- Israel’s Parliament voted to dissolve itself and hold new elections on Wednesday night after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu failed to meet the deadline to form a new coalition government.
- Netanyahu’s failure to form a coalition was primarily due to his inability to reconcile a bill being debated by two factions of his right-wing bloc, that would require ultra-orthodox men to enlist in the military.
- Netanyahu was also unable to get support from the centrist Blue and White Party, which refused to form a government with a leader facing indictments.
Israel Election Take Two
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu failed to meet the deadline to form a coalition government Wednesday, prompting Israel’s Parliament, the Knesset, to dissolve itself and call for new elections.
This incident marks the first time in Israel’s history that a prime minister-elect was unable to form a coalition government after an election, as well as the first time that a prime minister-elect dissolved a Parliament that had only been sworn in a month earlier. The new elections will be held on Sept. 17.
On April 9, Netanyahu’s Likud Party beat the opposition Blue and White Party and it’s leader Benny Gantz by a fraction of a percent. In fact, the election was so close that both parties ended up getting the exact same amount of seats, with each receiving 35 out of the 120 seats in the Knesset.
Neither party won an outright majority, which is common in Israeli elections. In order to become prime minister, party leaders are required to build coalitions with other, smaller parties to piece together a majority of 61 seats.
Usually, the party with the most seats is given the first chance to form a government, but because Netanyahu and Gantz were tied, the decision came down to whoever had the best chance of getting enough support from other parties to build a government.
Because bloc of right-wing parties that were expected to back Netanyahu won a total of 65 seats, Gantz conceded the election. Netanyahu then was given a maximum of 42 days to build a coalition government.
How Did We Get Here?
After the election in April, Netanyahu seemed unstoppable, calling his win “a definite victory.”
Despite how close the election was, Netanyahu was expected to easily form a coalition government, which would usher in his fifth term and make him the longest-serving prime minister in Israel’s history.
Netanyahu’s assumed success begs the question, what went wrong? Netanyahu biggest problem came down to a political dispute between two parties that were essential to building a right-wing bloc: the secular ultranationalist party, Yisrael Beiteinu, and the two ultra-Orthodox parties, the Shas and the United Torah Judaism.
All three of those parties were expected to back Netanyahu, and he needed all three to get a majority in the Knesset. However, politics got in the way when Netanyahu was unable to resolve a rift between Yisrael Beiteinu and the ultra-orthodox parties that all came down to a single bill regarding military requirements.
Under current conscription law, most Israeli citizens are required to enlist in the military once they are 18. However, Ultra-Orthodox men who study the Torah are currently exempt from military service.
The proposed bill would change that by requiring ultra-Orthodox men to participate in Israel’s mandatory military conscription. Unsurprisingly, the ultra-Orthodox parties were against the bill and wanted Netanyahu to change it.
Efforts to change the bill, however, were thwarted by the former defense minister and leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu Party, Avigdor Lieberman, who did not want any changes to the bill. Lieberman had promoted and strongly supported the bill, arguing that all Israeli citizens should be required to serve in the military.
Lieberman gave Netanyahu an ultimatum: he and his party would join Netanyahu’s coalition, as long as the bill stayed in its current form. This move essentially put Netanyahu in a lose-lose situation.
He could either pass the bill as-is and get Lieberman’s support but risk losing some of the essential 16 seats belonging to the ultra-orthodox parties, or, he could compromise with those parties and lose the five seats Lieberman’s party would bring, which were necessary to give Netanyahu the majority.
Either way, Netanyahu would not get enough seats.
However, the Likud party claimed it had already secured 60 seats, meaning they just needed one more seat to get a majority. This prompted Netanyahu to look to the opposition parties. Here, Netanyahu’s legal problems came into play.
Netanyahu currently faces charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust from three corruption cases, all of which he has denied.
While he still managed to maintain power in the election in April despite those charges, they still hurt his chances of forming a government with opposition parties, specifically the Blue and White, which refused to form a coalition government with a prime minister facing indictment.
Netanyahu’s failure to build a coalition raises questions about his future battling the corruption charges and indictment.
That is primarily because it will stop his party’s efforts to pass a law that would give him immunity from prosecution. Right now, the corruption hearing is set for early October.
However, because the elections are not until September 17, and whoever wins will almost certainly need time to build a coalition government, there is a possibility that there will not be a government when Netanyahu goes to his hearing.
That said, it is unclear whether or not the new elections will push back Netanyahu’s hearing.
Regardless, it is still not over for Netanyahu– at least not yet. While he and his party are not secured a win in the next election, running again is still a better alternative for him.
If Netanyahu had not called for Parliament to be dissolved and triggered new elections, then Israel’s ceremonial president would have given the opportunity to form a coalition to another candidate.
At least this way, Netanyahu still has another shot, strategically speaking. Of course, that opens Israel up to a groundhog day scenario where Netanyahu wins the most seats or is the most likely to form a coalition again, and then they would face the same problems.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (Haaretz) (Vox)
ByteDance Lays Off Hundreds of Workers After China’s Private Tutoring Crackdown
Major changes to the massive education industry in China have left many companies scrambling to adapt.
TikTok owner ByteDance laid off hundreds of employees Thursday in response to new Chinese regulations that prohibit private, for-profit tutoring in core curriculum subjects.
These employees worked in ByteDance’s online education businesses, such as GoGokids, which were effectively killed by the new rules. The over 300 workers have been laid off “with compensation,” although it’s unclear just how much compensation they will receive.
The entire education industry, one of the largest in China, was gutted by last month’s new rules, which not only ban private tutoring in the most important subjects but also give preferential treatment to public school students trying to enter China’s top universities.
Some firms, like the $15.5 billion startup known as Yuanfudao, had to largely shut down all marketing while figuring out what to do next. Others have had to shutter nearly all of their facilities. The only exceptions are those that offer tutoring in extra-curricular activities like music, which is still allowed.
Leveling the Playing Field
The move is supposed to help combat inequities within China between wealthier students and those who are poor or from more rural areas. Often, those with fewer resources often struggle to get into top universities because of their need to go to public schools and lack of access to increasingly costly private tutors in subjects like math, Chinese, history, science, and physics.
Those subjects are almost exclusively what Chinese universities look at when considering applicants.
It’s expected that with the ban and preferential treatment to public school students, the percentage of university applicants being accepted will lead to more low-income Chinese people having better opportunities.
Even if the long-term goals have merits, companies like ByteDance and even those outside of China are reeling in the short term.
The new rules not only target for-profit tutoring. They also prohibit most foreign investment into the Chinese education market, bar foreign curriculums, and ban most foreign teachers working in China, effectively shutting off large segments of the worldwide education industry, which catered to sending teachers to China.
See what others are saying: (Reuters) (Financial Times) (The Wall Street Journal)
Police Arrest Hong Kong Man for Booing Chinese National Anthem
The man’s boos were launched during the first time the Chinese national anthem had ever been played for a Hong Kong athlete at the Olympics.
Instulting the Anthem
Hong Kong authorities announced Friday that a man was arrested for allegedly booing and “insulting” the Chinese national anthem while watching the Olympics on Monday.
The unnamed 40-year-old, who identified himself as a journalist, was allegedly watching the Olympics fencing medal ceremony for Hong Konger Edgar Cheung at a local mall. When the anthem began playing, he allegedly began booing and chanted “We are Hong Kong!” while waving a British Hong Kong Colonial flag.
The man’s actions were particularly noteworthy because it was the first time the Chinese national anthem had been played for a Hong Kong athlete in the Olympics. Hong Kongers compete at the Games under a separate committee called Hong Kong, China. The last time a Hong Konger won gold was in 1996 for windsurfing, at which time the British anthem of “God Save the Queen” was played.
Concerns for Freedom of Speech
The man is suspected of breaking the relatively new National Anthem Ordinance, which was passed in June 2020, and has a penalty of up to three years in prison and fines of $6,000 for anyone who publicly and intentionally insults the anthem. The law mirrors one in mainland China, but it has faced considerable scrutiny from increasingly persecuted pro-democracy lawmakers in Hong Kong.
They argue that it tramples the right to free speech, which is supposed to be enshrined in the city’s Basic Law. Hong Kong police, however, say that’s not the case and claim that his actions breach common restraints on freedom of speech. Senior Superintendent Eileen Chung said that his actions were “to stir up the hostility of those on the scene and to politicize the sport.”
Police issued a warning that it would investigate reports of others joining his chants or violating the separate National Security law passed last year.
This incident isn’t the only case of alleged politicization of the Games. Badminton player Angus Ng was accused by a pro-Beijing lawmaker of making a statement by sporting a black jersey with the territory’s emblem. The imagery was very similar to the black-and-white Hong Kong flag used by anti-government protesters.
Ng countered that he wore his own clothes to the event because he didn’t have sponsorships to provide jerseys and he wasn’t authorized to print the emblem on a jersey himself.
See what others are saying: (Inside) (Al Jazeera) (CNN)
Canadian Catholic Priest Says Residential Schools Survivors Lied About Abuse
The Roman Catholic Church is facing considerable backlash across Canada for its treatment of indigenous peoples in the residential school system, along with its subsequent efforts to downplay the problem.
Priest Sparks Outrage
Father Rheal Forest was put on forced leave Wednesday following remarks he made over a weeks-long period starting July 10 in which he doubted victims of the country’s infamous residential school system.
Residential schools were a system of schools largely for indigenous children that were mostly run by the Catholic Church with federal government funding. The schools were notoriously cruel and long faced allegations that children had been abused or went missing under their care.
To date, over 1,300 unmarked graves have been found at four former residential schools across Canada, a fraction of the over 130 that used to exist.
Forest, of the St. Boniface archdiocese in Winnipeg, was standing in for a couple of weeks while the main priest at his church was away. During that time, Forest told parishioners that victims of the residential schools, particularly those sexually abused, had lied.
“If [the victims] wanted extra money, from the money that was given to them, they had to lie sometimes — lie that they were abused sexually and, oop, another $50,000,” he said.
“It’s kind of hard if you’re poor not to lie.”
In that same sermon, he also added that during his time with Inuit groups in the north of the country, most had allegedly said they appreciated the residential school system. Instead, he said they blamed any abuses on lay people working at the facilities rather than priests or nuns.
Forest’s comments drew a ton of backlash, prompting the archdiocese to place Forest on leave. A spokesperson for the archdiocese said that the institution “completely disavow” Forest’s comments, adding, “We very much regret the pain they may have caused to many people, not least of course Indigenous people and, more specifically, survivors of the Residential School system.”
Overall, the archdiocese has attempted to apologize to indigenous communities for its part in the residential school system, with Archbishop Albert Legatt saying in a video that the way forward was by “acknowledging, apologizing, and acting” on terms set by indigenous groups.
Church Allegedly Kept Money From Victims
Forest’s views and subsequent dismissal aren’t the only public relations scandal the Roman Catholic Church faces in Canada.
According to documents obtained by CBC News, the Church spent over a decade avoiding paying out money to survivors per a 2005 agreement. At the time, it, alongside the protestant churches that also ran some residential schools, agreed to pay an amount to victims of the schools in the tens of millions.
Instead, according to an internal summary of 2015 court documents, the Catholic Church spent much of that money on lawyers, administration, a private fundraising company, and unapproved loans. It seems that some of this was technically legal, such as a promise to give tens of millions back via “in-kind” services; however, there was no audit completed to confirm that these services actually happened or to prove the alleged value of the services. This led to doubts about whether or not they were done effectively.
The Catholic Church was unique among the signatory churches in the 2005 agreement with its efforts to avoid paying victims. All of the other denominations paid out their sums many years before without issues.
While priests such as Father Forest have supported the Church, there has been internal backlash. Father André Poilièvre, a Saskatoon priest and Order of Canada recipient, said the Church’s actions are “scandalous” and “really shameful,” adding, “It was a loophole. It might be legal, but it’s not ethical.”
With these latest revelations, widespread anger at the Church has triggered allegations that indigenous groups are behind a spree of church burnings across the country.
The entire situation is likely going to continue to smolder as a government commission set up to investigate the schools estimates there will be thousands of more unmarked graves found across Canada.