The most acute phase of the pandemic appears to be ending. Countries — or, at the very least, provinces, states and regions— are coming out of lockdown. Many nations are reporting fewer new infections, and economies around the world are slowly being revived.

The WHO’s Problems are Far From Over

But, for the World Health Organisation, there are further troubles on the horizon. The organisation will doubtlessly be a major subject of the oncoming investigation into the global handling of the pandemic, which, at the time of writing, has the backing of 122 countries, and includes the European Union, African Group, the UK, Russia, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The WHO will likely need to answer whether it acted quickly enough, and whether it was too soft on China in the early stages of the outbreak.

The proposal for the investigation is said to be a watered down version of its initial draft. This is likely due to a fear of how China will react: indeed, the proposal did not even mention the country where the pandemic started, and whose authoritarian suppression media and whistleblowers in the country likely made it more difficult for the rest of the world to respond. China had already threatened Australia — which has led the initiative — with serious sanctions.

The WHO, of course, can’t strong-arm the investigation the way that China has done (and will likely attempt to do again). And there is a long list of things it, and especially its director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, will need to answer for: most notably, its mishandling of the situation when the virus first appeared.

Questions Surrounding the WHO’s Reaction to COVID-19

Take, for example, something the WHO tweeted out in mid-January. It said: “Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus.” The same statement was roughly reproduced by the Chinese health services in Wuhan. We now know that there was better information available at the time, and that the Chinese government in particular was aware that such transmission was possible, if not certain.

As a result of taking China’s word at face value, the WHO dragged their feet in declaring it a global health emergency, which affected the global response. And now there are those – the US senior security advisor, John Bolton, among them — who are alleging a cover-up between the WHO and China

What We Have Here is a Failure to Communicate

There is no hard evidence to support these theories of China-WHO foul play. Still, there are many who are concerned that Adhanom was too sympathetic with China and that this muddied his — and the organisation’s — communications.

The issue around faulty communication has since not been resolved. Take for example last weekend, the WHO tweeted out that: “There is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from #COVID19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection.” They were responding to the discussion around “immunity passports” — the idea that governments could grant special documents to citizens who test positive for COVID-19 antibodies, allowing them to move about freely. The WHO warned this was premature, since “no study has evaluated whether the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 confers immunity to subsequent infection by this virus in humans.”

This misses vital context. There is currently no evidence of immunity, but scientists have good reason to expect people who have recovered from COVID-19 to have some immunity to the virus, as that is the case with many other viruses.

The sloppy phrasing had an enormous impact. Major news organisations like Bloomberg News, for example, reported the story the headlines ‘WHO Warns You May Catch Coronavirus More Than Once”: a total misrepresentation the facts.

Partly revealing of the difficulties scientists have when communicating with a laymen audience, it was nevertheless a serious oversight, and fosters an atmosphere of misinformation which affects how people think, feel and act during the pandemic.

The WHO’s many missteps during the pandemic have led to widespread calls for scrutiny. There are those already predicting it will need tremendous reform after the pandemic and the WHO’s relationship with China will likely be of central concern going forward.

L'articolo The Many Missteps of the WHO proviene da InsideOver.

There is a surplus of bad news as the coronavirus pandemic worsens around the world. Among the more terrible headlines, however, Germans have reason to feel optimistic: although they have one of the highest rates of infection, the country’s death rate is still relatively low.

This may change as the situation develops but — for now — German death rates from coronavirus have stayed beneath one percent. At the time of this writing, Germany has lost 560 people to coronavirus, despite having the fifth highest number of infected in the world, with 63,929 confirmed cases.

For comparison, the UK has more than twice as many dead, at 1,200 despite having only nearly one third as many cases. Germany has the lowest fatality rate of the ten nations currently being most infected by coronavirus.

Reason to be Optimistic?

The situation in Germany has some analysts optimistic. Why has the country fared so well? It is one of the most affected countries, with densely-packed cities and a globally-connected economy — for instance, the first recorded case in Germany came from a worker in Bavaria whose employer had factories in Wuhan.

Perhaps the most significant factor has been Germany’s brute force approach to testing. From the beginning, doctors have been testing most in-patients for the Coronavirus, and on Wednesday, the Robert Koch Institute announced plans to test hundreds of thousands of people for the presence of possible antibodies to the virus. They said they will then issue ‘Immunity Certificates’ to those who test positive for immunity to the virus and these people will be exempt from the lockdown.

Germany’s Top-Notch Healthcare System

Germany is also in the position to provide such a high degree of testing because of a well-funded and modernized healthcare system. The country has recently invested a great deal in its health service, which is well-staffed and has relatively more money than those of other countries. It also has the highest number of intensive-care beds per 100,000 patients in Europe.

Finally, unusually, more young Germans are getting the virus than older people. Patients over the age of 80 make up just around three percent of infected, while they account for seven percent of the population. The median age for those infected in Germany is around 46, while in countries with higher death rates it tends to be in the sixties.

A slightly obscure reason for this skewed age rate has been suggested: it was recently peak ski season in a country with a large population of skiers, as well as Carnival, a series of annual festivals around Germany with often raucous street parties. There was indeed a spike in infections following Carnival parties in the south, which were widely reported in German media.

Cautious Optimism

In a broadcast speech, Lothar Wieler, the president of the Robert Koch Institute, said that health officials are being cautious before declaring the country’s approach to the pandemic a success.

For example, many infected people have only recently entered hospitals, and there may yet be a spike in fatalities to come. A patient who is severely ill with the virus dies on average 30 days following infection. It’s quite possible that Germany is just simply behind the curve.

This in turn may create strain on the system in the next weeks. “I think we are unlikely to experience a situation like in Italy,” Stefan Willich, the director of the Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics at Charité University Hospital in Berlin, said. There are already reports of shortages of masks and protective gear. Recently, Germany’s death rate has also climbed from 0.48 percent to 0.72 percent.

The number of deaths in Germany is unusually low, and there are good reasons to expect that this trend will hold. However, the unpredictability of the virus may yet create situation more alike to what we’ve seen in other countries. Still, there are reasons for many Germans to be optimistic.

L'articolo Why Comparatively Fewer Germans are Dying From Coronavirus proviene da InsideOver.

In a spectacular twist, Benny Gantz has abandoned his center-left Blue and White alliance and joined Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government as Knesset speaker, despite regular assurances during his political career that he would refuse to work with him.

Gantz: ‘These are Unusual Times and They Call for Unusual Decisions’

“These are unusual times and they call for unusual decisions,” Gantz told the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. “That’s why I intend to explore the formation of a national emergency government.”

Gantz was the Israeli army chief before entering politics. He has spent the last few years challenging Netanyahu and serving as leader of the Blue and White alliance, a center-left coalition of three parties: Gantz’s Hosen L’Israel, Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid and Moshe Ya’alon’s Telem.

During the course of three election cycles, he has consistently tied with Netanyahu. However, in this last cycle, he appeared to have the upper-hand with a potential coalition large enough to hold the Knesset and support from the President.

Gantz Abandons Leading Position and Teams Up With Netanyahu

Despite this apparent lead, Gantz has abandoned his coalition and has agreed to Netanyahu’s request to sit in a Netanyahu-led emergency unity government, contrary to his many campaign promises to not do precisely that.

Netanyahu has proposed a three-year government. In such a scenario, office of Prime Minister would be rotated between Netanyahu and Gantz. Netanyahu would stay on as prime minister for the first 18 months and Gantz would take over for the remaining 18.

Meanwhile, the three parties that made up Blue and White — Hosen L’Israel, Yesh Atid and Telem — will split up. Hosen L’Israel will join the Netanyahu government, while Lapid will remain as a part of the opposition.

Gantz’s Shocking About-Face

This move by Gantz has shocked political commentators who first of all expected to see Gantz attempt to pull together a coalition.

It was never going to be easy. The parties supporting Gantz ran the gamut from far-right to far-left, and included the right-wing nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party and the mostly Arab Joint List parties. Various heads of each faction said they would not form a coalition without the other. It may be this tension that ultimately motivated Gantz to partner with Netanyahu.

While Gantz’s move — by his own admission — was driven by the need for a strong response to the coronavirus epidemic, it does not erase Gantz’s record as Netanyahu’s loudest critic for the last two years.

During this period he swore many times that he would never serve in a government with him, citing the prime minister’s upcoming trial on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust, and had even begun working towards legislation that would have prevented Netanyahu from serving in government while indicted.

Political Suicide?

Joining the Netanyahu government has been described by many as political suicide for Gantz. It makes a future as a credible alternative to Netanyahu after the end of the emergency government unlikely. In a particularly damning testimony during the plenum, Labor MK Merav Michaeli asked Gantz and Ashkenazi why they “put the entire country through this entire mess when they could have been ministers for Netanyahu all along.”

“You wanted to be Yitzhak Rabin but you ended up like another former IDF chief of staff Shaul Mofaz, a nice man but a caricature of a politician who gave into Netanyahu and whose career ended shortly afterward,” she said.

Losses on Israel’s Left

There are of course greater implications for Israel than Benny Gantz’s political career. With the end of the Blue and White Alliance, Israel stands to lose its robust centrist coalition. This is especially notable as the beginning of this month saw the shrinking of the country’s progressive political wing: candidate Ilan Gilon lost out on joining the Knesset at the beginning of this month, bringing Israel’s progressive wing down to just seven seats.

Altogether, Israel’s left is losing influence. This trend is only slightly bucked by the Joint List, a coalition of Arab factions, which saw a marginal increase in the Knesset — up to 15 out of 120 in total.

This has clear implications for the ongoing conflict with Palestine to the east and Lebanon to the north. Netanyahu has historically taken an aggressive position. He has declared his intention to hold on to the territories in Golan Heights, which were annexed during the Six-Day War in 1967 — only US President Donald Trump and the US recognize the territory as legally Israel’s. Netanyahu has also said that Israel will annex of settlements in the east — although such action would only presumably be taken following the Covid-19 crisis.

What Happens Next?

Following the three-year emergency government, the country will see another set of elections. With Gantz scorned by the political establishment, the center-left bloc will need to scramble to find someone who can oppose the intractable Netanyahu.

The end of this electoral deadlock should be celebrated. Despite the ongoing uncertainty in Israeli politics, it means the creation of a new budget, and much-needed mobility in response to the coronavirus pandemic, which in Israel is up to 3,035 cases with 10 dead. Now that Netanyahu is in control, it’s likely the country will put into lockdown within the next few days to prevent new infections.

Still, how Israel’s left will bounce back from this losses is uncertain. Without a credible candidate, the future influence of the country’s left political wing — which only last week seemed to be on its way to power — is looking very diminished.

L'articolo Gantz’s Shock Defection Has Crippled Israel’s Political Center proviene da InsideOver.

The coronavirus situation in Israel is getting worse. At the time of writing, there are 210 confirmed cases in the country and 40,000 are being held in home quarantine. There have been no deaths so far.

Could Coronavirus be the Surprise Solution to Israel’s Political Deadlock?

An unintended consequence of the global pandemic could be the way it affects Israel’s current political deadlock. The country had two inconclusive elections last year. The country saw a tug-of-war between two factions: a nationalist-religious coalition under previous prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a politically diverse alliance under Benny Gantz, a previous general chief of staff in the IDF who had never previously run for office.

A third election on March 2 resulted in Netanyahu’s Likud Party missing just one seat to form a government. Netanyahu was at first optimistic, however a number of parties have since lent their support to Gantz and conditionally given him the seats needed. He has been given six weeks by the president to form a coalition.

Pandemic Highlights Urgency for Israel to Perform Government Basics Like Passing a Budget

Meanwhile, Israel is in a dangerous predicament. The country has a caretaker government, which cannot pass budgets, meaning the country cannot move as fast as it possibly could to counter the virus. Netanyahu has leapt on the opportunity presented. He has called for a six-month emergency government or, alternatively, for Gantz to form a longer-term four-year unity administration with him, and Netanyahu would lead the country for two years.

Furthermore, any postponement is good news for Netanyahu, who has served as a caretaker leader since late 2018. If the situation worsens, the current government will be left with no choice but to approve Netanyahu’s suggestion and form an emergency government.

This would disrupt and could potentially end Gantz’s precarious lead over his rival. By allowing Netanyahu to preside over the crisis, Netanyahu may also earn enough goodwill to secure another term.

Gantz’s Next Move

Regardless, the next thing will be for Gantz to try and establish his coalition. There is scope for the current emergency to help him as well, if politicians can be convinced to lend their support to quickly resolve the pandemic instead of vying over policy in the interests of their own parties.

It won’t be easy. There is not much that unites the prospective coalition. The parties supporting Gantz run the gamut from far-right to far-left.

They include the right-wing nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party and the mostly Arab Joint List parties. The head of Yisrael Beiteinu, Avigdor Lieberman, has very hostile relations with the Joint List, a fairly influential party, with 15 seats. The Joint List on the other hand has insisted that it wont seat in any government with Lieberman. Lieberman supports transfer of Arab settlements near the Green Line into a future Palestine state.

It indicates the strangeness of the current political moment that such an alliance is even in discussion. The Joint List, for their part, insisted it won’t sit on any government with Lieberman and, prior to the election. Gantz himself ruled out the possibility of allying with them. In the end, however, these parties may judge that the most important thing is to push Netanyahu out.

Gantz has been given six weeks to form the government: a surprise reprieve. However, the almost intractable differences between potential coalition partners makes success unlikely. It is for this reason that Netanyahu is fortunate that the crisis has emerged when it has. It could bring him at least another six months.

L'articolo How the Coronavirus Crisis Could Allow Netanyahu to Hold on to Power proviene da InsideOver.

As in many European countries, the political in Germany appears to be faltering. In East Germany, voters are drifting to the fringes, while in the West it’s doing a bit better – though cracks are starting to appear. The election last weekend in Hamburg is one such crack.

Merkel’s Party Just Had a Mini-Doomsday

Merkel’s party, the centre-right CDU, had its worst showing in Hamburg in the last 70 years. The party got just 11.2% of the vote – a tremendous loss in one of the country’s largest states.

During a particularly turbulent time in German politics, this comes as part of a wider trend. A few weeks ago, the Thüringen branch of the party defied the national CDU (and post-war convention) by combining votes with the far-right AfD to install a state premier from a weaker third party, the right-leaning FDU.

The tactic outraged both the public and politicians, forcing the premier’s resignation just a day later. Party leader and possible Merkel successor Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer then announced her resignation as well. This meant that the CDU had no national party leader to lean on going into the election, and the national party must now appear somewhat rudderless to voters.

A More Robust Left-wing

In Hamburg, those voters turned elsewhere. The SPD, the social-democratic party of Germany, was able to shore up its support to 39%. While it’s good news for the party, it is not that surprising: the SPD has historically been the largest in the state.

It was the Greens who took the most voters away from the CDU. Running on a leftist platform, which aims to make Hamburg the “climate capital of Germany” and carbon neutral by 2035, it surged into second place, with 24.2% of the vote. That’s double its vote share from the last regional election in 2015.

The result of this election is likely to be another coalition between the SPD and the Greens, with a bit more leverage for the latter. This shouldn’t be much a strain for either of them: the platforms of both parties are much more similar in Hamburg than in other federal states.

What About the AfD?

The AfD was never likely to be a major player in the metropolitan state, but it’s worth also nothing how they did in the election. The far-right party held onto its parliamentary seats in Hamburg only just, garnering 5.3% of the vote (to have seats in the parliament, a party must have more than 5% of the vote).

Although this is a loss, it represents only a small dip in support for the party. Opposition politicians and media had hoped that a greater drop would follow the deadly shooting in Hanau last week, which killed ten. Police from the town have said that the shooter was motivated by xenophobic political material, and much ink has been spilled in the German media on the link between the AfD and the rise of violent German nativists.

Nevertheless, members of the SPD were jubilant because of the result, having feared a rightwing surge after Thüringen. There were shouts of: “Nazis out, Nazis out!” from the headquarters in Hamburg.

What Happens Next?

Many Germans were watching this election closely. It is the only regular state-level election to take place this year. What happens in Hamburg, as one of the largest states in the country, will influence what happens at the national level.

The results from Hamburg brought about jubilation for the left, from whom state elections in the last few years have been a mix of wins and losses. The astonishing collapse of the center, however, should be cause for worry for those who mostly look for stability. While it is not surprising for voters in less economically sound parts of the country to drift to the extremes — like the previously communist east — it is alarming that in a wealthy, prosperous region like Hamburg the center is also struggling.

It’s for that reason that the SPD should celebrate modestly. They have been given a mandate by their voters to expand social-democratic policies and to work toward tacking the climate crisis. But, without a center to fall back on, they are in a precarious position. Going forward, if the SPD and Greens can’t deliver on their promises, they won’t be losing voters to the center — but to the right.

L'articolo Germany’s Center Collapses in Hamburg proviene da InsideOver.

David Cameron – the British Conservative party prime minister who triggered the EU referendum – was buoyant following the release of the results of last week’s election. He told reporters that the Conservatives had proven they had the ‘people’s trust’. However, Conservatives might be wrong to celebrate this latest result as a victory: instead, they should be celebrating Labour’s defeat. That party, founded in 1900, has suffered its worst electoral loss in not one, but several generations, including the colossal loss of many Labour ‘strongholds’ in the North, counties that had once been styled the ‘Red Wall’ of Labour. The question is: why?

Polls taken during the run-up to the vote provide some answers. They show that voters were moved to vote not for the love of the Conservative party, but by an intense dislike of Corbyn. Words like “ditherer” appeared in descriptions of him: someone unsure of themselves and unwilling to commit. His vacillating attitude to Brexit and his own withdrawn nature – in contrast to Johnson’s affable buffoonery – are suspected to have alienated supporters.

There was also an intense materialism to his campaign. Whereas the Conservatives were offering Brexit – interpreted by supporters to mean freedom and sovereignty – Labour marketed themselves with ‘free microwaves’. It had the appearance more of bribes than generous economic reforms.

This isn’t the first time these criticisms have been heard. When he became party leader in 2015, it was routine for politicians and media figures across the political spectrum to poke fun at his supposed lack of charisma and media savvy – but Corbyn seemed to have proved them wrong. Labour party membership surged: from 193,754 in 2014 to 388,103 by the end of 2015. He withstood multiple leadership challenges, and then snatched away the Conservative majority during the last snap election. After that, he had credibility as a competent – if reserved – leader.

There remained grumblers, however. Party members, some of whom left, argued that the support was coming from a vocal but electorally insignificant group. For example, data leaked by the Guardian described Corbyn supporters as disproportionately ‘high-status city dwellers’ – a far cry from the working-class voters it was supposed to serve.

Indeed, Labour has seen a gradual shift in where its support comes from in the last few decades. In 1974, Labour enjoyed a 23-point lead among skilled working-class voters (C2), but by 2010 the Conservatives had overtaken them in this demo to lead by eight points. By contrast, among graduates, Labour-led Conservatives by 17 points in 2017, up two points from the previous election.
Corbyn seems to have overseen the moment at which point that change has become electorally significant. However, it may be his politics – rather than his personality – to blame. His consistent criticism of British military action over the years, for instance, is bound to have armed him during an election where many felt the sovereignty of the UK was on-the-line. During the election campaign, his support for leading members of the IRA – a militant pro-Irish unification group, which engineered many terrorist attacks – was a common taking point. There are many still living who remember that period or actively served British forces against the IRA. At a time when British nationalism is a thing keenly felt by a large number of people, Corbyn’s history severely curtailed his appeal.

Meanwhile, the people left to support him were those younger people were not alive or else very young during these periods. Corbyn’s connection to them won’t be as visceral to them as for those who lived through those events.

While much of this was also discussed in the run-up to the 2017 election, it was Corbyn’s leftwards swing that tipped the scales. Corbyn could be no longer given the benefit of the doubt of having anything other than quite a radical program for the transformation of the country. Social media analyses found these messages amplified far more than they had before.

Corbyn attempted to tap into an older, pre-Blair Labour. However, unlike that Labour movement, which had the passionate support of the British working class: Corbyn found himself supported by a smaller coalition of the university-educated and city-dwellers. It was one that, it is now clear, stood little chance of swinging the election.

The British left has taken an extraordinary battering and now has to find itself again – or face many more years of powerlessness.

L'articolo Fall of the Red Wall: Why Did Labour Lose so Badly? proviene da InsideOver.

The assassination, via targeted rocket strike, of a leader of the Islamic Jihad movement threatens to escalate the conflict in the Gaza – though it may also have the unintended effect of ending the deadlocked electoral situation in Israel.

Baha Abu al-Ata had been described as a ‘ticking time’ bomb by Israeli military. His assassination had been discussed for years prior to the successful attack on November 12.

The Islamic Jihad responded to the attack by firing hundreds of rockets into Israel, injuring 63 civilians, according to media reports from the region. Israel returned fire, killing 34, including 16 civilians, according to Gaza health officials.

As of Thursday morning, a ceasefire has been established between the state of Israel and the Islamic Jihad. However, reports from the region describe it as ‘fragile’.

While the recent flare-up has raised fears of a new all-out conflict between Israel and Palestinian factions in Gaza – which has seen three major Israeli military operations in the past decade – it may also motivate a sense of national cohesion.

Unity for Unity’s sake

Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was typically combative in his comments on the situation, saying on Wednesday that Islamic Jihad must stop its rocket attacks or “absorb more and more blows”. Netanyahu will be looking towards a possible third round of election this year and solidifying his base.

For the moment, however, the baton rests with Benny Gantz, the Blue and White party leader, although not for much longer. Gantz has just four days to secure a coalition, or else the government must either seek another candidate, or call new elections.

To the secure the long sought-after alliance, Gantz met with a potential ally on Thursday: chairman of the secular-nationalist Yisrael Beytenu party, Avigdor Liberman. The meeting itself had to be postponed because of the rocket attacks: it was originally due to take place on Tuesday.

Gantz, exiting the meeting, expressed his priority was to avoid another election, but did not give any sense that the they had moved forward with forming a coalition. This is not too surprising, given that Gantz and Liberman are at odds on what to do with the outgoing prime minister, Netanyahu.

Liberman has proposed, with the president’s backing, that Gantz and Netantayu would form a unity government together. However, Gantz and the party’s co-leader, Yair Lapid have said they refuse to serve under a prime minister undergoing investigation (Netanyahu is currently begin investigated for three counts of corruption).

Gantz, for his part – perhaps predictably – blamed Netanyahu for the deadlock. “Netanyahu continues to maintain the bloc and to strive for elections,” he said. “I have made my position clear regarding all options on the table. I am prepared to consider any option that aligns with my principles regarding indictment.

“We have scheduled to meet again at the beginning of next week. We do not want elections and we will make every effort until the last minute to avoid them,” he added.

Unlikely Alliances

As the deadline approaches, Gantz must make decision, while the potential options continue to shrink.

Initially, Gantz floated the option of seeking to form a minority government with the backing of the Arab parties. The chances of that happening now are now slim-to-none following the rocket attacks and resulting civilian casualties. In fact, the Arab-majority Joint List have spent the last few days holding protests following the attacks, and described Israeli attacks as constituting a war crime.

The flareup in Gaza has also motivated president Reuven Rivlin to put additional pressure on Gantz to quickly find a resolution, and has backed Liberman’s proposal for a unity government. This would mean a power-sharing deal, in which Netanyahu would serve as prime minister for half the term followed by Gantz.

It’s a proposal that Gantz has blackballed but, increasingly, appears to be his sole option, short of plunging the country into an unprecedented third election within a single year. If Gantz can’t avoid another election, the recent strife along the border may sway the results in the next election definitively to the right. In this case, we would be likely to see another Netanyahu-lead government.

If that happens, Gantz’s refusal to form a unity government with his rival cost him a place at the executive level of government.

L'articolo How Will the Rocket Attacks Affect the Israeli Elections? proviene da InsideOver.

“In a sense we now have a Leave alliance, it’s just that we’ve done it unilaterally,” Farage remarked, somewhat cheekily, having promised that his own party members would stand down in those constituencies where the Conservatives were favoured to win, based on the last national election. Farage and his Brexit Party hope that this will secure the earliest exit from the EU possible.

It’s an unusual move in a country where the parties have differentiated themselves by their approach to Brexit, and are engaged in dogged fighting over a fickle voting body.

For Farage, however, it is been typically subversive. Back when he lead UKIP, the party was sidelined by media and mainstream politics. Despite this, UKIP managed to deliver on its platform (albeit with the slimmest of margins) and began the road to Brexit. Farage left Brexit, only to return as leader of the Brexit Party, which aims to exert pressure on the main parties to deliver a quick Brexit, regardless of the short-term cost. Again, they were successful, garnering significant support in the EU parliamentary elections.

Now, Farage is on the campaign that counts, as Britain faces its fourth election in a little under five years. Can onlookers expect a hat trick?

The ‘Brexit’ mandate

The current national election will take place on December 12. On Monday (November 11), Farage announced that his Brexit Party would not stand in the constituencies the Conservatives won during the 2017 national election, so as not to split the Leave vote. That means dipping out of 317 electoral races: nearly half of all available seats in the British parliament.

The announcement is both an electoral tactic and an assertion of character for the Brexit Party. It signals a willingness to sacrifice influence for the sake of Leave, and an earnestness in delivering an end to the Brexit debacle, at a time when both the Conservatives and Labour have been criticised for their lack of commitment to Leave or Remain, respectively. It also echoes other rightwing populist movements – like Marine La Pen’s gambit in the 2017 French national election to stand as an independent.

Whereas the tactic failed for La Pen, Farage has a much better track-record – and British politics is in a greater state of upheaval. Despite UKIP never polling very high as a political party, it delivered a successful Leave vote in 2016, and with Farage at the helm of the Brexit Party, it has proven itself a disruptive force in British politics: less than a year old and without a single MP, it was, nevertheless, became one of the most significant parties in Britain, with more than 30% of the vote.

Vacillating parties (and their voters)

Farage’s confident leadership also comes during a moment of shifting party platforms – especially among the left – and a fickle electorate.

Judging by current polls, there are two clear trends. The lead for Boris Johnson and the Conservatives seems to be secure, though a little bit erratic. Some polls suggest the lead is as high as 15%, while others put it at just 7%. Even if they only manage an average of these figures, they will still have a significant majority.

Meanwhile, the Remain vote is splintering between Labour and the Liberal Democrats – a party which hasn’t seen nearly this degree of interest in nearly a decade. The slightly faltering support for Labour is especially notable because it follows a stunning electoral success for Corbyn in 2017, which upended Tory support, and many failed leadership challenges from party members who disagreed with his increasingly leftist platform. It may be that Corbyn’s uncertain approach to Brexit may be what’s costing him now.

Notably, the Brexit Party lost several percentage points in the polls. It may be this represents people switching their vote in support of a stronger mandate to Leave with the Conservatives. There are those in British media who suggest that Farage’s move to suspend campaigning in Tory constituencies is more about saving face, as the enthusiastic support that carried the party in the Parliamentary elections begins to drain away.

This upcoming election revolves around Brexit, and people seem to be are ditching party loyalty and voting based on their attitude to Brexit. This has been Farage’s obsession during his entire political career, and he has shown himself to be adept in manoeuvring in advocating for it. In the current election, he is attempting a familiar feat: to sway the minds of an insecure minority who may wish to escape the current political limbo. His record suggests he could manage it.

L'articolo Nigel Farage Subverts British Politics (Again) proviene da InsideOver.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s attempt to bring the centrist Blue and White party into a joint government with his own Likud party has come to nothing. His rival, Benny Gantz of the Blue and White party, has now been given the chance to form a new government by the president. This marks the first time that someone other than Netanyahu has been asked to form a government since 2008.

Gantz has until about the end of November to make it work. If he doesn’t, another national election will more than likely be called, which would be the third one in a single year – something unprecedented in Israel’s history.

Such a scenario looks increasingly likely. Israel has many parties with differing interests – and drawing them together will probably hinge more on exhaustion with the political progress than a genuine desire for cooperation.

Gantz’s Gambit

Gantz has said he wants a “national reconciliation” government for the country, where the population is tired of unending political disputes. Unfortunately, the various factions he has to convince to secure such an alliance – secularists, centrists, right-wing Orthodox and Arab factions – are in many cases opposed to being reconciled.

Three possible coalitions have been put forward. Gantz could seek to ally his Blue-and-White Alliance with the Yisrael Beiteinu and Arabic parties to establish the needed 61-seat government. He could, alternatively, form a minority government with the right-wing Orthodox and Arab factions. Finally, he can seek to form a government with Likud – Netanyahu’s party.

None of these seem very likely. Yisrael Beiteinu and the Joint List – a group of Arab-interest parties – are hostile to one another. The second option, where Gantz achieves a minority government, would be difficult, and only results in a very fragile government. And while Likud would allow Gantz to form a majority government, he has said in the past he would only do so without Netanyahu – who is currently under investigation for three criminal charges, including bribery. As of Monday, there have been some reports that Gantz is reconsidering this position.

Gantz’s lack of political experience and his career in the military also do not recommend him as a peacemaker. As the head of Israel’s military between 2011 and 2015, he is partly responsible for the illegal operations against Palestinians under occupation in Gaza. And while his current political influence developed by positioning himself against widespread corruption: his skill has a diplomat is unproven.

Together, these factors suggest another election will be called by the end of November. But recent polls suggest there is no reason to suspect that will resolve the deadlock, as voters stay loyal to their previous choices. However, frustrated with his inability to create a consensus, the Blue and White party may lose support.

The Future of the Country (and its conflict)

In the meantime, Gantz will continue to seek coalition partners. Over the weekend Gantz met with Netanyahu to try and form a coalition with Likud, but these meetings ended without a conclusive plan. The alliance, if it can be formed, would always be strained: Gantz promised to keep ultra-Orthodox Jewish extremist parties out of government, while they were a significant part of Netanyahu’s movement.

The disruption to politics – and the desperation to move beyond this gridlock may present a window for the various Arab parties – who represent the 21% Arab population of Israel. A potential government could include the Joint List, an alliance of Arab parties, as part of a centrist coalition – while excluding the Arab nationalist Balad, which has historically argued against the existence of Israel.

The slow process of determining Israel’s political future may affect ongoing global relationships. For example, it will halt progress on the proposed “Middle East peace plan” put forward by the US and Trump’s senior advisor, Jared Kushner. The plan attracted intense scrutiny and controversy this year, even before being published, and was rejected by Palestinian political factions as overwhelmingly favouring Israeli interests.

There is an option if Gantz fails, besides calling another election. The president can hand the task back to Parliament, at which point, lawmakers have 21 days to select a new candidate to seek a majority. Exhausted by the gridlock and the desire to avoid a third election: there may be support enough to bring Netanyahu back for a fifth term in office.

L'articolo Why Israel may Face its Third Election in One Year proviene da InsideOver.

Today Israeli voters enter the booth to pass judgment on the country’s longest-running prime minister and his more rightwing and aggressive policies with regards to the West Bank.

Having failed to secure a coalition in April, Benjamin Netanyahu and the Likud party have had to campaign a second time: this time, Netanyahu pushed a more religious platform, and a focus on bringing the controversial West Bank settlements into the country proper by annexing them.

Their opponents for this snap election are the liberal-centrist Blue & White political alliance, who seek a more secular government focused at compromise and bridging deepening political divides.

As of writing, polls in the country predict a neck-and-neck result.

This snap election was called after a governing coalition failed to come together after the national election in April. Likud and Blue and White came away with 35 seats each in the 120-seat Knesset: the unicameral Israeli parliament. Initially it seemed Likud would form a majority with the support of smaller right-wing and religious parties: however, the proposed coalition fell apart weeks later due to infighting.

Netanyahu, for his part, has bet the election on a electorate tired of the violent stalemate in the Jordan Valley and longing for decisive action. In a televised speech last week, he said he plans to annex about 30% of the West Bank, saying this was a matter to do with the “sovereignty of Israel”.

Although the area itself has been occupied by Israel since 1967, it has not been annexed in the hopes of improving relations and ending the conflict with the Palestinian government. Since then, however, a process of settling portions of the area by Israelis has antagonised the situation to its present boiling point. The settlement policy itself is considered illegal under international law, although Israel disagrees with this.

Netanyahu has said he also pledges to annex all Jewish settlements should his party emerge victorious. A Palestinian diplomat, Saeb Erekat, said in response that annexing the land, which includes important farming land, would “bury any chance of peace”.

Meanwhile, the Blue & White party opposing Netanyahu is a coalition of retired generals and centrist politicians. The party have campaigned on a platform of seeking compromise between the many factions within the country, where a fierce conversation over competing secular and religious values is taking place.

A previous army chief, Benny Gantz, and Yair Lapid, a former finance minister and leader of the centrist Yesh Atid party, formed the party back in February. Writing in the Hebrew-language paper Maariv, Gantz said he hoped to “change the direction of the ship of state of Israeli democracy. No more instigating rifts in an attempt to divide and conquer, but rather quick action to form a unity government. No looking out for the interests of pressure groups, but rather a government that looks out for the majority of Israeli citizens.”

Notably, Gantz did establish the party’s policy on annexation, even though it appears to be a wedge issue in the country, though he does oppose the idea of withdrawing from the West Bank.

Negotiations to form the next coalition government will begin as soon as the exit polls close, at 10pm tonight. The victor – Likud or Blue & White – will likely seek one of the thirty smaller parties running to form a majority. As such, smaller parties may end up with an outsized influence once all is said and done. One in particular, the right-wing secular Yisrael Beiteinu party (‘Israel our Home’) could be decisive.

The leader of the party, Avigdor Lieberman, refused to back Netanyahu after the last election over a bill that would have granted exemptions to military service for ultra-Orthodox young men. Although he said of this election that he would help Netanyahu should the latter agree to share power with Blue and White and work towards a more secular platform: Netanyahu has already ruled this out.

This election will act as a referendum on Israel’s attitude to the West Bank, as well as whether country should move in a more secular or religious direction. Netanyahu has been a controversial prime minister, both at home and abroad, but may yet retain power for a strongman approach to an increasingly tumultuous conflict.

L'articolo Benjamin Netanyahu’s Vision for Israel put to the Test proviene da InsideOver.