Categories
World News

Afghanistan Reside Updates: Taliban Enter Kabul, Authorities Collapses as President Flees

Here’s what you need to know:

Credit…Jim Huylebroek for The New York Times

Afghanistan’s government collapsed on Sunday with President Ashraf Ghani’s flight from the country and the Taliban’s entry into the capital, effectively sealing the insurgents’ control of the country after dozens of cities fell to their lightning advance.

On Sunday evening, former President Hamid Karzai announced on Twitter that he was forming a coordinating council together with Abdullah Abdullah, chairman of the Afghan delegation to peace talks, and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the leader of the Hesb-i-Islami party, to manage a peaceful transfer of power. Mr. Karzai called on both government and Taliban forces to act with restraint.

As it became clear that members of the Taliban had entered Kabul, the capital, thousands of Afghans who had sought refuge there after fleeing the insurgents’ brutal military offensive watched with growing alarm as the local police seemed to fade from their usual checkpoints.

At 6:30 p.m. local time, the Taliban issued a statement that their forces were moving into police districts in order to maintain security in areas that had been abandoned by the government security forces. Taliban fighters, meeting no resistance, took up positions in parts of the city, after Zabiullah Mujahid, spokesman for the Taliban, posted the statement on Twitter.

“The Islamic Emirates ordered its forces to enter the areas of Kabul city from which the enemy has left because there is risk of theft and robbery,” the statement said. The Taliban had been ordered not to harm civilians and not to enter individual homes, it added. “Our forces are entering Kabul city with all caution.”

As the sun set behind the mountains in the western part of the city, the traffic was clogged up as crowds grew bigger, with more and more Taliban fighters appearing on motorbikes, police pickups and even a Humvee that once belonged to the American-sponsored Afghan security forces.

Earlier in the afternoon, Interior Minister Abdul Sattar Mirzakwal announced that an agreement had been made for a peaceful transfer of power for greater Kabul, and that his forces were maintaining security.

“The city’s security is guaranteed. There will be no attack on the city,” he said. “The agreement for greater Kabul city is that under an interim administration, God willing, power will be transferred.”

Mr. Mirzakwal later announced a 9 p.m. curfew in the capital, and called on its residents to go home.

Mr. Ghani left in a plane for Uzbekistan with his wife, Rula Ghani, and two close aides, according to a member of the Afghan delegation in Doha, Qatar, that has been in peace negotiations with the Taliban since last year. The official asked not to be named because he did not want to be identified speaking about the president’s movements.

In a Facebook video, Mr. Abdullah, former chief executive of the Afghan government, criticized Mr. Ghani for fleeing.

“That the former president of Afghanistan has left the country and its people in this bad situation, God will call him to account and the people of Afghanistan will make their judgment,” Mr. Abdullah said in the video.

In negotiations being managed by Mr. Abdullah, Mr. Ghani had been set to travel to Doha on Sunday with a larger group to negotiate the transfer of power, but flew instead to Uzbekistan, the peace delegation member said.

Mr. Ghani had resisted pressure to step down. In a recorded speech aired on Saturday, he pledged to “prevent further instability” and called for “remobilizing” the country’s military. But the president was increasingly isolated, and his words seemed detached from the reality around him.

With rumors rife and reliable information hard to come by, the streets were filled during the day with scenes of panic and desperation.

“Greetings, the Taliban have reached the city. We are escaping,” said Sahraa Karimi, the head of Afghan Film, in a post shared widely on Facebook. Filming herself as she fled on foot, out of breath and clutching at her headscarf, she shouted at others to escape while the could.

“Hey woman, girl, don’t go that way!” she called out. “Some people don’t know what is going on,” she went on. “Where are you going? Go quickly.”

Wais Omari, 20, a street vendor in the city, said the situation was already dire and he feared for the future.

“If it gets worse, I will hide in my home,” he said.

The United States military stepped up its evacuation of American diplomatic and civilian staff. A core group of American diplomats who had planned to remain at the embassy in Kabul were being moved to a diplomatic facility at the international airport, where they would stay for an unspecified amount of time, according to a senior United States official.

On the civilian side of the airport, a long line of people waited outside the check-in gate, unsure if the flights they had booked out of the country would arrive.

After days in which one urban center after another fell to the insurgents, the last major Afghan cities that were still controlled by the government, other than Kabul, were seized in rapid succession over the weekend.

The insurgents took Mazar-i-Sharif, in the north, late on Saturday, only an hour after breaking through the front lines at the city’s edge. Soon after, government security forces and militias — including those led by the warlords Marshal Abdul Rashid Dostum and Atta Muhammad Noor — fled, effectively handing control to the insurgents.

On Sunday morning, the Taliban seized the eastern city of Jalalabad. In taking that provincial capital and surrounding areas, the insurgents gained control of the Torkham border crossing, a major trade and transit route between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Taliban offensive, which started in May when the United States began withdrawing troops, gathered speed over the past week. In city after city, the militants took down Afghan government flags and hoisted their own white banners.

Despite two decades of war with American-led forces, the Taliban have survived and thrived, without giving up their vision of creating a state governed by a stringent Islamic code.

After the Taliban took control of Afghanistan in the 1990s, movie theaters were closed, the Kabul television station was shut down and the playing of all music was banned. Schools were closed to girls.

Despite many Afghans’ memories of years under Taliban rule before the U.S.-led invasion in 2001, the insurgents have taken control of much of the country in recent days with only minimal resistance.

Their rapid successes have exposed the weakness of an Afghan military that the United States spent more than $83 billion to support over the past two decades. As the insurgents’ campaign has accelerated, soldiers and police officers have abandoned the security forces in ever greater numbers, with the cause for which they risked their lives appearing increasingly to be lost.

Leaving Kabul, the Afghan capital, on Sunday as the Taliban looked set to take over.Credit…Jim Huylebroek for The New York Times

Panic gripped the Afghan capital, Kabul, Sunday as Taliban fighters started arriving in the city, inmates broke out of the main prison on the east side of the city, and the American-backed government appeared to crumble.

By the afternoon, President Ashraf Ghani was reported to have fled. And as American forces focused their energies on evacuation flights for embassy staff and other personnel, Afghan government officials were shown in video footage accepting a handover of power to their Taliban counterparts in several cities.

Early in the day, senior Afghan politicians were seen boarding planes at Kabul airport. Bagram Air Base was taken by Taliban forces midday Sunday as was the provincial town of Khost in eastern Afghanistan, according to Afghan media reports. The fall of Khost was part of a domino-like collapse of power of astonishing speed that saw city after city fall in just the last week, leaving Kabul as the last major city in government hands.

Interior Minister Abdul Sattar Mirzakwal announced in a video statement in the early afternoon that an agreement had been made for a peaceful transfer of power for greater Kabul and sought to reassure residents, saying that the security forces would remain in their posts to ensure security in the city.

“As the minister of interior, we have ordered all Afghan National Security Forces divisions and members to stabilize Kabul,” he said in a video statement released on the Facebook page of the ministry at 2 p.m. local time. “The city’s security is guaranteed. There will be no attack on the city. The agreement for greater Kabul city is that under an interim administration, God Willing, power will be transferred.”

But residents seemed unconvinced by their leaders’ assurances. In the center of the city people were pictured painting over advertisements and posters of women at beauty salons, apparently preparing for a takeover by the fundamentalist Taliban who do not allow images of humans or animal life, and have traditionally have banned music and the mixing of the sexes.

The Taliban denied rumors that their chief negotiator, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, was already in the capital and preparing to take over control at the Interior Ministry.

Throughout the day, surreal scenes played out as it appeared ever more clear the Taliban were taking over.

The insurgency has long had its own power structure of shadow governors appointed for every province, and Sunday it was clear who was in control in strategic areas. The governors and tribal and political leaders who had been in power were shown in videos formally handing control to their Taliban counterparts in the strategic cities of Kandahar, the main stronghold of the south, and in Nangarhar, the main city of the east.

But in Kabul fears of the city being overrun were running high after a breakout of prisoners, many of them members of the Taliban, from the main prison at Pul-i-Charkhi.

“Look at this, the whole people are let free,” a man said as he filmed a video footage of people carrying bundles walking away from the prison, posted on Facebook. “This is the Day of Judgment.”

The breakout seems to have been by the prisoners from the inside, rather than an attack by Taliban forces from the outside.

Some Afghans still found room for humor amid the chaos: “Taliban have reached Kabul airport … their speed is faster than 5G,” one resident of Kabul posted on Facebook.

But others fled, though it is unclear where they could go with the Taliban in control of so much of the country.

“Greetings, the Taliban have reached the city. We are escaping,” said Sahraa Karimi, the head of Afghan Film, in a post shared widely on Facebook. Filming herself as she fled on foot, out of breath and clutching at her head scarf, she called on passers-by to get away.

Ruhullah Khapalwak contributed reporting.

The entrance to the United States embassy in Kabul after staff were evacuated to the airport on Sunday.Credit…Wakil Kohsar/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

KABUL, Afghanistan — As the Taliban entered Kabul on Sunday, completing the near total takeover of Afghanistan two decades after the American military drove them from power, an eerie quiet that had enveloped the city in recent days transformed into chaos.

A frenzied evacuation of U.S. diplomats and civilians kicked into high gear, while Afghans made a mad dash to banks, their homes and the airport. Crowds of people ran down the streets as the sound of gunfire echoed in downtown Kabul.

Helicopter after helicopter — including massive Chinooks with their twin engines, and speedy Black Hawks that had been the workhorse of the grinding war — touched down and then took off loaded with passengers. Some shot flares overhead.

Those being evacuated included a core group of American diplomats who had planned to remain at the embassy in Kabul, according to a senior administration official. They were being moved to a compound at the international airport, where they would stay for an unspecified amount of time, the official said.

The runway of the airport was filled with a constellation of uniforms from different nations. They joined contractors, diplomats and civilians all trying to catch a flight out of the city. Those who were eligible to fly were given special bracelets, denoting their status as noncombatants.

On the civilian side of the airport, a long line of people waited outside the check-in gate, unsure if the flights they had booked out of the country would arrive.

For millions of Afghans, including tens of thousands who assisted the U.S. efforts in the country for years, there were no bracelets. They were stuck in the city.

Rumors abounded: The Taliban were in the city, or weren’t they? Were the Americans securing the palace?

The streets of the city were packed, and many shops were closed. Traffic barely moved.

At one bank in downtown Kabul, hundreds of people clambered to get in once doors opened. Two men tried to climb a barred gate into the building.

At Abdul Haq Square in the center of the capital, five men who appeared to be Taliban fighters gathered as cars drove by showing their support for the militants.

Two other men, outside the American Embassy, said that they had just been freed by the Taliban from the giant Pul-e-Charkhi Prison.

On one street downtown, a pair of police officers said that they were readying for a fight with the Taliban and had changed into militia clothing. Another group of officers, none with weapons, seemed more curious about whether a house in the once coveted and protected green zone was now empty.

Some police officers appeared to have abandoned their usual checkpoints, leading to speculation that the government was no longer in control.

At a bus station in Kabul, members of the Afghan security forces were seen changing into civilian clothes as they waited for transport to their hometowns.

While President Biden has defended his decision to hold firm and pull the last U.S. troops out of Afghanistan by Sept. 11, his administration has become increasingly worried about images that could evoke a foreign policy disaster of the past: the fall of Saigon at the end of the conflict in Vietnam in 1975.

The swift advance of the Taliban has stunned many in the White House.

On Sunday, as a sense of panic gripped Kabul, guards at checkpoints inside the fortified green zone, who typically stop vehicles and check identity cards, lifted their metal barriers and waved all the cars through as the neighborhood drained of foreigners.

Convoys of armored vehicles raced to find safety in the headquarters of what had been the NATO center for its Operation Resolute Support. Others flocked to the Serena Hotel, a heavily fortified hotel popular among foreigners.

At the NATO center, military personnel handed out matchbox-size cardboard containers with ear plugs, and corralled people onto the helicopters. As the aircraft took off for the international airport, dozens of people evacuating got their last glimpses of the capital below — the fate of the city hanging in the balance.

Two Marines, standing by the runway at the Kabul airport, acknowledged that they were living a moment of history. A little earlier, they said, someone walked by after exiting one of the helicopters cradling a poorly folded American flag: It had just come down off the embassy.

Fahim Abed, Fatima Faizi, Thomas Gibbons-Neff, Christina Goldbaum, Sharif Hassan, Jim Huylebroek, Najim Rahimand Lara Jakes contributed reporting.

A man carrying the distinctive white flag of the Taliban directing traffic in Kabul on Sunday.Credit…Jim Huylebroek for The New York Times

Confusion reigned in Washington early Sunday as the Taliban entered Kabul, Afghanistan’s capital, with U.S. officials scrambling to determine how safe Americans still there would be.

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken was expected to discuss the crisis on three television news shows on Sunday morning, hours after the American Embassy in Kabul closed and its small core of remaining diplomats fled to the capital’s international airport for safety.

Embassy staff had begun a vigorous effort to destroy documents and other sensitive materials before leaving the sprawling compound. A fourth senior U.S. official would not say whether the chargé d’affaires, Ross Wilson, and his immediate circle of advisers would remain at a diplomatic facility at the Kabul airport or return to the United States with other Americans who were being evacuated.

The Biden administration has repeatedly warned the Taliban against taking Kabul by force or even entering the city while the immense evacuation effort is underway, a process that could take days or even weeks to complete. Zalmay Khalilzad, the chief American envoy who has been negotiating with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar, has sought to broker a deal to reduce violence as the extremist group seized control of most of Afghanistan.

At the same time, Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., the head of the military’s Central Command, has flown to the gulf region to oversee the military operations in Afghanistan. The Central Command’s forward headquarters is in Qatar.

A Defense Department official said Sunday that Bagram Air Base, the headquarters of the 20-year American war effort in Afghanistan, had also fallen to the Taliban.

Taliban fighters entered the base — which the United States turned over last month to Afghan security forces — on Sunday, the official said. More ominously, Taliban forces have also taken nearby Parwan prison, where thousands of prisoners, including Qaeda fighters, had been housed.

Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III and Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, raced to the Pentagon on Sunday morning for meetings on the unfolding crisis.

Senator Ben Sasse, Republican of Nebraska, who sits on the Intelligence Committee, called Afghanistan’s rapid deterioration an “unmitigated disaster” and blamed President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump for the troop withdrawals that Mr. Sasse said caused the country’s undoing.

“History must be clear about this: American troops didn’t lose this war — Donald Trump and Joe Biden deliberately decided to lose,” the senator said in a statement on Sunday morning.

“The looming defeat will badly hurt American intelligence and give jihadis a safe haven in Afghanistan, again,” Mr. Sasse said. “America will regret this.”

With their seizure of Jalalabad on Sunday, the Taliban appeared to be on the verge of a complete takeover of Afghanistan. Planes departing the airport in Kabul, the capital, were filled with people fleeing the city.

American and Afghan soldiers attended a handover ceremony at a military camp in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, in May.Credit…Afghan Ministry of Defense, via Associated Press

With the Taliban on the verge of regaining power in Afghanistan, President Biden has defended his decision to leave the country after two decades of U.S. military involvement.

In a statement on Saturday, Mr. Biden said that the United States had invested nearly $1 trillion in Afghanistan over the past 20 years and had trained and equipped more than 300,000 Afghan security forces, including maintaining the Asian country’s air force.

“One more year, or five more years, of U.S. military presence would not have made a difference if the Afghan military cannot or will not hold its own country,” Mr. Biden said. “And an endless American presence in the middle of another country’s civil conflict was not acceptable to me.”

Mr. Biden’s statement came hours after the Taliban seized Mazar-i-Sharif, in northern Afghanistan, but before the group captured the eastern city of Jalalabad on Sunday, The group entered Kabul, the capital, on Sunday as President Ashraf Ghani fled.

Mr. Biden partly blamed President Donald J. Trump for the unfolding disaster in Afghanistan, saying that the deal made with the Taliban in 2020 had set a deadline of May 1 this year for the withdrawal of American forces and left the group “in the strongest position militarily since 2001.”

“I faced a choice — follow through on the deal, with a brief extension to get our forces and our allies’ forces out safely, or ramp up our presence and send more American troops to fight once again in another country’s civil conflict,” Mr. Biden said.

This year, a study group appointed by Congress urged the Biden administration to abandon the May 1 deadline and slow the withdrawal of American troops, saying that a strict adherence to the timeline could lead Afghanistan into civil war. Pentagon officials made similar entreaties, but Mr. Biden maintained his long-held position that it was time for Afghanistan to fend for itself.

Since international troops began withdrawing in May, the Taliban have pursued their military takeover far more swiftly than U.S. intelligence agencies had anticipated. On Saturday, Mr. Biden accelerated the deployment of 1,000 additional troops to Afghanistan to help ensure the safe evacuation from Kabul of U.S. citizens and Afghans who worked for the American government. That deployment will temporarily bring to 5,000 the number of American troops in the country.

In his statement, Mr. Biden warned the Taliban that “any action on their part on the ground in Afghanistan, that puts U.S. personnel or our mission at risk there, will be met with a swift and strong U.S. military response.”

Displaced Afghan women pleading for help from a police officer in Kunduz, Afghanistan, last month.Credit…Jim Huylebroek for The New York Times

A high school student in Kabul, Afghanistan’s war-scarred capital, worries that she now will not be allowed to graduate.

The girl, Wahida Sadeqi, 17, like many Afghan civilians in the wake of the U.S. troop withdrawal and ahead of a Taliban victory, keeps asking the same question: What will happen to me?

The American withdrawal, which effectively ends the longest war on foreign soil in United States history, is also likely to be the start of another difficult chapter for Afghanistan’s people.

“I am so worried about my future. It seems so murky. If the Taliban take over, I lose my identity,” said Ms. Sadeqi, an 11th grader at Pardis High School in Kabul. “It is about my existence. It is not about their withdrawal. I was born in 2004, and I have no idea what the Taliban did to women, but I know women were banned from everything.”

Uncertainty hangs over virtually every facet of life in Afghanistan. It is unclear what the future holds and whether the fighting will ever stop. For two decades, American leaders have pledged peace, prosperity, democracy, the end of terrorism and rights for women.

Few of those promises have materialized in vast areas of Afghanistan, but now even in the cities where real progress occurred, there is fear that everything will be lost when the Americans leave.

The Taliban, the extremist group that once controlled most of the country and continues to fight the government, insist that the elected president step down. Militias are increasing in prominence and power, and there is talk of a lengthy civil war.

Over two decades, the American mission evolved from hunting terrorists to helping the government build the institutions of a functioning government, dismantle the Taliban and empower women. But the U.S. and Afghan militaries were never able to effectively destroy the Taliban, who sought refuge in Pakistan, allowing the insurgents to stage a comeback.

The Taliban never recognized Afghanistan’s democratic government. And they appear closer than ever to achieving the goal of their insurgency: to return to power and establish a government based on their extremist view of Islam.

Women would be most at risk under Taliban rule. When the group controlled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001, it barred women from taking most jobs or receiving educations and practically made them prisoners in their own homes — though this was already custom for many women in rural parts of the country.

“It is too early to comment on the subject. We need to know much more,” Fatima Gailani, an Afghan government negotiator who is involved in the continuing peace talks with the Taliban, said in April. “One thing is certain: It is about time that we learn how to rely on ourselves. Women of Afghanistan are totally different now. They are a force in our country — no one can deny them their rights or status.”

The United States kept forces in Afghanistan far longer than the British did in the 19th century, and twice as long as the Soviets — with roughly the same results.Credit…Jim Huylebroek for The New York Times

If there is a consistent theme over two decades of war in Afghanistan, it is the overestimation of the results of the $83 billion the United States has spent since 2001 training and equipping the Afghan security forces and an underestimation of the brutal, wily strategy of the Taliban.

The Pentagon had issued dire warnings to President Biden even before he took office about the potential for the Taliban to overrun the Afghan Army. But intelligence estimates indicated that it might happen in 18 months, not within weeks.

Commanders did know that the afflictions of the Afghan forces had never been cured: the deep corruption, the failure by the government to pay many Afghan soldiers and police officers for months, the defections, the soldiers sent to the front without adequate food and water, let alone arms.

Mr. Biden’s aides say that the persistence of those problems reinforced his belief that the United States could not prop up the Afghan government and its military in perpetuity. In Oval Office meetings this spring, he told aides that staying another year, or even five, would not make a substantial difference and was not worth the risks.

In the end, an Afghan force that did not believe in itself and a U.S. effort that Mr. Biden, and most Americans, no longer believed would alter events combined to bring an ignoble close to America’s longest war. The United States kept forces in Afghanistan far longer than the British did in the 19th century, and twice as long as the Soviets — with roughly the same results.

For Mr. Biden, the last of four American presidents to face painful choices in Afghanistan but the first to get out, the debate about a final withdrawal and the miscalculations over how to execute it began the moment he took office.

“Under Trump, we were one tweet away from complete, precipitous withdrawal,” said Douglas E. Lute, a retired general who directed Afghan strategy at the National Security Council for Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

“Under Biden, it was clear to everyone who knew him, who saw him pressing for a vastly reduced force more than a decade ago, that he was determined to end U.S. military involvement,” Mr. Lute added, “but the Pentagon believed its own narrative that we would stay forever.”

He continued, “The puzzle for me is the absence of contingency planning: If everyone knew we were headed for the exits, why did we not have a plan over the past two years for making this work?”

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken this month at the State Department.Credit…Pool photo by Brendan Smialowski

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said on Sunday that the defeat of Afghan security forces that has led to the Taliban’s takeover “happened more quickly than we anticipated,” although he maintained the Biden administration’s position that keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan was not in American interests.

“This is heart-wrenching stuff,” said Mr. Blinken, who looked shaken, in an interview on CNN after a night that saw members of the Taliban enter the Afghan capital, Kabul, and the shuttering of the U.S. Embassy as the last remaining American diplomats in Afghanistan were moved to a facility at the city’s airport for better protection.

Mr. Blinken stopped short of saying that all American diplomats would return to the United States, repeating an intent to maintain a small core of officials in Kabul.

But he forcefully defended the administration’s decision to withdraw the military from Afghanistan after 20 years of war, saying it could have been vulnerable to Taliban attacks had the United States reneged on an agreement brokered under President Donald J. Trump for all foreign forces to leave the country.

“We would have been back at war with the Taliban,” Mr. Blinken said, calling that “something the American people simply can’t support — that is the reality.”

He said it was not in American interests to devote more time, money and, potentially, casualties, to Afghanistan at a time that the United States was also facing long-term strategic challenges from China and Russia. But, Mr. Blinken said, American forces will remain in the region to confront any terrorist threat against the United States at home that might arise from Afghanistan.

He also appeared to demand more conditions for the prospect of recognizing the Taliban as a legitimate government or establishing a formal diplomatic relationship with them.

Earlier, the Biden administration had said the Taliban, in order to acquire international financial support, must never allow terrorists to use Afghanistan as a haven, must not take Kabul by force and must not attack Americans.

On Sunday, Mr. Blinken said the Taliban must also uphold basic rights of citizens, particularly women who gained new freedoms to go to work and school after the Taliban were ousted from power in 2001.

There will be no recognition of a Taliban government “if they’re not sustaining the basic rights of the Afghan people, and if they revert to supporting or harboring terrorists who might strike us,” the secretary of state said.

Mr. Blinken’s comments were swiftly criticized by the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Representative Michael McCaul of Texas, who said the Taliban’s swift takeover of Afghanistan “is going to be a stain on this president and his presidency.”

“They totally blew this one,” Mr. McCaul said. “They completely underestimated the strength of the Taliban.”

“I hate to say this: I hope we don’t have to go back there,” he said. “But it will be a threat to the homeland in a matter of time.”

Categories
World News

Italy’s Authorities to Ban Cruise Ships From Venice

Italy announced on Tuesday that it was banning large cruise ships from entering Venice’s waters and was also declaring the city’s lagoon a national monument, in a move to protect a fragile ecosystem from the downsides of mass tourism.

The ban, demanded for decades by both Venice residents and environmentalists, will take effect on Aug. 1.

“The intervention could no longer be delayed,” Italy’s culture minister, Dario Franceschini, said in a statement.

In recent weeks, as cruise ships returned to Venice after the pause imposed by the pandemic, protesters in the city rallied on small boats and on the waterfront with “No big boats” flags. Last Sunday, they demonstrated during the Group of 20 summit for economic ministers that took place in the city, attracting international media attention.

“My heartbeat is so fast I could be having a heart attack,” said Tommaso Cacciari, an activist and spokesman for the No Big Ship Committee, responding to Tuesday’s announcement. “We have been fighting for 10 years, and now this victory feels almost unbelievable.”

In April, the government of Prime Minister Mario Draghi announced that it was planning to ban large cruise ships from the San Marco basin, the San Marco canal and the Giudecca canal, but no date for the ban was set. Also, the prohibition was conditioned on the building of a new port where tourists could disembark to visit the city, a project that could take years.

Tuesday’s decision removed that condition, so the ban could be enforced in weeks, not years.

Mr. Franceschini explained that the government had drafted the urgent decree to avoid “the real risk of the city being put on the blacklist of “World Heritage in Danger” sites established by UNESCO, the United Nations culture body.

In 2019, UNESCO warned Venice about the “damage caused by a steady stream of cruise ships.” Before a UNESCO World Heritage Committee beginning later this week that could have seen Venice added to the blacklist, the Italian government approved the decree making Venice’s waterways a national monument, a status usually given to artworks and historical buildings that puts the lagoon under enhanced state protection.

Over the last 10 years, Venice has been caught up in a clash between those representing the economic interests of cruise traffic — which employs thousands of people in the area — and others who want to protect a delicate environment from gigantic boats that disgorge tourists en masse.

The ban applies to ships that are either heavier than 25,000 tons, longer than 180 meters (about 590 feet), taller than 35 meters (about 115 feet), or that employ more than a set amount of fuel in maneuvering. The ban is such that even large yachts could be affected.

The government also decided to give power to the regional port authority to determine how five temporary docks can be built in Marghera, a nearby industrial port, while respecting maritime safety and environmental laws.

The intention to divert the cruise ships to the port of Marghera has raised eyebrows. The port is built for cargo ships and is not nearly as picturesque as the city’s lagoon. Moreover, the port’s channel is not large and deep enough for most cruise ships and would require major construction work.

Among the many projects considered by governments over the years, one envisioned a permanent passenger terminal at the Lido entrance to the lagoon. Activists considered that the best solution for the city and for the cruise industry.

Mr. Draghi’s cabinet also moved on Tuesday to establish compensation for sailing companies that will be affected by the ban and for other businesses connected to the cruise traffic inside the lagoon.

“It is a positive decision and could be the beginning of a new era,” said Francesco Galietti, national director for the Cruise Lines International Association. He added that the association has been asking for the temporary docking sites in Marghera since 2012.

The cruise industry is hoping, Mr. Galietti said, that the new docking sites would be ready in 2022, when tourists are expected to return en masse to cruises. This year, only 20 liners were expected to arrive in Venice.

Categories
Health

New Alzheimer’s Drug Might Value the Authorities as A lot as It Spends on NASA

Es wird erwartet, dass Medicare ein neu zugelassenes Medikament zur Behandlung der Alzheimer-Krankheit in Höhe von mehreren Milliarden Dollar kosten wird. Einer Prognose zufolge könnten die Ausgaben für das Medikament für die Patienten von Medicare am Ende höher sein als die Budgets der Umweltschutzbehörde oder der NASA.

Es gibt wenig Beweise dafür, dass das Medikament Aduhelm das Fortschreiten der Demenz verlangsamt, aber die Food and Drug Administration hat es diesen Monat genehmigt. Analysten gehen davon aus, dass Medicare und seine Teilnehmer, die einen Teil ihrer Kosten für verschreibungspflichtige Medikamente zahlen, in einem einzigen Jahr 5,8 bis 29 Milliarden US-Dollar für das Medikament ausgeben werden.

„Es ist unergründlich“, sagte Tricia Neuman, geschäftsführende Direktorin des Programms zur Medicare-Politik der Kaiser Family Foundation. “Das sind verrückte Zahlen.”

Viele andere Medikamente kosten mehr als Aduhelm, das von Biogen hergestellt wird und jährlich 56.000 US-Dollar kosten wird. Der Unterschied besteht darin, dass es Millionen potenzieller Kunden gibt und das Medikament voraussichtlich über Jahre hinweg eingenommen wird.

Die Zulassung des Medikaments stößt bei Gesundheitspolitikern und Pharmaforschern auf Kritik wegen fehlender nachgewiesener Wirksamkeit. Wirksam oder nicht, wenn es allgemein verschrieben wird, könnte es einen überwältigenden Einfluss auf das Budget von Medicare haben, da das öffentliche Programm die überwiegende Mehrheit der fast sechs Millionen Amerikaner mit einer Alzheimer-Diagnose abdeckt.

Es gibt kaum einen Präzedenzfall für einen plötzlichen Ausgabenruck dieser Größenordnung. Selbst am unteren Ende der Prognosen würde Aduhelm zu einem der teuersten Medikamente von Medicare werden.

Am oberen Ende sagen Analysten, dass das neue Medikament die jährlichen Ausgaben von Medicare für Medikamente, die in Krankenhäusern und Arztpraxen geliefert werden, um 50 Prozent erhöhen könnte (wie es Aduhelm, das intravenös verabreicht wird, sein müsste).

Die Vergleiche hier sind ungefähre Angaben: Ein Drittel der Medicare-Mitglieder ist durch private Medicare Advantage-Pläne abgesichert, die keine detaillierten Informationen zu den in Arztpraxen angebotenen Medikamenten enthalten. Um diese Ausgaben zu schätzen, haben wir die Daten zu den Medikamentenausgaben der Medicare-Teilnehmer des traditionellen öffentlichen Programms verwendet und sie erhöht, um den fehlenden Anteil zu berücksichtigen.

Ausgaben in dieser Größenordnung könnten so plötzlich weitreichende Auswirkungen auf Medicare, seine Nutzer und Steuerzahler haben. Die Hinzufügung von 29 Milliarden US-Dollar ein Jahr des Medicare-Haushalts würde durch Erhöhungen sowohl der Ausgaben der Steuerzahler als auch der von allen Medicare-Nutzern gezahlten Prämien gedeckt. Die Prämien könnten auch für Zusatzpläne steigen, die viele Medicare-Leistungsempfänger kaufen, um Kosten auszugleichen, die das Programm nicht direkt bezahlt. Und die Kosten werden wahrscheinlich auf die Staatshaushalte übergreifen, wo Medicaid Prämien für einkommensschwache Medicare-Mitglieder zahlt.

Kongress, Haushaltsexperten und mehrere Weiße Häuser haben Jahre damit verbracht, Wege zur Reduzierung der Ausgaben für Medicare, einen großen und wachsenden Anteil des Bundeshaushalts, vorzuschlagen. Aber viele dieser Vorschläge sind politisch schwer zu erreichen – und die meisten würden weniger als die prognostizierten Kosten von Aduhelm einsparen.

“Es ist so viel Arbeit, Einsparungen zu erzielen, die wirklich viel kleiner sind, als dieses eine Medikament kosten würde”, sagte Joshua Gordon, der Direktor für Gesundheitspolitik beim Ausschuss für einen verantwortungsvollen Bundeshaushalt, der sagt, dass er sich ständig Gedanken über die Herausforderungen gemacht hat von Aduhelm seit seiner Zulassung erhoben.

Die Kostenprognosen variieren, da Analysten nicht sicher sind, wie viele Patienten das neue Medikament letztendlich verwenden werden. Die Zulassung der FDA könnte für jeden gelten, bei dem Alzheimer diagnostiziert wurde – etwa sechs Millionen Menschen. Das Medikament wurde jedoch für eine kleinere Gruppe von rund 1,5 Millionen Patienten entwickelt, die sich im Frühstadium der Krankheit befinden. Analysten sind sich noch nicht sicher, wem Ärzte die Behandlung empfehlen und welche Familien sie ausprobieren möchten. Die FDA hat Biogen gebeten, das Medikament bis 2030 weiter zu untersuchen, aber die Verschreibung könnte weit verbreitet werden, bevor weitere öffentliche Ergebnisse darüber vorliegen, wie gut es wirkt.

Allison Parks, eine Sprecherin von Biogen, sagte in einer E-Mail, dass sich das Unternehmen darauf konzentrieren werde, die Art von Patienten zu erreichen, die in den klinischen Studien des Unternehmens untersucht wurden, „im frühen symptomatischen Stadium der Krankheit“.

Aktualisiert

21. Juni 2021, 20:11 Uhr ET

Die Bandbreite spiegelt eine Vielzahl von angemessenen Expertenschätzungen wider. Die hohe Schätzung, die sich auf ein Kaiser-Papier stützt, geht davon aus, dass etwa ein Viertel der zwei Millionen Medicare-Eingeschriebenen, die derzeit eine Alzheimer-Behandlung erhalten, diese einnehmen werden. Der niedrige Wert basiert auf einer Schätzung der Analysten von Cowen and Company von einem Gesamtumsatz von 7 Milliarden US-Dollar bis 2023.

Es ist schwierig abzuschätzen, wie viele Patienten das Medikament einnehmen werden. Aduhelm ist nicht nur teuer, sondern auch etwas schwer einzunehmen und erfordert monatliche persönliche Besuche in einem Infusionszentrum zur Behandlung. Patienten, die es einnehmen, müssen während ihrer Behandlungen mehrere Gehirnscans durchführen, um nach Nebenwirkungen zu suchen.

Und die Nebenwirkungen selbst – etwa 40 Prozent der Patienten in einer klinischen Studie zeigten Anzeichen einer Hirnschwellung – können einige Patienten davon abhalten, das Medikament auszuprobieren, und andere dazu veranlassen, die Einnahme abzubrechen. (Die vielen Scans – und Behandlungen für schwerwiegendere Nebenwirkungen – würden auch von Medicare abgedeckt.)

Es gibt sechs Millionen Medicare-Angehörige, die keine Zusatzversicherung abschließen, die möglicherweise 20 Prozent der Arzneimittelkosten bezahlen müssen, in diesem Fall 11.200 USD pro Jahr.

Dennoch kann die Nachfrage von Familien groß sein, die angesichts einer verheerenden Diagnose eine Möglichkeit sehen, einzugreifen. Bisher gab es nur wenige Behandlungsmöglichkeiten für Patienten, die hoffen, den kognitiven Rückgang durch die Krankheit zu verhindern.

„Es ist schon an sich schwer, einen geliebten Menschen zu haben, die Uhr ticken zu sehen und zu sagen: Nun, lass uns einfach warten“, sagte Dr. Steven Pearson, Hausarzt und Präsident des Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). ). „Es ist sehr schwer, den Drang zu ignorieren, etwas zu tun.“

Bidens Haushalt 202222

    • Ein neues Jahr, ein neues Budget: Das Geschäftsjahr 2022 für die Bundesregierung beginnt am 1. Oktober, und Präsident Biden hat bekannt gegeben, was er ab diesem Zeitpunkt ausgeben möchte. Aber jede Ausgabe erfordert die Zustimmung beider Kammern des Kongresses.
    • Ambitionierte Gesamtausgaben: Präsident Biden möchte, dass die Bundesregierung im Fiskaljahr 2022 6 Billionen US-Dollar ausgibt und die Gesamtausgaben bis 2031 auf 8,2 Billionen US-Dollar steigen. Dies würde die Vereinigten Staaten auf den höchsten anhaltenden Stand der Bundesausgaben seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg bringen, während sie laufen Defizite von über 1,3 Billionen US-Dollar in den nächsten zehn Jahren.
    • Infrastrukturplan: Das Budget skizziert das gewünschte erste Jahr der Investition des Präsidenten in seinen American Jobs Plan, der darauf abzielt, Verbesserungen von Straßen, Brücken, öffentlichen Verkehrsmitteln und mehr mit insgesamt 2,3 Milliarden US-Dollar über acht Jahre zu finanzieren.
    • Familienplan: Das Budget befasst sich auch mit dem anderen wichtigen Ausgabenvorschlag, den Biden bereits eingeführt hat, seinem American Families Plan, der darauf abzielt, das soziale Sicherheitsnetz der Vereinigten Staaten zu stärken, indem der Zugang zu Bildung erweitert, die Kosten für Kinderbetreuung gesenkt und Frauen in der Arbeitswelt unterstützt werden.
    • Pflichtprogramme: Wie üblich machen obligatorische Ausgaben für Programme wie Social Security, Medicaid und Medicare einen erheblichen Teil des vorgeschlagenen Budgets aus. Sie wachsen, während die Bevölkerung Amerikas altert.
    • Ermessensausgaben: Die Mittel für die einzelnen Budgets der Agenturen und Programme der Exekutive würden im Jahr 2022 rund 1,5 Billionen US-Dollar erreichen, eine Steigerung um 16 Prozent gegenüber dem vorherigen Budget.
    • Wie Biden dafür bezahlen würde: Der Präsident würde seine Agenda weitgehend durch Steuererhöhungen für Unternehmen und Gutverdiener finanzieren, was in den 2030er Jahren beginnen würde, die Haushaltsdefizite zu verringern. Verwaltungsbeamte sagten, Steuererhöhungen würden die Beschäftigungs- und Familienpläne im Laufe von 15 Jahren vollständig ausgleichen, was der Haushaltsantrag unterstützt. In der Zwischenzeit würde das Haushaltsdefizit jedes Jahr über 1,3 Billionen US-Dollar bleiben.

Ärzte, die dieses Medikament verabreichen und für diese Arbeit einen Prozentsatz des hohen Preises des Medikaments von Medicare erhalten, könnten finanzielle Anreize haben, Ja zu sagen, wenn Patienten danach fragen.

“Die Auswirkungen dieses einen Medikaments und der damit verbundenen Verfahren sind enorm”, sagte Rachel Sachs, Rechtsprofessorin an der Washington University in St. Louis und Autorin eines kürzlich in The Atlantic erschienenen Essays, in dem behauptet wird, dass das Medikament “die amerikanische Gesundheit verletzen” könnte Pflege.”

Private Versicherer können Hindernisse für die Behandlung errichten, die von Patienten zusätzliche Tests verlangen oder nachweisen, dass andere Optionen nicht funktioniert haben. Unter normalen Umständen deckt Medicare jedoch Medikamente ab, die von der FDA zugelassen sind. Medicare entscheidet, welche Medikamente abgedeckt werden, basierend darauf, ob sie „angemessen und notwendig“ sind, nicht auf deren Kosten.

Medicare ist verpflichtet, diese Art von Arzneimitteln zunächst zum Listenpreis zuzüglich einer Gebühr von 3 Prozent an den behandelnden Arzt zu zahlen. Und dann, nach etwa einem Jahr auf dem Markt, zahlt es den durchschnittlichen Verkaufspreis plus 6 Prozent. Bei Arzneimitteln mit Konkurrenz kann dieser Durchschnittspreis erheblich unter dem Aufkleberpreis liegen. Aber für ein Medikament wie Aduhelm, das das erste seiner Art ist, darf der Arzneimittelhersteller Ärzten keine Rabatte anbieten.

Medicare, das 61 Millionen Amerikaner ab 65 Jahren abdeckt, hat einige Instrumente, um die Kosten einzudämmen. Es könnte beschließen, das Medikament in einer Weise abzudecken, die eingeschränkter als die FDA-Zulassung ist, eine Abweichung von seiner normalen Praxis.

Oder es könnte etwas noch Ungewöhnlicheres tun: Eine unerwartete Allianz von Befürwortern hat vorgeschlagen, dass Medicare das Medikament einem randomisierten Experiment unterzieht, um zu bewerten, wie gut es wirkt – in einigen Teilen des Landes bezahlen sie für die Abdeckung des Medikaments, in anderen jedoch nicht. Solche politischen Experimente wurden im Rahmen des Affordable Care Act genehmigt, aber noch nie wurde eines verwendet, um die Abdeckung eines Medikaments auf diese Weise einzuschränken.

Andere Länder werden höchstwahrscheinlich die Kosten von Aduhelm kontrollieren, indem sie mit Biogen über einen niedrigeren Preis verhandeln oder einfach den Kauf ablehnen. Die meisten werden die Wirksamkeit des Medikaments berücksichtigen, wenn sie entscheiden, was sie zu zahlen bereit sind. Bisher ist das Medikament nirgendwo sonst auf der Welt zugelassen.

Medicare kann das nicht. Aufgrund der Art und Weise, wie sie nach geltendem Recht für Medikamente bezahlt, hat sie keine Möglichkeit, den Preis herunterzuhandeln. Demokraten unterstützen zunehmend Gesetze, die dies ändern. Das Repräsentantenhaus verabschiedete 2019 ein Gesetz, das Medicare die Befugnis geben würde, einige Preise auszuhandeln, aber es starb im Senat. Im April brachten die Gesetzgeber den gleichen Gesetzentwurf wieder ins Repräsentantenhaus ein.

Präsident Biden unterstützt es, Medicare die Aushandlung von Medikamentenpreisen zu ermöglichen, hat die Richtlinie jedoch nicht in seinen vorgeschlagenen amerikanischen Familienplan aufgenommen.

Dr. Pearson von ICER schätzt, dass, wenn die Wirksamkeit des neuen Medikaments berücksichtigt würde, ein fairer Preis 2.500 bis 8.300 US-Dollar betragen würde.

“Es wird interessant sein zu sehen, ob dies eine Diskussion über faire Preise in den Vereinigten Staaten auslöst”, sagte er. “In den Augen der meisten Leute sieht dies wie ein hervorragendes Beispiel für einen Preis aus, der einfach nicht mit den Beweisen übereinstimmt.”

Methodik: Die geschätzten aktuellen Ausgaben für Medicare-Teil-B-Medikamente wurden vom Centers for Medicare- und Medicaid-Services-Teil-B-Drogenausgaben-Dashboard entnommen und um 54 Prozent angehoben, um Medicare-Leistungsempfänger zu berücksichtigen, die in Medicare Advantage-Plänen eingeschrieben sind. Aufgrund der Demografie, wer an welchem ​​Programm teilnimmt, kann diese Annahme die aktuellen Drogenausgaben überschätzen.)

Die Medikamentenausgaben von Medicare Teil D wurden direkt aus dem CMS Teil D-Drogenausgaben-Dashboard entnommen und stellen möglicherweise eine Überschätzung dar, da diese Zahlen nicht alle an Medikamentenpläne gezahlten Rabatte enthalten.

Die hohe Schätzung der Ausgaben von Aduhelm stammt aus einem Papier der Kaiser Family Foundation. Die niedrige Schätzung wird aus einer Gesamtumsatzschätzung von Cowen and Company abgeleitet und angepasst, um schätzungsweise 80 Prozent der Alzheimer-Patienten zu Beginn ihrer Krankheit zu berücksichtigen, die sich in Medicare eingeschrieben haben – und Medicares anfängliche Zahlung von 3 Prozent an Ärzte für Gemeinkosten und Verwaltung.

Categories
World News

U.Okay. Justice System Has Failed Rape Victims, Authorities Says

LONDON — Thousands of rape and sexual assault victims have been failed by the criminal justice system, according to a British government review released Friday that cited a dramatic fall in convictions in England and Wales in recent years, prompting an apology from government ministers.

In an interview with the BBC, Justice Secretary Robert Buckland said that the findings of the review revealed “systemic failings” to deal with complaints made by victims “at all stages of the criminal justice process.”

He added: “The first thing I think I need to say is sorry, it’s not good enough. We’ve got to do a lot better.”

The review, which only covered cases with adult victims but acknowledged that children and young people were also subject to sexual assaults, was commissioned in March 2019 by the Conservative government. The review was intended to address the decline in rape prosecutions, which the Ministry of Justice said fell 59 percent, and convictions, which have dropped by 47 percent, since 2015-2016.

In that period, reported rapes of adults jumped to 43,187 from 24,093, according to Office for National Statistics numbers cited in the report.

But the government estimates that fewer than 20 percent of rape cases are actually reported to the police, and that the number of victims is about 128,000 a year. Of reported cases, which the statistics office said involved women in 84 percent of cases, just 1.6 percent resulted in a person being charged, according to the Home Office.

The report came as Britain grapples with a national reckoning over male violence against women that erupted in March after a police officer was arrested in the killing of a young woman, Sarah Everard. The officer, Wayne Couzens, 48, pleaded guilty to the rape and kidnapping of Ms. Everard this month.

In the report released Friday, Mr. Buckland, Home Secretary Priti Patel and Attorney General Michael Ellis said they were “deeply ashamed” of the decline in the number of prosecutions for rape cases, and the fact that one in two victims withdrew from rape investigations.

The review also found that the reasons for the decline in cases reaching court are “complex and wide-ranging,” including an “increase in personal digital data being requested, delays in investigative processes, strained relationships between different parts of the criminal justice system, a lack of specialist resources and inconsistent support to victims.”

Emily Hunt, an independent adviser to the review who was herself a victim of rape, said in the report that the low prosecution rate could not be attributed to possible false claims, which government data suggests accounts for up to 3 percent of rape allegations.

Katie Russell, the national spokeswoman for Rape Crisis, a charity that is part of a coalition of women’s groups called End Violence Against Women, welcomed the government’s admission of its own “catastrophic failures.”

However, she said, the drop in prosecutions could not be accounted for by cuts in funding and resources alone, which Mr. Buckland alluded to in his interview with the BBC.

“It’s clear there are wider cultural issues and issues of the actual functioning of the criminal justice system, in relation to rape and sexual offenses,” said Ms. Russell.

The review acknowledged that victims of rape have been treated “poorly.” In some instances, as they were struggling to deal with the psychological toll of reporting their rapes, they were informed that their cases would not be taken any further, sometimes without explanation.

Bonny Turner, a sexual assault activist who has gone public about her experience with an investigation of her 2016 rape allegations, which was dropped by prosecutors because of insufficient evidence, said the report’s findings came as little comfort.

The report did not make any reference to how the government “is going to redress the situation with those of us who have already been failed,” she said. “It’s as if they feel as though they think they can just get away with an apology but no action to back that up.”

The government said in the review that it would push for a “cultural change” in the police and among prosecutors to return the number of rape cases reaching court to “pre-2016 levels.”

The government added that sexual assault investigations would focus on the behavior patterns of accused attackers, and try to avoid undermining the credibility of victims — a failure that was highlighted in the report.

Citing rape victims who felt traumatized by having their phones taken away and examined during investigations, the review said victims would no longer be left without their devices for more than 24 hours.

Vulnerable victims will also be allowed to record video evidence in advance instead of being forced to endure the trauma of giving public testimony during trials.

Vera Baird, the victims’ commissioner for England and Wales — an independent adviser to the government — welcomed the ministers’ apologies over what she described as an “abysmal record.”

She said the government had taken too long to confront “what victims have been saying for years,” adding that the review underscored numerous missed opportunities. “Despite its clear limitations, we have to seize this moment if we are to escape this crisis in our justice system. I truly hope this review will drive us forwards. Indeed, it can’t get much worse.”

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
Health

Authorities Warns Medical doctors and Insurers: Don’t Invoice for Covid Vaccines

The New York Times is investigating the costs associated with coronavirus testing, treatment, and vaccination. You can read more about the project and submit your medical bills here.

The Biden government is reminding doctors, hospitals, pharmacies and insurers that it is illegal to bill patients for coronavirus vaccines, a letter received from The Times shows.

The new warning responds to concerns from unvaccinated Americans that they could get a bill with their shot. A recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that about a third of unvaccinated adults weren’t sure if insurance covered the new vaccine.

“We understand that there are costs associated with administering vaccines – from training staff to storing vaccines,” wrote Xavier Becerra, the health and social services secretary, in a letter to vaccinators and insurers. “Providers cannot bill patients for these expenses, but can request reimbursement through Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, or other applicable coverage.”

The letter warns that billing patients could lead to state or federal “enforcement action” but does not specify what the penalty would be.

The federal government has written strong consumer protection to ensure patients don’t have to pay for coronavirus vaccines.

In the economic legislation last spring, insurers were prohibited from charging patients co-payments or deductibles for vaccines. The same law also created a fund that would cover the cost of vaccinating uninsured Americans.

Layered on top of these legal safeguards are the contracts doctors and hospitals have signed to get vaccines. These documents stipulate that vaccinations cannot charge patients for the service.

The stronger protection seems to have worked. While many patients have come across coronavirus bills for testing, only a handful have come with vaccines.

Still, the rules aren’t foolproof, and some patients have been illegally charged. In April, the Inspector General’s Office of Health and Human Services released a letter saying it was “aware of patient complaints about fees from providers to get their Covid-19 vaccines.”

Some patients have submitted bills with surprising fees for a Times project that collects patient bills for tests, treatments, and vaccinations. Fees range from $ 20 to $ 850. If you’ve received an invoice for your coronavirus vaccine, you can submit it here.

Patients who are billed for coronavirus vaccines can dispute the fee. Health insurers can turn to their plan to ask why they got a bill when two federal laws – the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and the CARES law – prohibit it.

A small part of health insurance is exempt from the law. These “grandfather” plans existed prior to the Affordable Care Act and are not subject to requirements to fully cover the coronavirus vaccine or other preventive services.

But these patients, too, are still protected by the contract that the doctors concluded, excluding any invoicing. Doctors can send the outstanding fees to a new Coverage Assistance Fund created by the Biden administration last month to fill gaps in patient care.

Uninsured patients can instruct their providers to bill for the uninsured Covid-19 program that was set up to cover those without insurance.

If an insurer or doctor is unwilling to withdraw a bill, patients can seek help from state regulators. State insurance departments typically handle complaints about whether health insurances are not adequately covering medical care, while attorneys general tend to file complaints about possible inappropriate bills from doctors and hospitals.

Categories
World News

Israel’s Parliament to Vote on New Authorities on Sunday

JERUSALEM — The immediate political future of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel is set to be decided on Sunday, after the speaker of Israel’s Parliament said that lawmakers would hold a vote of confidence in a new coalition government that afternoon.

If the fragile coalition can hold together until then, it will be the first time in 12 years that the country will be led by someone other than Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister.

The announcement, by the Parliament speaker, Yariv Levin, on Tuesday, clears the way for Mr. Netanyahu to be replaced by Naftali Bennett, a former high-tech entrepreneur and settler leader who opposes a Palestinian state and believes Israel should annex much of the occupied West Bank.

If confirmed by Parliament, Mr. Bennett will lead an ideologically varied alliance that ranges from the far left to the hard right and includes — for the first time in Israeli history — an independent Arab party.

The fragility of the alliance and its wafer-thin majority — if no one drops out, it will command 61 of Parliament’s 120 seats — have left many wondering whether it will last until the vote, let alone its full four-year term. If the coalition lasts until 2023, Mr. Bennett has agreed to cede the premiership to Yair Lapid, a centrist former television host.

Mr. Netanyahu and his party, Likud, have pledged to do all they can to peel off wavering hard-right members of the coalition before the confidence vote.

In a speech reminiscent of President Trump’s rhetoric after the 2020 United States election, Mr. Netanyahu accused Mr. Bennett’s alliance on Sunday of subverting the will of the people.

“We are witnessing the biggest election fraud in the country’s history,” he told lawmakers from Likud before giving his blessing to protesters pressuring Mr. Bennett’s party.

“Nobody will silence us,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “When a huge public feels that it has been deceived, when the national camp is vehemently opposed to a dangerous left-wing government, it is their right and their duty to express protest in all legal and democratic means.”

For weeks, Mr. Netanyahu and his supporters have tried to stop the formation of an alternative government by accusing its would-be members — particularly those from the political right — of betraying the country.

That rhetoric has risen significantly since Wednesday, when opposition leaders announced that they had formed a coalition, pending a confidence vote.

Over the weekend, Likud tweeted the home address of a leading opposition lawmaker. And hundreds of supporters of Mr. Netanyahu have picketed the homes of several coalition members whom they deem vulnerable to pressure.

“It seems that Netanyahu hasn’t forgotten or learned anything since the Rabin assassination,” Nahum Barnea, a prominent columnist, wrote on Monday in Yedioth Ahronoth, a centrist newspaper.

On Saturday, the tenor of the discourse appeared to prompt Nadav Argaman, the director of the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service, to publicly call for restraint.

Understand Developments in Israeli Politics

    • Key Figures. The main players in the latest twist in Israeli politics have very different agendas, but one common goal. Naftali Bennett, who leads a small right-wing party, and Yair Lapid, the centrist leader of the Israeli opposition, have joined forces to form a diverse coalition to unseat Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister.
    • Range of Ideals. Spanning Israel’s fractious political spectrum from left to right, and relying on the support of a small Arab, Islamist party, the coalition, dubbed the “change government” by supporters, will likely mark a profound shift for Israel.
    • A Common Goal. After grinding deadlock that led to four inconclusive elections in two years, and an even longer period of polarizing politics and government paralysis, the architects of the coalition have pledged to get Israel back on track.
    • An Unclear Future. Parliament still has to ratify the fragile agreement in a confidence vote in the coming days. But even if it does, it remains unclear how much change the “change government” could bring to Israel because some of the parties involved have little in common besides animosity for Mr. Netanyahu.

Without mentioning any politicians by name, Mr. Argaman asked Israelis to avoid statements that are “liable to be interpreted by certain groups or by individuals as one that permits violent and illegal activity that is liable, heaven forbid, to reach mortal injury.”

Analysts and commentators have also warned that several of the circumstances that set off the recent Gaza conflict have yet to be extinguished and could boil over again before the confidence vote.

On Monday, the attorney general, Avichai Mandelblit, declined to intervene in a high-profile eviction case in a Palestinian neighborhood of East Jerusalem, Sheikh Jarrah, where Palestinian residents face expulsion from their homes in favor of Israeli settlers.

The case in Sheikh Jarrah was cited by Hamas as one of the reasons for its decision to fire rockets toward Jerusalem on May 10, at the start of the recent conflict with Israel. Mr. Mandelblit’s decision means that the eviction, currently under judicial appeal, could be finalized in the coming days — raising tensions with Hamas once more.

There are also fears of violence if a far-right Jewish march through Palestinian areas of East Jerusalem is allowed to go ahead.

The march was originally planned for May 10 and was another reason given by Hamas for firing rockets that day. It was aborted after the militants began their attack, leading its organizers to try to reschedule it for this week.

The police initially canceled the rescheduled march, but Mr. Netanyahu’s security cabinet decided Tuesday to go ahead with it on June 15, on a route to be agreed on with the police.

Myra Noveck contributed reporting.

Categories
Health

Malaysia lockdown pressures authorities funds, says minister

Malaysia’s government finances are becoming “very constrained” as a surge in Covid-19 infections has once again forced the country into a lockdown, International Trade and Industry Minister Mohamed Azmin Ali told CNBC on Friday.

The Malaysian government has announced a new stimulus package worth 40 billion Malaysian ringgit (roughly $9.68 billion) to help businesses and households cope with another round of “total lockdown” that started on Tuesday.

That latest stimulus came on top of six prior packages worth a total 340 billion Malaysian ringgit (around $82.31 billion) rolled out over the past year. The government said the additional spending could push 2021’s fiscal deficit above its target of 6% of gross domestic product.

People wearing face masks walk in front of the Petronas Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Jan. 29, 2021.

Xinhua News Agency | Getty Images

“Certainly this is (putting) a lot of pressure on our fiscal space, but again … we have no other options except to look at various options to support the industries, the SMEs and also the informal sectors so that they can continue with their economic activities,” Azmin told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia.”

During the June 1-14 “total lockdown,” businesses offering essential services will remain open while certain segments of the manufacturing sector can operate with reduced capacity.

Azmin and his ministry have been criticized by opposition politicians and the Malaysian public for allowing some nonessential businesses — such as a furniture firm and a brewery — to operate during the lockdown, according to media reports.  

In a Thursday statement, Azmin said his ministry is not the only one granting permissions to companies that applied to remain open during the lockdown. He added that only 128,150 businesses — involving 1.57 million workers — had obtained approvals to do so, out of 586,308 that applied for permission, according to the Malay language statement translated by CNBC.     

Malaysia’s Covid-19 outbreak has substantially worsened despite the government imposing lockdowns of varying degrees over the past year.

Last week, the Southeast Asian country reported five consecutive days of record infections and on Wednesday registered its largest daily death toll since the start of 2020. Overall, Malaysia has confirmed more than 595,000 Covid cases and 3,096 deaths, data from the health ministry showed on Thursday.

Malaysian director-general of health, Dr. Noor Hisham Abdullah, has urged people to stay at home to break the chain of transmission. A leading figure in the country’s fight against Covid, Noor Hisham warned that the health system could be paralyzed if cases continue to surge.

Azmin said the government is accelerating its national vaccination drive. He explained that the strategy is to administer more than 200,000 doses a day by the end of this month, and double that amount next month.

“We expect to reach the 80% vaccination target as early as August 2021,” said the minister.

But Malaysia’s vaccination progress has been slow. Only 6.2% of the country’s roughly 32 million population have received at least one dose of the Covid vaccine, according to data compiled by statistics site Our World in Data.

Categories
Health

Authorities assured of reaching vaccine goal

The Indian government is confident that the country will be able to meet an ambitious target of having more than 2 billion coronavirus vaccine doses by the end of the year, Civil Aviation Minister Hardeep Singh Puri said.

Last month, Health Minister Harsh Vardhan said in a statement that India will have 516 million vaccine doses by July, including shots already administered, and that the number will rise to 2.16 billion doses between August and December.

“We have paid the two existing domestic manufacturers, Serum Institute (of India) and Bharat Biotech, advance money to produce vaccines for the whole of May, June, and July. We are only past May,” Puri told CNBC’s Tanvir Gill in an interview. He explained that the government is also in advanced stages of talks with other vaccine manufacturers.

The government is “absolutely confident of being able to meet this target by December,” Puri added.

In its forecast, the Indian government expects about 750 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine that is being locally produced by the Serum Institute of India and is known as Covishield. Another 550 million doses of Covaxin, which is developed and produced by Indian company Bharat Biotech, are also expected.

People walking past a wall mural depicting medical staff hitting the coronavirus with vaccine needle at Santacruz on March 29, 2021 in Mumbai, India.

Pratik Chorge | Hindustan Times | Getty Images

Both vaccines are being currently used in India’s inoculation campaign where more than 222 million doses have been administered as of Thursday — but a majority of them are first of the two doses required for immunity.

Russia’s Sputnik vaccine — the third shot to get approved — will contribute about 156 million to the predicted tally. Reuters reported that six Indian companies have already signed deals to produce around 1 billion doses of the vaccine annually and that Serum Institute is also seeking approval to make it.

The government also expects:

In addition, India has also authorized foreign-made vaccines that have been granted emergency approval by the U.S., U.K., European Union, Japan and World Health Organization-listed agencies.

Vaccines, the way forward

Experts agree that vaccination is the way forward for India — both to bring the economy out of the Covid crisis and to mitigate the effects of a third wave. But vaccine hesitancy, in part due to misinformation being spread about the shots, has been an issue both in India and globally.

Vaccines are also in short supply and that has slowed down domestic inoculation efforts and forced India to halt exports to other countries.

For his part, Puri said that proper dissemination of information and education around vaccination is needed and that the government is doing its part.

India is battling a devastating second wave of outbreak that started in February and accelerated in April and early May, which overwhelmed the country’s health-care infrastructure. The sector has struggled with shortages of beds, oxygen and medication as many doctors and other health-care workers succumbed to Covid-19.

A doctor walks past the banner announcing a Covid-19 vaccination drive in Hyderabad, India on May 28, 2021.

Noah Seelam | AFP | Getty Images

Some of that pressure eased once the central government and states stepped up their efforts to manage the outbreak while international aid poured in, providing some of the much-needed medical supplies.

Daily reported cases in India have declined from a peak of more than 414,000 in early May. So far, the South Asian nation reported more than 28.5 million cases and over 340,000 deaths.

Puri said the government has now mapped out ways to deal with challenges like oxygen shortages, where hard-hit areas ran out of stock and logistical difficulties made it harder for new supplies to reach them.

Initially, the government diverted oxygen meant for industrial use to medical facilities. Last month, it stepped up efforts to streamline the supply by allocating funds to install 500 medical oxygen plants across India within three months.

“If a third wave comes, and when it comes, depending on the requirements, our capacity to again repurpose and again to convert back to dealing with it, I think that infrastructure capacity is there,” Puri said.