The group of eight parties from all over the political spectrum has just enough seats for the necessary majority, and any last-minute defections would cause the deal to fall apart.
Israel’s New Coalition, Explained
A group of Israeli opposition leaders announced Wednesday night that they had reached an agreement to form a coalition government and oust Benjamin Netanyahu, the country’s longest-serving Prime Minister.
Currently, the group is composed of eight political parties from the hard right, the left, the center, and one Arab party.
A much more logical coalition would be composed of the parties on the right. That cannot be formed without Netanyahu’s Likud party, which is the largest of the conservative parties by far. However, many of the prime minister’s previous allies — led by the hard right leader Naftali Bennett, who formerly served as Netanyahu’s chief of staff — have abandoned him in favor of the new coalition.
The significance of this move is contextualized well by The New York Times, which explained that the effort “would be akin to Mitch McConnell abandoning Donald Trump to work with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Chuck Schumer — and Ocasio-Cortez and Schumer saying yes.”
If the deal is finalized, it would form a government of political opposites that agree on very little beyond the sentiment that Netanyahu needs to go and that his efforts to stay in power after four failed elections in two years are hurting the country.
Also of note here: if the government assumes office, it would mark the first time an Arab party is part of the ruling coalition.
As for how power would be divided up under the agreement, Bennett would serve as prime minister for two years. After that, center-left opposition leader Yair Lapid would take the position.
In order to keep their tentative coalition together, the two leaders have promised to focus on issues where the diverse groups could reach compromises at the beginning, such as education and infrastructure.
They would, by contrast, avoid divisive areas, such as new policies on Israeli-Palestinian issues, where the views of the eight parties range from religion-centered advocates of Jewish settlements in the West Bank to secular leaders who support an independent Palestinian state.
Keeping the coalition together will be tenuous, and nothing is set in stone.
While the opposition leaders have outlined a deal, it still needs to win a vote of confidence in Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, before the coalition can take over as the new government.
That creates a very precarious situation because if a deal is made, the new group would hold the barest majority of 61 seats in the 120-seat Knesset. As a result, if just one party defects before the vote of confidence, the whole agreement could fall apart — a move that could very well pave the way for a fifth election.
Netanyahu and his remaining allies plan to capitalize on this key factor. The speaker of the Knesset, Yariv Levin, is an ally of Netanyahu and is expected to use parliamentary procedure to delay the vote by at least 12 days.
That extra time will give the embattled leader a chance to lobby and pressure party leaders in the coalition who are still on the fence about forming such an ideologically divided government — a campaign he has already begun.
On Thursday, Netanyahu made it clear that he intends to fight on, taking to Twitter to list concessions that he claimed the right and center parties made to gain the Arab party’s support.
“All right-wing Knesset members must oppose this dangerous left-wing government,” he wrote.
As for if his pressure campaign will work, it all comes down to a cost-benefit analysis of whether this coalition is worth the risk.
Many of the leaders are uncomfortable working with each other and have made serious compromises to even reach an agreement on a coalition goverment. The alternative, however, is likely another election cycle, during which Netanyahu would keep power.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (NPR) (The Washington Post)
Apple and Google Remove Navalny Voting App as Russian Elections Kick-Off
The decisions from Apple and Google, which followed weeks of pressure from the Kremlin, mark a continuation in the war between Western tech companies and authoritarian governments.
Voting App Removed From App Stores
Apple and Google removed a tactical voting app designed by allies of jailed Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny from their app stores Friday, bowing to pressure from the Kremlin the same day voting began for the country’s parliamentary elections.
The Smart Voting app aimed to direct opposition voters in each of the country’s 225 districts to select whichever candidate was most likely to defeat competitors from President Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party.
Removal of the app comes as part of the Kremlin’s broader crackdown on the work and allies of Navalny, who was given a prison sentence of two and a half years in February for violating parole for a previous conviction widely believed to be politically motivated.
Russian authorities banned the app in June when the government outlawed Navalny’s movement as an extremist organization.
For weeks, the Russian censorship agency, Roskomnadzor, threatened to fine Apple and Google if they did not remove the app, arguing it was illegal and accusing the two of election interference.
People familiar with the matter told reporters that the tech companies complied with the request after Russian officials threatened to prosecute their employees based in the country.
Response and Backlash
Kremlin authorities welcomed the companies’ decision, which they painted as necessary legal compliance.
“They have met the lawful demands,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters Friday. “This application is prohibited in the territory of our country. Both platforms received relevant notices and it seems they have made the decision consistent with the letter and the spirit of the law.”
Navalny’s allies and digital rights activists condemned Google and Apple for kowtowing to the demands of an authoritarian regime.
“Removing the Navalny app from stores is a shameful act of political censorship,” Ivan Zhdanov, a Navalny aide wrote on Twitter. “Russia’s authoritarian government and propaganda will be thrilled.”
Natalia Krapiva, a digital rights attorney with the Internet freedom group Access Now, told reporters that while it was clear Apple and Google “took this decision under pressure,” the tech companies still “owe the Russian people an explanation.”
Friday’s removals, she argued, have little precedent.
“This is really a new phenomenon to go after the app stores,” Krapiva noted.
Broader Crackdowns on Tech Companies
The move marks a continued escalation in the battle between authoritarian governments and American tech companies fighting to keep their services accessible.
In Russia, Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok have faced throttling and fines in recent weeks for failing to remove calls for protests and other posts expressing dissent that the Kremlin claims are illegal.
In countries like India, Myanmar, and Turkey, authorities have increasingly pressured companies to censor political speech. Last year, Turkey passed a law that gives authorities more power to regulate social media companies.
The Indian government is also currently in a standoff with Twitter over accusations the company has failed to comply with new internet regulations that experts say limit online speech and privacy.
Now, experts worry Google and Apple’s decision to remove Navalny’s app could encourage Russia and other authoritarian regimes to pressure tech companies by threatening to prosecute their employees.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Washington Post) (The Associated Press)
While behind bars, the convicted murderer pursued relationships with female admirers, including a 17-year-old girl and a 39-year-old Russian artist who he married in 2020.
Denmark’s government proposed a draft law this week aimed at preventing prison inmates serving life sentences from forming new romantic relationships behind bars.
If passed, the proposed bill would specifically limit correspondence and visitation rights during the first 10 years of detention to people the prisoner knew before incarceration. It would also ban prisoners from sharing details about their criminal activities on social media or on podcasts.
Demands for such legislation stemmed from public frustration over Danish inventor Peter Madsen, a 49-year-old who was convicted in 2018 for the 2017 murder of Swedish journalist Kim Wall. According to prosecutors, Madsen sexually assaulted Wall while she was on board his submarine for an interview. He then dismembered her body before the submarine sank in what police said might have been an attempt to destroy evidence.
While incarcerated, Madsen reportedly pursued relationships with female admirers, including a 17-year-old girl named Cammilla Kürstein. Kürstein has admitted that she fell in love with Madsen after exchanging letters and talking on the phone with him over the course of two years.
However, she became jealous in 2020 when he ultimately married 39-year-old Jenny Curpen, a Russian artist living in self-imposed exile in Finland. Curpen has said her communication and visits with Madsen also began in 2018.
What Comes Next?
While Madsen has earned particular heat for pursuing new romance behind bars, he is far from the only incarcerated person to do so.
“We have seen distasteful examples in recent years of prisoners who have committed vile crimes contacting young people in order to gain their sympathy and attention,” Justice Minister Nick Hækkerup said when speaking of the bill.
“This must obviously be stopped,” he continued, arguing that jail should not serve as “dating centres or media platforms to brag about crimes.”
Denmark’s right-wing opposition in parliament has already signaled support for the bill, which was sent to the committee stage on Wednesday. If approved, it is expected to go into effect in January of next year.
Still, human rights experts said they expect challenges to the law. For example, Elo Rytter, of the University of Copenhagen, told the BT newspaper that it would “interfere with prisoners’ right to a private life.” She also said outlawing public statements might “raise questions about censorship.”
See what others are saying:(The Guardian)(The Washington Post)(BBC)
World Anti-Doping Agency Will Review Cannabis Ban Following Sha’Carri Richardson’s Suspension
Any changes that stem from the review will not take effect until 2023.
Cannabis Ban for Athletes Under Review
The World Anti-Doping Agency announced Tuesday that it will review whether cannabis should stay on its list of prohibited substances.
The move comes three months after the agency’s policies notably prevented U.S. sprinter Sha’Carri Richardson from competing at the Tokyo Olympics.
In July, Richardson was given a 30 days suspension and stripped of her 100-meter win at the U.S. Olympics Trials when THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, was detected in her system. At the time, Richardson admitted that she used marijuana in Oregon, where it is legal, after learning that her biological mother had died.
The runner was ultimately met with an outpouring of support from people who argued that the drug is not a performance enhancer and is legal or decriminalized in multiple U.S. states, as well as in countries around the world.
The anti-doping agency did not specifically mention Richardson in its announcement, but it did say the plan is a response to “requests from a number of stakeholders” in international athletics.
It also said that cannabis will remain banned in 2022, and any changes that stem from the review will not take effect until the following year.