October 7th had a transformative impact on Israeli society. But it was probably not the impact that Hamas had intended when it launched its meticulously planned massacre of 1200 Israeli civilians and the taking of 240 hostages. A key element of the Hamas plan was the assault on Israeli women and girls. “The torture of women was weaponized to destroy communities, to destroy a people, to destroy a nation,” said Dr. Cochav Elkayam-Levy, the head of a nongovernmental commission investigating crimes of murder, rape, sexual atrocities, beheading and mutilation perpetrated by Hamas. 

But instead of destroying a nation, it unleashed a dramatic upsurge in ‘the power of the people’ civic activism and an intensification of solidarity amongst Israelis. 

In the immediate aftermath of the massacre, Israelis spoke out against the Government, the IDF and the intelligence agencies for abandoning them and not upholding their social contract to protect the people. They had failed to prevent the worst pogrom against Jews since the Holocaust. In the following weeks, the Government ministries seemed frozen and incapable of meeting the immediate challenges of the situation. 

In the vacuum left by the Israeli Government, civic groups, local government and tens of thousands of volunteers sprang up around the nation to take on the basic functions normally conducted by the central government, particularly in war time.

Ironically, it was those whom Hamas had calculated to be fragmenting Israeli society who were actually amongst the most effective in strengthening its solidarity. For example, the Brothers and Sisters in Arms and the women’s movement Bonot Alternativa (Building an Alternative). They had been the main organisers of demonstrations of over 250,000 Israelis each week for the 10 months prior to the war against the Netanyahu Government’s attempts to undermine Israel’s judiciary and democracy. 

After the Hamas massacre, these groups quickly pivoted and used their exceptional organisational skills and connections to set up the community services, supplies and support for Israelis whose lives and livelihoods were threatened and disrupted by the conflict. This included the hundreds of thousands of Israelis internally displaced from the northern and southern border regions under fire from Hamas and Hezbollah rockets and artillery. Civic groups even coalesced around soldiers in order to supply the logistics of the mobilisation.

#BRINGTHEMHOMENOW campaign

At same time, the survivors of October 7th and their families came together and forged themselves into a force to support each other and to campaign to free the hostages. They included Palestinian, Bedouin and Druze Israelis who had family members killed, taken hostage or both.

The surge in public support for these families grew into a phenomenon of ‘the power of the people’. This became evident in their ability to change the priorities of the Israeli Government. Following the Hamas assault, the Government had announced that it had two objectives in its counter-attack in Gaza: First, to remove Hamas as a military and political force from Gaza;  Second, to return the hostages. In that order.

But the relatives of the hostages knew very well, that the Government’s priorities could leave their family members captive interminably. And given that 18 of the hostages were aged over 65, and 22 under the age of 18, without access to medication, they might not survive. So the families launched the #BRINGTHEMHOMENOW campaign to reverse the order of the Israeli Government’s priorities. 

However, the deeply unpopular Netanyahu Government was not listening to them. It was preoccupied with its own survival.

So the families of the hostages tirelessly and heroically campaigned in Israel and around the world to raise awareness of the hostages. They set up ‘Hostage Square’ in central Tel Aviv as the focus of the #BringThem HomeNow campaign, held countless press appearances and rallied Israelis in long marches. Their campaign engaged the empathy and respect of most Israelis. Remarkably, the mounting public pressure forced Netanyahu to finally agree to meet with them and to announce that returning the hostages would now become the Government’s first priority. 

During the seven day truce, 110 Israeli hostages were released. However 17 women and children and 119 men remain in captivity. The truce agreement stipulated that all women and children would be freed first. Hamas denied that it was still holding civilian women and children hostage, despite the evidence, and refused to release them. When Israel insisted on their release, Hamas responded by firing missiles from Gaza thereby ending the truce. President Joe Biden blamed Hamas’ refusal to release civilian female hostages for the end of the temporary cease-fire.

The end of the truce is a terrible blow to the families of the 136 hostages still being held by Hamas. But even those who have had their family members freed have nevertheless publicly committed themselves to continuing to pressure the Government to keep the release of hostages as its foremost priority.

 

• Translation of the text in Hebrew in image above: Press Conference of the Families of the Hostages on Day 59 of the War.   ” Time has run out for the hostages – they have no time left, no food and no air.”

 

 

 

The Hamas attack on Israel on October 7th, had been meticulously planned for over a year. It was the expression of a sophisticated strategy designed to implement barbarism as a means of achieving Hamas’ political goals. The primary goal of Hamas, as part of  the regional alliance led by Iran and its other proxies Hezbollah and the Houthis, is to bring permanent war to all Israel’s borders in order to ” annihilate Israel “.   The timing was targeted to shatter a trilateral deal between the U.S, Saudi Arabia and Israel to normalise relations and change the face of the Middle East. 

The key elements of Hamas strategy were:

First: Kill as many Israeli civilians as possible in the most heinous way imaginable.  NBC  verified “Top Secret” documents” found on the bodies of Hamas terrorists with instructions to target civilians. Instructions even showed detailed surveillance of how many children were in each house and whether they had a dog. Hamas did not launch the attack to battle Israeli soldiers. They went to unleash barbarism without bounds as they tortured and massacred 1,400 babies, children, families and old people, using Iranian and Russian weapons.

Second: Video and stream this carnage. Hamas terrorists had cameras attached to their heads filming themselves slaughtering civilians. Their purpose was to gloat and to goad Israel into revenge. The greater the atrocity, the more ferocious the Israeli response would predictably be. Telegram immediately streamed these videos and images reaching 800 million viewers.

Third: Take as many hostages as possible including babies and the old. Close to 250 Israelis were abducted to serve both as bargaining chips, and also to provide physical security for Hamas when Israel would launch its counterattack.

Fourth: Mobilise international support. Even before Israel launched its counter attack, those justifying or ‘contextualising’ the massacre flooded social media, the mainstream media and the streets. In mobilising international support for Palestinians, Hamas was reaping endorsement for its own organisation and its actions.

 

Fifth: Leave the Palestinian people in Gaza out in the open, defenceless against the Israeli counter-attack. Hamas is deliberately allowing the death toll amongst Palestinians to escalate by denying them protection.  Hamas has built over 500 kilometres of underground tunnels, including weapons manufacturing and command centres under hospitals, mosques and schools. From these it has so far launched over 7,000 missiles into Israel.

But when Israeli air and land forces responded to Hamas provocation as expected, only Hamas political and military operatives were allowed to shelter in these tunnels. Palestinian civilians were excluded.

When asked in an interview why Hamas as the Government of Gaza since 2005,  did not provide protection for Palestinian civilians, Moussa Abu Marzouk, the Hamas deputy political leader said it was not Hamas’  job, “it’s the responsibility of the U.N. and Israel.”

The humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the terrible toll on Palestinian lives are an integral part of Hamas’ strategy of barbarism. The more Palestinian babies, children and families killed, the greater the numbers of people who will demonstrate worldwide in protest against Israel and in support of Hamas. And in the Middle East, those Arab leaders who were considering taking part in peace talks with Israel and forming a political relationship will not dare to ignore the public opposition in their own countries.

The Hamas leadership is quite prepared to sacrifice Palestinians to increase its power and political objectives. As Khaled Mashaal, Head of Hamas Political Bureau said: “The Russians sacrificed 30 million people in WW 2. ..the Vietnamese sacrificed  3.5 million…the Algerians sacrificed 6 million martyrs. The Palestinian people are just like any other nation.“

And the Iranians are happy to sacrifice Palestinians in their determination to eliminate Israel, rather than risk their own people or regime.

 

 

 

It is hard to forget the cries of “intergenerational tragedy”  that greeted the latest Intergenerational Report released by Treasurer Jim Chalmers.  The lively reaction to a potential “tragedy” in Australia in 40 years time stands in sharp contrast to the failure to deal with Australia’s present generational tragedy unfolding in real time.

The IGR warned of an ageing population that would put the full and unaffordable burden of work, taxes and care on the young. Fortunately, people like Peter Martin and John Quiggin sought to balance  this “scare mongering”.  They pointed out that it is not only the old who require care, but also children and people with a disability; that living standards, as measured by real GDP per person will be an extraordinary 57% higher in 2042; and that any increase in taxes will be moderate compared to income, an extra 3.9 per cent of GDP in tax, but not the full amount until 2063. 

The problem is not just the alarmist nature of the IGR with regard to the ageing population. It is that the IGR reflects the ageist thinking of governments and society in general. Older generations are seen as a threat to national wellbeing. They are calculated as a national liability and an unbearable burden on future budgets.

Instead of applying this ageist lens, the IGR should have based predictions and plans for the future ageing population on the fundamental question-
“What is the best holistic approach to dealing with an ageing Australia?” Already over a third of Australian women are over 50. So it would be very prudent to ask “How do we stop increasing numbers of them falling off the financial cliff ?”. Had the IGR recognised the magnitude of the current crisis, it could have become the basis for constructive planning for the future.

Women over 40 are the most excluded from workforce

In a country that is short of workers, we are already seeing the wholesale waste of female skills, talent, and professional experience. The Australian population of ‘working age’ isn’t going to start shrinking in the future. For women it begins shrinking when they turn 40. The assumption is that it is women with young children who are excluded from the workforce. But surprisingly, the statistics show that it is in fact women over 40 who are the most excluded. The older women get, the harder it is for them to keep their jobs. And if they lose them, they have little hope of ever returning to the workforce. 

Systemic gendered ageism is squeezing women out of the workforce as they age.

Systemic gendered ageism is depriving the country of a massive reservoir of workplace capability and experience.

Systemic gendered ageism is driving these women into the tragedy of poverty and homelessness. In 2001 most of unemployed were men. Now it’s older women who are the majority on Jobseeker. And if they are the majority on Jobseeker, the distance to homelessness is short. There are more than 300,000 older people, mostly women, already homeless or at risk of homelessness.

This is the predictable path to generational tragedy. 

Addressing generational change

Ageing populations are a worldwide phenomenon, but Australia has jumped the gun by excluding the very people the economy most needs. The list of priority jobs are not heavy lifting jobs and physical labour. Instead, the jobs growth will be highest in service industries and in jobs requiring higher level professional qualifications.  

These are precisely the jobs with the highest female employment. But these jobs are paid half of more ‘male occupied’ jobs. This discrepancy perpetuates the poverty cycle. So if Australia desperately needs more working people, what action is being taken to remove gendered ageist barriers to the employment of women?

Where are the extensive re-skilling programs for older female workers? AHRI & AHRC found in their survey of training and development opportunities, only half the organisations offered them to older workers. This is the lowest rate since this survey began 4 years ago.

The countries that will be the most successful with ‘generational change’ will be the ones that provide the best integration and opportunities for older people. Put that in an Intergenerational Report, Treasurer.

Google offers over 999 words to describe an old woman, and they are uniformly pejorative. The top 4 are: “ distressingly ancient; squat and dumpy; dismal and lonesome; insanely suicidal.” 

Some common names for old women are: old bag, granny, biddy, crone, hag, witch, harridan, bedlam, old bat, old boiler. And if that’s not bad enough, you can also resort to descriptions such as: “withered and bitter; almost well-dressed; unnaturally lusty; crazy and uncanny; entirely uninteresting; exceptionally invaluable.” Then of course there is the word ‘ boomer’ which has become a synonym for greed, undeserving wealth and selfishness. 

In a society that values women primarily for their youthful beauty, sexual and reproductive powers, the more we age, the more our currency as women is devalued.

This devaluation is reflected in the language. The appellations for older women denote worthlessness, weakness, ugliness, helplessness and even evil. It’s also not clear at what age you become classified as an old woman.

“Throughout many periods of history in the West there has been a real worry about what you do with women who are past their childbearing years,”  says Mary Beard, Professor of Classics, Cambridge University.

What’s in a name, you may ask. The answer is – a minefield. Language reflects and reinforces prejudice and discrimination and has terrible consequences. Arguably, there is a direct link between this gendered ageism and the social crisis that Australian older women are now experiencing. It is a multi-faceted crisis that is distinctive to this demographic. It negatively affects their employment, housing, livelihood, and mental and physical health.

Older women are ending up on the dust heap of the nation’s economy. Women aged over 50 constitute the majority of unemployed and those on Jobseeker. These are women who for the most part are educated, have skills, professions and careers, and have spent decades in the workforce. And yet, the widespread ageism of employers, documented by the AHRC, now bars them from the workforce.

Nevertheless, the Government continues to impose ‘mutual obligations’ where older women are forced to keep up the debilitating charade of applying for jobs that they have no hope of getting, precisely because of gendered ageism.

Government attitudes and practices also contribute significantly to making older women the fastest growing demographic becoming homeless.The latest report on homelessness recognises that ”older low-income earners, particularly those on fixed government benefits, experience more homelessness.” It reports that at least 270,000 people aged 55+ are already homeless or at risk of homelessness, most of them older women.

In the budget earlier this year, Treasurer Jim Chalmers came the closest he has to acknowledging that older women face the barrier of discrimination. However, all he did was to increase their Jobseeker payment by only a few dollars a day, still keeping them well below the poverty line. The Treasurer and the Labour Government have yet to recognise that there is a distinctive crisis affecting tens of thousands of women in this demographic. They must recognise its scale and importance. And they must recognise that at its core lies the systemic gendered ageism that is so pervasive in both government and society.  Otherwise they will never actually address the crisis as a comprehensive package.

And this crisis is set to rapidly escalate. By 2030, one in three Australians will be over 55. The number of Australians over 65 will double in the next 40 years. The majority will be old women.

If you are an Indigenous Australian, you will most likely die 15 years earlier than a non-Indigenous Australian from a preventable disease.

The ‘gap’ in life expectancy stands at around 15 years.

Remarkably, it appears that even in official documents there are two categories of Older Australians. Look at this report by the Australian Government’s Institute of Health and Welfare. 

“ This report focuses on older Australians—generally those aged 65 and over, unless otherwise specified. For older Indigenous Australians, the age range 50 and over is used, reflecting the life expectancy gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians and the lower proportion of Indigenous people aged 65 and over.” 

Minister for Indigenous Australians Linda Burney, in an address to the National Press Club, said that Australia is an ageing country, and “ overall, less than one third of Australians were under 25 years of age, whereas amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait islanders almost half were under 25. 

This is disproportionate because of the significantly reduced longevity of Indigenous adults. Many of them die of preventable diseases. They often die because of dysfunctional health services to Indigenous communities, bureaucratic mismanagement or because of a lack of health services.

Successive Australian Governments have failed to close this gap. This failure remains a fundamental violation of the human rights of Indigenous peoples – the right to life. 

The Voice has the potential to mitigate this situation.

The theme of NAIDOC 2023 was ‘ For Our Elders’.  The Elders are the custodians of Indigenous heritage, culture and knowledge handed down from one generation of Elders to another. They have ensured the survival of the oldest Indigenous peoples in the world for 65,000 years. Elders are respected, honoured and listened to by the community.

The Elders know how best to protect their ageing Indigenous people. They have the knowledge to implement culturally appropriate health care, as well as the skills, the language and the community connections. We saw it happen during Covid. Patricia Turner AM, of Gudanji-Arrente heritage, as CEO of NACCO (National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation ) was at the forefront of the response to the pandemic. From the outset they immediately made protecting the Elders their priority. The measures they instituted were extremely effective and literally saved the lives of most Elders.

Pat Turner believes that “when Indigenous organisations take over the job of improving the health and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, it will be the end of the grim practice of monitoring failure and calling it Closing the Gap.” 

This year’s NAIDOC Week awards ceremony recognised two female Elders who have dedicated their lives to the advancement of Indigenous health, education, and community rights.

Aunty Dr Naomi Mayers OAM a Yorta Yorta and Wiradjuri woman, is described as a pioneer and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award for developing and leading “some of the most enduring and fundamentally profound reforms in Aboriginal and Torres Strait health”.

Aunty Dr Matilda House-Williams, a Ngambri (Kamberri) Wallabalooa (Ngunnawal) and Wiradyuri Elder, received the Female Elder of the Year NAIDOC award. She is recognised as a “ strong, kind, yet fierce Blak Matriarch, who has created a legacy by forging new pathways for First Nations Women and our Mobs more broadly “.

These are just three of the female Elders whose lifetime experience and invaluable knowledge can be channeled into the advisory body and amplified through the Voice. If Parliament and Government listen and incorporate such advice, then they can formulate more effective practical policies to drive tangible improvements for Indigenous people. 

No Australian Government is equiped to close the gap without meaningful, informed consultations with the Voice, and that means listening to the Elders.