Categories
World News

Lordstown Motors shares soar after new chairwoman says manufacturing plans stay on monitor

The Lordstown Motors Corp. Endurance electric pickup truck sits on stage during an unveiling event in Lordstown, Ohio, U.S., on Thursday, June 25, 2020.

Matthew Hatcher | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Embattled electric truck company Lordstown Motors has enough funding to operate through May 2022 and remains on track to begin limited production of its Endurance pickup in late September following an executive shake-up that ousted the start-up’s CEO and chairman, executives said Tuesday.

The company’s new chairwoman, Angela Strand, called it a “new day” for the aspiring automaker, which raised bankruptcy concerns after warning investors last week that it had “substantial doubt” about its ability to continue as a going concern in the next year.

Shares of Lordstown Motors soared Tuesday afternoon by as much as 15% before leveling off at about $10 a share, up 8%. The company’s stock price has roughly been cut in half this year, including an 18.8% decline on Monday.

“It’s a new day at Lordstown and there are no disruptions, and there will be no disruptions, to our day-to-day operations,” Strand said during a webcast for the Automotive Press Association. “We remain committed to inspiring, building and maintaining confidence and transparency in our relationships with each other at Lordstown and, very importantly, with our customers, our partners, our suppliers and our shareholders.”

The comments come a day after Lordstown’s chairman and CEO, Steve Burns, and CFO Julio Rodriguez resigned from the company after the board released a summary of an internal investigation into claims made by short seller Hindenburg Research that Lordstown misled investors.

The company said the internal investigation found Hindenburg’s report “is, in significant respects, false and misleading.” The probe, however, did identify “issues regarding the accuracy of certain statements regarding” Lordstown’s preorders, specifically the seriousness of the orders and who was making them.

Read more about electric vehicles from CNBC Pro

President Rich Schmidt said the company needs more experienced leadership. And while Lordstown didn’t say the investigation led to Burns’ and Rodriguez’s resignations, he indicated the findings contributed, at least in part, to their abrupt departures. “It was a little bit of both,” he said.

Hindenburg accused Lordstown in March of using “fake” orders to raise capital for its Endurance electric pickup. The short seller said the pickup was years away from production, but Lordstown has maintained it’s on track to start making the vehicle in September. The company on Monday said customer deliveries are scheduled to begin in the first quarter of 2022.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has opened an inquiry looking at Hindenburg’s claims as well as the company’s merger with SPAC DiamondPeak Holdings. Schmidt declined to comment on inquiry.

Lordstown Motors Corp Chief Executive Steve Burns poses with a prototype of the electric vehicle start-up’s Endurance pickup truck, which it will begin building in the second half of 2021, at the company’s plant in Lordstown, Ohio, U.S. June 25, 2020.

Lordstown Motors | Reuters

Strand, who was Lordstown’s lead independent director, is overseeing its transition until a permanent CEO is identified, according to the company.

Schmidt reconfirmed Lordstown is actively raising additional capital, which the company announced plans to do in May. He also said Lordstown is no longer working with Camping World on EV products and solutions for the RV marketplace, citing a need to focus on the Endurance.

“We’re just focused currently on the Endurance truck,” he said. “That’s our next goal for the next three months is to make sure we hit our production targets and stay within our budgets and drive forward to getting the vehicles ready for the market.”

Categories
World News

As soon as, Superpower Summits Have been About Nukes. Now, It’s Cyberweapons.

GENEVA – For 70 years, meetings between American presidents and Soviet or Russian leaders have been dominated by an impending threat: the vast nuclear arsenals the two nations amassed in the 1940s as instruments of intimidation and, if deterrence failed, of mutual annihilation.

As President Biden prepares to meet President Vladimir V. Putin here in Geneva on Wednesday, cyber weapons will be high on the agenda for the first time.

Change has been brewing for a decade as Russia and the United States, the two most capable adversaries in the cyber arena, each turned to growing arsenals of techniques in an everyday low-level conflict. But at summits, these types of tournaments were usually treated as a sideshow to the main superpower competition.

No more. The increasing pace and sophistication of recent attacks on American infrastructure – from gasoline pipelines along the east coast to factories that supply a quarter of America’s beef to running hospitals and the internet itself – have exposed a number of vulnerabilities that none President can ignore.

Nuclear weapons are still important to Mr Biden, and his staff say the two men will spend a lot of time discussing “strategic stability,” which is a shortcut for containing the nuclear escalation. But the more immediate task, Mr Biden told his allies at a Summit of the Group of Seven in Cornwall, England last week and a NATO meeting in Brussels, is to convince Mr Putin that he will pay a heavy price to to play the master digital upheaval.

That will not be easy. If a decade of intense cyber conflict has taught us anything, it is that traditional deterrent tools have largely failed.

And while Mr Putin likes to brag about his huge investments in new nuclear torpedoes and hypersonic weapons, he also knows he cannot use them. Its arsenal of cyber weapons, on the other hand, is used every day.

Mr Biden has made it clear that he wants to give Putin a choice: stop the attacks and take action against the cyber criminals operating out of Russian territory, or see yourself with rising economic costs and what Mr Biden is as one Series of steps designated, faced by the United States, to “respond in kind”. But on Sunday, at the Summit of the Group of Seven in Cornwall, he admitted that Putin could possibly ignore him.

“There is no guarantee that you can change anyone’s behavior or that of their country,” Biden said. “Autocrats have enormous power and do not have to answer to any public.”

Deterrence is an issue that many of Mr. Biden’s senior national security advisors have pondered for years, based on their frontline experience of cyber conflict with the National Security Agency, the Department of Justice and the financial sector. You are the first to say that arms control treaties, the main instrument of the nuclear age, are not well adapted to cyber. There are just too many actors – nations, criminal groups, terrorist organizations – and there is no way to count warheads and missiles.

But their hope is to get Putin to discuss goals that should be off the table in peacetime. The list includes power grids, electoral systems, water and power lines, nuclear power plants and – most delicate – command and control systems for nuclear weapons.

It seems relatively easy on paper. After all, a group of experts from the United Nations with representatives from all major powers has repeatedly agreed on some fundamental limits.

In reality, it is proving excruciatingly difficult – far more difficult than the President’s first attempt at nuclear arms control Eisenhower spoke to Nikita S. Khrushchev in Geneva 66 years ago, just before the Cold War turned into a terrible arms race and seven years later into a nuclear confrontation in Cuba.

President Ronald Reagan said, “We have to ‘trust but verify,'” noted Eric Rosenbach, the former head of cyber policy at the Pentagon who helped navigate the early days of cyber conflict with Russia, China and Iran. when Mr. Biden was Vice President. “When it comes to Russians and cyber, you definitely can’t trust or verify,” he said.

“The Russians have repeatedly violated the terms of all cyber agreements at the United Nations and are now systematically trying to bind the United States” into a swamp of international law problems “while they hit our critical infrastructure,” said Rosenbach.

Updated

June 15, 2021, 3:57 p.m. ET

Mr Putin refuses to acknowledge that Russia is using these weapons in the first place, suggesting that the allegations are part of a huge US-led disinformation campaign.

“We were accused of all sorts of things,” Putin told NBC News over the weekend. “Electoral disruption, cyberattacks and so on and so on. And not once, not even, not even bothered to come up with any evidence or evidence. Only unfounded allegations. “

Evidence has in fact been presented, but far more difficult to show and even less to explain than the photographs of Soviet missiles in Cuba that President John F. Kennedy showed on television at a critical moment in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

But there is one thing Mr Putin is right about. The ease with which he can deny any knowledge of cyber operations – which the United States did even after major attacks on Iran and North Korea – shows why the deterrents that maintained an unsafe nuclear peace during the Cold War will not work with digital threats .

In the atomic age, America knew where every Soviet weapon was and who had authority to fire it. In the cyber age there is no way to count the threats or even to find out who has the finger on the keyboard – the modern “button”. A general? Hackers who work for the SVR, the leading Russian secret service? Other hackers, freelancing for a ransomware “service provider” like DarkSide, who was responsible for the attack on the company that operated the Colonial Pipeline? Teenagers?

In the atomic age, it was perfectly clear what would happen to a country that unleashed its arms on the United States. In the cyber age, this is far from clear.

When North Korea’s Sony Entertainment studios were attacked in response to a Kim Jong-un film, 70 percent of the company’s computers were destroyed. The then head of the National Security Agency, Admiral Michael Rogers, later said he was certain the attack would bring a major American response.

It has not.

During the Obama administration, Moscow was never publicly credited with a successful Russian attempt to break into the unclassified email systems of the White House, State Department, and Joint Chiefs of Staff – though everyone, including then-Vice President Biden, knew what the intelligence indicated.

The cautious reaction to Russian efforts to influence the 2016 elections came after the results were available. Mr Obama’s reaction was comparatively mild: the expulsion of Russian diplomats diploma and the closing of some diplomatic ties. It was, in the words of a senior official at the time, “the perfect nineteenth-century answer to a 21st-century problem”.

Then came Mr. Trump’s tenure, during which he affirmed Putin’s unlikely denial of electoral interference. America lost four years in which it could have tried to set some global standards in what Brad Smith, president of Microsoft, calls a “Cyber ​​Geneva Convention”.

While the US cyber command stepped up its fight, sent the digital equivalent of a brushback pitch to a Russian secret service and switched a large ransomware group offline during the 2018 midterm elections, the Russian attacks continued. What worries the Biden National Security Team is not the volume of the attacks, but their sophistication.

The SolarWinds attack wasn’t just another hack: Microsoft estimates that around 1,000 SVR hackers were involved in a complex undertaking that brought the Russians into the software supply chain in government agencies, Fortune 500 companies and think tanks was funneled. Worse still, the attack was carried out from inside the United States – from Amazon servers – because the Russians knew that American intelligence agencies are prohibited from operating on US soil.

Mr Biden said he wanted a “proportionate response” and opted for more economic sanctions – suggesting that there might be other “unseen” actions – but it is far from clear that these made an impression. “The subject of government-sponsored cyberattacks of this scale and scale remains of great concern to the United States,” said Jake Sullivan, the president’s national security adviser, on Air Force One en route to Europe last week. The subject, he said, was “not over”.

The SolarWinds hack was followed by a staggering surge in ransomware attacks, the headline-grabbing blackmail programs where criminal hacking groups lock a company or hospital’s data and then charge millions in Bitcoin to unlock it. Mr Biden has accused Russia of hosting these groups.

Mr. Rosenbach, the former head of cyber policy at the Pentagon, said ransomware is giving Mr. Biden a chance. “Instead of focusing on naively abstract ‘road rules’, Biden Putin should press hard on concrete measures, such as stopping the scourge of ransomware attacks on critical US infrastructures,” he said.

“Putin can be plausibly denied,” he said, “and the threat of additional sanctions is likely enough to convince Putin to act quietly against the groups responsible for the attacks.

That would be a start, albeit a small one.

Should the history of nuclear arms control apply again – and perhaps not – expectations are likely to be low. It is far too late to hope for the elimination of cyber weapons any more than it is for the elimination of weapons. The best we could do would be a first attempt at a digital “Geneva Convention” that restricts the use of cyber weapons against civilians. And the perfect place to try might be in Geneva itself.

But that is almost certainly further than Mr Putin is ready to leave. With its economy overly dependent on fossil fuels and its population showing signs of unrest, its only remaining superpower is the dismantling of its democratic rivals.

Categories
World News

Shares dip forward of key Fed assembly

US stocks fell slightly on Tuesday ahead of the Federal Reserve’s final monetary policy meeting.

The S&P 500 lost 0.1% after rising 0.1% to hit a new all-time high of 4.57.18. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was 50 points lower. The Nasdaq Composite, which hit a record high in the previous session, was down 0.3%.

There were very few outstanding actors on Tuesday. Some reopening games like Boeing, Airlines and Cruise Ships all traded higher.

On the data front, the final demand index for producer prices rose 6.6% in the twelve-month months ended May, the largest increase since the twelve-month data was first computed in November 2010.

On a monthly basis, the producer price index for final demand rose 0.8%, ahead of the Dow Jones estimate of 0.6%. The producer prices measure the prices paid to the producers as opposed to the prices at the consumer level.

Meanwhile, retail sales data fell 1.3% in May, compared to an expected drop of 0.7% per economist polled by Dow Jones.

“The mixed data didn’t raise any eyebrows in the market,” said Fiona Cincotta, senior financial markets analyst at City Index. “The market has barely reacted, and few who are brave enough to take large positions ahead of tomorrow’s Fed announcement. The big question is whether the Fed will be very slow to start taper talk and the containment debate about ultra -to introduce free monetary policy. “

The Fed’s two-day monetary policy meeting began Tuesday and is a focus for markets this week. The central bank is unlikely to take any action. However, comments on interest rates, inflation, and the economy could drive market moves.

Traders will listen carefully to comments on inflation and the Fed’s possible tightening plans.

Billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Tudor Jones told CNBC on Monday that this Fed meeting could be the most important in Chairman Jerome Powell’s career. Tudor Jones also warned that Powell could trigger a big sell-off in risk assets if he doesn’t do a good job of signaling a decrease in the Fed’s monthly security purchases.

Did you like this article?
For exclusive stock selection, investment ideas and global CNBC livestream
Sign up for CNBC Pro
Start your free trial now

Categories
World News

Your Tuesday Briefing – The New York Occasions

NATO leaders locked arms against China and Russia at their summit on Monday, as President Biden reaffirmed his commitment to the alliance. China’s growing influence and military might “present challenges,” the 30-nation alliance said.

This escalation of rhetoric from summits past reflected a new concern over how China intends to wield its rapidly growing military might and offensive cybertechnologies in the coming years.

NATO countries warned that China increasingly posed a global security problem, as well, signaling a fundamental shift in the attentions of an institution devoted to protecting Europe and North America, not Asia.

Putin: At the end of the summit, Biden discussed his approach to the Kremlin. “What I’ll convey to President Putin is that I’m not looking for conflict with Russia but that we will respond if Russia continues its harmful activities,” said Biden, who will meet with Vladimir Putin on Wednesday in Geneva. “And we will not fail to defend the trans-Atlantic alliance or stand up for democratic values.”

Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain announced on Monday that he would postpone by four weeks the easing of the latest lockdown in England, what British tabloids called “freedom day,” originally scheduled for June 21, after a spike in cases of the highly transmissible Delta coronavirus variant.

Restaurants and pubs in England will still have to observe social-distancing rules indoors and limit capacity, and nightclubs and theaters will remain closed. The decision will be reviewed in two weeks.

Britain’s vaccination campaign is among the most successful in the world, with about four-fifths of adults having received at least one shot. But those yet to receive their second dose remain susceptible to the Delta variant, more so than to earlier versions of the virus, scientists said.

By the numbers: Overall new cases in Britain are averaging about 8,000 per day and are doubling every week in the worst affected areas. Hospital admissions have begun rising.

Here are the latest updates and maps of the pandemic.

In other developments:

  • In a rare interview with Times reporters, Shi Zhengli, a top Chinese scientist who works at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, denounced as baseless suspicions that the virus had originated in the lab. “How on earth can I offer up evidence for something where there is no evidence?” she said.

  • The U.S. neared 600,000 recorded deaths from the pandemic, the highest known count of any country. For comparison, the country reached 500,000 deaths by February, 400,000 in January and 300,000 in December.

In the first days of Israel’s fragile new coalition government, ministers announced plans to repair Israeli ties with U.S. Democrats and the Jewish diaspora, investigate a stampede at a holy Jewish site on Mount Meron in April that killed 45 and permit a contentious far-right march through Jerusalem.

The initiatives highlighted the complexities and contradictions of the coalition, which is an unlikely alliance of the hard right, the left and the center, as well as — for the first time in Israeli history — an independent Arab party.

The far-right march, originally planned for last month, was among the reasons Hamas cited for firing rockets toward Jerusalem on May 10, setting off an 11-day air war between the militant group and Israel. The group vowed to respond if the march was allowed to go ahead.

Quotable: “The support of Christian evangelicals and other groups is important and heartwarming, but the Jewish people are more than allies, they are family,” the new foreign minister, Yair Lapid, said in his first speech. “Jews from all streams — Reform, Conservative and Orthodox — are our family.”

Related: After a year of protests outside Balfour, the prime minister’s house, Israelis are debating what role they played in Benjamin Netanyahu’s downfall.

  • An American father and son pleaded guilty in Tokyo on Monday to helping Carlos Ghosn, the former Nissan chief, flee Japan as he faced trial on charges of financial wrongdoing. Above, a vehicle transporting Michael Taylor and his son Peter Taylor for their trial at the Tokyo District Court.

  • Unusual activity at the Taishan nuclear power plant in China has drawn international attention, as two French companies involved in the plant acknowledged problems on Monday but said they could be handled safely. Officials at the power plant said no leak had been detected.

Rush hour has long ruled our lives, our cities, our tax dollars. But if more of us continue to work remotely, it won’t have to, freeing up space, resources and desire for bike lanes and better bus service, which could take even more cars off the roads.

Our T magazine editors compiled a sweeping guide to buying artwork, based on interviews with gallery owners, collectors and artists. Here’s their top advice for novice collectors.

Figure out what you like.

“Visit a lot of galleries and museum shows and meet with artists. I guess if I were to pick one word, it would be ‘exposure.’ And you never should limit yourself to art that you think you’re going to like.” — Ann Schaffer, patron and collector

Do your research.

“I believe in doing a bit of homework. Educating yourself and reading up about the kind of art you’re interested in is really essential.” — Denise Gardner, collector and board chair-elect at the Art Institute of Chicago

Go to a gallery and talk to people you meet.

“I don’t know any etiquette other than human kindness.” — Alexis Johnson, partner at Paula Cooper Gallery

Ask questions and establish contacts. (Expect a waiting list.)

“I like people who tend to be very open: ‘This is what I think I like, this is what I don’t know, this is where I’m starting.’” — Bridget Finn, co-founder of Reyes | Finn gallery

Success!

“You have to be sincere if you’re making inquiries and you’re asking about someone’s work, or you’re thinking about acquiring it. This is someone’s life’s work. This might be $1,000 to you, but this is someone’s soul.” — Jessica Wessel, lawyer and collector

Categories
World News

NATO members unite to face evolving threats from Russia and China

U.S. President Joe Biden attends a meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg during a NATO summit, at the Alliance’s headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, June 14, 2021.

Stephanie Lecocq | Reuters

WASHINGTON  —  NATO members vowed to address a range of traditional and evolving security challenges, including several posed by China, in a joint statement released Monday at the close of their summit.

“China’s growing influence and international policies can present challenges that we need to address together as an Alliance,” the statement, known as a communique, said. “We will engage China with a view to defending the security interests of the Alliance.”

The references to China represent a victory for President Joe Biden, who was attending his first NATO summit as president.

Biden arrived at the summit intent upon rallying NATO’s 30 member-strong alliance behind a security policy that confronts both new threats, like cyberwarfare and China, as well as traditional threats, like Russia’s military incursions into Eastern Europe.

But Beijing’s ambitious military buildup also received mention in the communique.

“China is rapidly expanding its nuclear arsenal with more warheads and a larger number of sophisticated delivery systems to establish a nuclear triad,” the communique said. 

Biden has said his administration will stand “shoulder to shoulder” with America’s closest allies, breaking sharply from his predecessor’s “America First” policy.

President Donald Trump attacked NATO on a regular basis, questioning both the relevancy and the effectiveness of the decades-old alliance.

By contrast, Biden is outspoken in his belief that NATO is a cornerstone of global stability and a crucial player in confronting these evolving threats.

Yet NATO’s pivot to China, as opposed to a laser focus on Russia, is not necessarily a welcome change for everyone.

Some of NATO’s smallest members, many located in Eastern Europe, believe that deterrence against Russian aggression should be the chief concern of the alliance’s security efforts.

Biden met with the leaders of several Balkan nations on Monday morning, as well as with Poland’s president, Andrzej Duda. The U.S. military maintains a significant presence in Poland that is widely viewed as a major deterrent to Russia.

In response to the threat of hybrid warfare that Russia poses, NATO member states opened the door to potentially invoking Article 5, the mutual defense agreement, in cases of destabilizing disinformation attacks against “political institutions” and “public opinion.”

To date, Article 5 has only been invoked once — in defense of the United States in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

“We are enhancing our situational awareness and expanding the tools at our disposal to counter hybrid threats, including disinformation campaigns, by developing comprehensive preventive and response options,” the communique states.

Russia’s disinformation campaigns have hit Europe hard, notably ahead of the 2016 Brexit referendum, during the 2017 protests in Catalonia, and before the 2019 European Parliament elections.

On Tuesday, Biden will travel to Geneva for a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Biden is expected to raise many of the topics addressed in the NATO communique.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, and Chinese President Xi Jinping, right, attend the Tsinghua Universitys ceremony, at Friendship Palace on April 26, 2019 in Beijing, China.

Kenzaburo Fukuhara | Getty Images

A broader power struggle

Throughout his visit to Europe, Biden has framed the competition between Western democracies and both Russia and China as more than simply an economic or a military rivalry.

To the president, it is a battle over which system of governance will emerge as the world’s great power, Chinese-style authoritarianism or Western democracy and capitalism.

Both Moscow and Beijing regularly ignore the international rules and norms that govern trade, security, defense, labor and human rights. This constitutes a serious threat to NATO and to developing countries around the world.

In some ways, Biden’s approach to China is not that different from Trump’s.

Tensions between Beijing and Washington soared under the Trump administration, fueled by a trade war and barriers preventing Chinese technology companies from doing business in the United States.

But Biden has said his approach to China would differ from his predecessor’s in that he would work more closely with allies in order to mount pushback against Beijing.

“We will confront China’s economic abuses,” Biden said in a recent speech. “But we’re also ready to work with Beijing when it’s in America’s interest to do so. We’ll compete from a position of strength by building back better at home and working with our allies and partners.”

Biden’s message has been warmly welcomed by NATO member leaders, following four years under Trump during which the United States was a thorn in the side of the alliance.

Trump repeatedly attacked NATO during his presidency, accusing it of being irrelevant and impotent. He even threatened to pull the United States out of the alliance.

Categories
World News

NATO Summit: Reside Updates – The New York Occasions

Here’s what you need to know:

Credit…Thomas Peter/Reuters

China’s rising military ambitions are presenting NATO with challenges that must be addressed, the 30-nation Western alliance said Monday, the first time it has portrayed the expanding reach and capabilities of the Chinese armed forces in such a potentially confrontational way.

The description of China, contained in a communiqué issued at the conclusion of a one-day summit attended by President Biden and others, reflected a new concern over how China intends to wield its military might in coming years.

Mr. Biden has made dealing with authoritarian powers a keystone of his presidency so far, especially Russia and China. But while the NATO communiqué describes Russia as a “threat” to NATO, using tough language that was not necessarily a surprise, it is the description of China that attracted unusual attention, and could set the tone for the alliance.

Both Mr. Biden and President Donald J. Trump before him put more emphasis on the threats that China poses to the international order, partly in terms of its authoritarian system and partly in terms of its military ambitions and spending.

NATO’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, has said that China’s military budget is second in the world only to that of the United States, and that China is rapidly building its military forces, including its navy, with advanced technologies.

In a discussion of “multifaceted threats” and “systemic competition from assertive and authoritarian powers” early in the document, NATO says that “Russia’s aggressive actions constitute a threat to Euro-Atlantic security.” China is not called a threat, but NATO states that “China’s growing influence and international policies can present challenges that we need to address together as an alliance.”

NATO promises to “engage China with a view to defending the security interests of the alliance.” Separately, NATO officials have said that China is increasingly using Arctic routes, has exercised its military with Russia, sent ships into the Mediterranean Sea and has been active in Africa. China is also working on space-based weaponry as well as artificial intelligence and sophisticated hacking of Western institutions.

Much lower in the document, China comes up again, and is again described as presenting “systemic challenges,” this time to the “rules-based international order.” NATO also cites China’s expanding nuclear arsenal and more sophisticated delivery systems as well as its expanding navy and its military cooperation with Russia.

In a gesture toward diplomacy and engagement, the alliance vows to maintain “a constructive dialogue with China where possible,” including on the issue of climate change, and calls for China to become more transparent about its military and especially its “nuclear capabilities and doctrine.”

The leaders will also sign off on a decision to spend next year updating NATO’s 2010 strategic concept, which 11 years ago saw Russia as a potential partner and never mentioned China. New challenges from cyberwarfare, artificial intelligence, disinformation, and new missile and warhead technologies must be considered to preserve deterrence, and Article 5 of the alliance’s founding treaty, will be “clarified” to include threats to satellites in space and coordinated cyberattacks.

President Biden met with NATO’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, at the summit in Brussels on Monday.Credit…Pool photo by Kenzo Tribouillard

BRUSSELS — New United States presidents traditionally get an early, brief NATO summit meeting, as President Biden is on Monday in a session lasting less than three hours.

Few involved with NATO can forget the last time a new American president paid an inaugural visit. It was May 2017, and Donald J. Trump took the opportunity to deride the new $1.2 billion headquarters building as too expensive, and refused, despite the assurances of his aides, to support NATO’s central tenet of collective defense, the famous Article 5 of the founding treaty.

Mr. Biden, by contrast, is a longstanding fan of NATO and of the trans-Atlantic alliance it defends, so simply showing up with a smile and warm compliments for allies will go a long way to making his first NATO summit as president smooth and even unmemorable.

He drove that point home upon arriving at the summit on Monday morning in a brief greeting with Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s secretary general — saying that the alliance was “critically important for U.S. interests” and pointing to Article 5 as a “sacred obligation.”

“There is a growing recognition over the last couple years that we have new challenges,” Mr. Biden said. “We have Russia, which is acting in a way that is not consistent with what we had hoped, and we have China.”

NATO also wants to show that it is not nearing “brain death,” as President Emmanuel Macron of France once complained, but instead preparing to adapt for a very different future.

The traditional communiqué is traditionally long — it is now 79 paragraphs — and was finished early Saturday evening.

There will be other issues for the leaders to discuss, even in a short meeting that is to provide each leader only five minutes to speak.

NATO is leaving Afghanistan pretty abruptly, after Mr. Biden’s decision to pull all United States troops out by Sept. 11. Many of NATO’s troops have already left. One of the main questions that remain: Can NATO continue to train Afghan special forces outside Afghanistan, and where?

Leaders will also talk about how to better prepare NATO’s “resilience,” including how to reduce dependence on Chinese-made technology, protect satellites and measure increased military spending. They want a new relationship with technology companies and new NATO partnerships in Asia.

They will begin to discuss a replacement for the secretary general, Mr. Stoltenberg, who worked hard to keep Mr. Trump from blowing up the alliance, and whose term ends in September 2022.

But for Mr. Biden, the meeting will be a bath of good feeling — and that is thought to be enough for now.

Preisdent Vladimir V. Putin with Chinese and Russian military officials in 2018.Credit…Pool photo by Alexei Nikolsky

Some NATO states worry that President Biden appears to be rewarding President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia by meeting him on Wednesday in Geneva.

Skeptics say that the new United States president, his sights set squarely on the challenges posed by the rise of China, may be “sleepwalking” into an unwise rapprochement with a power that many European leaders view as their principal threat.

NATO leaders, who are gathering at a summit meeting on Monday, have usually gone out of their way to adjust to the strategic priorities of the group’s most powerful member, the United States. But the issue of China is more problematic, because NATO is a regional military alliance of Europe and North America. Its main concern remains a newly aggressive Russia — not distant China.

China is expanding militarily, exercising with Russia, sending its ships into the Mediterranean. It also has a base in Africa. So it has gotten NATO’s attention.

But NATO member states from Central and Eastern Europe, as well as Germany, are concerned that a new concentration on China will divert alliance attention and resources from the problem closer to home.

Russia has invaded Ukraine and stationed thousands of troops on its borders. It has poisoned and imprisoned dissidents at home, and abroad has hacked Western governments and companies and propped up President Aleksandr G. Lukashenko’s even more oppressive Belarus.

Russia has also developed sophisticated new intermediate-range missiles that can carry nuclear warheads and modernized its armed forces significantly, making Europe more vulnerable.

“Even though European opinion is becoming more hawkish toward China, European countries are concerned with getting onboard with an overly confrontational U.S. approach,’’ said Michal Baranowski, the director of the Warsaw office of the German Marshall Fund.

There is new concern, he said, after Mr. Biden decided to waive sanctions on companies involved in finishing the controversial natural-gas pipeline between Russia and Germany called Nord Stream 2.

In Poland, Mr. Baranowski said, “there is increased worry and the perception that Washington is going soft on Putin and sleepwalking into a reset with Russia.” Poland, he said, is not alone in saying: Let’s not overdo it with China.

President Biden is welcomed by Prime Minister Alexander De Croo of Belgium in Brussels on Sunday.Credit…Pool photo by Didier Lebrun

Monday’s NATO summit meeting of 30 leaders is short, with one 2.5-hour session after an opening ceremony, leaving just five minutes for each leader to speak.

The main issues will be topical — how to manage Afghanistan during and after the withdrawal of United States troops, Vladimir V. Putin’s Russia, Xi Jinping’s China and Aleksandr G. Lukashenko’s Belarus.

The leaders will also sign off on an important yearlong study on how to remodel NATO’s strategic concept — the group’s statement of values and objectives — to meet new challenges like cyberwarfare, artificial intelligence, antimissile defense, disinformation and “emerging disruptive technologies.”

In 2010, when the strategic concept was last revised, NATO assumed that Russia could be a partner. China was barely mentioned. The new one will begin with very different assumptions.

NATO officials and ambassadors say there is much to discuss down the road: questions like how much and where a regional trans-Atlantic alliance should try to counter China, what capabilities NATO needs and how many of them should come from common funding or remain the responsibility of member countries.

How to adapt to the European Union’s still vague desire for “strategic autonomy,” while encouraging European military spending and efficiency and avoiding duplication with NATO, are other concerns. So is the question of how to make NATO a more politically savvy institution, as President Emmanuel Macron of France has demanded, perhaps by establishing new meetings of key officials of member states, like national security advisers and political directors.

More quietly, leaders will talk about replacing the current NATO secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, whose term was extended for two years to keep matters calm during the Trump presidency. His term ends in September 2022.

President Biden speaking with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey at the NATO summit in Brussels on Monday.Credit…Pool photo by Olivier Matthys

For the last four years, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey has crushed opponents at home and cozied up to Moscow, while showering his allies with sweetheart government contracts and deploying troops regionally wherever he saw fit.

And for the most part, the Trump administration turned a blind eye.

But as Mr. Erdogan arrives in Brussels for a critical NATO meeting on Monday, he faces a decidedly more skeptical Biden administration. President Biden and Mr. Erdogan will have a brief meeting on Monday afternoon during the summit.

Whereas President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has responded to the new order by growing even more belligerent, things aren’t that simple for Mr. Erdogan. Thanks to both the pandemic and his mismanagement of the economy, he faces severe domestic strains, with soaring inflation and unemployment, and a dangerously weakened lira that could set off a debt crisis.

So Mr. Erdogan has dialed back his approach, softening his positions on several issues in the hope of receiving badly needed investment from the West. He has called off gas exploration in the eastern Mediterranean, an activity that infuriated NATO allies, and annoyed Moscow by supporting Ukraine against Russia’s threats and selling Turkish-made drones to Poland.

Yet Mr. Erdogan does have some important cards to play. Turkey’s presence in NATO, its role as a way station for millions of refugees, and its military presence in Afghanistan have given him real leverage with the West.

Activists of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and other peace initiatives staged a protest in Berlin in January.Credit…Tobias Schwarz/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

As President Biden and his NATO counterparts focus on nuclear-armed Russia at their summit meeting on Monday, they may also face a different sort of challenge: growing support, or at least openness, within their own constituencies for the global treaty that bans nuclear weapons.

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the Geneva-based group that was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its work to achieve the treaty, said in a report released on Thursday that it had seen increased backing for the accord among voters and lawmakers in NATO’s 30 countries, as reflected in public opinion polls, parliamentary resolutions, political party declarations and statements from past leaders.

The treaty, negotiated at the United Nations in 2017, took effect early this year, three months after the 50th ratification. It has the force of international law even though the treaty is not binding for countries that decline to join.

The accord outlaws the use, testing, development, production, possession and transfer of nuclear weapons and stationing them in a different country. It also outlines procedures for destroying stockpiles and enforcing its provisions.

The negotiations were boycotted by the United States and the world’s eight other nuclear-armed states — Britain, China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and Russia — which have all said they will not join the treaty, describing it as misguided and naïve. And no NATO member has joined the treaty.

Nonetheless, an American-led effort begun under the Trump administration to dissuade other countries from joining has not reversed the treaty’s increased acceptance.

“The growing tide of political support for the new U.N. treaty in many NATO states, and the mounting public pressure for action, suggests that it is only a matter of time before one or more of these states take steps toward joining,” said Tim Wright, the treaty coordinator of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons who was an author of the report.

Timed a few days before the NATO meeting in Brussels, the report enumerated what it described as important signals of support or sympathy for the treaty among members in the past few years.

In Belgium, the government formed a committee to explore how the treaty could “give new impetus” to disarmament. In France, a parliamentary committee asked the government to “mitigate its criticism” of the treaty. In Italy, Parliament asked the government “to explore the possibility” of signing the treaty. And in Spain, the government made a political pledge to sign the treaty at some point.

There is nothing to prevent a NATO country from signing the treaty. And the bloc’s solidarity in opposing the accord appears to have weakened, emboldening disarmament advocates.

NATO officials have been outspoken in their opposition to the treaty. Jessica Cox, director of nuclear policy at NATO, said “nuclear deterrence is necessary and its principles still work,” in an explanation of NATO’s position posted on its website less than two months ago.

“A world where Russia, China, North Korea and others have nuclear weapons, but NATO does not, is not a safer world,” she said.

A U.S. official said that a solo news conference by President Biden would be “the appropriate format to clearly communicate with the free press” after meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times

After President Biden meets his Russian counterpart on Wednesday, the two men will not face the news media at a joint news conference, United States officials say.

Instead, Mr. Biden will face reporters by himself after two private sessions with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, a move intended to deny the Russian leader an international platform like the one he received during a 2018 summit in Helsinki, Finland, with President Donald J. Trump.

“We expect this meeting to be candid and straightforward, and a solo press conference is the appropriate format to clearly communicate with the free press the topics that were raised in the meeting,” a U.S. official said in a statement sent to reporters this weekend, “both in terms of areas where we may agree and in areas where we have significant concerns.”

Top aides to Mr. Biden said that during negotiations over the meetings, to be held at an 18th-century Swiss villa on the shores of Lake Geneva, the Russian government was eager to have Mr. Putin join Mr. Biden in a news conference. But Biden administration officials said that they were mindful of how Mr. Putin seemed to get the better of Mr. Trump in Helsinki.

At that news conference, Mr. Trump publicly accepted Mr. Putin’s assurances that his government did not interfere with the 2016 election, taking the Russian president’s word rather than the assessments of his own intelligence officials.

The spectacle in 2018 drew sharp condemnations from across the political spectrum for providing an opportunity for Mr. Putin to spread falsehoods. Senator John McCain at the time called it “one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory.”

Mr. Putin has had a long and contentious relationship with United States presidents, who have sought to maintain relations with Russia even as the two nations clashed over nuclear weapons, aggression toward Ukraine and, more recently, cyberattacks and hacking.

President Barack Obama met several times with Mr. Putin, including at a joint appearance during the 2013 Group of 8 summit in Northern Ireland. Mr. Obama came under criticism at the time from rights groups for giving Mr. Putin a platform and for not challenging the Russian president more directly on human rights.

In the summer of 2001 — before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — President George W. Bush held a joint news conference with Mr. Putin at a summit in Slovenia. At the news conference, Mr. Bush famously said: “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul.”

At the time, then-Senator Biden said: “I don’t trust Mr. Putin; hopefully the president was being stylistic rather than substantive.”

Biden administration officials said on Saturday that the two countries were continuing to finalize the format for the meeting on Wednesday with Mr. Putin. They said that the current plan called for a working session involving top aides in addition to the two leaders, and a smaller session.

Jill Biden with a jacket that said “love” on the back during the Group of 7 summit in Cornwall, England, on Thursday.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York Times

President Biden and Jill Biden’s first overseas trip since he took office — which he continued at a NATO summit on Monday after she returned home following the Group of 7 meeting in Britain this weekend — has been a chance to use the stagecraft of state to make the point that America is once again an ally in the league of nations.

To prevent anyone missing the message, Dr. Biden put it in bold, bright letters — the word “Love” picked out in rhinestones on the back of the Zadig & Voltaire jacket she wore on day one of the gathering.

Such signaling suggests that the first lady is more than ready to use costume to make a point, especially at moments of high political theater like the G7, where the imagery is as choreographed as any of the meetings behind closed doors.

That’s why the G7 “family photo,” with Mr. Biden smiling gamely in a dark suit and bright blue tie while sandwiched, albeit in a socially distant way, between Prime Minister Boris Johnson of Britain and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, was so important; why Dr. Biden’s trip to visit schoolchildren with Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, mattered; and why the photo of the Bidens looking relaxed and cheerful with Queen Elizabeth II went ’round the world.

In such settings the supporting players — i.e. the families — are as much as part of the narrative arc as the policy statements.

And what the four days of the G7 demonstrated during the president’s trip is that when it comes to playing that part, Dr. Biden has her own ideas about how it should be done.

Queen Elizabeth II of Britain greeting President Biden and Jill Biden at Windsor Castle on Sunday.Credit…Andrew Testa for The New York Times

Before heading to Brussels for Monday’s NATO summit, President Biden had a lighthearted agenda item on Sunday to round out his visit to Britain, the first country visited on his inaugural European trip as president: an audience with Queen Elizabeth II.

The monarch welcomed Mr. Biden and the first lady, Jill Biden, to her home, Windsor Castle, where she has sought refuge since moving from Buckingham Palace early last year as the pandemic was bearing down on Britain.

In what was a very private visit, with cameras and reporters kept well away, Mr. Biden and the queen inspected an honor guard of grenadiers in the castle’s sun-splashed quadrangle before retiring inside for tea.

On every presidential visit to the country, it is the meeting with the queen that most symbolizes what American and British diplomats still reflexively call the “special relationship” — a term that Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently said he did not care for because it made Britain sound needy.

Earlier in the visit, at a reception in Cornwall on Friday, Mr. Biden and his wife looked relaxed as they chatted with the queen, who turned 95 in April. The monarch had also drawn laughs during a stilted, socially distanced group photo by asking, “Are you supposed to look as if you’re enjoying yourself?”

It was a happy contrast to the bereaved figure who sat alone in a choir stall at St. George’s Chapel at Windsor three months ago, during the funeral of her husband, Prince Philip.

“We had a long talk,” Mr. Biden told reporters after the meeting. “She was very generous.”

Categories
World News

Microsoft Bethesda Starfield, Ubisoft Avatar recreation

Bethesda’s Todd Howard introduces Starfield at the 2018 E3 Show.

Christian Petersen | Getty Images

The annual trade fair for the video game industry went virtual this year and offers publishers a new format for presenting upcoming titles.

The E3 gaming expo started on Saturday and will last until Tuesday, when Nintendo is expected to showcase its new releases. Microsoft, Ubisoft and Square Enix were among the major publishers who presented over the weekend.

E3 has lost momentum in recent years, Sony pulled out of the event for the first time in 2019, and longtime host Geoff Keighley skipped the event for the first time in 25 years in 2020.

Still, E3 is often used as a platform for large video game companies to generate hype for their new blockbusters. And there were some highlights of this year’s event.

Microsoft teases Starfield

The biggest reveal of the weekend was undoubtedly Starfield, an upcoming science fiction epic from Microsoft’s Bethesda.

Microsoft bought the parent company of legendary publisher ZeniMax Media for $ 7.5 billion in an industry-shaking deal announced last year. One of the key results analysts were anticipating from the acquisition was Xbox exclusivity for some Bethesda titles.

Microsoft released the big guns without delay and announced in a joint press conference with Bethesda on Sunday that Starfield will appear exclusively on the Xbox Series X and S consoles and the PC on November 11, 2022.

Microsoft has long lagged behind Sony when it comes to exclusive games – games that only run on one system. AAA franchises like The Last of Us and God of War were key to the success of Sony’s PlayStation 4, and the company is pursuing a similar strategy with the PS5.

Here are a few more highlights from Microsoft’s E3 showcase:

  • We’ve taken our first look at online multiplayer for Halo Infinite, the latest in the Halo franchise. Microsoft also announced that the game would be released around Christmas 2021 after being postponed last year due to criticism of the graphics.
  • There was an official trailer for the Forza Horizon 5 racing title and a release date of November 9th.
  • Microsoft has unveiled Redfall, a new multiplayer shooter from the developers behind Dishonored and Prey, and announced a release window for summer 2021.
  • Some popular titles, including Hades and Among Us, are coming to Xbox Game Pass, Microsoft’s Netflix-like gaming subscription service; Starfield will be available on Game Pass from the day it is released.
  • Sea of ​​Thieves: A Pirate’s Life is an expansion pack for the original game inspired by “Pirates of the Caribbean” and, thanks to a partnership with Disney, even includes the popular protagonist of the film series, Captain Jack Sparrow; the expansion will be released as a free update on June 22nd.
  • A new zombie survival co-op shooter from the makers of Left 4 Dead, Back 4 Blood, will be released on October 12th this year.
  • Age of Empires IV, the fourth entry in the real-time strategy game franchise, hits October 28th.

Ubisoft unveils Avatar game

Ubisoft made some big announcements on its E3 show on Saturday. The French publisher gave fans a closer look at the history of Far Cry 6, the sixth main part of the popular Far Cry series. The game with Giancarlo Esposito from Breaking Bad will be released on October 7th.

But a big surprise from the Ubisoft showcase was a game based on James Cameron’s 2009 sci-fi film “Avatar”. It’s called Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora and features colorful creatures and environments from the Avatar universe.

Ubisoft also showed Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six: Extraction, the newest entry in the Rainbow Six tactical shooter franchise. The game was originally supposed to be called Rainbow Six: Quarantine, but Ubisoft changed it due to controversy amid the coronavirus pandemic. Extraction debuts on September 16.

Another big reveal was a new mashup of Nintendo’s Mario and Ubisoft’s Raving Rabbids, called the Mario + Rabbids Sparks of Hope. As a sequel to Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle from 2017, the game will be released on Nintendo Switch next year.

Elden Ring and other great revelations

Geoff Keighley may have broken up with E3, but he’s not done broadcasting video games yet.

The host hosted his new, digital-only Summer Game Fest last week, which ended with a reveal trailer for Elden Ring, the highly anticipated role-playing title created in collaboration with Game of Thrones creator George RR Martin.

Elden Ring will be released on January 21, 2022. The game will be published by Bandai Namco.

Meanwhile, Square Enix unveiled a new game on Sunday based on Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy. It will be a single-player title, unlike another game based on the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Marvel’s Avengers, which received mixed feedback when it was released in September.

Categories
World News

Israel’s Parliament Approves New Authorities, Ousting Netanyahu

Here’s what you need to know:

VideoIsrael’s Parliament, the Knesset, approved a new coalition government by a single-vote margin on Sunday. The vote, 60 to 59 with one abstention, officially ended the longtime reign of Benjamin Netanyahu.CreditCredit…Dan Balilty for The New York Times

The long and divisive reign of Benjamin Netanyahu, the dominant Israeli politician of the past generation, officially ended on Sunday, at least for the time being, as the country’s Parliament gave its vote of confidence to a precarious coalition government stitched together by widely disparate anti-Netanyahu forces.

Israel’s Parliament, the Knesset, approved the new government by just a single vote — 60 to 59, with one abstention.

After his supporters cheered the announcement of his election, Naftali Bennett then exchanged a brief handshake with Mr. Netanyahu before walking to the rostrum at the front of the parliamentary chamber and taking the oath of office as prime minister.

Yair Lapid, a centrist leader, is set to take Mr. Bennett’s place after two years, if their government can hold together that long.

They lead an eight-party alliance ranging from left to right, from secular to religious, that agrees on little but a desire to oust Mr. Netanyahu, the longest-serving leader in the country’s history, and to end Israel’s lengthy political gridlock.

In a speech made before the confidence vote, Mr. Bennett hailed his unlikely coalition as an essential antidote to an intractable stalemate.

“We stopped the train before the abyss,” Mr. Bennett said. “The time has come for different leaders, from all parts of the people, to stop, to stop this madness.”

Before and after the fragile new government was announced on June 2, Mr. Netanyahu and his right-wing allies labored hard to break it before it could take office. They applied intense pressure on right-wing opposition lawmakers, urging them to peel away from their leaders and refuse to support a coalition that includes centrists, leftists and even a small Arab Islamist party.

It was a watershed moment for politics in Israel, where Mr. Netanyahu, 71, had served as prime minister for a total of 15 years, including the last 12 years uninterrupted. But given Mr. Netanyahu’s record as a shrewd political operator who has defied many previous predictions of his political demise, few Israelis are writing off his career.

Even out of government and standing trial on corruption charges, he remains a formidable force who will likely try to drive wedges between the coalition parties. He remains the leader of the parliamentary opposition and a cagey tactician, with a sizable following and powerful allies.

Israel has held four inconclusive elections in two years and has gone much of that time without a state budget, fueling disgust among voters with the nation’s politics. No one was able to cobble together a Knesset majority after the first two contests, and the third produced an unwieldy right-center coalition that collapsed after months in recriminations.

The new coalition proposes to set aside some of the toughest issues and focus on rebuilding the economy. But it remains to be seen whether the new government will avoid another gridlock or crumble under its own contradictions.

Some of its factions hope to see movement away from the social policies that favored the ultra-Orthodox minority, whose parties were allied with Mr. Netanyahu. But Mr. Bennett’s party, which has a partly religious base, is wary of alienating the Haredim, as the ultra-Orthodox are known in Hebrew.

Supporters also hope for a return to a long tradition of Israel cultivating bipartisan support in the United States. Mr. Netanyahu has grown more aligned with Republicans and was embraced by Donald J. Trump, the former president. It was uncertain where relations would go under President Biden.

Credit…Dan Balilty for The New York Times

Naftali Bennett, Israel’s new prime minister, is a former high-tech entrepreneur best known for insisting that there must never be a full-fledged Palestinian state and that Israel should annex much of the occupied West Bank.

The independently wealthy son of immigrants from the United States, Mr. Bennett, 49, entered the Israeli Parliament eight years ago and is relatively unknown and inexperienced on the international stage. That has left much of the world — and many Israelis — wondering what kind of leader he might be.

A former chief of staff to Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, Mr. Bennett is often described as more right-wing than his old boss. Shifting between seemingly contradictory alliances, Mr. Bennett has been called an extremist and an opportunist. Allies say he is merely a pragmatist, less ideological than he appears, and lacking Mr. Netanyahu’s penchant for demonizing opponents.

In a measure of Mr. Bennett’s talents, he has now pulled off a feat that is extraordinary even by the perplexing standards of Israeli politics: He has maneuvered himself into the top office even though his party, Yamina, won just seven of the 120 seats in the Parliament.

Mr. Bennett has long championed West Bank settlers and once led the council representing them, although he is not a settler. He is religiously observant — he would be the first prime minister to wear a kipa — but he will head a governing coalition that is largely secular.

He leads a precarious coalition that spans Israel’s fractious political spectrum from left to right and includes a small Arab party — much of which opposes his ideas on settlement and annexation. That coalition proposes to paper over its differences on Israeli-Palestinian relations by focusing on domestic matters.

Mr. Bennett has explained his motives for teaming up with such ideological opposites as an act of last resort to end the political impasse that has paralyzed Israel.

“The political crisis in Israel is unprecedented on a global level,” he said in a televised speech on Sunday. “We could end up with fifth, sixth, even 10th elections, dismantling the walls of the country, brick by brick, until our house falls in on us. Or we can stop the madness and take responsibility.”

Mr. Netanyahu and his wife leaving the White House in Washington in 2018.Credit…Tom Brenner/The New York Times

Educated in the United States, speaking flawless East Coast English, warning in pungent sound bites about the threats posed by Islamic terrorism and a nuclear Iran, the Benjamin Netanyahu who stormed into Israeli politics in the 1990s was like no politician his citizens had ever seen.

Before long, he would capture the prime minister’s office, lose it, then seize it again a decade later, becoming Israel’s longest-serving leader and inspiring such admiration that supporters likened him to the biblical King David. His political agility got him out of so many tight spots that even his detractors called him a magician.

He presided over an extraordinary economic turnaround, kept the perennially embattled country out of major wars and kept casualty tolls to historic lows. He feuded with Democratic American presidents, then capitalized on a symbiosis with the Trump administration to cement historic gains, including the opening of a U.S. embassy in Jerusalem.

He compartmentalized the Palestinian conflict, snubbing the endless peace talks that had stymied his predecessors, unilaterally expanding the Jewish presence in the occupied West Bank and treating Palestinians largely as a security threat to be contained.

While the chance for a lasting peace with the Palestinians — the singular achievement that could give Israelis the long-term stability and worldwide acceptance — receded on his watch, he struck watershed accords with four Arab countries that had long shunned Israel in solidarity with the Palestinians. Those agreements overturned decades of conventional wisdom that peace with the Palestinians had to come first, and constitute perhaps his most far-reaching achievement.

Still, he was a deeply polarizing figure, governing from the right, branding adversaries as traitors, anti-Israel or anti-Semitic, obsessed with power and comfortable deploying street-fighter tactics to retain it.

The intuitive media savvy that sped his rise to power curdled in time into an almost narcissistic obsession. His efforts to control his image, including allegations that he bribed media executives for favorable news coverage, led to criminal charges that haunted his final years in office.

Even as he surpassed the tenure of David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding leader, in 2019, he drove Israelis to exhaustion with four elections in two years in which the main issue was him, and the electorate split down the middle each time.

Now, Mr. Netanyahu leaves power nearly a quarter-century after he first became prime minister in 1996.

Knesset member Itamar Ben-Givr of the Jewish Power party being held back while shouting during the session on Sunday. At least seven members were escorted from the chamber after outburts. Credit…Emmanuel Dunand/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Heckling and mayhem in the Knesset, an intimate parliamentary chamber transformed by anger, marked the end of Benjamin Netanyahu’s divisive 12-year rule over Israel and the start of Naftali Bennett’s term as prime minister.

Mr. Bennett, a hard-right politician whose decision to join an eight-party coalition including left-wing parties has enraged Mr. Netanyahu’s center-right Likud party, struggled for 43 minutes to make himself heard as his opponents hurled abuse and held up posters saying, “Shame on you.”

Mr. Netanyahu gave a 35-minute speech full of venom, contempt for Mr. Bennett and dire warnings about Israel’s security without him.

“Try to damage as little as possible of the magnificent economy we are handing over to you, so that we can fix it as fast as possible when we return,” he said in a typically unapologetic speech that oozed scorn and confidence that he would soon be back.

A measure of calm returned only after several hours as voting began in the 120-member Israeli Parliament. The sound of “Ba’ad,” meaning “in favor,” and “Neged,” meaning “against,” alternated. The vote yielded a razor-thin 60-to-59 victory for the new coalition, with one abstention from a member of the Raam Islamist party, which is joining the government.

Mr. Netanyahu, wearing a black mask, was impassive, even when members of Israel’s new government congregated around its centrist architect, Yair Lapid, and embraced.

An era had ended, just.

Earlier, proceedings had slowed to a crawl as yelling filled the chamber.

At least seven members of Parliament were escorted out. They accused Mr. Bennett of being unfit to lead Israel because his party, Yamina, has only a handful of seats; told him he was “selling” the Negev desert because he has agreed to accommodate some Bedouin demands; and assailed him as a “liar” and traitor to his right-wing voters.

In the blue-carpeted, wood-paneled chamber, the departing speaker had to call several times for order, to little avail. The turmoil was an apt portrait of a country bitterly divided after four elections since 2019.

“We stopped the train a step before the abyss,” Mr. Bennett said, explaining that the “turmoil of elections and hatred” had to be end.

Such was the tumult that Mr. Lapid skipped his planned speech. He asked for forgiveness of his 86-year-old mother, whom he had brought to Parliament to watch because he “wanted her to be proud of the democratic process in Israel.” He added, “Instead, she, along with every citizen of Israel, is ashamed of you.”

Celebrations in Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square on Sunday night.Credit…Corinna Kern/Reuters

Ecstatic Israelis descended onto Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square on Sunday for a celebration marking the ouster of Benjamin Netanyahu and the swearing-in of a new — if precarious — government.

The euphoric atmosphere reflected the relief of many Israelis that a new day had sprung and that a public figure that many in the liberal enclave disdain had at last been dispatched.

As music blasted into the square, it was blanketed in people of all ages carrying Israeli flags, rainbow flags and pink flags, the color adopted by members of the movement to oust the prime minister.

Many wore shirts saying simply “Go,” in a font matching Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud party logo. Others wore shirts emblazoned with references to the various corruption scandals during Mr. Netanyahu’s tenure.

Omer Ziv, dancing under a large “Crime Minister” banner with Mr. Netanyahu’s image on it, was thrilled. “We feel like the democracy is back, and we’re super happy about it,” she said.

Chany Gross said she felt “high, high in the sky,” declaring that Israel had “finally got rid of the horrible person — I don’t want to say his name.”

“We are in heaven,” she said.

But even as they basked in the moment, some spoke of mixed emotions. They remain wary of Naftali Bennett, Mr. Netanyahu’s replacement, since he hails from a hard-right party not necessarily aligned with their views.

Aviv and Inbal Adashi found a babysitter for the evening so they could attend the gathering. While Mr. Adashi feels ambivalent about Mr. Bennett’s elevation and initially harbored doubts over Yair Lapid, another key player in the coalition, he was relieved to see Mr. Netanyahu go.

“It’s been a very bad dream for a very long time,” Mr. Adashi said. “It’s been a nightmare.”

Noam Goodman, also unsure of the new prime minister, was still optimistic, given the presence of other parties in the coalition.

“I think it’s a little pathetic that somebody with so few voters became prime minister, it’s not ideal,” Mr. Goodman said. “But I think the main thing is not who’s prime minister, it’s who’s in control, and who’s in the government.”

Shoval Sadde expressed relief that the coalition had come together after weeks of uncertainty.

“Today is final,” she said. “There are no secret magics anymore that Bibi can pull out of a hat. It’s final.”

Some saw a moment of closure.

Yuval Geni, 76, said he felt “reborn,” noting the significance of the celebration’s location: in the square named after Yitzhak Rabin, the prime minister assassinated there in 1995 at a peace rally. Mr. Netanyahu ascended to the premiership for the first time months later.

“It’s a kind of balancing,” Mr. Geni said.

Mr. Geni was hopeful that Mr. Netanyahus’ reign, the longest of any Israeli prime minister, would ultimately be a footnote in the country’s history.

“Bibi will go,” he said. “He’ll be forgotten. It won’t take long.”

Mr. Bennett, in his speech at the Knesset on Sunday, said that renewing the nuclear agreement with Iran would be a mistake.Credit…Dan Balilty for The New York Times

Among the most important issues that the new Bennett government will confront is how to manage political, military and intelligence coordination with the Biden administration, which will affect how it addresses almost all other foreign, national security and economic policy challenges. At the center of current dialogue is the soon-to-be-concluded, revived nuclear deal with Iran.

The defense establishment of Israel, including the military and the intelligence agencies, see Iran as the main enemy of the country, and the most difficult challenge of all.

Benjamin Netanyahu took the position that the original nuclear deal, negotiated in 2015 and known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, did not give Israel enough security from the possibility that Iran would try to develop a nuclear bomb. He also objected that the deal did not cover any other crucial topics like Iranian support for militias in neighboring countries.

This view was generally shared across the political spectrum in Israel, and was backed by most of the country’s defense establishment.It is apparently the position of the new government, as well.

“The renewal of the nuclear agreement is a mistake,” Naftali Bennett said in his opening remarks in the Knesset, Israel’s Parliament, before Sunday’s vote made him prime minister. “Israel will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and will maintain full freedom of action,” he added, using words similar to those used at various times by Mr. Netanyahu and members of his government.

The sabotage and assassination campaign against the Iranian nuclear project led by the Mossad, Israel’s spy service, continued even after President Biden was elected and negotiations to rejoin the deal began. And the Mossad’s new director, David Barnea, has hinted that these tactics could still be on the table.

“The probable agreement with the superpowers only reinforces the sense of isolation we are in on this issue,” he said in a speech he made when taking on the new post on June 1.

Mr. Barnea said that if Iran continues with its nuclear program, “it will come up against the full force of the Mossad.” Referring to Iran’s nuclear efforts, he hinted at Israel’s possible responses, saying the Mossad was “well aware of the program’s various components, the officials active within it, as well as those who give them the orders how to operate.”

Still, Mr. Bennet is considering trying to influence some terms of the new deal, an effort that Mr. Netanyahu refused to contemplate. If that happens and some of the Israeli requests are fulfilled, Israel’s opposition to the deal may decrease.

Mr. Bennet and his chief partner, Yair Lapid, have agreed that Israel will try to keep public disagreements with the United States to a minimum and not take the adversarial stand it did under the Obama administration, according to a person familiar with the negotiations that led to the formation of the new coalition. To do that, Mr. Bennet is considering replacing Gilad Ardan, the current ambassador to Washington and a longtime Netanyahu political ally, with a confidante of his own.

From left, Yair Lapid, Neftali Bennett and Mr. Abbas agreed to join forces on Wednesday.Credit…United Arab List, via Reuters

The agreement on the coalition that ousted Benjamin Netanyahu as Israel’s prime minister after a dozen years in power includes an independent Arab party in the government for the first time, blowing up fault lines in Israeli politics and opening a potential new era.

With Parliament’s backing of the eight-party coalition on Sunday comes the tantalizing possibility that Palestinian citizens of Israel, who account for about a fifth of the population, might play a more active role in politics, to unifying effect.

The decision by a small Arab party known by its Hebrew acronym, Raam, to join the government so soon after last month’s violent clashes between Jewish and Arab mobs in Israel last month reflected a growing realization that the marginalization of Arab parties brings only paralysis and repetitive elections. It also suggested a desire among some Palestinian citizens of Israel to exert more political influence.

Fakhira Halloun, an expert in conflict resolution, said: “Usually the dominant discourse is one of perceiving Palestinians inside Israel as an internal enemy. We need to change this perception by not being always in the opposition.”

Certainly, Raam, with four seats in Parliament, will be critical to the survival of the coalition, even if it will not hold any cabinet posts. The coalition will have to consider the interests of the Palestinian minority in a different way.

Practically, Raam’s leader, Mansour Abbas, is likely to press for increased spending for Arab communities, who lag Israel’s Jewish population in the quality of schools, sports facilities and infrastructure. They also suffer from denial of access to land. Revocation of the so-called Kaminitz Law, which disproportionately penalizes unlicensed construction in Arab communities, has been discussed.

“I do not think that the two-state solution or reconciliation with the Palestinians will be achieved in the coming year or two,” said Jafar Farah, the director of the Mossawa Center, an advocacy group for Arab citizens of Israel. “But I do think that it is an opportunity for the Palestinian community in Israel to become a game changer.”

Israeli nationalists marching last month. The new government will have to decide whether to permit a march planned for Tuesday through Arab neighborhoods.Credit…Ariel Schalit/Associated Press

Members of the new Israeli government put together by Naftali Bennett, the new prime minister, have referred to their coalition as a “government of change.” But a big question is whether there will be changes in Israel’s foreign and defense policies, which have been almost exclusively controlled by Benjamin Netanyahu since 2009, when he began his last term in office.

Most of the members of the Bennett security cabinet have served in the past as senior members of the various Netanyahu cabinets over the past 12 years, and have backed the outgoing prime minister’s policies: Mr. Bennett was Mr. Netanyahu’s defense minister; Avigdor Lieberman was foreign minister and defense minister; Yair Lapid was finance minister; and Benny Gantz was defense minister, and before that, the chief of staff of the military.

Moreover, the new government, composed of parties across the wide political spectrum, is not expected to initiate significant changes on controversial issues — like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the questions of establishing an independent Palestinian state or continuing to establish settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Israel is also unlikely to significantly change its policy of waging a so-called “war between the wars,” on or close to its borders. This includes hundreds of Israeli attacks, almost all from the air, with the aim of preventing the continuation of the military buildup in Syria by Iran and Hezbollah, and the development of advanced precision weaponry for the Lebanese Shiite militia.

The policy was shaped by the new government’s defense minister, Benny Gantz, when he led Israel’s military, together with others. But Mr. Netanyahu’s ability to conduct this war without allowing it to deteriorate to an all-in conflict depended in part on his close ties with President Vladimir V. Putin, which helped prevent clashes between Israeli forces and Russian force in Syria.

Mr. Bennet does not have such a relationship with Mr. Putin, and it will be difficult for him to shape one against the background of the tension between Moscow and Washington.

The new leaders of Israel, however, may want to make some changes to distinguish themselves from Mr. Netanyahu, diverging from his path in some areas like relations with the Palestinian Authority, which Mr. Netanyahu wanted to weaken.

One possible such shift could be to follow the military’s recommendation at the end of the recent hostilities with Hamas to cut off the flow of funds from Qatar to the Islamist regime in Gaza, and instead direct it to the Palestinian Authority. This could change the balance of power between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

One of the first issues to confront Mr. Bennet is whether to allow a provocative “flag parade” scheduled to be held on Tuesday through Arab areas of Jerusalem by ultranationalist Jewish Israelis.

Security officials have warned that the parade could spark a new round of Arab-Jewish violence, including a possible rocket attack on Israel by Hamas in Gaza, and the predictable Israeli military retaliation.

Naftali Bennett now leads a new — and shaky — coalition government.Credit…Dan Balilty for The New York Times

Now that the Israeli Parliament has approved a new government coalition — a gravity-defying construction with a right-wing leader and blocs including the left and, for the first time, an independent Arab party — its survival will immediately become its main issue.

Israel’s parliamentary democracy veered in a presidential direction under Mr. Netanyahu. In the end, his increasingly dismissive style had alienated too many people, especially among nominal allies on the right.

An agreement to return to democratic norms may be the underlying glue of an unlikely coalition.

“The parties are disparate, but they share a commitment to reconstitute Israel as a functioning liberal democracy,” said Shlomo Avineri, a prominent political scientist. “In recent years we saw Netanyahu begin to govern in a semi-authoritarian way.”

Success will require constant compromise. “They will not deal with the highly contentious issues between left and right,” said Tamar Hermann, a professor of political science at Israel’s Open University.

In practice, that means a likely concentration on domestic rather than foreign affairs. Israel has not had a budget in nearly two years of political turmoil and repetitive elections. As prime minister, Naftali Bennett, a self-made tech millionaire who is considered to be to the right even of Mr. Netanyahu, is determined to deliver higher standards of living and prosperity to a population weary of such paralysis.

The delicate questions to be deferred or finessed would include any renewed peace negotiations with the Palestinians and any major settlement expansion in the West Bank.

Establishing good relations with the Biden administration, a priority, and improving relations with America’s majority liberal Jewish community, another significant goal, will also require centrist restraint.

“Hard core people of the right, we have the evidence, become more centrist in office,” Ms. Hermann said.

Yair Lapid, 57, a leading architect of the coalition, would become prime minister in two years under the deal that made an alternative to Mr. Netanyahu possible — another incentive for him to help make the government work.

Still, it may not. The parties, ranging from Mr. Bennett’s Yamina party on the right to Labor and Meretz on the left, disagree on everything from L.G.B.T.Q. rights to public transport on Shabbat.

Among measures the government has agreed on is legislation that would set a two-term limit for a prime minister and oblige anyone who has led the country for eight years to spend four years out of the Knesset. In effect, this would preclude any Netanyahu redux.

The prospective government will also pursue legislation designed to make changing Israel’s Basic Law — containing much of its fundamental legal framework — more difficult. Mr. Netanyahu, who had been indicted on fraud and other charges, had eyed curtailing the powers of the Supreme Court and securing immunity from prosecution as prime minister.

Yair Lapid helped coax into existence the fragile coalition to replace former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government over months of phone calls and meetings with faction leaders.Credit…Dan Balilty for The New York Times

When Yair Lapid was a rising newspaper columnist in the late 1990s, his editor, Ron Maiberg, found him a pleasant but self-centered and often intransigent man who regularly failed to cede ground in an argument.

“He would argue with you to death,” said Mr. Maiberg, then a senior editor at Maariv, a centrist newspaper. “Instead of admitting that Raymond Chandler wrote maybe seven novels and not nine or 10 — he would include the short stories to explain his counting.”

More than two decades later, Mr. Lapid, 57, is a man transformed, colleagues and analysts say. Now a leading centrist politician, he is considered gracious and conciliatory. And it is partly because of that transformation that Israel now stands on the cusp of one of the most significant moments in its recent political history.

On Sunday, Israeli lawmakers voted in a new government that replaces Benjamin Netanyahu, the country’s longest-serving leader, as prime minister. The new coalition is a fragile alliance formed from eight ideologically diffuse parties that are united only by their shared dislike of Mr. Netanyahu. If it holds, it will be largely because Mr. Lapid coaxed the unlikely alliance into existence over months of phone calls and meetings with faction leaders.

To cement the deal, Mr. Lapid has even allowed Naftali Bennett, a right-wing former settler leader who wavered over joining forces with centrists, leftists and Arabs, to go first as prime minister — even though Mr. Bennett’s party won 10 fewer seats than Mr. Lapid’s.

In a compromise, Mr. Lapid will take over as prime minister in 2023. But while Mr. Bennett takes the stage first, he does so only because Mr. Lapid vacated the limelight for him.

A protest against Mr. Netanyahu last year.Credit…Menahem Kahana/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

After 12 years with Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister, young Israelis and Palestinians — who can barely remember his predecessor — expressed in interviews before Sunday’s vote a wide range of reactions to the possibility of a future without Mr. Netanyahu at the helm.

“Wow,” said Gil Maymon, a Ph.D. candidate at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, barely concealing her excitement. “We started to think he would never leave, but now it’s finally happening.”

But Ms. Maymon, 30, expressed some reservations about the politician taking Mr. Netanyahu’s place: Naftali Bennett, the leader of the hard-right Yamina party, who strongly supports settlement building.

“Sometimes you don’t get everything you want,” she said.

Young supporters of Mr. Netanyahu, however, said they were not only shocked, but bitter, at the prospect of his exit.

Nathan Moatti, 27, an education student, said he was furious at Mr. Bennett — a former chief of staff to Mr. Netanyahu — for moving to unseat the prime minister. “I feel betrayed,” Mr. Moatti said.

“I very much love and appreciate Netanyahu,” said Mr. Moatti, 27, who lives about 150 feet from the prime minister’s residence in Jerusalem. “He has transformed our economy, defended us against Iran and stood up for our country around the world.”

The government that was inaugurated on Sunday is made up of right-wing, left-wing and centrist political parties, as well as the first independent Arab party to join a coalition in Israel’s history.

But many Palestinians in the occupied West Bank said they doubted that a new prime minister would bring dramatic changes in their lives.

“The same system and strategy — the restrictions on movement, the checkpoints and the wall — will stay,” said Bahaa Nairoukh, 30 an accountant in Ramallah, the seat of the Palestinian Authority, in the West Bank. “It’s hard to imagine anything different because occupation is all I’ve known my whole life.”

Mohammed Wawi, an Arab citizen of Israel, also did not expect a transformation. “It’s true he incited against the Arab community,” he said of Mr. Netanyahu, “but Bennett has also made comments against us.”

Mr. Wawi, 29, a physical therapist from Nazareth, said that while the Arab party that joined the coalition may be able to extract additional money in the budget for Arab towns, it was unlikely to be able to make changes to the nation-state law — legislation passed in 2018 that formally declared Israel to be the nation-state of Jewish people only.

Some on the right praised Mr. Netanyahu, but said that the only way Israel could overcome its political deadlock, after four elections in two years, was for him to leave office.

“The country got stuck,” said Alon Saperia, 30, an industrial engineer who lives in the long-disputed Golan Heights. “The unfortunate reality is he had to go.”

Israeli soldiers standing guard as children play in a Jewish settlement in the West Bank in 2019.Credit…Sergey Ponomarev for The New York Times

If the end of Benjamin Netanyahu’s 12-year reign as prime minister is a political earthquake inside Israel, its tremors stop clearly at Israel’s borders.

The political drama has solicited barely a shrug from Israel’s Arab neighbors, who do not expect it to lead to substantial changes in the issues they care about — namely, Israel’s approach to the Palestinians or to the wider Middle East.

“Truly this is not being talked about or thought about,” said Elham Fakhro, senior analyst for Gulf States at the International Crisis Group. “For those who care about the Palestinian side, they see every Israeli government as similar, they feel like the occupation is going to continue regardless and it doesn’t matter who is the face of it.”

Mr. Netanyahu’s long tenure as Israel’s dominant politician has seen shifts in Israel’s relations with the Arabs. The peace process with the Palestinians has fallen dormant. Israel has stepped up its shadow war against Iran by regularly bombing targets associated with its allies in Syria. And in cooperation with former President Donald J. Trump, Israel reached new agreements to establish diplomatic relations with four Arab states, helping erode what was long considered an Arab consensus against engaging with the Jewish state.

But few in the Arab world expect any of that to change now that Mr. Netanyahu is being replaced at the helm of Israel’s government.

The new prime minister, Naftali Bennett, is at least as hostile to the idea of a Palestinian state as Mr. Netanyahu. And there are no signs that any of the parties to the agreements with the four Arab states, which began with the so-called Abraham Accords with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, and were followed by similar deals with Sudan and Morocco, are considering throwing them out.

“The Abraham Accords are not a Netanyahu accord,” said Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a political scientist in the U.A.E. “They are not even an Israel accord. They are a U.A.E.-driven accord and they will outlast Netanyahu or any Israeli prime minister.”

“The Abraham Accords are here to stay,” he continued, “and that is good for the U.A.E., good for Israel and good for America.”

Mr. Netanyahu’s departure could actually make the agreement easier to preserve, Mr. Abdulla said, since the longtime prime minister was widely seen as arrogant and pretentious.

“It is good for the accord that he is gone,” Mr. Abdulla said, adding that it would have been awkward for Mr. Netanyahu to visit Abu Dhabi, the Emirati capital.

Large parts of the population in many Arab countries still oppose Israel’s existence or strongly oppose its blockade of the Gaza Strip, which it enforces with Egypt, and its decades-old occupation of the West Bank. That gives them little interest in Israel’s internal politics since significant changes to those policies are not on the table.

Mickey Levy was elected as the new Knesset Speaker on Sunday.Credit…Dan Balilty for The New York Times

Parliament selected Mickey Levy, a lawmaker from Yair Lapid’s centrist party, Yesh Atid, to be its new speaker on Sunday afternoon.

Mr. Levy’s election was considered a sign that the new government would likely pass the vote of confidence. He beat out Yaakov Margi, an ultra-Orthodox politician who is part of Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition.

Mr. Levy, 69, is a former police officer who commanded police units in Jerusalem during the second intifada, or Palestinian uprising, in the early 2000s. He later served as a police attaché at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, according to his biography on the Parliament website, and then ran a bus company.

After entering politics with Yesh Atid in 2013, he was deputy finance minister for nearly two years, overseeing the tax authority and serving under Mr. Lapid.

As speaker, Mr. Levy will exert considerable influence over parliamentary procedure, giving his government greater influence over the passage of legislation.

Benjamin Netanyahu has disparaged media coverage of his frustrated attempt to retain power as “total fascism.”Credit…Menahem Kahana/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

For former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel witnessed “the greatest election fraud in the history of the country.” For former President Donald J. Trump, defeat last November was “the crime of the century.” The two men’s language overlaps, it seems, because their overwhelming sense of invincibility is confounded by democratic process.

Even as Naftali Bennett, a right-wing nationalist, took office as prime minister Sunday as a leader of a diverse coalition, Mr. Netanyahu’s raging assault on his successor did not abate, describing what had befallen his own 12-year-long tenure as a “deep state” conspiracy.

Mr. Netanyahu accused Mr. Bennett of having conducted a “fire sale on the country.” A “government of capitulation” will now run Israel after a “stolen” election, he said. Mr. Netanyahu disparaged media coverage of his frustrated attempt to retain power as “total fascism.”

In the run-up to the transfer of power on Sunday, doubts had persisted over whether it would be peaceful.

Attacks by Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud party on Mr. Bennett’s small Yamina party were so vicious last week that some Yamina politicians needed security details. And Mr. Netanyahu’s whatever-it-takes tactics left the lingering whiff of potential violence, reminiscent of the Trump-incited mob that stormed the U.S. Capitol in January over Mr. Trump’s unfounded claims that he had been robbed of victory.

But Israel, unlike the United States, is a parliamentary rather than a presidential democracy. Mr. Netanyahu will not disappear to some sunny retreat beside a golf course. As chairman of Likud, he will wield considerable power.

“He is not going away, and he will not be quiet,” said Merav Michaeli, the leader of the Labor Party, a member of the new coalition. “And it will take a long time to repair the damage.”

Ultra-Orthodox Jewish men voting in Israel’s parliamentary election in March.Credit…Oded Balilty/Associated Press

The heterogeneous coalition that ended the 12-year-long tenure of Benjamin Netanyahu as prime minister augurs a stunning loss of the power that has long been wielded by Israel’s ultra-Orthodox Jews.

Still reeling from the worst effects of the country’s coronavirus pandemic, then a deadly stampede at a religious festival, by Sunday’s end the ultra-Orthodox have no role in the new government. It is one of the most striking shifts, and could lead to a relaxation on some of the strictures on life in Israel.

The ultra-Orthodox are known as Haredim, a Hebrew term for those who tremble before God. Their political representatives have sat in most, though not all, governments of Israel since the late 1970s, when the right-wing Likud party upended decades of political hegemony by the state’s socialist founders.

Mr. Netanyahu forged a tight alliance with the two main Haredi parties, which were critical components in his coalitions.

That alliance had given the Haredi parties what many critics saw as disproportionate power over state policy. Their power was punctuated by the successful Haredi defiance of national pandemic restrictions.

The influence and official privileges of the ultra-Orthodox, who make up about 13 percent of the population, have created resentment among mainstream Israelis and alienated many Jews abroad who practice less stringent forms of Judaism. The ultra-Orthodox-run Chief Rabbinate, the state religious authority, dominates official Jewish marriage, divorce and religious conversions and does not recognize the legitimacy of Reform or Conservative rabbis.

Haredi politicians promote a conservative social agenda that opposes civil marriage, gay rights, and work or public transportation on the Sabbath, often blocking a civil rights agenda held dear by many members of the new coalition. They support an independent education system that focuses on religious studies and largely shuns secular education for boys.

The Haredi parties have also secured generous state funding for their people and institutions, enabling many to engage in extended Torah study and avoid the military service that is compulsory for others.

Haredi rabbis have been sounding the alarm over their political setback since the news of the coalition deal first emerged.

“Fear and vigilance among Haredi Jewry,” declared HaMevaser, a daily paper representing the Hasidic wing of one of the ultra-Orthodox parties, United Torah Judaism, in a red banner headline last week.

Maigal al-Hawashleh, one of the founders of Al-Ghara village last week.Credit…Amit Elkayam for The New York Times

For decades, dozens of Bedouin villages in Israel’s Negev desert have been in limbo. Without the state’s recognition of their communities, they have long suffered from a lack of planning and basic services like running water, sewers, electricity, trash collection and paved roads.

But the Israeli coalition government approved on Sunday intends to take significant strides to address the plight of these villages, according to Raam, an Arab party that agreed to join the coalition on a number of conditions, including that more benefits are provided to the Bedouin.

The new government will recognize Khasham Zana and two other villages in the Negev in the first 45 days of its term, Raam said in a statement last week, and it will prepare a plan to deal with other unrecognized villages in the area within its first nine months in power.

Still, such plans are unlikely to bring quick change to the ramshackle communities, said Eli Atzmon, an Israeli expert on the Bedouin, who are part of Israel’s Arab minority. Few of the villages recognized by Israel in recent decades have seen drastic improvements to their livelihoods, he said.

There is also no guarantee that a new initiative to address inequities between the southern Bedouin and other parts of Israeli society will be more successful than previous attempts. In December, the government appeared poised to recognize the village of Khasham Zana and two others, Rukhma and Abda, but the effort stalled because of political infighting.

Some right-wing members of the new government, which includes a diverse set of political parties, have suggested they would not accept efforts to recognize many villages in the Negev. That raises questions about whether the new government will be able to muster enough support to make such moves.

The Bedouin, who say they have lived in the Negev for centuries, were once a seminomadic group. But in the aftermath of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, most were forced out of the desert or fled to other parts of the region.

The Israeli authorities concentrated those who stayed in a smaller area of the desert, and later built meager townships for them. Today there are roughly 280,000 Bedouin in the Negev, about half of them under 18.

An election billboard in March in Bnei Brak, Israel.Credit…Oded Balilty/Associated Press

The vote to oust Mr. Netanyahu may change more than Israel’s leadership. It could also ultimately affect who leads Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party.

Mr. Netanyahu has led the party for all but six of the last 28 years — 15 of which he has spent as prime minister. In a phone interview before Sunday’s vote, Aaron Klein, a senior adviser to Mr. Netanyahu, confirmed that even if he lost his position as prime minister, he intends to continue as leader of the opposition.

But his rivals may not go along with that.

Once Mr. Netanyahu leaves government office, his authority over rivals for the party leadership will diminish because he can no longer promote party allies to coveted ministerial positions, or demote rivals. That will give greater momentum to internal critics who feel the party could have remained in office had Mr. Netanyahu stepped down from the leadership earlier and allowed a colleague to take over.

Three rival right-wing parties might have joined forces with Likud, giving the party a majority in Parliament, had Mr. Netanyahu not been in charge. The three parties were all led by former Likud members who were either former aides or allies of the prime minister, but who fell out with him personally.

Leadership of the party, which has governed Israel for 32 of the past 44 years, is seen as one of the country’s most prestigious roles.

But to oust Mr. Netanyahu from the party leadership, his rivals would have to defeat him in an internal primary in which the 120,000 Likud members would have the final say.

Possible challengers include Yuli Edelstein, the health minister; Nir Barkat, a former mayor of Jerusalem; Israel Katz, the finance minister; and Danny Danon, chairman of Likud’s international branch. Recent polls have suggested that Yossi Cohen, who was until earlier this month the director of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, would be the most popular candidate among Likud members.

In recent days, Israeli news outlets, citing anonymous sources, have written that Mr. Edelstein plans to run against Mr. Netanyahu, a claim Mr. Edelstein has not denied. Mr. Barkat held a rally in Tel Aviv on Thursday, nominally to discuss political policy. But commentators interpreted it as a thinly veiled statement of his leadership ambitions.

The likelihood of a challenge to Mr. Netanyahu depends on how long party colleagues expect the new government to stay in office, said Mr. Danon, who has not yet decided whether he will mount his own leadership bid.

“Within the Likud, people will look at the government to see if it’s functioning or not functioning,” Mr. Danon said. “If the feeling will be that it’s not going to last, I think his position will be stronger. But if they will actually be able to work together and to survive, I think it will be more challenging.”

Betzalel Smotrich, a right-wing Israeli politician, shouting during the Knesset session in Jerusalem on Sunday.Credit…Dan Balilty for The New York Times

Israel’s Parliament broke into pandemonium on Sunday afternoon when allies of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shouted abuse during a speech by the politician nominated to replace him, Naftali Bennett.

Mr. Bennett, a former aide to the prime minister who later became his rival, began his speech on Sunday afternoon with a conciliatory gesture to Mr. Netanyahu.

“Thank you to the outgoing prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, for your many years of service, replete with achievements, for the sake of the State of Israel,” Mr. Bennett said. “As prime minister, you acted throughout many years to embolden Israel’s political, security, and economic strength.”

Mr. Bennett added: “Expressing gratitude is a fundamental principle in Judaism. This is the time for the people to say to you: Thank you.”

But he was quickly interrupted and heckled by right-wing opponents. They view Mr. Bennett, a right-wing former settler leader who opposes Palestinian statehood, as a traitor for breaking with Mr. Netanyahu and allying with a coalition that includes leftist and Arab lawmakers.

At least four lawmakers were thrown out of the session by the speaker, Yariv Levin, while a fifth walked out voluntarily.

“You should be embarrassed,” shouted David Amsalem, a lawmaker from Mr. Netanyahu’s party, Likud.

Despite the frequent interruptions, Mr. Bennett nevertheless continued his speech — and used the heckling to help illustrate why he had made the decision to end Israel’s two-year political deadlock by joining a government of national unity, instead of sticking with Mr. Netanyahu.

“There are points in Jewish history where disagreements got out of control,” he said. “Twice in history we lost our national home exactly because the leaders of that generation were unable to sit together and compromise.”

“I am proud of the ability to sit together with people from different sectors,” he added later. “We stopped the train before the abyss.”

After Mr. Bennett’s speech, his designated deputy, Yair Lapid, a centrist former journalist, unexpectedly renounced his right to make his own full statement. Mr. Lapid stated only that his mother, Shulamit — a renowned author who was born before the state of Israel existed — was ashamed of Mr. Netanyahu and his allies for their lack of statesmanship.

That left the rostrum free for Mr. Netanyahu himself.

Mr. Bennett’s coalition is an ideologically diffuse alliance that includes the far-left, the hard-right and a small Arab party, and is united only by a shared desire to force Mr. Netanyahu from office. It was expected to win the vote by only a narrow margin.

To keep the coalition united, Mr. Bennett said on Sunday, it would focus on economic and infrastructure projects instead of controversial issues, such as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on which the coalition’s members do not agree.

“We will sit together and what we agree on we will run forward with, and what we don’t agree on, we will leave aside for now,” Mr. Bennett said.

“The new government aims for practical solutions to the country’s real problems,” he added.

He also promised to maintain Mr. Netanyahu’s stance on American-led efforts to revive an Obama-era Iran nuclear deal, which faces broad opposition in Israel.

“The renewal of the nuclear agreement is a mistake,” he said. “Israel will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and will maintain full freedom of action.”

VideoVideo player loadingBefore Israel’s Parliament approved a new government on Sunday, Benjamin Netanyahu gave his final speech as prime minister, promising to remain in politics as leader of the opposition.CreditCredit…Dan Balilty for The New York Times

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving leader, spent what might be his last minutes in power by defending his record, promising to remain in politics as leader of the opposition, and denouncing his nominated successor, Naftali Bennett.

At a parliamentary debate ahead of the vote to approve Mr. Bennett’s government, Mr. Netanyahu gave what felt like a valedictory speech, listing what he perceived to be his accomplishments in office.

He noted his efforts to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power and lauded four diplomatic agreements with Arab countries, completed during his tenure, that upended assumptions that Israel would only shore up relations with the Arab world after it had sealed peace with the Palestinians. He also highlighted several favorable moves by the Trump administration that he championed, including American recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, and the installation of an American Embassy in the city.

“Our successes turned Israel from a fringe state to a leading power,” Mr. Netanyahu said. Then he warned of the harm that he believes a Bennett-led government poses to Israel, and railed against legislation, proposed by the new government, that would limit the ability of prime ministers to remain in office after eight years in power, as he did.

“If we have to be in opposition, we will do this standing tall — until we bring down this dangerous government and return to lead the state,” Mr. Netanyahu said.

Mr. Bennett is a former aide to Mr. Netanyahu who is considered even further to his right. A former software entrepreneur and settler leader, Mr. Bennett is a longtime opponent of Palestinian sovereignty.

After months of wavering, Mr. Bennett broke with Mr. Netanyahu late last month, allying with an unlikely alliance of hard-right, centrist, far-left and Arab lawmakers who are united only by a shared dislike of Mr. Netanyahu. Mr. Bennett said it was necessary to form a government of national unity in order to end a political deadlock that has left the country without a budget and forced the country through four inconclusive elections in just two years.

Mr. Netanyahu and his allies have framed that decision as an act of treachery, leading several of them to heckle and disrupt Mr. Bennett during his own speech earlier in the afternoon. By contrast, lawmakers largely kept quiet while Mr. Netanyahu spoke, in a sign of respect.

“The right will not forget Bennett’s deception,” Mr. Netanyahu said during his speech. “You call yourself guardians of the democracy, but you are so fearful of democracy that you are willing to legislate fascist laws so I can’t run.”

He then addressed his supporters.

“I say today: Do not let your spirits fall,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “I will lead you in a daily battle against this bad and dangerous left-wing government, and bring it down. And with the help of God, this will happen faster than you think.”

Categories
World News

Israel Parliament votes in new authorities, ending Netanyahu rule

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

ABIR SULTAN | AFP | Getty Images

The Israeli parliament, the Knesset, approved its new government – and for the first time in 12 years a new prime minister – with a wafer-thin 60:59 votes on Sunday.

The vote that ushered in the leadership of a very diverse and cobbled together coalition of right, left, centrist and Islamist parties ousted Israel’s longest-serving leader, Benjamin Netanyahu. It also saves Israel the prospect of a fifth election in less than two years.

Now, after fighting back and trying several policy options to stay in power, Netanyahu will step aside and Israeli tech millionaire and lawmaker Naftali Bennett, whom many consider more right-wing predecessor, to take over as prime minister.

Sunday’s Knesset vote was shrouded in chaos and derision as some right-wing lawmakers, including those of Netanyahu’s Likud party, insulted Bennett, calling him a “traitor” and “liar” for the alliance with left and Arab parties. At least four politicians were kicked out of the meeting by spokesman Yariv Levin.

Bennett, a former Netanyahu adviser, continued his pre-vote speech amid the heckling heckling, praising Netanyahu as “working hard and faithfully for the State of Israel”. But he also pushed for the need for new leadership.

“We stopped the train at the edge,” said Mr. Bennett. “It is time for various leaders from all parts of the people to stop trying to stop this madness.”

In a statement, US President Joe Biden congratulated Bennett and other leaders of the new administration and cabinet.

“I look forward to working with Prime Minister Bennett to strengthen all aspects of the close and lasting relationship between our two nations. Israel has no better friend than the United States working closely together, and as we continue to strengthen our partnership, the United States remains steadfast in its support for Israel’s security. “

‘We’ll be back soon’

The 71-year-old right-wing leader is a lightning rod in its twelfth year and has long been a dividing line in Israeli society. An Israeli expert told CNBC that the country’s last elections in March – the fourth in less than two years due to the complex and polarized nature of Israeli politics – really came down to whether the country wanted “Bibi or no Bibi”. where the outgoing Prime was used became the minister’s popular nickname.

Speaking to the Knesset in English, Netanyahu said: “We’ll be back soon.”

“If we have to be in the opposition, we will keep this up – until we overthrow this dangerous government and return to run the state,” he said in a defiant address, saying he spoke for millions of Israelis who are for him have voted.

A combination of file photos shows Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennett giving a speech in Jerusalem on May 14, 2018, and Yesh Atid Party leader Yair Lapid giving a speech in Tel Aviv, Israel, on March 24, 2021.

Ammar Awad; Amir Cohen | Reuters

He also slammed a bill proposed by the new government that would limit a prime minister’s term to eight years, four years less than his term in office.

Netanyahu himself faces several allegations of corruption, which he denies. He had been looking for ways to avoid prosecution, which would have been a lot easier if he had stayed in power. Meanwhile, he can still remain the leader of the Likud party.

The outgoing prime minister attracted international criticism and attention for his persistent military action against Gaza in May, in which Israeli air strikes killed more than 250 Palestinians, including 66 children, in response to rocket volleys by Hamas that killed Israel during course 12 of the fighting .

Future challenges

The new coalition that is now taking power is led by centrist lawmaker Yair Lapid, a former television presenter and former finance minister and head of the Yesh Atid party, and his unlikely government partner, Naftali Bennett, who leads the minority Yamina party.

It is very unusual for a minority party leader to become prime minister, but that was what it took Bennett to join Lapid’s coalition – and his alliance with Lapid was the only way the coalition could get enough Knesset seats to hold one To have majority.

So the deal for Lapid and Bennett is based on the agreement that Bennett will become Prime Minister by 2023, with centrist Lapid as Secretary of State. At this point, if the party alliance survives, Lapid will assume the office of prime minister.

It is also the first time in Israeli history that its government includes an Arab party that aims to represent the country’s 21% Arab minority.

The government is expected to focus on social and economic issues that foster consensus among its disparate members rather than divisive ones such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Palestinian statehood.

But there are serious challenges ahead. The fragile coalition between Lapid and Bennett and the parties whose support they had to win to achieve the magic number of a majority of 61 seats in the Knesset is a risk to itself, analysts say. The only thing that seems to hold them together is a shared desire to take Netanyahu off the bench. But because of the incredibly narrow majority of 61 seats in the 120-member parliament, it would only take one move for the government to collapse.

And in view of the sometimes extreme differences of opinion between the parties, especially between right-wing and Islamist politicians in Israel, this danger of standstill and collapse remains a constant threat.

Categories
World News

Explosion at Produce Market Kills at Least 12 in China

A gas explosion at a produce market killed at least 12 people and injured 138 others, 37 of them severely, in central China on Sunday, the local authorities said.

The cause of the blast, which took place at around 6:40 a.m. in the city of Shiyan, in Hubei Province, was still under investigation, according to the local government.

Photographs published by official media showed bricks and debris strewn in the street and extensive damage to nearby buildings. Rescue workers in helmets and orange suits worked to free people trapped in the rubble.

Local news reports said that when the explosion took place, people had been buying and selling produce and eating breakfast at the market, which is in a residential area in the city’s Zhangwan District. City officials said 913 households and merchants had been evacuated from the scene.

The governor of Hubei, Wang Zhonglin, rushed to Shiyan to direct rescue efforts, the authorities said. The provincial Communist Party secretary, Ying Yong, called for gas pipelines, chemical factories, power plants and older residential neighborhoods across Hubei to be inspected for safety risks.

China’s top leader, Xi Jinping, said there were “profound” lessons to be learned from the incident, according a readout that was published Sunday evening by the Xinhua state news agency.

Taking stock of “hidden dangers” and being on the lookout for major emergencies would help create a “favorable atmosphere,” Mr. Xi said, ahead of the July 1 centenary of the Chinese Communist Party’s founding. The government is using the anniversary to hammer home the message that only by following the party can China fortify its status in the world.

In recent years, deadly blasts in industrial zones have led the Chinese authorities to become stricter about enforcing safety rules. In 2015, explosions at a chemical storage facility in Tianjin, a northern port city, killed more than 170 people.