- 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)
Skepticism Emerges After Russia Approves First Covid-19 Vaccine
- Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia has developed a coronavirus vaccine, and officials in the country anticipate that tens of thousands of people will receive it in the next few months.
- Russia is planning a mass rollout of the vaccine in October, with teachers and healthcare workers having the ability to volunteer to get it even sooner.
- However, health officials are concerned that Russia rushed through the vaccine process, as the vaccine has not been through Phase 3 trials. That months-long process involves testing thousands of individuals and is considered essential in developing a vaccine.
- Others have also expressed skepticism over the vaccine as Russia has yet to release data from its initial clinical trials.
Russia Announces Vaccine
President Vladimir Putin announced Tuesday that Russia has developed a coronavirus vaccine, prompting concerns from health officials who believe the country’s process in doing so was rushed and lacked crucial tests.
“A vaccine against coronavirus has been registered for the first time in the world this morning,” Putin said while delivering the Tuesday announcement. “I know that it works quite effectively, it forms a stable immunity.”
The vaccine, which has been dubbed “Sputnik V,” was developed by The Gamaleya Institute and was funded by the Russian Direct Investment Fund. Officials say there could be a mass rollout for it in October, but prioritized individuals like teachers and healthcare workers could volunteer to get it sooner. Tens of thousands are expected to receive the vaccine in the next few months. One of his daughters has already received it.
“Of course, what counts most is for us to be able to ensure the unconditional safety of the use of this vaccine and its efficiency in the future. I hope that this will be accomplished,” Putin added in his address.
As the Associated Press explained, this vaccine uses a different virus, the common cold-causing adenovirus, and modifies it to carry genes for the “spike” protein that coats the coronavirus. Scientists in China and the U.K. are working on a similar vaccine.
However, Russia approved the vaccine before it ever went through Phase 3 trials, which is a crucial step that involves administering the vaccine to thousands of people. Phase 3 trials could last for months, and while Russia said they will be conducting them and doing trials in countries like the UAE, Saudi Arabia, the Philippines, and maybe Brazil, the vaccine will still be offered to volunteers who want it in the meantime.
Health Officials Express Concern
Health experts fear that distributing the vaccine before Phase 3 results are in could be dangerous. They fear Russia was racing to be the first country to offer up a vaccine, as Putin has previously said he wanted one by September.
According to the AP, human trials started back in June with 76 volunteers, half of which were injected with a liquid vaccine and the other half given on in the form as a soluble powder. Some of those volunteers were recruited from the military, prompting concerns that they may not have been volunteers at all, and were actually pressured into participating.
“Normally you need a large number of people to be tested before you approve a vaccine. I think it’s reckless to do that if lots of people haven’t already been tested,” Peter Kremsner, an expert at Germany’s University Hospital in Tuebingen told Reuters.
Kremsner was not alone, other health officials told Reuters that releasing a vaccine at this stage is “unethical” and could lead to the pandemic only being worsened. On top of this lack of testing, Russia has also not released any data from its initial clinical trials.
“It is not possible to know if the Russian vaccine has been shown to be effective without submission of scientific papers for analysis,” Keith Neal, a specialist in the epidemiology of infectious diseases at Britain’s Nottingham University said in a statement.
Vaccine Response from U.S. Leaders
Even before Russia touted its new vaccine, there were concerns about how the country was developing it. While testifying to Congress in July, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said he was worried about a lack of testing.
“I do hope that the Chinese and the Russians are actually testing the vaccine before they are administering the vaccine to anyone,” he said. “Because claims of having a vaccine ready to distribute before you do testing is, I think, problematic at best.”
Since Russia’s announcement, other U.S. officials have also expressed their fears. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar criticized the pace at which it was produced while speaking with Good Morning America on Tuesday.
“The point is not to be first with a vaccine, the point is to have a vaccine that is safe and effective for the American people and the people of the world,” he said. “We need transparent data, and it’s gotta be Phase 3 data.”
Azar’s remarks line up with statements recently made by Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn.
“Let me assure you that we will not cut corners,” Hahn said while speaking to the American Medical Association on Monday. “All of our decisions will continue to be based on good science and the same careful deliberative processes we have always used when reviewing medical products.”
Vaccine Hesitancy in the United States
Releasing a vaccine too early could lead to a number of consequences. Say the process was rushed and the vaccine is ineffective or dangerous, it could lead to people being too nervous to get one when it is actually safe to do so. Reservations about a coronavirus vaccine are widespread, and go further than just the usual anti-vaxx crowd.
Polling on the subject shows scattered numbers, but most indicate that many are uninterested or paranoid when it comes to a COVID-19 vaccine. An August Gallup poll found that if a free FDA approved vaccine were ready today, one in three Americans would still refuse it. Polling from Yahoo and YouGov shows that back in May, 55% of U.S. adults planned on getting vaccinated, but by the end of July, that fell to 42%.
See what others are saying: (Washington Post) (Wall Street Journal) (Business Insider)
Lebanon’s Government Resigns Following Beirut Explosion Protests
- On Monday, the Prime Minister of Lebanon announced that he and his cabinet were resigning following a weekend of huge protests in Beirut.
- Thousands of people took to the streets, calling for the government to resign after an explosion last week killed 200 and injured over 6,000 others. The explosion was believed to have been caused by a chemical stockpile that the government knew existed.
- Protesters threw rocks and other projectiles, clashing violently with police who responded by firing tear gas and rubber bullets.
- The protesters view the explosion as symbolic of years of government corruption, but many experts say the resignations will do little to change the country’s political system without widespread reforms.
Lebanese Government Steps Down
Lebanese Prime Minister Hassan Diab announced Monday that his government was resigning following the massive explosion that shook the capital city of Beirut last week.
Speaking in a televised statement, Diab said that the explosion was the result of “endemic corruption” and that he was “heeding people’s demand for real change. Today we will take a step back in order to stand with the people.”
The explosion, which killed 200 people and injured 6,000 others, is believed to have been caused by a fire that set off 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate stored in a warehouse at the port. It has since been confirmed that many government officials knew about the dangerous stockpile for years and did nothing to address it.
The move follows a weekend of protests, where thousands of demonstrators took to the streets to call for the government to resign.
For many, the explosion was seen as yet another result of years of government corruption and mismanagement by the country’s ruling elite, who have been lining their own pockets while other people suffer.
Even before the blast, Lebanon was experiencing its worst economic crisis in decades as well as surging coronavirus cases. Both factors contributed to an already heighten distrust in the government that has only been augmented by the explosion.
Protests Break Out
Those sentiments appeared to boil over as protests over the weekend rocked the capital.
Droves of protesters gathered in downtown Beirut on Saturday, where some set up mock gallows and they hung cardboard cutouts of top politicians. Others chanted “The people want the fall of the regime,” and “Revolution! Revolution!” as they marched in the streets.
Confrontations broke out between protesters and police after demonstrators threw rocks at security forces who responded by firing tear gas and rubber bullets. There were also some reports of security forces firing live rounds and protesters throwing fireworks, Molotov cocktails, and other projectiles at police.
Fires burned in the streets and protesters stormed three government ministries, even taking over the Foreign Ministry for a few hours before the army reclaimed the building.
The anti-government protests continued Sunday, and again police fired tear gas at rock-throwing demonstrators who were blocking a road near Parliament. Lebanese TV footage also showed a fire breaking out at an entrance to Parliament Square as protesters tried to break into a sectioned-off area.
Also on Sunday, international leaders met at a virtual summit where they pledged $298 million to help Lebanon in the aftermath of the blast. According to reports, French President Emmanuel Macron’s office said that while the aid was unconditional and would be given out regardless of political or institutional reforms, other pledges for longer-term support would depend on government reforms.
Lebanese officials have said the explosion caused upwards of $15 billion in economic losses.
Despite the fact that the resignation of the cabinet appears to heed the protesters’ calls, experts have warned that the move will result in more short-term political instability, but it is unlikely to create any long-term change.
“Not only do we have an absence of government and a political vacuum, but we’re going to have a severe problem with the function of the state of Lebanon,” Imad Salamey, a political scientist at Lebanese American University in Beirut told the Wall Street Journal. “We are heading toward the unknown.”
While the ministers have resigned, they are not gone. Instead, they will create a caretaker government that will exist until a new one is established, allowing them to “form the backbone of a new administration,” as The Guardian explains.
According to reports, the protesters, who continued their demonstrations on Monday, did not widely cheer Diab’s announcement.
For them, this is more of the same. Diab and his cabinet had been the political figures ushered in after a similar wave of anti-government protests prompted the former prime minister to step down in October.
After months of haggling, Diab and his government assumed power in January. Eight months later, he now leaves his people even worse off than before.
See what others are saying: (The Wall Street Journal) (The Guardian) (Al Jazeera)
Hong Kong Crackdown: Police Arrest High-Profile Media Tycoon, Then Raid His Newspaper’s Office
- On Monday, Police in Hong Kong arrested billionaire media tycoon Jimmy Lai, a long-time outspoken critic of the Chinese Communist Party. They also arrested his two sons and at least seven others the same day.
- All ten are accused of colluding with foreign forces, and under Hong Kong’s new national security law, they could face up to life in prison.
- Following those arrests, hundreds of Hong Kong police raided Lai’s newspaper, the pro-democracy Apple Daily, and rifled through documents before seizing 25 boxes of materials.
- Also on Monday, China issued retaliatory sanctions against 11 U.S. citizens—including Sens. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton, Josh Hawley, and Pat Toomey—though it is unclear what those sanctions entail.
Arrest of Jimmy Lai and Newsroom Police Raid
The Hong Kong police force used the city’s new national security law on Monday to make their most-high profile arrest yet under the legislation.
It began when police stormed the offices of Next Digital, a media company owned by billionaire activist Jimmy Lai. Lai is also known for being the publisher for the Apple Daily, a pro-democracy outlet that is one of the most-read newspapers in Hong Kong.
Photographs show officers escorting Lai outside of the offices and placing him in police vehicles. In addition to Lai, officers also arrested his two sons, as well as at least seven others. Four of those reportedly include senior executives with the Apple Daily.
Following the arrests, more than 200 officers proceeded to search the Apple Daily’s newsroom. During that raid, which was streamed on Facebook Live by employees, officers reportedly rifled through reporters’ desks and papers, forced employees to show their ID badges, and told them to stop filming.
By the end of the search, police had confiscated more than 25 boxes of materials.
Hong Kong’s Basic Law—its mini-constitution—protects freedom of the press, but the raid immediately raised concerns that officers were seizing information critical of the Chinese Community Party.
Later, police claimed they took care to protect those media freedoms and that reporters could “continue their work” after the raid; however, that claim has been disputed.
In fact, the Apple Daily outright refuted the claim that media freedoms were protected, saying on Twitter, “The Hong Kong Police Force have blatantly bypassed the law and abused their power, despite claims about acting according to the rules.”
“They have, for instance, ignored the limitation of the search warrant and rifled through news materials, as well as restricting press members from reporting and obstructing a news organization from operating.”
“The regime believes that we will be silenced by intimidation and harassment, and that they can take an international city down the path of autocracy,” the outlet added. “Hong Kong’s press freedom is now hanging by a thread, but our staff will remain fully committed to our duty to defend the freedom of the press.”
Police later barred several major news outlets, including Reuters and the Associated Press, from attending a press conference regarding the raid.
This is not the first series of arrests that police have made under the national security law. After it went into effect on June 30, several people were arrested during street protests. On July 29, four students in Hong Kong were arrested for “secession” over social media posts they made.
Reportedly, those students range from age 21 to as young as 16.
Alongside those arrests, police also seized their computers, phones, and other documents.
In a press conference, Senior Superintendent Steve Li Kwai-wah said that all four students are believed to be part of an online group that pledged to fight for Hong Kong independence.
“We have to enforce the laws even if the crimes are committed on the internet,” he said. “Don’t think you can escape from the responsibility in cyberspace and commit crimes.”
Hong Kong Elections Postponed
It’s also not just arrests that threaten basic human freedoms in the city. On July 31, Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam postponed this year’s upcoming elections for a full year.
Lam has justified the move by saying that this was in response to a resurgence in COVID-19 cases. She called the decision “the most difficult one I have had to make in the past seven months.”
Despite this, a number of pro-democracy lawmakers have accused China of trying to delay the election. That’s because many believed pro-democracy candidates had a strong chance to finally win a majority in the city’s legislature, the Legislative Council.
Stoking similar criticism of trying to stamp out a democratic win, just two days prior to postponing the elections, the Hong Kong government announced that 12 pro-democracy candidates running for seats in the city’s legislature had been barred.
The government has argued that those candidates can’t stand because they would be unable to uphold the Basic Law of Hong Kong based on their positions on issues, such as advocating for democratic reforms and objecting to the national security law.
Those candidates include Joshua Wong and Gwyneth Ho, who were both front-runners in an unofficial democratic primary held earlier in July. Notably, that list also includes four incumbents—right, four already-sitting lawmakers who are up for re-election.
U.S. Sanctions and Chinese Retaliation
As China implements the new law, a number of countries have stepped in to sanction Beijing.
For example, in the United States, President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Friday that imposes sanctions on 11 Hong Kong officials—including Lam, as well as the city’s current and former police chiefs.
Trump’s order freezes any U.S. assets owned by those people and bars any Americans from doing business with them.
That said, the U.S. and China have been playing a game of back-and-forth tag with sanctions for over a year. Thus, it came as little surprise that China retaliated on Monday by slapping sanctions on 11 U.S. citizens.
That list includes executives with human rights activist groups, as well as several lawmakers like Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Tx.), Marco Rubio (R-Fl.), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Tom Cotton (R-Ar.), and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).
Unlike the U.S. sanctions, it’s unclear what those sanctions entail. Announcing the sanction, the deputy director of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs criticized the U.S. for involving itself in what he called domestic affairs.
“The [sanctions] by the US side are an overt interference in Hong Kong affairs and gross interference in China’s domestic affairs…” Deputy Director Zhao Lijian said. “The Chinese side resolutely opposes and strongly condemns this.”
“Retaliate all you want,” Hawley responded on Twitter. “I’m not backing down.”