Ultra-Orthodox party quits Israeli cabinet but throws Netanyahu a lifeline
Another ultra-Orthodox group abandoned the coalition on Tuesday over the deeply divisive issue, leaving Netanyahu with just a one-seat majority in parliament.
But rather than follow suit, the other ultra-Orthodox partner, Shas, said on Wednesday it would just pull its ministers from government ranks while continuing to back the coalition in parliament.
"Shas representatives ... find with a heavy heart that they cannot stay in the government and be a part of it," the group said in a statement, a day after the United Torah Judaism (UTJ) party had announced its full walkout.
The Shas decision means Netanyahu does not face the threat of early elections, for now, nor does it undermine his efforts to secure a possible Gaza ceasefire.
Israel's parliament starts a three-month summer recess on July 27, giving Netanyahu time to try to resolve the problem of who should serve in the military -- a debate that has long caused huge tensions within Israel's deeply divided society.
There was no immediate comment from Netanyahu or other partners within his increasingly splintered cabinet.
While the ultra-Orthodox parties have focused their anger on the conscription issue, far-right parties have been pressing Netanyahu not to make concessions in ceasefire talks with Hamas militants that are underway in Qatar.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich want Israel to press on with the war, but Netanyahu would still be likely to have enough cabinet votes to back any eventual ceasefire without them.
Underscoring divisions in the coalition, Shas in its statement on Wednesday urged Netanyahu to do "everything in his power" to reach a deal with Hamas.
Israelis have become increasingly weary of the 21-month war in Gaza, which began with Israel's single deadliest day on October 7, 2023, when a surprise attack by Hamas killed 1,200 and saw 251 taken hostage by the Palestinian militants.
Israel's subsequent offensive against Hamas has killed more than 58,000 Palestinians, according to health officials, displaced almost the entire population of Gaza, led to a humanitarian crisis and left much of the enclave in ruins.
It has also exacted Israel's highest military death toll in decades, with around 450 soldiers killed so far in Gaza combat.
This has added fuel to an already explosive debate over a new conscription bill that lies at the centre of the latest crisis to rattle Netanyahu's coalition, which took office in late 2022 and is due to stay in office until the autumn of 2026.
Ultra-Orthodox seminary students have long been exempt from mandatory military service. Many Israelis are angered by what they see as an unfair burden carried by the mainstream who serve.
Ultra-Orthodox Jewish leaders say full-time devotion to the study of holy scriptures is sacrosanct and fear their young men will steer away from religious life if they are drafted into the military.
Last year the Supreme Court ordered an end to the exemption. Parliament has been trying to work out a new conscription bill, which has so far failed to meet UTJ demands.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
31 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
WW3 fears as Vladimir Putin is trying to 'justify a Russia war with NATO'
Vladimir Putin could have NATO member states in his sights as he aims to rebuild the old Russian Empire and justify expanding its borders beyond where they are currently World War 3 fears continue to mount as Russian President Vladimir Putin could attempt to justify a war with NATO, experts have warned. Amid the ongoing war in Ukraine, Moscow "continues to promote an informal state ideology centred on Russian nationalism," which officials said "may intend to use in justification of a protracted war in Ukraine and a future conflict against NATO," the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) said. The move is designed to "shape and galvanise future generations" in Russia and parts of occupied Ukraine. Kremlin bosses may warn of a future military conflict with the alliance, the ISW added. It comes after Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu 'completely lost it' with angry response to Keir Starmer. It wrote: "The Kremlin seeks to foster national exceptionalism and further isolate Russia from the West, including by portraying the West as the enemy with whom Russia is engaged in an existential conflict." They will use elements from Russian history such as World War 2 which Russians call the "Great Patriotic War." Experts said the Russian government continued to portray the country as being in a "direct geopolitical confrontation with the West in order to generate domestic support for the war in Ukraine and future Russian aggression against NATO." It comes as Russia continues to court Iran, North Korea and China, which constitutes "a growing threat to Western security." The ISW added Russia was "actively pursuing a global anti-Western alliance" and that Moscow's foreign minister Sergey Lavrov wanted to "install an informal sate ideology that perpetuates the idea that the West is in an existential conflict with Russia in order to foster unquestioning support of the Russian government." Foreign analysts have become increasingly concerned about Putin's appetite for war following his invasion of Ukraine and willingness to throw as many Russians into the meat grinder as possible in order to complete its revised war objectives of occupying eastern Ukraine. There are fears he could turn his sights on the Baltic States - made up of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - in a bid to revise the borders to those of the old Russian Empire. Officials have been "setting informal conditions" to justify potential aggression against Moldova and the Baltic States.
The Guardian
36 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Israeli author David Grossman says his country is committing genocide in Gaza
The award-winning Israeli author David Grossman has described his country's campaign in Gaza as a genocide and said he now 'can't help' but use the term. 'I ask myself: how did we get here?' the celebrated writer and peace activist told the Italian daily La Repubblica in an interview published on Friday. 'How did we come to be accused of genocide? Just uttering that word – 'genocide' – in reference to Israel, to the Jewish people, that alone, the fact that this association can even be made, should be enough to tell us that something very wrong is happening to us.' Grossman said that for many years he had refused to use the term. 'But now I can't help myself – not after what I've read in the papers, not after the images I've seen, not after speaking with people who've been there. This word is an avalanche: once you say it, it just gets bigger, like an avalanche. And it adds even more destruction and suffering,' he said. Grossman's comments come days after two major Israeli rights groups said Israel was committing genocide in Gaza, amid growing global alarm over starvation in the besieged territory. The author, who has long been a critic of the Israeli government, told La Repubblica he was using the word 'with immense pain and with a broken heart'. 'Reading in a newspaper or hearing in conversations with friends in Europe the association of the words 'Israel' and 'hunger' – especially when this comes from our own history, from our supposed sensitivity to human suffering, from the moral responsibility we've always claimed to hold toward every human being, not just toward Jews – this is devastating,' said Grossman, who won the country's top literary prize, the Israel prize, in 2018 for his work spanning more than three decades. 'The occupation has corrupted us,' he said. 'I am absolutely convinced that Israel's curse began with the occupation of the Palestinian territories in 1967. Maybe people are tired of hearing about it, but that's the truth. We've become militarily powerful, and we've fallen into the temptation born of our absolute power, and the idea that we can do anything.' Asked what he thought of France and the UK being among the latest countries preparing to formally recognise a state of Palestine, Grossman said: 'I actually think it's a good idea, and I don't understand the hysteria around it here in Israel. Maybe dealing with a real state, with real obligations, rather than a vague entity like the Palestinian Authority, will have its advantages. Of course, there would need to be very clear conditions: no weapons, and the guarantee of transparent elections from which anyone who advocates violence against Israel is excluded.' He said he remained 'desperately committed' to the two-state solution. 'It will be complex, and both we and the Palestinians will need to act with political maturity in the face of the inevitable attacks that will come.' He added: 'There is no other plan.'
Telegraph
43 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The British terms for recognition of Palestine are not addressed to Hamas or Israel
Every day, Christians say the prayer which Jesus himself taught, the 'Our Father '. Its first expressed wish is 'Thy kingdom come'. Those three words refer to the belief that Jesus will have a Second Coming to earth which will inaugurate the eternal reign of God. When we say them, we express a sincere hope, but we are assuredly not expecting it to happen any time soon. In history, preachers have emerged claiming they are the Messiah, or his prophet, and that the Kingdom is coming right now. They have been lunatics, charlatans, or political adventurers. It is not, from a Christian view, impossible that the Second Coming will be manifested soon in a high street near you: it is just extremely unlikely. Fear those who claim otherwise. The call for a two-state solution of Israel/Palestine is the political equivalent of 'Thy kingdom come'. It is a noble aspiration towards which we should strive, but not, to put it mildly, likely or imminent. Beware of those who tell you different. The proposal to recognise a Palestinian state now makes the same mistake as those who try to fast-track the coming of Christ's kingdom. Its advocates may be perfectly sincere, but their actions empower the worst people. They will not create the state they seek. There are differences between the recognition terms being offered by France, Canada and Britain. Canada, for example, imposes quite strong conditions, such as demilitarising the Palestinians. The British version is notably the worst. It demands Hamas release the hostages, but with no penalty if Hamas does not comply. Weirdly, the British position makes our recognition of a Palestinian state dependent on Israel's behaviour in the coming weeks. Recognition will be granted 'unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza and commits to a long-term sustainable peace, including through allowing the UN to restart without delay the supply of humanitarian support … to end starvation, agreeing to a ceasefire, and making clear there will be no annexations in the West Bank'. Is Sir Keir Starmer seriously saying that if Benjamin Netanyahu obeys him and calls off his dogs of war, the case for a Palestinian state falls? If statehood is needed, that need does not depend on how 'good' or 'bad' Bibi decides to be between now and September. And what incentive does Britain give Hamas to offer a ceasefire? We have told the terrorists that if Israel agrees one, we will not recognise Palestinian statehood. What earthly reason will Hamas have for releasing the hostages now? Until the UN General Assembly, when recognition will be declared, it will want to drive Israel into more extreme positions. Then Britain will back the Palestinian state that Hamas wants. This may not matter, since Britain has so little power in the situation, and has now, by its various recent actions, lost all leverage with Israel. For Mr Netanyahu, the latest British pressure need hardly register. The only Western power that matters here is the United States. But why, then, did Sir Keir regard the nearly 80-year-old question of Palestinian statehood as suddenly so urgent that it required an emergency Cabinet meeting this week? And why is it that, for the first time, three G7 members are playing this recognition game? I suppose the answer friendliest to those three states is that they want to forestall Israel. They think that Mr Netanyahu wants to annex Gaza: they fear that President Trump cannot be relied upon to stop him. They imagine their declaration of Palestinian statehood can prevent this. They are right that the Netanyahu government has waged nearly two years of war without disclosing its post-victory plans. That makes everyone nervous. But I fear – a fear confirmed by the hasty, repetitive, almost inarticulate wording of the British statement – that the call for Palestinian state recognition is driven by motives little related to a long-term international settlement. The most obvious is that the countries involved have big, restive Muslim populations to be appeased. Here in Britain, our governing party has a proportion of Muslim membership much higher than that of the general population (thought to be over 60 per cent in London). Labour is shedding votes in all directions. Muslim ones are among the most volatile. It would not be surprising, too, if the security services were privately warning of Islamist attacks stirred up by what is happening in Gaza. Labour is scared. Slightly less obvious, but still powerful, are undercurrents about 'values'. Attending President Macron's speech in Westminster Hall during his state visit, I was struck by his emphasis on recognising Palestine. Although he said it was his own view, he implied it arose from Anglo-French conversations. He waxed eloquent about how 'for us as Europeans there is no double standard' (a remark which implies a false equivalence between Israel and Hamas). Mark Carney takes a similar line. He is back home ruling Canada these days, but there remains no greater devotee of European righteousness. One must not forget that Sir Keir, although outwardly deferential to Trump, is desperate for a shadow EU membership for Britain to wash off what he sees as the stain of nationalism and realign us with the Union our voters rejected in 2016. For him, 'European values' are talismanic. Unfortunately, they have never included robust support for Israel. Then there is colonial guilt. Speaking at Wednesday's UN conference on the two-state solution in New York, the Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, invoked 'the hand of history' that famously fingered Tony Blair in Northern Ireland. Britain bears 'the special burden of responsibility' that goes back to the Balfour declaration of 1917, he said. We must protect the 'civil and religious rights' of the Palestinian people which, along with a homeland for the Jews, Balfour promised. Balfour did not promise a Palestinian state, however. There has never been one. Palestinian leaders have rejected all offers of one. This Mr Lammy did not discuss. It is a serious matter to create a new state. As a result, there are four international legal principles for doing so, based not on aspiration, but on facts: does the entity in question have 'a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states'? This Government of lawyers is oddly reluctant to engage with these questions. It was a surprise to hear the distinguished ex-jurist Lord Sumption say on television that it is 'completely clear' that Palestine has met these conditions, especially that of having a government. Until now, such complete clarity has eluded all those who have sought to deal with representatives of the Palestinians. The Palestinian Authority is much less than a government. Hamas, as all admit, has no legitimacy whatever. Its plan for statehood was well expressed in its actions of Oct 7 2023. Palestinian statehood, as currently offered, bursts with contradictions. Here is a darkly funny one. At present, the official status of most Palestinians in the territories is that of refugees (the only example in the world of refugee status being hereditary), for whom the UN is responsible. If statehood were granted, they would be refugees no more, so would UNWRA and all its aid have to be sent packing? That is just one of the many things which Sir Keir and colleagues have not thought about.
