Welcome to Eureka Street
Looking for thought provoking articles?Subscribe to Eureka Street and join the conversation.
Passwords must be at least 8 characters, contain upper and lower case letters, and a numeric value.
Eureka Street uses the Stripe payment gateway to process payments. The terms and conditions upon which Stripe processes payments and their privacy policy are available here.
Please note: The 40-day free-trial subscription is a limited time offer and expires 31/3/24. Subscribers will have 40 days of free access to Eureka Street content from the date they subscribe. You can cancel your subscription within that 40-day period without charge. After the 40-day free trial subscription period is over, you will be debited the $90 annual subscription amount. Our terms and conditions of membership still apply.
There are more than 200 results, only the first 200 are displayed here.
Our attitudes to war change drastically when it becomes personal. The killing of Zomi Frankcom, together with other members of the Charity organisation World Central Kitchen, made the war between Israel and Hamas personal. It has led many people to see the destruction of Gaza and its people as not only regrettable but intolerable.
How do we live and work happily together with people whose views on the world and human nature are fundamentally different to our own? Can different beliefs within organisations be lived with, or even celebrated, without necessarily undermining the organisation’s own core mission?
By day, Gaza is news and images in the media. During the day, we nod as we see the plausibility of all the arguments. But sometimes at night, we may hear again the voice of lamentation, weeping and great mourning.
The main purpose of government is to promote the welfare of its people. And yet over the last few decades, through numerous inquiries, it’s become clear that the Australian government has failed to provide services for the Australian population as well as might be expected.
The illusion of warfare as a contest between professionals should have disappeared forever as the twentieth century brought numerous examples of barbarous armies butchering civilians. And unfortunately, the pattern now is that some 90 per cent war casualties are civilians.
With large moral and ethical questions, I find myself slipping and sliding along a continuum of 'always yes' to 'definitely no', and never fully landing on either. Am I kidding myself? Is this inability to take a side lack of moral clarity or fibre? Or should I make a decision and stick to it?
How can we make progress on the question of whether debate can do harm, and if it can, whether that’s a sufficient reason to suppress particular debates? Or should we adopt a ‘no debate!’ approach to particular topics ourselves?
What links the debate about the conduct of the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, the detention of children in a crowded and under-resourced Cairns watch house, and British legislation to send asylum seekers to Rwanda?
Proving genocide is an onerous task, notably on the issue of intent. The acts alleged must be specifically intended to destroy the group members in question. The UN Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect considers this element ‘the most difficult element to determine.’
South Africa has taken Israel to the International Court of Justice claiming genocide has been committed against Palestinians during the Gaza conflict. As the world anticipates a preliminary verdict, we consider key questions.
Once upon a time it was fairly easy to distinguish fact from fiction, but now journalists in particular regularly merge the two. We are now forced to cope with notions such as alternative facts and the post-truth era. I, for one, cope badly with both, with this twisting of what I would like to be an essential and straightforward matter.
Over 200,000,000 Indonesians are currently weighing up who to elect from three candidates as their next president. Australia has nothing to gain from a Prabowo presidency and a lot to lose.