Killing carnivores to protect livestock, wildlife and people is an emotive and controversial issue that can cause community conflict. Difficult decisions about managing predators must be supported by strong scientific evidence.
In Australia, predators such as dingoes and foxes are often shot or poisoned with baits to prevent them from killing sheep and cattle. Feral cats and foxes are also killed to protect native wildlife.
But research elsewhere suggests public perceptions of how predators affect ecosystems and livestock are not always accurate.
Our recent study sought to shed light on these controversies. We examined the scat, or poo, left behind by dingoes, foxes and cats. We focused on the mallee region of Victoria and South Australia where there are calls to resume dingo culling to stop them killing livestock.
A contentious issue
Our study took place in the Big Desert-Wyperfeld-Ngarkat reserve complex in the semi-arid mallee region of Victoria and South Australia. This continuous ecosystem comprises about 10,000 km² of protected native mallee bushland, and is entirely surrounded by crop and livestock farming areas.
Fox-baiting is conducted along the boundaries of Victorian-managed reserve areas. Dingo baiting occurs in the South Australian-managed section of the park.
Prior to the change, Victorian farmers and authorised trappers could control dingoes on private land and within public land up to 3km from farms. Farmers say they have lost livestock since dingoes were protected.
What are predators eating in the mallee region?
We collected and analysed 136 dingo, 200 fox and 25 cat scats to determine what each predator in the area was eating and how their diets differed.
Livestock was not a major part of the diet of dingoes, foxes or cats. Some 7% of fox scats contained sheep or cattle remains. This was more than that of dingoes, at 2% of scats. No feral cat scats contained livestock remains.
The dingo diet was dominated by kangaroos, wallabies and emus, which comprised more than 70% of their diet volume.
Cats and foxes consumed more than 15 times the volume of small native mammals compared with dingoes, including threatened species such as fat-tailed dunnarts.
Our data must be interpreted with caution. Scat analysis cannot differentiate between livestock killed by predators and those that are scavenged. It also can’t tell us about animals that a predator killed but did not eat.
In 2022–23, when we collected the scats, rainfall in the area was high and prey was abundant. So, while we found livestock were not likely to be a substantial part of these predators’ diets at the time of our research, this can change depending on environmental conditions.
For example, fire and extended drought may force predators to move further to find food and water. They may move from conservation areas to private land, where they could prey on livestock.
A taste for certain prey
A predator’s poo doesn’t tell the full story of how it affects prey populations.
To understand this further, we used motion-sensing wildlife cameras to assess which prey were available in the ecosystem. We compared it to the frequency they occurred in predator’s diets. This allowed us to determine if dingoes, foxes or cats target specific prey.
We found foxes and cats both consumed small mammals proportionally more than we expected, given the prey’s availability in the study area. Cats consumed birds at a higher rate than expected, and dingoes consumed echidnas more than expected.
Further intensive monitoring work is needed to determine how these dietary preferences affect the populations of prey species.
Embracing the evidence
The findings build on a substantial previous research suggesting foxes and cats pose a significant threat to native mammals, birds, reptiles and other wildlife, including many threatened species. Our results suggest foxes may cause more harm to sheep than dingoes overall – a finding consistent with research elsewhere in Victoria.
Dingoes were the only predator species that regularly preyed on kangaroos and wallabies. These species are abundant in the region. They can also compete with livestock for grazing pastures, consume crops and degrade native vegetation.
Currently, dingoes are killed on, or fenced out of, large parts of Australia due to their perceived threat to livestock.
Lethal control of invasive species remains important to protect native wildlife and agriculture. But such decisions should be based on evidence, to avoid unforeseen and undesirable results.
Non-lethal and effective alternatives exist to indiscriminately killing predators to protect livestock, such as protection dogs and donkeys. These measures are being embraced by farmers and graziers globally, often with high and sustained success.
In Australia, governments should better embrace and support evidence-based and effective approaches that allow farming, native carnivores and other wildlife to coexist.
Rachel Mason conducted this research with grant funding from the Victorian Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action. She is a current member of the Australian Mammal Society, the Australasian Wildlife Management Society, and the Ecological Society of Australia.
Euan Ritchie receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Energy, Environment, and Climate Action. Euan is a Councillor within the Biodiversity Council, a member of the Ecological Society of Australia and the Australian Mammal Society, and President of the Australian Mammal Society.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kewei Bian, Postdoctoral Associate, Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Western University
During Game 1 of the Maple Leafs’ ongoing playoff series against the Florida Panthers, Leafs goaltender Anthony Stolarz was struck in the head by Panthers forward Sam Bennett.
Although Stolarz remained in the game for several minutes following the hit, he eventually skated to the bench, vomited and exited the ice. He was later stretchered out of the arena and taken to a hospital. Stolarz rejoined his teammates the following day, but will not play in Game 2 and isn’t expected to return for the series.
As researchers specializing in brain injury biomechanics, we use both experimental (laboratory-based) and computational methods to investigate the biomechanical mechanisms of concussion and explore effective prevention strategies.
Cases like this underscore the importance of concussion detection, management and prevention, particularly in high-impact sports like hockey where head injuries remain a significant risk.
Concussions and TBI in ice hockey
Traumatic brain injury (TBI), including concussion, is a growing public health concern worldwide. These injuries result from direct or indirect impacts to the head and can have both immediate and long-term health consequences.
From a biomechanical perspective, a concussion occurs when the head experiences an external impact. Since the skull is very stiff and the brain has inertia, the skull moves immediately while the brain initially remains in its original position. The brain eventually catching up with the skull’s motion.
In straight-line, or translational, impacts, the skull compresses the brain at the point of contact, creating localized positive pressure. At the same time, on the opposite side of the brain, the skull’s movement creates negative pressure.
In rotational impacts — when the head is spun — the skull’s movement causes shear forces within the brain tissue, causing it to deform. Since the brain consists of different regions responsible for different functions, this tissue deformation can affect specific brain functional regions, leading to the range of symptoms associated with concussion.
Understanding concussion symptoms
Concussions can impact a range of functions, including physical, cognitive, emotional and cognitive abilities.
Typical symptoms include headache, dizziness, trouble with balance, vomiting, blurry vision, confusion, sleep issues, memory problems and even loss of consciousness.
These symptoms are commonly seen in athletes, including those in ice hockey. Among NHL athletes, the most commonly reported post-concussion symptoms, in order of frequency, are headaches, dizziness, nausea, neck pain, low energy or fatigue, blurred vision, light sensitivity, nervousness or anxiety, irritability and vomiting.
A CityNews segment about how Stolarz’s head injury sparked a conversation around concussion awareness.
While the short-term effects typically include headache, vomiting and dizziness, the long-term effects may cause symptoms such long-term memory loss, depression and increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease.
Concussion assessment and management
Diagnosing concussions is challenging because they are not visible on traditional imaging techniques like CT scans. Instead, concussion assessments rely on clinical evaluation of symptoms.
The NHL has a concussion protocol in place that requires players to be immediately removed from the game for evaluation if one is suspected. The decision is based on observed physical, cognitive, emotional and sleep-related symptoms.
Other evaluation methods, such as the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), are also employed to assess TBIs and concussion. The GCS assesses the severity of TBI by evaluating eye opening, verbal response and motor response on a scale. The GCS score of 13-15 is classified as mild TBI, or concussion.
Reducing sport-related concussion rates requires a multi-faceted approach, including policy changes, stricter enforcement of rules and increased education and awareness.
Protective equipment also plays a key role. Helmets, in particular, are effective at protecting the head from injury. One study found wearing a helmet in ice hockey can reduce head linear acceleration, rotational velocity and the brain strain resulting from external impacts. Continuous improvements in ice hockey helmet design can further reduce injury risks.
To better understand and predict concussions, biomechanical researchers have developed injury metrics based on head kinematics and brain strain. Head kinematics-based injury metrics, such as peak linear acceleration and peak rotational acceleration, are derived from sensor-captured movement.
Ultimately, addressing concussions in ice hockey requires continued interdisciplinary research to better understand and address concussions in ice hockey. Protecting players from concussion is paramount to ensuring the game evolves as safely as it does competitively.
Haojie Mao receives funding from NSERC to investigate brain biomechanics and helmet safety.
Carter Goan, Emilie Anne Potts, Kewei Bian, and Sakib Ul Islam do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Political language is sometimes used to describe the orientations of the Vatican. When the late Pope Francis defended migrants, it was suggested that he was a “left-wing” pope. Today, people are wondering whether Pope Leo XIV will adopt a “progressive” path or, on the contrary, a philosophy on immigration different from that of Francis.
To answer this question, it is helpful to look at what successive popes have said about welcoming foreigners. We can see that they have defended not only migrants but also a right of immigration. Their approach has been universalist and it rejected all discrimination. Could it change?
Supporting the right of immigration
During the period between the second world war and the election of Leo XIV, the Vatican had six popes. The first, Pius XII (1939-1958), seems to have been more in favour of immigration than the United Nations. In 1948, when the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, emigration was enshrined as a fundamental right: “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own.”
This wording does not mention the right to enter a country that is not one’s own, and Pius XII called this vagueness into question. In his 1952 Christmas message, he argued that it resulted in a situation in which “the natural right of every person not to be prevented from emigrating or immigrating is practically annulled, under the pretext of a falsely understood common good”.
Pius XII believed that immigration was a natural right, but linked it to poverty. He therefore asked governments to facilitate the migration of workers and their families to “regions where they could more easily find the food they needed”. He deplored the “mechanisation of minds” and called for a softening “in politics and economics, of the rigidity of the old framework of geographical boundaries”.
In the Apostolic Constitution on the Exiled Family, also in 1952, he wrote about why migration was essential for the Church.
Pope John XXIII (1958-1963) extended this argument in two encyclicals: Mater et magistra in 1961 and Pacem in terris in 1963. Whereas Pius XII had thought that the natural right to emigrate only applied to people in need, John XXIII included everyone: “among man’s personal rights we must include his right to enter a country in which he hopes to be able to provide more fittingly for himself and his dependents” (Pacem in terris 106).
A refusal of discrimination
For Paul VI (1963-1978), the Christian duty to serve migrant workers must be fulfilled without discrimination. In a 1965 encyclical, he maintained that “a special obligation binds us to make ourselves the neighbour of every person without exception and of actively helping him when he comes across our path, whether he be an old person abandoned by all, a foreign labourer unjustly looked down upon, a refugee… ” He also stated the requirement “to assist migrants and their families” (Gaudium et spes).
John Paul II (1978-2005) made numerous statements in favour of immigration. For example, his speech for World Migration Day in 1995 was devoted to undocumented migrants. He wrote: “The Church considers the problem of illegal migrants from the standpoint of Christ, who died to gather together the dispersed children of God (cf Jn 11:52), to rehabilitate the marginalized and to bring close those who are distant, in order to integrate all within a communion that is not based on ethnic, cultural or social membership.”
Benedict XVI (2005-2013) acknowledged the “feminization of migration” and the fact that”female emigration tends to become more and more autonomous. Women cross the border of their homeland alone in search of work in another country.“ (Message, 2006)
Pope Francis (2013-2025) embraced this globally inclusive tradition. His encyclical on “Fraternity and Social Friendship” calls for “recognizing that all people are our brothers and sisters, and seeking forms of social friendship that include everyone” (Fratelli tutti, 2020).
He insisted that “for a healthy relationship between love of one’s native land and a sound sense of belonging to our larger human family, it is helpful to keep in mind that global society is not the sum total of different countries, but rather the communion that exists among them” (Fratelli tutti, 2020).
On the question of migration, Francis maintained that “our response to the arrival of migrating persons can be summarized by four words: welcome, protect, promote and integrate” (Fratelli tutti, 2020).
Not a political preference
It appears that the pontificate of Leo XIV will reflect a similar commitment. However, this cannot be explained by political preference, or by personal and family history (the US-born pope is the grandson of immigrants and became a naturalized citizen of Peru). Popes do not defend immigrants because they are left-wing or progressive, but because they are at the head of an institution whose raison d’être is “to act in continuity with the mission of Christ”.
For Christians, welcoming foreigners is meant to be a fundamental duty, a condition of salvation. In the gospel, Matthew has Jesus say that this is one of the criteria for the Last Judgement. Those who welcome the stranger will receive the kingdom of God “as an inheritance”. Others will receive eternal punishment: “For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger, and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me” (Matthew, 25:42-43).
The stranger is at the heart of the New Testament revolution. Of course, the imperatives of hospitality are found in both the Old and New Testaments. It is a hospitality that is demanding (“You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” [Leviticus 19:34]) and unconditional (“Show hospitality without complaining” [Peter 4:9]).
But the New Testament revolution endows Christianity with a universal aspiration: human beings, by virtue of their origin, all become brothers. Belonging to Christianity itself is reflected by faith in this universality: “We know that we love the children of God when we love God” [John 5:2]. With this message, Christianity blurs the distinction between strangers and relatives: “You are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household” [Ephesians 2:19].
According to the Letter to Diognetus, this is what makes Christians unique: “They reside each in his own country, but as dwelling strangers. Every foreign land is a homeland to them, and every homeland is a foreign land to them.”
In his very first homily, Leo XIV suggested that the Christian faith might seem “absurd, reserved for the weak or the less intelligent”. But the institution of which he declared himself a “faithful administrator” has been preaching “universal mercy” for over 2,000 years.
Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.
Israel is in a weak position and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extremism knows no bounds. The only other way around an eventual regional war is the ousting of the Israeli prime minister.
US President Donald Trump has closed his line of communication with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to various reports citing officials.
This comes amid alleged growing pressure on Israel regarding Gaza and the abrupt halt to American operations against Ansarallah in Yemen. So, is this all an act or is the US finally pressuring Israel?
On May 1, news broke that President Donald Trump had suddenly ousted his national security advisor Mike Waltz. According to a Washington Post article on the issue, the ouster was in part a response to Waltz’s undermining of the President, for having engaged in intense coordination with Israeli PM Netanyahu regarding the issue of attacking Iran prior to the Israeli Premier’s visit to the Oval Office.
Some analysts, considering that Waltz has been pushing for a war on Iran, argued that his ouster was a signal that the Trump administration’s pro-diplomacy voices were pushing back against the hawks.
This shift also came at a time when Iran-US talks had stalled, largely thanks to a pressure campaign from the Israel Lobby, leading US think tanks and Israeli officials like Ron Dermer.
Then, seemingly out of nowhere, Trump publicly announced the end to a campaign designed to destroy/degrade Yemen’s Ansarallah-led government in Sana’a on May 6.
Israeli leadership shocked According to Israeli media, citing government sources, the leadership in Tel Aviv was shocked by the move to end operations against Yemen, essentially leaving the Israelis to deal with Ansarallah alone.
After this, more information began to leak, originating from the Israeli Hebrew-language media, claiming that the Trump administration was demanding Israel reach an agreement for aid to be delivered to Gaza, in addition to signing a ceasefire agreement.
The other major claim is that President Trump has grown so frustrated with Netanyahu that he has cut communication with him directly.
Although neither side has officially clarified details on the reported rift between the two sides, a few days ago the Israeli prime minister released a social media video claiming that he would act alone to defend Israel.
On Friday morning, another update came in that American Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth would be cancelling his planned visit to Tel Aviv.
Can Trump and Netanyahu remake the Middle East? Video: Palestine Chronicle
Is the US finally standing up to Israel? In order to assess this issue correctly, we have to place all of the above-mentioned developments into their proper context.
The issue must also be prefaced on the fact that every member of the Trump government is pro-Israeli to the hilt and has received significant backing from the Israel Lobby.
Mike Waltz was indeed fired and according to leaked AIPAC audio revealed by The Grayzone, he was somewhat groomed for a role in government by the pro-Israel Lobby for a long time.
Another revelation regarding Waltz, aside from him allegedly coordinating with Netanyahu behind Trump’s back and adding journalist Jeffrey Goldberg to a private Signal group chat, was that he was storing his chats on an Israeli-owned app.
Yet, Waltz was not booted out of the government like John Bolton was during Trump’s first term in office, he has instead been designated as UN ambassador to the United Nations.
The UN ambassador position was supposed to be handed to Elise Stefanik, a radically vocal supporter of Israel who helped lead the charge in cracking down on pro-Palestine free speech on university campuses. Stefanik’s nomination was withdrawn in order to maintain the Republican majority in the Congress.
If Trump was truly seeking to push back against the Israel Lobby’s push to collapse negotiations with Iran, then why did Trump signal around a week ago that new sanctions packages were on the way?
He announced on Friday that a third independent Chinese refiner would be hit with secondary sanctions for receiving Iranian oil.
Israeli demands in Trump’s rhetoric The sanctions, on top of the fact that his negotiating team have continuously attempted to add conditions the the talks, viewed in Tehran as non-starters, indicates that precisely what pro-Israel think tanks like WINEP and FDD have been demanding is working its way into not only the negotiating team, but coming out in Trump’s own rhetoric.
There is certainly an argument to make here, that there is a significant split within the pro-Israel Lobby in the US, which is now working its way into the Trump administration, yet it is important to note that the Trump campaign itself was bankrolled by Zionist billionaires and tech moguls.
Miriam Adelson, Israel’s richest billionaire, was his largest donor. Adelson also happens to own Israel Hayom, the most widely distributed newspaper in Israel that has historically been pro-Netanyahu, it is now also reporting on the Trump-Netanyahu split and feeding into the speculations.
As for the US operations against Yemen, the US has used the attack on Ansarallah as the perfect excuse to move a large number of military assets to the region.
This has included air defence systems to the Gulf States and most importantly to Israel.
After claiming back in March to have already “decimated” Ansarallah, the Trump administration spent way in excess of US$1 billion dollars (more accurately over US$2 billion) and understood that the only way forward was a ground operation.
Meanwhile, the US has also moved military assets to the Mediterranean and is directly involved in intensive reconnaissance over Lebanese airspace, attempting to collect information on Hezbollah.
An Iran attack imminent? While it is almost impossible to know whether the media theatrics regarding the reported Trump-Netanyahu split are entirely true, or if it is simply a good-cop bad-cop strategy, it appears that some kind of assault on Iran could be imminent.
Whether Benjamin Netanyahu is going to order an attack on Iran out of desperation or as part of a carefully choreographed plan, the US will certainly involve itself in any such assault on one level or another.
The Israeli prime minister has painted himself into a corner. In order to save his political coalition, he collapsed the Gaza ceasefire during March and managed to bring back his Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir to his coalition.
This enabled him to successfully take on his own Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, in an ongoing purge of his opposition.
However, due to a lack of manpower and inability to launch any major ground operation against Gaza, without severely undermining Israeli security on other fronts, Netanyahu decided to adopt a strategy of starving the people of Gaza instead.
He now threatens a major ground offensive, yet it is hard to see what impact it would have beyond an accelerated mass murder of civilians.
The Israeli prime minister’s mistake was choosing the blocking of all aid into Gaza as the rightwing hill to die on, which has been deeply internalised by his extreme Religious Zionism coalition partners, who now threaten his government’s stability if any aid enters the besieged territory.
Netanyahu in a difficult position This has put Netanyahu in a very difficult position, as the European Union, UK and US are all fearing the backlash that mass famine will bring and are now pushing Tel Aviv to allow in some aid.
Amidst this, Netanyahu made another commitment to the Druze community that he would intervene on their behalf in Syria.
While Syria’s leadership are signaling their intent to normalise ties and according to a recent report by Yedioth Ahronoth, participated in “direct” negotiations with Israel regarding “security issues”, there is no current threat from Damascus.
However, if tensions escalate in Syria with the Druze minority in the south, failure to fulfill pledges could cause major issues with Israeli Druze, who perform crucial roles in the Israeli military.
Internally, Israel is deeply divided, economically under great pressure and the overall instability could quickly translate to a larger range of issues.
Then we have the Lebanon front, where Hezbollah sits poised to pounce on an opportunity to land a blow in order to expel Israel from their country and avenge the killing of its Secretary General Seyyed Hassan Nasrallah.
Trigger a ‘doomsday option’? Meanwhile in Gaza, if Israel is going to try and starve everyone to death, this could easily trigger what can only be called the “doomsday option” from Hamas and other groups there. Nobody is about to sit around and watch their people starve to death.
As for Yemen’s Ansarallah, it is clear that there was no way without a massive ground offensive that the movement was going to stop firing missiles and drones at Israel.
What we have here is a situation in which Israel finds itself incapable of defeating any of its enemies, as all of them have now been radicalised due to the mass murder inflicted upon their populations.
In other words, Israel is not capable of victory on any front and needs a way out.
The leader of the opposition to Israel in the region is perceived to be Iran, as it is the most powerful, which is why a conflict with it is so desired. Yet, Tehran is incredibly powerful and the US is incapable of defeating it with conventional weapons, therefore, a full-scale war is the equivalent to committing regional suicide.
Robert Inlakesh is a journalist, writer, and documentary filmmaker. He focuses on the Middle East, specialising in Palestine. He contributed this article toThe Palestine Chronicleand it is republished with permission.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kewei Bian, Postdoctoral Associate, Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Western University
During Game 1 of the Maple Leafs’ ongoing playoff series against the Florida Panthers, Leafs goaltender Anthony Stolarz was struck in the head by Panthers forward Sam Bennett.
Although Stolarz remained in the game for several minutes following the hit, he eventually skated to the bench, vomited and exited the ice. He was later stretchered out of the arena and taken to a hospital. Stolarz rejoined his teammates the following day, but will not play in Game 2 and isn’t expected to return for the series.
As researchers specializing in brain injury biomechanics, we use both experimental (laboratory-based) and computational methods to investigate the biomechanical mechanisms of concussion and explore effective prevention strategies.
Cases like this underscore the importance of concussion detection, management and prevention, particularly in high-impact sports like hockey where head injuries remain a significant risk.
Concussions and TBI in ice hockey
Traumatic brain injury (TBI), including concussion, is a growing public health concern worldwide. These injuries result from direct or indirect impacts to the head and can have both immediate and long-term health consequences.
From a biomechanical perspective, a concussion occurs when the head experiences an external impact. Since the skull is very stiff and the brain has inertia, the skull moves immediately while the brain initially remains in its original position. The brain eventually catching up with the skull’s motion.
In straight-line, or translational, impacts, the skull compresses the brain at the point of contact, creating localized positive pressure. At the same time, on the opposite side of the brain, the skull’s movement creates negative pressure.
In rotational impacts — when the head is spun — the skull’s movement causes shear forces within the brain tissue, causing it to deform. Since the brain consists of different regions responsible for different functions, this tissue deformation can affect specific brain functional regions, leading to the range of symptoms associated with concussion.
Understanding concussion symptoms
Concussions can impact a range of functions, including physical, cognitive, emotional and cognitive abilities.
Typical symptoms include headache, dizziness, trouble with balance, vomiting, blurry vision, confusion, sleep issues, memory problems and even loss of consciousness.
These symptoms are commonly seen in athletes, including those in ice hockey. Among NHL athletes, the most commonly reported post-concussion symptoms, in order of frequency, are headaches, dizziness, nausea, neck pain, low energy or fatigue, blurred vision, light sensitivity, nervousness or anxiety, irritability and vomiting.
A CityNews segment about how Stolarz’s head injury sparked a conversation around concussion awareness.
While the short-term effects typically include headache, vomiting and dizziness, the long-term effects may cause symptoms such long-term memory loss, depression and increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease.
Concussion assessment and management
Diagnosing concussions is challenging because they are not visible on traditional imaging techniques like CT scans. Instead, concussion assessments rely on clinical evaluation of symptoms.
The NHL has a concussion protocol in place that requires players to be immediately removed from the game for evaluation if one is suspected. The decision is based on observed physical, cognitive, emotional and sleep-related symptoms.
Other evaluation methods, such as the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), are also employed to assess TBIs and concussion. The GCS assesses the severity of TBI by evaluating eye opening, verbal response and motor response on a scale. The GCS score of 13-15 is classified as mild TBI, or concussion.
Reducing sport-related concussion rates requires a multi-faceted approach, including policy changes, stricter enforcement of rules and increased education and awareness.
Protective equipment also plays a key role. Helmets, in particular, are effective at protecting the head from injury. One study found wearing a helmet in ice hockey can reduce head linear acceleration, rotational velocity and the brain strain resulting from external impacts. Continuous improvements in ice hockey helmet design can further reduce injury risks.
To better understand and predict concussions, biomechanical researchers have developed injury metrics based on head kinematics and brain strain. Head kinematics-based injury metrics, such as peak linear acceleration and peak rotational acceleration, are derived from sensor-captured movement.
Ultimately, addressing concussions in ice hockey requires continued interdisciplinary research to better understand and address concussions in ice hockey. Protecting players from concussion is paramount to ensuring the game evolves as safely as it does competitively.
Haojie Mao receives funding from NSERC to investigate brain biomechanics and helmet safety.
Carter Goan, Emilie Anne Potts, Kewei Bian, and Sakib Ul Islam do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ken G. Drouillard, Professor, Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research and Director of the School of the Environment, University of Windsor
A country’s population is affected by, and in turn affects, environmental and economic issues.(Shutterstock)
These two facets of population crises — explosions and declines — are occurring in different parts of the world, and have a global impact on the environment and on economies. Discussions about achieving economic and environmental sustainability must consider population changes, technology and the environment, given these concepts are closely interwoven.
Population explosions and declines are related to both environmental and economic instability; some countries make reactionary choices that trade off short-term domestic economic progress over the environment.
Like Malthus, Ehrlich was criticized for a crisis “that never happened” because human ingenuity, a byproduct of population, overcomes the worst fears of environmentalists. This counter-argument relies on technological advances making more efficient use of resources while lowering the environmental impacts.
Technological progress positively contributes to national economies over the long term. However, early adoption of green technology often relies on finance and government incentives that may imply short-term economic burdens. Yet when green technology is implemented and coupled to slowing population growth, it leads to decreasing national environmental footprints that pave a way towards joint environmental and economic sustainability.
The crisis of population declines
Declining populations cause inverted age pyramids with larger numbers of elderly people. These shifting demographics cause economic instability. They also constrain technological progress and social security.
The global population is predicted to peak between the mid-2060s to 2100, stabilizing at 10.2 billion from its present 8.2 billion.
In their book, Empty Planet, political scientist Darrell Bricker and political commentator John Ibbitson warn that zero population growth will happen even faster. They argue once a country decreases its fertility to below replacement (2.1 children per woman), the social reinforcements of increasing urbanization, costs of raising children and increased empowerment over family planning make it almost impossible to increase the birth rate.
For highly affluent countries, the per capita GDP is decreasing as the proportion of elderly in the population increases. Although this pattern doesn’t hold when less affluent countries are added, the figure demonstrates tangible economic impacts for countries grappling with aging populations.
A graph showing the percentage of elderly people in a country’s population, correlated with GDP and adjusted for inflation. (K. Drouillard), CC BY
Simultaneous explosions and declines
Affluent nations facing decline can react to economic instability in ways that counter global economic and environmental sustainability.
In the past, affluent nations were the drivers of green technology. However, economic instability from population declines can cause reluctance to invest, adopt and share green technology crucial for mitigating environmental damage at the global scale.
The issue is compounded by the fact that many countries overlook how their own decline in population growth contributes to economic instability. They instead focus on short-term solutions to their economic situation that may include unsustainable resource use.
Left unaddressed, the real issue of population decline becomes unresolved, allowing social anxieties against immigration and global trade to grow. This can exacerbate the issue halting technology sharing, slowing economic growth and increasing economic inequality and environmental damage.
Our research indicates that Canada and other affluent nations need to establish longer-term solutions to economic instabilities that mitigate environmental damage while promoting sustainable national and global economies.
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals offer pathways for economic, social and environmental sustainability. However, realizing these goals requires society to fully acknowledge the intertwined relationships between population growth, economy, environment and international technology-sharing in ways that transcend short-term national interests and reactionary policies.
Ken G. Drouillard receives funding from Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Canadian Water Agency, Environment and Climate Change Canada, St. Clair River Conservation Authority and North Shore of Lake Superior Remedial Action Plans.
Claudio N. Verani receives/has received funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), Petroleum Research Fund (ACS-PRF), and the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
Marcelo Arbex has received funding from University of Windsor UW-SSHRC Explore.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Judy Illes, Professor of Neurology and Director of Neuroethics Canada; Vice Chair, Bioethics Council for Canada, University of British Columbia
Advances in neurotechnology, including AI applications, need to be regulated.(Shutterstock)
With Canada’s federal election behind us, we can now focus on a renewed commitment to our values and to economic growth. Both entail a commitment to the health and well-being of Canadians.
Brain health in particular has taken on new meanings over the past years, and has garnered substantial recent attention from major international organizations such as UNESCO and the World Health Organization.
Once centred on finding treatments for conditions that affect the nervous system such as movement disorders and epilepsy, neurotechnology is evolving.
The market in non-invasive and wearable devices is also growing. These technologies aim to address mental health disorders and improve quality of life for people suffering from conditions like chronic depression and post-traumatic stress disorders.
The finalized version of the UNESCO ethics recommendation for neurotechnology will be negotiated during the week of May 12. This will prepare the way for its formal adoption this fall by the 194 member states.
The recommendation carefully considers how neurotechnology can respect human dignity and the human rights of privacy, freedom of thought, data authenticity and protection, and justice. Other concerns pertaining to Indigeneity, marginalization, disability and vulnerability are touched upon.
If Canada adopts the recommendation, it could have far-reaching implications for Canadian citizens. It will influence — if not directly affect — federal funding and resource priorities and relevant government ministries. These include Health Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Canadian principles
In 2024, drawing upon the work of both Health Canada and the Working Party on Biotechnology, Nanotechnology and Converging Technologies of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a group of Canadian experts from medicine, law and public health delivered guidance for responsible innovation in neurotechnology.
These experts — including two of the authors of this article — strategically revised the original nine principles offered by the OECD into five tailored for Canada. These were: physical and personal safety and trust; societal deliberation and stewardship; global collaboration; strong oversight; and inclusivity and Indigeneity.
In April 2025, Indigenous and non-Indigenous members of the original UNESCO expert group published considerations to further safeguard against the risk of neurotechnology becoming an instrument of colonialism. These considerations include access to neurotechnologies for the relief of neurological conditions, as well as for their adoption in research, industry and daily life guided by the values and rights of Indigenous Peoples about brain health and wellness.
They included strategies for informed consent processes that align with Indigenous perspectives, and transparency about the use, storage and collection of neural data. Recommendations were also made for investments in digital infrastructure and literacy, and paths to intellectual property protections suitable to holistic and collective knowledge.
Trust in science
The behind-the-scenes efforts that led to the UNESCO ethics recommendation must come to the forefront.
In October 2024, a Bioethics Council for Canada/Le Conseil canadien de bioéthique (BCC-CCB) was legally constituted to provide independent advice to the Canadian government and public. Building on the lessons learned from 140 bioethics councils worldwide, Canada’s new BCC-CCB is poised to ensure that the public’s trust in science is central to the federal government’s mission.
Trust must be a renewed theme in matters pertaining to brain health and brain data, alongside other advances that will affect future generations. This trust will mitigate the noise and confusion surrounding us in a time of rapid technological progress, and foster leadership that an informed Canada can provide.
Judy Illes served as a Member of the Ad Hoc Expert Advisory Group on the Ethics of Neurotechnology Recommendation at UNESCO.
Jennifer Chandler is an external advisory board member for InBrain Neuroelectronics.
Vardit Ravitsky is President and CEO of The Hastings Center for Bioethics, a research center based in NY, USA.
Bartha Knoppers and Ross Upshur do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
In the 1954 essay The Crisis in Education, German-American philosopher Hannah Arendt argued that crisis can act as an opportunity to revisit questions that have produced presumed and outdated answers.
Arendt was concerned with how the loss of tradition and authority in larger social and political spheres was reflected in the adoption of child-centred learning in public schooling in the United States.
She argued that, in education, educators must maintain their authority, which ultimately rested on their taking responsibility for the world and for children. Arendt urged people grappling with “why Johnny can’t read” to leave behind their pre-judged answers, and instead return to the very “essence of education.” For Arendt, this centred on how the human-constructed world can be passed on and “set right” with each new generation and across time.
The rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) presents a new crisis for the world and for education. Following Arendt, the crises that AI portends is a new vantage — or a rupture — to return to the question of what education is for.
Rupture of AI
Technologies have always mediated our understandings and practices of education: not only hardware or pencils, but writing itself can be understood as a technology. In our time, however, AI represents a qualitative rupture in contemporary practices and understandings of education.
As Yuval Noah Harari has argued, AI should be better understood as an agent than a tool. As an agent, it is designed and evolving as a self-learning entity able to make independent decisions; it alters past interdependencies of humans and technology.
For example, we try to tweak our practices of assessment in the face of new AI technologies like ChatGPT. A major concern is students “cheating” on assessments and unfairly or illegitimately advancing through school. This knee-jerk approach by educators to tackle the use of AI reflects a dominant, taken-for-granted answer about the purpose of education: that schooling is a mechanism to filter and sort young generations for a merit-based society.
Concern around how AI is affecting student assessment and potential student cheating reflects assumptions about school as a place that filters students into different groups. (Shutterstock)
Generally, there is a lot of agreement on the need to go in the direction that Daley recommends.
For example, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has most recently included “global competence” into its global standardized testing of students. The OECD acknowledges the importance of learning processes, as well as outcomes, and of critical thinking and values like individual responsibility.
Both of these more learner-centred visions for education, however, remain founded on these “filtering” uses of education. The IB’s very growth and sustainability and distinction lies in the positional advantage it affords its users. The OECD, more directly, reflects neoliberal, “human capital” conceptions of education that imply students are resources to be developed for the growth of a country’s economy.
I believe we must go further than (better) assessments of higher-order thinking and processes of learning designed to filter students more creatively and/or efficiently for work. We must nurture an educational orientation over an instrumental one.
High stakes
The stakes are high beyond education, because AI portends great disruptions to political economy, work and the organization of human societies. AI and automation might mean that human labour becomes an ever-lower percentage of overall labour and economic productivity. Will our political processes be largely determined by wealthy owners and partners of the AI industry, or by more democratic processes?
These possible transformations demand a reorientation of educational purpose to inform both school policies pertaining to uses of AI and data, and school curricula and teaching in classrooms.
Many teachers want to foster critical thinking and student participation over grade chasing in schools. This remains an important goal. But, more fundamentally, schools need to become educational spaces where the concept of cheating, or unfairly beating someone else, becomes senseless.
In this altered scenario, teachers and students would spend their time together in school examining, as Arendt said, “what the world is like,” how they are located within it and how it might be renewed and passed on across generations.
A shelter for thinking
Educators might take the opportunity to reconsider the function of schooling as educating children and youth to come to know, and participate in, a common world facing multiple crises. They are to be introduced to this world, in all its complexity, so that they develop understanding and care for the world and thereby choose to take responsibility for renewing and re-setting it, as adults.
In his view, education provides a place, a “unique human dwelling, where we can maintain and give shelter to a thinking and engagement with ‘something more’ that sustains the hope and affirmation of nevertheless living on with significance.” It offers “a place for passing time together, for sheltering a repertoire of worldly artefacts, common visions, interpretations and aspirations.”
“These,” he writes, “can be brought into meaningful configurations gathered from the meaningful patterns of the past to help us tend, mend and repair the sense and pull of the world that wears down from generation to generation.”
Paul Tarc receives funding from Social Science and Humanities Research Council Insight Grant Program and Faculty of Education, Western University
If there are few speakers left of a language, how does a community revive it? In our current era, 3,000 languages are at risk of extinction due to the pressures of colonization, globalization, forced cultural assimilation, environmental devastation and other factors.
According to Canada’s Commission for Indigenous Languages, “research shows that no Indigenous language in Canada is safe and that all are in varying stages of endangerment.”
Our society is also being shaped by the rapid rise of artificial intelligence. Can AI be used for the benefit of Indigenous language survival in Canada and elsewhere?
According to the World Economic Forum, most AI chatbots are trained on 100 of the world’s 7,000 languages. English is the main driver of most large language models.
This scenario leaves the bulk of the world’s languages in the dust. In the coming years, will AI contribute to language revitalization, or language oppression?
A language in a box
In a 2023 TEDx talk, Northern Cheyenne computer engineer Michael Running Wolf shared his design of a cedar box that looks both ancient and contemporary. He described the dragonfly-adorned device as a “cedar-enclosed, offline Edge AI that contains the inner workings of a minimal voice-based language curricula — in other words, a language in a box.”
He proposed that conversational AI technology, much like Amazon Alexa or Google Home, could help language learners improve their fluency.
Running Wolf is the technical director of the First Languages AI Reality initiative at the Québec Institute for Artificial Intelligence. The program propels Indigenous scholars and technologists towards creating innovative solutions regarding language loss.
A TEDx Talk by Michael Running Wolf on how AI can assist Indigenous langauge learning.
Voice-controlled tools trained via machine learning could serve as AI assistants for speakers who wish to hear unfamiliar sounds pronounced accurately, and practice their own pronunciation. This technology could establish a new means for facilitating oral transmission, which is crucial when there are few fluent speakers left.
At the heart of Running Wolf’s project is Indigenous data sovereignty, which ensures that Indigenous people retain control over their data.
A place in the digital world
Around the world in the Philippines, AI scholar and politician Anna Mae Yu Lamentillo is on a quest to support the Indigenous languages of her home country. She created NightOwlGPT, a new AI-powered translation app.
In an email to me, Lamentillo wrote:
“In the Philippines alone, we are working on nine languages, many of which are endangered. Our goal is to ensure that these languages — not just the dominant ones — have a place in the digital world.”
NightOwlGPT creator Anna Mae Yu Lamentillo. (Arwin Doloricon)
When it comes to the survival or extinction of languages, it is important to question the power behind AI tools. Who controls them, and who benefits from them?
When I asked about the democratization of AI, Lamentillo noted the need for inclusivity:
“AI’s rapid advancement could parallel historical patterns of colonization. If AI is truly a black swan event — a disruptive moment in history — then what happens when 99 per cent of languages are left behind? This is more than just a linguistic issue; it’s a serious matter of accessibility, representation and digital equity.
If we don’t change who is leading AI development, we risk creating a new form of colonization — one where only a small fraction of the world has the tools to thrive.”
Diversity of voices
Linguistics professor Emmanuel Ngué Um. (Emmanuel Ngué Um)
They are currently using Mozilla’s Common Voice platform to create open-source datasets containing thousands of words and audio recordings in 31 African languages.
The platform aims to make speech recognition and voice-based AI more inclusive by crowd-sourcing a massively multilingual speech corpus. But this process is not without significant challenges in Africa.
Ngué Um noted that building datasets for languages with many dialects is not straightforward. There may not be a standardized spelling or pronunciation that should be used by AI as the accepted norms for the language.
Because of postcolonial changes, many African languages do not have one unified or agreed-upon writing system. This issue can slow the creation of teaching tools, but many local efforts backed by UNESCO are underway to change this.
So, how do automatic speech recognition tools deal with dialectical diversity? And how do text-to-speech models handle competing writing systems?
As Ngué Um wrote in an email to me:
“AI has been instrumental in delivering services that applied linguists have promised but are slow to deliver. This is not due to a lack of will or means on the part of linguists, but rather, because of the linguistic reality in Africa.
Despite the impact of colonization and the imposition of a monolithic ideal on language reality, Africa reflects the plurality, fluidity and resourcefulness that drive human communication…If AI is informed by these intricacies at all phases of its implementation, it will adequately address the diversity of voices…in Africa.”
It is clear that AI engineers and computational linguists need to integrate thoughtful approaches that take into account unique circumstances of languages.
In the not-too-distant future, using AI tools to learn and communicate in under-resourced languages may become the norm. However, that shift depends on financial backing, accurate training data for machine learning, and community desire to embrace AI. Ultimately, data sovereignty and equitable access must be at the core of AI tools.
Anna Luisa Daigneault volunteers for Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages, a non-profit organization whose work is not connected to contents of this article.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Mark Yenson, King’s University College, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Vice-President and Academic Dean (Interim), Western University
The 133 cardinal electors sequestered in the Sistine Chapel elected a new pope May 8. The choice was a surprise — Chicago-born Cardinal Robert Prevost, who has carried out most of his ministry in Peru, before being elevated to Vatican roles by Pope Francis.
When applied to individual Catholics, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” can mean very different things. One could be conservative in regard to liturgy and church practice while being strongly committed to anti-racism and environmentalism.
Or one might be considered a social conservative on issues such as marriage, sexuality and gender while holding clearly left-wing, social democratic views on the role of government.
Even if Catholics are comfortable self-identifying as liberal or conservative Catholics, we should not treat these terms as if their meaning were obvious — especially since even as purely political terms the meaning of “liberal” or “conservative” is contested.
Papacy as institution
Things become all the more complicated when we are talking about the pope, the supreme head of the Catholic Church. The papacy as an institution is conservative by definition.
The pope is considered the successor of the Apostle Peter, and his job description is precisely to maintain the unity and catholicity (“wholeness”) of the Church’s life, not only in space but through time — that is, to ensure continuity.
But because of this role to maintain the fullness of a tradition and the unity of the Church, the pope cannot be conservative (or liberal) in a political sense.
Instead of trying to impose political categories, it makes more sense to try to uncover the internal dynamics and motivations of a pope’s teaching and ministry. For example, Pope Francis’s 2015 encyclical letter,Laudato si’, was a landmark in Catholic teaching on ecology. Far from being a political manifesto, the letter presents a vision of the human being within creation, informed by the Bible, theological reflection and modern Catholic social teaching. Francis frequently references the social thought of his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, who himself affirmed that the Church “must defend not only earth, water and air as gifts of creation that belong to everyone.”
As the British theologian Anna Rowlands astutely notes, Catholic social teaching “functions as a social philosophy that never fully baptizes a liberal philosophy or sentiment. It remains locked in a complex dialogue … with liberal democracy.”
Another example that subverts the liberal/conservative dichotomy was the well-known response of Pope Francis to a journalist’s question about homosexuality in the priesthood: “Who am I to judge?” Francis did not overturn “conservative” teachings in sexual ethics.
But he did speak as a member of the Jesuit religious order and as a pastor, who knows that the general law must be applied in specific cases that introduce complexities and require nuanced concrete responses.
There was also a tacit appeal to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (1962–65), that an individual is bound to follow their conscience.
For his part, Benedict XVI (as then-Cardinal Ratzinger), in a 1991 address to American bishops in Dallas, alluded to “the classical principle of moral tradition that conscience is the highest norm which [the human person] is to follow even in opposition to authority.” According to this principle, while church teaching authority would inform conscience, “conscience … would retain the final word.”
There is no doubt that LGBTQ+ Catholics were able to hear something different in Francis’s language than they had heard in Benedict’s. However, both Benedict and Francis could appeal to shared principles, which were theological rather than political, and not reducible to liberal versus conservative categories.
In the American context at the moment, “conservative Catholic” in its most radical form blends theological traditionalism — devotion to the traditional Latin mass, emphasis on doctrinal orthodoxy and opposition to Francis’s reformist papacy — with support for the Republican party and MAGA movement.
As professor of moral philosophy Massimo Borghesi has argued, this radical conservative opposition to Francis has its genesis in the pro-capitalist Catholic neo-conservatism of the 1980s and 90s, and is a predominantly American phenomenon.
In addition, as writer and editor James T. Keane noted in a 2021 article in the Jesuit magazine America, the political polarizations that have seeped into the American Catholic Church should not set the map for the rest of the world, least of all the papacy. It is important to remember this fact as the first North American pope begins his pontificate.
Choice of name Leo
Cardinal Robert Prevost, who has become Pope Leo XIV, has given indications of being critical of the Trump administration on issues of peace and migration, very much in line with Francis.
His choice of the name Leo harkens back to Pope Leo XIII, the pope credited with initiating modern Catholic social teaching, and signals an emphasis on the Church’s advocacy for peace and justice. The new pope’s first Urbi et Orbi (“To the City and to the World”) address from the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica signalled continuity with Francis — peace, dialogue, encounter, bridge-building.
And Pope Leo’s career as a missionary, bishop and Vatican cardinal outside of the U.S. means that his context is not confined to the polarizations of the U.S. Catholic Church and its bishops.
Will the new Pope, Leo XIV, be liberal or conservative? Pope Francis did not fit neatly into these categories: I hope Pope Leo won’t either.
Mark Yenson 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.
As scholars of global economic governance, we are sceptical of this claim. Here are our main reasons.
The G20 is insufficiently representative of the 193 member states of the United Nations plus the small number of non-member states.
It is a self-selected group of 19 countries and the European and African Unions.
It has no mandate to act or speak on behalf of the international community.
It has no transparent or formal mechanisms through which it can communicate with actors who do not participate in the G20 but have a stake in its deliberations and their outcomes.
The growing tensions in the world make it more urgent to improve the efficacy of the G20. Firstly, because there is growing evidence of the loss of interest in global cooperation. Secondly, because rich states are cutting their official development assistance and are failing to meet their commitments to help countries deal with loss and damage from climate impacts and make their economies more resilient to shocks.
And thirdly, because rich countries are also reluctant to discuss financing sustainable and inclusive development in forums like the upcoming Fourth Financing for Development Conference or the UN, where all states can participate. They prefer exclusive forums like the G20.
Here, after briefly describing the structure of the G20, we argue that its lack of representation is a major problem. We offer a solution and argue that, as chair of the G20 this year, South Africa is well placed to promote this solution.
What is the G20 and how does it function?
The G20 was established in the late 1990s in the wake of the East Asian financial crisis. Its members were invited by the US and Germany based on a proposal from the Canadian government. Initially only finance ministers and central bank governors of major advanced and emerging economies were involved. After the financial crisis of 2008-2009 it was upgraded to summit level with the same membership.
A summit is held annually, under the leadership of a rotating presidency.
The group accounts for 67% of the world’s population, 85% of global GDP, and 75% of global trade. The membership comprises 19 of the “weightiest” national economies plus the European Union and the African Union. The 19 national economies are the G7 (US, Japan, Germany, UK, France, Italy, Canada), plus Australia, China, India, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina. These countries are permanently “in”. The remaining 90% of countries in the world are excluded unless invited as “special guests” on an ad hoc basis.
Representatives of a select group of international organisations including the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the World Trade Organization also participate, together with those from some UN entities.
The G20’s work is managed by a troika consisting of the current president with the assistance of the past president and the incoming president. In 2025 this troika consists of South Africa as the current chair, Brazil as the past chair and the US, which will become the G20 president in 2026. The G20 has no permanent secretariat.
The consistency in G20 membership has proven to be an advantage because it helps foster a sense of familiarity, understanding and trust at the technical level among the permanent members. This is helpful in times of crisis and in dealing with complex problems.
But its exclusivity and informal status have limited its ability to address major challenges such as the global response to the economic and health consequences of the COVID pandemic. This is because an effective response required agreement and coordinated action by all states and not just those in the G20.
The Financial Stability Board was established under the umbrella of the G20 in 2009. Its job is to coordinate international financial regulatory standard-setting, monitor the global financial system for signs of stress, and to make recommendations that can help avert potential financial crises.
It is also an exclusive club. Its membership consists of the financial regulatory authorities in the G20 countries plus those in a few other countries that are considered financially systemically important.
However, unlike the G20, the Financial Stability Board has made a systematic effort to learn the views of non-members. It has established six Regional Consultative Groups, one each for the Americas, Asia, Commonwealth of Independent States, Europe, Middle East and North Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa.
The objective is to expand and formalise the Financial Stability Board’s outreach activities beyond its membership and to better reflect the global character of the financial system.
The regional consultative groups operate in a framework which promotes compliance within each region with the Financial Stability Board’s policy initiatives. The framework enables the group members to share among themselves and with the board their views on common problems and solutions and on the issues on the board’s agenda.
Importantly, each regional group is co-chaired by an official from a Financial Stability Board member and an official from a non-member institution.
Applying this model to the G20 would allow the current G20 membership to continue, while obliging the members to establish a consultation process with regional neighbours. This would create a limited form of representation for all the world’s states.
It would also empower the smaller and weaker members of the G20 because it would enable them to speak with more confidence and credibility about the challenges facing their region.
This arrangement would also establish a limited form of G20 accountability towards the international community.
Next steps
As chair of the G20 chair for 2025, South Africa is well placed to promote this solution to the group’s representation problem. It should work with the African Union to establish an African G20 regional consultative group. South Africa and the African Union could invite each African regional organisation to select one representative to serve on the initial consultative group.
South Africa could also commit to convey the outcomes of G20 regional consultative group meetings to the G20.
South Africa can then use this example to demonstrate to the G20 the value of having a G20 regional consultative group and advocate that other regions should adopt the same approach.
Danny Bradlow, in addition to his position at the University of Pretoria, is the Senior G20 Advisor, South African institute of International Affairs.
Robert Wade 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.
Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s confirmation she will run for Liberal deputy has put the members of an already shell-shocked party into a new spin.
Tuesday’s leadership contest, where the numbers are said to be tight, is a battle for the direction of the party as much as one between the two personalities.
It’s essentially a contest between the moderates and the conservatives. Sussan Ley, deputy for the past three years, carries the flag for the moderates (although she is aligned to the old Scott Morrison faction, which is led by Alex Hawke, one-time Morrison numbers man).
Her opponent, Angus Taylor, who’s been shadow treasurer, leads the conservatives.
Neither Ley nor Taylor has impressed during the last term, but that’s become beside the point.
Taylor has embraced the ambitious Price, who has defected (amid great bitterness) from the Nationals, to boost his support as part of a joint ticket.
Whether the combination will work for or against Taylor’s chances remains to be seen. There are fears in the Ley camp it may attract some undecideds, but it possibly could frighten off others.
Price was elevated spectacularly to national prominence as the most effective “no” campaigner against the Voice. She is forceful and articulate, and the conservative base of the Coalition loves her.
But, leaving aside the complication that she’s a senator, her performance in the Voice campaign doesn’t automatically translate into qualifications for deputy which, if done properly, is a demanding, multi-faceted job.
The Liberal deputy needs deep roots in the party, not having just arrived in controversial circumstances. They have to do a lot of work with the party organisation, not just the parliamentary party.
In the latter, the deputy is there in part to protect the leader’s back and to keep track of the mood of colleagues, which requires having long-standing relationships of familiarity and trust with them.
Some would argue the ideal deputy is a person who does not have their eyes on the leadership, which Price clearly has.
The deputy needs a broad grasp of policy areas, because they will be a high profile public spokesperson for the party, and will be hit with questions on every issue that’s running.
The deputy also has to be comfortable with media across the spectrum, because that’s part of the job. Price’s natural home has been on Sky News. On Sunday, she appeared on Sky’s highly opinionated program Outsiders.
If the Liberals are to get themselves back into shape, they must seek to regain their appeal in the urban areas that went teal in 2022, and to women. Indeed, they have to tap into professional women in those places. It is unlikely Price, unless she undergoes a major political makeover, would be attractive to that constituency.
In their bid for the support of women, the Liberals need a root-and-branch debate about how to get more women candidates, but Price is already totally against quotas.
If Price becomes deputy it will be a wild ride for the party – and for its leader.
Other names mooted as possible deputies are Dan Tehan, from Victoria, who’s been immigration spokesman, and Queenslander Ted O’Brien, the energy spokesman. Either would be less fraught for the party than Price. O’Brien would have the problem of being welded on to the nuclear policy, which will be at least overhauled and perhaps ditched by the Liberals.
Ley is set to have a running mate, but the name has not yet been disclosed.
Another option would be for the loser out of Ley and Taylor to become deputy. Awkward, but perhaps the cleanest way forward. Ley is used to the role; Taylor would be entitled to stay shadow treasurer and would be at the centre of things (what things are left).
Nationals’ identity battle
In the Nationals, the leadership contest – to be decided Monday – is also a battle over identity.
The Nationals under David Litteproud held almost all their seats at the election but one-time resources minister Matt Canavan – a Barnaby Joyce supporter back in the day – says they need a new direction.
Critical to his pitch are energy and climate issues. The Nationals signed up reluctantly to net zero emissions by 2050 in the Morrison prime ministership, when Joyce was leader (although he indicated he personally didn’t favour doing so). They were dragged to the deal with great reluctance.
Canavan, who is a senator, said in his leadership pitch, “We should scrap the futile and unachievable goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Net zero makes everything more expensive and it is not helping the environment given that the US, China and India are no longer even paying lip service to it.”
Littleproud, describing the challenge as “healthy for our democracy”, is favoured to see off the Canavan bid. Regardless, it is a reminder the Nationals remain a divided party, as they have been for years.
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.
Industry Minister Ed Husic, dumped from the frontbench ahead of Anthony Albanese’s announcement of his new ministry, has made an excoriating attack on Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, describing him as a “factional assassin”.
Marles, chief of the Victorian right, in large part drove factional changes which saw Husic, from the New South Wales right, and Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, from the Victorian right, pushed out of the lineup for the revamped ministry.
In the shakeout, Marles’ numbers man, Sam Rae, will be elevated from the backbench to the ministry, despite having only been in parliament for a single term.
Husic said on Sunday, “I think when people look at a deputy prime minister, they expect to see a statesman, not a factional assassin”.
Asked on the ABC whether that meant he was saying Marles had put his own ambition to boost his numbers ahead of the good of the party, Husic said, “I think a lot of people would draw that conclusion”.
“I think he needed to exercise leadership, he’s part of the leadership group. We’ve got to be able to manage these things in an orderly way.”
“There will be a lot of questions put to Richard about his role, and that’s something that he will have to answer and account for.”
Husic said Prime Minister Anthony Albanese had called him on Saturday – it had been only a brief call – and they will meet on Monday. He looked forward to that being a constructive discussion about the role he could keep playing.
Husic, the only Muslim in cabinet, in part blamed his outspokenness on Gaza for his demotion.
“You can’t celebrate diversity and then expect it to sit in a corner, silent.
“You need to speak up when you bring those different views to either a cabinet table or to a caucus.
“I certainly took the view that you need to speak up to the communities that you care about. I certainly tried to help us navigate wretchedly difficult issues such as what we’re seeing has unfolded in Gaza post the horrors of October 7.
“I don’t think I could ever stay silent in the face of innocent civilians being slaughtered in their tens of thousands and being starved out of Gaza.
“So I tried to find the way to be able to speak at the cabinet table and speak elsewhere, to be able to make sure that communities we represent know that their voices are heard.
“You should have the ability to speak up on the issues that you believe in. You should have the ability to question.
“I would hate to think we get to a situation like Trump Republicans who know something’s wrong and and don’t speak. I’m not saying that’s the case here, but there’s a role, a value in questioning,” he said.
Husic is reported to have clashed with Foreign Minister Penny Wong in cabinet over the Middle East issues. He also had differences with Treasurer Jim Chalmers on some economic issues.
Husic said he would have liked Albanese to have intervened over his demotion but the PM had declined to get involved.
He blamed Marles for putting Albanese into such a position. It was “especially disrespectful of the deputy prime minister to put the prime minister in a terrible place where he was being asked to intervene”. But if Albanese had exercised the great authority he had coming out of the election, “no one would have quibbled”.
“We’ve obviously got to be able to avoid these type of episodes […] the factional grubbiness,” Husic said.
Because of the factional numbers after the election, the NSW right was due to drop a minister. Husic said he chose not to push it to a factional vote to decide who went. “I did not want to put my colleagues through a national ballot.”
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.
The Aotearoa Philippines Solidarity national assembly has condemned the National Party-led Coalition government in New Zealand over signing a “deplorable” visiting forces agreement with the Philippine government
“Given the Armed Forces of the Philippines’ appalling human rights record and continuing attacks on activists in the Philippines, it is deplorable for the New Zealand government to even consider forging such an agreement,” the APS said in a statement today.
Activists from Filipino communities and concerned New Zealanders gathered in Auckland yesterday to discuss the current human rights crisis in the Philippines and resolved to organise solidarity actions in Aotearoa New Zealand.
The visiting forces agreement (VFA), signed in Manila last month, allows closer military relations between the two countries, including granting allowing each other’s militaries to enter the country to participate in joint exercises.
“By entering into a VFA with the Philippines, the coalition government is being complicit in crimes against humanity being perpetrated by the AFP and the regime of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. against the Filipino people,” the statement said.
Having such an agreement in place with the Philippine military tarnished New Zealand’s global reputation of respecting human rights and having an independent foreign policy.
“The APS reiterates its call to the New Zealand government to junk the VFA with the Philippines and to end all ties with the Philippine military,” the statement said.
Mid-term general election tomorrow “Assembly participants also discussed the mid-term general election campaign in the Philippines “and the violence borne out of it”.
“Elections are typically a bloody affair in the country, but the vote set to occur on Monday [May 12] is especially volatile given the high stakes,” the statement said.
“The country’s two dominant political factions, the Marcos and Duterte camps, are vying for control of the country’s political arena and there is no telling how far they would go to obtain power.”
The statement said there were reports of campaigners going missing, being extrajudicially killed and also being detained without due process.
“We expect electoral fraud and violence will again be committed by the biggest political dynasties especially against the progressive candidates representing the most marginalised sectors.
“The Philippine government must do everything it can to avoid further bloodshed and violent skirmishes that aim to preserve power for the competing political dynasties.”
The statement said that the APS called for the immediate and unconditional freedom for Bayan Muna campaigner Pauline Joy Panjawan.
“Her abduction, torture and continuing detention on trumped up charges speak volumes about the reality of the ongoing human rights crisis in the Philippines.
With yesterday’sassembly, the APS renewed its commitment to raise awareness over the human rights crisis in the Philippines and to do everything it could to raise solidarity with the Filipino people struggling to “achieve a truly just and democratic society”.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on May 11, 2025.
Indonesia’s Pacific manoeuvres – money, military, and silencing West Papua ANALYSIS: By Ali Mirin On April 24, 2025, Indonesia made a masterful geopolitical move. Jakarta granted Fiji US$6 million in financial aid and offered to cooperate with them on military training — a seemingly benign act of diplomacy that conceals a darker purpose. This strategic manoeuvre is the latest in Indonesia’s efforts to neutralise Pacific
Who killed Shireen Abu Akleh? Film names Israeli soldier but Biden, Israel ‘did best to cover up’ Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific. – NERMEEN SHAIKH: We begin today’s show looking at Israel’s ongoing targeting of Palestinian journalists. A recent report by the Costs of War Project at Brown University described the war in Gaza as the “worst ever conflict for reporters” in history. By one count, Israel has killed
Who killed Shireen Abu Akleh? Film names Israeli soldier but Israel ‘did best to cover up’ Democracy Now! NERMEEN SHAIKH: We begin today’s show looking at Israel’s ongoing targeting of Palestinian journalists. A recent report by the Costs of War Project at Brown University described the war in Gaza as the “worst ever conflict for reporters” in history. By one count, Israel has killed 214 Palestinian journalists in Gaza over the
Pacific region hopes for ‘climate-conscious’ pope, says PCC leader By Christina Persico, RNZ Pacific bulletin editor The leader of the Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC) has reacted to the election of the new pope. Pope Leo XIV was elected by his fellow cardinals in the Conclave on Thursday evening, Rome time. Leo, 69, formerly Cardinal Robert Prevost, is originally from Chicago, and has spent
Absurd attack on free speech by Israel Institute over social media comment By Gordon Campbell The calls by the Israel Institute of New Zealand for Peter Davis to resign from the Helen Clark Foundation because of comments he made with regard to an ugly, hateful piece of graffiti are absurd. The graffiti in question said “I hated Jews before it was cool!” On social media, Davis made
On April 24, 2025, Indonesia made a masterful geopolitical move. Jakarta granted Fiji US$6 million in financial aid and offered to cooperate with them on military training — a seemingly benign act of diplomacy that conceals a darker purpose.
“There’s no need to be burdened by debt,” declared Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka during the bilateral meeting at Jakarta’s Merdeka Palace.
More significantly, he pledged Fiji’s respect for Indonesian sovereignty — diplomatic code for abandoning West Papua’s struggle for self-determination.
This aligns perfectly with Indonesia’s Law No. 2 of 2023, which established frameworks for defence cooperation, including joint research, technology transfer, and military education, between the two nations.
This is not merely a partnership — it is ideological assimilation.
Indonesia’s financial generosity comes with unwritten expectations. By integrating Fijian forces into Indonesian military training programmes, Jakarta aims to export its “anti-separatist” doctrine, which frames Papuan resistance as a “criminal insurgency” rather than legitimate political expression.
The US $6 million is not aid — it’s a strategic investment in regional complicity.
Geopolitical chess in a fractured world Indonesia’s manoeuvres must be understood in the context of escalating global tensions.
The rivalry between the US and China has transformed the Indo-Pacific into a strategic battleground, leaving Pacific Island nations caught between competing spheres of influence.
Although Jakarta is officially “non-aligned,” it is playing both sides to secure its territorial ambitions.
Its aid to Fiji is one move in a comprehensive regional strategy to diplomatically isolate West Papua.
Flashback to West Papuan leader Benny Wenda (left) meeting Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka in Suva in February 2023 . . . At the time, Rabuka declared: “We will support them [ULMWP] because they are Melanesians.” Image: Fiji govt
By strengthening economic and military ties with strategically positioned nations, Indonesia is systematically undermining Papuan representation in important forums such as the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), and the United Nations.
While the world focuses on superpower competition, Indonesia is quietly strengthening its position on what it considers an internal matter — effectively removing West Papua from international discourse.
The Russian connection: Shadow alliances Another significant yet less examined relationship is Indonesia’s growing partnership with Russia, particularly in defence technology, intelligence sharing, and energy cooperation
This relationship provides Jakarta with advanced military capabilities and reduces its dependence on Western powers and China.
Russia’s unwavering support for territorial integrity, as evidenced by its position on Crimea and Ukraine, makes it an ideal partner for Indonesia’s West Papua policy.
Moscow’s diplomatic support strengthens Jakarta’s argument that “separatist” movements are internal security issues rather than legitimate independence struggles.
This strategic triangulation — balancing relations with Washington, Beijing, and Moscow– allows Indonesia to pursue regional dominance with minimal international backlash. Each superpower, focused on countering the others’ influence, overlooks Indonesia’s systematic suppression of Papuan self-determination.
Institutionalising silence: Beyond diplomacy The practical consequence of Indonesia’s multidimensional strategy is the diplomatic isolation of West Papua. Historically positioned to advocate for Melanesian solidarity, Fiji now faces economic incentives to remain silent on Indonesian human rights abuses.
A similar pattern emerges across the Pacific as Jakarta extends these types of arrangements to other regional players.
It is not just about temporary diplomatic alignment; it is about the structural transformation of regional politics.
When Pacific nations integrate their security apparatuses with Indonesia’s, they inevitably adopt Jakarta’s security narratives. Resistance movements are labelled “terrorist threats,” independence advocates are branded “destabilising elements,” and human rights concerns are dismissed as “foreign interference”.
Most alarmingly, military cooperation provides Indonesia with channels to export its counterinsurgency techniques, which are frequently criticised by human rights organisations for their brutality.
Security forces in the Pacific trained in these approaches may eventually use them against their own Papuan advocacy groups.
The price of strategic loyalty For just US$6 million — a fraction of Indonesia’s defence budget — Jakarta purchases Fiji’s diplomatic loyalty, military alignment, and ideological compliance. This transaction exemplifies how economic incentives increasingly override moral considerations such as human rights, indigenous sovereignty, and decolonisation principles that once defined Pacific regionalism.
Indonesia’s approach represents a sophisticated evolution in its foreign policy. No longer defensive about West Papua, Jakarta is now aggressively consolidating regional support, methodically closing avenues for international intervention, and systematically delegitimising Papuan voices on the global stage.
Will the Pacific remember its soul? The path ahead for West Papua is becoming increasingly treacherous. Beyond domestic repression, the movement now faces waning international support as economic pragmatism supplants moral principle throughout the Pacific region.
Unless Pacific nations reconnect with their anti-colonial heritage and the values that secured their independence, West Papua’s struggle risks fading into obscurity, overwhelmed by geopolitical calculations and economic incentives.
The question facing the Pacific region is not simply about West Papua, but about regional identity itself. Will Pacific nations remain true to their foundational values of indigenous solidarity and decolonisation? Or will they sacrifice these principles on the altar of transactional diplomacy?
The date April 24, 2025, may one day be remembered not only as the day Indonesia gave Fiji US$6 million but also as the day the Pacific began trading its moral authority for economic expediency, abandoning West Papua to perpetual colonisation in exchange for short-term gains.
The Pacific is at a crossroads — it can either reclaim its voice or resign itself to becoming a theatre where greater powers dictate the fate of indigenous peoples. For West Papua, everything depends on which path is chosen.
Ali Mirin is a West Papuan from the Kimyal tribe of the highlands that share a border with the Star Mountain region of Papua New Guinea. He graduated with a Master of Arts in international relations from Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia.
India and Pakistan have seen the scenario play out before: a terror attack in which Indians are killed leads to a succession of escalatory tit-fot-tat measures that put South Asia on the brink of all-out war. And then there is a de-escalation.
The broad contours of that pattern have played out in the most recent crisis, with the latest step being the announcement of a ceasefire on May 10, 2025.
But in another important way, the flare-up – which began on April 22 with a deadly attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir, in which 26 people were killed – represents significant departures from the past. It involved direct missile exchanges targeting sites inside both territories and the use of advanced missile systems and drones by the two nuclear rivals for the first time.
These changes have coincided with domestic political shifts in both countries. The pro-Hindu nationalism of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has heightened communal tensions in the country. Meanwhile Pakistan’s powerful army chief, Gen. Syed Asim Munir, has embraced the “two-nation theory,” which holds that Pakistan is a homeland for the subcontinent’s Muslims and India for Hindus.
This religious framing was even seen in the naming of the two countries’ military operations. For India, it is “Operation Sindoor” – a reference to the red vermilion used by married Hindu women, and a provocative nod to the widows of the Kashmir attack. Pakistan called its counter-operation “Bunyan-un-Marsoos” – an Arabic phrase from the Quran meaning “a solid structure.”
The role of Washington
The India-Pakistan rivalry has cost tens of thousands of lives across multiple wars in 1947-48, 1965 and 1971. But since the late 1990s, whenever India and Pakistan approached the brink of war, a familiar de-escalation playbook unfolded: intense diplomacy, often led by the United States, would help defuse tensions.
In 1999, President Bill Clinton’s direct mediation ended the Kargil conflict – a limited war triggered by Pakistani forces crossing the Line of Control into Indian-administered Kashmir – by pressing Pakistan for a withdrawal.
Similarly, after the 2001 attack inside the Indian Parliament by terrorists allegedly linked to Pakistan-based groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage engaged in intense shuttle diplomacy between Islamabad and New Delhi, averting war.
And after the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which saw 166 people killed by terrorists linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba, rapid and high-level American diplomatic involvement helped restrain India’s response and reduced the risk of an escalating conflict.
As recently as 2019, during the Balakot crisis – which followed a suicide bombing in Pulwama, Kashmir, that killed 40 Indian security personnel – it was American diplomatic pressure that helped contain hostilities. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo later wrote in his memoirs, “I do not think the world properly knows just how close the India-Pakistan rivalry came to spilling over into a nuclear conflagration in February 2019.”
A diplomatic void?
Washington as peacemaker made sense: It had influence and a vested interest.
During the Cold War, the U.S. formed a close alliance with Pakistan to counter India’s links with the Soviet Union. And after the 9/11 terror attacks, the U.S. poured tens of billions of dollars in military assistance into Pakistan as a frontline partner in the “war on terror.”
Simultaneously, beginning in the early 2000s, the U.S. began cultivating India as a strategic partner.
A stable Pakistan was a crucial partner in the U.S. war in Afghanistan; a friendly India was a strategic counterbalance to China. And this gave the U.S. both the motivation and credibility to act as an effective mediator during moments of India-Pakistan crisis.
Today, however, America’s diplomatic attention has shifted significantly away from South Asia. The process began with the end of the Cold War, but accelerated dramatically after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. More recently, the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East have consumed Washington’s diplomatic efforts.
Since President Donald Trump took office in January 2025, the U.S. has not appointed an ambassador in New Delhi or Islamabad, nor confirmed an assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian Affairs – factors that must have hampered any mediating role for the United States.
And while Trump said the May 10 ceasefire followed a “long night of talks mediated by the United States,” statements from India and Pakistan appeared to downplay U.S. involvement, focusing instead on the direct bilateral nature of negotiations.
Should it transpire that Washington’s role as a mediator between Pakistan and India has been diminished, it is not immediately obvious who, if anyone, will fill the void. China, which has been trying to cultivate a role of mediator elsewhere, is not seen as a neutral mediator due to its close alliance with Pakistan and past border conflicts with India. Other regional powers like Iran and Saudi Arabia tried to step in during the latest crisis, but both lack the power clout of the U.S. or China.
This absence of external mediation is not, of course, a problem in itself. Historically, foreign interference – particularly U.S. support for Pakistan during the Cold War – often complicated dynamics in South Asia by creating military imbalances and reinforcing hardline positions. But the past has shown external pressure – especially from Washington – can be effective.
Breaking the norms
The recent escalation unfolded against the backdrop of another dynamic: the erosion of international norms since the end of the Cold War and accelerating after 2001.
More recently, Israel’s operations in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria have drawn widespread criticism for violations of international humanitarian law – but have resulted in limited consequences.
In short, geopolitical norms have been ebbed away and military actions that were once deemed red lines are crossed with little accountability.
For India and Pakistan, this environment creates both opportunity and risk. Both can point to behaviors elsewhere to justify assertive actions that they have undertaken that, in previous years, would have been deemed a step too far – such as attacks on places of worship and sovereignty violations.
Multi-domain warfare
But what truly distinguished the latest crisis from those of the past is, I believe, its multi-domain nature. The conflict is no longer confined to conventional military exchanges along the line of control – as it was for the first five decades of the Kashmir question.
Both countries largely respected the line of control as a de facto boundary for military operations until the 2019 crisis. Since then, there has been a dangerous progression: first to cross-border airstrikes into each other’s territories, and now to a conflict that spans conventional military, cyber and information spheres simultaneously.
Reports indicate Chinese-made Pakistani J-10 fighter jets shot down multiple Indian aircraft, including advanced French Rafale jets. This confrontation between Chinese and Western weapons represents not just a bilateral conflict but a proxy test of rival global military technologies – adding another layer of great-power competition to the crisis.
In addition, the use of loitering drones designed to attack radar systems represents a significant escalation in the technological sophistication of cross-border attacks compared to years past.
The conflict has also expanded dramatically into the cyber domain. Pakistani hackers, claiming to be the “Pakistan Cyber Force,” report breaching several Indian defense institutions, potentially compromising personnel data and login credentials.
Simultaneously, social media and a new right-wing media in India have become a critical battlefront. Ultranationalist voices in India incited violence against Muslims and Kashmiris; in Pakistan, anti-India rhetoric similarly intensified online.
Cooler voices prevailing … for now
These shifts have created multiple escalation pathways that traditional crisis management approaches weren’t designed to address.
Particularly concerning is the nuclear dimension. Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is that it will use nuclear weapons if its existence is threatened, and it has developed short-range tactical nuclear weapons intended to counter Indian conventional advantages. Meanwhile, India has informally dialed back its historic no-first-use stance, creating ambiguity about its operational doctrine.
Thankfully, as the ceasefire announcement indicates, mediating voices appear to have prevailed this time around. But eroding norms, diminished great power diplomacy and the advent of multi-domain warfare, I argue, made this latest flare-up a dangerous turning point.
What happens next will tell us much about how nuclear rivals manage, or fail to manage, the spiral of conflict in this dangerous new landscape.
Farah N. Jan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
NERMEEN SHAIKH:We begin today’s show looking at Israel’s ongoing targeting of Palestinian journalists. A recent report by the Costs of War Project at Brown University described the war in Gaza as the “worst ever conflict for reporters” in history.
By one count, Israel has killed 214 Palestinian journalists in Gaza over the past 18 months, including two journalists killed on Wednesday — Yahya Subaih and Nour El-Din Abdo. Yahya Subaih died just hours after his wife gave birth to their first child.
Meanwhile, new details have emerged about the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh, the renowned Palestinian American Al Jazeera journalist who was fatally shot by an Israeli soldier three years ago on 11 May 2022.
She was killed while covering an Israeli army assault on the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank. Shireen and another reporter were against a stone wall, wearing blue helmets and blue flak jackets clearly emblazoned with the word “Press”.
Shireen was shot in the head. She was known throughout the Arab world for her decades of tireless reporting on Palestine.
AMY GOODMAN: Israel initially claimed she had been shot by Palestinian militants, but later acknowledged she was most likely shot by an Israeli soldier. But Israel has never identified the soldier who fired the fatal shot, or allowed the soldier to be questioned by US investigators.
But a new documentary just released by Zeteo has identified and named the Israeli soldier for the first time. Below is the trailer to the documentary Who Killed Shireen?
DION NISSENBAUM: That soldier looked down his scope and could see the blue vest and that it said “press.”
ISRAELI SOLDIER: That’s what I think, yes.
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: US personnel have never had access to those who are believed to have committed those shootings.
DION NISSENBAUM: No one has been held to account. Justice has not been served.
FATIMA ABDULKARIM: She is the first American Palestinian journalist who has been killed by Israeli forces.
DION NISSENBAUM: I want to know: Who killed Shireen?
CONOR POWELL: Are we going to find the shooter?
DION NISSENBAUM: He’s got a phone call set up with this Israeli soldier that was there that day.
CONOR POWELL: We just have to go over to Israel.
DION NISSENBAUM: Did you ever talk to the guy who fired those shots?
ISRAELI SOLDIER: Of course. I know him personally. The US should have actually come forward and actually pressed the fact that an American citizen was killed intentionally by IDF.
FATIMA ABDULKARIM: The drones are still ongoing, the explosions going off.
CONOR POWELL: Holy [bleep]! We’ve got a name.
DION NISSENBAUM: But here’s the twist.
Who Shot Shireen Abu Akleh? Video: Zeteo/Democracy Now!
NERMEEN SHAIKH:The trailer for the new Zeteo documentary Who Killed Shireen? The film identifies the Israeli soldier who allegedly killed Shireen Abu Akleh as Alon Scagio, who would later be killed during an Israeli military operation last June in Jenin, the same city where Shireen was fatally shot.
AMY GOODMAN:We’re joined right now by four guests, including two members of Shireen Abu Akleh’s family: her brother Anton, or Tony, and her niece Lina. They’re both in North Bergen, New Jersey. We’re also joined by Mehdi Hasan, the founder and editor-in-chief of Zeteo, and by Dion Nissenbaum, the executive producer of Who Killed Shireen?, the correspondent on the documentary, longtime Wall Street Journal foreign correspondent based in Jerusalem and other cities, a former foreign correspondent. He was twice nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
We welcome you all toDemocracy Now!Dion, we’re going to begin with you. This is the third anniversary, May 11th exactly, of the death of Shireen Abu Akleh. Talk about your revelation, what you exposed in this documentary.
DION NISSENBAUM: Well, there were two things that were very important for the documentary. The first thing was we wanted to find the soldier who killed Shireen. It had been one of the most closely guarded secrets in Israel. US officials said that if they wanted to determine if there was a crime here, if there was a human rights violation, they needed to talk to this soldier to find out what he was thinking when he shot her.
And we set out to find him. And we did. We did what the US government never did. And it turned out he had been killed, so we were never able to answer that question — what he was thinking.
But the other revelation that I think is as significant in this documentary is that the initial US assessment of her shooting was that that soldier intentionally shot her and that he could tell that she was wearing a blue flak jacket with “Press” across it.
That assessment was essentially overruled by the Biden administration, which came out and said exactly the opposite. That’s a fairly startling revelation, that the Biden administration and the Israeli government essentially were doing everything they could to cover up what happened that day to Shireen Abu Akleh.
‘Who Killed Shireen?’ Zeteo premiered an explosive investigative documentary that reveals the identity of the soldier who shot Shireen Abu Akleh.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, let’s go to a clip from the documentary Who Killed Shireen?, in which Dion Nissenbaum, our guest, speaks with former State Department official Andrew Miller. He was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israeli-Palestinian Affairs in 2022 when Shireen was killed.
ANDREW MILLER: It’s nearly 100 percent certain that an Israeli soldier, likely a sniper, fired the shot that killed or the shots that killed Shireen Abu Akleh. Based on all the information we have, it is not credible to suggest that there were targets either in front of or behind Shireen Abu Akleh.
The fact that the official Israeli position remains that this was a case of crossfire, the entire episode was a mistake, as opposed to potentially a mistaken identification or the deliberate targeting of this individual, points to, I think, a broader policy of seeking to manage the narrative.
DION NISSENBAUM: And did the Israelis ever make the soldier available to the US to talk about it?
ANDREW MILLER: No. And the Israelis were not willing to present the person for even informal questioning.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was State Department official — former State Department official Andrew Miller, speaking in the Zeteo documentary Who Killed Shireen? He was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israeli-Palestinian Affairs in 2022 when Shireen was killed.
I want to go to Shireen’s family, whom we have as guests, Anton Abu Akleh and Lina, who are joining us from New Jersey. You both watched the film for the first time last night when it premiered here in New York City. Lina, if you could begin by responding to the revelations in the film?
LINA ABU AKLEH: Hi, Amy. Hi. Thank you for having us.
Honestly, we always welcome and we appreciate journalists who try to uncover the killing of Shireen, but also who shed light on her legacy. And the documentary that was released by Zeteo and by Dion, it really revealed findings that we didn’t know before, but we’ve always known that it was an Israeli soldier who killed Shireen. And we know how the US administration failed our family, failed a US citizen and failed a journalist, really.
And that should be a scandal in and of itself.
But most importantly, for us as a family, it’s not just about one soldier. It’s about the entire chain of command. It’s not just the person who pulled the trigger, but who ordered the killing, and the military commanders, the elected officials.
So, really, it’s the entire chain of command that needs to be held to account for the killing of a journalist who was in a clear press vest, press gear, marked as a journalist.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Anton, if you could respond? Shireen, of course, was your younger sister. What was your response watching the documentary last night?
ANTON ABU AKLEH: It’s very painful to look at all these scenes again, but I really extend my appreciation to Zeteo and all those who supported and worked on this documentary, which was very revealing, many things we didn’t know. The cover-up by the Biden administration, this thing was new to us.
He promised. First statements came out from the White House and from the State Department stressed on the importance of holding those responsible accountable. And apparently, in one of the interviews heard in this documentary, he never raised — President Biden never raised this issue with Bennett, at that time the prime minister.
So, that’s shocking to us to know it was a total cover-up, contradictory to what they promised us. And that’s — like Lina just said, it’s a betrayal, not only to the family, not only to Shireen, but the whole American nation.
AMY GOODMAN: Mehdi Hasan, you’ve backed this documentary. It’s the first big documentary Zeteo is putting out. It’s also the first anniversary of the founding of Zeteo. Can you talk about the proof that you feel is here in the documentary that Alon Scagio, this — and explain who he is and the unit he was a part of? Dion, it’s quite something when you go to his grave. But how you can absolutely be sure this is the man?
MEHDI HASAN:So, Amy, Nermeen, thanks for having us here. I’ve been on this show many times. I just want to say, great to be here on set with both of you. Thank you for what you do.
This is actually our second documentary, but it is our biggest so far, because the revelations in this film that Dion and the team put out are huge in many ways — identifying the soldier, as you mentioned, Alon Scagio, identifying the Biden cover-up, which we just heard Tony Abu Akleh point out. People didn’t realise just how big that cover-up was.
Remember, Joe Biden was the man who said, “If you harm an American, we will respond.” And what is very clear in the case of Shireen Abu Akleh, an American citizen who spent a lot of her life in New Jersey, they did not respond.
In terms of the soldier itself, when Dion came to me and said, “We want to make this film. It’ll be almost like a true crime documentary. We’re going to go out and find out who did it” — because we all — everyone followed the story. You guys covered it in 2022. It was a huge story in the world.
But three years later, to not even know the name of the shooter — and I was, “Well, will we be able to find this out? It’s one of Israel’s most closely guarded secrets.” And yet, Dion and his team were able to do the reporting that got inside of Duvdevan, this elite special forces unit in Israel.
It literally means “the cherry on top.” That’s how proud they are of their eliteness. And yet, no matter how elite you are, Israel’s way of fighting wars means you kill innocent people.
And what comes out in the film from interviews, not just with a soldier, an Israeli soldier, who speaks in the film and talks about how, “Hey, if you see a camera, you take the shot,” but also speaking to Chris Van Hollen, United States Senator from Maryland, who’s been one of the few Democratic voices critical of Biden in the Senate, who says there’s been no change in Israel’s rules of engagement over the years.
And therefore, it was so important on multiple levels to do this film, to identify the shooter, because, of course, as you pointed out in your news headlines, Amy, they just killed a hundred Palestinians yesterday.
So this is not some old story from history where this happened in 2022 and we’re going back. Everything that happened since, you could argue, flows from that — the Americans who have been killed, the journalists who have been killed in Gaza, Palestinians, the sense of impunity that Israel has and Israel’s soldiers have.
There are reports that Israeli soldiers are saying to Palestinians, “Hey, Trump has our back. Hey, the US government has our back.” And it wasn’t just Trump. It was Joe Biden, too.
And that was why it was so important to make this film, to identify the shooter, to call out Israel’s practices when it comes to journalists, and to call out the US role.
AMY GOODMAN: I just want to go to Dion, for people who aren’t familiar with the progression of what the Biden administration said, the serious cover-up not only by Israel, but of its main military weapons supplier and supporter of its war on Gaza, and that is Joe Biden, from the beginning.
First Israel said it was a Palestinian militant. At that point, what did President Biden say?
DION NISSENBAUM: So, at the very beginning, they said that they wanted the shooter to be prosecuted. They used that word at the State Department and said, “This person who killed an American journalist should be prosecuted.” But when it started to become clear that it was probably an Israeli soldier, their tone shifted, and it became talking about vague calls for accountability or changes to the rules of engagement, which never actually happened.
So, you got to a point where the Israeli government admitted it was likely them, the US government called for them to change the rules of engagement, and the Israeli government said no. And we have this interview in the film with Senator Chris Van Hollen, who says that, essentially, Israel was giving the middle finger to the US government on this.
And we have seen, since that time, more Americans being killed in the West Bank, dozens and dozens and dozens of journalists being killed, with no accountability. And we would like to see that change.
This is a trajectory that you’re seeing. You know, the blue vest no longer provides any protection for journalists in Israel. The Israeli military itself has said that wearing a blue vest with “Press” on it does not necessarily mean that you are a journalist.
They are saying that terrorists wear blue vests, too. So, if you are a journalist operating in the West Bank now, you have to assume that the Israeli military could target you.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, let’s go to another clip from the film Who Killed Shireen?, which features Ali Samoudi, Shireen Abu Akleh’s producer, who was with Shireen when she was killed, and was himself shot and injured. In the clip, he speaks to the journalist Fatima AbdulKarim.
FATIMA ABDULKARIM: We are set up here now, even though we were supposed to meet at the location where you got injured and Shireen got killed.
ALI SAMOUDI: [translated] We are five minutes from the location in Maidan al-Awdah. But you could lose your soul in the five minutes it would take us to reach it. You could be hit by army bullets. They could arrest you.
So it is essentially impossible to get there. I believe the big disaster which prevented the occupation from being punished and repeating these crimes is the neglect and indifference by many of the institutions, especially American ones, which continue to defend the occupation.
FATIMA ABDULKARIM: [translated] We’re now approaching the third anniversary of Shireen’s death. How did that affect you?
ALI SAMOUDI: [translated] During that period, the occupation was making preparations for a dangerous scenario in the Jenin refugee camp. And for this reason, they didn’t want witnesses.
They opened fire on us in order to terroriSe us enough that we wouldn’t go back to the camp. And in that sense, they partially succeeded.
Since then, we have been overcome by fear. From the moment Shireen was killed, I said and continue to say and will continue to say that this bullet was meant to prevent the Palestinian media from the documentation and exposure of the occupation’s crimes.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was Ali Samoudi, Shireen Abu Akleh’s producer, who was with Shireen when she was killed, and was himself shot and injured.
We should note, Ali Samoudi was just detained by Israeli forces in late April. The Palestinian journalist Mariam Barghouti recently wrote, “Ali Samoudi was beaten so bad by Israeli soldiers he was immediately hospitalised. This man has been one of the few journalists that continues reporting on Israeli military abuses north of the West Bank despite the continued risk on his life,” Mariam Barghouti wrote.
The Committee to Protect Journalists spoke to the journalist’s son, Mohammed Al Samoudi, who told CPJ, quote, “My father suffers from several illnesses, including diabetes, high blood pressure, and a stomach ulcer . . . He needs a diabetes injection every two days and a specific diet. It appears he was subjected to assault and medical neglect at the interrogation center . . .
“Our lawyer told us he was transferred to an Israeli hospital after a major setback in his health. We don’t know where he is being held, interrogated, or even the hospital to which he was taken. My father has been forcibly disappeared,” he said.
So, Dion Nissenbaum, if you could give us the latest? You spoke to Ali Samoudi for the documentary, and now he’s been detained.
DION NISSENBAUM: Yeah. His words were prophetic, right? He talks about this was an attempt to silence journalists. And my colleague Fatima says the same thing, that these are ongoing, progressive efforts to silence Palestinian journalists.
And we don’t know where Ali is. He has not actually been charged with anything yet. He is one of the most respected journalists in the West Bank. And we are just seeing this progression going on.
AMY GOODMAN: So, the latest we know is he was supposed to have a hearing, and that hearing has now been delayed to May 13th, Ali Samoudi?
DION NISSENBAUM: That’s right. And he has yet to be charged, so . . .
AMY GOODMAN:I want to go back to Lina Abu Akleh, who’s in New Jersey, where Shireen grew up. Lina, you were listed on Time magazine’s 100 emerging leaders for publicly demanding scrutiny of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, the horror.
And again, our condolences on the death of your aunt, on the killing of your aunt, and also to Anton, Shireen’s brother. Lina, you’ve also, of course, spoken to Ali Samoudi. This continues now. He’s in detention — his son says, “just disappeared”.
What are you demanding right now? We have a new administration. We’ve moved from the Biden administration to the Trump administration. And are you in touch with them? Are they speaking to you?
LINA ABU AKLEH: Well, our demands haven’t changed. From day one, we’re calling for the US administration to complete its investigation, or for the FBI to continue its investigation, and to finally release — to finally hold someone to account.
And we have enough evidence that could have been — that the administration could have used to expedite this case. But, unfortunately, this new administration, as well, no one has spoken to us. We haven’t been in touch with anyone, and it’s just been radio silence since.
For us, as I said, our demands have never changed. It’s been always to hold the entire system to account, the entire chain of command, the military, for the killing of an American citizen, a journalist, a Palestinian, Palestinian American journalist.
As we’ve been talking, targeting journalists isn’t happening just by shooting at them or killing them. There’s so many different forms of targeting journalists, especially in Gaza and the West Bank and Jerusalem.
So, for us, it’s really important as a family that we don’t see other families experience what we are going through, for this — for impunity, for Israel’s impunity, to end, because, at the end of the day, accountability is the only way to put an end to this impunity.
AMY GOODMAN: I am horrified to ask this question to Shireen’s family members, to Lina, to Tony, Shireen’s brother, but the revelation in the film — we were all there last night at its premiere in New York — that the Israeli soldiers are using a photograph of Shireen’s face for target practice. Tony Abu Akleh, if you could respond?
ANTON ABU AKLEH: You know, there is no words to describe our sorrow and pain hearing this. But, you know, I would just want to know why. Why would they do this thing? What did Shireen do to them for them to use her as a target practice? You know, this is absolutely barbaric act, unjustified. Unjustified.
And we really hope that this US administration will be able to put an end to all this impunity they are enjoying. If they didn’t enjoy all this impunity, they wouldn’t have been doing this. Practising on a journalist? Why? You know, you can practice on anything, but on a journalist?
This shows that this targeting of more journalists, whether in Gaza, in Palestine, it’s systematic. It’s been planned for. And they’ve been targeting and shutting off those voices, those reports, from reaching anywhere in the world.
NERMEEN SHAIKH:And, Anton, if you could say — you know, you mentioned last night, as well, Shireen was, in fact, extremely cautious as a journalist. If you could elaborate on that? What precisely —
ANTON ABU AKLEH: Absolutely. Absolutely. Shireen was very careful. Every time she’s in the field, she would take her time to put on the gear, the required helmet, the vest with “press” written on it, before going there. She also tried to identify herself as a journalist, whether to the Israelis or to the Palestinians, so she’s not attacked.
And she always went by the book, followed the rules, how to act, how to be careful, how to speak to those people involved, so she can protect herself. But, unfortunately, he was — this soldier, as stated in the documentary, targeted Shireen just because she’s Shireen and she’s a journalist. That’s it. There is no other explanation.
Sixteen bullets were fired on Shireen. Not even her helmet, nor the vest she was wearing, were able to protect her, unfortunately.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Mehdi Hasan, you wanted to respond.
MEHDI HASAN: So, Tony asks, “Why? Why would you do this? Why would you target not just a journalist in the field, but then use her face for target practice?” — as Dion and his team reveal in the film. And there is, unfortunately, a very simple answer to that question, which is that the Israeli military — and not just the Israeli military, but many people in our world today — have dehumanised Palestinians.
There is the removal of humanity from the people you are oppressing, occupying, subjugating and killing. It doesn’t matter if you’re an American citizen. It doesn’t matter if you have a press jacket on. It only matters that you are Palestinian in the sniper’s sights.
And that is how they have managed to pull of the killing of so many journalists, so many children. The first documentary we commissioned last year was called Israel’s Real Extremism, and it was about the Israeli soldiers who go into Gaza and make TikTok videos wearing Palestinian women’s underwear, playing with Palestinian children’s toys. It is the ultimate form of dehumanisation, the idea that these people don’t count, their lives have no value.
And what’s so tragic and shocking — and the film exposes this — is that Joe Biden — forget the Israeli military — Joe Biden also joined in that dehumanisation. Do you remember at the start of this conflict when he comes out and he says, “Well, I’m not sure I believe the Palestinian death toll numbers,” when he puts out a statement at the hundred days after October 7th and doesn’t mention Palestinian casualties.
And that has been the fundamental problem. This was the great comforter-in-chief. Joe Biden was supposed to be the empath. And yet, as Tony points out, what was so shocking in the film is he didn’t even raise Shireen’s case with Naftali Bennett, the prime minister of Israel at the time.
Again, would he have done that if it was an American journalist in Moscow? We know that’s not the case. We know when American journalists, especially white American journalists, are taken elsewhere in the world, the government gives a damn. And yet, in the case of Shireen, the only explanation is because she was a Palestinian American journalist.
AMY GOODMAN:You know, in the United States, the US government is responsible for American citizens, which Biden pointed out at the beginning, when he thought it was a Palestinian militant who had killed her. But, Lina, you yourself are a journalist. And I’m thinking I want to hear your response to using her face, because, of course, that is not just the face of Shireen, but I think it’s the face of journalism.
And it’s not just American journalism, of course. I mean, in fact, she’s known to hundreds of millions of people around world as the face and voice of Al Jazeera Arabic. She spoke in Arabic. She was known as that to the rest of the world. But to see that and that revealed in this documentary?
LINA ABU AKLEH: Yeah, it was horrifying, actually. And it just goes on to show how the Israeli military is built. It’s barbarism. It’s the character of revenge, of hate. And that is part of the entire system. And as Mehdi and as my father just mentioned, this is all about dehumanizing Palestinians, regardless if they’re journalists, if they’re doctors, they’re officials. For them, they simply don’t care about Palestinian lives.
And for us, Shireen will always be the voice of Palestine. And she continues to be remembered for the legacy that she left behind. And she continues to live through so many, so many journalists, who have picked up the microphone, who have picked up the camera, just because of Shireen.
So, regardless of how the Israeli military continues to dehumanise journalists and how the US fails to protect Palestinian American journalists, we will continue to push forward to continue to highlight the life and the legacy that Shireen left behind.
NERMEEN SHAIKH:Well, let’s turn to Shireen Abu Akleh in her own words. This is an excerpt from the Al Jazeera English documentary The Killing of Shireen Abu Akleh.
SHIREEN ABU AKLEH: [translated] Sometimes the Israeli army doesn’t want you there, so they target you, even if they later say it was an accident. They might say, “We saw some young men around you.” So they target you on purpose, as a way of scaring you off because they don’t want you there.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, that was Shireen in her own words in an Al Jazeera documentary. So, Lina, I know you have to go soon, but if you could just tell us: What do you want people to know about Shireen, as an aunt, a sister and a journalist?
LINA ABU AKLEH: Yes, so, we know Shireen as the journalist, but behind the camera, she was one of the most empathetic people. She was very sincere. And something not a lot of people know, but she was a very funny person. She had a very unique sense of humor, that she lit up every room she entered. She cared about everyone and anyone. She enjoyed life.
Shireen, at the end of the day, loved life. She had plans. She had dreams that she still wanted to achieve. But her life was cut short by that small bullet, which would change our lives entirely.
But at the end of the day, Shireen was a professional journalist who always advocated for truth, for justice. And at the end of the day, all she wanted to do was humanise Palestinians and talk about the struggles of living under occupation. But at the same time, she wanted to celebrate their achievements.
She shed light on all the happy moments, all the accomplishments of the Palestinian people. And this is something that really touched millions of Palestinians, of Arabs around the world. She was able to enter the hearts of the people through the small camera lens. And until this day, she continues to be remembered for that.
AMY GOODMAN: Before we go, we’re going to keep you on, Mehdi, to talk about other issues during the Trump administration, but how can people access Who Killed Shireen?
MEHDI HASAN: So, it’s available online at WhoKilledShireen.com, is where you can go to watch it. We are releasing the film right now only to paid subscribers. We hope to change that in the forthcoming days.
People often say to me, “How can you put it behind a paywall?” Journalism — a free press isn’t free, sadly. We have to fund films like this. Dion came to us because a lot of other people didn’t want to fund a topic like this, didn’t want to fund an investigation like this.
So, we’re proud to be able to fund such documentaries, but we also need support from our contributors, our subscribers and the viewers. But it’s an important film, and I hope as many people will watch it as possible, WhoKilledShireen.com.
AMY GOODMAN:We want to thank Lina, the niece of Shireen Abu Akleh, and Anton, Tony, the older brother of Shireen Abu Akleh, for joining us from New Jersey. Together, we saw the documentary last night, Who Killed Shireen? And we want to thank Dion Nissenbaum, who is the filmmaker, the correspondent on this film, formerly a correspondent with The Wall Street Journal. The founder of Zeteo, on this first anniversary of Zeteo, is Mehdi Hasan.
NERMEEN SHAIKH:We begin today’s show looking at Israel’s ongoing targeting of Palestinian journalists. A recent report by the Costs of War Project at Brown University described the war in Gaza as the “worst ever conflict for reporters” in history.
By one count, Israel has killed 214 Palestinian journalists in Gaza over the past 18 months, including two journalists killed on Wednesday — Yahya Subaih and Nour El-Din Abdo. Yahya Subaih died just hours after his wife gave birth to their first child.
Meanwhile, new details have emerged about the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh, the renowned Palestinian American Al Jazeera journalist who was fatally shot by an Israeli soldier three years ago on 11 May 2022.
She was killed while covering an Israeli army assault on the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank. Shireen and another reporter were against a stone wall, wearing blue helmets and blue flak jackets clearly emblazoned with the word “Press”.
Shireen was shot in the head. She was known throughout the Arab world for her decades of tireless reporting on Palestine.
AMY GOODMAN: Israel initially claimed she had been shot by Palestinian militants, but later acknowledged she was most likely shot by an Israeli soldier. But Israel has never identified the soldier who fired the fatal shot, or allowed the soldier to be questioned by US investigators.
But a new documentary just released by Zeteo has identified and named the Israeli soldier for the first time. This is the trailer to the documentary Who Killed Shireen?
DION NISSENBAUM: That soldier looked down his scope and could see the blue vest and that it said “press.”
ISRAELI SOLDIER: That’s what I think, yes.
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: US personnel have never had access to those who are believed to have committed those shootings.
DION NISSENBAUM: No one has been held to account. Justice has not been served.
FATIMA ABDULKARIM: She is the first American Palestinian journalist who has been killed by Israeli forces.
DION NISSENBAUM: I want to know: Who killed Shireen?
CONOR POWELL: Are we going to find the shooter?
DION NISSENBAUM: He’s got a phone call set up with this Israeli soldier that was there that day.
CONOR POWELL: We just have to go over to Israel.
DION NISSENBAUM: Did you ever talk to the guy who fired those shots?
ISRAELI SOLDIER: Of course. I know him personally. The US should have actually come forward and actually pressed the fact that an American citizen was killed intentionally by IDF.
FATIMA ABDULKARIM: The drones are still ongoing, the explosions going off.
CONOR POWELL: Holy [bleep]! We’ve got a name.
DION NISSENBAUM: But here’s the twist.
NERMEEN SHAIKH:The trailer for the new Zeteo documentary Who Killed Shireen? The film identifies the Israeli soldier who allegedly killed Shireen Abu Akleh as Alon Scagio, who would later be killed during an Israeli military operation last June in Jenin, the same city where Shireen was fatally shot.
AMY GOODMAN:We’re joined right now by four guests, including two members of Shireen Abu Akleh’s family: her brother Anton, or Tony, and her niece Lina. They’re both in North Bergen, New Jersey. We’re also joined by Mehdi Hasan, the founder and editor-in-chief of Zeteo, and by Dion Nissenbaum, the executive producer of Who Killed Shireen?, the correspondent on the documentary, longtime Wall Street Journal foreign correspondent based in Jerusalem and other cities, a former foreign correspondent. He was twice nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
We welcome you all toDemocracy Now!Dion, we’re going to begin with you. This is the third anniversary, May 11th exactly, of the death of Shireen Abu Akleh. Talk about your revelation, what you exposed in this documentary.
DION NISSENBAUM: Well, there were two things that were very important for the documentary. The first thing was we wanted to find the soldier who killed Shireen. It had been one of the most closely guarded secrets in Israel. US officials said that if they wanted to determine if there was a crime here, if there was a human rights violation, they needed to talk to this soldier to find out what he was thinking when he shot her.
And we set out to find him. And we did. We did what the US government never did. And it turned out he had been killed, so we were never able to answer that question — what he was thinking.
But the other revelation that I think is as significant in this documentary is that the initial US assessment of her shooting was that that soldier intentionally shot her and that he could tell that she was wearing a blue flak jacket with “Press” across it.
That assessment was essentially overruled by the Biden administration, which came out and said exactly the opposite. That’s a fairly startling revelation, that the Biden administration and the Israeli government essentially were doing everything they could to cover up what happened that day to Shireen Abu Akleh.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, let’s go to a clip from the documentary Who Killed Shireen?, in which Dion Nissenbaum, our guest, speaks with former State Department official Andrew Miller. He was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israeli-Palestinian Affairs in 2022 when Shireen was killed.
ANDREW MILLER: It’s nearly 100 percent certain that an Israeli soldier, likely a sniper, fired the shot that killed or the shots that killed Shireen Abu Akleh. Based on all the information we have, it is not credible to suggest that there were targets either in front of or behind Shireen Abu Akleh.
The fact that the official Israeli position remains that this was a case of crossfire, the entire episode was a mistake, as opposed to potentially a mistaken identification or the deliberate targeting of this individual, points to, I think, a broader policy of seeking to manage the narrative.
DION NISSENBAUM: And did the Israelis ever make the soldier available to the US to talk about it?
ANDREW MILLER: No. And the Israelis were not willing to present the person for even informal questioning.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was State Department official — former State Department official Andrew Miller, speaking in the Zeteo documentary Who Killed Shireen? He was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israeli-Palestinian Affairs in 2022 when Shireen was killed.
I want to go to Shireen’s family, whom we have as guests, Anton Abu Akleh and Lina, who are joining us from New Jersey. You both watched the film for the first time last night when it premiered here in New York City. Lina, if you could begin by responding to the revelations in the film?
LINA ABU AKLEH: Hi, Amy. Hi. Thank you for having us.
Honestly, we always welcome and we appreciate journalists who try to uncover the killing of Shireen, but also who shed light on her legacy. And the documentary that was released by Zeteo and by Dion, it really revealed findings that we didn’t know before, but we’ve always known that it was an Israeli soldier who killed Shireen. And we know how the US administration failed our family, failed a US citizen and failed a journalist, really.
And that should be a scandal in and of itself.
But most importantly, for us as a family, it’s not just about one soldier. It’s about the entire chain of command. It’s not just the person who pulled the trigger, but who ordered the killing, and the military commanders, the elected officials.
So, really, it’s the entire chain of command that needs to be held to account for the killing of a journalist who was in a clear press vest, press gear, marked as a journalist.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Anton, if you could respond? Shireen, of course, was your younger sister. What was your response watching the documentary last night?
ANTON ABU AKLEH: It’s very painful to look at all these scenes again, but I really extend my appreciation to Zeteo and all those who supported and worked on this documentary, which was very revealing, many things we didn’t know. The cover-up by the Biden administration, this thing was new to us.
He promised. First statements came out from the White House and from the State Department stressed on the importance of holding those responsible accountable. And apparently, in one of the interviews heard in this documentary, he never raised — President Biden never raised this issue with Bennett, at that time the prime minister.
So, that’s shocking to us to know it was a total cover-up, contradictory to what they promised us. And that’s — like Lina just said, it’s a betrayal, not only to the family, not only to Shireen, but the whole American nation.
AMY GOODMAN: Mehdi Hasan, you’ve backed this documentary. It’s the first big documentary Zeteo is putting out. It’s also the first anniversary of the founding of Zeteo. Can you talk about the proof that you feel is here in the documentary that Alon Scagio, this — and explain who he is and the unit he was a part of? Dion, it’s quite something when you go to his grave. But how you can absolutely be sure this is the man?
MEHDI HASAN:So, Amy, Nermeen, thanks for having us here. I’ve been on this show many times. I just want to say, great to be here on set with both of you. Thank you for what you do.
This is actually our second documentary, but it is our biggest so far, because the revelations in this film that Dion and the team put out are huge in many ways — identifying the soldier, as you mentioned, Alon Scagio, identifying the Biden cover-up, which we just heard Tony Abu Akleh point out. People didn’t realise just how big that cover-up was.
Remember, Joe Biden was the man who said, “If you harm an American, we will respond.” And what is very clear in the case of Shireen Abu Akleh, an American citizen who spent a lot of her life in New Jersey, they did not respond.
In terms of the soldier itself, when Dion came to me and said, “We want to make this film. It’ll be almost like a true crime documentary. We’re going to go out and find out who did it” — because we all — everyone followed the story. You guys covered it in 2022. It was a huge story in the world.
But three years later, to not even know the name of the shooter — and I was, “Well, will we be able to find this out? It’s one of Israel’s most closely guarded secrets.” And yet, Dion and his team were able to do the reporting that got inside of Duvdevan, this elite special forces unit in Israel.
It literally means “the cherry on top.” That’s how proud they are of their eliteness. And yet, no matter how elite you are, Israel’s way of fighting wars means you kill innocent people.
And what comes out in the film from interviews, not just with a soldier, an Israeli soldier, who speaks in the film and talks about how, “Hey, if you see a camera, you take the shot,” but also speaking to Chris Van Hollen, United States Senator from Maryland, who’s been one of the few Democratic voices critical of Biden in the Senate, who says there’s been no change in Israel’s rules of engagement over the years.
And therefore, it was so important on multiple levels to do this film, to identify the shooter, because, of course, as you pointed out in your news headlines, Amy, they just killed a hundred Palestinians yesterday.
So this is not some old story from history where this happened in 2022 and we’re going back. Everything that happened since, you could argue, flows from that — the Americans who have been killed, the journalists who have been killed in Gaza, Palestinians, the sense of impunity that Israel has and Israel’s soldiers have.
There are reports that Israeli soldiers are saying to Palestinians, “Hey, Trump has our back. Hey, the US government has our back.” And it wasn’t just Trump. It was Joe Biden, too.
And that was why it was so important to make this film, to identify the shooter, to call out Israel’s practices when it comes to journalists, and to call out the US role.
AMY GOODMAN: I just want to go to Dion, for people who aren’t familiar with the progression of what the Biden administration said, the serious cover-up not only by Israel, but of its main military weapons supplier and supporter of its war on Gaza, and that is Joe Biden, from the beginning.
First Israel said it was a Palestinian militant. At that point, what did President Biden say?
DION NISSENBAUM: So, at the very beginning, they said that they wanted the shooter to be prosecuted. They used that word at the State Department and said, “This person who killed an American journalist should be prosecuted.” But when it started to become clear that it was probably an Israeli soldier, their tone shifted, and it became talking about vague calls for accountability or changes to the rules of engagement, which never actually happened.
So, you got to a point where the Israeli government admitted it was likely them, the US government called for them to change the rules of engagement, and the Israeli government said no. And we have this interview in the film with Senator Chris Van Hollen, who says that, essentially, Israel was giving the middle finger to the US government on this.
And we have seen, since that time, more Americans being killed in the West Bank, dozens and dozens and dozens of journalists being killed, with no accountability. And we would like to see that change.
This is a trajectory that you’re seeing. You know, the blue vest no longer provides any protection for journalists in Israel. The Israeli military itself has said that wearing a blue vest with “Press” on it does not necessarily mean that you are a journalist.
They are saying that terrorists wear blue vests, too. So, if you are a journalist operating in the West Bank now, you have to assume that the Israeli military could target you.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, let’s go to another clip from the film Who Killed Shireen?, which features Ali Samoudi, Shireen Abu Akleh’s producer, who was with Shireen when she was killed, and was himself shot and injured. In the clip, he speaks to the journalist Fatima AbdulKarim.
FATIMA ABDULKARIM: We are set up here now, even though we were supposed to meet at the location where you got injured and Shireen got killed.
ALI SAMOUDI: [translated] We are five minutes from the location in Maidan al-Awdah. But you could lose your soul in the five minutes it would take us to reach it. You could be hit by army bullets. They could arrest you.
So it is essentially impossible to get there. I believe the big disaster which prevented the occupation from being punished and repeating these crimes is the neglect and indifference by many of the institutions, especially American ones, which continue to defend the occupation.
FATIMA ABDULKARIM: [translated] We’re now approaching the third anniversary of Shireen’s death. How did that affect you?
ALI SAMOUDI: [translated] During that period, the occupation was making preparations for a dangerous scenario in the Jenin refugee camp. And for this reason, they didn’t want witnesses.
They opened fire on us in order to terroriSe us enough that we wouldn’t go back to the camp. And in that sense, they partially succeeded.
Since then, we have been overcome by fear. From the moment Shireen was killed, I said and continue to say and will continue to say that this bullet was meant to prevent the Palestinian media from the documentation and exposure of the occupation’s crimes.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was Ali Samoudi, Shireen Abu Akleh’s producer, who was with Shireen when she was killed, and was himself shot and injured.
We should note, Ali Samoudi was just detained by Israeli forces in late April. The Palestinian journalist Mariam Barghouti recently wrote, “Ali Samoudi was beaten so bad by Israeli soldiers he was immediately hospitalised. This man has been one of the few journalists that continues reporting on Israeli military abuses north of the West Bank despite the continued risk on his life,” Mariam Barghouti wrote.
The Committee to Protect Journalists spoke to the journalist’s son, Mohammed Al Samoudi, who told CPJ, quote, “My father suffers from several illnesses, including diabetes, high blood pressure, and a stomach ulcer . . . He needs a diabetes injection every two days and a specific diet. It appears he was subjected to assault and medical neglect at the interrogation center . . .
“Our lawyer told us he was transferred to an Israeli hospital after a major setback in his health. We don’t know where he is being held, interrogated, or even the hospital to which he was taken. My father has been forcibly disappeared,” he said.
So, Dion Nissenbaum, if you could give us the latest? You spoke to Ali Samoudi for the documentary, and now he’s been detained.
DION NISSENBAUM: Yeah. His words were prophetic, right? He talks about this was an attempt to silence journalists. And my colleague Fatima says the same thing, that these are ongoing, progressive efforts to silence Palestinian journalists.
And we don’t know where Ali is. He has not actually been charged with anything yet. He is one of the most respected journalists in the West Bank. And we are just seeing this progression going on.
AMY GOODMAN: So, the latest we know is he was supposed to have a hearing, and that hearing has now been delayed to May 13th, Ali Samoudi?
DION NISSENBAUM: That’s right. And he has yet to be charged, so . . .
AMY GOODMAN:I want to go back to Lina Abu Akleh, who’s in New Jersey, where Shireen grew up. Lina, you were listed on Time magazine’s 100 emerging leaders for publicly demanding scrutiny of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, the horror.
And again, our condolences on the death of your aunt, on the killing of your aunt, and also to Anton, Shireen’s brother. Lina, you’ve also, of course, spoken to Ali Samoudi. This continues now. He’s in detention — his son says, “just disappeared”.
What are you demanding right now? We have a new administration. We’ve moved from the Biden administration to the Trump administration. And are you in touch with them? Are they speaking to you?
LINA ABU AKLEH: Well, our demands haven’t changed. From day one, we’re calling for the US administration to complete its investigation, or for the FBI to continue its investigation, and to finally release — to finally hold someone to account.
And we have enough evidence that could have been — that the administration could have used to expedite this case. But, unfortunately, this new administration, as well, no one has spoken to us. We haven’t been in touch with anyone, and it’s just been radio silence since.
For us, as I said, our demands have never changed. It’s been always to hold the entire system to account, the entire chain of command, the military, for the killing of an American citizen, a journalist, a Palestinian, Palestinian American journalist.
As we’ve been talking, targeting journalists isn’t happening just by shooting at them or killing them. There’s so many different forms of targeting journalists, especially in Gaza and the West Bank and Jerusalem.
So, for us, it’s really important as a family that we don’t see other families experience what we are going through, for this — for impunity, for Israel’s impunity, to end, because, at the end of the day, accountability is the only way to put an end to this impunity.
AMY GOODMAN: I am horrified to ask this question to Shireen’s family members, to Lina, to Tony, Shireen’s brother, but the revelation in the film — we were all there last night at its premiere in New York — that the Israeli soldiers are using a photograph of Shireen’s face for target practice. Tony Abu Akleh, if you could respond?
ANTON ABU AKLEH: You know, there is no words to describe our sorrow and pain hearing this. But, you know, I would just want to know why. Why would they do this thing? What did Shireen do to them for them to use her as a target practice? You know, this is absolutely barbaric act, unjustified. Unjustified.
And we really hope that this US administration will be able to put an end to all this impunity they are enjoying. If they didn’t enjoy all this impunity, they wouldn’t have been doing this. Practising on a journalist? Why? You know, you can practice on anything, but on a journalist?
This shows that this targeting of more journalists, whether in Gaza, in Palestine, it’s systematic. It’s been planned for. And they’ve been targeting and shutting off those voices, those reports, from reaching anywhere in the world.
NERMEEN SHAIKH:And, Anton, if you could say — you know, you mentioned last night, as well, Shireen was, in fact, extremely cautious as a journalist. If you could elaborate on that? What precisely —
ANTON ABU AKLEH: Absolutely. Absolutely. Shireen was very careful. Every time she’s in the field, she would take her time to put on the gear, the required helmet, the vest with “press” written on it, before going there. She also tried to identify herself as a journalist, whether to the Israelis or to the Palestinians, so she’s not attacked.
And she always went by the book, followed the rules, how to act, how to be careful, how to speak to those people involved, so she can protect herself. But, unfortunately, he was — this soldier, as stated in the documentary, targeted Shireen just because she’s Shireen and she’s a journalist. That’s it. There is no other explanation.
Sixteen bullets were fired on Shireen. Not even her helmet, nor the vest she was wearing, were able to protect her, unfortunately.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Mehdi Hasan, you wanted to respond.
MEHDI HASAN: So, Tony asks, “Why? Why would you do this? Why would you target not just a journalist in the field, but then use her face for target practice?” — as Dion and his team reveal in the film. And there is, unfortunately, a very simple answer to that question, which is that the Israeli military — and not just the Israeli military, but many people in our world today — have dehumanised Palestinians.
There is the removal of humanity from the people you are oppressing, occupying, subjugating and killing. It doesn’t matter if you’re an American citizen. It doesn’t matter if you have a press jacket on. It only matters that you are Palestinian in the sniper’s sights.
And that is how they have managed to pull of the killing of so many journalists, so many children. The first documentary we commissioned last year was called Israel’s Real Extremism, and it was about the Israeli soldiers who go into Gaza and make TikTok videos wearing Palestinian women’s underwear, playing with Palestinian children’s toys. It is the ultimate form of dehumanisation, the idea that these people don’t count, their lives have no value.
And what’s so tragic and shocking — and the film exposes this — is that Joe Biden — forget the Israeli military — Joe Biden also joined in that dehumanisation. Do you remember at the start of this conflict when he comes out and he says, “Well, I’m not sure I believe the Palestinian death toll numbers,” when he puts out a statement at the hundred days after October 7th and doesn’t mention Palestinian casualties.
And that has been the fundamental problem. This was the great comforter-in-chief. Joe Biden was supposed to be the empath. And yet, as Tony points out, what was so shocking in the film is he didn’t even raise Shireen’s case with Naftali Bennett, the prime minister of Israel at the time.
Again, would he have done that if it was an American journalist in Moscow? We know that’s not the case. We know when American journalists, especially white American journalists, are taken elsewhere in the world, the government gives a damn. And yet, in the case of Shireen, the only explanation is because she was a Palestinian American journalist.
AMY GOODMAN:You know, in the United States, the US government is responsible for American citizens, which Biden pointed out at the beginning, when he thought it was a Palestinian militant who had killed her. But, Lina, you yourself are a journalist. And I’m thinking I want to hear your response to using her face, because, of course, that is not just the face of Shireen, but I think it’s the face of journalism.
And it’s not just American journalism, of course. I mean, in fact, she’s known to hundreds of millions of people around world as the face and voice of Al Jazeera Arabic. She spoke in Arabic. She was known as that to the rest of the world. But to see that and that revealed in this documentary?
LINA ABU AKLEH: Yeah, it was horrifying, actually. And it just goes on to show how the Israeli military is built. It’s barbarism. It’s the character of revenge, of hate. And that is part of the entire system. And as Mehdi and as my father just mentioned, this is all about dehumanizing Palestinians, regardless if they’re journalists, if they’re doctors, they’re officials. For them, they simply don’t care about Palestinian lives.
And for us, Shireen will always be the voice of Palestine. And she continues to be remembered for the legacy that she left behind. And she continues to live through so many, so many journalists, who have picked up the microphone, who have picked up the camera, just because of Shireen.
So, regardless of how the Israeli military continues to dehumanise journalists and how the US fails to protect Palestinian American journalists, we will continue to push forward to continue to highlight the life and the legacy that Shireen left behind.
NERMEEN SHAIKH:Well, let’s turn to Shireen Abu Akleh in her own words. This is an excerpt from the Al Jazeera English documentary The Killing of Shireen Abu Akleh.
SHIREEN ABU AKLEH: [translated] Sometimes the Israeli army doesn’t want you there, so they target you, even if they later say it was an accident. They might say, “We saw some young men around you.” So they target you on purpose, as a way of scaring you off because they don’t want you there.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, that was Shireen in her own words in an Al Jazeera documentary. So, Lina, I know you have to go soon, but if you could just tell us: What do you want people to know about Shireen, as an aunt, a sister and a journalist?
LINA ABU AKLEH: Yes, so, we know Shireen as the journalist, but behind the camera, she was one of the most empathetic people. She was very sincere. And something not a lot of people know, but she was a very funny person. She had a very unique sense of humor, that she lit up every room she entered. She cared about everyone and anyone. She enjoyed life.
Shireen, at the end of the day, loved life. She had plans. She had dreams that she still wanted to achieve. But her life was cut short by that small bullet, which would change our lives entirely.
But at the end of the day, Shireen was a professional journalist who always advocated for truth, for justice. And at the end of the day, all she wanted to do was humanise Palestinians and talk about the struggles of living under occupation. But at the same time, she wanted to celebrate their achievements.
She shed light on all the happy moments, all the accomplishments of the Palestinian people. And this is something that really touched millions of Palestinians, of Arabs around the world. She was able to enter the hearts of the people through the small camera lens. And until this day, she continues to be remembered for that.
AMY GOODMAN: Before we go, we’re going to keep you on, Mehdi, to talk about other issues during the Trump administration, but how can people access Who Killed Shireen?
MEHDI HASAN: So, it’s available online at WhoKilledShireen.com, is where you can go to watch it. We are releasing the film right now only to paid subscribers. We hope to change that in the forthcoming days.
People often say to me, “How can you put it behind a paywall?” Journalism — a free press isn’t free, sadly. We have to fund films like this. Dion came to us because a lot of other people didn’t want to fund a topic like this, didn’t want to fund an investigation like this.
So, we’re proud to be able to fund such documentaries, but we also need support from our contributors, our subscribers and the viewers. But it’s an important film, and I hope as many people will watch it as possible, WhoKilledShireen.com.
AMY GOODMAN:We want to thank Lina, the niece of Shireen Abu Akleh, and Anton, Tony, the older brother of Shireen Abu Akleh, for joining us from New Jersey. Together, we saw the documentary last night, Who Killed Shireen? And we want to thank Dion Nissenbaum, who is the filmmaker, the correspondent on this film, formerly a correspondent with The Wall Street Journal. The founder of Zeteo, on this first anniversary of Zeteo, is Mehdi Hasan.
Leo, 69, formerly Cardinal Robert Prevost, is originally from Chicago, and has spent most of his career as a missionary in Peru.
He became a cardinal only in 2023 and has become the first-ever US pope.
PCC general secretary Reverend James Bhagwan said he was not a Vatican insider, but there had been talk of cardinals feeling that the new pope should be a “middle-of-the-road person”.
Reverend Bhagwan said there had been prayers for God’s wisdom to guide the decisions made at the Conclave.
“I think if we look at where the decisions perhaps were made or based on, there had been a lot of talk that the cardinals going into Conclave had felt that a new pope would need to be someone who could take forward the legacy of Pope Francis, reaching out to those in the margins, but also be a sort of a middle-of-the-road person,” he said.
Hopes for climate response Reverend Bhagwan said the Pacific hoped that Pope Leo carried on the late Pope Francis’s connection to the climate change response.
He said Pope Francis released his “laudate deum” exhortation on the climate shortly before the United Nations climate summit in Dubai last year.
“The focus on care for creation, the focus for ending fossil fuels and climate justice, the focus on people from the margins — I think that’s important for the Pacific people at this time.
“I know that the Catholic Church in the Pacific has been focused on on its synodal process, and so he spoke about synodality as well.
“I know that there were hopes for an Oceania synod, just as Pope Francis held a synod of the Amazon. And I think that is still something that’s in the hearts of many of our Catholic leaders and Catholic members.
“We hope that this will be an opportunity to still bring that focus to the Pacific.”
He said they were confident Pope Leo would pick up many of the issues Francis was well known for, like speaking up for climate change, human trafficking and the plight of refugees; and within the church, a different way of meeting and talking with one another — known as synodality — which is an ongoing process.
“I think any pope needs to be able to challenge things that are happening around the world, especially if it is affecting the lives of people, where the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer.”
Pope Leo appeared to be a very calm person, he added.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
IMO, this sounds like an expression of sorrow and regret about the conflict, and about the evils it is feeding and fostering. Regardless, the institute has described that comment by Davis as antisemitic.
“‘You cannot claim to champion social cohesion while minimising or rationalising antisemitic hate,’ the institute said. ‘Social trust depends on moral consistency, especially from those in leadership. Peter Davis’s actions erode that trust.’”
For the record, Davis wasn’t rationalising or minimising antisemitic hate. His comments look far more like a legitimate observation that the longer the need for a political-diplomatic solution is violently resisted, the worse things will be for everyone — including Jewish citizens, via the stoking of antisemitism.
The basic point at issue here is that criticisms of the actions of the Israeli government do not equate to a racist hostility to the Jewish people. (Similarly, the criticisms of Donald Trump’s actions cannot be minimised or rationalised as due to anti-Americanism.)
Appalled by Netanyahu actions Many Jewish people in fact, also feel appalled by the actions of the Netanyahu government, which repeatedly violate international law.
In the light of the extreme acts of violence being inflicted daily by the IDF on the people of Gaza, the upsurge in hateful graffiti by neo-Nazi opportunists while still being vile, is hardly surprising.
Around the world, the security of innocent Israeli citizens is being recklessly endangered by the ultra-violent actions of their own government.
If you want to protect your citizens from an existing fire, it’s best not to toss gasoline on the flames.
To repeat: the vast majority of the current criticisms of the Israeli state have nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism. At a time when Israel is killing scores of innocent Palestinians on a nightly basis with systematic air strikes and the shelling of civilian neighbourhoods, when it is weaponising access to humanitarian aid as an apparent tool of ethnic cleansing, when it is executing medical staff and assassinating journalists, when it is killing thousands of children and starving the survivors . . . antisemitism is not the reason why most people oppose these evils. Common humanity demands it.
Ironically, the press release by the NZ Israel Institute concludes with these words: “There must be zero tolerance for hate in any form.” Too bad the institute seems to have such a limited capacity for self-reflection.
Footnote One: For the best part of 80 years, the world has felt sympathy to Jews in recognition of the Holocaust. The genocide now being committed in Gaza by the Netanyahu government cannot help but reduce public support for Israel.
It also cannot help but erode the status of the Holocaust as a unique expression of human evil.
One would have hoped the NZ Israel Institute might acknowledge the self-defeating nature of the Netanyahu government policies — if only because, on a daily basis, the state of Israel is abetting its enemies, and alienating its friends.
Footnote Two: As yet, the so-called Free Speech Union has not come out to support the free speech rights of Peter Davis, and to rebuke the NZ Israel Institute for trying to muzzle them.
Colour me not surprised.
This is a section of Gordon Campbell’s Scoop column published yesterday under the subheading “Pot Calls Out Kettle”; the main portion of the column about the new Pope is here. Republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on May 10, 2025.
Tracing radiation through the Marshall Islands: Reflections from a veteran Greenpeace nuclear campaigner SPECIAL REPORT: By Shaun Burnie of Greenpeace We’ve visited Ground Zero. Not once, but three times. But for generations, before these locations were designated as such, they were the ancestral home to the people of the Marshall Islands. As part of a team of Greenpeace scientists and specialists from the Radiation Protection Advisers team, we
USP World Press Freedom Day warnings over AI, legal reform and media safety World Press Freedom Day is not just a celebration of the vital role journalism plays — it is also a moment to reflect on the pressures facing the profession and Pacific governments’ responsibility to protect it. This was one of the key messages delivered by two guest speakers at The University of the South Pacific
Labor likely to gain 5 senators, cementing the left’s Senate dominance Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne I previously wrote about the Senate the morning after the election. About half the Senate is elected at each House of Representatives election. Those up for election
The Kiwi heart surgeon, his wife and the film maker in Palestine Auckland film maker Paula Whetu Jones has spent nearly two decades working pro bono on a feature film about the Auckland cardiac surgeon Alan Kerr, which is finally now in cinemas. She is best known for co-writing and directing Whina, the feature film about Dame Whina Cooper. She filmed Dr Kerr and his wife Hazel
Glyn Davis to quit as the prime minister’s top public servant Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Glyn Davis, Anthony Albanese’s hand-picked Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, will leave the post on June 16. Albanese paid tribute to Davis for rebuilding the public service. “One of the key priorities of our government’s
Keith Rankin Analysis – Make Deficits Great Again: Maintaining a Pragmatic Balance Analysis by Keith Rankin. Donald Trump is a mercantilist, as noted in Trump’s tariffs: Short-term damage or long-term ruin? ‘The Bottom Line’, Al Jazeera, 11 April 2025 (or here on YouTube). But the United States, in today’s world, is not a mercantilist country. Or at least not a successful mercantilist country, though it is inhabited
It’s almost winter. Why is Australia still so hot? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew King, Associate Professor in Climate Science, ARC Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather, The University of Melbourne This year, for many Australians, it feels like summer never left. The sunny days and warm nights have continued well into autumn. Even now, in May, it’s still
Labor has promised to tackle homelessness. Here’s what homeless people say they need Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robyn Martin, Associate Dean, Social Work and Human Services, RMIT University Pressmaster/Shutterstock The 2025 election is over and now it’s time for Labor to deliver on campaign promises to address homelessness. Action on homelessness is long overdue. Affordable housing options remain scarce and public and community housing
View from The Hill: two ministers and the Nationals discover the limits of loyalty in politics Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Labor’s extraordinary election result has triggered a power play that has exposed the uglier entrails of Labor factionalism. Even before the new caucus met in Canberra on Friday, the Labor right had dumped two of its cabinet ministers: Attorney-General Mark
What’s the difference between probiotics and prebiotics? A dietitian explains Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Accredited Practising Dietitian, University of South Australia Simply Amazing/Shutterstock If you walk through your local pharmacy or supermarket you’re bound to come across probiotics and prebiotics. They’re added to certain foods. They come as supplements you can drink
What will the Antichrist look like? According to Western thought, an authoritarian king – or the pope Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philip C. Almond, Emeritus Professor in the History of Religious Thought, The University of Queensland Composite image by The Conversation. Images courtesy of TruthSocial/@realDonaldTrump and Wikimedia Commons The US presidency and the papacy came together on May 3 when Donald Trump posted an AI-generated photograph of himself
We’ve visited Ground Zero. Not once, but three times. But for generations, before these locations were designated as such, they were the ancestral home to the people of the Marshall Islands.
As part of a team of Greenpeace scientists and specialists from the Radiation Protection Advisers team, we have embarked on a six-week tour on board the Rainbow Warrior, sailing through one of the most disturbing chapters in human history: between 1946 and 1958, the United States detonated 67 nuclear bombs across the Marshall Islands — equivalent to 7200 Hiroshima explosions.
During this period, testing nuclear weapons at the expense of wonderful ocean nations like the Marshall Islands was considered an acceptable practice, or as the US put it, “for the good of mankind”.
Instead, the radioactive fallout left a deep and complex legacy — one that is both scientific and profoundly human, with communities displaced for generations.
Between March and April, we travelled on the Greenpeace flagship vessel, the Rainbow Warrior, throughout the Marshall Islands, including to three northern atolls that bear the most severe scars of Cold War nuclear weapons testing:
Enewetak atoll, where, on Runit Island, stands a massive leaking concrete dome beneath which lies plutonium-contaminated waste, a result of a partial “clean-up” of some of the islands after the nuclear tests;
Bikini atoll, a place so beautiful, yet rendered uninhabitable by some of the most powerful nuclear detonations ever conducted; and
Rongelap atoll, where residents were exposed to radiation fallout and later convinced to return to contaminated land, part of what is now known as Project 4.1, a US medical experiment to test humans’ exposure to radiation.
This isn’t fiction, nor the distant past. It’s a chapter of history still alive through the environment, the health of communities, and the data we’re collecting today.
Each location we visit, each sample we take, adds to a clearer picture of some of the long-term impacts of nuclear testing—and highlights the importance of continuing to document, investigate, and attempt to understand and share these findings.
These are our field notes from a journey through places that hold important lessons for science, justice, and global accountability.
Our mission: why are we here? With the permission and support of the Marshallese government, a group of Greenpeace science and radiation experts, together with independent scientists, are in the island nation to assess, investigate, and document the long-term environmental and radiological consequences of nuclear weapons testing in the Marshall Islands.
Our mission is grounded in science. We’re conducting field sampling and radiological surveys to gather data on what radioactivity remains in the environment — isotopes such as caesium-137, strontium-90 and plutonium-239/240. These substances are released during nuclear explosions and can linger in the environment for decades, posing serious health risks, such as increased risk of cancers in organs and bones.
But this work is not only about radiation measurements, it is also about bearing witness.
We are here in solidarity with Marshallese communities who continue to live with the consequences of decisions made decades ago, without their consent and far from the public eye.
Stop 1: Enewetak Atoll — the dome that shouldn’t exist
At the far western edge of the Marshall Islands is Enewetak. The name might not ring a bell for many, but this atoll was the site of 43 US nuclear detonations. Today, it houses what may be one of the most radioactive places in the world — the Runit Dome.
Once a tropical paradise thick with coconut palms, Runit Island is capped by a massive concrete structure the size of a football field. Under this dome — cracked, weather-worn, and only 46 centimetres thick in some places — lies 85,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste. These substances are not only confined to the crater — they are also found across the island’s soil, rendering Runit Island uninhabitable for all time.
The contrast between what it once was and what it has become is staggering. We took samples near the dome’s base, where rising sea levels now routinely flood the area.
We collected coconut from the island, which will be processed and prepared in the Rainbow Warrior’s onboard laboratory. Crops such as coconut are a known vector for radioactive isotope transfer, and tracking levels in food sources is essential for understanding long-term environmental and health risks.
The local consequences of this simple fact are deeply unjust. While some atolls in the Marshall Islands can harvest and sell coconut products, the people of Enewetak are prohibited from doing so because of radioactive contamination.
They have lost not only their land and safety but also their ability to sustain themselves economically. The radioactive legacy has robbed them of income and opportunity.
One of the most alarming details about this dome is that there is no lining beneath the structure — it is in direct contact with the environment, while containing some of the most hazardous long-lived substances ever to exist on planet Earth. It was never built to withstand flooding, sea level rise, and climate change.
The scientific questions are urgent: how much of this material is already leaking into the lagoon? What are the exposure risks to marine ecosystems and local communities?
We are here to help answer questions with new, independent data, but still, being in the craters and walking on this ground where nuclear Armageddon was unleashed is an emotional and surreal journey.
Stop 2: Bikini — a nuclear catastrophe, labelled ‘for the good of mankind’
Unlike Chernobyl or Fukushima, where communities were devastated by catastrophic accidents, Bikini tells a different story. This was not an accident.
The nuclear destruction of Bikini was deliberate, calculated, and executed with full knowledge that entire ways of life were going to be destroyed.
Bikini Atoll is incredibly beautiful and would look idyllic on any postcard. But we know what lies beneath: the site of 23 nuclear detonations, including Castle Bravo, the largest ever nuclear weapons test conducted by the United States.
Castle Bravo alone released more than 1000 times the explosive yield of the Hiroshima bomb. The radioactive fallout massively contaminated nearby islands and their populations, together with thousands of US military personnel.
Bikini’s former residents were forcibly relocated in 1946 before nuclear testing began, with promises of a safe return. But the atoll is still uninhabited, and most of the new generations of Bikinians have never seen their home island.
As we stood deep in the forest next to a massive concrete blast bunker, reality hit hard — behind its narrow lead-glass viewing window, US military personnel once watched the evaporation of Bikini lagoon.
On our visit, we noticed there’s a spectral quality to Bikini. The homes of the Bikini islanders are long gone. In its place now stand a scattering of buildings left by the US Department of Energy: rusting canteens, rotting offices, sleeping quarters with peeling walls, and traces of the scientific experiments conducted here after the bombs fell.
On dusty desks, we found radiation reports, notes detailing crop trials, and a notebook meticulously tracking the application of potassium to test plots of corn, alfalfa, lime, and native foods like coconut, pandanus, and banana. The potassium was intended to block the uptake of caesium-137, a radioactive isotope, by plant roots.
The logic was simple: if these crops could be decontaminated, perhaps one day Bikini could be repopulated.
We collected samples of coconuts and soil — key indicators of internal exposure risk if humans were to return. Bikini raises a stark question: What does “safe” mean, and who gets to decide?
The US declared parts of Bikini habitable in 1970, only to evacuate people again eight years later after resettled families suffered from radiation exposure. The science is not abstract here. It is personal. It is human. It has real consequences.
The Rainbow Warrior arrived at the eastern side of Rongelap atoll, anchoring one mile from the centre of Rongelap Island, the church spire and roofs of “new” buildings reflecting the bright sun.
n 1954, fallout from the Castle Bravo nuclear detonation on Bikini blanketed this atoll in radioactive ash — fine, white powder that children played in, thinking it was snow. The US government waited three days to evacuate residents, despite knowing the risks. The US government declared it safe to return to Rongelap in 1957 — but it was a severely contaminated environment. The very significant radiation exposure to the Rongelap population caused severe health impacts: thyroid cancers, birth defects such as “jellyfish babies”, miscarriages, and much more.
In 1985, after a request to the US government to evacuate was dismissed, the Rongelap community asked Greenpeace to help relocate them from their ancestral lands. Using the first Rainbow Warrior, and over a period of 10 days and four trips, 350 residents collectively dismantled their homes, bringing everything with them — including livestock, and 100 metric tons of building material — where they resettled on the islands of Mejatto and Ebeye on Kwajalein atoll.
It is a part of history that lives on in the minds of the Marshallese people we meet in this ship voyage — in the gratitude they still express, the pride in keeping the fight for justice, and in the pain of still not having a permanent, safe home.
Now, once again, we are standing on their island of Rongelap, walking past abandoned buildings and rusting equipment, some of it dating from the 1980s and 1990s — a period when the US Department of Energy launched a push to encourage resettlement declaring that the island was safe — a declaration that this time, the population welcomed with mistrust, not having access to independent scientific data and remembering the deceitful relocation of some decades before.
Here, once again, we sample soil and fruits that could become food if people came back. It is essential to understand ongoing risks — especially for communities considering whether and how to return.
Our scientific mission is to take measurements, collect samples, and document contamination. But that’s not all we’re bringing back.
We carry with us the voices of the Marshallese who survived these tests and are still living with their consequences. We carry images of graves swallowed by tides near Runit Dome, stories of entire cultures displaced from their homelands, and measurements of radiation showing contamination still persists after many decades.
There are 9700 nuclear warheads still held by military powers around the world – mostly in the United States and Russian arsenals. The Marshall Islands was one of the first nations to suffer the consequences of nuclear weapons — and the legacy persists today.
We didn’t come to speak for the Marshallese. We came to listen, to bear witness, and to support their demand for justice. We plan to return next year, to follow up on our research and to make results available to the people of the Marshall Islands.
And we will keep telling these stories — until justice is more than just a word.
Kommol Tata (“thank you” in the beautiful Marshallese language) for following our journey.
Shaun Burnie is a senior nuclear specialist at Greenpeace Ukraine and was part of the Rainbow Warrior team in the Marshall Islands. This article was first published by Greenpeace Aotearoa and is republished with permission.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Mark Yenson, King’s University College, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Vice-President and Academic Dean (Interim), Western University
The 133 cardinal electors sequestered in the Sistine Chapel elected a new pope May 8. The choice was a surprise — Chicago-born Cardinal Robert Prevost, who has carried out most of his ministry in Peru, before being elevated to Vatican roles by Pope Francis.
When applied to individual Catholics, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” can mean very different things. One could be conservative in regard to liturgy and church practice while being strongly committed to anti-racism and environmentalism.
Or one might be considered a social conservative on issues such as marriage, sexuality and gender while holding clearly left-wing, social democratic views on the role of government.
Even if Catholics are comfortable self-identifying as liberal or conservative Catholics, we should not treat these terms as if their meaning were obvious — especially since even as purely political terms the meaning of “liberal” or “conservative” is contested.
Papacy as institution
Things become all the more complicated when we are talking about the pope, the supreme head of the Catholic Church. The papacy as an institution is conservative by definition.
The pope is considered the successor of the Apostle Peter, and his job description is precisely to maintain the unity and catholicity (“wholeness”) of the Church’s life, not only in space but through time — that is, to ensure continuity.
But because of this role to maintain the fullness of a tradition and the unity of the Church, the pope cannot be conservative (or liberal) in a political sense.
Instead of trying to impose political categories, it makes more sense to try to uncover the internal dynamics and motivations of a pope’s teaching and ministry. For example, Pope Francis’s 2015 encyclical letter,Laudato si’, was a landmark in Catholic teaching on ecology. Far from being a political manifesto, the letter presents a vision of the human being within creation, informed by the Bible, theological reflection and modern Catholic social teaching. Francis frequently references the social thought of his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, who himself affirmed that the Church “must defend not only earth, water and air as gifts of creation that belong to everyone.”
As the British theologian Anna Rowlands astutely notes, Catholic social teaching “functions as a social philosophy that never fully baptizes a liberal philosophy or sentiment. It remains locked in a complex dialogue … with liberal democracy.”
Another example that subverts the liberal/conservative dichotomy was the well-known response of Pope Francis to a journalist’s question about homosexuality in the priesthood: “Who am I to judge?” Francis did not overturn “conservative” teachings in sexual ethics.
But he did speak as a member of the Jesuit religious order and as a pastor, who knows that the general law must be applied in specific cases that introduce complexities and require nuanced concrete responses.
There was also a tacit appeal to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (1962–65), that an individual is bound to follow their conscience.
For his part, Benedict XVI (as then-Cardinal Ratzinger), in a 1991 address to American bishops in Dallas, alluded to “the classical principle of moral tradition that conscience is the highest norm which [the human person] is to follow even in opposition to authority.” According to this principle, while church teaching authority would inform conscience, “conscience … would retain the final word.”
There is no doubt that LGBTQ+ Catholics were able to hear something different in Francis’s language than they had heard in Benedict’s. However, both Benedict and Francis could appeal to shared principles, which were theological rather than political, and not reducible to liberal versus conservative categories.
In the American context at the moment, “conservative Catholic” in its most radical form blends theological traditionalism — devotion to the traditional Latin mass, emphasis on doctrinal orthodoxy and opposition to Francis’s reformist papacy — with support for the Republican party and MAGA movement.
As professor of moral philosophy Massimo Borghesi has argued, this radical conservative opposition to Francis has its genesis in the pro-capitalist Catholic neo-conservatism of the 1980s and 90s, and is a predominantly American phenomenon.
In addition, as writer and editor James T. Keane noted in a 2021 article in the Jesuit magazine America, the political polarizations that have seeped into the American Catholic Church should not set the map for the rest of the world, least of all the papacy. It is important to remember this fact as the first North American pope begins his pontificate.
Choice of name Leo
Cardinal Robert Prevost, who has become Pope Leo XIV, has given indications of being critical of the Trump administration on issues of peace and migration, very much in line with Francis.
His choice of the name Leo harkens back to Pope Leo XIII, the pope credited with initiating modern Catholic social teaching, and signals an emphasis on the Church’s advocacy for peace and justice. The new pope’s first Urbi et Orbi (“To the City and to the World”) address from the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica signalled continuity with Francis — peace, dialogue, encounter, bridge-building.
And Pope Leo’s career as a missionary, bishop and Vatican cardinal outside of the U.S. means that his context is not confined to the polarizations of the U.S. Catholic Church and its bishops.
Will the new Pope, Leo XIV, be liberal or conservative? Pope Francis did not fit neatly into these categories: I hope Pope Leo won’t either.
Mark Yenson 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.
Rhino beetles are just one insect species being traded illegally. Lightboxx/Shutterstock
Four men were recently arrested and fined for attempting to smuggle more than 5,000 ants out of Kenya. Aiming to sell them as part of the exotic pet trade, these ants were being stored in individual test tubes and syringes with small amounts of cotton wool for transportation. This unusual case highlights an important yet overlooked aspect of wildlife trafficking.
Wildlife trafficking is a crime against nature which occurs mainly because of consumer demand. Trafficking refers to the illegal smuggling and continued exploitation of wild animals, plants or timber. That includes, as in this case, insects.
Much conservation effort, reporting, study and enforcement activity focuses on recognised species such as rhinos. Wildlife trafficking is often associated more with these charismatic species and products made from them such as elephant tusks and rhino horn.
But wildlife trafficking includes a whole spectrum of illicit animal trade from poaching and smuggling to the distribution of protected and endangered species. There is also thriving illegal trade in insects.
Globally, insect species are declining. This is caused by an array of threats such as pollution, pesticides, climate change and urbanisation. Although the extent of the harm being caused by trafficking is unknown, this adds further pressure to species that already face extinction.
Protections for insects vary. The conservation status of each ant species affects their level of protection both nationally and internationally.
Ants that are on the red list – which is the largest classification of endangered species produced by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) – and classed as critically endangered or endangered cannot be captured, killed or disturbed in any manner. An example is the anathema ant, which is currently listed as an endangered species.
International law puts controls on wildlife that may be threatened by trade. Some ants are protected under UK law which makes it an offence to disturb or destroy the nests of species like the red wood ant.
This case shows how wildlife trafficking extends to areas such as the smuggling of, and illegal trade, in ants. Some organised crime groups have moved from smuggling drugs and weapons to trafficking in plants, medicinal compounds and animals – including insects. Organised crime can include smaller and partially disorganised groups and networks. Where there is money to be made smuggling, networks will target wildlife.
The scale of the insect smuggling problem is unknown. Many cases will go unreported due to the clandestine nature of the trade. As such, both law enforcement and the wider public might not know or care about this being an offence.
Although there have been some insect trade seizures, law enforcement agencies are often underresourced and may view wildlife crimes as a low priority in comparison to other areas of criminality, such as drugs.
Often, insects are easily concealed. For example, 37 rhino beetles were discovered at Los Angeles International airport hidden within sweet and crisp packets.
Even once insects are seized, it can be difficult to identify the species to find out whether they are protected, given so many different levels of protections for species internationally.
Invasive species risk
Insect trafficking could introduce non-native species to new places. If they establish a breeding population and pose a threat to local ecosystems, they can become known as “invasive species”. Invasive species can outcompete native species for food. Some destroy habitats. Others have the potential to bring new diseases to a country.
Not only can invasive insects pose threats to the environment such as the ongoing issue of invasive Asian hornets within Europe, but also affect people. Hawaii spends US$10 million (£7.5 million) on invasive species control measures – US$2.4 million of that is set aside just for coconut rhinoceros beetles.
Although predicting which species and when they may become invasive is a challenge, insect trafficking can cause serious consequences. Undervaluing some species protections provides avenues for traffickers, so enforcing trafficking laws for all wildlife, including insects, is crucial.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Angus Nurse is a member of the Wild Animal Welfare Committee.~
He has previously received funding from animal welfare NGOs for research into wildlife and animal law not related to the subject of this article.
Elliot Doornbos 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.
Satellites are the invisible backbone of modern life. They guide airplanes, help us find our way with GPS, deliver TV and internet, and even help emergency services respond to disasters. But a new kind of computer – quantum computers – could put all of this at risk.
Quantum computers are not just faster versions of today’s computers. They work in a completely different way, using the peculiar rules of quantum physics. While they have not yet reached their full capabilities, quantum computers are expected to be game changing provided that the technological hurdles can be overcome.
For example, they are expected to be able to solve certain mathematical problems that would take classical computers millions of years. In some cases, quantum computers could solve such difficult problems in just seconds or minutes.
It’s very difficult to predict exactly when practical quantum computers will become available. However, progress is being made both in the design of more powerful quantum processors and in overcoming other hurdles to their development.
The new capabilities presented by quantum computers could help push forward areas such as science and medicine. For example, they could carry out the complex simulations needed to design new materials and more effective drugs. They could also improve our simulations of the Earth’s future climate.
However, there’s a catch: quantum computers could also break the codes that keep our digital world safe.
Experts around the world are working urgently to develop new kinds of digital “locks” that can’t be cracked by quantum computers – an area known as “post-quantum cryptography”. These new codes are being tested and approved by international bodies, while governments are starting to plan how to upgrade everything from satellites to bank systems.
The digital locks that protect satellite signals, bank accounts and private messages are based on mathematical puzzles that regular computers can’t solve quickly. Quantum computers, however, would be able to crack these puzzles with ease.
You might think that satellites are safe because they’re far away and hard to reach. But as the technology required to attack them becomes cheaper and more widely available, satellites are becoming targets for hackers and hostile governments. Today, it’s possible for skilled attackers to intercept satellite signals or try to send fake commands.
Staying ahead of the curve
Most satellites are designed to last for decades. This means the security systems we put in place now need to be strong enough to withstand not just today’s threats but tomorrow’s as well – including the threat from quantum computers.
In the UK, the National Cyber Security Centre has published a roadmap for moving to quantum-safe security. It has set a date of 2035 by which organisations should aim to migrate all their systems to post-quantum cryptography – the new digital codes that should protect against hacking by quantum computers. The message is clear: both private- and public-sector organisations need to start preparing now, so that by the time quantum computers are ready, our most important systems – including satellites – are already protected.
Updating a satellite’s security isn’t as simple as updating your phone’s software. Once a satellite is in orbit, it’s very hard – sometimes impossible – to change its systems. That’s why new satellites being designed today must use quantum-resistant security from the start.
It’s also necessary to design these systems so they can work efficiently across more than one satellite, because some spacecraft are designed to collaborate with each other in what are known as “swarms”.
If we don’t act now, the data sent to and from satellites could one day be read or even tampered with by anyone with a powerful enough quantum computer. That could mean anything from disrupted GPS signals to attacks on emergency communications or threats to national security.
No country can solve this problem alone. It will take scientists, engineers, governments and international organisations working together to make sure our digital infrastructure is ready for the quantum age.
The good news? The world is already moving in this direction. By building in the protections against quantum computers now, satellites that connect and protect us can be secured – no matter what the future brings.
Panagiotis (Panos) Vlachos’s employer, Mastercard, covers his tuition fees. He is an active volunteering member of CyberPeace Builders and ISC2’s Code TaskForce.
The UK is facing what charities are calling an eating disorder epidemic, with an estimated 1.25 million people affected. These conditions have the highest mortality rate of any mental health illness, making early intervention and education urgent.
Yet, within the world of sport, eating disorders often go undetected and unchallenged. Disordered behaviour, such as restricting food intake, purging, binge eating, or abusing laxatives, are sometimes normalised in competitive environments, embedded into routines and disguised as dedication.
Eating disorders thrive in silence. They’re secretive, isolating and can affect athletes of all genders, ages and backgrounds, whether at grassroots or elite levels.
In sport, several factors can trigger or worsen disordered behaviour: pressure to perform, body dissatisfaction, weight-category requirements and cultural ideals of what an “athletic” body should look like.
In this context, harmful practices like dehydration, extreme weight-cutting and overtraining often become accepted – and are sometimes even encouraged.
In some sports, the risks are tragically clear. Take bodybuilding. One heartbreaking example is 20-year-old Jodi Vance, who died from heart failure caused by dehydration during preparations for a competition.
In combat sports and martial arts, eating disorders are frequently acknowledged, yet meaningful solutions are rarely discussed. Fighters like Paige VanZant and Kay Hansen have openly shared their struggles with disordered eating, which in many sports, is still dismissed as just “part of the process”.
Extreme tactics
Even worse, some coaches perpetuate a toxic culture by fat-shaming athletes or joking about serious conditions like bulimia. In such environments, young athletes can become trapped in cycles of physical and emotional harm.
In my own research with UK-based mixed martial arts (MMA) fighters, I spent months observing and interviewing athletes across various gyms. Many described extreme weight-loss tactics before fights – dropping both fat and water weight in dangerously short time frames. These methods took a toll on both their bodies and mental health.
I witnessed fighters collapse from exhaustion and dehydration. I heard coaches make jokes about eating disorders. One fighter told me: “I don’t even recognise myself anymore,” echoing the public experiences of UFC fighter Paddy Pimblett, who has shared his struggles with binge eating and body image.
These stories hit close to home.
During my own time in MMA, I developed atypical anorexia, bulimia and binge eating disorder. I was praised for rapid weight loss – not for my skill or performance. At one point, I was training to the point of experiencing heart palpitations, dizziness and nausea. Yet, these symptoms were brushed off as signs of “good training”.
Eating disorders don’t discriminate
Even when I lived in a larger body, I was still suffering from an eating disorder. This is a crucial reminder: you cannot tell if someone is unwell just by looking at them. This isn’t just an issue in fight sports. Disordered eating affects athletes across many disciplines.
In fact, disordered thoughts can affect athletes at any stage of their careers. Today, even after competing internationally in American football and Australian rules football, I still live with disordered thinking around food and body image.
There have been some encouraging policy changes. In MMA, emergency rules now ban extreme weight-cutting methods like IV rehydration, where fluids and electrolytes are administered directly into a vein, bypassing the digestive system. British Gymnastics, the body governing competitive gymnastics in the UK, has banned coaches from weighing athletes – a major move given the sport’s documented issues.
Coaches can either be a force for recovery – or part of the problem. They must be better trained to spot early signs of disordered behaviour, provide support and promote a culture that values mental wellbeing over appearance.
To create safer sporting environments, we need better signposting for athletes on how to get help, education for coaches and staff on eating disorder awareness, a cultural shift from bodily perfection and towards sustainable performance and health and athlete-first policies that protect both physical and mental wellbeing.
Recovery is possible. But prevention – through awareness, education and empathy – can save lives long before treatment is ever needed.
Sport should be a place for strength, growth and resilience – not hidden harm.
If anything in this article causes distress or concern about eating disorders, visit the BEAT website for more information and support.
Zoe John received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) for her Doctoral research.
Zoe also volunteers as a lived experience ambassador for the eating disorder charity, Beat.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Manjeet Ridon, Associate Dean International, Faculty of Arts, Design & Humanities, De Montfort University
The Book of Records by Madeleine Thien intricately blends historical and speculative fiction to tackle contemporary global issues. It explores migration, the refugee crisis, identity politics and cultural conflict.
At the heart of the novel is Lina, a young girl who escapes her homeland with her ill father. She finds herself in a mysterious, shape-shifting place known only as “the Sea”. This ambiguous setting, likened to a temporary shelter or refugee camp, serves as a metaphor for statelessness, displacement and a loss of identity. The Sea’s geography is deliberately unclear – as is Lina’s origin, her homeland and the fate of the rest of her family. This emphasises the book’s themes of rootlessness and exile.
Lina arrives in the Sea as a child and remains there into her late 50s, bound by her loyalty to her ailing father. She lives in limbo, experiencing the heartache of her mother and brother’s absence and haunted by her family’s fragmentation.
Lina’s life becomes one of stillness and minimalism, revolving around caring for her father. She finds solace in the few items she brought with her, notably three volumes from The Great Voyagers encyclopaedia. She becomes obsessed with these books, reading them repeatedly until she has memorised them. They come to shape her intellectual and emotional world.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
These volumes also form the intellectual structure of the novel. In her mind, they are personified as three characters – Blucher, Bento and Jupiter. Each represents a distinct philosophical perspective and embodies historical figures from different periods and places, including Europe and Asia. They, like Lina, are portrayed as refugees living in the Sea. They appear across different stages of her life – adolescence, adulthood and old age – offering guidance and companionship.
Blucher is modelled after Hannah Arendt, the German-American philosopher and historian who escaped Nazi persecution. Through her, the novel explores themes of dehumanisation and survival under oppressive regimes.
Bento’s character represents the figure of Baruch Spinoza, the 17th-century Portuguese-Jewish philosopher. He was excommunicated from his Amsterdam community due to his radical and rationalist views of religion, reason and freedom. From him, Lina learns about the cost of intellectual and moral independence.
Jupiter resembles the Chinese poet Du Fu, who suffered political and personal turmoil due to his criticism of the state during the Tang dynasty (AD618 to 907). His story conveys the risks of speaking truth to power and the ethical sacrifices such acts may demand.
Through interactions with these three, Lina gains insights into resilience, suffering, and the philosophical implications of exile and survival.
Author Madeleine Thien was a finalist for the Booker Prize in 2016. Wiki Commons, CC BY-SA
Blucher teaches her about the psychological strategies used by Holocaust survivors, including the detachment of self from suffering. Bento’s story reveals the loneliness of ideological estrangement and the commitment required to uphold your beliefs against societal rejection. Jupiter imparts the painful consequences of challenging authority, and how artistic and political expression often come at great personal cost.
Enduring and resisting
While the novel is set in a speculative future, its most potent and emotionally resonant passages are grounded in the historical experiences of Blucher, Bento and Jupiter.
Lina’s story is less compelling and comparatively more subdued. It serves as a lens through which the reader reflects on a dystopian world shaped by today’s challenges – rising nationalism, populism and polarisation, and environmental collapse. Her story symbolises the psychological toll of prolonged displacement and the quiet endurance of everyday life under extraordinary pressures.
Ultimately, The Book of Records is a sobering meditation on the human condition in times of crises. It critiques historical cycles of oppression while illustrating how people retain dignity, compassion, and philosophical depth in the face of adversity.
Lina’s companionship with Blucher, Bento and Jupiter becomes a testament to how survival is not merely about endurance, but about how we preserve and interpret our values. The novel emphasises that even amid chaos, acts of kindness, understanding and intellectual inquiry remain vital forms of resistance.
Manjeet Ridon 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Heather Laird, Senior Lecturer in the School of English and Digital Humanities, University College Cork
Palestinian literature is unique. It stands apart for its ability to capture a nation’s identity in exile – shaped not by borders, but by memory, resistance and longing.
The settings of modern Palestinian literature include Israel, the occupied territories, countries more broadly in the Middle East, and locations further afield. Four notable writers are particularly worth exploring: Emile Habibi, Ghassan Kanafani (now both dead) and more recent authors, Isabella Hammad and Anwar Hamed.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
Emile Habibi (1922-96) was one of about 150,000 Palestinian Arabs who remained in the territory that became Israel in 1948. He started writing in his mid-40s in response to a claim by an Israeli politician that Palestinians no longer existed in Israel, because if they did, they would have their own literature.
In his novel, The Secret Life of Saeed: The Pessoptimist (1974), the central character flees to Lebanon in 1948, but soon afterwards is allowed to return home on the understanding that he will become an informant for Israeli intelligence. Despite his cooperation with the state of Israel, Saeed is beaten and imprisoned, finally learning from a fellow prisoner that his Palestinian identity is worthy of respect.
Ghassan Kanafani (1936-72) was one of approximately 750,000 Palestinians who were expelled from or fled Mandatory Palestine in 1948. A political thinker, journalist and revolutionary, his writings documented the horrors of war and occupation, and include Men in the Sun (1962), a short novel that features three Palestinian men who have been living for ten years in refugee camps in Iraq and are now attempting a dangerous desert journey to Kuwait.
Isabella Hammad (1992-) was born in London and raised by a British-Irish mother and a Palestinian father. Unlike Habibi and Kanafini, whose literary works were published initially in Arabic, Hammad writes in English. Her 2024 novel, Enter Ghost, imagines a production of Shakespeare’s Hamlet in the West Bank. Its central character is a London-based actress who grew up in Israel as a Palestinian Arab and becomes involved in the Hamlet production while visiting her sister in Israel.
Though featuring disparate settings, Palestinian literature is linked by recurring motifs. Olive trees and keys, in particular, hold resonance in Palestinian culture. Many Palestinians kept the keys to their houses when they fled or were forced from Mandatory Palestine in 1948. These keys became symbols of loss of home and hope of return.
Palestinian identification with olive trees is grounded in the economic importance of olives for generations of Palestinian farmers. In the context of exile, the olive tree is emblematic of a long-standing connection to the land, adding specificity to a more generalised yearning for home.
In Kanafani’s Men in the Sun, the oldest Palestinian refugee reminisces about the olive trees he once owned, with his current lack of income leaving him no option but to set out on the hazardous journey to Kuwait where Palestinians are finding work as labourers in the oil fields.
The haunting of the present by the past is another common concern of Palestinian literature. In Habibi’s The Pessoptimist, the protagonist is confronted by “ghost-like” figures who ask if he has met anyone from their razed villages while journeying to Israel. This prompts him to reflect on his encounter with a woman attempting to return home and on the military governor who subsequently re-banished her and then watched in surprise as she grew bigger rather than smaller while walking away.
Another of Habibi’s literary works, a short story titled The Odds-and-Ends Woman (1968), mentions the “roving spirits” who, after an absence of 20 years, are making the journey from “the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Amman, even as far as Kuwait” to Israel in the hope of briefly seeing their former homes. In Hammad’s Enter Ghost, Palestinian characters discuss at length the relevance of Hamlet’s dead father to Shakespeare’s play.
Many works of Palestinian literature employ a serious tone when providing insight into the harsh realities of life for post-1948 Palestinians. Kanafani’s Men in the Sun, for example, is notable for its gritty naturalistic descriptions.
But Palestinian literature is more varied in tone and genre than might be expected. It also includes writings, such as Habibi’s The Pessoptimist, that employ humour to explore the circumstances of post-1948 Palestinians. And, more recently, Anwar Hamed (1957-) has applied a science-fiction sensibility to established motifs in Palestinian literature.
Hamed’s short story, The Key (2019), is set in 2048 in an Israel protected by a high-tech “gravity wall” – an invisible barrier that is programmed to allow only those who have the “key” embedded in their microchips to enter and exit.
The central character is an Israeli whose grandfather collected pictures of exiled Palestinians “clutching rusty keys to houses that no longer existed”. These photographs scared him “more than any arms deal being signed by neighbouring countries”, given the persistent “stubbornness” they revealed. The gravity wall has been designed for security purposes, but also to consign those rusty keys to the past.
But while this wall seems impenetrable, the boundary between past and present is porous. The story’s central character lives a comfortable existence cushioned from “the chaos” beyond the wall. But then the ghostly sound of a key turning in the lock of his apartment door starts to wake him up at night.
The first indication in the story that all Israelis are similarly affected is when the central character is informed that his doctor is inundated with requests for sleep medication. Unable to get an appointment, he decides to pay the doctor a visit outside of work hours.
The story ends with the doctor blowing a hole in his own apartment door with his old service rifle, and possibly killing the central character in the process. The doctor’s irrational reasoning is that with no lock left for an intruder to insert a key, he can finally sleep.
There are many reasons to read Palestinian literature. But chiefly, in innovative fictional ways, it gives voice to the challenging experience of belonging to a nation in exile.
These writings are also a reminder that injustices, if left unaddressed, refuse to be consigned to the past.
Heather Laird 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.
The treaty suspension reflects a growing regional trend: South Asian countries are increasingly treating water as a strategic asset rather than a shared resource amid rising mistrust, climate stress and geopolitical competition.
The region is home to nearly a quarter of the global population, and relies on huge transboundary rivers fed by Himalayan glaciers – the so-called “Third Pole” of freshwater reserves. A breakdown in water diplomacy could trigger environmental collapse, humanitarian crises and geopolitical instability. The weaponisation of water must be urgently addressed as a global climate justice issue.
A flashpoint occurred in August 2024 when devastating floods affected nearly 5.8 million people in Bangladesh. Some Bangladeshi officials accused India of releasing excess water from a large dam upstream without warning. India denied responsibility, citing extreme rainfall and standard dam operations. Nevertheless, the incident reignited longstanding tensions between the two countries.
Complicating matters further is China recently approving the construction of the world’s largest hydropower project on the Yarlung Tsangpo river in Tibet, which becomes the Brahmaputra in India. This massive project has raised alarm about China’s ability to exert control upstream, and the ecological risks for India and Bangladesh downstream.
China hasn’t signed formal water-sharing agreements with its neighbours, but its growing presence in regional water infrastructure signals a dramatic shift in south and east Asian hydro-politics.
Climate change is making things worse
Recent climatic trends are making transboundary rivers an increasing focus of geopolitical friction. These trends include accelerated glacier melt, erratic monsoon patterns, and intensifying extreme weather.
While melting glaciers will temporarily boost the flow of rivers, the long-term prognosis is bleak. If emissions and warming trends continue, many glacier-fed rivers – including the Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra – could see dramatically reduced flows by the end of the century. This will directly affect hundreds of millions of people who depend on them.
The crisis is being intensified by changes in the Himalayas. The region is warming faster than the global average, with a shift from snowfall to rainfall that disrupts the timing and volume of water that flows down from the mountains to the fields and cities below.
At the same time, unsustainable groundwater extraction has pushed South Asia’s reserves of underground water toward collapse, threatening both food and water security.
A dangerous precedent
A collapse or suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty could set a dangerous precedent. Importantly, the threat is less about India cutting off water flows – an unlikely and technically challenging act – and more about the erosion of trust, transparency and data sharing.
One of the treaty’s most valuable features has been the routine sharing of data on things like water levels, river flow and dam operations. Pakistan needs this data to forecast floods and droughts, plan its irrigation, generate hydropower effectively and manage its drinking water, yet India is indicating it will no longer honour these obligations.
But India’s strained water relations are not limited to Pakistan. Bangladesh and Nepal have often felt sidelined or pressured in negotiations, and India’s indication that it may reconsider longstanding treaties raises concerns in both countries.
This is especially the case as the Ganges Water Treaty nears its 2026 expiration: the vast Ganges river flows through India and irrigates much of Bangladesh – and the treaty guarantees Bangladesh a minimum river flow.
Other key agreements, such as the Mahakali Treaty and Kosi river accord with Nepal, and the Teesta water-sharing deal with Bangladesh, remain largely unimplemented, breeding mistrust. These failures undermine confidence in regional water diplomacy and cast doubt on India’s commitment to equitable cooperation.
None of this is helped by India, Pakistan and Bangladesh all continuing to rely on outdated irrigation methods that mean they use more water than necessary. As climate change intensifies floods, droughts and glacial melt, there is an urgent need to reform existing water treaties to reflect present-day climate, hydrological and geopolitical realities.
Canals, like this one in Punjab, India, irrigate much of South Asia. Hussain Warraich / shutterstock
The Indus Waters Treaty, negotiated in the 1960s before the emergence of modern climate science, no longer accounts for these transformations. Indeed, most water treaties in the region remain rooted in technocratic, engineering-centric frameworks which fail to address extreme climate variability and its cascading impacts.
The upcoming expiration of the Ganges Water Treaty, and the pending negotiation of other basin agreements, present a critical opportunity to rethink water governance in South Asia.
Though the Indus flows through India before Pakistan, in other basins, India is downstream. This is the case with the Brahmaputra, where it demands upstream cooperation from China.
Undermining the Indus treaty could weaken India’s own position in future negotiations and strain its relations with Nepal and Bangladesh, while giving China more influence in South Asian hydro-politics. China is already expanding its footprint by offering billions in loans to Bangladesh and strengthening ties with Nepal, particularly around water infrastructure.
Many of the world’s largest rivers begin in the Himalayas or the Tibetan Plateau. JudeMakesMaps, CC BY-SA
Weaponising water is a perilous strategy that may backfire. The weakening of water diplomacy in South Asia is not just a regional threat; it endangers global climate security.
In the face of escalating climate change impacts and recurring disasters, updating transboundary agreements like the Indus Waters Treaty, Ganga Water Treaty, and Kosi and Teesta accords is no longer optional – it is an urgent necessity with enormous consequences.
Mehebub Sahana receives funding from the Leverhulme Trust, United Kingdom.
.jpg){kind=link}
