作者: admin

  • Messi still highest-paid player in MLS

    Messi still highest-paid player in MLS

    Major League Soccer continues to see Lionel Messi stand alone atop its salary rankings, with the Inter Miami Argentine superstar holding onto the position of the league’s highest-earning player, the MLS Players Association confirmed in an official announcement released Tuesday. Per the union’s latest public salary disclosure, Messi commands an annual base salary of $25 million, more than double the base pay of the second-highest paid player in the league, Son Heung-min of Los Angeles FC.

    The updated salary figures reflect the multi-year contract extension Messi signed with the Florida-based club back in October, which locks him in at Inter Miami through the 2028 MLS season. Under the terms of the new deal, Messi’s base salary has doubled from his original 2023 contract, pushing his total guaranteed annual compensation to $28.3 million.

    Claiming the second spot on the salary rankings is South Korean international Son Heung-min, the former Tottenham Hotspur captain who joined LAFC last August for a reported league-record $26 million transfer fee. Son’s base salary checks in at $10.36 million, with his total guaranteed compensation coming out to $11.2 million for the 2025 campaign.

    It is important to note that the published salary data does not account for additional off-field income from player endorsement deals. For Messi specifically, the reported compensation also excludes the value of his option to purchase an ownership stake in Inter Miami, a franchise co-founded by English football legend David Beckham that the 8-time Ballon d’Or winner first joined in 2023.

    At 38 years old, Messi remains one of the most productive players in MLS on the pitch, even as he prepares to lead Argentina’s defense of their FIFA World Cup title in the 2026 tournament kicking off next month. Across 64 MLS regular-season matches with Inter Miami, Messi has scored 59 goals. He led the entire league in goals with 29 strikes last season, and earned the league’s Most Valuable Player award for the second consecutive year.

    Rounding out the top five highest-paid players in MLS are Messi’s Inter Miami and Argentina teammate Rodrigo De Paul, Mexico star Hirving “Chucky” Lozano, and Atlanta United playmaker Miguel Almiron. De Paul ranks third with $9.7 million in total guaranteed compensation, while Lozano takes fourth with $9.3 million despite not appearing for his club San Diego FC since November. Almiron closes out the top five with $7.9 million in guaranteed pay.

    Across the entire league, total player compensation hit $631 million in the latest reporting period. The average guaranteed compensation per MLS player now sits at $688,816, representing an 8.9% increase from the salary figures published by the players association last October.

  • Police reveal new focus in hunt for missing mother Trisha Graf

    Police reveal new focus in hunt for missing mother Trisha Graf

    Five months after 41-year-old mother Trisha Graf vanished in South Australia’s remote outback opal mining region, law enforcement has launched a new phase of the investigation, refocusing search efforts on an unexamined area of the outback to unlock the mystery of her disappearance.

    Graf was first reported missing to authorities on December 12, after she traveled to the small remote town of Andamooka, located roughly 600 kilometers north of the state capital Adelaide, for a visit. A timeline of her final confirmed movements places her at the Roxby Downs Hotel at 12:19 a.m. that day, when she left the premises just minutes later alongside a friend. Shortly after departing the hotel, her vehicle – a Ford Territory – collided with a kangaroo just outside Andamooka’s town limits, but she continued her trip regardless. She then stopped at a private residence in the town’s northwestern district before leaving shortly before 2 a.m., and was last observed driving along Dunstan Drive, leaving the Andamooka area.

    By midday that same day, her partner and traveling companion launched an independent search and located her abandoned vehicle perched on a dirt mound near the local Blue Dam landmark, triggering a large-scale law enforcement response. Since her disappearance first was reported, South Australian Police have carried out extensive search operations across the wider Andamooka region, combing through everything from abandoned opal mine shafts to local septic tanks in previous searches. Investigators previously searched a private residential property and a stretch of land on Andamooka’s eastern fringe, but those efforts turned up no critical evidence to clarify Graf’s fate or whereabouts, leaving investigators with few substantive leads for half a year.

    This week, specialist law enforcement teams have returned to the Andamooka region to renew their search, with a new targeted search area identified. In an official public statement released this week, a South Australia Police spokesperson confirmed that officers from the Major Crime Investigation Branch, STAR Group specialist operations and Far North local policing unit will spend the next several days searching a previously unsearched area on the western edge of Andamooka, looking for any physical evidence tied to the missing woman.

    Investigators are continuing to appeal for public assistance to move the case forward. Any member of the public with information about Trisha Graf’s current location, or details about her movements and activities in the hours before she vanished, is asked to contact Crime Stoppers anonymously at 1800 333 000 or submit tips via the official organization website at www.crimestopperssa.com.au.

  • Jason Collins, NBA’s first openly gay player, dies aged 47

    Jason Collins, NBA’s first openly gay player, dies aged 47

    Jason Collins, the former NBA center who made history as the first active male athlete from one of the United States’ four major professional team sports to publicly come out as gay, has passed away at the age of 47 following a courageous fight against glioblastoma, an aggressive and deadly form of brain cancer.

    The news of his death was confirmed in a family statement shared publicly by the National Basketball Association, the league where Collins built a 13-year professional career. Collins first opened up about his diagnosis a year ago, revealing that the inoperable tumor had been detected after he began experiencing persistent difficulty concentrating. In a public update in December 2025, he described the growth as “a monster with tentacles spreading across the underside of my brain the width of a baseball.” Medical professionals told him at the time that without targeted treatment, he would not survive more than three months.

    To slow the tumor’s progression, Collins underwent treatment with the drug Avastin, and made repeated trips to Singapore to receive specialized targeted chemotherapy. Throughout his treatment, he maintained the same radical honesty that defined his 2013 coming out, framing his cancer battle as another chapter of living authentically. “Your life is so much better when you just show up as your true self, unafraid to be your true self, in public or private. This is me. This is what I’m dealing with,” he said at the time, drawing a parallel between his decision to share his cancer diagnosis and his choice to come out 12 years prior. He added that the years after coming out had been “the best of my life.”

    Born and raised in California, Collins launched his NBA career in 2001 with the New Jersey Nets, and went on to play for six different franchises across his 13 seasons in the league, retiring from professional basketball in 2014. Long recognized for his outsized impact beyond the court, he was named one of Time Magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world in the years following his coming out.

    When Collins published his iconic coming out essay as the front-page cover story for Sports Illustrated in 2013, he opened the groundbreaking piece with a simple, unflinching declaration: “I’m a 34-year-old N.B.A. center. I’m Black and I’m gay.” At the time of publication, Collins was a free agent, and many wondered whether his decision to come out would force an early end to his NBA career. Though the LGBTQ+ rights movement had made notable gains by 2013, same-sex marriage would not be legalized across the entire United States until two years later.

    Collins went on to re-sign with the Nets, who had by that time relocated to Brooklyn, officially becoming the first openly gay active athlete to compete in any of the four major U.S. professional sports leagues. His barrier-breaking move paved the way for greater LGBTQ+ inclusion across all levels of organized sports, a legacy that league leaders and loved ones emphasized in tributes following his death.

    “Jason Collins’ impact and influence extended far beyond basketball as he helped make the NBA, WNBA and larger sports community more inclusive and welcoming for future generations,” NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said in a statement Tuesday. “Jason will be remembered not only for breaking barriers, but also for the kindness and humanity that defined his life and touched so many others.”

    In their own statement released Tuesday, Collins’ family echoed that sentiment, noting his far-reaching impact beyond the hardwood. “Jason changed lives in unexpected ways and was an inspiration to all who knew him and to those who admired him from afar,” the family said.

  • As Trump heads to China, past US flubs on US policy toward Taiwan can be a warning

    As Trump heads to China, past US flubs on US policy toward Taiwan can be a warning

    For close to 50 years, every sitting U.S. president has been forced to navigate an extraordinarily delicate diplomatic verbal minefield when addressing U.S. policy toward Taiwan and China. Even the smallest misstatement or off-script comment can send immediate shockwaves through global geopolitics, triggering widespread alarm across major capitals.\n\nUnder the long-standing U.S. \”One China\” policy, Washington formally acknowledges Beijing’s position that Taiwan is part of China, while maintaining only unofficial, people-to-people and security ties with the self-governing island democracy. The framework has intentionally been crafted to remain vague, a diplomatic approach widely referred to as \”strategic ambiguity.\” Under this doctrine, the U.S. pledges to ensure Taiwan retains the necessary capabilities to defend itself against any forced unification attempt by Beijing, but deliberately refuses to explicitly state how far it would go militarily to counter a Chinese attack. As far back as 1995, former Assistant U.S. Defense Secretary Joseph Nye summed up the approach for Chinese officials asking about U.S. responses to a Taiwan crisis: \”We don’t know, and you don’t know.\”\n\n\”The whole idea is that you stick rigidly to the carefully crafted language that’s been built up over decades, you don’t deviate from it at all,\” explained Mike McCurry, former White House press secretary during the Bill Clinton administration. \”Because there are so many stakeholders on all sides listening and paying extremely close attention to every word.\”\n\nCarefully calibrated to preserve Taiwan’s security and de facto autonomy without making explicit irreversible security commitments, while also avoiding unnecessary provocation of Beijing, this long-standing policy is poised to return to the center of global attention ahead of former President Donald Trump’s visit to China this week. A review of modern diplomatic history makes clear that past U.S. leaders have repeatedly stumbled over the wording of the policy, requiring rushed, high-stakes diplomatic damage control to reset expectations.\n\n\”The entire thing relies on the precision of the language,\” said John Kirby, who has served as a spokesperson for the State Department, the Pentagon, and the White House across multiple Democratic administrations. \”You have to be extraordinarily precise when talking about Taiwan because, quite frankly, the stakes could not be higher.\”\n\n### A History of Missteps: When Presidents Strayed From Script\nPresident Joe Biden has repeatedly overstepped the long-standing parameters of the policy, four separate times publicly suggesting the U.S. would intervene militarily if China invaded Taiwan, each time forcing White House officials to quickly step in to clarify that decades of U.S. policy had not changed.\n\nDuring an August 2021 interview with ABC News, Biden was discussing U.S. commitments to mutual defense for NATO allies when he added, \”Same with Taiwan.\” The White House was immediately forced to issue a correction reaffirming that U.S. policy toward Taiwan remained unchanged. That October, during a CNN town hall, Biden again stated the U.S. was committed to defending Taiwan if China launched an attack, prompting an identical walkback from White House staff.\n\nIn May 2022, during a press conference held in Tokyo, Biden answered \”yes\” when asked if he would commit U.S. military forces to defend Taiwan, adding \”That’s the commitment we made.\” The comment forced Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to publicly reaffirm Washington’s long-standing commitment to the \”One China\” framework just days later. Biden made a similar comment during a September 2022 interview with CBS’ *60 Minutes*, leading to another round of official clarifications from the White House.\n\nThe Trump administration also faced its own share of verbal and protocol blunders during its first term. Then-President-elect Trump broke with decades of precedent in 2016 when he took a direct phone call from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen – a move no U.S. president-elect or president had made since Washington formally cut official diplomatic ties with Taiwan in 1979. Trump later dismissed the backlash to the call, posting on social media: \”Interesting how the U.S. sells Taiwan billions of dollars of military equipment but I should not accept a congratulatory call.\”\n\nThe following year, the Trump White House made another high-profile misstep when a statement about a meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in Germany incorrectly referred to Xi as the president of the Republic of China – the formal name for Taiwan – rather than the People’s Republic of China. The official White House transcript was quickly altered after the error was spotted to correct the wording.\n\nMiles Yu, who served as principal China policy advisor to former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during the first Trump administration and now leads the China Center at the conservative Hudson Institute, argued that the frequent missteps are inevitable because the framework itself is a \”conceptual trap\” set by Beijing. \”You cannot explain something that’s unexplainable,\” Yu said, noting that he has pushed for the U.S. to abandon ambiguity and explicitly state its commitment to defending Taiwan. He added that the \”One China\” principle, as Beijing frames it to assert Taiwan is an inalienable part of Chinese territory, is \”completely of Chinese making.\”\n\nYu argued that even under the policy of strategic ambiguity, there has never been any real uncertainty about U.S. intentions among China’s top leadership. \”No one inside the Chinese high command has ever believed there is any ambiguity as to America’s resolve to defend Taiwan,\” he said. Instead, he pointed to repeated U.S. military mobilizations in the Taiwan Strait over decades of heightened tensions as clear evidence that Washington has long planned to defend Taiwan in proportion to any threat from Beijing. Today, Trump’s team says U.S. policy has not changed, but rejects the need for the traditional careful verbal gymnastics, pointing to Trump’s approval of multiple major arms sales packages to Taiwan during his time in office.\n\n### The Policy Has Always Been Hard to Articulate\nThe origins of the modern U.S. framework date back to the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949, when Washington initially recognized Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist government as the legitimate ruler of all China, even after that government retreated from the mainland to Taiwan. It was not until 1979, when President Jimmy Carter normalized diplomatic relations with Beijing, that the U.S. formally adopted the \”One China\” policy, after months of closed-door negotiations between the two countries. Even so, Carter later acknowledged that the agreement did nothing to block a future president or Congress from committing U.S. military forces to defend Taiwan if needed.\n\nSubsequent presidents have repeatedly stumbled over the wording of the policy. During a 1998 roundtable in Shanghai, President Bill Clinton committed to the widely accepted \”Three No’s\” pledge: the U.S. does not support Taiwan independence, does not support a \”two Chinas\” or \”one Taiwan one China\” framework, and does not support Taiwan’s membership in international organizations that require statehood for membership. But just one year later, Clinton made off-script comments seeming to suggest he could pursue a military intervention in Taiwan similar to past U.S. military actions abroad.\n\nIn 2001, during an interview with The Associated Press, President George W. Bush was asked whether the U.S. would use military force to counter a Chinese attack on Taiwan, and responded simply \”It’s certainly an option.\” He later was forced to clarify the comment to CNN, saying it did not represent a toughening of U.S. policy, repeating his commitment to do \”what it takes to help Taiwan defend itself.\” Five years later, during a state visit to Washington by then-Chinese President Hu Jintao, a White House announcer mistakenly announced that the national anthem of the Republic of China would be played, instead of the People’s Republic of China, though the error was corrected before the anthem was played.\n\n### Staying On Message Requires Discipline\nA small number of presidents have managed to stick to the carefully crafted script over the years. In 1989, during a state banquet in Beijing, President George H.W. Bush stated that while the U.S. adheres to \”the bedrock principle that there is but one China, we have found ways to address Taiwan constructively without rancor.\” In 2014, during a joint press conference with Xi Jinping in Beijing, President Barack Obama struck a careful balance, saying \”We encourage further progress by both sides of the Taiwan Strait towards building ties, reducing tensions and promoting stability on the basis of dignity and respect.\”\n\nEven so, getting the wording right remains one of the hardest tasks in modern U.S. diplomacy. \”Anybody who has been at the State Department, the Pentagon or even the White House podium can tell you: When the issue of Taiwan came up, you went to your notes,\” Kirby said. \”You didn’t freelance it.\” Kirby admitted that even he once made a mistake when he got overconfident and spoke off-script, mischaracterizing the policy and causing what he called a \”little kerfuffle.\” Any major misstatement, Kirby explained, almost immediately draws pushback from senior U.S. policy officials, who demand an immediate correction: \”You’ll be highly encouraged to make a statement correcting it right away.\”

  • Trump set to meet with Xi in Beijing as war and inflation weigh on his presidency

    Trump set to meet with Xi in Beijing as war and inflation weigh on his presidency

    WASHINGTON and BEIJING – As global anxieties over armed conflict, trade frictions, and accelerating artificial intelligence development reach a fever pitch, former U.S. President Donald Trump has departed the White House en route to Beijing, where he will meet Wednesday with Chinese President Xi Jinping for what is shaping up to be one of the most consequential bilateral summits in recent years.

    Speaking to reporters ahead of his departure Tuesday, Trump framed the U.S.-China dynamic as a meeting of the world’s two preeminent global powers, noting, “We’re the two superpowers. We’re the strongest nation on Earth in terms of military. China’s considered second.” Despite this public projection of U.S. strength, the trip unfolds at a precarious moment for Trump’s domestic standing, with his approval ratings dragged down by fallout from the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran, which has sent U.S. inflation soaring.

    Against this backdrop, Trump is prioritizing trade negotiations, aiming to secure tangible wins through new agreements that would expand Chinese purchases of American agricultural products and civilian aircraft. His administration is also pushing to launch a new bilateral “Board of Trade” mechanism designed to resolve ongoing economic disputes, a step that grows out of the 12-month trade truce reached last October. That truce ended a tense year-long trade war sparked by Trump’s unilateral tariff hikes on Chinese goods, which China countered by leveraging its global dominance of rare earth mineral supplies.

    Even as trade sits atop the agenda, the Iran conflict continues to overshadow all other U.S. policy priorities. The war has forced the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global chokepoint for energy shipments, stranding countless oil and liquefied natural gas tankers and pushing energy prices to multi-year highs that threaten to derail fragile global economic growth. Though Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi held talks in Beijing just last week, Trump played down the need for Chinese mediation, telling reporters, “We have a lot of things to discuss. I wouldn’t say Iran is one of them, to be honest with you, because we have Iran very much under control.”

    Two other high-stakes issues will also feature heavily in the closed-door talks: the status of Taiwan and global nuclear arms control. The Chinese government has repeatedly voiced strong objection to planned U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, the self-governing island that Beijing claims as an inalienable part of its sovereign territory. The $11 billion weapons package, authorized by the Trump administration in December but not yet implemented, will be on the agenda, according to Trump himself. Trump has long signaled ambivalence about U.S. commitments to Taiwan, a stance that has sparked widespread speculation that he may be open to rolling back American support for the island democracy. At the same time, Taiwan’s position as the world’s leading producer of advanced semiconductors has made it central to the global AI race, with the U.S. importing more chips and related goods from Taiwan than from mainland China so far this year. Like his predecessor, Trump has pushed policy initiatives to reshore more advanced chip manufacturing to the U.S.

    Despite the many sticking points between the two sides, Trump struck an optimistic tone ahead of the meeting, declaring that the U.S.-China relationship will remain strong for decades to come. He also confirmed that Xi has agreed to a reciprocal visit to the U.S. before the end of the year, joking that he only regretted that a new White House ballroom currently under construction would not be completed in time for the high-profile visit. Trump departed Washington on Air Force One accompanied by a delegation of senior aides, family members, and leading tech industry figures, including Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang and Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. Following his Wednesday evening arrival in Beijing, Trump will attend a formal state banquet Thursday before holding a working lunch with Xi on Friday and returning to the U.S.

    Analysts note that China enters the talks from a far stronger negotiating position than during previous summits with the Trump administration. “Even if they don’t get much on any of their core goals, as long as there’s not a blow-up in the meeting and President Trump doesn’t go away and look to re-escalate, China basically comes out stronger,” explained Scott Kennedy, senior adviser on Chinese business and economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank. Key Chinese priorities for the summit include rolling back U.S. restrictions on Chinese access to advanced semiconductors and reducing remaining bilateral tariffs, Kennedy added.

    On the global security front, a senior anonymous Trump administration official confirmed that Trump will also propose a new three-way nuclear arms control pact that would include the U.S., China, and Russia, placing binding caps on each country’s deployed nuclear arsenal. China has long rejected participation in such agreements, pointing out that its current stockpile of roughly 600 operational nuclear warheads — per Pentagon estimates — is far smaller than the more than 5,000 warheads each held by the U.S. and Russia. The last remaining bilateral arms control pact between Washington and Moscow, New START, expired in February, ending more than 50 years of binding caps on the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals. As the treaty approached expiration, Trump rejected a Russian proposal to extend the bilateral agreement for one additional year, instead calling for “a new, improved, and modernized” deal that includes Beijing. Pentagon projections estimate China’s nuclear arsenal will grow to more than 1,000 operational warheads by 2030.

  • Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ to cost $1.2 tn, watchdog estimates

    Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ to cost $1.2 tn, watchdog estimates

    Washington D.C. — A new independent analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has delivered a staggering cost projection for U.S. President Donald Trump’s ambitious national missile defense initiative, the “Golden Dome,” finding that developing, deploying, and sustaining the program over 20 years will reach roughly $1.2 trillion (£882 billion) — nearly seven times the total cost the Trump administration initially cited for the project. The CBO report, released publicly this Tuesday, breaks down the unprecedented spending, noting that acquisition costs alone for the multi-domain system will top $1 trillion. That price tag includes development and manufacturing of layered interceptor systems, as well as the construction of a new space-based network for missile warning and tracking, the congressional watchdog confirmed. Unveiled by President Trump just days into his second term in the White House this January, the Golden Dome is designed to blanket the entire continental United States in defensive coverage, capable of countering a wide range of aerial threats ranging from intercontinental ballistic missiles to advanced cruise missiles. The project was framed from its announcement as a response to the growing sophistication of next-generation offensive weapons developed by potential global adversaries. When Trump first announced the outlines of the plan last year, he said the program would require an initial $25 billion investment, with total long-term costs capped at $175 billion (£129.25 billion) — a figure that the new CBO analysis now completely invalidates with its far higher projection. Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley, who formally requested the independent cost estimate from the CBO, issued a sharp rebuke of the proposal following the report’s release. “The President’s so-called ‘Golden Dome’ is nothing more than a massive giveaway to defense contractors paid for entirely by working Americans,” Merkley said in a statement Tuesday. The BBC has reached out to both the White House and the U.S. Pentagon to request comment on the CBO’s findings and the criticism from lawmakers, but has not yet received a response. Beyond the sticker shock of the new cost projection, the report also underscores longstanding technical and strategic doubts surrounding the program. Defense experts and government officials have previously questioned whether a comprehensive nationwide defensive shield can actually be built to cover the United States’ massive landmass, while existing defense systems are already acknowledged to have fallen behind the pace of advanced weapons development by peer adversaries. The CBO’s analysis adds another critical warning: even if the full system is built as designed, it could still be overwhelmed by a large-scale full attack launched by major nuclear powers like Russia or China. The framework for the Golden Dome traces back to an early executive order from President Trump, which initially framed the initiative as an “Iron Dome for America” — a reference to the Israeli regional defense system. The order noted that the threat of advanced next-generation offensive weapons has “become more intense and complex” over time, creating a potentially “catastrophic” vulnerability for the United States. A week into his second term, the President directed the Department of Defense to draft formal development plans for the system, which the White House identified as the top priority to counter “the most catastrophic threat” facing the United States. Per Trump’s original description, the Golden Dome will integrate cutting-edge next-generation technologies across all operational domains: land, sea, and space. Key components include space-based tracking sensors and interceptor capabilities, with the President claiming last year that the system will be “capable even of intercepting missiles launched from the other side of the world, or launched from space.”

  • New York Times article details brutal rape of Palestinians. Israel calls it ‘blood libel’

    New York Times article details brutal rape of Palestinians. Israel calls it ‘blood libel’

    A bombshell opinion piece from veteran Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has upended global discourse around the Israel-Palestine conflict, laying bare harrowing firsthand testimonies of widespread sexual violence perpetrated by Israeli soldiers and settlers against Palestinian detainees. The publication has triggered an immediate, fierce backlash from the Israeli government, which has labeled the reporting a baseless “blood libel” and accused the outlet of advancing an anti-Israel agenda.

    In his landmark column published Monday, Kristof details graphic accounts of abuse: one Palestinian journalist, 46-year-old Sami al-Sai, described being assaulted by both male and female Israeli soldiers who sexually violated him with rubber batons, grabbed his genitals with brutal force until he screamed in agony, and filmed the attack. Other survivors shared equally chilling testimonies: one woman recalled being repeatedly stripped and beaten by multiple groups of soldiers, saying she lost consciousness so often she cannot confirm whether she was also raped, a common gap in documentation given the deep stigma around sexual violence in conservative Palestinian society.

    Kristof emphasizes that while few victims agreed to be named out of fear and cultural taboo, their overlapping accounts form a clear pattern of systematic abuse. He notes that decades of state-sponsored dehumanization of Palestinians has created conditions where such violence can thrive, and that the true scale of abuse is almost certainly far higher than documented, as many survivors never come forward. This stigma is particularly acute for male survivors, who face additional pressure to stay silent to protect their family’s reputation.

    Crucially, this reporting is not entirely new. A full month before Kristof’s column, the West Bank Protection Consortium published a report documenting at least 16 separate cases of sexual crimes committed by Israeli soldiers and settlers amid forcible displacement in the West Bank. Earlier this year, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestinian human rights Francesca Albanese told the UN Human Rights Council that Israel’s prison system has become a “laboratory of calculated cruelty,” where inmates are raped with objects including bottles, metal rods and knives. What makes Kristof’s work unprecedented is that it is the first in-depth look at this issue published by a major legacy Western media outlet like the New York Times, which has a long history of sidelining and questioning Palestinian narratives of abuse.

    The Israeli government moved swiftly to condemn the publication. In a series of posts on X, the Israeli Foreign Ministry called the column one of the worst modern examples of blood libel, accusing Kristof of inverting reality by framing Israel as a perpetrator of violence when, the ministry claims, Hamas committed widespread sexual violence against Israeli citizens during the October 7, 2023 attacks. The ministry added that the publication is a deliberate part of an organized anti-Israel campaign, and vowed to “fight these lies with the truth.” The government also pointed to a recent report on alleged Hamas sexual violence that the New York Times declined to publish, which was instead picked up by CNN and endorsed by former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The ministry argued that this rejection, paired with Kristof’s publication, exposes the outlet’s clear anti-Israel bias.

    Critics have also raised questions about why the investigation was run in the Times’ opinion section rather than its hard news section, which adheres to different editorial standards. Kristof pushed back on this criticism, noting that opinion journalism centered on original on-the-ground reporting has long been his practice as a columnist. Even so, the placement failed to satisfy many of Kristof’s more than 1.2 million followers on X, regardless of their stance on the conflict.

    A further controversy emerged when former Israeli news personality David Shuster claimed on X that the New York Times was internally debating removing the column over its “problematic” content. The paper’s public relations team quickly refuted the claim, issuing a firm statement defending both the reporting and Kristof’s decades-long track record covering sexual violence as a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner.

    In his own social media responses to critics, Kristof challenged opponents to allow independent monitoring of Palestinian detention facilities, writing: “For skeptics, why not agree on Red Cross and lawyer visits for the 9,000 Palestinian ‘security’ prisoners? If you think these abuse allegations are false, such monitoring visits would be protective. So why not?” The Israeli government has refused to grant the International Committee of the Red Cross access to Palestinian detainees for years.

    Kristof also argued that the United States is complicit in these abuses, noting that American tax dollars fund and subsidize the Israeli security establishment. He called on the U.S. government to condition military aid to Israel on an end to the abuse of detainees, and urged U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, an avowed Zionist, to meet with survivors and ensure that those who spoke out for the column do not face retaliation for their courage.

    Notably, Kristof did include mention of allegations of sexual violence by Hamas during the October 7 attacks at the opening of his column, a context the Israeli Foreign Ministry omitted from its condemnation. The organization that first brought those Hamas allegations to global media later withdrew its claims, casting significant uncertainty over their veracity.

  • Ein Hod: The ethnically cleansed Palestinian village that became an Israeli artists’ colony

    Ein Hod: The ethnically cleansed Palestinian village that became an Israeli artists’ colony

    Nestled along the sun-dappled slopes of Mount Carmel, with sweeping views of the blue Mediterranean stretching out below, the quiet Israeli artists’ village of Ein Hod draws visitors with its winding cobblestone paths, weathered cactus hedges, and dozens of sunlit art galleries tucked into centuries-old stone structures. But for Palestinian artist Yara Mahajneh, the picturesque facade of this community hid a jarring, unspoken reality when she arrived one evening to set up her graduate exhibition at the village’s Janco Dada Museum: gated entrances, uniformed guards, and restricted access that cut off the original inhabitants of this land from the homes their ancestors built.

    “What kind of protection does a peaceful, liberal artists’ village need?” Mahajneh asked in reflection on that night. For Mahajneh, the question cut deeper than just unexpected security. It opened up a long-buried history that she had never been taught during her four years studying fine art at the University of Haifa: Ein Hod was once Ein Hawd, a thriving Palestinian village that was emptied of its residents during the 1948 Nakba, then repurposed as a cultural hub for Israeli artists. Throughout her degree, she learned European and Israeli art history, but the story of the village just kilometers from campus, and the legacy of Palestinian art itself, was never part of the curriculum.

    The documented history of Ein Hawd stretches back more than 800 years, tied to the Abu al-Hija clan, whose ancestral roots in the area trace back to fighters who arrived with Salah al-Din al-Ayyubi during the Crusader period. By 1948, the village was home to roughly 800 to 850 residents, who built a livelihood around Mediterranean agriculture: growing wheat, barley, olives, and carob, raising sheep, and producing charcoal for trade, according to Sameer Abu al-Hija, a Palestinian historian and direct descendant of the village’s displaced population.

    That self-sufficient community came to an abrupt end in July 1948, weeks after Israeli forces seized the northern port city of Haifa and a string of nearby Palestinian villages. Palestinian historian Mustafa Kabha explains that the fall of Haifa shattered morale across the southern Haifa district, triggering a wave of displacement that swept through Ein Hawd. For residents, reports of massacres at Tantura and Deir Yassin stoked urgent fear for the safety of women, children, and elderly residents. After two fierce battles against heavily armed Zionist forces, the village fell, and its population was forced into exile.

    Some families fled to Wadi Ara and Jenin, while others sheltered in nearby Daliyat al-Karmel. A small number of residents later attempted to return, but were blocked from reoccupying their original village lands. They built makeshift homes first from brush, then from tin and mud, and eventually from concrete, on a small plot of hillside land adjacent to the original village — a makeshift community that exists to this day. Unlike hundreds of other Palestinian villages destroyed during the Nakba, Ein Hawd’s stone structures were left standing; they were just emptied of their people.

    In the early 1950s, after a short period housing North African Jewish immigrants, the abandoned village was spotted by iconic Israeli artist Marcel Janco, who recognized its preserved stone homes and dramatic coastal landscape as an ideal setting for an artists’ retreat. The site was rebranded as Ein Hod, and slowly transformed into the arts colony that exists today. Over decades, former family bedrooms were converted into exhibition spaces, living rooms became performance venues, and the village’s original mosque was repurposed into a restaurant and bar. Today, tourists wander the same narrow lanes that once echoed with the voices of Abu al-Hija villagers, browsing galleries and cafes built inside the stolen homes.

    For Kabha, this transformation lays bare a profound injustice at the heart of the site: “They are using one of the highest forms of human expression and documentation on the remains of other people.”

    That layered contradiction came into sharp focus for Mahajneh when she was invited to exhibit her graduation project, *Katibet Mheileh*, an exploration of intergenerational trauma among Palestinian women, inside the Janco Dada Museum located in the heart of the former village. At first, she saw the invitation as a career-making opportunity for a young emerging artist. But as she began installing her work, the setting forced her to confront an unignorable question: why exhibit this exploration of Palestinian memory in a space that was built on the erasure of Palestinian memory?

    In her performance, participating women stood silent with personal objects bound to their bodies, while recorded fragments of memory echoed through the gallery: “The house was demolished. Iron my shirt.” For Mahajneh, the irony became unavoidable: her exploration of Palestinian displacement was being hosted in a displaced Palestinian village, where the descendants of the original inhabitants still lived uphill, barred from entering the land their families built. “At some point, I felt that we also became objects in the gallery,” she said. “We were serving a purpose inside this space.”

    For Sameer Abu al-Hija, the injustice is not an abstract political question — it is a daily, personal reality. “There are people here who pass their father’s house every morning on the way to work,” he said. “But they still cannot enter it.”

    The story of Ein Hawd raises far broader questions about who controls the narrative of Palestinian history, Kabha argues. The erasure of the village is not just physical: after 1948, hundreds of destroyed and depopulated Palestinian villages were written out of official Israeli curricula, public memory, and mainstream narratives. Even in spaces that frame themselves as progressive and inclusive, like Haifa University’s art department, that erasure persists, says Mahajneh. For Palestinians living inside Israel, this systemic erasure leaves generations disconnected from the land and history that is rightfully theirs.

    Today, Ein Hawd’s physical legacy remains intact: the stone houses, the old mosque, the cactus fences, and the village paths all still stand. But they exist within an official narrative that erases the people who built them. For older generations of displaced residents, there has long been a fear that the narrative of erasure will succeed — that as the elders pass, the young will forget their connection to the land. But for Abu al-Hija, a recent moment put those fears to rest: when his seven-year-old grandson asked him to take a trip to the original village, to see the home his family built, it proved that the memory of Ein Hawd cannot be erased. That, he says, is his answer to the old prediction that the young would forget: “The young did not forget.”

  • Mass protests in Argentina decry Milei’s funding cuts to prized public universities

    Mass protests in Argentina decry Milei’s funding cuts to prized public universities

    BUENOS AIRES, Argentina – Mass mobilization swept across major Argentine cities on Tuesday, as tens of thousands of demonstrators filled public streets to push back against sweeping funding cuts to the nation’s beloved public university system enacted by libertarian President Javier Milei.

    Marches originating from multiple points in central Buenos Aires converged on the Casa Rosada, the Argentine government’s executive headquarters, where protesters voiced fierce opposition to chronic budget shortfalls that are steadily eroding the financial backbone of the country’s public higher education network. For nearly 75 years, Argentina’s public university system has stood as a cornerstone of national identity: tuition-free since 1949, it has cultivated a highly skilled national workforce deeply valued by the country’s large middle class, and counted five Nobel Prize winners among its alumni. Last year, Argentina’s Congress passed bipartisan legislation mandating that the government adjust university operating budgets and professor salaries to match the country’s sky-high persistent inflation. But rather than enacting the law, the Milei administration has instead challenged its constitutionality in the courts, leaving the system starved of needed funding.

    Milei’s ideological framing of the cuts aligns closely with that of his prominent American ally and backer, former U.S. President Donald Trump: the president has repeatedly painted public university campuses as hotbeds of progressive “woke” indoctrination. The funding slashes form a core part of his controversial austerity agenda, which leans on dramatic cuts to overall public spending to correct what he frames as decades of fiscally irresponsible spending and entrenched corruption under prior left-leaning administrations.

    Tuesday’s cross-sectional protest drew participants of all age groups and political affiliations, unfolding as Milei’s national approval ratings have plummeted in recent months amid a steep economic downturn. The country has struggled with contracting economic output, eroding real wages, and rapidly rising unemployment under his watch. A growing wave of corruption scandals has also fueled public anger, most notably an ongoing investigation into unexplained lavish spending by Milei’s close confidant and Cabinet Chief Manuel Adorni, whose lifestyle appears far out of step with his modest public salary and officially declared assets. Protesters carried placards calling out the discrepancy, with one common sign reading “How much does Adorni cost us?”

    Alejandro Álvarez, Milei’s appointed undersecretary for university policies, dismissed the mass demonstration as a purely partisan political action. He claimed the government has already provided increased funding to offset rising operating costs, but university unions and faculty organizations have uniformly rejected these marginal adjustments as woefully inadequate to address the system’s needs.

    In its legal challenge to last year’s congressionally approved funding law, the Milei administration argues the legislation does not identify specific revenue streams to cover the mandated funding increases amid the country’s ongoing harsh fiscal austerity program. The case is currently on track to be decided by Argentina’s Supreme Court, and protesters on Tuesday issued a direct public call for the nation’s highest judicial body to heed the widespread public outcry across the country’s public squares.

    Data from Argentina’s largest national faculty federation shows that since Milei took office in late 2023, the real inflation-adjusted value of university professors’ salaries has dropped by roughly 33 percent. Ricardo Gelpi, rector of the nationally prestigious University of Buenos Aires, warned that the dramatic erosion of purchasing power has already pushed more than 580 research faculty in engineering and hard science departments to leave the public system for higher-paying positions at private institutions or other sectors.

    Speaking from the march in Buenos Aires, 24-year-old University of Buenos Aires law student Sol Muñíz summed up the widespread public sentiment around the cuts. “It’s very clear this government is determined to defund public education,” she said. “University is a source of pride for us. It is the best thing we have.”

  • Molineux fit to lead Australia World Cup squad

    Molineux fit to lead Australia World Cup squad

    As the countdown to the 2025 ICC Women’s T20 World Cup, hosted in England, accelerates, six-time tournament champions Australia have locked in their 15-player squad, headlined by the fitness clearance of newly appointed captain Sophie Molineux. The 28-year-old all-rounder, who took over the national captaincy in January following Alyssa Healy’s retirement, has been given the green light to compete despite a persistent back injury that disrupted her early leadership tenure, and will lead the side with support from vice-captains Ash Gardner and Tahlia McGrath.

    The squad announcement brings with it a pair of returns and a breakthrough first selection for fast bowler Lucy Hamilton, who will compete at her maiden senior international tournament. Molineux’s path to the World Cup was far from certain: she suffered a back injury in the lead-up to Australia’s March tour of the West Indies, her first away series as skipper, where she was restricted to batting duties only. Prior to her fitness clearance, national selector Shawn Flegler had publicly stated that Molineux would not be considered for a non-bowling role at the global tournament, making her full inclusion a significant milestone for both the player and the team.

    Two familiar all-rounding talents also earn their places back in the setup: Annabel Sutherland, who was rested for the Caribbean tour, and Grace Harris, who was dropped for that series, are both back in the squad for the World Cup. The selection leaves fast bowler Darcie Brown out of the final 15, a decision Flegler framed as a strategic choice tailored to the expected conditions in England. “Darcie Brown was unlucky to miss out but the decision was based on the conditions we’re expecting and the make-up of the side,” Flegler explained in comments following the squad announcement. “With at least six right-arm pace options in the mix and raw pace expected to be less effective, we opted to go with Lucy Hamilton who offers something different as a left-arm quick.”

    Flegler also voiced confidence in Molineux’s leadership, which has already begun to shape the team across her first two series in charge: “Sophie has already made her mark as captain and built a strong connection with the group over the last couple of tours, so we’re looking forward to seeing what this side can achieve under her leadership.” Since making her international debut in 2018, Molineux has built a career marked by consistent performance despite repeated injury setbacks, with 3 Test matches, 19 One Day Internationals and 44 T20Is caps to her name ahead of the World Cup.

    Australia, who are aiming to reclaim the T20 World Cup title after a semi-final exit at the 2024 tournament, will ramp up their preparations with three warm-up matches against South Africa, hosts England and the West Indies before their official tournament opener. They will kick off their 2025 campaign against South Africa on 13 June at Manchester’s iconic Old Trafford ground. Alongside Molineux, Gardner and McGrath, the full squad includes Nicola Carey, Kim Garth, Lucy Hamilton, Grace Harris, Alana King, Phoebe Litchfield, Beth Mooney, Ellyse Perry, Megan Schutt, Annabel Sutherland, Georgia Voll, and Georgia Wareham. Batter Tahlia Wilson has been named as the squad’s travelling reserve.