Archive May 21, 2025

Although Magdalena Martinez has lived her entire life along the Indio River, a proposed dam to protect the Panama Canal from drought is now threatening to engulf her home.

The 49-year-old is one of many residents who oppose artificial lakes that would feed the crucial interoceanic waterway.

With her husband and five of her 13 children, Martinez describes the threat she and her husband are facing.

“We are unsure of our destination.”

The small village of Martinez’s family has always been a lush mountain village where the locals depend on raising livestock and growing crops like cassava and maize for their income.

The neighborhood vows to stand up for the multibillion dollar global shipping industry’s benefits and refuse to allow the destruction of its homes.

In a canoe-mounted protest last week against the planned dam, which would force thousands of families to relocate, hundreds of villagers took to the Indio River last week.

The Panama Canal Authority (APC), the autonomous public authority overseeing the waterway, made the decision to build the reservoir to combat severe droughts like the one that caused severe ship traffic cuts in 2023.

The canal, which connects the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, is a century-old project that relies on two artificial lakes for drinking water and previous abundant rainfall.

The canal uses a lock system to lift and lower vessels, releasing millions of litres of fresh water each time it transits, primarily for shipping clients from the US, China, and Japan.

The proposed reservoir, which extends over 4,600 hectares (11, 400 acres) to one of the existing lakes, would pass through a tunnel that would span nine kilometers (5, 6 miles).

The ACP’s environmental and social manager, Karina Vergara, said the project “meets a need that was identified a long time ago: it’s the water of the future.”

With an estimated $1.6 billion investment, work on the reservoir is scheduled to start in 2027 and finish in 2032.

About 2,500 people from various villages receive $400 million in compensation and relocation expenses.

Vergara stated that “we have a strong commitment to dialogue and coming to agreements” with the victims.

We’ll regret not building the reservoir, she said, in 15 years.

The project, which has the support of President Jose Raul Mulino, could ultimately affect as many as 12, 000 people, according to civil society organizations. This includes the entire Indio River basin.

The Panama Canal, which spans 80% of the world’s maritime trade, is still vital to Panama’s economy and accounts for 6% of it.

The United States Supreme Court on Monday allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to revoke the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) granted to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants, paving the way for their deportation.

The court reverses a San Francisco-based district judge’s March order to block Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s decision to remove temporary protected status from some 348,000 Venezuelans as part of Trump’s crackdown on immigrants.

The Trump administration has justified its deportation over allegations that some of the Venezuelans are members of gangs, although it has not provided any proof to back its claims.

Here is more about what happened.

What is Temporary Protected Status?

TPS grants people living in the US relief from deportation if their home country is affected by extraordinary circumstances such as armed conflict or environmental disasters. An individual who is granted TPS cannot be deported, can obtain an employment authorisation document and may be given travel authorisation. A TPS holder cannot be detained by the US over their immigration status.

The duration of this is granted in increments from six months to 18 months. However, this can be renewed and sometimes has been renewed for up to decades. The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary can grant TPS to people from specific countries.

Countries that are currently designated for TPS include: Afghanistan, Myanmar, formerly known as Burma (Myanmar), Cameroon, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Haiti, Honduras, Lebanon, Nepal, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela and Yemen.

The programme was enacted in the 1990s under President George HW Bush after migrants from El Salvador arrived in the US, fleeing civil war. TPS does not grant a path to US citizenship.

Former President Biden expanded the programme, granting TPS to individuals from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Myanmar, Ukraine and Venezuela.

Venezuela was granted TPS in 2021 by the Biden administration. He also expanded the TPS eligibility for people from other countries, including Haiti. In 2020, 10 countries had TPS. By the end of Biden’s time in office, some 17 countries were eligible.

How many people are affected by this?

The Supreme Court decision applies to a group of Venezuelans who arrived in the US in 2023. This means 348,202 Venezuelans living in the US are affected by this, who were registered under former President Biden’s 2023 designation. Close to the end of Biden’s term in office, US officials renewed the status for these individuals until October 2026.

Economic and political turmoil have driven about eight million Venezuelans out of their country since 2014, according to the United Nations. The economic crisis was partly worsened by US sanctions against the government of President Nicolas Maduro.

What did the Trump administration do?

There are about 600,000 Venezuelans in the US with TPS. Shortly after Trump took office in February, Noem revoked TPS for 348,202, who were granted TPS in 2021.

Noem justified the revocations due to gang membership and “adverse effects on US workers”. The DHS has, without evidence, said the Biden administration granted TPS to “gang members” and “known terrorists and murderers”.

The remaining nearly 600,000 Venezuelans have TPS, which was granted in 2021 and is due to expire in September. This means that Noem will decide by July whether to revoke their status.

Noem also revoked TPS granted to 521,000 Haitians,14,600 Afghans and 7,900 Cameroonians. Cameroonians will lose protections in June, Afghans in July and Haitians in August. The recent Supreme Court decision does not apply to these individuals.

As a response, seven Venezuelan migrants alongside the nonprofit National TPS Alliance sued the Trump administration in the San Francisco federal court in February, citing racial discrimination and bias. These plaintiffs are represented by the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA’s law school, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California and the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.

The San Francisco-based court blocked the attempt to strip the protections granted to Venezuelans in March. The judge said characterization of the migrants as criminals by the officials “smacks of racism”.

What did the Supreme Court rule?

On Monday, the Supreme Court granted an emergency application filed by the Trump administration, which argued that it held the sole authority over immigration disputes such as TPS of Venezuelans.

The ruling was unsigned, and the US Supreme Court did not explain why it sided with the Trump administration. Both of these aspects are common when it comes to emergency appeals.

The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The only justice who publicly dissented to the ruling was Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has criticised the attack on judges by Trump. In 2022, Jackson was sworn in as the first Black woman to serve on the US top court.

What were the reactions to this?

“Today’s SCOTUS decision is a win for the American people and the safety of our communities,” the DHS posted on X.

“The Biden Administration exploited Temporary Protected Status to let half a million poorly vetted migrants into this country – from MS-13 gang members to known terrorists and murderers.”

Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of a UCLA immigration law centre and one of the lawyers for Venezuelan migrants, said, “This is the largest single action stripping any group of non-citizens of immigration status in modern US history. That the Supreme Court authorized it in a two-paragraph order with no reasoning is truly shocking.”

“Venezuelans face extreme oppression, arbitrary detention, extrajudicial killings and torture,” Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal said in a statement on Monday.

“Poverty levels are surging, and essentials like electricity, water and medical care are scarce. The dire circumstances in Venezuela make it clear that this is exactly the type of situation that requires the government to provide TPS.”

Just when you thought Eurovision had reached peak absurdity – with its glitter-drenched cliches, outlandish lyrics, and performances that make your local karaoke night look refined – it sank even lower in 2025. This year, Israel not only participated amid its ongoing assault on Gaza and international law, it nearly won.

In the lead-up to the contest, activists across Europe called for Israel’s exclusion. Seventy-two former Eurovision contestants signed an open letter demanding that Israel – and its national broadcaster, KAN – be banned. Protests, petitions, and campaigns swept across the continent, urging the contest to uphold its supposed values of “European unity and culture” rather than spotlight a state accused of systematically starving and bombing a captive population of two million.

But Eurovision did not listen.

Instead, it handed the stage to 24-year-old Yuval Raphael – a survivor of Hamas’s October 7 attack on the Nova Music Festival – who won the public televote in most countries and placed second overall, edged out only because, unlike the public, most professional juries preferred Austria’s entry.

Understandably, Israel’s surprising near-victory triggered a wave of backlash. With populations that have been most vocal in their criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza – such as Ireland – supposedly giving the highest marks to Raphael, widespread accusations of vote-rigging emerged. National broadcasters in Spain and Belgium filed formal complaints with the European Broadcasting Union, demanding an investigation into potential manipulation of the televoting system. Meanwhile, The Intercept’s audio analysis revealed that Eurovision organisers had muted audience booing and chants of “Free Palestine” during Raphael’s live performance.

In the aftermath of this year’s contest, the calls for Israel’s exclusion from Eurovision are louder than ever before. Clearly, for many across Europe who love Eurovision – whether for its camp, spectacle, or nostalgic charm – but who also care about international law and Palestinian lives, Israel’s continued inclusion is a moral failure.

And yet, I believe Israel belongs in Eurovision and should stay in the competition going forward. Here’s why.

For one thing, Israel’s continued participation would reflect the reality of European policy. Despite growing public outrage, many European leaders have been unwavering in their support for Israel throughout its devastating campaign in Gaza. While countries like Spain and the Republic of Ireland have called for a reassessment of the European Union’s relationship with Israel, for most of Europe, it’s been business as usual.

In February 2025, despite mounting pressure from human rights groups, European foreign ministers met with their Israeli counterpart and insisted that “political and economic ties remain strong”. A few months later, seven EU countries issued a joint statement calling for an end to what they described as a “man-made humanitarian catastrophe” in Gaza.  But without action, these words rang hollow.

Europe is also divided on whether it would honor the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Belgium, the Netherlands, Ireland, Lithuania, Slovenia, and Spain indicated they would comply. The United Kingdom, as usual, hedged, saying only that it would “comply with legal obligations under domestic and international law”. Meanwhile, Hungary, under Prime Minister Viktor Orban, flatly refused to enforce the warrant. And among Europe’s largest players – France, Germany, and Italy – the response has ranged from evasive to outright dismissive. France claimed Netanyahu enjoys immunity since Israel isn’t an ICC member; Italy said arresting him would be “unfeasible”; and Germany’s newly elected Chancellor Friedrich Merz even vowed to find “ways and means” for Netanyahu to visit.

Given how European leaders have shown far more enthusiasm for cracking down on Palestine solidarity activists than holding Israel accountable, it feels only fitting that Israel continues to sing and dance on the ruins of Palestinian lives – hand in hand with its European friends.

But this alliance isn’t just political. Those who are promoting it suggest it’s also cultural, and even “civilisational”.

Many Western intellectuals have long cast Israel as an outpost of European values in a supposedly savage region. After October 7, this narrative was renewed with fresh urgency. French public intellectual Bernard-Henri Levy, while insisting he is a “militant defender of human rights”, framed Israel – apartheid and all – as a moral beacon when compared to the usual “others”: Russians, Turks, Chinese, Persians, and Arabs. Their imperial ambitions, he argued, pose a far greater threat to “civilisation” than Israel’s “policy of colonising the West Bank”. He even praised Israel’s “moral fortitude” and supposed concern for civilian life in Gaza – words that have not aged well after 19 months of pure carnage.

American commentator Josh Hammer’s book, Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West, is even more explicit. For him, Israel is the West’s “agent” in a region plagued by violence and Islamic “terrorism”. Those who support Palestinian rights are, in his words, “anti-American, anti-Western jackals”. UK commentator Douglas Murray echoes the same civilisational framing in the book On Democracies and Death Cults: Israel and the Future of Civilization, calling Israel a bulwark of good in a world of evil.

Israeli leaders have adopted this language, too. Netanyahu declared shortly after October 7 that “Israel is fighting the enemies of civilisation itself”, urging the West to show “moral clarity”. According to this world view, Israel doesn’t just defend itself – it defends the entire Western civilisation.

All this may sound far removed from a song contest. But Eurovision has always been more than sequins and key changes. It’s a projection of “Europeanness” – and “Europe,” as a concept, has always been political. It’s built on a colonial legacy that imagined Europe as enlightened, orderly, and rational – defined in opposition to the supposedly backward, emotional, and irrational non-European “other”.

This legacy justified colonial conquests and the violent suppression of anti-colonial uprisings. Massacres were cast as the price of restoring order; ethnic cleansing, a civilizing mission. Today, that same narrative lives on in how the West frames Israel – as a beleaguered democracy standing bravely against barbarism.

So when people call for Israel to be banned from Eurovision over this year’s vote-rigging allegations, I can’t help but note the irony: that its genocidal campaign in Gaza didn’t cross a red line for Europe – but cheating in a song contest just might.

If Eurovision were to expel Israel now, it would be the harshest penalty the continent has ever imposed on the nation – and it would be not for mass killing, but for meddling with pop music.

And so, yes – I believe Israel should stay in Eurovision.

After all, Europe and Israel deserve each other.