Children of the Taliban
This is a generation whose entire lives have been upended and who are being forced to grow up quickly to survive.
With rare access to the children of high-ranking Taliban members, this film captures the daily life of two boys who talk openly about their desire to be Mujahid fighters and who are already involved in standing guard for their fathers.
By contrast the film also documents the much tougher lives of two girls who have both lost their fathers to war and who spend their days working to support their families.
They are among the hundreds of thousands of children in the country who do this.
The difference between the lives of the girls and boys in this film is stark but they have one thing in common: they still have a glimmer of hope that one day life for the children of Afghanistan will be brighter.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
24 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Map shows Australia's new place in the world after bold call on Palestine
A striking map shows Australia's new place in the world after Anthony Albanese made the call to join nearly 150 countries in recognising Palestinian statehood. Australia will formally recognise Palestine when the United Nations General Assembly meets in New York next month. The move is seen as symbolic because Palestinians are living under military occupation and do not have control over their territory or settled borders. The country will join a majority of UN member states – 147 out of 193 – which already recognise Palestine, including most countries in Asia, South America and Africa. In all, those nations make up 75 per cent of the countries in the world. Historically, Western countries have held back from recognising Palestine – but reports of a new Israeli military push in Gaza and famine among Palestinians, coupled with domestic pressure on leaders like Mr Albanese, have resulted in a surge of support. It began when France announced it would recognise Palestine at the UN meeting – the first G7 country to do so. The UK, Canada, and now Australia have followed suit. But there remain some key holdouts. The United States, Israel's biggest ally, does not recognise Palestine and has vetoed past attempts by the Palestinian Authority to join the UN, arguing statehood should come about through negotiations with Israel. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio this week blasted the gesture by Australia and other Western countries as 'largely meaningless'. 'It's symbolic, and they're doing it primarily for one reason, and that is their internal politics, their domestic politics,' Mr Rubio said. 'The truth of the matter is that the future of that region is not going to be decided by some UN resolution. 'It's not going to be decided by some press release by a prime minister or a president from some country. It's going to be decided on the ground.' Mr Albanese's announcement on Monday was welcomed by some, but it has also received criticism from both sides of the current conflict. Jewish leaders argue it lends legitimacy to terrorist group Hamas, while pro-Palestinian voices claim it does not go far enough and Australia should cut all ties with Israel. Middle East analyst Professor Amin Saikal said the recognition of Palestine 'in itself is not necessarily going to make much of a difference on the ground, because the Palestinian territories are still occupied'. 'It is a symbolic act, basically to send a very, very strong message to the Israeli leadership,' Professor Saikal told 'There are ways of enforcing the recognition of the state of Palestine with some practical measures, otherwise it will remain hollow.' The practical steps might include boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel. Prof Saikal said public opinion was increasingly siding with Palestinians in the conflict. 'Now I think it is very widely recognised what Israel is engaging in is a genocide – this is not just journalists or politicians saying it, it's been confirmed by two humanitarian organisations within Israel,' he said. '(Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu has remained completely defiant of calls for a ceasefire and more humanitarian aid in Gaza.' He said as the conflict dragged on, pressure might build on Donald Trump to change his stance. 'Although Trump is absolutely committed to Israel and it's very unlikely he will cut off arms supply, at the same time public opinion is very much turning against Israel,' Prof Saikal said. 'With Trump his base is very important. If this sort of criticism increases, he may finally decide that look, it's no longer in the interests of the US to continue the level of support for Israel.' Across the ditch, New Zealand Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters said this week that the government would make a decision on Palestinian statehood next month. That places New Zealand in the diminishing group of countries that have yet to recognise Palestine, including G7 members Germany, Japan and Italy. 'This is an opportunity to deliver self-determination for the people of Palestine in a way that isolates Hamas, disarms it and drives it out of the region once and for all,' Mr Albanese said on Monday. He said the decision was made after he received assurances from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that Hamas would play no role in any future state. The Palestinian Authority controls parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank, and lost control of the Gaza Strip to Hamas in 2007.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Calls for military exports transparency, as government denies Israel arms trade
The federal government has upheld dozens of military export permits to Israel, raising fresh questions about Australia's weapons transfers throughout the war in Gaza. Australia continues to deny that it supplies weapons and ammunition to Israel, saying that has been the case "for at least the past five years". Defence Minister Richard Marles has recently doubled down on denials, adding that any claims of weapons exports were "misinformation". But in responding to a parliamentary question on notice, the Defence Department has acknowledged that after a review, it decided to uphold 35 defence export permits granted prior to October 7, 2023. And after previously stating that the permits related to 'dual-use' items, the new information also reveals that most are listed as specifically for military purposes. Any Australian company wishing to export arms — or military-related goods — must get a permit through the Department of Defence. The permits fall under two categories on the Defence and Strategic Goods List — either military-specific or dual-use items. Dual use items can be for commercial or civilian applications. The system has been criticised by international law experts, human rights campaigners and the Greens for lacking transparency. And there has been growing calls for more information about exactly what each permit covers, and to ensure that exports are not being used to wage war in Gaza. In June 2024, the Defence Department launched a review into the 66 "active" permits approved before the outbreak of the conflict in Gaza, following the October 7 terrorist attack by Hamas. The review has so far resulted in 16 permits being amended or lapsed, 13 remain under review, while Defence said 35 required "no further action". When the review was announced last year, Mr Marles told the ABC that they had looked at the permits, and would continue to scrutinise the exports, but were "confident that those licences are for what we describe as dual-use technology". The Department of Defence description of the two permit categories: But Defence has recently responded to questions on notice from the Greens, which revealed that 31 of the remaining active permits are on the 'Part 1 — Munitions List'. Part 1 exports are "designed or adapted for use by armed forces" or "inherently lethal", as outlined by the Defence Department. The 13 permits still under review also fall into this category. Only five of 16 of the amended or lapsed permits were classed as "dual-use technology". A question on notice is a written question submitted by a member of parliament to a government minister, often provided after Senate hearings when a more detailed answer is required. Defence Deputy Secretary Hugh Jeffrey told Senate estimates in November that the review was needed to ensure the exports would not be used in contradiction to Australia's "international obligations". He said action was taken on 16 permits — which were not related to weapons or ammunition — because "when there is a conflict, it's more difficult to make those assessments". When quizzed about 'Part 1' permits, Mr Jeffrey said that "they have no other use outside a defence context, but they're not necessarily inherently lethal, in and of themselves". "The fact that a permit might relate to list one doesn't equate to the assertion that we're exporting military equipment to Israel," he said. "It could go to, yes, munitions, but it also could go to body armour." He has also said that they could include items such as night-vision goggles. The ABC asked Defence a series of questions, including the process used to review the permits, and how it could be confident they would not be used in breach of international obligations during conflict. Clarification was also sought on whether active permits related to weapons and ammunition, and the status of the 13 permits still under review. The Defence Department has not provided any comments. David Shoebridge, the Greens' Defence and Foreign Affairs spokesperson, has been regularly pressing the government for information on its military exports, calling for an end to the two-way arms trade. He said Mr Marles was given the opportunity to set the record straight, and explain why he initially declared that the majority of permits fell into the dual-use category. "The government has chosen to mislead the public and, even when caught out, refused to correct the record," Senator Shoebridge told the ABC. "This awkward mix of misdirection and secrecy is a way for Labor to avoid admitting to the reality of the two-way arms trade with Israel and then having to seriously tackle it." The Australian Centre for International Justice, a non-profit legal centre, is among hundreds of civil society organisations urging the government to stop arming Israel "directly and indirectly". It has also launched a landmark legal bid — on behalf of Palestinian human rights organisations operating in Gaza and the West Bank — to determine whether Australian-made weapons and ammunition were being sent to Israeli forces. Lara Khider, the organisation's acting executive director, said requests this year to seek clarification about the review also remained unanswered. "It is unclear what process was undertaken as part of the review and whether this was in accordance with the law," Ms Khider told the ABC. "The lack of transparency in relation to this review and the broader arms exports regime has placed our clients and the broader Australian public completely in the dark about Australian arms exports to Israel." Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced on Monday that Australia would formally recognise a Palestinian statehood, saying that "the situation in Gaza had gone beyond the world's worst fears". Over the weekend, Foreign Minister Penny Wong also united with four Western countries to condemn Israel's decision to fully seize Gaza City, saying it would "risk violating international humanitarian law". Germany — which provides about 30 per cent of Israel's arms imports — was quick to take stronger action, suspending defence sales for any weapons that could be used in Gaza "until further notice". But Mr Marles has ruled out following Germany's lead. "The fundamental point is that we are not supplying weapons to Israel, and there is no step that we could take, equivalent to that of Germany, which would have any impact in relation to that," he told the ABC's Insiders program. The ABC reported earlier this year that a remote weapon system designed and built by Australian company Electro Optic Systems was one of dozens of counter-drone technologies tested by the Israel Defense Forces earlier this year. The government has also been questioned about supplying parts for F-35 fighter jets, which Israel has used in operations in Gaza. Last month, Senator Wong said Australia contributed F-35 "components and parts that are non-lethal in nature". While Mr Marles described the involvement in the fighter jets' supply chain as being "a very different question" to the issue of being an arms exporter. Senator Shoebridge described the government's comments as "excruciating". "International law is crystal clear, parts of weapons are weapons," he said. "I want to be very clear, when the Albanese government says to the Australian public Australia doesn't export weapons to Israel, this is them actively misleading the public." The UN Arms Trade Treaty, to which Australia is a party, applies to all "conventional arms", including combat aircraft, armoured vehicles, missiles and small to light weapons. It states that control systems must regulate the export of "parts and components" that provides the capability to assemble conventional arms. And that states countries are prohibited from authorising arms transfers where it had knowledge that the arms would be used in genocide, crimes against humanity, or certain war crimes. Donald Rothwell, a professor of international law at the Australian National University, said Australia had actively spoken in recent weeks about Israel's actions in Gaza being in violation of international law. And that plans to occupy the remaining parts of Gaza should have "further heightened those concerns". "Given the extent of the ongoing Israeli military assault on Gaza and Australia's objections, the Albanese government needs to be confident that any goods exported from Australia to Israel are not contributing to that campaign," Professor Rothwell told the ABC. "This is especially the case given that South Africa has commenced proceedings against Israel in the International Court of Justice arguing that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and Israel has done little to respect orders issued by the court to modify its military campaign."
News.com.au
3 hours ago
- News.com.au
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejects ‘genocide' claims, says ‘no starvation' in Gaza
WARNING: Graphic As haunting images continue to emerge from the streets of Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected accusations that Israel is committing genocide in the region. In comments that have sent a shockwave through the world press, the under-fire leader suggested to reporters that Israel could wipe out the entire population before sundown if it tried. 'If we had wanted to commit genocide, it would have taken exactly one afternoon,' he said in response to ongoing claims the IDF are committing war crimes. The remark came during a pair of press conferences with foreign and Israeli journalists, where Netanyahu also denied claims that Israel has used starvation as a weapon of war. Speaking to domestic media, he claimed that Israel has never completely halted humanitarian aid to Gaza, despite his government having implemented the policy earlier this year. 'There is no starvation. There hasn't been starvation. There was a shortage. And certainly, there was no policy of starvation,' Netanyahu said. 'If we had wanted starvation, if that had been our policy, 2 million Gazans wouldn't be living today after 20 months.' But ghastly images of malnourished children that have been published for the past two weeks by media organisation across the globe suggest Netanyahu's comments are not accurate. Most of these images are far too graphic for publication. The Israeli leader's comments were part of a defence of his government's decision to launch a major offensive in Gaza City, which he insists will lead to Hamas's defeat. The operation has sparked intense criticism at home and abroad. Pro-Palestinian activists, left-wing Israeli groups, and several countries continue to rally to end the violence. In response, Israel insists it is taking steps to avoid civilian casualties. Addressing humanitarian aid, Netanyahu said the current aid system is being overhauled, blaming Hamas for stealing aid and accusing the United Nations of failing to distribute it effectively. Facing growing international pressure, Israel has introduced measures aimed at increasing supply flows. When asked whether his earlier decision to stop humanitarian aid had been a failed attempt to weaken Hamas, Netanyahu replied: 'We never said we were stopping all entry of humanitarian aid. What we said was that, alongside halting the trucks that Hamas was seizing — taking the vast majority of their contents for itself, then selling the leftovers at extortionate prices to the Palestinian population… we would stop this.' But on March 2, the Prime Minister's Office stated: 'Prime Minister Netanyahu has decided that, as of this morning, all entry of goods and supplies into the Gaza Strip will cease.' The move was presented as a way to cut off Hamas's revenue and pressure the group into concessions. The ban was reversed 11 weeks later after sustained pressure from allies, with Israel backing the US-led Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) to deliver aid directly to civilians through four distribution points, bypassing Hamas and the UN. The initiative drew criticism over deadly incidents near aid sites and limited access for civilians. On Sunday, Netanyahu admitted the approach had failed. 'We didn't want to create starvation here — on the contrary, we wanted to bypass Hamas's looting and theft. Only it didn't work as we wanted… so we learned our lesson. We stopped it.' He said Israel is now 'acting differently,' with more aid entering the territory, an expanded number of distribution points, secure corridors, and airdrops — which he claimed would avoid Hamas's control.
