MIL-OSI Export

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Noah Eliot Vanderhoeven, PhD Candidate, Political Science, Western University

The next major international sporting event, the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup hosted jointly by the United States, Canada and Mexico, is already garnering international scrutiny. There have been numerous calls to boycott it.

Calls for a boycott were amplified recently following U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats to annex Greenland from Denmark, prompting soccer officials in Germany and France to broach the possibility of both countries boycotting the tournament.

Both countries’ soccer federations have pushed back against calls to boycott the World Cup for now, although recent events in Minneapolis have heightened concerns about the U.S.’ role in hosting the tournament and what that will mean for visitors.

Former FIFA President Sepp Blatter — who was suspended by FIFA in 2015 and replaced by current FIFA president Gianni Infantino amid a corruption scandal he was later acquitted of — recently voiced concerns over the marginalization of political opponents and violent crackdowns on immigration in the U.S.

The World Cup has historically been an event that brings together fans from across the world. Many fans rely on tourist visas, and ICE is expected to be responsible for security at the World Cup. ICE’s director has refused to commit to pausing the agency’s operations during the tournament.

Human rights groups have raised concerns over whether World Cup visitors will be detained and handed to ICE if they engage in actions deemed critical of the U.S. government.

Boycotts at international sporting events

In the history of international sporting events, boycotts have been far less common than bans.

Austria, Bulgaria, Germany, Hungary and the Ottoman Empire were not invited to attend the 1920 Olympic games after losing the First World War.

South Africa was invited to the 1964 Tokyo Games but saw their invitation rescinded due to apartheid, and only rejoined Olympic competition in 1992. Rhodesia saw its invitation to the 1972 Games rescinded due to its government enacting a white supremacist regime.

Notably, both instances of rescinded invitations to the Olympic Games came after other African nations threatened to boycott the Games if South Africa and Rhodesia were invited to participate.

There were also partial boycotts at the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics. Several nations announced a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics to protest China’s mistreatment of the Uyghur Muslims, prohibiting many government officials from attending in an official capacity, while still permitting athletes to compete. Russia has been banned from most major international sports competitions since it invaded Ukraine in 2022.

However, the most famous boycott of an international sporting event occurred in 1980 ahead of the Summer Olympics in Moscow following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. More than 60 countries boycotted those Games, led by the U.S. In turn, 19 countries boycotted the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, led by the Soviet Union and other Eastern bloc countries.

Yet there has never been a World Cup boycott by qualified teams on political grounds. In 1934, Uruguay famously chose not to travel to the second-ever World Cup in Italy because several European teams, including Italy, declined to travel to Uruguay for the inaugural tournament in 1930.

Prior to the 1966 World Cup, all African teams withdrew from qualifying in protest because FIFA had only allocated all of the teams from Africa, Asia and Oceania one combined place at the tournament. There were calls for Norway to boycott the 2022 Men’s World Cup in Qatar, but they did not qualify for the tournament.

How likely is a boycott?

As of yet, no leaders of major soccer federations have endorsed calls for their country to boycott the tournament, despite pressure from some executives and politicians. It would likely take decisive action from a federation head, akin to the action President Jimmy Carter took prior to the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, to arrive at a country boycotting.

Furthermore, given the relationship Trump has built up with FIFA president Gianni Infantino, the effect of a boycott, or any credible threats of one, on the United States’ immigration policy or hosting responsibilities would likely be rather limited, making a boycott an unpopular decision that may not achieve the desired goal of any boycotting nation.

Infantino attended Trump’s inauguration and controversially awarded Trump FIFA’s inaugural Peace Prize. More recently, he signed an agreement with Trumps’ Board of Peace on behalf of FIFA.

Infantino was also a staunch defender of Qatar’s building practices in the face of heavy human rights criticism and was willing to change FIFA’s policies at the last minute to acquiesce to Qatar’s demands for limited alcohol sales during the 2022 Men’s World Cup.

Trump could still escalate geopolitical tensions enough to spark further boycott discussions. But for now, a boycott remains unlikely, and even credible threats would likely do little to shift Infantino and Trump from the status quo.

– ref. Calls for a boycott of the 2026 FIFA World Cup are growing, but how realistic is one? – https://theconversation.com/calls-for-a-boycott-of-the-2026-fifa-world-cup-are-growing-but-how-realistic-is-one-275785

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/24/calls-for-a-boycott-of-the-2026-fifa-world-cup-are-growing-but-how-realistic-is-one-275785/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milan Klöwer, NERC Independent Research Fellow, University of Oxford

Air travel is famously one of the hardest sectors to decarbonise, and the number of air passengers keeps increasing. Electric planes and “sustainable” aviation fuels are still a long way off making a dent in the industry’s emissions – if they ever will.

But new research by me and my colleagues shows aviation could still cut its climate impact dramatically, simply by using planes more efficiently. In fact, rethinking cabin layouts alone could slash emissions by up to half.

From 1980 to 2019, the share of occupied seats in commercial air planes increased from 63% to 82%. Airlines already have strong commercial incentives to sell every seat – empty ones cost money as well as carbon.

For any given level of passenger travel, carrying more people on each flight means other planes can stay grounded and fewer flights are needed overall. It’s planes that make the big difference, not people – the additional weight of a passenger and their luggage is negligible relative to the aircraft and its fuel.

Aviation is responsible for 2%-3% of global CO₂, but its contribution to global warming is about 4% when secondary effects like condensation trails (which trap heat) are factored in. This impact is dominated by rich people flying frequently, often long-haul in business and first class or even private.

Efficiency in aviation is often thought of as an engineering challenge: how much thrust an engine generates for a given amount of jet fuel. But operational efficiency – the amount of passenger-kilometres per unit of CO₂ emitted – has received far less attention.

In our research, my colleagues and I calculated this operational efficiency for the year 2023, for every flight route, by airline, aircraft model and airport. We found that efficiency gains available in the short term could reduce aviation’s climate impact by more than half.

Short empty flights are the least fuel-efficient

On average, aviation emissions fell from around 260 grams of CO₂ per paying passenger-kilometre in 1980 to 90 grams in 2019. That’s a big difference, but for comparison, electrified rail powered by low-carbon energy can emit less than 5 grams.

Our analysis shows that CO₂ efficiency varies enormously across routes, regions, airports, airlines and aircraft models. Some flight routes emit more than 800 grams per passenger-kilometre, others less than 50. This variability is staggering but also yields a large potential to reduce emissions if efficiency across the industry increased towards that of the most efficient routes we analysed.

Among the highest emitting countries, many of the least efficient flights start or land in the US, followed by China, Germany and Japan. Inefficient flights are common elsewhere, particularly from or to smaller airports, and in Africa and Oceania, often exceeding 140g per passenger-kilometre.

By contrast, more efficient flights – below 100 grams per passenger-kilometre – are common in Brazil, India and south-east Asia, particularly on high volume routes. Europe contains a mix of both.

These differences can be explained by the share of occupied seats, the aircraft models used on a route and the cabin layout – especially the space allocated for business and first class.

Budget airlines tend to be more efficient as they seat as many passengers as possible. Spacious business or first class seats are often removed and revenue is instead generated through services such as baggage, food or booking flexibility – all of which add little to flight emissions.

We also found a few newer aircraft models to be the most efficient in operation (Boeing 787 Dreamliner and Airbus 320neo, both in several variants) averaging less than 65 grams of CO₂ per passenger-kilometre. However, they are not (yet) the most widely used, partly because aircraft typically remain in service for around 25 years.

Long-haul flights are on average more efficient than shorter flights. Take-off emissions only occur once, and larger aircraft with more seats are typically used on longer routes. For similar reasons, larger airports tend to have lower average emissions per passenger.

Increasing air travel efficiency

We modelled three hypothetical scenarios to illustrate the potential of certain operational changes, recalculating the total emissions after each change.

First, we increased the average passenger load factor from 80% to 95%. This alone would cut emissions by 16%, as fewer flights would be needed to carry the same number of passengers. While this is already in airlines’ interests, creating additional incentives – such as emissions-linked airport charges or fuel taxes – could encourage further gains.

Second, we imagined only the two most efficient aircraft (Boeing 787-9 and Airbus A321neo) were in operation. Aircraft cannot be replaced overnight, given their long service lives, and the industry hasn’t built enough 787-9 or A321neo yet anyway. But choosing already existing aircraft highlights the potential of replacing older aircraft with newer and more efficient ones – in our calculations, it would save between 27% and 34% of global emissions. This would also require overcoming logical and commercial constraints, again potentially incentivised by airport or fuel charges.

Third, we analysed the impact of an all-economy cabin layout. Business and first class seats are up to five times more CO₂-intensive than economy seating because they occupy far more space per passenger. Operating all aircraft at the manufacturers maximum seating capacity would reduce global aircraft emissions by between 26% and 57%.

There are already large differences between airlines. Some chose to set up their Boeing 777-300 ERs with more than 400 economy seats, while others have as few as 200, despite a maximum seating capacity of 550.

Our findings highlight how strongly aviation emissions are shaped by travel inequality between occasional economy fliers and frequent business and first class travellers. Many of those may complain about the inconvenience of economy class. But perhaps that’s not a bad thing: it could create an even stronger incentive to reduce the number of non-essential journeys.

– ref. Scrapping business class could halve aviation emissions – new study – https://theconversation.com/scrapping-business-class-could-halve-aviation-emissions-new-study-275474

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/24/scrapping-business-class-could-halve-aviation-emissions-new-study-275474/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Hazell, Professor of British Politics and Government & Founder of the Constitution Unit, UCL

Following the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for possible misconduct in public office, both the palace and the government will be hoping that his case might be brought to a swift conclusion. There are three main reasons why this is unlikely.

1. The vagueness of the offence

The offence Mountbatten-Windsor is being investigated for – misconduct in public office – is famously vague. This complicates the task for the prosecution, who will have to devote more time and effort to understanding the elements of the offence, and then ensuring that they can prove each element.

Misconduct in public office is not set out in an act of parliament, it is an offence under the common law. The public office (accountability) bill (also known as the Hillsborough law) currently going through parliament is meant to give it a statutory definition. But that will be too late for any prosecution of Mountbatten-Windsor, which will have to be for the common law offence, developed in a series of court judgements going back centuries.

In medieval times, the offence was intended to catch those in trusted public office who did something to betray that trust. It later fell into disuse, but was recently revived to catch corrupt police officers whose misconduct (such as selling information to journalists) did not fit easily into well-established offences.

The court of appeal in 2004 reframed the judge-made law for modern times, summarising four elements of the offence. It must be committed by:

• A public officer, acting as such, who

• wilfully misconducts himself

• to such a degree as to abuse the public’s trust in the office holder

• without reasonable excuse or justification.

Readers must judge for themselves whether this makes the offence any less vague. In careful understatement, the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines state that “the offence should be strictly confined, and it can raise complex and sometimes sensitive issues”.

2. Multiple police forces involved

Mountbatten-Windsor was arrested by Thames Valley Police, but they are not the only force looking into revelations from the millions of documents in the Epstein files. Mountbatten-Windsor denies any wrongdoing in relation to Jeffrey Epstein.

The Metropolitan Police, Essex Police (for flights in and out of Stansted) and Surrey Police are also assessing claims. Some of those investigations are for possible trafficking into or outside the UK for sexual exploitation, which if proved would be offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The National Police Chiefs Council has announced a national group to support the investigating forces.

Police enquiries will inevitably take some time. In addition to the scale of the Epstein files, when looking for evidence of misconduct in public office, the police will want to search through UK government files.

Mountbatten-Windsor was trade envoy from 2001 to 2011. Much of the evidence is likely to be retrieved from his emails and the files of agencies like UK Trade and Investment, and government departments like the Department of Trade (now Business and Trade), the Foreign Office, Cabinet Office and Number 10. Government record keeping is not what it was, and records from that long ago will take time to find and produce.

3. Difficulties facing the CPS and the courts

If the police have gathered sufficient evidence, they will submit all the evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS in turn will need time to consider whether there is a sufficient case to prosecute, for a common law offence whose definition is still vague and complex.

The CPS code states that they will only prosecute an alleged crime if there is a “realistic prospect of conviction”. This means that a jury, “properly directed in accordance with the law, will be more likely than not to convict the defendant of the charge”.

The main legal difficulties may lie in proving that when acting as trade envoy Mountbatten-Windsor was the holder of a public office, and that his conduct was such as to abuse the public’s trust. In trying to clarify the latter test, the court of appeal said that abuse of trust must amount to “an affront to the standing of the public office held. The threshold is a high one requiring conduct so far below acceptable standards as to amount to an abuse of the public’s trust in the office holder.”

The CPS will also need to liaise closely with the team investigating Peter Mandelson, who is also under investigation for alleged misconduct in public office, related to evidence that he passed confidential government information to Epstein. If the police pass a file on Mandelson to the CPS, there will be similarities in the evidential and legal difficulties in proving misconduct in each case.

It could be a very long time before any trial takes place. One of the biggest obstacles to a swift conclusion is the state of the courts. The recent review by retired senior judge Brian Leveson found a backlog of almost 80,000 cases awaiting trial in the crown court last September, and forecast the backlog would reach 100,000 cases by November 2027.

Some defendants are already being told their cases will not be heard until 2030. To avoid any further suggestions that Mountbatten-Windsor is above the law, his case may have to wait in the queue, just like everyone else’s.

– ref. Misconduct in public office: three reasons why the case against Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor is so complex – https://theconversation.com/misconduct-in-public-office-three-reasons-why-the-case-against-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-is-so-complex-276556

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/24/misconduct-in-public-office-three-reasons-why-the-case-against-andrew-mountbatten-windsor-is-so-complex-276556/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Georgia Phillips, Lecturer, Creative Writing, Adelaide University

In Burnt Norton, the opening section of T.S. Eliot’s Four Quartets, the poet moves down a passage “we did not take” and passes through a door “never opened” to arrive in a mythic rose garden. Here, in the thorny cradle of mournful innocence, a bird delivers the famous line:

                                     humankind
Cannot bear very much reality.

That inability to “bear much reality” reverberates in Claire-Louise Bennett’s experimental new novel, Big Kiss, Bye-Bye.

The novel dissects the mind of a young woman reckoning with the psychological upheaval of a romantic separation. As the unnamed narrator grieves and reflects, she unpicks the patchwork of illusions that sustained her relationship with a peculiar elderly man named Xavier.

At the centre of this thrillingly interior work, almost entirely denuded of sentimentality, is the collision of these two deeply self-involved characters, both of whom are more wedded to their fantasies about one another than their actual selves. One of the most intriguing elements of the novel is witnessing their failure to connect in the middle point between their incongruent psychological worlds.

Review: Big Kiss, Bye-Bye – Claire-Louise Bennett (Fitzcarraldo)

Bennett’s brilliant debut Pond (2015) wove together stories narrated by a reclusive woman living in a remote cottage in Ireland. Her second book, Checkout 19 (2021), was a novel that examined a young woman’s maturation through her engagement with literature, combining elements of autofiction and the Künstlerroman (artist’s novel) to navigate material that might have fallen flat in the hands of a writer with less flair and ambition.

The playfully titled Big Kiss, Bye-Bye is Bennett’s third book and her most desperate, intelligent and irreverent to date. It resonates stylistically with modernist predecessors in its scrutiny of consciousness and often overlooked complexities buried within the quotidian.

This characteristically modernist concern with the mind’s mysterious workings and its convoluted relationship with material reality is reflected in the narrator’s interest in dreams. She takes pleasure in recounting and interpreting her dreams to uncover the self-knowledge she believes they hold in uncanny suspension.

‘Some sort of Hell’

As in Bennett’s previous novels, the unnamed narrator at the centre of Big Kiss, Bye-Bye resembles the author. She is a writer at a similar age and stage of life. In the beginning, however, her occupation is an ancillary detail. The event that monopolises her attention and nervous energy is her recent separation from her beloved Xavier, with his dentures and his time-hardened eccentricities.

Early in the novel, it is revealed that the catalyst for the breakup was an email he sent about the narrator’s recently published book, in which he described her work as “some sort of Hell”.

With this email, a line is crossed. The plainness of Xavier’s lack of regard for her feelings is laid out so clearly and uncompromisingly that nothing can atone for his insensitivity. Any illusions the narrator might have nurtured about him being sensitive (albeit socially clumsy) are shattered.

What follows is a forensic examination of the illusions that fuelled their partnership. As the novel progresses through its solipsistic textual landscape, the narrator’s non-linear recollection of events provides intimate access to her time with Xavier. It is only with the clarity of hindsight that she is able to reconstruct a nuanced portrait.

Xavier is a wealthy Christian scientist with a limp grip on reality. He believes “sickness is an illusion” and that friendship is for children. When he and the narrator are together, he wants to be with her all the time. He cannot seem to fathom “why she did so many things that didn’t involve him”.

Beyond his neediness, Xavier is comically self-interested. He has written a book on the topic of himself, which he affectionately refers to as his “bio”. He dreams of having it made into a film. It contains intimate details about the narrator and he has no regard for why this might concern her.

A polite but painful man, Xavier has a penchant for undermining the narrator with compliments. When she hands him a copy of her book (the one he calls “some sort of Hell”), he notes “how smart it was”. He then turns straight to the author photo on the jacket and says “cute little ears”, shifting the focus away from her intellectual achievement and back to her physical appearance.

The extent to which illusions have sustained the partnership between the novel’s two unlikely lovers is perhaps most explict in their final encounter – depicted at the beginning of the work.

They attend the races. It is Lady’s Day – which, the narrator reflects, Xavier enjoys because “he likes to see women dressed up”. She is nevertheless certain that Xavier won’t stare at them, because “too much scrutiny might spoil the illusion of sophistication and Xavier isn’t interested in having his illusions dispensed with”.

The narrator reflects that Xavier is rather fond of illusions “and is of the opinion that there isn’t much else”:

“Life is an illusion,” he’ll say, “but then you already know that, don’t you.”

Yet he also believes his take on reality is authoritative. “I don’t see you as your friends see you,” Xavier tells the narrator. “I see you as you really are.”

She humours his belief, in what reads as an attempt to remain palatable.

Illusions reinforced

Throughout the novel, the narrator reinforces the illusions Xavier projects onto their relationship. At one point, she reassures him the dress she is wearing was purchased with money he gave her, even though it wasn’t.

She mulls over which flower arrangements she should buy at his expense – a detail makes her appear somewhat petulant. Xavier believes it is normal to spend a significant sum on a routine bouquet; the narrator desires a more modest arrangement. But she panders to his desire to provide for her and, in doing so, assists in preserving his fantasy. She permits him an artificial sense of accomplishment in supplying her with something that is not wanted.

The narrator shares Xavier’s tenuous grip on “reality”. Over the course of the novel, she comes to realise that she was more invested in the ideas she manufactured about Xavier than the man himself.

She confesses that her attachment had been “very much predicated upon” the idea of “staying close during his final days and hours”. Her belief in the statistical likelihood that she was destined to be “his last love” inspires a mock-heroic degree of psychological fortitude.

Along with the exquisite prose, one of the most satisfying elements of Big Kiss Bye-Bye is Bennett’s delicate depiction of the conflict that stems from the narrator’s competing desires. The feminist yearning for equality in a heteronormative partnership is sometimes incompatible with the more universal longing to be loved and desirable.

Beyond her reflections on her inflated sense of responsibility for Xavier, she examines her relationships with other men. This includes ruminating over a letter she receives from a past English teacher, which stirs dormant memories.

Despite her keen awareness of Xavier’s potent self-assuredness, the narrator struggles with her own sense of self-awareness. She confides that she is the type of writer who doesn’t like to be aware of herself when she is writing. She goes on to acknowledge that this is nonsensical, given that so many of her sentences begin with the singular pronoun “I”.

She is also self-aware enough to recognise that she is riddled with anxiety. She recalls a period in her life when she was convinced all the men in her world – even frail old Xavier – were trying to kill her. She acknowledges the creative impulse in this paranoia, reflecting that “all my life I’ve felt something was after me and to my own irritation I looked behind too often and kept seeing things”.

Again, the novel returns to the disjuncture between how things are and how the mind perceives them, and reminds us of the human tendency to seek shelter in illusions.

– ref. Desperate, intelligent, irreverent: in Big Kiss, Bye-Bye, Claire-Louise Bennett breaks up with illusions – https://theconversation.com/desperate-intelligent-irreverent-in-big-kiss-bye-bye-claire-louise-bennett-breaks-up-with-illusions-269905

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/24/desperate-intelligent-irreverent-in-big-kiss-bye-bye-claire-louise-bennett-breaks-up-with-illusions-269905/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Kear, Sessional Lecturer, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

In the aftermath of the Bondi terrorist attack at a Hanukkah celebration that killed 15 people, the New South Wales government is moving toward banning phrases it argues incite hatred. The Queensland government has said it would do the same.

Chief among these are “globalise the intifada” and “from the river to the sea”.

The meaning and intent of both of these phrases are hotly contested between the Jewish and Muslim communities and their supporters.

The main reason they are so contentious is because they form part of the broader debate over the legitimacy of Israel and Palestine, and whether they can or should exist simultaneously in a two-state solution.

On one side, proponents of these phrases say they are expressions of Palestinian nationalism and their right to equality, freedom and dignity. They indicate support for Palestinians’ right to self-determination and their right to resist Israel’s nearly 60-year occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, known as the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which the International Court of Justice has ruled is illegal.

On the other side, those arguing against these phrases say they are antisemitic because they incite violence towards Israel and Jewish people more broadly, and are catchcries for the destruction of Israel.

Given these binary positions and the legislative moves towards banning them, it is important to understand the history and nuances of the phrases, separate from the emotive rhetoric and, at times, disinformation surrounding this debate.

Globalise the intifada

One of the first times this phrase was reportedly used was at an anti-war protest in Washington in 2002.

It has become much more commonplace after Israel’s devastating response to Hamas’ October 2023 terrorist attacks. The war has caused the deaths of more than 75,000 Palestinians in Gaza and is being investigated by the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

According to the American Jewish Committee, one of the oldest Jewish advocacy groups in the United States:

The phrase is often understood by those who are saying and hearing it as encouraging violence against Israel, Jews and institutions supporting Israel. While the intent of the person saying this phrase may be different, the impact on the Jewish community remains the same.

Key to understanding this phrase is the term “intifada”. In Arabic, the word means “uprising” or “shaking off”. There have been two intifadas against Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories, from 1987–93 and 2000–05.

Both intifadas were spontaneous eruptions of discontent and revolt by Palestinians against the violence, harassment, and social, political and economic deprivation they experienced in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Additionally, one of the primary motivations of the First Intifada was Palestinian frustration at the inability of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) to advance the cause of Palestinian statehood.

Notably, the violence of the First Intifada was confined to the Occupied Palestinian Territories and consisted mainly of stone throwing, tire burning, demonstrations and civil disobedience. According to the Jewish human rights group B’Tselem, around 1,400 Palestinians and 270 Israelis were killed.

The Second Intifada has more relevance to how the global Jewish community perceives the term “intifada” today. This is because the Palestinian groups Hamas, Fatah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad launched suicide attacks that deliberately targeted civilians in Israel. According to B’Tselem, more than 680 Israeli civilians and 3,300 Palestinians were killed during the violence.

These attacks caused immense fear and feelings of vulnerability among Israelis. Jews were deliberately targeted – a hallmark of antisemitism.

Indeed, the very reason Israel exists is because of the institutionalised antisemitism and political persecution of Jews in Europe, which culminated in the Holocaust. This is the reason Theodor Herzl established the Zionist movement – the realisation that the only way European Jews could be free from this rampant violence and antisemitism was to have a state where they would form the majority. To Jews, this makes Israel more than simply a state – it is an ideal, a sanctuary – a place where they can feel safe.

The memory of the attacks during the Second Intifada – in concert with this long history of persecution and the Holocaust – drives the opposition to this phrase among many Jewish people.

However, Palestinian supporters argue that both intifadas were centred on expressions of Palestinian nationalism, their demands for statehood and resistance against Israel’s occupation.

There is a growing fear among Palestinians that the increasing permanence of Israel’s occupation and creeping annexation of the territories destroys any hope of achieving a state – a place where they can be safe from Israeli violence and persecution.

Therefore, Palestinian activists argue the phrase has legitimacy. According to Ben Jamal, leader of the UK’s Palestine Solidarity Campaign, the phrase is used as a “call for worldwide support for an end to the oppression of the Palestinian people through all means of legitimate resistance”.

He added:

That’s not a call for violence against civilians or Jewish people – and to say that is actually, in my view, a form of anti-Palestinian racism.

From the river to the sea

A similar debate rages over the meaning of the phrase “from the river to the sea”. Again, this taps into the broader debate concerning Palestinian nationalism and advocacy for a Palestinian state, with the full phrase being “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”.

The geography refers to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea where Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories now sit.

Many Israelis and Jews around the world believe the phrase is antisemitic because of the perception that the establishment of a Palestinian state extending across this entire territory would signal the destruction of Israel. This is not just the state, but more importantly, the ideal.

The phrase was first used around 1964 by the newly formed Palestine Liberation Organisation to advocate for a unitary Palestinian state along the borders of “Mandatory Palestine” – the administrative territory ruled by the British from 1920–48 – that would include Palestinians, Jews and Christians. This would mean the elimination of the state of Israel, but not the Jewish people.

But it’s necessary to unpack how the meaning has changed over time. A key question here: what is the geography of a future Palestinian state?

The PLO accepted the two-state solution in 1988, meaning it acknowledged that any future Palestine would consist only of the Occupied Palestinian Territories, meaning the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

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

Hamas’ position on the phrase has also evolved over time. While its 1988 charter never mentioned the phrase specifically, it did state “[Hamas] will strive to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.”

However, in its 2017 Declaration of Principles, Hamas officially tolerates the idea of a two-state solution. It states:

Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967 to be a formula of national consensus.

This refers to the ceasefire lines between Israel and the Palestinian territories before the Six-Day War in 1967, when Israel captured and occupied the Palestinian Territories.

Therefore, Hamas’ position is consistent with United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) that is used by the international community as the basis for the two-state solution.

The 2017 declaration also highlights the compromise position within Hamas between those who believe Palestine should exist “from the river to the sea” and those willing to tolerate a Palestine only in the Occupied Territories. Hamas now officially treats the former as a guiding principle, not an organisational objective.

As former Hamas Chairman Khaled Meshaal explained in 2017:

Even though we accept and welcome that eventuality of [the two-state solution], this does not mean we would have to recognise Israel or surrender our principle that all of Palestine belongs to the Palestinian people.

Given this, there is an argument that the term’s use is not a call for the destruction of the Israeli state and the expulsion of Jews, but a demand that Israel dismantle its illegal occupation and allow Palestinians the freedom to establish their own state.

Adding to the phrase’s controversy is the fact that Israel’s Likud party, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, used a variation of it in its 1977 party platform:

Between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.

Though Likud has dropped the phrase from its current platform, it continues to vehemently oppose any Palestinian state.

Read more: Geography and politics stand in the way of an independent Palestinian state

Charting a way forward

This brings us back to the central questions at the heart of the debate over these phrases.

Does support for the Palestinian people and Palestinian statehood, as expressed in these phrases, equate to the threat of violence against Israel as a state and an ideal, and against the Jewish people?

Or are they part of legitimate political debate about Palestinian self-determination?

As Australians, we face a stark choice about whether to criminalise these phrases. Favouring one side will only inflame tensions with the other. It will only entrench – not resolve – societal discord.

Charting a middle course based on democratic ideals will be difficult. Finding a way forward will require a level of political and moral courage from our leaders that has been sadly lacking since the current round of violence began more than two years ago.

– ref. Why are the phrases ‘globalise the intifada’ and ‘from the river to the sea’ so contested? – https://theconversation.com/why-are-the-phrases-globalise-the-intifada-and-from-the-river-to-the-sea-so-contested-275668

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/24/why-are-the-phrases-globalise-the-intifada-and-from-the-river-to-the-sea-so-contested-275668/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura de Zwaan, Senior Lecturer, School of Accountancy, Queensland University of Technology

After just three rate cuts in 2025, interest rates have risen again in Australia this year. It’s unwelcome news for many borrowers – particularly those still struggling with the increasing cost of living.

Currently, the average new loan size for owner-occupied homes is about A$736,000. On a 30-year mortgage this size, an increase of 0.25 percentage points in the official cash rate could mean paying about $120 more each month.

When assessing home loan applications, lenders are required by law to check a borrower could still make their repayments if interest rates were to rise by a certain amount. This “serviceability buffer” is currently three percentage points.

Across the country, borrowers are showing remarkable resilience. At Commonwealth Bank, for example, Australia’s largest mortgage lender, latest results show 87% of home loan customers are ahead of their scheduled repayments.

That offers little comfort to other households already struggling to make ends meet who may not be able to find the extra money required to meet increased repayments.

So, what options are available when homeowners can’t stretch their budget any further?

Ask for help

If you’re experiencing mortgage stress, the first step should always be to talk to your lender – as soon as you realise you are not going to be able to make a payment, or if you have missed a payment.

In Australia, consumer protection laws mean you can ask your lender for financial hardship assistance, which can come in a few different forms.

It may be able to offer a pause on repayments for a short period, or negotiate reduced repayments for a few months.

However, this sort of assistance is aimed at helping with a short-term problem. If your mortgage repayments are unaffordable for the foreseeable future, you will need to look at other options.

Longer-term options

Your lender can help identify if there are other ways it can help reduce your repayments.

One option may be extending your loan term to reduce the repayments for the rest of the loan. A lender could also consider moving you into another product, such as an interest-only loan, to lower repayments.

You can also apply to access your superannuation on compassionate grounds, to prevent foreclosure or the forced sale of your home.

Further assistance may be available in certain jurisdictions. For example, if you are in Queensland or the Australian Capital Territory, you might be able to access mortgage relief through state government schemes.

Looking at the bigger picture

If your mortgage is still unaffordable, and you want to keep your home, then you will need to cut back in other places to afford your repayments in the long term.

There are many guides to help get you started on finding ways to reduce your expenses.

If a particular household bill is of concern, you can also talk to utilities providers about your financial hardship and see if you can pay these bills in instalments.

Depending on your situation, there could be other options to help keep up with repayments, such as renting out a spare bedroom or parking space.

Read more: Shop around, take lunch, catch the bus. It is possible to ease the squeeze on your budget

Selling a home

If you cannot manage your repayments, it might be time to consider selling. Generally, you will get a better price for your home if you sell it, rather than letting the bank take possession and selling it to recover any outstanding loan balance.

Again, it’s important to talk to your lender as it can arrange hardship assistance that allows you time to sell.

It’s important to act early

If you are struggling financially, your best bet is to talk to your lender. Ignoring your mortgage repayments will not make them go away, and will make your situation worse.

Early communication with your lender ensures it is aware of your financial hardship and can provide advice on how best to proceed.

You are not the first person to suffer financial stress, and you should know you are not alone. In 2024–25, there were more than 280,000 financial hardship notices (borrowers advising lenders they were struggling).

Lenders know your circumstances can change, so use your legal right to ask for support to help you manage your mortgage stress.

Help is available

If you or someone you know is in financial distress, support is available:

• The National Debt Helpline provides free advice on how to manage your debt, and you can talk to a financial counsellor about your situation. The counsellor can help with budgeting and can also provide advocacy services to help you manage your debts.

• For First Nations people, Mob Strong can provide legal advice and financial counselling.

• The Financial Rights Legal Centre has tools to help you manage your debts and can provide free financial counselling or legal help.

• The Australian government’s MoneySmart website has straightforward information on what to do if you are struggling with your mortgage repayments. It also has information and tips on all other aspects of personal finance, including superannuation and insurance.

– ref. What are your options if you can’t afford to repay your mortgage? – https://theconversation.com/what-are-your-options-if-you-cant-afford-to-repay-your-mortgage-275924

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/24/what-are-your-options-if-you-cant-afford-to-repay-your-mortgage-275924/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Trelease, Senior Lecturer in Communication Studies, Auckland University of Technology

If you’ve spent much time on the internet, you probably know how to yell “I was rooting for you!” The clip from “Cycle 4” (iykyk) of America’s Next Top Model which aired in 2005 went uncontrollably viral.

It became a foundational reality TV meme – an enduring moment that has fed pop culture for two decades.

Now, America’s Next Top Model is back in the headlines thanks to a three-part Netflix series, Reality Check: Inside America’s Next Top Model. This docuseries is supposed to offer a “look back at the reality show’s complicated legacy”.

In reality, there’s a clear self-serving intention here.

A cultural juggernaut

Running from 2003 to 2018, each season or “cycle” of America’s Next Top Model (ANTM) follows a group of young women learning the skills of a top model. Each episode includes a task, a photoshoot and an elimination.

The series incorporated elements from other successful reality shows such as Fear Factor (with models posing in photoshoots with cockroaches, dripping in fish guts and wearing meat as clothes); Survivor (backstabbing cast mates and bitchiness) and, unfortunately, The Swan (drastic makeovers sometimes resulting in chemical burns or lengthy surgeries).

Created, produced and hosted by veteran supermodel Tyra Banks, ANTM taught millennials how to extend the neck, angle their face for the camera and “smize” (smile with the eyes).

Who is to blame?

Those who held creative power on the show deliberately distance themselves from Banks in the documentary. Banks herself participates for seemingly no other reason than to soft launch a new season after eight years off air, and boldly justify her mistreatment of contestants.

Jay Manuel, ANTM Creative Director and judge – and consultant on this new documentary – claims “reality TV is a bitch. If it doesn’t bleed and lead it doesn’t work”. This is fundamentally untrue. There are many shows that don’t rely on the “villain edit”.

As an ex-participant on The Bachelor New Zealand, I have experienced first-hand the negative physical effects of being on such a show – as well as the fear of legal persecution and financial penalties for speaking out.

Documentaries that revisit old reality shows ought to be spaces for former contestants to share their experiences. That doesn’t happen here. There is no honest critique or reflection on the part of the production team. Instead, we see producers once again exerting their own narrative to counter contestant testimonials.

Last year’s Fit For TV: The Reality of The Biggest Loser was similarly problematic. Instead of explaining, apologising and taking accountability, the crew reasserted their power by using “it was a different time” as an excuse.

Banks offers no sincere apologies in Reality Check. At one point, she describes an apology in the past tense, and it’s not clear whether it was directly given to the contestant. “I have actually apologised for the issue with Dani,” she says, regarding past behaviour that coerced 2006 contestant Dani into getting dental surgery for a tooth gap.

In another “apology”, Banks doesn’t refer to the victim, Keenyah, by name: “Boo Boo. I am so sorry.” Tyra had fat-shamed and lectured Keenyah in a 2005 episode after Keenyah politely called-out on-set sexual harassment by a male model.

Who, then, does Banks think is responsible for the harm inflicted on contestants?

Across three episodes, we hear “gen Z”, “social media”, viewers “that were demanding it”, co-creator Ken Mok, judge Janice Dickinson, UPN network President Dawn Ostroff, CW President Mark Pedowitz, CBS CEO Les Moonves, the fashion industry, the reality TV industry, “the culture at the time” and the contestants.

She blames everyone but herself.

Tyra Banks and lateral violence

In the documentary, Banks says her intention with ANTM was to respond to an industry that constantly demonstrated abuses of power throughout her career:

I wanted to fight against the fashion industry […] for this show to represent not all white, not all skinny, but just showing all the differences, and all the different types of beauties. I had a feeling that I was going to change the beauty world. This was my way to get back.

Whether it was her ethnicity, weight, forehead, or media-fueled rivalry with Naomi Campbell, only once Banks was “established” could she speak of her experiences of mistreatment.

Despite this intention, Reality Check shows us how, once Banks accrued her own cultural capital, she took her frustration out on contestants rather than the industry. As journalist Zakiya Gibbons, an independent voice within the documentary, points out:

Tyra wants to challenge the fashion industry’s ideals around what is beauty, but is also still upholding ideologies and attitudes that oppressed her.

What Gibbons captures here is an example of lateral violence: when someone directs their rage at their own minority group, rather than their oppressor.

ANTM became Banks’ own sub-industry in which to dole out her harshest verbal and emotional violence on Black contestants. Her chosen forms of violence included body shaming, fat shaming, coercion into medical surgery, and verbal and emotional abuse.

A public relations project

Social media now allows former reality TV participants an unfiltered opportunity to speak their truth, despite the threat of non-disclosure agreements.

In 2023, former Real Housewives participant Bethenny Frankle banded together with other ex-Housewives in a “reality reckoning” against American TV network Bravo – exposing how even non-eliminating shows are unethical.

That same year, we saw the launch of the UCAN Foundation, a support and advocacy foundation for people on reality TV.

These were steps in the right direction. Reality Check is an example of a major platform giving airtime and an opportunity for redemption to the perpetrators of violence: it’s a step backwards.

There are already accusations that former ANTM contestants were not compensated for appearing in the docuseries.

Live appearances, social media, and documentary exposé are the few remaining spaces where reality TV contestants can share experiences. They should not be reclaimed by producers.

– ref. Reality check: America’s Next Top Model docuseries never apologises for abuse of contestants – https://theconversation.com/reality-check-americas-next-top-model-docuseries-never-apologises-for-abuse-of-contestants-276167

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/24/reality-check-americas-next-top-model-docuseries-never-apologises-for-abuse-of-contestants-276167/