Leettaschmidt

The killing of Israeli civilians by Hamas and retaliatory airstrikes on the densely populated Gaza Strip by Israel raises numerous issues under international law.

Indeed, President Joe Biden made express reference to the “laws of war” in comments he made at the White house on Oct. 10, 2023, noting that while democracies like the U.S. and Israel uphold such standards, “terrorists” such as Hamas “purposefully target civilians.” Speaking the same day, the European Union’s top diplomat Josep Borrell condemned Hamas’ attack but also suggested that Israel was not acting in accordance with international law by cutting water, electricity and food to civilians in Gaza.

But international law and the very nature of the conflict itself – along with the status of the two sides involved – is a complex area. The Conversation turned to Robert Goldman, an expert on the laws of war at American University Washington College of Law, for guidance on some of the issues.

What are the ‘laws of war’?

The laws of war, also known as International Humanitarian Law (IHL), consist of the four 1949 Geneva Conventions, their two Additional Protocols of 1977, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, as well as certain weapons conventions.

Simply put, these instruments seek to spare civilians and others who are no longer active combatants from the effects of hostilities by placing restrictions and prohibitions on the conduct of warfare.

It is important to understand that modern IHL is not concerned with the reasons for, or the legality of, going to war. Rather, that is governed by the United Nations Charter and member state’s own practice.

It is also important to note that violations of the laws of war are notoriously hard to prosecute and can be frustrated by lack of cooperation by the parties involved.

What is the nature of the conflict between Israel and Hamas?

The answer to this question is by no means clear.

Many humanitarian law experts would argue that Hamas and Israel are engaged in what is known as a “non-international armed conflict.” In other words, it would be classified the same way as a civil war that pits the armed forces of a state against an armed non-state actor, rather than a international conflict between two or more sovereign states.

If that were the case, the conflict would not be governed by the entirety of the laws of war, but instead by the more limited Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions along with numerous customary law rules, which derive from general practices accepted as law. Common Article 3, which applies to civilians and those no longer fighting, prohibits practices such as torture, summary execution and denial of a fair trial. But Prisoner of War status only applies to conflicts between states, so would not apply.

But some international observers, including the United Nations, view Israel as, in effect, occupying Gaza – a view predicated on the fact that Israel controls Gaza’s borders and airspace and it supplies most of its electricity.

If that is the case, then the recent outbreak of hostilities between Hamas and Israel would trigger the entirety of laws of war.

That said, I do not believe that Israel is an occupying power in Gaza under a strict reading of the law. This is because Israel ceased governing and pulled its forces out of Gaza in 2005. Since 2007, Hamas, after expelling the Palestinian Authority, has in effect governed Gaza.

Is the bombing of Gaza illegal under international law?

Today the rules governing the conduct of hostilities in both international and non-international armed conflicts are essentially the same.

The foremost requirement in all conflicts is that combatants must always distinguish between civilians and combatants, and that attacks can only be directed at combatants and other military targets.

Protecting civilian populations caught in warfare essentially depends upon three factors:

1. Civilians must abstain from fighting;
2. The party in control of the civilian population must not place them at heightened risk of harm by using them as human shields; and
3. The attacking force must take precautions to avoid or minimize excessive civilian casualties when attacking lawful targets.

Not only are civilians in Gaza not lawful targets, they are also protected under IHL by the rule of proportionality. This rule prohibits an attack against a military target which foreseeably could cause civilian casualties that are excessive, or disproportionate in relation to the advantage anticipated from the target’s destruction.

In the case of Gaza, this rule requires that before launching an attack, the Israeli military analyze and determine the likely effect on civilians. If it appears that such an attack will cause disproportionate civilian casualties, then it must be suspended or canceled.

Given Gaza’s urban density, it will be extremely difficult for the Israelis to avoid substantial civilian casualties even when using precision weapons.

And this task will be nearly impossible if Hamas, as it has consistently done in the past, uses it civilians and now hostages to shield military targets.

While Israel bears primary responsibility to avoid excessive civilian deaths in its bombardment of Gaza, Hamas’ ability to claim the bombardment constitutes a war crime would be weakened if it deliberately places its own people in harms way.

And while Israel is complying with its duty to give an advanced warning of an attack in north Gaza, the problem remains: Where do 1 million people go to seek safety when borders are closed and military targets are being hit throughout Gaza?

Is Israel’s siege of Gaza illegal?

Unlike in the past, total siege warfare now is unlawful regardless of whether the warring parties are involved in international or non-international hostilities.

Blocking the entry of all food, water, medicines and cutting off electricity – as appears to be happening in Gaza – will disproportionately affect civilians, foreseeably leading to their starvation. This is a banned method of warfare under customary and conventional IHL.

No matter how horrific the actions of Hamas, IHL does not permit an aggrieved party to respond in kind. Violation of the law by one party cannot, in principle, justify or sanction actions by the other that violate established prohibitions in international humanitarian law.

What are the status and obligations of Hamas under IHL?

IHL rules apply equally to all the warring parties irrespective of the nature of the conflict. This means that Israeli and Hamas combatants have the same rights and duties.

If, however, the conflict is non-international, then Hamas will be regarded as an armed non-state actor and its combatants ineligible for Prisoner of War status upon capture. Accordingly, Israel can try them for all their hostile acts whether or not Hamas complies with the laws of war.

But even if the conflict is an international one, then Hamas’s fighters would still be debarred from Prisoner of War status. They are not the armed forces of Palestine – which is recognized as a state by 138 nations and has the Palestine Authority as its government.

Rather, Hamas combatants are an irregular armed group. To be eligible for Prisoner of War status under Article 4A(2) of the Third Geneva Convention, members of an irregular armed group must adhere to very strict standards, both collectively and individually. These includes distinguishing themselves from civilians and complying with the laws of war. Manifestly Hamas has not and do not meet these standards. As such, Israel could lawfully deny them Prisoner of War status upon capture.

Israel, the U.S. and others label Hamas fighters as terrorists. Hamas’s recent acts – indiscriminately firing thousands of rockets into Israel, targeting, killing and taking civilians as hostages – are acts of terrorism in warfare and qualify as war crimes.

Robert Goldman 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.

An assistant professor at USF is using results from his new study on artificial intelligence chatbots to rework how he’s assigning homework in his class. The rise of chatbots has raised concern among teachers and students alike. If these programs can churn entire written papers—then how are teachers going to sort out what’s original and what’s AI?

Luckily Matthew Kessler, assistant professor in the Department of World Languages, has rearranged his course to combat the oncoming AI storm.

“For instance, instead of asking students to produce short summaries on different readings, something that ChatGPT can do quite easily, I’m giving my students more integrated, hands-on assignments that ask them to blend traditional academic readings with personalized, experiential learning projects,” said Kessler.  

For example, in one of the assignments, Kessler’s students will be required to use a mobile app of their choice to learn a foreign language and document the ways they use the app to immerse themselves in the language for five weeks. 

Getting beat by AI chatbots

These changes are inspired by Kessler’s new research just published in the ScienceDirect journal Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. The research revealed even experts from the world’s top linguistic journals have difficulty differentiating AI from human-generated writing. Kessler asked 72 experts in linguistics to review research abstracts to determine if they were written by AI or humans. 

“We thought if anybody is going to be able to identify human-produced writing, it should be people in linguistics who’ve spent their careers studying patterns in language and other aspects of human communication,” Kessler said.

Related: AI Created by USF Can Detect Diseases Using Voice

The findings revealed otherwise. Despite the experts’ attempts to use rationales to judge the writing, such as identifying certain linguistic and stylistic features, they were largely unsuccessful. They had an overall positive identification rate of less than 39 percent.

“What was more interesting was when we asked them why they decided something was written by AI or a human,” Kessler said. “They shared very logical reasons, but again and again, they were not accurate or consistent.”

Outsmarting ChatGPT

Based on this, Kessler and Casal concluded ChatGPT can write short genres just as well as most humans. In some cases, AI writes better than humans, given that AI typically does not make grammatical errors. 

The silver lining for human authors lies in longer forms of writing. “For longer texts, AI has been known to hallucinate and make up content. Making it easier to identify that it was generated by AI,” Kessler said. 

USF sophomore Max Ungrey is taking Kessler’s course through. He says he occasionally uses ChatGPT before raising his hand with a question in class.

“Obviously ChatGPT is detrimental if used as a replacement for learning, rather than a tool. I’ve absolutely noticed changes in school due to ChatGPT. Both due to my own use and the use of others,” Ungrey said. “I can certainly see myself using ChatGPT and other language models in day-to-day work. For example, some web browsers have built in AI which can summarize large bodies of text, and I think I will end up using tools like that.”

Kessler hopes this will start a conversation to establish the ethics and guidelines when using AI in research and education.

The post USF Professor Changes Course in Response to AI Chatbots appeared first on ModernGlobe.

Around 50 students rallied in the rain on Thursday afternoon to express their solidarity with Palestine at the Library, holding signs and waving flags. 

Students chanted “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “Free, free Palestine.” They expressed their position on the conflict, by chanting “One, two, three, four, this is not a religious war. Five, six, seven, eight Israel is a terrorist state.”

Students for Socialism (SFS) organized the half-hour rally and was joined by Tampa Bay Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), Tampa Bay Community Action Committee (CAC) and other students concerned about the international conflict.

A student with SFS, who wished to remain anonymous, said the rally was an opportunity to protest violence against the Palestinian people. 

“We’re aware that there is violence on both sides and that has to be kept in mind. And we are all here opposed to Hamas. We are all here opposed to Hezbollah. We’re all here opposed to Islamic terrorism. We’re all here opposed to extremism,” they said.

“But the truth is, Israel is the one who has all the power, holds all of the cards. Israel, if they really wanted to, could have peace tomorrow if they so choose.”

They said real peace requires justice and the return of the Palestinian people.

“We do not hate Jews. We do not support genocide. What we want is a free, secular, independent Palestine where Jews and Palestinians are able to live in peace,” they said.

On Oct. 7, Hamas, designated as a terrorist group by the U.S., launched an unexpected attack on Israel, according to a Wednesday BBC article. The attack prompted the Israeli cabinet to declare war against Hamas, according to the Council of Foreign Relations.

The group gathered at the MLK fountain, protecting handmade signs and flags with umbrellas. They then marched to the Library, past crosswalks blocked off by University Police (UP). 

Outside of the Library, which was the original location posted on social media, the students continued the rally.

A handful of UP officers were present at the protest to monitor the situation. One SDS member, who wished to remain anonymous, said they informed USF of their plan to rally and communicated with officers that the demonstration was intended to be peaceful. 

UP Public Information Representative Michael Lavelle said blocking the crosswalks was not specifically coordinated with the protesters ahead of time. He said UP responded to the movement of the group to ensure safety for protesters.

The SDS member said their organization requested UP presence at the rally because of social media threats organizers of the rally had received. 

They said they were concerned about their safety ahead of the rally after seeing posts on the USF Snapchat story. A student with SFS, who wished to remain anonymous, said they told members to wear masks and cover their faces so they would not “get blacklisted” for their involvement with the rally.

A SFS student, who wished to remain anonymous, said the on-campus rally was organized after seeing protests outside campus after the initial attacks.They said that while many students attended the off-campus rally, they wanted to host one on-campus to show USF students also stand with Palestine. 

“We knew that we had to do something. We knew that we had to stand with Gaza. We knew that we had to stand with our Palestinian brothers and sisters in America and in Tampa,” they said.

One student’s motivation for attending was their concern for children affected by the conflict. The student, who wished to remain anonymous, said their concerns have grown after seeing images and videos of children being killed. 

Ahead of the early October attack, tensions along the West Bank and Gaza strip have escalated following the deadliest year for Palestinian children in the area in the last 15 years, according to an Aug. 28 Human Rights Watch article. 

Like other Palestinian students at the rally, the student personally knows citizens in Gaza and the West Bank who are being impacted by the war. They said it was important to attend because educating students is their way of supporting them from overseas. 

Another student, who wished to remain anonymous, took off from their job to attend the rally because it was important to them to show their support for Palestine. Their family is from Palestine and, prior to the war, they planned to visit Palestine over the summer. Now, they said they are afraid to return to their home because of the conflict.

“At this point, I don’t even know if we are going back. I don’t want to feel that fear of not being able to go back to my home,” they said.

After seeing the turnout for the rally and the mutual support of USF students, they said they felt a sense of pride.

“To see that people are standing here, not just yelling for Palestine, but also in the rain, I think that really shows something,” they said. “I think it shows us that, if it’s raining, snowing, pouring, terror, whatever it is, we’re always here to stand up for our people regardless.”

Editor’s note: For privacy reasons, The Oracle refrained from providing names of those who requested to remain anonymous.

A UK teacher has been banned from teaching after she plagiarized on behalf of two students, without the students' knowledge.

The post UK Teacher Banned After Plagiarizing on Behalf of Students appeared first on Plagiarism Today.

As news of Palestinian militant group Hamas launching a deadly attack on Israel and Israel’s threat of retaliation began to filter across news networks and social media platforms, a wave of misinformation and fake videos rose alongside.

In a “tech-first” society, it is increasingly difficult to differentiate between authentic information and false claims or deliberately misleading video content. It is clear that numerous videos, social media posts and images purportedly about the Israel–Hamas conflict are deliberately misleading.

This problem highlights why the verification efforts of journalists reporting on conflicts are vital. And understanding how they work is important for ensuring the public can have confidence in what they read and see from media publishers.

The Digital News Report 2023 from the University of Oxford’s Reuters Institute, of which I am acting director, surveyed people from 46 countries about their news consumption habits. It found 56% said they were worried about identifying the difference between what is real and fake on the internet when it comes to news – up from 54% in 2022.

There is heightened concern among audiences in areas close to violent conflict. As our survey found, in Slovakia, one of the countries bordering Ukraine, almost half the sample said they had seen misinformation about the Ukraine conflict in the previous week. That’s double the proportion that said this in the UK, United States or Japan.

Read more: To stop hoaxes on WhatsApp, Line and Telegram, fact-checking must go beyond social media

Several media reports have pointed to a surge of fake posts around the Israel-Hamas conflict on Twitter (now known as X), which has recently made significant changes in how it operates. The Guardian pointed to data from Israeli monitoring firm Cyabra, which covers US election disinformation and tracks bot accounts on Twitter, to demonstrate the levels of fake posts.

Cyabra claimed that many were coming from fake accounts – using automated bots – which were very active on Twitter, TikTok and other platforms. Cyabra scanned over two million pictures, posts and videos. Out of 162,000 profiles, 25% were fake, it claimed.

How verification can work

In the last few years, many traditional media outlets had robust factchecking arms that were flagging fake news and videos quickly. An example of that is BBC Verify. Started in 2023, BBC Verify aims to build audience trust by showing how its journalists know what they are reporting is accurate. The team of journalists use advanced editorial tools and techniques to investigate, source and verify information, video and images.

BBC Verify has been flagging videos and social media posts about Israel and Gaza that they have found to be either untrue or misleading. In the case of the attack by Hamas on the Supernova festival in a remote area of southern Israel, factchecking arms including BBC Verify pieced events together to check accuracy of claims using video and social media posts, dash cam footage from parked cars and facial recognition technology such as Amazon Rekognition software.

I would stress that, although there are many useful tools that can help with this work, it’s important for humans to ultimately review automated factchecking apps and tools.

AP Fact Check and Reuters have also been addressing misinformation online. A recent example is how Reuters factchecked a clip being circulated online with the false claim that the video showed how Israel or Palestine was attempting to create fake footage of deaths. The news agency had previously highlighted the origins of this film clip when it was previously shared in 2022.

In its analysis, Reuters said: “Claims that the clip shows Israelis or Palestinians faking death footage are false, however. Reuters previously addressed the clip when it was shared in 2022 with claims it showed Palestinians staging a fake killing and reported that it shows behind the scenes footage of a Palestinian production.” It added that what the clip actually shows is the filming of Empty Place, a short movie released in 2022 on YouTube.

Long-standing challenges around social media platforms, and people’s reliance on them as news sources, do seem to have an impact on how confident people feel about the information they come across. So more than ever before, there is a need for verifiable, clear and fact-based news gathering. Violent conflict needs responsible, sensitive and timely attention and communication from journalists across the world.

In the words of the pioneering American broadcast journalist Edward Murrow: “The speed of communications is wondrous to behold. It is also true that speed can multiply the distribution of information that we know to be untrue.”

Mitali Mukherjee 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.

There are risks and harms that come with relying on algorithms to make decisions. People are already feeling the impact of doing so. Whether reinforcing racial biases or spreading misinformation, many technologies that are labelled as artificial intelligence (AI) help amplify age-old malfunctions of the human condition.

In light of such problems, calls have been made to create a new human right against being subject to automated decision-making (ADM), which the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) describes as “the process of making a decision by automated means without any human involvement”.

Such systems rely on being exposed to data, whether factual, inferred, or created via profiling. But if effective regulation of ADM is the goal, creating new laws is probably not the way to go.

Our research suggests we should consider a different approach. Legal frameworks for data protection, non-discrimination, and human rights already offer protection to people from the negative impacts of ADM. Rules from these bodies of law can also guide regulation more generally. We could therefore focus on ensuring that the laws we already have are properly implemented.

Current harms and future risks

Automated decision making is being used in various ways – and there are more applications on the way. Areas subject to automation include the processing of asylum and welfare support applications and the deployment of lethal military technology. But even where ADM is considered to bring benefits, it can also have negative effects.

The criminalisation of children is one possible risk of using certain ADM systems, where “predictive risk models” used in child protection services can result in vulnerable children being further discriminated against. ADM can also make securing work harder –- a hiring algorithm developed by Amazon “scored female applicants more poorly than their equivalently qualified male counterparts.”

In several countries, including the UK, courts also rely on ADM. For example, it’s used to make sentencing recommendations, calculate the probability of a person reoffending, and assess the flight risk of defendants, which determines whether they will be released on bail pending trial.

These applications can result in unfair processes and unjust outcomes for many reasons. This could happen because a judge unwittingly accepts erroneous results produced by ADM, or because no one is able to understand how or why a particular system arrived at its conclusion.

Historically, human prejudices have also been embedded in the design of such software. This is because the algorithms are trained on real world data, often from the internet. Exposing the system to this information may help improve their performance at a task from one perspective, but the data also reflects people’s biases. This means that members of marginalised groups can end up being punished, in the way we saw earlier when women were disadvantaged by a hiring algorithm.

Protection and regulation

The urge to adopt new legal rules is perhaps understandable considering the stakes and the potential harm ADM could and does do. However, as regards creating a new human right, negotiating new laws takes time, money and resources. And once any new law comes into force it can take decades to be accurately understood for the purposes of practice.

Given that many relevant laws already exist, it’s unclear whether a new human right would significantly influence how systems for automated decision making are designed and deployed.

Yet without tangible implementation and enforcement, the content of these existing laws can become hollow. Effective governance of ADM by these laws requires impact assessments of automated decisions, human supervision of ADM systems, and complaints processes. These should all be mandated. A thorough impact assessment will be able to identify, for example, unintended harms to individuals and groups, and help shape appropriate mitigation measures.

Yet these information gathering measures need to be accompanied by sufficient oversight by a competent, resourced, and – possibly – public body. This would help uphold democratic accountability. Such bodies would also be tasked with ensuring that people negatively affected by ADM could file complaints that are adequately dealt with. These steps would make current laws on data protection, non-discrimination, and human rights more meaningful and effective in protecting individuals and groups from the harms of automated decisions.

The law across many areas is often criticised – sometimes rightly – for struggling to adapt to change. But a merit of the law in general is its ability to provide recourse to people that have experienced wrongdoing. It provides principled teeth to take a bite out of unprincipled conduct.

This capacity is significant for another reason. Corporate spin regarding digital technologies matches how they are often portrayed in public. Commentary, too, frequently tends towards “hyperbole, alarmism, or exaggeration”. This hype complements practices such as ethics-washing that provide a means of feigning commitment to regulation, while ignoring the very laws capable of providing it.

Chatter about the likes of “AI ethics” grease the wheels of these strategies, sometimes turning nuanced and significant philosophical insights into box-ticking exercises. Ethics are an essential component of guiding the design, development, and deployment of automated decision making. However, the language of “ethics” can also be used by spin doctors to distract us.

If anything here is worth remembering, it’s that ADM is not only a future problem, it’s a present problem. The laws that exist now can be used to address pressing issues stemming from this technology.

Whether this happens depends on public and private bodies improving the procedural machinery needed to enforce and oversee legal rules. These rules, many of which have been around for a while, just need a bit more life breathed into them to function effectively.

Richard Mackenzie-Gray Scott receives funding from the British Academy, and is Visiting Professor at the Center for Technology and Society, Getulio Vargas Foundation.

Elena Abrusci 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 focus on conflict in the Middle East has again returned to the Gaza Strip, with Israel’s defense minister ordering a “complete siege” of the Palestinian enclave.

The military operation, which involves extensive bombing of residences, follows a surprise attack on Oct. 7, 2023, by Hamas militants who infiltrated Israel from Gaza and killed more than 900 Israelis. In reprisal airstrikes, the Israel military has killed over 800 Gazans. And that figure could escalate in the coming days. Meanwhile, an order to cut off all food, electricity and water to Gaza will only worsen the plight of residents in what has been called the “world’s largest open-air prison.”

But how did Gaza become one of the most densely populated parts of the planet? And why is it the home to militant Palestinian action now? As a scholar of Palestinian history, I believe understanding the answers to those questions provides crucial historical context to the current violence.

A brief history of Gaza

The Gaza Strip is a narrow piece of land on the southeastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. Roughly twice the size of Washington, D.C., it is wedged between Israel to its north and east and Egypt to its south.

An ancient trade and sea port, Gaza has long been part of the geographic region known as Palestine. By the early 20th century, it was mainly inhabited by Muslim and Christian Arabs who lived under Ottoman rule. When Britain took control of Palestine following World War I, intellectuals in Gaza joined the emergent Palestinian national movement.

During the 1948 war that established the state of Israel, the Israeli military bombed 29 villages in southern Palestine, leading tens of thousands of villagers to flee to the Gaza Strip, under the control of the Egyptian army that were deployed after Israel declared independence. Most of them and their descendants remain there today.

Following the 1967 Six-Day War between Israel and its Arab neighbors, the Gaza Strip came under Israeli military occupation. The occupation has resulted in “systematic human rights violations,” according to rights group Amnesty International, including forcing people off their land, destroying homes and crushing even nonviolent forms of political dissent.

Palestinians staged two major uprisings, in 1987-1991 and in 2000-2005, hoping to end the occupation and establish an independent Palestinian state.

Hamas, a Palestinian Islamist militant group centered in Gaza, was founded in 1988 to fight against the Israeli occupation. Hamas and other militant groups launched repeated attacks on Israeli targets in Gaza, leading to Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. In 2006, Palestinian legislative elections were held. Hamas beat its secular rival, Fatah, which had been widely accused of corruption. Elections haven’t been held in Gaza since 2006, but polling from March 2023 found that 45% of Gazans would back Hamas should there be a vote, ahead of Fatah at 32%.

After a brief conflict between Hamas and Fatah militants in May 2007, Hamas took complete control of the Gaza Strip. Since then, Gaza has been under the administrative control of Hamas, even though it is still considered to be under Israeli occupation by the United Nations, the U.S. State Department and other international bodies.

Who are the Palestinians of Gaza?

The more than 2 million inhabitants of the Gaza Strip are part of the 14 million-strong global Palestinian community. About one third of Gaza’s inhabitants trace their family’s roots to land inside the Gaza Strip. The remaining two-thirds are refugees from the 1948 war and their descendants, many of whom hail from towns and villages surrounding Gaza.

The Palestinians of Gaza trend young: nearly half the population is under 18. The enclave is also very poor, with a poverty rate that stands at 53%.

Despite this grim economic picture, education levels are quite high. Over 95% of Gazan children ages 6-12 are in school. The majority of Palestinian students in Gaza graduate from high school, and 57% of students at the prestigious Islamic University of Gaza are female.

But because of the circumstances of their surroundings, young Palestinians in Gaza find it difficult to live fulfilling lives. For graduates between the ages of 19 and 29, the unemployment rate stands at 70%. And a World Bank survey earlier this year found 71% of Gazans show signs of depression and high levels of PTSD.

There are several factors that contribute to these conditions. A major factor is the crippling, 16-year blockade that Israel and Egypt – with U.S. support – have imposed on Gaza.

Years of blockade

Shortly after the 2006 elections, the Bush administration tried to force Hamas from power and bring in a rival leader from the Fatah party who was considered friendlier to Israel and the U.S. Hamas preempted the coup and took full control of Gaza in May 2007. In response, Israel and Egypt – with U.S. and European support – closed the border crossings into and out of the Gaza Strip and imposed a land, air and sea blockade.

The blockade, which is still in effect, limits the import of food, fuel and construction material; limits how far Gaza’s fishermen can go out to sea; bans almost all exports; and imposes strict limitations on the movement of people into and out of Gaza. In 2023, Israel has allowed only around 50,000 people a month to exit Gaza, according to U.N. figures.

The years of closure have devastated the lives of Palestinians in Gaza. Inhabitants there don’t have enough water for drinking and sanitation. They face electricity cuts that run 12 to 18 hours each day. Without adequate water and electricity, Gaza’s fragile health care system is “on the brink of collapse,” according to the medical rights group Medical Aid for Palestine.

These restrictions hit the young and the weak of Gaza particularly hard. Israel routinely denies sick patients the permits they need to receive medical care outside of Gaza. Bright students with scholarships to study abroad often find that they are unable to leave.

U.N. experts say this blockade is illegal under international law. They argue that the blockade amounts to a collective punishment of the Palestinians of Gaza, a violation of the Hague Convention and the Geneva Conventions that form the backbone of international law.

No end to the suffering

Israel says that the blockade on Gaza is necessary to secure the safety of its population and will be lifted when Hamas renounces violence, recognizes Israel and abides by previous agreements.

But Hamas has consistently rejected this ultimatum. Instead, militant fighters stepped up the firing of homemade rockets and mortars into populated areas surrounding the Gaza Strip in 2008, seeking to pressure Israel to lift the blockade. They have sporadically attacked Israel in this way in the years since.

Israel has launched four major military assaults on Gaza – in 2008-09, 2012, 2014 and 2021 – in efforts to destroy Hamas’ military capabilities. Those wars killed 4,000 Palestinians, more than half of whom were civilians, along with 106 people in Israel.

During that time, the U.N. estimates that there has been more than $5 billion worth of damage to Gaza’s homes, agriculture, industry, electricity and water infrastructure.

Each of those wars ended in a fragile cease-fire but no real resolution to the conflict. Israel seeks to deter Hamas from launching rockets. Hamas and other militant groups say that even when they have upheld previous cease-fires, Israel has continued to attack Palestinians and has refused to lift the blockade.

Hamas has offered a long-term truce in exchange for Israel ending the blockade on Gaza. Israel has refused to accept the offer, sticking to its position that Hamas must first end violence and recognize Israel.

In the months leading up to the latest escalation, conditions in Gaza have deteriorated even further. The International Monetary Fund reported in September that Gaza’s economic outlook “remains dire.” Conditions became more dire when Israel announced on Sept. 5, 2023, that it was halting all exports from a key Gaza border crossing.

Without an end in sight to the suffering caused by the blockade, it appears that Hamas has decided to upend the status quo in a surprise attack on Israelis, including civilians. Israel’s reprisal airstrikes and its imposition of a “complete siege” on the strip have heaped even further suffering on ordinary Gazans.

It is a tragic reminder that civilians bear the brunt of this conflict.

Maha Nassar 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.

In the wake of the Hamas surprise attacks on Israel, and that country’s resulting heavy military response, calls for Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives to pick a new speaker quickly have grown, including from GOP members themselves. The absence of a speaker may slow or limit any aid the U.S. could provide to Israel.

The Conversation U.S. asked congressional scholar Laura Blessing, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Government Affairs Institute, to explain what a major crisis abroad has to do with internal divisions within one U.S. political party.

How has the violence in Israel and Gaza shifted the dynamics within the GOP around the speaker search?

Israel has strong support within Congress in general, and certainly among House Republicans and Republican voters. Both of the speaker candidates, Rep. Steve Scalise and Rep. Jim Jordan, have expressed their strong support for Israel. The attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, call attention to the leadership vacuum in the House and place more urgency on the speaker search.

Both parties have voiced concern about the situation in Congress. The notable exceptions have come from those who engineered the ouster of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, including Matt Gaetz, who said, “I don’t think that other countries think about Kevin McCarthy’s speakership quite as much as Kevin McCarthy does.”

Some House Republicans have even suggested reinstating McCarthy, though apparently not at his direction.

The Republican chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Michael McCaul, has strongly called for action on Israel, wanting a House statement of support even in the absence of a newly elected speaker. But the current consensus in Congress is that the power of the temporary speaker, Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry, is very limited, which creates more pressure for a new speaker to be elected. McHenry appears to agree with this consensus.

Jordan opposes Ukraine aid and supports larger appropriations cuts; he is seen as the populist, anti-establishment insurgent in contrast to Scalise’s establishment credentials. Both candidates support Israel.

But if Jordan were speaker, he would be expected to be more resistant to packaging support for Israel with other items, such as Ukraine aid, or the passage of appropriations generally. Scalise, by contrast, is expected to be far closer to the Kevin McCarthy mold of leadership.

But whether the higher stakes of the crisis in Israel prompt those in the Republican conference to reconsider their votes, enlist McCarthy again, or prompt a faster process is hard to tell in this fast moving and, for now, opaque process.

Initial tracking of support, from FiveThirtyEight journalist Nathan Rakich, for both Scalise and Jordan shows that neither candidate has a clear path to a win, that Jordan initially has more support, and that Scalise has the more establishment-minded members of the party backing him. But it took 15 votes and four days for McCarthy to win the speakership this January, even though no one mounted an organized, opposing candidacy.

What difference would it make if there were a House speaker already in place?

Initially, the Biden administration is accelerating delivery of aid the U.S. has already promised Israel, which receives more than US$3 billion in U.S. aid a year.

But when the administration wants more funding, which is very likely, it will need to go to Congress. The position of speaker would need to be filled for legislation to move forward. General congressional support for Israel may mean that proposal could more easily be coordinated with the Senate than other spending bills.

What can the House do with only a temporary speaker in office?

Nobody is really certain, and there are legitimate disagreements of how to interpret the powers of the speaker pro tempore. The bipartisan consensus of those in Congress, at least for now, is that McHenry can’t call up legislation, including the appropriations bills that would be needed to give additional funding to Israel.

The part of the House rules governing the interim speaker, Rule 1, Clause 8, is very much open to interpretation. Congress could have gone in a different direction and voted to interpret the position’s powers as more active, though that would have reduced pressure for a new speaker.

The possibility of even having this office of a temporary speaker was a precaution taken in the wake of 9/11, imagining that a speaker might somehow be incapacitated; it’s never been tested. McHenry and the Congress are making precedent with every new action.

How might different results in the speakership race affect the US positions toward Israel and Hamas?

Aid for Israel, as a stand-alone item, has strong bipartisan support in Congress and with both candidates for speaker. But it is hard to say how quickly a new speaker would be elected; certainly it could be a drawn-out process.

The White House has expressed interest in a combined aid package that includes assistance to both Israel and Ukraine. Many House Republicans oppose such a move, and a Jordan speakership would be expected to make negotiations with the Senate and White House more difficult in general, with a greater appetite for government shutdowns. Jordan voted against the recent stopgap spending measure that averted a government shutdown; Scalise voted for it.

The wider state of government funding will be far more difficult, with the appropriations process revealing strong partisan disagreement. Even typically bipartisan bills such as defense spending are very partisan after the inclusion of different socially conservative amendments in the House.

Ukraine funding is also in a difficult position, emerging more recently as a partisan flashpoint even though back in July most House Republicans supported aid to Ukraine. If funding for Israel becomes embroiled in other spending debates, agreement will become more difficult.

The lessons the House learns from deposing a speaker for the first time can also be consequential. Will members tire of the few in the hard-right flank who engineered McCarthy’s ouster, thus giving the incoming speaker more political capital, perhaps by eliminating the motion to vacate, with which a speaker can be ousted? Or will a very difficult governing situation become more so, as the next speaker continually looks over his shoulder? Much remains to be seen.

Laura Blessing 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.

Since gay couples have fewer children, the high frequency of same-sex relationships in humans is puzzling from an evolutionary point of view. Perhaps there are social advantages such relationships confer on a group, or perhaps “gay genes” are selected for other reasons.

A group of Spanish researchers have studied same-sex sexual behaviour and social relationships in more than 250 species of mammals – and in a recent paper in Nature Communications, they conclude it arose independently many times, and is related to other kinds of social behaviour.

Darwin’s paradox

Research has shown the basis of male homosexuality in humans is at least partially genetic. I know of no work on a genetic basis for female–female sexual behaviour.

Why then is male–male sexual behaviour so common? You’d think, because gay couples have fewer children, these gene variants would be passed on rarely, and their frequency would decline over time.

Geneticists, sociologists and psychologists have advanced many possible explanations for this conundrum.

One is that gay genes are really “male-loving genes”. In this case, though gay males have fewer children, their female relatives who share these gene variants may be more inclined to mate earlier and have more children, making up the deficit.

Read more: Born this way? An evolutionary view of 'gay genes'

Other hypotheses referenced in the new paper propose that same-sex behaviour has beneficial effects for human groups. One idea is that same-sex relationships are important for forming and maintaining bonds and alliances within the group. This predicts same-sex behaviour should be more frequent in social species than in non-social species.

Alternatively, same-sex behaviour may help to diminish conflict between members of the same sex, and contribute to establishing social hierarchies. If this is so, we would expect same-sex behaviour to be more common in species where aggression and killing among members is also common.

The big picture of same-sex relationships

Human aren’t the only mammals to show a high frequency of same-sex relationships. There are reports of same-sex behaviour (courtship, mounting, genital contact and copulation, pair bonding) in 261 (out of 5,747) mammal species.

Mostly this behaviour is frequent and overt, occurs in the wild, and in half the species is displayed by both sexes. It is very widespread. These species represent about half of all mammal families.

Primates are strongly represented. Fifty-one species, from lemurs to great apes, show same-sex sexual behaviour.

The even bigger picture is given by studies on many other animals, which reveal same-sex behaviour in birds, reptiles, frogs and fish, as well as many invertebrates.

Most studies of same-sex relationships focus on a particular species, which makes it hard to test these competing hypotheses.

The new research explores same-sex relationships across a wide range of mammals. It asks whether this behaviour was ancestral to all mammals, or whether it evolved independently in response to the establishment of different social systems.

Same-sex sexual behaviour evolved many times and quite recently

It has been proposed that the common ancestor of mammals indulged in indiscriminate sexual behaviour, which manifested as a mix of same-sex and heterosexual relationships. The new study contradicts this.

Using a tree of relationships of mammals to each other – confirmed with DNA sequence comparisons – the patterns of same-sex sexual behaviour were mapped onto the relationships between species. The distribution of same-sex behaviour over all mammals didn’t fit the pattern we would expect if it were present in the common ancestor of all mammals, and was retained in some lineages but not others.

Read more: Homosexuality may have evolved for social, not sexual reasons

A better explanation for the evidence is that same-sex sexual behaviour was rare in mammalian ancestors overall, but evolved independently many times in many different families. Species exhibiting same-sex sexual behaviour had shared ancestors much more recently than species not showing the behaviour. This suggests same-sex sexual behaviour has been gained and lost many times, and quite recently, during mammalian evolution.

Different lineages showed different times at which same-sex sexual behaviour evolved. It became more frequent in Old World monkeys (those found in Africa and Asia today) and increased again during the evolution of the great apes.

Same-sex sexual behaviour and social organisation

Next, the researchers examined the correlation of same-sex sexual behaviour to different measures of social organisation in different mammal species. They compiled information about sociality (how the animals live together) and aggression between members of the same species, and tested for correlations with male or female same-sex sexual behaviour.

The study found same-sex sexual behaviour, both male and female, was more common in more social species. This suggests same-sex sexual behaviour was selected for in social species.

The frequency of male, but not female, same-sex sexual behaviour was also correlated with the frequency with which animals of the same sex attacked and killed each other. This supports the hypothesis that homosexuality evolved to mitigate male–male aggression in mammals.

We conclude from this study that same-sex sexual behaviour in both males and females evolved as species shifted from solitary living to sociality. It helps to establish and maintain social relationships and alliances, resolve conflicts and avoid aggression.

The high frequency of same-sex sexual behaviour in ape and monkey species suggests it was present in a social great ape ancestor, and maintained in present day social species, including humans.

Everybody might be right

Establishing that homosexuality confers selective advantages in social species such as humans and other great apes does not rule out other explanations.

There may still be fertility advantages accruing to the other sex who inherit “male-loving” or “female-loving” gene variants, for example. These benefits are not necessarily the same in different mammal lineages, and may include others that have not yet been investigated.

In any case, the ubiquity and frequency of same-sex sexual behaviour in mammals means homosexuality cannot be considered aberrant or maladaptive in humans, or any other species. It was selected because it confers different and overlapping social and fertility benefits.

Jenny Graves receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Winter is still weeks away, but meteorologists are already talking about a snowy winter ahead in the southern Rockies and the Sierra Nevada. They anticipate more storms in the U.S. South and Northeast, and warmer, drier conditions across the already dry Pacific Northwest and the upper Midwest.

One phrase comes up repeatedly with these projections: a strong El Niño is coming.

It sounds ominous. But what does that actually mean? We asked Aaron Levine, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington whose research focuses on El Niño.

What is a strong El Niño?

During a normal year, the warmest sea surface temperatures are in the western Pacific and the Indian Ocean, in what’s known as the Indo-Western Pacific warm pool.

But every few years, the trade winds that blow from east to west weaken, allowing that warm water to slosh eastward and pile up along the equator. The warm water causes the air above it to warm and rise, fueling precipitation in the central Pacific and shifting atmospheric circulation patterns across the basin.

This pattern is known as El Niño, and it can affect weather around the world.

A strong El Niño, in the most basic definition, occurs once the average sea surface temperature in the equatorial Pacific is at least 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) warmer than normal. It’s measured in an imaginary box along the equator, roughly south of Hawaii, known as the Nino 3.4 Index.

But El Niño is a coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon, and the atmosphere also plays a crucial role.

What has been surprising about this year’s El Niño – and still is – is that the atmosphere hasn’t responded as much as we would have expected based on the rising sea surface temperatures.

Is that why El Niño didn’t affect the 2023 hurricane season the way forecasts expected?

The 2023 Atlantic hurricane season is a good example. Forecasters often use El Niño as a predictor of wind shear, which can tear apart Atlantic hurricanes. But with the atmosphere not responding to the warmer water right away, the impact on Atlantic hurricanes was lessened and it turned out to be a busy season.

The atmosphere is what transmits El Niño’s impact. Heat from the warm ocean water causes the air above it to warm and rise, which fuels precipitation. That air sinks again over cooler water.

The rising and sinking creates giant loops in the atmosphere called the Walker Circulation. When the warm pool’s water shifts eastward, that also shifts where the rising and sinking motions happen. The atmosphere reacts to this change like ripples in a pond when you throw a stone in. These ripples affect the jet stream, which steers weather patterns in the U.S.

This year, in comparison with other large El Niño events – such as 1982-83, 1997-98 and 2015-16 – we’re not seeing the same change in where the precipitation is happening. It’s taking much longer to develop, and it’s not as strong.

Part of that, presumably, is related to the whole tropics being very, very warm. But this is still an emerging field of research.

How El Niño will change with global warming is a big and open question. El Niño only happens every few years, and there’s a fair amount of variability between events, so just getting a baseline is tough.

What does a strong El Niño typically mean for US weather?

During a typical El Niño winter, the U.S. South and Southwest are cooler and wetter, and the Northwest is warmer and drier. The upper Midwest tends to be drier, while the Northeast tends to be a little wetter.

The likelihood and the intensity generally scale with the strength of the El Niño event.

El Niño has traditionally been good for the mountain snowpack in California, which the state relies for a large percentage of its water. But it is often not so good for the Pacific Northwest snowpack.

The jet stream plays a role in that shift. When the polar jet stream is either displaced very far northward or southward, storms that would normally move through Washington or British Columbia are steered to California and Oregon instead.

What do the forecasts show for 2023?

Whether forecasters think a strong El Niño will develop depends on whose forecast model they trust.

This past spring, the dynamical forecast models were already very confident about the potential for a strong El Niño developing. These are big models that solve basic physics equations, starting with current oceanic and atmospheric conditions.

However, statistical models, which use statistical predictors of El Niño calculated from historical observations, were less certain.

Even in the most recent forecast model outlook, the dynamical forecast models were predicting a stronger El Niño than the statistical models were.

If you go by just a sea surface temperature-based El Niño index, the forecast is for a fairly strong El Niño.

But the indices that incorporate the atmosphere are not responding in the same way. We’ve seen atmospheric anomalies – as measured by cloud height monitored by satellites or sea-level pressure at monitoring stations – on and off in the Pacific since May and June, but not in a very robust fashion. Even in September, they were nowhere near as large as they were in 1982, in terms of overall magnitude.

We’ll see if the atmosphere catches up by wintertime, when El Niño peaks.

How long do El Niños last?

Often during El Niño events – particularly strong El Niño events – the sea surface temperature anomalies collapse really quickly during the Northern Hemisphere spring. Almost all end in April or May.

One reason is that El Niño sows the seeds of its own demise. When El Niño happens, it uses up that warm water and the warm water volume shrinks. Eventually, it has eroded its fuel.

The surface can stay warm for a while, but once the heat from the subsurface is gone and the trade winds return, the El Niño event collapses. At the end of past El Niño events, the sea surface anomaly dropped very fast and we saw conditions typically switch to La Niña – El Niño’s cooler opposite.

Aaron Levine receives funding from NOAA and has received funding in the past from the National Research Council. He is a member of the American Geophysical Union

One argument put forward in defence of fossil fuels is that they were a historical necessity, because there was no other viable substitute for much of the 20th century. We owe fossil fuels a debt of gratitude, the argument goes, because they supercharged our development. But what if I told you there was a viable alternative, and that it may have been sabotaged by fossil fuel interests from its very inception?

While researching the economics of clean energy innovation, I came across a little-known story: that of Canadian inventor George Cove, one of the world’s first renewable energy entrepreneurs. Cove invented household solar panels that looked uncannily similar to the ones being installed in homes today – they even had a rudimentary battery to keep power running when the Sun wasn’t shining. Except this wasn’t in the 1970s. Or even the 1950s. This was in 1905.

Cove’s company, Sun Electric Generator Corporation, based in New York, was capitalised at US$5 million (around US$160 million in today’s money). By 1909, the idea had gained widespread media attention. Modern Electric magazine highlighted how “given two days’ sun… [the device] will store sufficient electrical energy to light an ordinary house for a week”.

It noted how cheap solar energy could liberate people from poverty, “bringing them cheap light, heat and power, and freeing the multitude from the constant struggle for bread”. The piece went on to speculate how even aeroplanes could be powered by batteries charged by the sun. A clean energy future seemed to be there for the taking.

Vested interests?

Then, according to a report in The New York Herald on 19 October 1909, Cove was kidnapped. The condition for his release required forgoing his solar patent and shutting down the company. Cove refused and was later released near Bronx Zoo.

But after this incident, his solar business fizzled out. Which seems odd – in the years before the kidnapping, he had developed several iterations of the solar device, improving it each time.

I can’t say with certainty if vested interests were behind it. Some at the time accused Cove of staging the kidnapping for publicity, although this would seem out of character, especially since there was no shortage of media attention. Other sources suggest that a former investor may have been behind it.

What is well-known though, is that fledgling fossil fuel companies commonly deployed unscrupulous practices towards their competitors. And solar was a threat as it is an inherently democratic technology – everyone has access to the sun – which can empower citizens and communities, unlike fossil fuels which necessitate empire-building.

Standard Oil, led by the world’s first billionaire John D Rockefeller, squashed competition so thoroughly that it compelled the government to introduce antitrust laws to combat monopolies.

Similarly, legendary inventor Thomas Edison electrocuted horses, farm animals and even a human on death row using his rival Nikola Tesla’s alternating current to show how dangerous it was, so that Edison’s own technology, the direct current, would be favoured. Cove’s Sun Electric, with its off-grid solar, would have harmed Edison’s business case for building out the electric power grid using coal-fired power.

While some scattered efforts in solar development occurred after Cove’s kidnapping, there were no major commercial activities for the next four decades until the concept was revived by Bell Labs, the research branch of Bell Telephone Company in the US. In the meantime, coal and oil grew at an unprecedented pace and were supported through taxpayer dollars and government policy. The climate crisis was arguably underway.

Four lost decades

When I discovered Cove’s story, I wanted to know what the world lost in those 40 years, and ran a thought experiment. I used a concept called Wright’s law, which has applied to most renewables – it’s the idea that as production increases, costs decline due to process improvements and learning.

I applied this to calculate the year solar would have become cheaper than coal. To do this, I assumed solar power grew modestly between 1910 and 1950, and worked out how this additional “experience” would have translated into cost declines sooner.

In a world in which Cove succeeded and solar competed with fossil fuels from the get go, it would have trumped coal by as early as 1997 – when Bill Clinton was president and the Spice Girls were in their heyday. In reality, this event occurred in 2017.

An alternate century

Of course, this still assumes that the energy system would have been the same. It is possible that if solar were around from 1910 and never disappeared, the entire trajectory of energy innovation could have been very different – for example, maybe more research money would have been directed towards batteries to support decentralised solar. The electric grid and railways that were used to support the coal economy would have received far less investment.

Alternatively, more recent advances in manufacturing may have been essential for solar’s take-off and Cove’s continued work would not have resulted in a major change. Ultimately, it is impossible to know exactly what path humanity would have taken, but I wager that avoiding a 40 year break in solar power’s development could have spared the world huge amounts of carbon emissions.

While it might feel painful to ponder this great “what if” as the climate breaks down in front of our eyes, it can arm us with something useful: the knowledge that drawing energy from the sun is nothing radical or even new. It’s an idea as old as fossil fuel companies themselves.

The continued dominance of fossil fuels into the 21st century was not inevitable – it was a choice, just not one many of us had a say in. Fossil fuels were supported initially because we did not understand their deadly environmental impacts and later because the lobby had grown so powerful that it resisted change.

But there is hope: solar energy now provides some of the cheapest electricity humanity has ever seen, and the costs are continuing to plummet with deployment. The faster we go, the more we save. If we embrace the spirit of optimism seen during Cove’s time and make the right technology choices, we can still reach the sun-powered world he envisioned all those years ago.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 20,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Sugandha Srivastav receives funding from the British Academy and the Climate Compatible Growth Programme.

For some people it was a week when they forgot that the Ukraine war was happening.

As news from the Middle East took up longer and longer slots on news programmes and websites, reports from Ukraine were pushed off the front pages, at least for now.

But as Robert Dover, professor of intelligence and national security at the University of Hull, explains, any reduction in the world’s attention on the Ukraine war could be an significant opportunity for President Vladimir Putin. It could easily distract the west and undermine its commitment to financial and military support for Ukraine, he argues.

This could open up time for Russia to regroup, slow the number of battlefield deaths and prolong the conflict. It could also divert military equipment to the Middle East. A longer war is generally seen as being in Russia’s favour as the commitment of allies is potentiallworn away by national political opposition, and worries about cost, potentially.

Read more: Israel-Gaza conflict: an opportunity for Putin while the world is distracted

Meanwhile, on the Baltic coast, a gas pipeline between Estonia and Finland has been hit by an explosion, and nobody is quite sure what or who is behind it. But since both countries are Nato members, and there’s a possibility that it could be an attack by Russia, the incident is coming under intense scrutiny.

Supplies of gas and energy, of course, have become a hugely political issue since the beginning of the war, when European countries realised their overdependence on Russia and suddenly had to make alternative arrangements at speed or risk no heating through the winter.

Thomas Froehlich, a research fellow at King’s College London, who studies the geopolitics of energy, talks us through the importance of a thorough investigation into the damaged pipeline and why Europe needs to diversify and protect its energy sources.

Read more: Estonia-Finland pipeline explosion: what's the evidence that the damage was deliberate?

Since Vladimir Putin sent his war machine into Ukraine on February 24 2022, The Conversation has called upon some of the leading experts in international security, geopolitics and military tactics to help our readers understand the big issues. You can also subscribe to our fortnightly recap of expert analysis of the conflict in Ukraine.

Away from the frontlines, Russians are queueing up to see the latest Hollywood blockbuster Barbie, despite the government suggesting the film does not uphold “Russian values”. No one knows exactly what punters’ motivation might be, a dash of escapism, a desire to see the latest global movie hit, or as a small act of defiance.

Marina Miron, a post-doctoral researcher at King’s College London, studies the power of information and how information is used during conflicts. She points out that the Kremlin likes to keep a tight grip on what is said and viewed. After all, this is a country where people are not currently allowed to call the “special military operation” in Ukraine a war and journalists can face up to 15 years in prison for publishing “false” information.

Read more: The power of pink: how Barbie's popularity is pushing back against Kremlin control of information

The overuse of the word “tragedy” is letting Russia off the hook, argues Mariana Budjeryn, a research associate, at the Harvard Kennedy School. The word “tragedy” is used far too often and it suggests that is something that is out of anyone’s control.

If you look at the roots of the word tragedy in its deeper original sense, it implies inadvertence and inevitability, she explains. And therefore masks the responsibility of perpetrators in causing injustices and human suffering through malicious intent and deliberate wrongdoing.

The word that should be used more often, she suggests, is crime. Russia is breaking international law, and therefore should be called to account, and calling what is happening in Ukraine a tragedy is not the way to do it.

Read more: Calling the war in Ukraine a 'tragedy' shelters its perpetrators from blame and responsibility

When people flee from their homelands they often cling to the few possessions they are able to take with them. There are incredibly poignant images of Ukrainian families holding on to a teddy bear or a favourite book as they jostled for spaces on trains leaving the country as war broke out.

But Ukrainians living away from their homes in foreign lands are choosing another way to commemorate and remember their home, by getting tattoos of Ukrainian symbols or words inscribed on their bodies. Our French edition recently published an article looking at the Ukrainian diaspora in Portugal, and how tattoos are growing in popularity as a mark of resistance against Russian occupation, according to Amandine Desille, a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Lisbonne and an associate member at the University of Bordeaux.

Read more: Vivre l’Ukraine en exil, son héritage culturel dans la peau

And finally for an update on how The Conversation has been covering the Israel-Gaza conflict from all its bureaux around the world, here’s a round-up of coverage, compiled by global editor Stephen Khan.

Read more: Israel-Hamas war: updates on The Conversation's coverage of the conflict

Information is a valuable commodity. And thanks to technology, there are millions of terabytes of it online.

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT are now managing this information on our behalf – collating it, summarising it, and presenting it back to us.

But this “outsourcing” of information management to AI – convenient as it is – comes with consequences. It can influence not only what we think, but potentially also how we think.

What happens in a world where AI algorithms decide what information is perpetuated, and what is left by the wayside?

The rise of personalised AI

Generative AI tools are built on models trained on hundreds of gigabytes of preexisting data. From these data they learn how to autonomously create text, images, audio and video content, and can respond to user queries by patching together the “most likely” answer.

ChatGPT is used by millions of people, despite having been publicly released less than a year ago. In June, the addition of custom responses made the already-impressive chatbot even more useful. This feature lets users save customised instructions explaining what they are using the bot for and how they would like it to respond.

This is one of several examples of “personalised AI”: a category of AI tools that generate content to suit the specific needs and preferences of the user.

Another example is Meta’s recently launched virtual assistant, Meta AI. This chatbot can have conversations, generate images and perform tasks across Meta’s platforms including WhatsApp, Messenger and Instagram.

Artificial intelligence researcher and co-founder of DeepMind, Mustafa Suleyman, describes personalised AI as being more of a relationship than a technology:

It’s a friend. […] It’s really going to be ever present and alongside you, living with you – basically on your team. I like to think of it as like having a great coach in your corner.

But these technologies are also controversial, with concerns raised over data ownership, bias and misinformation.

Tech companies are trying to find ways to combat these issues. For instance, Google has added source links to AI-generated search summaries produced by its Search Generative Experience (SGE) tool, which came under fire earlier this year for offering up inaccurate and problematic responses.

Technology has already changed our thinking

How will generative AI tools – and especially those personalised to us – change how we think?

To understand this, let’s revisit the early 1990s when the internet first came into our lives. People could suddenly access information about pretty much anything, whether that was banking, baking, teaching or travelling.

Nearly 30 years on, studies have shown how being connected to this global “hive mind” has changed our cognition, memory and creativity.

For instance, having instantaneous access to the equivalent of 305.5 billion pages of information has increased people’s meta-knowledge – that is, their knowledge about knowledge. One impact of this is the “Google effect”: a phenomenon in which online search increases our ability to find information, but reduces our memory of what that information was.

On one hand, offloading our thinking to search engines has been shown to free up our mental reserves for problem solving and creative thinking. On the other, online information retrieval has been associated with increased distractibility and dependency.

Research also shows online searching – regardless of the quantity or quality of information retrieved – increases our cognitive self-esteem. In other words, it increases our belief in our own “smarts”.

Couple this with the fact that questioning information is effortful – and that the more we trust our search engine, the less we critically engage with its results – and you can see why having access to unprecedented amounts of information is not necessarily making us wiser.

Read more: Both humans and AI hallucinate — but not in the same way

Should we be ‘outsourcing’ our thinking?

Today’s generative AI tools go a lot further than just presenting us with search results. They locate the information for us, evaluate it, synthesise it and present it back to us.

What might the implications of this be? Without pushing for human-led quality control, the outlook isn’t promising.

Generative AI’s ability to produce responses that feel familiar, objective and engaging means it leaves us more vulnerable to cognitive biases.

The automation bias, for instance, is the human tendency to overestimate the integrity of machine-sourced information. And the mere exposure effect is when we’re more likely to trust information that is presented as familiar or personal.

Research on social media can help us understand the impact of such biases. In one 2016 study, Facebook users reported feeling more “in the know” based on the quantity of news content posted online – and not how much of it they actually read.

We also know that “filter bubbles” created by social media algorithms – wherein our feeds are filtered according to our interests — limit the diversity of the content we’re exposed to.

This process of information narrowing has been shown to increase ideological polarisation by reducing people’s propensity to consider alternative perspectives. It’s also been shown to increase our likelihood of being exposed to fake news.

Using AI to wise up, and not dumb down

Generative AI is, without a doubt, a revolutionary force with the potential to do great things for society. It could reshape our education system by providing personalised content, change our work practices by expediting writing and information analysis, and push the frontiers of scientific discovery.

It even has the potential to positively alter our relationships by helping us communicate and connect with others and can, at times, function as a form of synthetic companionship.

But if our only way to judge the future is by looking to the past, maybe now is the time to reflect on how both the internet and social media have changed our cognition, and apply some precautionary measures. Developing AI literacy is a good place to start, as is designing AI tools that encourage human autonomy and critical thinking.

Ultimately, we’ll need to understand both our own and AI’s strengths and weaknesses to ensure these “thinking” companions help us create the future we want – and not the one that happens to be at the top of the list.

Sarah Vivienne Bentley works for CSIRO, which receives funding from the Australian Government.

Claire Mason and Einat Grimberg 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.

Cars with internet-connected features are fast becoming all-seeing data-harvesting machines – a so-called “privacy nightmare on wheels”, according to US-based research conducted by the Mozilla Foundation.

The researchers looked at the privacy terms of 25 car brands, which were found to collect a range of customer data, from facial expressions, to sexual activity, to when, where and how people drive.

They also found terms that allowed this information to be passed on to third parties. Cars were “the official worst category of products for privacy” they had ever reviewed, they concluded.

Australia’s privacy laws aren’t up to the task of protecting the vast amount of personal information collected and shared by car companies. And since our privacy laws don’t demand the specific disclosures required by some US states, we have much less information about what car companies are doing with our data.

Australia’s privacy laws need urgent reform. We also need international cooperation on enforcing privacy regulation for car manufacturers.

How do cars collect sensitive data?

Apart from data entered directly into a car’s “infotainment” system, many cars can collect data in the background via cameras, microphones, sensors and connected phones and apps.

These data include:

• speed
• steering, brake and accelerator pedal use
• seat belt use
• infotainment settings
• phone contacts
• navigation destinations
• voice data
• your location and surroundings
• and even footage of you and your family outside your car. (Between 2019 and 2022, Tesla employees internally circulated intimate footage collected from people’s private cars for their own amusement, according to reports.)

A lot of these data are used, at least in part, for legitimate purposes such as making driving more enjoyable and safer for the driver, passengers and pedestrians.

But they can also be supplemented with data collected from other sources and used for other purposes. For instance, data may be collected from your website visit, your test drive at a dealership, or from third parties including “marketing agencies” and “providers of data-collecting devices, products or systems that you use”.

The latter is very broad since our TVs, fridges and even our baby monitors can collect data about us.

Mozilla points out these combined data can be used “to develop inferences about a driver’s intelligence, abilities, characteristics, preferences and more”.

Connected cars transmit data in real time

While cars have been collecting large amounts of information since they became “computers on wheels”, this information has generally been stored in modules in the vehicle and accessed only when the car is physically connected to diagnostic equipment.

Now, however, vehicles are being sold with connected features “in the sense that they can exchange information wirelessly with the vehicle manufacturer, third party service providers, users, infrastructure operators and other vehicles”.

This means your connected car can transmit data about you and your activities, generally via the internet, to various other companies as you go about your life.

Where do the data go?

In Australia, we have little information about how our information can be used and by whom.

In its US-based study, Mozilla found data from consumers’ cars was being disclosed to other companies for marketing and targeted advertising purposes. It was also sold to data brokers.

Mozilla was able to uncover highly detailed information, largely because the laws of California and Virginia require specific disclosures about who personal data is disclosed to and for what purposes (among other higher privacy standards).

Australian privacy law doesn’t require such specific disclosures. This is one reason car brands often have separate privacy policies for Australia.

A look at the privacy policies of various companies supplying connected cars in Australia reveals several vague, broad statements. Aside from using your data to provide you with connected services, these companies will:

• disclose it to others for “customer research”
• use it to “profile” the type of person interested in their products
• use it, along with “related companies” around the world, for vague “data analysis” and “research and development purposes” or
• provide the data to unspecified “third parties in connection with” developing new “marketing strategies”.

Some may disclose your information to law enforcement or the government even when not required by law, such as when they believe “the use or disclosure is reasonably necessary to assist a law enforcement agency”.

Trust us – we invented a ‘voluntary code’

It’s safe to say car manufacturers generally don’t want privacy laws tightened. The Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) represents companies distributing 68 brands of various types of vehicles in Australia.

During the recent review of our privacy legislation, the FCAI made a submission to the Attorney General’s department arguing against many of the privacy law reforms under consideration.

Instead, it promoted its own Voluntary Code of Conduct for Automotive Data and Privacy Protection. This weak document seems designed to comfort consumers without adding any privacy protections beyond existing legal obligations.

For example, signatories don’t say they’re bound by the code. Nor do they promise to follow its terms. They only say its principles will “drive their approach to treatment of vehicle-generated data and associated personal information”. There are no penalties for ignoring the code.

It even states signatories will “voluntarily notify” consumers of certain matters when the Privacy Act already requires this as a matter of law.

The code also notes third parties are increasingly interested in accessing and using consumers’ data to provide services, including insurance companies, parking garage operators, entertainment providers, social networks and search engine operators.

It says companies making data available to such third parties “will strive to inform you” about this.

We need privacy law reform

The government recently proposed important and wide-ranging privacy law reforms, following the Privacy Act Review which began in 2020. These changes are long overdue.

Proposals such as an updated definition of “personal information” and higher standards for “consent” could help protect consumers from intrusive and manipulative data practices.

The proposed “fair and reasonable test” would also assess whether a practice is substantively fair. This would help avoid claims data practices are lawful just because consumers had to provide consent.

The FCAI points out many cars aren’t specifically designed for Australia’s relatively small market, so increased privacy standards might result in some vehicles not being released here. But this isn’t a reason to carve out vehicles from privacy law reform.

Privacy laws are also being upgraded in numerous jurisdictions overseas. Australia’s government agencies should coordinate with their international counterparts to protect drivers’ privacy.

Read more: To steal today's computerized cars, thieves go high-tech

Katharine Kemp receives funding from the UNSW Allens Hub for Technology, Law and Innovation. She is a Member of the Expert Panel of the Consumer Policy Research Centre, and the Australian Privacy Foundation.

Google's new Web Environment Integrity (WEI) proposal has been almost universally derided. Here's what it could do to the web.

The post How Google’s Web Environment Integrity Proposal Could Change the Web appeared first on Plagiarism Today.

We want more high-speed rail service in Florida, especially in Tampa. The potential for a speedy connection from Tampa to Orlando is officially in the works. We’re already imagining a traffic-free excursion to Disney – or better yet a leisurely ride from Tampa all the way to Miami.

“It’s a big part of our future, right? We love Tampa. Tampa’s the next big market for us. You connect Tampa to the rest of this system and suddenly 75% of the state is within close proximity to a Brightline train. We like that a lot,” Brightline CEO Mike Reininger said in an interview with Fox 13.

Hillsborough County Commissioner Harry Cohen believes a Tampa station is coming soon near Tampa’s Union Station between Ybor and Port Tampa. A map on the Brightline app also highlights a Tampa station in the works.

Brightline could one day connect Tampa and Orlando

Officials recently debuted a new spot in the heart of Orlando, and Brightline West will soon provide service between Vegas and Southern California.

Brightline launched operations in South Florida in 2018, connecting Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach. Stations in Boca Raton and Aventura opened last year. Construction on its 170-mile extension from West Palm Beach to Orlando began in 2019.

The $6 billion project has generated substantial economic benefits in Florida creating 10,000 jobs and approximately $6.4 billion in direct economic impact to the region, according to Brightline officials. Construction teams worked more than seven million hours over the course of four years to complete the project.

Covering more than 200 miles in Florida

Brightline covers 235 miles between Miami and Orlando and the new route will take between 3 and 3.5 hours depending on South Florida station stops.

The surging popularity of Tampa International Airport and the announcement of the huge new Rays Stadium in St. Pete are major factors that could help make this Brightline expansion a reality.

Visit Brightline’s website to learn more about its current service offerings.

What to read next:

• Harlem Globetrotters return to Tampa in 2024
• 3 essential Tampa dive bars
• Savannah Bananas return to Tampa’s Steinbrenner Field 
• New coffee shop: Sorbo, an Asian culture-inspired cafe

The post Brightline expansion in Florida: “Tampa’s the next big market for us” appeared first on That's So Tampa.

The 1920s were a formative time for the state of Florida, especially in Tampa. Bootleggers flocked to our brick streets to smuggle illegal booze, and the very first Art Deco buildings began to rise. At the same time, Mediterranean fruit flies attacked citrus groves and the state’s brutal convict-leasing program ensnared thousands. Tampa Bay History Center’s upcoming exhibition Decade of Change: Florida in the 1920s officially debuts on November 4 and will remain on view through July 14, 2024.

Among the many seismic shifts in culture occurring in this time period was the evolution of the bathing suit. The quintessential Gulf Coast uniform received a major upgrade in the 1920s. Gone were the days of stockings and bloomers, making way for more revealing styles that bared the knee and lower thigh. This sartorial rebellion raised eyebrows, prompting the American Association of Park Superintendents to issue strict Bathing Suit Regulations in 1917, limiting swim skirts to a mere two inches above the knee. Meanwhile, in Miami, Jane Fisher, the dynamic spouse of developer Carl Fisher, took credit for introducing lightweight beach attire. As a passionate swimmer, she loathed cumbersome swimwear and proudly declared that after donning the modern suit in South Florida, “not a black cotton stocking was to be seen on the beach.”

The road to a tourism boom in Florida

Get ready to dive into the Prohibition era at Decade of Change. Florida took a legal stand against booze in 1919, a year ahead of the nationwide prohibition. But the dry movement was already in full swing, with local and statewide laws making many counties parched between 1900 and 1918. This exhibit features fascinating relics like a Polk County newsletter championing the Prohibition cause, and snapshots of Tampa’s own Judge Leo Stalnaker, a steadfast advocate for the dry movement.

In 1925, nearly 2.5 million tourists visit to enjoy Florida’s developing roadways. Gone were the days of solely relying on trains or steamboats; now, folks were hitting the Florida roads in style, be it in fancy coupes, quirky jalopies, or something in between. Let’s not forget the motorist camps that sprung up during this tourism frenzy! One of the pioneers in this trend? Tampa’s very own DeSoto Park, a true trailblazer in the movement.

A deep dive into the history of the Sunshine State

The exhibition also peels back the layers on Jim Crow politics, architectural marvels, and the surge of religious fervor in the 1920s. Brace yourself for a journey into a complex political landscape, where Jim Crow policies and anti-immigrant sentiments took center stage in Florida’s political arena.

Meanwhile, the roaring twenties saw a spiritual awakening, with Pentecostalism, revivals, and charismatic radio preachers leaving an indelible mark on American culture. As suburban landscapes began to bloom, iconic bungalows sprung up, forever altering the architectural fabric of the era. This exhibit takes you on a whirlwind tour through a transformative decade that shaped Florida’s cultural landscape. You can learn more about the upcoming exhibition on Tampa Bay History Center’s website.

Explore new digital collections at The History Center

A new digital collection, Florida Front and Center, also launches this October. Florida Front and Center is putting our state’s story front and center in the grand tapestry of U.S. history. This showcase shines a spotlight on Florida’s colonial roots, tracing back even before the Pilgrims set foot on Plymouth Rock. And don’t blink, because it also dives into Florida’s colossal post-World War II expansion and political clout. Altogether, Florida Front and Center unveils a 500+ year saga of the Sunshine State.

There’s still time to visit the museum’s current exhibition Etched Feathers. The brilliant collection of avian-inspired works will remain on view through October 15.

The state of Florida is a birders paradise. Our recent stint of flamingo-mania post-Idalia is proof of that. Pelicans, spoonbills, herons, hawks, screech owls, parrots, and other stunning avian species make the Sunshine State an even more lush and lovely place to call home. Artist John Costin and other infatuated creatives have used dynamic processes to capture the majesty of these creatures. Both their works and their processes are on fulll display at the Tampa Bay History Center.

Experience the Tampa Soul Walk

If it’s one event you put on your calendar for October, make it Florida Conversations: Tampa Soul Walk on October 17. Fred Hearns, curator of Black history, and Robin Nigh, arts and cultural affairs manager for the City of Tampa, join a distinguished guest panel that designed the Soulwalk arts and heritage “trail.” Nearly 100 stops spanning approximately 46 miles across 25 neighborhoods tell the rich history of Tampa’s Black communities and highlight the diverse, thriving, creative community in present-day Tampa.

The event begins at 6:30pm; it’s free to attend but registration is required.

On October 22, in the spirit of Halloween, the history center hosts A Night at The Museum. Guests will enjoy trick-or-treating in the museum galleries, along with a costume contest, photo opportunities, crafts and games, and special characters roaming the museum. Tickets are selling out fast, and you can reserve yours here.

See all of Tampa Bay History Center’s current and upcoming exhibitions on its website. The museum is located at 801 Water Street.

What to read next:

• Harlem Globetrotters return to Tampa in 2024
• 3 essential Tampa dive bars
• Savannah Bananas return to Tampa’s Steinbrenner Field 
• New coffee shop: Sorbo, an Asian culture-inspired cafe

The post Bootleggers, tourism booms and bathing suits: Decade of Change explores Florida in the 1920s appeared first on That's So Tampa.

As a Tampa native, I used to think The Tampa Bay Hotel was a castle. When I was told later that it was actually a university, it became my top school choice. (That didn’t work out. I went further north, Go Gators.) But my original classification wasn’t too far off. What’s now The University of Tampa, and Henry B. Plant Museum, was once called the crown jewel in Henry Bradley Plant’s train system — The Tampa Bay Hotel. This gorgeous resort was meant to entice Northerns to exotic and hot Florida. And it did — for a time.

Let’s learn more about what once was The Tampa Bay Hotel.

Trains in Florida

There once was a man who believed in train transportation in Florida — Henry Bradley Plant. It was mostly to the benefit of himself and his many businesses ventures, including transportation of goods in and out of Florida. In the late 19th century, Plant undertook the ambitious project of connecting remote areas of Florida with his expanding railway network. His efforts culminated in the creation of the Plant System, a web of railroads that facilitated the rapid growth of commerce, tourism, and settlement throughout the state.

Plant’s railways not only provided essential links for trade and travel but also played a pivotal role in opening up Florida as a desirable winter destination for the wealthy elite of the era. These wealthy elite needed a place to stay and Plant knew just the port city to house them.

The Tampa Bay Hotel

Plant’s goal was to connect his rail lines to a port terminus in Florida and Tampa emerged as the ideal location. Constructed in 1891, this opulent resort redefined luxury and sophistication in its era. The hotel’s striking Moorish Revival architecture, featuring minarets, domes, and ornate details, captured the imagination of visitors and showcased Plant’s commitment to creating a grand destination.

Guests of the hotel could enjoy including wild game hunting, fresh and salt-water fishing, sailing, rowing, and canoeing. Bicycles and carriages were also at their disposal. Rickshaws were available for tours of the property or an afternoon ride to see and be seen.¹

Beyond its architectural marvels, the Tampa Bay Hotel was equipped with modern amenities like electricity, elevators, and telephones. The hotel’s lush gardens, serene courtyards, and exotic wildlife added to its charm. Notably, the Tampa Bay Hotel played a crucial role in Florida’s history, acting as a hub for economic and cultural exchanges during the state’s period of transformation.

The construction of the hotel became a symbol of the region’s progress and allure.

Becoming a university and museum

The City of Tampa bought the building in 1905 after the death of Plant in 1899. The City continued to operate the hotel until 1932. Only a year later, the south wing on the first floor became the Tampa Municipal Museum. Later renamed the Henry B. Plant Museum in the 1970s. The museum’s mission is to interpret the hotel and the experiences of the diverse individuals who contributed to its success.

The rest of the hotel became a school. In 1933 Tampa Junior College, which was previously housed within a local high school, moved to into the rest of the hotel. From then on it was known as The University of Tampa.²

1. https://www.plantmuseum.com/about/history ︎
2. https://www.ut.edu/about-ut/history ︎

The post Hidden History: The Tampa Bay Hotel appeared first on ModernGlobe.

The role of libraries and archives as streaming grows, choice declines, and the death of the red envelopes arrives.

The post Libraries, Archives, Choice and Red Envelopes: The Growth of Streaming, the Decline of Choice, and the Death of the Red Envelope appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.

Defining what is and isn’t a country is a lot more complicated than many people would realize. Take the case of Taiwan.

On Aug. 30, 2023, a committee of the U.K. Parliament referred to Taiwan as an “independent country” in a report. This is the first time any part of the British political system has used that phrasing.

Officially, the U.K. “does not recognise Taiwan” as a country, nor does it “maintain formal diplomatic relations with the island,” which is one way states recognize each other as equals on the international stage.

Like the U.K., the U.S. also “does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan,” although there is a “robust unofficial relationship,” according to the State Department. Many other countries are in a similar boat.

So where does that leave Taiwan? Is it, or is it not, a country?

From my perspective as a political scientist, here’s how I would approach this question.

A country by declaration

According to what’s known as the “declarative theory of statehood,” a country – which is often referred to as a “state” in political science and international relations terminology – must possess the following qualities: “(a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”

These four qualities were agreed upon in the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which is an international treaty registered with the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations.

Article 3 of that treaty says that the existence of a “state is independent of recognition by the other states.” In other words, as long as the four qualities above are met, an area qualifies as a country even if other countries choose not to recognize it.

One criticism of this framework is that it opens the door for many areas to be considered countries, even though they may seem outlandish.

For example, in the 1960s, Italian engineer Giorgio Rosa built a 4,000-square-foot (400-square-meter) platform 7 miles (11 kilometers) off the coast of Italy. On June 24, 1968, Rosa – whose last name means “rose” in English – declared that his platform was an independent country named the Republic of Rose Island. This artificial island had a restaurant, bar, souvenir shop and post office. Its official language was Esperanto.

It could be argued that Rose Island met the criteria outlined in the Montevideo Convention, as there was a permanent population because Rosa lived there; his humanmade platform had a defined territory; there was a government because Rosa declared himself president; and Rose Island’s post office gave it the capacity to communicate with, and thus enter into relations with, other countries.

Although several countries, including the U.S., have ratified the Montevideo Convention, Italy has not. So, 55 days after Rose Island declared independence, the Italian military destroyed the platform.

A country by recognition

In contrast to the declarative theory of statehood, what’s called the “constitutive theory of statehood” considers a country to be a country only if it is recognized by other already recognized countries.

There is no magic number for how many countries one must be recognized by. Rather, those that aspire to be regarded by the world as an independent country must join the United Nations as a full member.

In order to join the United Nations, applicants must be recommended by the Security Council, which comprises 15 members. Five of those members are permanent and have a veto. Applicants must have the support of nine of the 15 members, including each of the permanent members.

If the Security Council recommends admission, the application is presented to the General Assembly, where each full member of the United Nations has a single vote. A two-thirds majority is necessary before a country can join.

One China or two?

Today, most of the world’s countries officially adhere to some variation of the idea that there is only one China, whose capital is Beijing, and which encompasses both the mainland territory and the island of Taiwan.

There is a government there, but there is also a government on Taiwan, based in its capital, Taipei. That government calls itself the Republic of China and traces its history to the early 20th century, when a revolution overthrew the emperor of China.

Notably, at that time, nobody’s definition of China included the island of Taiwan, which was then commonly called Formosa. Japan had seized the island in a war in the late 19th century.

In 1927, an uprising by the Chinese Communist Party attacked the Republic of China government. That kicked off a bloody civil war that lasted until 1949.

In that year, the government of the Republic of China retreated to the island of Taiwan. That same year, Mao Zedong, leader of the Chinese Communist Party, proclaimed the founding of the People’s Republic of China, with its capital in Beijing.

But Mao still sought control over his enemy’s territory, declaring, “Taiwan is ours, and we will never compromise on this issue, which is an issue of internal affairs.”

To this day, the government of the People’s Republic of China, whose capital is Beijing, considers Taiwan part of its “sacred territory.” The constitution of the People’s Republic of China states that “(i)t is the lofty duty of the entire Chinese people, including our compatriots in Taiwan, to accomplish the great task of reunifying the motherland.” Its foreign affairs ministry says, “Taiwan is a sacred and inseparable part of China’s territory.” On Oct. 2, 2023, the Beijing government celebrated its national day by releasing a video signifying its focus on unity with the people of Taiwan.

In contrast, the Republic of China refers to the area under its control as “the Taiwan area,” or “the free area.” It refers to the rest of China as “the mainland area,” which the Taiwanese government has described as being under a “Period of Communist Rebellion.”

Other countries are similarly delicate. For example, in 1972, the U.S. “acknowledge(d) that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.” In 1979, the U.S. again “acknowledge(d) the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.”

Taiwan’s place in the world

Taiwan argues that it meets the Montevideo Convention’s criteria for being considered a country under the declarative theory of statehood. However, Taiwan has not yet formally declared itself to be a new, independent country. According to President Tsai Ing-wen, “(w)e don’t have a need to,” because “(w)e are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China.”

But recall that, according to the constitutive theory of statehood, a country is only a country if it’s recognized by other already recognized countries, and the ultimate manifestation of such recognition is full membership in the United Nations.

Interestingly, the Republic of China was actually a founding member of the United Nations. However, in 1971, the United Nations voted “to expel” the Republic of China, and instead recognized the Communist government “as the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations.” Subsequent attempts by Taiwan to join the United Nations have been unsuccessful.

Today, only a dozen or so countries continue to maintain formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan, most of which are small island developing states such as Nauru, Palau and Tuvalu.

Each of these countries recognizes Taiwan as “the Republic of China,” and none of them simultaneously maintains offical ties with the People’s Republic of China.

Until Taiwan formally declares itself independent of the rest of China – or until Taiwan is recognized by the international community as being independent of the rest of China – Taiwan’s status as a country will continue to be questioned.

Joshua Holzer 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.

Among the hundreds already dead in the latest hostilities between Israel and Hamas, very many are children. And despite the killing of children being invoked by both sides as evidence of their enemy’s brutality, the death toll will no doubt continue to rise.

Because for decades now, neither Israel nor Hamas has shown any willingness to abide by a basic principle of international humanitarian law – that at times of conflict, every effort should be made to spare the young.

This aspect of the conflict rarely receives the attention it deserves from politicians or the media. And even charities working in the region often don’t address the issue as they’d like to. However, researchers such as myself have been able to highlight how significantly children’s lives are affected.

The indiscriminate launch of rockets into Israel has exposed children there to trauma, injury and death. Meanwhile, countless Palestinian children die in bombardments of the Gaza Strip. In the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the killing of Palestinian children is a frequent occurrence that invariably goes unpunished.

Yet a 1977 addition to the Geneva conventions (article 77) states that: “Children shall be the object of special respect and shall be protected against any form of indecent assault.”

It goes on to say that the opposing sides should provide children with “the care and aid they require”. But there is scant evidence of this care being shown by either Hamas or Israel.

We also see a complete disregard for international law in the abduction of children by enemy forces. Following the recent Hamas attack on Israel, shocking reports have emerged of Israeli children taken hostage by Hamas and transported into the Gaza Strip alone or with their parents.

Also shocking is the longstanding and routine abduction of Palestinian children, some as young as 12. Evidence gathered by UK charity Save The Children and others shows that these children are held in prisons, often with adults, and are commonly assaulted by guards.

Administrative detention often lasts for months, with release offered only after signing a confession, typically for throwing stones. But those confessions are reportedly obtained under threat of continued imprisonment should the child refuse.

Such violations continue with impunity and without comment or intervention. The mainstream media rarely report on violations of Palestinian children’s basic rights, while political leaders have proven reluctant to engage.

Charity workers on the ground, many of whom I have interviewed in the occupied territories, feel unable to speak out. Although keenly aware of the violence visited upon Palestinian children, they feel constrained by governmental donors eager not to alienate Israel’s political and business elites. Even when there is a major outbreak of violence, these organisations have little power to demand accordance with international law.

That said, Save the Children has condemned the current violence, saying the scale of the attacks in Israel and Gaza is causing damage that will endure long after the immediate crisis.

The sort of damage they are referring to was the subject of a recent study in which my colleagues and I explored the protection of refugee children in the Gaza Strip and Jordan. We looked at the threats they were exposed to, and how those threats could be reduced.

Constant fear

We found the situations in the two places to be markedly different. In Jordan, daily life was tough, but somehow families managed. In the Gaza Strip, children were routinely exposed to mortal danger which rained down from the skies at any time. The helplessness of Palestinian parents was regularly laid bare.

As one mother in Gaza told us: “Honestly, […] I never feel safe, and I am always terrified that something bad might happen and hurt my children. They never feel safe or comfortable. They are not mentally or physically healthy.”

That interview was conducted a few months after a major outbreak of military violence in 2021 in which 66 Palestinian children were killed. Two years later even greater hostilities are occurring.

Compounding the threat to children’s survival, Israel has announced that the 16 year blockade of Gaza will become even more punitive with the withholding of food, water, electricity and fuel. Meanwhile, major donors to the Palestinians, including the European Commission and the governments of Germany and Austria, are considering the suspension of aid.

The ability of Palestinian parents to protect their children is being comprehensively undermined as never before. And it seems that international law counts for nothing.

Jason Hart receives funding from the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council.

I doubt the psychologist Carl Gustav Jung (1875-1961), in all his prescience, would have predicted that his work would one day fuel a TikTok trend called “shadow work”.

Life coaches and self-help gurus on the platform promote the exploration of shadow as a path to self-development. The exercises they recommend include thought experiments imagining parental rejection, journal exercises recalling a misunderstood talent that was neglected, and the accomplishment of perfect peace through radical self-acceptance.

All of this is apparently based on a premise of Jungian psychology: if we accept the parts of ourselves we despise or disown, they can become assets to us.

Our uncontrollable rage, when welcomed, can become powerful positive self-assertion. Our habitual lying, put to good use, may be the ability to write an engaging novel. The monster that chases us in a recurrent dream may have wisdom for us if we stop and turn to consult it.

Jung apparently said that 90% of the shadow is pure gold. There are riches to be found in the darkest corners of human consciousness.

The kinds of exercises touted on TikTok as shadow work, though, can be found in many therapeutic approaches. It is not unusual, for example, in cognitive behavioural therapy (a type of talk therapy) to ask anxious clients to imagine the worst that could happen to explore the resourcefulness they possess to cope with it.

Existential psychotherapy finds that while anxiety about dying can make people more defensive and prejudiced, deeper reflection on mortality brings people to a more accepting stance as they consider how they would like to be remembered.

Studies of “journalling” practice suggest that reflecting on uncomfortable truths about ourselves is an effective way to gain wisdom in living. These are just a few examples, but they show that something very much like shadow work can be effective without having to buy into the entire Jungian explanation of how personal development works.

It is not a bad idea to invite people to think about some of the more difficult areas of their lives. In this sense, TikTok is on to something. The problem is that to learn from confrontation with something difficult, we must be able to do two things at the same time: feel the negative emotion (fear, shame, sadness or whatever) and be able to think about it enough to come to a more helpful perspective.

Effective shadow work is not just raking up old psychological wounds for the sake of it, but coming to a new acceptance and understanding of them so that our capacity and resilience grow as a result.

We need other people

The problem with shadow work arises when we run into powerful emotions that completely take us over. Even without a traumatic personal history it is possible to run into feelings of shame, rage and terror that so overwhelm us we have no capacity left to think about them. At such times, when we can’t think – we need other people to do the thinking for us.

This is why we turn to friends, or a good therapist, to help us when we reach the edge of our ability to regulate ourselves. This is not to say that we can’t learn beautiful things from traumatic experiences. We can. But we have to gain some degree of psychological recovery from our trauma before we go delving for life lessons in the deepest, darkest events of our lives.

This is something that Jung knew but seems to be missing from the TikTok trend.

When I listen to the self-help gurus glibly advocating shadow work as a way of being a better person, I can only assume that none of them know the history that led Jung to establish the concept.

It is true that he emerged from a period of psychological crisis in his late thirties, joyfully clutching new insights into the human mind. But commentators are still divided on whether this was a kind of spiritual enlightenment or a psychotic breakdown.

Either way, it tells us that confronting the shadow, while creative and illuminating, is not to be taken lightly.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone who has explored their shadow in any depth could commend it without a sober note of caution. It makes me wonder if the TikTok advocates of shadow work are oblivious to the most obvious shadow question that confronts them: what would it be like if no one ever watched you on TikTok?

Roger Bretherton 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.

Have you signed up to an online service for a free trial, decided it isn’t for you, but still ended up paying for it months – or even years – later? Or tried cancelling a subscription, and found yourself giving up during the painstaking process? If so, there’s a good chance you have encountered a “dark pattern”.

Dark patterns are clever tricks built into apps and websites to encourage you to do things you may not necessarily want to do. They make it easy to “accept all” tracking cookies for example, and swiftly agree to terms and conditions while you hurry along with making your purchase.

They also make it easy to sign up to a service – but time consuming and frustrating to leave. And our recent research shows how most of the time they benefit companies at the expense of consumers.

This imbalance has not gone unnoticed by regulators. The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which aims to protect consumers from unfair business practices, believes an increasing number of companies are “using digital dark patterns to trick people into buying products and giving away their personal information”.

For instance, the FTC is currently investigating Amazon over its alleged use of dark patterns to enrol customers into its Prime service, while making it difficult for them to leave. Our research supports the agency’s observation that “consumers who attempted to cancel Prime were faced with multiple steps to actually accomplish the task of cancelling”.

In a statement on its website, Amazon said the suit showed the FTC’s “misunderstanding of retail”. It also said: “We make it clear and simple for customers to both sign up for or cancel their Prime membership.”

Read more: US regulator is suing Amazon – here's what this could mean for your online shopping

The FTC is not alone in its concerns about dark patterns. The EU recently passed legislation which can be used to fine companies that use dark patterns, and the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority has launched rules designed to protect consumers from dark patterns in financial services.

Meanwhile, the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) recently announced its first investigation into dark patterns with an open letter warning business against what it calls “harmful online choice architectures”.

“Choice architecture” is a term coined by the authors of the extremely popular and influential book Nudge. They describe it as the “the design of different ways in which choices can be presented to decision makers”.

For instance, a “choice architect” could help a consumer by reducing the amount of irrelevant information presented to them, allowing space for a considered, focused decision to be made. But most dark patterns work by manipulating choice architecture.

Rather than helping consumers, the architecture is designed to hinder choice. So instead of removing irrelevant material, it may bombard a user with excessive information, extra steps and distractions to stop them cancelling a subscription.

As the CMA notes, in today’s online world “businesses can design and control every aspect of their interactions with us to an extent that is unprecedented in traditional brick and mortar businesses”.

Research suggests the CMA is right, and that online companies have an almost unlimited ability to refine their interactions with consumers. Online experiences are increasingly personalised, and tech-savvy firms have more ways than ever to engage with – and manipulate – us.

Seeing the light

And while regulators tend to focus on dark patterns as a way of getting consumers to part with their money or data, others have expressed concerns about potential psychological harms and a loss of freedom by users of online services.

With these risks in mind, we have used insights from behavioural science to identify some of the processes which make dark patterns work and created a simple framework to describe the most pervasive strategies. “Detours” for example, is the name we have given to the tools used to delay and distract us, such as requiring an excessive number of actions to cancel a subscription.

“Roundabouts” try to bore or frustrate us to the point of giving up, like clicking on link after link, taking users round in circles. And “shortcuts” offer an immediately easy – but potentially costly – choice, like the “accept all” buttons on cookie prompts or requests to accept terms and conditions. In one study, a particularly long terms and conditions document led 98% of participants to agree to hand over their firstborn child as payment.

Our framework of terms is designed for simplicity – to empower consumers to spot dark patterns themselves, and to help regulators intervene. For the freedom to create and delete accounts for a service is a fundamental step in navigating the online world.

And it should not be drastically more straightforward to set up a social media account than it is to delete it. There is no good reason for detours, roundabouts and shortcuts to get in the way. We believe it should be as easy – if not easier – to delete an account as it is to create one. Most of the services we examined failed this standard.

Without consumer push back and regulatory muscle, the online world is likely to become even harder for ordinary people to navigate. On the plus side, regulators seem to be stepping up, and new tools for protecting consumers from dark patterns are emerging. There may yet be light at the end of this manipulative tunnel.

Richard Whittle receives funding from the ESRC, Research England, and various industry sources including AJ Bell and the Money Advice Service. The research mentioned in this article was supported by the Research England CAPE and Y-PERN awards.

Stuart Mills 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.

23andMe suffers data hack

Like everyone else who’s DNA-tested at 23andMe, The Legal Genealogist was dismayed this past week to learn of an apparent data hack at the DNA testing website.

If the reports are accurate, it’s not exactly a security hole that 23andMe could have plugged. The story is that hackers collected passwords associated with specific email addresses that had already been hacked at other sites and then reused them at 23andMe to see if they worked.

And because 23andMe uses email addresses as usernames and so many of us do engage in this risky business of reusing passwords, the hackers got access to a ton of data.

So far, personal information about roughly a million users of Ashkenazi Jewish descent and 300,000 users of Chinese descent was offered for sale on the so-called Dark Web. The data offered included full names, birth years, location information and more. Nobody knows how many accounts were accessed, how much data was scraped and what it might be used for.

As yet, there’s no indication that raw DNA data was hacked, but the incident is still under investigation.

But here’s the bottom line: no company can protect us from our own folly. Using a password across multiple websites in this day and age of data hacking is just that: folly. (And yeah, I’ve done it too. My pointing finger here is pointing right back at me too.)

Particularly at a website like a DNA testing company, don’t use a password you’ve ever used anywhere else.

And if you have — change your password now.

At 23andMe, the steps are to log in, go to the top right of the user page where your name or initials can be found, click on that and choose Settings. From Settings, choose to Edit your Account Settings. When the edit page opens, choose Change Password. You’ll need to enter your current password to change it to a new one.

Don’t wait. Do it today. And do a security check on every website where you have sensitive personal information: DNA testing sites and financial sites of any kind right at the top of the list.

Never ever reuse a password across multiple sites, and particularly not at a website where accessing your data could be dangerous to your health — financial or otherwise.

Change your password.

Now.

Cite/link to this post: Judy G. Russell, “Change your password!,” The Legal Genealogist (https://www.legalgenealogist.com/blog : posted 8 Oct 2023).

A United Nations mission finally arrived in Nagorno-Karabakh on October 1 to find its towns and villages almost completely deserted. Two weeks after Azerbaijan launched an all-out military assault on the disputed territory in the south Caucasus, the Armenian government has said there are now almost no ethnic Armenians left in an area they have lived in for more than two millennia.

The only people left are reportedly either too old, too poor, too remote or too infirm to flee to safety along the Lachin corridor to Armenia.

Before the military assault, Armenians living in the enclave had been trapped and living under siege since December 12, 2022. Azerbaijan established an illegal blockade of the narrow land bridge connecting Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia, blocking supplies, including food and medicine.

After more than nine months, having reduced the population of 120,000 to near starvation, Azerbaijan launched a military assault on September 19. The attack killed an estimated 200 Armenian troops and seized control of strategic high ground around the enclave.

Under the terms of the ceasefire that followed, both Armenian troops and the 2,000 Russian peacekeepers were required to disarm and disband. Armenians were given the “choice” of “reintegration” into Azerbaijan.

These sanitised terms mask a violence and dispossession that the pictures in the media last week can only hint at. The queues of desperate Armenians fleeing were so long that they could be viewed from space.

Dehumanisation of Armenians

It was always highly unlikely that any Armenians would “choose” to stay under Azeri control of Nagorno-Karabakh. The regime of President Ilham Aliyev does not tolerate criticism or plurality of voice among its own citizens.

So Azerbaijan’s pledge “to protect the rights and safety of ethnic Armenians” has a hollow ring. Azerbaijan is rated as a “consolidated authoritarian regime” by US-based democracy think tank Freedom House, which rates it at a paltry nine out of a possible freedom score of 100 and judges it as “not free”.

For decades, the Aliyev regime has promoted ethnic hatred of Armenians. Azerbaijan has actively worked for the eradication and appropriation of its Armenian religious and cultural heritage. This was referred to in a recent report as “the worst cultural genocide of the 21st century”.

Meanwhile, atrocities committed by Azeri troops during the previous Nagorno-Karabakh war in 2020 have been well documented. The so-called “Military Trophies Park” in the Azeri capital of Baku, built as a memorial of the war, is filled with grotesque mannequins representing Armenians.

Ethnic hatred of Armenians is normalised by the government. A postage stamp issued in 2021 depicted the fumigation of Nagorno-Karabakh, implying that ethnic Armenians were a virus that needed to be eradicated (the stamp was not registered by the Universal Postal Union).

While Nagorno-Karabakh was being emptied, Azerbaijan reissued a map of Stepanakert, the capital city, with Azeri street names. One street has been renamed Enver Pasha, after one of the three Turkish architects of the Armenian genocide of 1915.

Caviar and energy diplomacy

Reporting of the conflict has largely overlooked the complex history and forces involved – as well as wider regional power struggles.

Instead, the global media has been lending credence to Azerbaijan’s script, referring to “anti-terrorist operations” against “separatists” and “ethnic Armenian rebels” to describe the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. This language obfuscates the expulsion of 120,000 Armenians from their ancestral homeland by a clear aggressor.

But Azerbaijan wields significant international influence thanks to its immense oil and gas wealth and the unqualified support of its “big brother” Turkey.

In addition, Azerbaijan uses all the propaganda weapons at its disposal. The Aliyev regime has become adept at courting political influence in the west through what has been dubbed “caviar diplomacy”. Events such as the Formula 1 Grand Prix also function as high-profile projections of soft power, effectively “sportwashing” Azerbajan’s corruption and human rights record.

A statement of solidarity with Nagorno Karabakh signed by more than 100 UK academics on September 26 singled out the UK’s close relationship with Azerbaijan and the Aliyev regime as providing “a useful veneer of ‘respectability’ to the laundering of funds and history”.

Azeri impunity

Experts in international law have described the forced exodus of Armenians from their homes as a “war crime”. And former UN independent expert Alfred de Zayas has called for recent events to be investigated by the International Criminal Court.

But since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Azerbaijan has become an essential source for western energy. The country now seems to have a protected status as what EU commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, calls a “crucial energy partner”.

The question of sanctions against Azerbaijan has been raised in the EU parliament and expressions of concern have been made by the Council of Europe and the US government. But any concrete action from the west is thought unlikely.

While Armenians were fleeing their homes, an advertisement from the UK’s Department for Business and Trade in The Telegraph of September 29 enthused about the 450 UK companies already doing business in Azerbaijan. It noted that the UK is the country’s largest foreign investor. On the same day, the government announced it would give one million pounds to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as a response to “events” in Nagorno Karabakh.

The international spotlight now has understandably shifted to the plight of 120,000 refugees. But the focus on the humanitarian crisis risks overlooking the ethnic cleansing carried out by Azerbaijan and the web of complicity that enabled it.

The fate of Nagorno-Karabakh offers us a glimpse into the casualties of the so-called “rules-based order”, where economic and geopolitical interests and whitewashing campaigns converge to a point where ethnic cleansing is of little note and apparently no consequence.

Sossie Kasbarian 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.

To most people, complex technologies separate modern humans from their ancestors who lived in the Stone Age, thousands or hundreds of thousands of years ago. In today’s fast changing world, older technologies, even those from a few years ago, are often described dismissively as “Stone Age”.

Such terms serve to disconnect us from our ancient relatives, who were much more sophisticated than we sometimes think they were.

A team led by archaeologist Larry Barham at the University of Liverpool recently published robust and well dated evidence for the earliest known use of wood technology. The wooden structure, along with artefacts, date to 476,000 years ago and have been excavated from waterlogged deposits at Kalambo Falls, Zambia.

This archaeological site is famous for producing traces of human cultural development dating to hundreds of thousands of years ago.

The remarkably well preserved evidence found by Barham and colleagues include, among other things, a wedge (a type of wooden tool), a digging stick, a log cut with the help of tools and a branch with a notch cut into it.

But why, in the age of AI and robotics, should wood technology from nearly half a million years ago generate so much interest from both scientists and the public?

The evidence from Kalambo Falls demonstrates a remarkable ability by early hominins (ancient human relatives) to source wood and shape it with tools. They were able to produce, not only an assortment of other tools, but also sophisticated wooden structures. We don’t know exactly what species made the structure, but Homo heidelbergensis or a species similar to Homo naledi might be candidates, among others.

These results have far reaching implications for our understanding of how sustainable materials were used in the Early Stone Age. It also sheds light on the capabilities of early hominins.

From speculation to fact

Archaeology is the study of deep and recent history using the remains of things left by people who came before us. However, these histories are biased in favour of things that have either survived the passage of time or decayed but left traces.

Humans lived in the era known as the Stone Age for nearly 99% of human history. The Early Stone Age is considered the earliest and perhaps longest “technological age”, stretching from nearly four million years ago to 300,000 years ago.

We know more about stone tools during this early phase of human development, in part because inorganic materials such as rocks are nearly indestructible compared to those made of perishable materials like wood.

Indeed, wood is very scarce in deposits belonging to the Early Stone Age, requiring exceptional conditions of preservation to avoid decaying. It survives only in extremely dry environments such as deserts, or extremely wet conditions – as was the case at Kalambo Falls.

Given the scarcity of evidence, direct proof of the intentional use of wood from more than 400,000 years ago sharply transforms our understanding of the antiquity of wood as a technology – and how long hominins have been interacting with this versatile material. They used it to make tools, to build shelters, to obtain food and perhaps even for fuel as they went about their daily lives.

Although researchers had suspected that wood technology was widely used by early hominins, without hard, direct evidence, we could not accept that as fact. Archaeology is a discovery and evidence-based field of study –- seeing is believing. The Kalambo Falls discovery transformed speculation into fact, changing our understanding of the history of technology.

Benefiting the environment

However, part of the challenge comes from concepts of human history which could be described as progressivist or linear – that envisage history as an inevitable advance towards modernity through scientific and technological achievement.

In the past, some scientists considered the minds of early hominins to have been more limited compared to those of modern humans. They believed technology and culture improved in sophistication as human brain size increased, moving from a “simple” state to the complex, algorithm-dominated world we live in today.

Despite the fact that brain sizes have increased over time, and that technology has changed, it is possible that those who came before us had an impressive understanding of the materials around them and cared for their surroundings.

The intentionally-shaped wood construction from Kalambo Falls is an illustration of design, technology and creativity – using what in today’s world we would call a green technology.

Notions of “progress” are quite deeply embedded in culture. This can also be a proxy for the exceptionalism of modern humans (Homo sapiens) – the belief that there is something unique or exemplary about our species compared with earlier hominins. If we put these notions aside, we can recognise that so called “backward technologies” can greatly benefit the environment and the planet.

The fact that wood is perishable makes it a more sustainable material, unlike some modern construction materials that are nearly indestructible, and leave conspicuous ruins. Manufacturing these modern materials also emits greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.

Of course, there are risks associated with using wood as a construction material, such as fire and decay. But in appropriate situations, we should continue our long tradition of building in wood. Perhaps the ancients were not so backward, but more progressive than us when it came to looking after the planet through sound decision making.

In summary, the Kalambo Falls evidence suggests that, at least sometimes, early hominins were able to take advantage of materials other than stone for their everyday needs, including tool-making and shelter. They might also have been able to use the resources in their environment for fuel and medicine.

However, we need more direct evidence, going back to the beginnings of the Stone Age to demonstrate how those who came before us used and worked with wood. More discoveries like this might even lead us to rename the mighty Stone Age as the Wood Age.

Shadreck Chirikure receives funding from the British Academy, the University of Oxford, National Research Foundation of South Africa, and the University of Cape Town.

The statistics surrounding mobile phones are staggering. There are more than 7 billion mobile phone users worldwide, nearly 5 billion of whom use a smartphone.

These devices are a fundamental part of our lives. But, as electronic devices are constantly improving, older models quickly become outdated.

In a survey conducted by Nevis Security, a Swiss software company, it was found that 62% of respondents replace their smartphones every three to four years. A significant portion of people change their phones even more frequently than this, with nearly 20% of the respondents reporting that they replace their phone every year.

This rapid turnover doesn’t only involve getting a new device; it often means purchasing a brand new set of cables and chargers that are compatible with the latest model of phone.

Fortunately, change is on the horizon. The European Commission has recently implemented a regulation mandating that, by 2024, all phones and small electronic devices sold within the EU must feature a universal USB-C charging port. As a result, 30 different models of charger have been reduced to just three.

Despite this development, most of us have already accumulated a stash of old devices, chargers and cables that sit forgotten in our sheds, drawers and cupboards. Many of these chargers ultimately end up being discarded, contributing to more than 51,000 tonnes of electronic and electrical equipment waste each year.

So, what should or shouldn’t you be doing with all of the obsolete electronic equipment that is piled up in your home?

Don’t bin them

Many people do not realise that disposing of old phone chargers and cables in standard waste bins has negative environmental consequences. Chargers and cables consist of various plastics, metals and other materials that do not decompose naturally.

Polyvinyl chloride – commonly known as PVC – is a plastic that is often used in chargers and cables. It breaks down very slowly, typically taking 30 years or more to degrade. PVC also fragments into harmful microplastic particles.

The safe handling of e-waste is important, yet the issue of electronic waste is frequently overlooked. In fact, much of the electronic waste that is generated goes undocumented.

Developed nations, including the United States, certain Europe nations and some in Asia, often export their electronic waste to poorer countries. In places where suitable facilities and national electronic waste legislation are lacking, electronic waste is often treated as general waste and either ends up in landfill or is recycled along with other metal or plastic waste.

Nevertheless, any electronic waste that includes a plug, battery or cable can be managed in an environmentally responsible manner. All cables contain copper, a valuable material, making them suitable for recycling. Many standard cable plastics can be recycled too, although some may pose challenges due to the presence of additives.

What should you do with them?

There are several recommended methods for managing old chargers and cables responsibly.

Some retailers offer convenient options for disposing of old products. These include paid pick-up services where your old item is collected when delivering a new one, or free drop-off programmes. For instance, Apple provides a national trade-in system in the UK where people can trade in their devices or cables in return for credit towards the purchase of a new device or, if not eligible for this scheme, will recycle them at no cost

Most recycling centres also accept common wires and cables, including mobile phone cables, electrical and home appliance wires, Ethernet cables, power cords and chargers. Dropping your old phone cables off at a recycling centre will ensure they are properly recycled.

It’s worth noting that wireless mobile phone chargers are emerging as a promising future charging option. This technology is helping to reduce the need for cables.

If your chargers are in working condition, you can opt to sell them through online auction sites such as eBay. Alternatively, you can sell your devices online or at stores such as Music Magpie, which claims to refurbish 95% of the products received from consumers, all of which are resold in the UK.

Rather than selling your functional but unwanted chargers, consider donating them to a local charity shop for others to use. Some local authorities also offer curbside collection services for small electrical items. Check with your local council to see if this service is available in your area.

There are lots of ways to manage your old cables and chargers sustainably. By prioritising electronic waste prevention, reuse and recycling, you will not only help the environment, but also ensure that today’s products can form tomorrow’s raw materials.

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 20,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Ian Williams receives funding from EU Horizon 2020 and EPSRC. Ian Williams is a member of the International Solid Waste Association, the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management and the Royal Society of Chemistry.

Given the presidential style of modern politics, the intense media focus on party leaders is unavoidable. But this involves a degree of artifice. New Zealanders don’t vote directly for a prime minister, they vote for their preferred party and electorate candidate.

Technicalities aside, though, party leaders play a key role in shaping their party’s policies and soliciting public support. The upside of the attention they receive, therefore, is that voters get to scrutinise before they “buy”.

That’s especially important for undecided or swing voters. Not only can they compare policies, they can also examine each leader’s strengths and weaknesses, and gauge what values guide their approach.

Being head of state is a hugely challenging role – not least because leaders fundamentally get results through mobilising collective effort. If no one’s following, there is no leadership.

This is different from management, which largely revolves around detailed planning and then implementing and monitoring progress toward goals.

Leadership, however, involves connecting with people’s values and needs, and helping them make sense of events. It entails crafting a vision for the future and formulating credible strategies to achieve that.

It involves the capacity to make wise decisions, and role modelling what it means to be a person of good character. While managerial competency still matters, being a prime minister demands far more.

That said, trying to objectively evaluate a potential leader is not easy.

Favouring our own team

Humans strongly favour those they view as being “one of us”. A large body of research shows people trust, respect, support, care for and are more influenced by those they feel an affinity with. This sense of a shared identity might be based on common demographic characteristics, or shared interests and values.

Dedicated sports fans illustrate this well. Individually and collectively, they back their team no matter what. They wear team colours, idealise team members, mock opponents and boo referees – even if the ref is right.

The same socio-psychological forces are at play in the political domain.

Read more: Controlling the political narrative is key to winning the NZ election – no easy task for Chris Hipkins

The party faithful are unlikely to offer an objective view. They will likely overestimate the strengths and underestimate the weaknesses of their party’s policies and its leaders (and do the opposite when evaluating opposing parties).

This is clearly not helpful for undecided or swing voters. But even beyond partisan influences, determining what constitutes good leadership is a more vexed issue than we might imagine.

While people often hold strong views, the actual evidence about what constitutes “good” leadership is quite diverse and complex.

Fantasies and realities

There are many different theories, but researchers generally agree that “good leadership” is both ethical and effective. But people can often ignore those considerations when evaluating someone in (or aspiring to) a leadership role.

Subconsciously, we are inclined to judge leaders according to our own personal theories of leadership. This “implicit” bias is typically shaped by the kinds of behaviours role-modelled by the authority figures we were exposed to early in life.

Read more: Liz Truss is now a case study in poor leadership

A very strict parenting style, for example, which a child finds reassuring rather than restrictive, can lead them in later life to favour command-oriented or even authoritarian leaders.

Research indicates that even in democracies, about one-third of the population favours that kind of traditional “strong man” leadership style.

But scholars have long argued such leaders tend to be intolerant, oppressive, punitive, lacking in empathy and prone to bullying. They may resist being held to account for their actions, arrogantly believing they know best.

Romantic attachments

Popular culture and media narratives are other important influences on people’s ideas about leadership. In books, TV shows and movies, leaders are often depicted as heroic, larger-than-life characters with the capacity to save others, even the world. In the business media, it’s often implied CEOs have somehow turned a company around single-handedly.

Researchers call this the “romance” of leadership – a tendency to overstate what leaders can actually do, and to blame them when they fail to meet unrealistic expectations.

Indeed, no matter how skilled and dedicated, leaders are inevitably flawed, just like the rest of humanity. Nor are they omnipotent. New Zealand is a small and remote trading nation in an interconnected world, not a superpower or totalitarian state. There are many things its prime minister cannot control.

In that sense, an ability to manage expectations is an indicator of good leadership. Having the personal integrity to avoid making unrealistic promises is what serves democracy. Offering false hope is not good leadership, it’s more like what con artists and charlatans hungry for power do.

Read more: 'Some leaders only want to hear the good news': politicians tell us how political careers can end

Check your bias

Overall, the evidence is that we’re not very rational or objective when it comes to evaluating leaders. Even if we’re not swayed by ideological factors, our personal experience and a romantic view of leadership can unconsciously cloud our judgment.

But there are some things we can do to help us make a more informed and balanced judgement. Firstly, we can try to step back and reflect on our own biases and assumptions about leadership. (You can even test your own bias on a number of issues with the Project Implicit online resource.)

Secondly, look for indicators of behaviours associated with good leadership. Many of these are the same character virtues we’d admire in anyone: integrity, fair-mindedness, the determination to do their best, confidence (but not arrogance), being accountable for their actions, and empathy and respect for others. These are vital foundations for good leadership.

And thirdly, look for actual evidence of leadership skills. Being prime minister is complex and challenging. It demands an ability to address serious issues in a serious-minded way.

Good leaders are not glib, superficial or unable to answer valid and reasonable questions. Consequently, a good leader may not tell you what you want to hear. But if they encourage us all to address difficult realities, that’s to be admired, not condemned.

As to whether that’s enough to win your vote, only you can be the judge of that.

Suze Wilson 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.

In recent years, the United States has seen a surge of white supremacist mass shootings against racial minorities. While not always the case, mass shooters tend to be young white men.

Some journalists and researchers have argued that class and ideals of white masculinity are partly to blame.

This argument is not surprising. Throughout U.S. history, white men’s anxieties over their manhood and social class help explain many violent attacks on Black people, whom the perpetrators blame for denying them their rightful privileges.

Such was the case with Dylann Roof, a then 22-year-old white supremacist who was convicted and sentenced to death in the 2015 deaths of nine Black worshippers at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

In another case involving a racist mass shooting, Payton Gendron, a white supremacist who believed a slew of racist conspiracy theories he discovered online, was sentenced to life in prison after his convictions on the 2022 murders of 10 Black people at a Buffalo, New York, grocery store in a predominantly Black neighborhood.

One such unfounded conspiracy that then 18-year-old Gendron frequently cited was the “great replacement theory,” the false idea that a group is attempting to replace white Americans with nonwhite people through immigration, interracial marriage and, eventually, violence. Such ideas reflect white supremacist beliefs, but they also reveal deep insecurities about white men’s social status in America.

It’s my belief as a scholar of U.S. history, labor, ethnicity and masculinity that Roof, Gendron and other recent mass shooters in racist attacks share similar insecurities with their historical predecessors.

Though finding solutions is not an easy task, recognizing the link between white anxiety and racial violence is a first step in addressing the problem.

Class, masculinity and violence

In modern-day society, young men face many hurdles to traditional avenues of masculine success. It’s more difficult than ever for young people to purchase a home, secure a high-paying job or find a marriage partner. These difficulties result in a great degree of anxiety among young people who struggle to achieve the security of their parents’ generation.

Many young men become particularly resentful of these conditions. Male socioeconomic power is traditionally linked with patriarchal authority, a position to which many white men may feel they are entitled.

Throughout American history, white manhood was often defined “through the subjugation of racialized and gendered others,” according to historian Eduardo Obregón Pagán. But when they felt their superiority was threatened, white men acted against the supposed enemies whom they felt blocked them from enjoying these benefits of their white male privilege.

The 1863 New York City draft riots

During the Civil War, northern states like New York instituted a lottery draft of fighting-age white men. At the time, Black men were exempted from the draft because they were not considered U.S. citizens.

The draft infuriated the white working-class population of New York in part because rich white men could hire a substitute or pay $300 to secure an exemption to the draft. This sum was roughly the average yearly salary of an American worker.

In response, thousands of white workers rioted between July 13 and July 16, killing over 100 people. They concentrated their attacks on African Americans, whom they beat, tortured and killed. Most egregiously, rioters burned down the Colored Orphanage Asylum, which sheltered over 200 black children.

In one particular display of gendered symbolism, a 16-year-old white youth dragged a black corpse through the street by his genitals.

The rioters’ anger over their subordinate social class largely drove their attacks against Black men who were an easier target than the real cause of the draft inequalities – elite white men and government agents.

The 1919 Chicago race riot

During the turn of the 20th century, the Great Migration saw many southern Black people move from the rural South to northern cities like Chicago. As waves of Black people moved into the city, white Chicagoans on the city’s South Side began bombing campaigns against Black-owned homes to keep them out of white neighborhoods.

In July 1919, a black teenager inadvertently drifted into what was considered the white section of Lake Michigan. Angry whites threw rocks at him and he eventually drowned. The incident sparked the infamous Chicago race riot, which left 38 people dead, most of whom were black.

The main perpetrators of riot violence were organized white youth gangs operating under the moniker of “athletic clubs”, a phenomenon that is the primary focus of my own research. While these clubs participated in athletic competitions, they were, in effect, violent gangs who targeted Black men.

These gangs prowled the streets in automobiles and attacked African Americans, burned black homes and businesses, and kept the fires of racial violence inflamed for days. They blamed Black men for invading their communities.

Many of the youth gang members were the sons of Chicago packinghouse workers and did not want to endure the menial wage work of their parents. Unable to secure social and financial success through legitimate means, such youths turned to crime and violence to make money and build a sense of masculine identity.

Instead of traditional notions of manhood centered on the family, they internalized what historians call “rough masculinity,” which prioritized fighting and physical toughness.

The 1943 Los Angeles Zoot Suit Riots

During World War II, the U.S government rationed many foods and materials for the war effort. One such item was fabric, which forced clothing designers to fashion clothes using less material.

Most Americans embraced wartime rations, viewing sacrifice as their patriotic duty. But in communities on the West Coast, young Mexican American men flaunted flamboyant “zoot suits.” Zoot suits were brightly colored and distinctly flashy, but more importantly, they required a large amount of fabric.

White Americans viewed the zoot suits as a mockery of the war effort. On June 3, 1943, a series of riots broke out in Los Angeles as white servicemen attacked young Mexican Americans sporting zoot suits.

Demonstrating their fury over the clothing, servicemen stripped the suits off many victims and burned them. Over the course of three days, over 150 Latino men were injured, but the police did not arrest a single white serviceman.

In many ways, the zoot suiters challenged the masculinity of the servicemen. On one hand, the white men felt affronted by the Mexican Americans’ audacity to scoff at their manly sacrifice to go to war. On the other hand, by attacking the zoot suiters and ripping off their clothes, the servicemen effectively denied their claims to manhood.

There are many parallels between racial violence of the past and mass shootings of today. Understanding anxieties about class and masculinity can perhaps go a long way to addressing such concerns in a new generation of young white men.

Colin Kohlhaas 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.

The dramatic and shocking renewal of hostilities in Israel and the Palestinian territories over the weekend has dominated traditional and social media outlets as viewers and readers seek to understand the rapidly moving events. Within hours of the Hamas incursion into Israel from Gaza, The Conversation published analysis by academic researchers. Conversation content is always grounded in such expertise.

As ever at these moments, we receive many pitches from within our global academic community. Our journalists are engaging with potential authors to provide extensive coverage of this issue through the week and beyond. We thought it may be useful to produce a rolling guide to the articles and audio we’re publishing, giving you a single place to catch up on all our analysis and explanation on the subject from across the network.

Unlike our articles, this page is updating from the top, so older references will be moved down the page as the week moves on and newer pieces of content are published. As a start point it might be useful to check in on our Monday morning Global newsletter which includes a brief note from me, also posted at the bottom of this page, plus links to five articles we published over the weekend and early on Monday.

Latest content

The Samy Cohen article mentioned below has now been translated into English by the French edition of The Conversation. Meanwhile, the Parmenter piece has moved into Spanish, courtesy of our Madrid team.

I mentioned this piece by Ian Parmeter yesterday. He’s now recorded an interview with our regular columnist and podcaster in Australia, Michelle Grattan. It’s about 25 minutes long, but well worth dipping into. Parmeter is a former Australian ambassador to Lebanon, and held a series of diplomatic posts in the region. He’s now a Research Scholar at the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies, Australian National University.

His observations include: The difficulty for Israel is that in cutting off food, electricity and water, you could have after a relatively short time a humanitarian disaster unfolding among civilians in Gaza […] Israel has a difficult problem with its international relations in the sense that the peace process [with Palestine] has effectively stopped working - Israel is seen by many in the West as a country which is not doing enough to try to resolve the peace process.

He’s also particularly interesting on the role of Hezbollah and Iran, and on what he feels is the real chance Netanyahu could struggle to hang on to power.

It’s now Tuesday morning, 8.45am in London where I am and 10.53am in Jerusalem. Three days have passed since the concerted series of Hamas terror attacks on Israel began. Since then, Israel has mounted retaliatory strikes on Gaza, with the promise of more to come. There are reportedly hundreds dead on both sides, thousands displaced and hostages being held. Academic researchers continue to analyse developments on The Conversation. We will abbreviate, update and link to their work here through the day. Scroll down for summaries of all content published since hostilities began. Remember, all Conversation content is free to read, and to republish.

If you are a reader of French head straight to this Q&A with Samy Cohen, emeritus research director at Sciences Po (CERI), published by our team in Paris. It can, of course, also be read in English through browser translate tools. He’s particularly interesting on the political challenge facing Netanyahu and is pessimistic about the prospect of the hostages being released soon. I’ve pulled out a couple of key quotes:

Netanyahu has said he wants to form a government of national unity; Is it possible? SC: It will be complicated. Former Prime Minister Yaïr Lapid demanded, in return for his possible entry into government, the departure of the ultra-religious. But can Netanyahu do without them? It is possible that they will reach a compromise on this matter. Today, he has donned the costume of a warlord and is showing off his muscles, claiming that he will destroy Hamas …

Is that possible? SC: No.

What will Hamas do with all the hostages it took to Gaza?

SC: Currently, Hamas has no interest in negotiating the release of the hostages. Imagine, simply hypothetically, that the movement obtains the release of all its prisoners who are currently in prison in Israel, and releases the Israeli hostages it is holding. It would then lose a formidable human shield

What Hamas terror seeks to achieve

UK editors have posted an article by Michele Groppi of the Defence Studies Department at King’s College London. He writes:

“In a twisted way, Hamas arguably needs this escalation. In the past weeks, growing numbers of Gazan residents have reportedly been protesting the group’s leadership, accusing it of corruption and failing to improve living conditions. But most importantly, the growing possibility of an agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia would be a tremendous blow to Hamas’s credibility within the Islamic world because it would directly contradict its anti-Israel position.

"Hamas can divert Palestinian attention away from its problems and score points in its competition with the rival Palestinian Authority (PA). If Israel attacks, Hamas will silence criticism coming from PA and others in the West Bank, who will never side with Israel, rallying the Palestinian population around its flag.”

Al-Aqsa

The name chosen by Hamas for their attacks against civilians and military forces – Operation Al-Aqsa – references the mosque that has become symbolic of the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. Al Aqsa is widely recognised as the third holiest site in Islam, but sits of a hill of important significance to Jews, the Temple Mount. Three years ago we published an article on why Al-Aqsa is such a sensitive site and at the heart of tension between numerous groups of various faiths in the city. Editors in Boston, working with the author Ken Chitwood, of the Center for Religion and Civic Culture at University of Southern California, have now updated this article. Do check it out.

He writes of Al-Aqsa: “Described as ‘the most sensitive site in the Israel-Palestinian conflict,’ it has frequently been host to political acts.

"On Sept. 28, 2000, Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon and a delegation guarded by hundreds of Israeli riot police entered the precinct. This sparked protests and a violent crackdown by Israeli authorities, with multiple casualties. Many Muslims worldwide considered this a "desecration” of the sacred mosque, and the event helped ignite the Second Intifada, or Palestinian uprising.

“Tensions peaked again after an attack on Yehuda Glick, a controversial right-wing rabbi, in autumn 2014. In response, Israeli authorities closed down access to Al-Aqsa for the first time since 1967. In March and April of that year, Israeli police used tear gas and stun grenades on Palestinians inside Al-Aqsa, prompting an international outcry.

"Numerous other incidents between Israeli forces and worshipers have occurred at Al-Aqsa in recent years.”

Translations

Of those articles below, a number have moved into langauges other than English, and, as with all Conversation content, are available for republication free. Our Paris bureau is leading on a translation of the Mayroz article. And thanks to our operations in Spain and Brazil, it is also available in Spanish and Portuguese. The Pilkington article is also running in Spanish.

Initial articles

The first piece we published in the aftermath of the Hamas assaults was this, by Eyal Mayroz, Senior Lecturer in Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney. He highlighted an apparent intelligence failure on the Israeli side, covered the news as it was breaking, drew parallels with the opening hours of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, pointed to the shocking capture of civilian hostages and warned of the risk of escalation.

There followed two articles from our US bureaux, including this, by Dov Waxman, a Professor of Israel Studies, at the University of California, Los Angeles, which goes into the Yom Kippur comparison and legacy in more detail.

Aaron Pilkington, a PhD Candidate at Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver, meanwhile, concluded that:

“There are at least three possible outcomes to the war, and they all play in Iran’s favor.”

From Canada, Michael J. Armstrong, Associate Professor, Operations Research, at Brock University has been researching rocket defenses and missile combat for years. “But the intensity of the Hamas attack this time was astounding,” he wrote.

“The barrage wasn’t restricted to border areas. It reached across southern and central Israel, including the suburbs of Tel Aviv.”

He concluded: “While civilians in both Israel and Gaza are already mourning the deaths of hundreds, there is likely more bloodshed to come.”

On Monday, our editors in Melbourne commissioned Ian Parmeter, a researcher at the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies, Australian National University. He considered the tactics, strategy and motivation behind the Hamas attacks.

“Significantly, Hamas has named its action "Operation Al-Aqsa Flood”. This provides some clues to the primary reason for striking at this time, which emphasises what Hamas sees as Israeli acts of desecration of a holy Islamic site.

“However, an additional motivating factor was likely the increasing tendency of Arab states to make peace agreements with Israel, as evidenced by the 2020 Abraham Accords, involving the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco.”

Monday newsletter note

Edited version of the newsletter note from Monday, October 9:

A few weeks ago, The Conversation published a three-part podcast series marking the 30th anniversary of the Oslo Accords which sought to bring peace to the Middle East and deliver a two-state solution to the decades-old conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. In it, leading negotiators and intermediaries from that period lamented the lost opportunity, and warned that matters were likely to deteriorate, rather than improve.

That deterioration came at the weekend, in the most rapid and shocking way. The scale, speed and nature of the attacks launched by Hamas from Gaza, across into Israel, were unexpected. The targeting of civilians, killed or taken back into Gaza as hostages, has been a grim hallmark of the attacks.

Here, you will find a series of reaction articles, commissioned by our editors around the world and written by experts on conflict and the Middle East. In the days to come we will of course publish more from across our network and in multiple languages.