International Pty Ltd.

– ref. Often parents and schools disagree about whether something is ‘bullying’: what happens next? – https://theconversation.com/often-parents-and-schools-disagree-about-whether-something-is-bullying-what-happens-next-261474

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Vera Korasidis, Lecturer in Environmental Geoscience, The University of Melbourne

Pollinators play a vital role in fertilising flowers, which grow into seeds and fruits and underpin our agriculture. But climate change can cause a mismatch between plants and their pollinators, affecting where they live and what time of year they’re active. This has happened before.

When Earth went through rapid global warming 56 million years ago, plants from dry tropical areas expanded to new areas – and so did their animal pollinators. Our new study, published in Paleobiology today, shows this major change happened in a remarkably short timespan of just thousands of years.

Can we turn to the past to learn more about how interactions between plants and pollinators changed during climate change? That’s what we set out to learn.

A major warming event 56 million years ago

In the last 150 years, humans have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations by more than 40%. This increase in carbon dioxide has already warmed the planet by more than 1.3°C.

Current greenhouse gas concentrations and global temperature are not only unprecedented in human history but exceed anything known in the last 2.5 million years.

To understand how giant carbon emission events like ours could affect climate and life on Earth, we’ve had to go deeper into our planet’s history.

Fifty-six million years ago there was a major, sudden warming event caused by the release of a gigantic amount of carbon into the atmosphere and ocean. This event is known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

For about 5,000 years, huge amounts of carbon entered the atmosphere, likely from a combination of volcanic activity and methane release from ocean sediments. This caused Earth’s global temperature to rise by about 6°C and it stayed elevated for more than 100,000 years.

Although the initial carbon release and climate change were perhaps ten times slower than what’s happening today, they had enormous effects on Earth.

Earlier studies have shown plants and animals changed a lot during this time, especially through major shifts in where they lived. We wanted to know if pollination might also have changed during this rapid climate change.

Hunting for pollen fossils in the badlands

We looked at fossil pollen from the Bighorn Basin, Wyoming – a deep and wide valley in the northern Rocky Mountains in the United States, full of sedimentary rocks deposited 50 to 60 million years ago.

The widespread badlands of the modern Bighorn Basin expose remarkably fossil-rich sediments. These were laid down by ancient rivers eroding the surrounding mountains.

We studied fossil pollen because we wanted to understand changes in pollination. Pollen is invaluable for this because it is abundant, widely dispersed in air and water, and resistant to decay – easily preserved in ancient rocks.

We used three lines of evidence to investigate pollination in the fossil record:

• fossil pollen preserved in clumps
• how living plants related to the fossils are pollinated today, and
• the total variety of pollen shapes.

What did we discover?

Our findings show pollination by animals became more common during this interval of elevated temperature and carbon dioxide. Meanwhile, pollination by wind decreased.

The wind-pollinated plants included many related to deciduous broad-leaved trees still common in moist northern hemisphere temperate regions today.

By contrast, the plants pollinated by animals were related to subtropical palms, silk-cotton trees and other plants that typically grow in dry tropical climates.

The decline in wind pollination was likely due to the local extinction of populations of wind-pollinated plants that grew in the Bighorn Basin.

The increase in animal-pollinated plants means that plants from regions with warmer, drier climates had spread poleward and moved into the Bighorn Basin.

Earlier studies have shown these changes in the plants of the Bighorn Basin were related to the climate being hotter and more seasonally dry than before – or after – this interval of rapid climate change.

Pollinating insects and other animals likely moved 56 million years ago along with the plants they pollinated. Their presence in the landscape helped new plant communities establish in the hot, dry climate. It may have provided invaluable resources to animals such as the earliest primates, small marsupials, and other small mammals.

A lesson for our future

What lessons does this ancient climate change event have to offer when we think about our own future?

The large carbon release at the beginning of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum clearly resulted in major global warming. It dramatically altered ecosystems on land and in the sea.

In spite of these dramatic changes, most land species and ecological interactions seem to have survived. This is likely because the event occurred at about one-tenth the rate of current anthropogenic climate change.

The forests that returned to the region after more than 100,000 years of hot, dry climate were very similar to those that existed before. This suggests that in the absence of major extinction, forest ecosystems and their pollinators could reestablish into very similar communities even after a very long period of altered climate.

The key for the future may be keeping rates of environmental change slow enough to avoid extinctions.

Vera Korasidis received funding from the University of Melbourne Elizabeth and Vernon Puzey Fellowship Award.

Scott Wing’s fieldwork was supported by the Roland W. Brown fund of the Department of Paleobiology, and by the MacMillan Fund of the National Museum of Natural History.

– ref. 56 million years ago, Earth underwent rapid global warming. Here’s what it did to pollinators – https://theconversation.com/56-million-years-ago-earth-underwent-rapid-global-warming-heres-what-it-did-to-pollinators-260297

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, Australian National University; Vice Chancellor’s Strategic Fellow, Victoria University; Adjunct Professor of Social Sciences, The University of Western Australia

For all its claims of being a democracy that adheres to international law and the rules of war, Israel’s global reputation is in tatters.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s latest plan for a full military takeover of Gaza, along with the expanding starvation crisis in the strip and Israel’s repressive measures in the West Bank, underline the country’s predicament.

Notwithstanding US support, the Jewish state faces a crisis of international credibility, from which it may not be able to recover for a long time.

According to a recent Pew poll, the international view of Israel is now more negative than positive. The majority of those polled in early 2025 in countries such as the Netherlands (78%), Japan (79%), Spain (75%), Australia (74%), Turkey (93%) and Sweden (75%) said they have an unfavourable view of Israel.

The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Israel’s former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Many international law experts, genocide scholars and human rights groups have also accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.

Israel’s traditional supporters have also harshly criticised the Netanyahu government’s actions, from both inside and outside the country. These include
former prime ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak, the Israeli literary giant David Grossman, and Masorti Judaism Rabbi Jonathan Wittenberg and Rabbi Delphine Horvilleur.

In addition, hundreds of retired Israeli security officials have appealed to US President Donald Trump to push Netanyahu to end the war.

Israel’s global partners distancing themselves

With images of starving children in Gaza dominating the news in recent weeks, many of Israel’s friends in the Western alliance have similarly reached the point at which they can no longer tolerate its policy actions.

In a major shift in global opinion, France announced it would recognise Palestinian statehood in September. The United Kingdom and Canada vowed to follow suit. Even Germany has now begun the process for recognition. And Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has indicated his country’s recognition of Palestine was only a matter of time.

Spain and Sweden have called for the suspension of the European Union’s trade agreement with Israel, while the Netherlands has officially labelled Israel a “security threat”, citing attempts to influence Dutch public opinion.

Israel and the US have rejected all these accusations and moves. The momentum against Israel in the international community, however, has left it with the US as its only major global supporter.

Israel’s sovereignty, security and prosperity now ride on the back of America’s continued support. Without US assistance, in particular its billions of dollars worth of arms exports, Israel would have struggled to maintain its devastating Gaza campaign or repressive occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

Yet, despite Trump’s deep commitment to Israel, many in the US electorate are seriously questioning the depth of Netanyahu’s influence in Washington and the value of US aid to Israel.

According to a Gallup poll in March, fewer than half of Americans are sympathetic toward Israel.

This discontent has also been voiced by some of Trump’s MAGA ideologues and devotees, such as political strategist Steve Bannon and congressional hardliner Marjorie Taylor Greene. Even Trump publicly questioned Netanyahu on his claim there was no starvation in Gaza.

Israelis have dim view of two-state solution

Many Israelis would like to see the back of Netanyahu and his extremist right-wing ruling cohort, especially given his failure to secure the release of all the hostages from Hamas.

Many want the war to end, too. Recent polling by Israel’s Channel 12 found that 74% of Israelis back a deal to end the war in exchange for the release of the remaining hostages held by Hamas.

However, a majority of Israelis maintain a dim view of a future Palestinian state.

One poll commissioned by a US academic showed 82% of Jewish Israeli respondents backed the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza. And a Pew poll in early 2025 showed that just 16% of Jewish Israelis believe peaceful coexistence with a Palestinian state is possible, the lowest percentage since the pollsters began asking the question in 2013.

This indicates that not only the Israeli state, but also its electorate, has moved to the extreme of the political spectrum in relation to acknowledging the right of the Palestinians to an independent state of their own.

---

Read more:
In Israel, calls for genocide have migrated from the margins to the mainstream

---

Under international pressure, Netanyahu has expediently allowed a little more humanitarian aid to flow into Gaza. However, his new plan for a full military takeover of Gaza indicates he is not prepared to change course in the war, as long as US support remains steady.

His government is bent on eliminating Hamas and potentially depopulating and annexing Gaza, followed possibly by the West Bank. Such a move would render the idea of a two-state solution totally defunct.

To stop this happening, Washington needs to align with the rest of the global community. Otherwise, an unrestrained and isolated Israel will only widen the rift between the US and its traditional allies in a highly polarised world.

Amin Saikal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. As Netanyahu moves toward full takeover of Gaza, Israel faces a crisis of international credibility – https://theconversation.com/as-netanyahu-moves-toward-full-takeover-of-gaza-israel-faces-a-crisis-of-international-credibility-262864

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ian Parmeter, Research Scholar, Middle East Studies, Australian National University

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is moving forward with his plan to take full control of Gaza, expanding his war efforts amid a deepening starvation crisis in the strip and intensifying international condemnation.

In the plan, Netanyahu’s government also announced it would only end the war once five “principles” were met. These included the demilitarisation of the strip, the release of the remaining hostages held by Hamas, and the disarmament of the group.

This new phase of the war follows a familiar pattern of poorly devised strategy-making on Netanyahu’s part, without sufficient reasoning or apparent forward planning. Given his new stated goal of taking full control of Gaza City, an end to the war does not feel likely, or imminent.

Here are five questions about whether the plan makes sense.

1. Is it necessary, or wise, militarily?

Significantly, the chief of staff of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, has opposed the decision to expand operations in Gaza. He has warned that any plan to occupy the Gaza Strip would “drag Israel into a black hole”.

For one, Zamir believes expanding the military campaign is not necessary – he says the IDF has “met and even exceeded the operation’s objectives” in Gaza.

Hamas has been substantially degraded as a military force and its senior leadership has been killed. It is no longer an organised force in Gaza – it is now embracing guerrilla-style tactics.

This makes an expanded campaign in an urban environment such as Gaza City risky. Hamas will be able to use its vast tunnel network to mount surprise attacks on Israeli soldiers and place booby-traps in buildings.

As such, Netanyahu’s plan will inevitably lead to more IDF casualties. Nearly 900 IDF personnel have been killed so far in the war.

Moreover, taking full control of the strip would take months to complete and lead to countless more Palestinian civilian deaths.

Zamir has also warned it could endanger the lives of the remaining living Israeli hostages, which are believed to number around 20.

The freeing of Israeli hostages has only occurred during ceasefires – not as the result of military action. Hamas murdered six hostages in late 2024 when Israeli forces seemed to be getting close. Why wouldn’t it do so again if it was cornered?

2. Does Israel have enough military personnel for such an operation?

Israel has a relatively small army totalling about 169,000. It relies on more than 400,000 reservists, who have completed their military service, to augment the IDF during emergencies.

But taking reservists from their normal jobs for lengthy periods has adverse effects on the economy and harms Israel in the long term.

Netanyahu’s goal of degrading Hamas’ control of Gaza follows a basic strategy of
“clear, hold and build”. First, the IDF clears an area of Hamas fighters, then it holds the area with sufficient military personnel to prevent their return, and finally it builds an environment in which Hamas cannot function, for example, by destroying their tunnels and encouraging the return of civilian governance.

Israel does not have sufficient IDF personnel and reservists to deploy this strategy for the entire strip. It also needs soldiers in the West Bank, where clashes between Jewish settlers and Palestinian residents have become increasingly violent in recent years.

Netanyahu says he doesn’t want to permanently occupy Gaza, yet the far-right members of his cabinet do. They have made clear they want Israeli settlements re-established in Gaza and also to annex most, if not all, of the West Bank.

The mixed messages out of Netanyahu’s government make it very difficult to know what his actual long-term plan is for Gaza, if he even has one.

3. What kind of ‘Arab force’ would eventually come in?

In an interview this week, Netanyahu said he envisions the future security control of the strip would eventually pass to “Arab forces”. But which Arab states would contribute military personnel to such a force?

Arab states have long held the position that they will not solve Israel’s Palestinian problem for it, nor will they agree to any outcome in Gaza or the West Bank that Palestinians oppose. In short, while they oppose Hamas, they refuse to do Israel’s dirty work on its behalf.

A Hamas official, Osama Hamdan, also warned this week that his group would treat any force formed to govern Gaza as an “occupying” force linked to Israel. Any personnel policing Gaza on Israel’s behalf would have targets on their back.

4. What is the plan for Gaza’s civilian population?

In July, Defence Minister Israel Katz announced a plan to force Gaza’s entire population of two million people into a “humanitarian city” in the southern part of the strip. Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert likened it to a “concentration camp”.

Little has been said about the plan in recent weeks, but implementing it would no doubt exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in the strip even further and draw even more international condemnation of Israel.

Earlier this year, Israel’s security cabinet also approved a plan to facilitate the “voluntary transfer” of Gazans from the strip to third countries. This plan, too, was decried as an attempt to ethnically cleanse the enclave.

Certainly, no states in the Arab League would have any willingness to receive more than two million Palestinian refugees.

5. Is Netanyahu willing to deepen Israel’s isolation?

In a piece for The Conversation on Friday, Middle East expert Amin Saikal pointed out just how much of a hit Israel’s international credibility has taken since the start of the war – even among Americans.

Israelis are becoming aware that travel outside their country could involve risks. Two Israelis were recently detained and questioned in Belgium after attending a music festival and allegedly waving the flag of their army brigade. A human rights group accused the pair of being complicit in war crimes in Gaza.

In addition, the international community has immediately responded to Netanyahu’s decision to expand the war. Germany, in a major step, announced it would halt all arms exports to Israel. The country is the second-largest supplier of arms to the Jewish state.

Netanyahu has responded to international criticism and moves by Israel’s allies to recognise a Palestinian state by accusing them of stoking antisemitism and rewarding Hamas.

However, the Israeli leader seems to be varying his strategy to deal with developments as they occur. He and others in his government probably feel they can continue weathering the international storm over their actions in Gaza until after the war and then work on rehabilitating relationships.

The final and biggest question, however, is: when will be the war be over?

Ian Parmeter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Israel is deepening its war in Gaza – here are 5 big questions about Netanyahu’s ill-advised next phase – https://theconversation.com/israel-is-deepening-its-war-in-gaza-here-are-5-big-questions-about-netanyahus-ill-advised-next-phase-262918

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Kai Riemer, Professor of Information Technology and Organisation, University of Sydney

Have you ever sat in a meeting where someone half your age casually mentions “prompting ChatGPT” or “running this through AI”, and felt a familiar knot in your stomach? You’re not alone.

There’s a growing narrative that artificial intelligence (AI) is inherently ageist, that older workers will be disproportionately hit by job displacement and are more reluctant to adopt AI tools.

But such assumptions – especially that youth is a built-in advantage when it comes to AI – might not actually hold.

While ageism in hiring is a real concern, if you have decades of work experience, your skills, knowledge and judgement could be exactly what’s needed to harness AI’s power – without falling into its traps.

What does the research say?

The research on who benefits most from AI at work is surprisingly murky, partly because it’s still early days for systematic studies on AI and work.

Some research suggests lower-skilled workers might have more to gain than high-skilled workers on certain straightforward tasks. The picture becomes much less clear under real-world conditions, especially for complex work that relies heavily on judgement and experience.

---

This article is part of The Conversation’s series on jobs in the age of AI. Leading experts examine what AI means for workers at different career stages, how AI is reshaping our economy – and what you can do to prepare.

---

Through our Skills Horizon research project, where we’ve been talking to Australian and global senior leaders across different industries, we’re hearing a more nuanced story.

Many older workers do experience AI as deeply unsettling. As one US-based CEO of a large multinational corporation told us:

AI can be a form of existential challenge, not only to what you’re doing, but how you view yourself.

But leaders are also observing an important and unexpected distinction: experienced workers are often much better at judging the quality of AI outputs. This might become one of the most important skills, given that AI occasionally hallucinates or gets things wrong.

The CEO of a South American creative agency put it bluntly:

Senior colleagues are using multiple AIs. If they don’t have the right solution, they re-prompt, iterate, but the juniors are satisfied with the first answer, they copy, paste and think they’re finished. They don’t yet know what they are looking for, and the danger is that they will not learn what to look for if they keep working that way.

Experience as an AI advantage

Experienced workers have a crucial advantage when it comes to prompting AI: they understand context and usually know how to express it clearly.

While a junior advertising creative might ask an AI to “Write copy for a sustainability campaign”, a seasoned account director knows to specify “Write conversational social media copy for a sustainable fashion brand targeting eco-conscious millennials, emphasising our client’s zero-waste manufacturing process and keeping the tone authentic but not preachy”.

This skill mirrors what experienced professionals do when briefing junior colleagues or freelancers: providing detailed instructions, accounting for audience, objectives, and constraints. It’s a competency developed through years of managing teams and projects.

Younger workers, despite their comfort with technology, may actually be at a disadvantage here. There’s a crucial difference between using technology frequently and using it well.

Many young people may become too accustomed to AI assistance. A survey of US teens this year found 72% had used an AI companion app. Some children and teens are turning to chatbots for everyday decisions.

Without the professional experience to recognise when something doesn’t quite fit, younger workers risk accepting AI responses that feel right – effectively “vibing” their work – rather than developing the analytical skills to evaluate AI usefulness.

So what can you do?

First, everyone benefits from learning more about AI. In our time educating everyone from students to senior leaders and CEOs, we find that misunderstandings about how AI works have little to do with age.

A good place to start is reading up on what AI is and what it can do for you:

• What is AI?

• Where does AI come from?

• How does AI learn?

• What can AI do?

• What makes a good AI prompt?

If you’re not even sure which AI platform to try, we would recommend testing the most prominent ones, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, and Google’s Gemini.

---

Read more:
The biggest barrier to AI adoption in the business world isn’t tech – it’s user confidence

---

If you’re an experienced worker feeling threatened by AI, lean into your strengths. Your decades of experience with delegation, context-setting, and critical evaluation are exactly what AI tools need.

Start small. Pick one regular work task and experiment with AI assistance, using your judgement to evaluate and refine outputs. Practice prompting like you’re briefing a junior colleague: be specific about context, constraints, and desired outcomes, and repeat the process as needed.

Most importantly, don’t feel threatened. In a workplace increasingly filled with AI-generated content, your ability to spot what doesn’t quite fit, and to know what questions to ask, has never been more valuable.

Kai Riemer is co-author of the annual “Skills Horizon” research project, which identifies key leadership skills (including in AI), based on interviews with global and Australian leaders and executives across various fields. He also educates leaders in AI fluency through Sydney Executive Plus at the University of Sydney.

Sandra Peter is co-author of the annual “Skills Horizon” research project, which identifies key leadership skills (including in AI), based on interviews with global and Australian leaders and executives across various fields. She also educates leaders in AI fluency through Sydney Executive Plus at the University of Sydney.

– ref. Are you in a mid-career to senior job? Don’t fear AI – you could have this important advantage – https://theconversation.com/are-you-in-a-mid-career-to-senior-job-dont-fear-ai-you-could-have-this-important-advantage-262347

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Laura Nicole Driessen, Postdoctoral Researcher in Radio Astronomy, University of Sydney

You might have seen an interesting phrase popping up in your social media feeds lately: “Chiron is in retrograde.” If you’re anything like me, you’ve never heard of Chiron before – and I’m a professional astronomer.

So what is Chiron, and what does it mean to be in retrograde? The short answer is that Chiron is an asteroid-slash-comet orbiting somewhere past Jupiter and Saturn. And until January 2026, it’s going to look like it’s going backwards in the sky. If you can spot it.

But there’s a bit more to the story.

What is Chiron?

Chiron’s official name is (2060) Chiron. First things first: it’s pronounced “kai-ruhn”, with a hard K sound.

It was discovered by astronomer Charles Kowal in 1977. This was long after the system of Western astrology was developed, which probably explains why people who check their daily horoscopes are also blissfully unaware of its existence.

It was initially classified as an asteroid, or a rock in space. In 1989 astronomers discovered Chiron sometimes has a tail or “coma”, which tells us that it’s actually a comet or a “dirty snowball”. Since then, Chiron has been classified as both an asteroid and a comet.

In 2023, more than 45 years after it was first discovered, astronomers confirmed Chiron has rings. This makes it the fourth non-planet in the Solar System to have rings. (The planets Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune have rings, as do the asteroid Chariklo and the dwarf planets Haumea and Quaoar.)

Chiron orbits the Sun in an oval-shaped orbit. The closest it gets to the Sun is about 1.3 billion kilometres (about eight times the distance between Earth and the Sun) and the furthest it gets from the Sun is a whopping 2.7 billion km (about 19 times the distance between Earth and the Sun).

This puts it between the orbits of Jupiter and Uranus, cutting through the orbit of Saturn.

Centaurs in space

Chiron is a member of the Centaurs. This is a group of small Solar System bodies that orbit the Sun between Jupiter and Neptune. Their orbits are highly unstable: they change over time because of gravitational interactions with the giant planets.

In Greek mythology, centaurs were creatures with the lower body and legs of a horse and the torso and arms of a human. Chiron was the oldest centaur, the son of the Titan Kronos. He was considered the wisest centaur.

Fans of Percy Jackson and the Olympians may also recognise Chiron as the director of Camp Halfblood.

Chiron in retrograde

In astronomy, retrograde motion is when something is going backwards compared with everything else.

Apparent retrograde motion is where an object in the sky, such as a planet, appears to be going backwards when we look at it from Earth. The object hasn’t actually changed direction; it just looks like it from our perspective.

All the planets (and Chiron) orbit the Sun in the same direction. This means the planets typically look like they are moving in a west-to-east direction across the sky. But when Earth “catches” up to a planet (or a planet catches up to Earth) and overtakes it, the planet temporarily appears to move in a west-to-east direction in the sky.

This temporary illusion is apparent retrograde motion. It’s just like when you’re driving in a car and overtake a slower car, that slower car looks like it’s going backwards as you overtake it.

Chiron went into retrograde (that is, apparent retrograde motion) on July 30 2025 and will go back to normal on January 2 2026. But unless you have a telescope or do some long-exposure photography, you’d never know which way Chiron is travelling. Chiron is very faint, so you can’t see it with your eyes.

The ancient astrologers didn’t know about Chiron, but I like to think they’d appreciate a centaur in space with a ring on it.

Laura Nicole Driessen is an ambassador for the Orbit Centre of Imagination at the Rise and Shine Kindergarten, in Sydney’s Inner West.

– ref. Move over Mercury – Chiron is in retrograde. What even is Chiron? – https://theconversation.com/move-over-mercury-chiron-is-in-retrograde-what-even-is-chiron-262509

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Sue Turnbull, Honorary Professor of Communication and Media Studies, University of Wollongong

Dame Stella Rimington, former director general of the UK’s domestic counter-intelligence and security agency, MI5, and author of several spy thrillers, has died this week, aged 90.

A decade ago, Rimington came to Melbourne to promote her latest spy thriller, featuring her alter ego Liz Carlyle, also an MI5 agent. I was invited, as convenor of Sisters in Crime Australia, to interview her before an appreciative audience at Readings bookshop in Hawthorn. They were clearly delighted to be hearing from a real-life spy – especially one widely credited as the blueprint for Judi Dench’s version of M in the Bond movies.

Tall, elegant, impeccably dressed and sharp as a stiletto, Dame Stella was everything we wanted her to be: a woman who had made it to the top in the macho world of espionage.

Her literary legacy includes a 2001 autobiography, Open Secret, (widely seen as disappointing) and several spy thrillers, which gained a dedicated following. Her 2004 debut thriller, At Risk, was praised in the Guardian as “a cracking good thriller” with “nitty-gritty insider detail”. Together, her books provide a fascinating insight into a clandestine world more usually presented from what she herself described as a masculine point of view.

“When you think about it, all fictional spies are blokes, and spy writers when I started were chaps too,” she told the Edinburgh International Book Festival of her Liz Carlyle novels in 2015. “So I was certain that my character was going to be female. I wanted her to reflect accurately what a female does in my former service.”

Both of her female protagonists, Carlyle and CIA agent Manon Tyler (in her final two novels), reflected aspects of her own personality. Their adventures, blended with the challenges of ordinary life – relationships, workplace politics, insecurities – took readers around the world as they dealt with “fictional” threats to the nation.

An accidental spy

Sir Richard Moore, head of MI6, the foreign intelligence branch of the UK secret service, has called Rimington a “true trailblazer”. MI5 itself states it “underwent far-reaching transformation under Dame Stella’s leadership”, reports the BBC.

But she never set out to be a spy. Born in South London in 1935, she went to Edinburgh University in 1954, where she earned a master’s degree in English and literature – which shows where a good humanities degree can get you. After training as an archivist, she married John Rimington, who she accompanied to India when he took up a position at the High Commission in New Delhi.

After two years of tea parties and amateur dramatics, Rimington was asked to help out with some office work for one of the First Secretaries, who just happened to be working for MI5. As she later explained, she was subsequently “tapped on the shoulder”. Eventually, she would climb from the “typing pool to the top”.

Her elevation was never going to be easy in the hard-drinking, masculine culture of the 1970s secret service, when women were paid much less than their male counterparts. Describing herself and her female colleagues as “restive”, Rimington admitted it took something of a rebellion in the ranks before women were recognised as equals, culminating in her appointment as the first female director of MI5 in 1992.

She was also the first head of MI5 to be publicly identified, before retiring in 1996. Her family were forced to flee their London house to escape the tabloids, which published headlines like “Housewife super spy”. She later said it was the point where she “felt most unsafe”. She was, however, broadly in favour of greater public openness about the UK’s intelligence services.

Given the presumed end of the Cold War, the major threats Rimington had to deal with were largely those of domestic terrorism: threats she was required to report to then prime minister John Major. Apparently, there was often very little information to go on, at which point Major would respond “Oh well, Stella, do your best”, which she invariably did.

Booker judging and a publishing uproar

After her retirement, Rimington maintained an active public life, joining the boards of such venerable British institutions as Marks and Spencer.

In 2011, she served as chair of the judging panel for the Man Booker Prize. This created something of a stir, when the judges espoused “readability” and the ability to “zip along” as criteria they would use to assess the prize. This did not go down well – and some critics called the subsequent shortlist “was the worst in decades”.

Defending the judges’ decision at the awards ceremony, Rimington had the temerity to compare the publishing world to the KGB, thanks to its use of “black propaganda, destabilisation operations, plots and double agents”. Sounds like a great idea for a crime novel – of which she wrote a few.

Her autobiography and novels had to be submitted to MI5 for vetting and clearance. She was occasionally asked to change names and places.

Asked to write a new introduction to an anthology of stories edited by Hugh and Graham Greene, The Spy’s Bedtime Book, Rimington suggested the spy novel is “in a special class of literature in which the real and the imaginary can be mixed in any proportion, so long as they both are present”. Arguably, this is true of all literature.

The world is still dangerous

As Rimington informed the audience at the Wheeler Centre in Melbourne in 2012, the world is still a dangerous place. Then, she pointed to the continuing rise of domestic terrorism, instability in the Middle East and Putin’s ongoing aggression towards the West. How right she has proved to be – which is hardly any consolation.

“There’s so much to discover in spy stories,” she once said. “It’s a small ‘lifting of the curtains’ of a world that people know exists but don’t know much about.”

Rimington was an exceptional woman whose books document the challenging times she lived through, from an insider’s unique perspective on the front line. The line between the reality of Stella Rimington and the fiction she created may be hard to draw – which makes them fascinating reading.

Sue Turnbull isChair of the BAD Sydney Crime Writers Festival

– ref. Spy novelist Stella Rimington, the first female head of MI5, was a ‘true trailblazer’ – https://theconversation.com/spy-novelist-stella-rimington-the-first-female-head-of-mi5-was-a-true-trailblazer-262799