Nearly two years after the Australian government was first notified that war graves in Gaza and surrounding areas had been damaged as a result of conflict, new evidence has confirmed the extent of destruction.

In a recent update, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission – the intergovernmental body responsible for commemorating all Commonwealth war dead from the two world wars – has confirmed damage to both the Gaza War Cemetery and Deir El Balah War Cemetery is “extensive”.

And a recent Guardian report outlined new evidence indicating the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) “bulldozed” graves in the Gaza War Cemetery’s southern corner.

This includes the graves of Australian and British personnel who died in the two world wars. It has been reported that the graves of up to two dozen New Zealanders are also affected, along with Canadians killed during peacekeeping operations in the 1950s and ‘60s. Reports indicate that Indian plots have also been heavily damaged.

The Guardian reported that:

After being shown satellite images of the cemetery, the Israel Defence Forces said that it had been forced to take defensive measures during military operations.

“At the relevant time, the area in question was an active combat zone,” an army spokesperson said.

More broadly, the fate of these sites highlights the continued risk to war graves in modern conflict zones.

Anzacs in Gaza

The Gaza War Cemetery contains more than 3,400 Commonwealth burials.

The news that more than 250 Australians are interred in Gaza may surprise some Australians.

Yet, Australians have a long history of military service in the region, from the world wars to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As part of British efforts to push Ottoman Turkish forces out of Palestine, for instance, Australian mounted troops (cavalry) fought in three major battles in Gaza between March and November 1917.

The second battle was particularly costly. In three days, the British suffered more than 6,000 casualties, 500 of whom were killed, including more than 100 Australians. These Australians were buried across the two cemeteries in what is now the Gaza Strip.

Australian forces later returned to the Middle East in the second world war.

While Gaza was not the site of fighting this time around, it was the location of the Australian theatre headquarters, which oversaw Australian operations in the region. It was also home to several hospital units.

This means many of the Australians buried in the area’s two war cemeteries died because of accident, injury or illness, not in battle.

Among the burials at Gaza War Cemetery are 23 New Zealanders. A further 13 New Zealanders are interred at Deir El Belah War Cemetery.

A broader challenge

The destruction of war graves in Gaza has rightly received global attention. But this isn’t the first time Australian and Commonwealth war dead have been dragged into contemporary conflicts.

If we look first at Gaza, the two war cemeteries were damaged in both 2006 and 2009 amid fighting in the area.

The damage caused by the 2006 operations saw the Israeli government financially compensate the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.

But this issue is not unique to Gaza, nor to the Middle East. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission cares for more than 1.1 million separate graves across more than 23,000 locations, in 150 countries and territories.

Some of these are in active conflict zones, or otherwise volatile areas. This includes sites in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Yemen, Sudan and Somalia. Each of these is classed as a “challenging location”. Access is often restricted or prohibited, and many sites are at risk of damage through fighting or vandalism.

For instance, Iraq’s Habbaniya War Cemetery, where three Australian airmen are interred, was “severely damaged” during the two Gulf wars. Only in 2020 could the Commonwealth War Graves Commission finish reconstruction of the cemetery.

In 2012, war cemeteries at Benghazi in eastern Libya were desecrated twice. This included hundreds of plots, with 50 Australian headstones damaged in one incident.

Further east, Yemen’s Maala Cemetery was damaged during fighting between 2014 and 2015. Located in a particularly dangerous area, the cemetery – where 11 Australians are buried – remains off-limits and mostly destroyed.

In other instances, the danger is so great that locations are used to commemorate casualties interred elsewhere. An example is the Mogadishu African War Cemetery in Somalia, where political instability forced the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to erect memorial headstones at Kenya’s Nairobi War Cemetery.

War cemeteries will remain in danger

Given ongoing conflict and instability in Yemen, Somalia and Gaza, it is unlikely any restorative works will be possible any time soon.

And the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s chief of staff, Peter Francis, acknowledged in October 2024 that cemetery rebuilding would not be prioritised as part of reconstruction in Gaza, given the scale of destruction across the broader Gaza Strip.

There is also the financial factor, with reconstruction of the Gaza War Cemetery alone estimated to cost around £5 million (about A$9.6 million). The figure is likely much higher now, given the scale of destruction since this 2024 estimate.

All this reflects the difficulties the Commonwealth War Graves Commission encounters in trying to mark, record and maintain graves and commemorative sites.

As troubling as this situation is, particularly for affected families, it is a difficult reality: war cemeteries will remain in danger amid active unrest and conflict.

Nicole Townsend, Lecturer in War Studies, UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

For over a century and a half, life expectancy has steadily increased in the wealthiest countries. Spectacular climbs in longevity have been noted in the 20th Century, correlating with the slump in infectious illnesses and advances in cardiovascular medicine.

However, for some years now, experts have been obsessing over one question: when is this slick mechanism going to run out of steam? In several western countries, gains in life expectancy have become so slight, they are practically non-existent.

Some researchers see this as a sign that we are heading toward a ‘biological human longevity ceiling’ while others estimate that there is still room for improvement.

Looking at national figures alone cannot be a decider. Behind a country’s average life expectancy lies very contrasted, region-specific realities. This is what the findings of our study that was recently published in Nature Communications revealed. Analysing data collected between 1992 and 2019, it focuses on 450 regions in western Europe bringing together almost 400 million inhabitants.

A European study on an unprecedented scale

To complete our research project, we collected mortality and demographic data from offices for national statistics across 13 western European countries including Spain, Denmark, Portugal and Switzerland.

We began by harmonising the original data, a task that proved crucial because the regions differed in size, and data offered varying amounts of detail according to each country.

Then we recalculated the annual gain in life expectancy at birth for each region between 1992 and 2019, an indicator, which reflects mortality across all ages. Sophisticated statistical methods allowed us to pick out the main underlying trends, regardless of short-term fluctuations caused by the heatwave in 2003, or virulent, seasonal flu outbreaks between 2014-2015, for instance. 2019 is the cut-off date for our analyses because it is still too early to know whether the coronavirus pandemic has a long term effect on these trends or if it was limited to 2020-2022.

The results we obtained provide us with an unprecedented panorama of regional longevity trajectories across Europe over an almost 30-year period, from which we draw three findings.

First finding: Human longevity has not hit its limits

The first message to emerge from the study is that: the limits of human longevity have still not been reached. If we concentrate on regions that are life expectancy champions (indicated in blue on the chart below), we note that there is no indication of progress decelerating.

These regions continue to demonstrate around a two and half month gain in life expectancy per year for men, and approximately one and a half month gain in life expectancy for women, at an equivalent rate to those observed in previous decades. In 2019, they include regions in Northern Italy, Switzerland and some Spanish provinces.

For France, Paris and its surrounding Hauts-de-Seine or Yvelines areas (pertaining to both men and women), featured alongside the Anjou region and areas bordering with Switzerland (only applicable to women). In 2019, life expectancy reached 83 for men, and 87 for women.

In other words, despite recurrent concerns nothing presently indicates that lifespan progression has hit a glass ceiling; prolonging life expectancy remains possible. This is a fundamental result which counters sweeping, alarmist statements: there is room for improvement.

Second finding: regional diversity since the mid 2000s

The picture looks bleaker when considering regions with ‘lagging’ life expectancy rates, indicated in red on the chart. In the 1990s and in the early 2000s, these regions saw rapid gains in life expectancy. Progress was much faster here than anywhere else, leading to a convergence in regional life expectancy across Europe.

This golden age, accumulating a fast rise in life expectancy in Europe and a reduction in regional disparities came to an end towards 2005. In the most challenged regions, whether it be East Germany, Wallonia in Belgium or certain parts of the United Kingdom, life expectancy gains significantly dropped, practically reaching a standstill. In women, no regions in France featured among them, but in men, they included some departments in the Hauts-de-France.

Longevity in Europe is ultimately divided into vanguard regions that continue to progress on one side, and on the other side, lagging regions where the dynamic is running out of steam and is even reversed. We are experiencing a regional discrepancy that contrasts with the catch-up momentum in the 1990s.

Third finding: the decisive role of mortality at ages 55-74

Why such a shift? Beyond age-specific life expectancy, we sought to gain a better understanding of this spectacular change by analysing how mortality rates have evolved for each age bracket.

We can state that regional divergence can neither be explained by the rise in infantile mortality (which remains very slight) nor by the rise in mortality in the over 75 age range (which continues to decelerate everywhere). It mainly stems from mortality around age 65.

In the 1990s this demonstrated a rapid drop, thanks to access to cardiovascular treatments and changes in risk-taking behaviour. But since the 2000s, this upturn has slowed. In some regions, in the last few years, the risk of dying between 55 and 74 years old is on the rise, as shown in the maps below.

This is particularly true for women living in France’s Mediterranean coastal regions (indicated in pale pink). It’s also the case for most of Germany. However, these intermediary ages are crucial for the life expectancy gain dynamic, because a large number of deaths occur here. Stagnation or a leap in mortality between ages 55 and 74 is enough to break the overall trend.

Even though our study does not allow us to pinpoint the precise causes explaining such preoccupying progress, recent documentation provides us with some leads which should be scientifically tested in the future. Among these are risk-taking behaviour, particularly smoking, drinking alcohol and poor nutrition, or a lack of physical exercise, which are all factors that manifest at these ages.

Incidentally, the economic crash in 2008 accentuated regional variations across Europe. Some regions suffered durably seeing the health of their populations compromised, while further growth was recorded in other regions with a concentration of highly qualified employment. These factors remind us that longevity isn’t just about advances in medicine; it can also be explained by social and economic factors.

What’s next?

Our report offers a dual message. Yes, it’s possible to increase life expectancy. Europe’s regional champions are proof of this, as they continue to demonstrate steady growth without showing any signs of plateauing. However, this progress does not apply to everyone. For fifteen years, part of Europe has been lagging behind, largely due to a rise in mortality around 65 years.

Even today, the future of human longevity seems to depend less on the existence of a hypothetical biological ceiling than on our collective ability to reduce gaps in life expectancy. Recent trends lead us to believe that Europe could well end up as a two-tier system, setting apart a minority of areas that keep pushing the boundaries of longevity and a majority of areas where gains dwindle.

In actual fact, the question is not only how far can we extend life expectancy, but which parts of Europe are eligible.

For further reading

Our detailed results, region by region, are available in our interactive online application.

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

Florian Bonnet, Démographe et économiste, spécialiste des inégalités territoriales, Ined (Institut national d'études démographiques); Carlo Giovanni Camarda, Docteur, spécialiste des méthodes de prévision (mortalité, longévité, etc.), Ined (Institut national d'études démographiques); France Meslé, Démographe, Ined (Institut national d'études démographiques), and Josselin Thuilliez, Economiste, Directeur de recherche au CNRS, Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS)

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Queensland is a step closer to lifting a ban on political donations from property developers – despite a corruption watchdog’s warning that doing so in a A$7 billion Olympics building boom could raise “risks of undue or improper influence”.

Last Friday, a parliamentary committee with a majority of Liberal National members tabled a report supporting the state government’s proposed electoral law overhaul.

Among a raft of changes, the proposed law would undo a nearly decade-old ban on property developers donating to state political candidates. The current ban on developer donations to local government elections would remain.

Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory all currently ban donations from property developers. South Australia has gone further, last year banning all political donations.

With billions in taxpayers’ dollars being spent on the Games, what’s the argument for lifting the ban? And does it stand up?

Billions in development underway

Between now and the opening ceremony of the 2032 Brisbane Olympics, at least A$7 billion will be spent on Olympic and Paralympic games infrastructure across Queensland, from new stadiums to athlete villages. Some $3.4 billion of that is federal funding – meaning all Australian taxpayers are chipping in.

Facing major challenges to meet that deadline, the Liberal National government passed laws to fast track approvals on Games infrastructure. That means they’re not subject to standard planning and environmental laws.

In a submission to the parliamentary committee, Queensland’s Crime and Corruption Commission warned of “increased risks of actual or perceived corruption” tied to political donations in the lead up to the Olympics.

There is concern that the reintroduction of property developer donations could exacerbate real and/or perceived risks of undue or improper influence, particularly as developer interests align closely with major projects.

Why are developers treated differently?

But when does trying to guard against corruption cross the line into impeding people’s freedom of political communication?

A decade ago, property developer and former Newcastle mayor Jeff McCloy challenged the validity of NSW laws capping political donations and banning donations from property developers.

In 2015, a majority of High Court judges upheld the validity of NSW’s ban on property developer donations, noting in their judgement there was:

an apparently strong factual basis for the perception of a risk of corruption and undue influence as the result of political donations from property developers.

A series of seven reports and a position paper of the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has identified corruption and other misconduct in the handling of property development applications since 1990, and the existence of a large measure of public concern over the influence which property developers have hitherto exercised over state and local government members and officials.

That history is an example of why property developers’ donations have come under more scrutiny than others and face tighter restrictions in some parts of Australia.

Why did Queensland bring in a ban?

Queensland’s ban on donations from property developers was introduced by the Labor government in 2018. It followed a Crime and Corruption Commission investigation that exposed widespread corruption, non-compliance with election funding rules, and undisclosed conflicts of interest by local government officials.

Following that investigation, mayors, councillors and council officers in Queensland faced dozens of criminal charges.

Then anti-corruption commissioner Alan MacSporran said local government was a “broken” system, and “a hotbed of perceived corruption”.

The Queensland anti-corruption body had previously conducted investigations on developer donations and conflicts of interest in 1991, 2006 and 2015, showing this had become a systemic problem at a local government level.

The Crime and Corruption Commission report only recommended banning political donations at a local government level. But the then Labor state government took it a step further, arguing if it was “good enough for one level of government, it’s good enough for all levels of government”.

Looking ahead

The LNP has long argued the ban wasn’t recommended at a state level, unfairly stigmatises developers, and was really about Labor creating an uneven playing field for electoral donations.

However, there has been a long history of corruption in Australia directly relating to property developers. Any weakening of political finance regulation increases the risk of both actual and perceived corruption in government.

The LNP government has a clear majority to pass this bill. There’s every sign it will go ahead.

But the bill still has to be voted on in state parliament. This gives the Queensland government time to reconsider its approach, both to preserve the integrity of its electoral system and to protect public perceptions of the 2032 Brisbane Olympics.

Yee-Fui Ng, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Monash University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.