What might happen if Israel's parliament votes on dissolution next week?
June 4 (Reuters) - Opposition party Yesh Atid has submitted a vote to dissolve the Israeli parliament, known as the Knesset, for June 11, amid rising tensions in the ruling right-wing coalition.
Here are some key facts about the Knesset, the procedure for a dissolution vote, which would lead to an election, and possible scenarios.
Total seats: 120
Simple majority needed to pass the vote: 61
Current government majority: 8 seats
LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE
The Yesh Atid motion faces four votes with an absolute majority of the Knesset required in the final stretch to become law, thereby bringing a premature end to the legislature and triggering an election, which must be held within five months of the motion passing.
In practice, if the initial vote passes, the subsequent stages could occur all the same day or take months.
A bill to dissolve parliament will only be brought to a vote if Yesh Atid is confident of securing a majority. If not, it can withdraw the motion anytime before June 11, preventing a vote.
Ultra-Orthodox coalition parties could decide to leave the government to protest at its failure to put forward a law granting exemption from military service to ultra-Orthodox men. At the same time, they might refuse to vote for dissolution of parliament, allowing a minority government to continue.
The coalition led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has a majority of around 68 seats in parliament, though its size has fluctuated due to internal political shifts.
The two coalition ultra-Orthodox parties, United Torah Judaism and Shas, hold 18 seats collectively. If they united with the opposition, they would have enough votes to dissolve parliament and trigger early elections a year ahead of schedule.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
Owen Jones: The UK media has ignored this hugely revealing scandal
And yet Benjamin Netanyahu – the Israeli prime minister subject to an International Criminal Court arrest warrant – has been accused of forging this alliance by the Israeli political class. And yet – once again – the Westminster media has overwhelmingly failed to cover this latest profoundly revealing scandal. Avigdor Lieberman is a far-right opposition leader who once served as Netanyahu's deputy prime minister, foreign minister and defence minister. This week, he publicly announced: 'The Israeli government is giving weapons to a group of criminals and felons, identified with Islamic State, at the direction of the prime minister.' Did Netanyahu come out swinging, accusing his opponent of antisemitism, as he did when another opposition leader, former Israeli general Yair Golan, declared that Israel was killing babies as a hobby? READ MORE: Patrick Harvie: Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely He did not. Instead, Netanyahu bragged that 'Israel is working to defeat Hamas in various ways, on the recommendation of all heads of the security establishment'. In a video message, he clarified that Israel had 'activated clans in Gaza that oppose Hamas', shamelessly calling it 'a good thing' which was saving the lives of Israeli soldiers. 'What's wrong with that?' We're talking here about a militia headed by a man named Yasser Abu Shabab. He styles his faction as the 'Anti Terror Service', but it is a criminal gang operating in an area of Rafah firmly under Israeli military control. His own family has not only disowned him, but backed his execution. According to Palestinian analyst Muhammad Shehada, his militia is composed of 300 'drug dealers and criminals.' And here's the important detail. To justify imposing a total siege on Gaza, Israel claimed that Hamas was stealing humanitarian food. Among those pointing out this wasn't true was Cindy McCain, widow of the late hawkish Republican senator John McCain, and now director of the World Food Programme. But we do know that Shabab's Israel-backed gang has been stealing aid. As ever with the Israeli authorities: every accusation is a confession. This is just another plank of Israel's starvation policy. But again, the Western media has overwhelmingly failed to clearly spell out what Israel is actually doing. Having imposed a total siege on Gaza since March 2, Israel set up a US-backed shadow entity named the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to explicitly supplant the UN. It hasn't just been rejected by every aid agency – even the US marine who heads it resigned on the basis it contradicted the basic principles of humanitarianism. The Foundation set three aid checkpoints in the south in an effort to concentrate Gaza's entire population into a confined area – a concentration camp. Too little aid was delivered, much of it unusable given the siege on cooking materials. But in any case, the Israeli military repeatedly fired on starving Palestinians. In the words of Tory MP Kit Malthouse, the UN system had been replaced with a 'shooting range, an abattoir'. But when the Israeli military massacred dozens of starving Palestinians, they deployed their usual strategy: deceive, deflect, deny, distort. Even though the shootings happened in an Israeli military zone, and despite the overwhelming evidence of Israeli lies, the Western media indulged Israeli claims that Hamas was responsible as if they were credible. CNN belatedly published a clear rebuttal of Israeli lies, but attention had already moved on. As ever, the Western media overall fail to allow Israeli responsibility for atrocities to stick. And yet now, even as Yair Lapid – the main opposition leader – states Netanyahu is 'giving weapons to organisations close to ISIS in Gaza', this latest plank of Israel's starvation strategy barely gets any coverage. This is despite Israel's 'Hamas is ISIS' campaign long being used to justify the genocide. This all fits a classic pattern, of course. Israel encouraged the rise of Hamas in the 1980s in order to undermine its public enemy number one at the time, Yasser Arafat's Fatah. More recently, Netanyahu worked with Qatar to transfer money to prop up Hamas – with the hope of dividing the Palestinian nation and movement so an independent state was impossible. Remember too how the West armed and backed the Mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s, playing a crucial role in creating the global Islamist fundamentalist movement. You would think the Western media might take an interest given the precedents. It is true that there is a shift taking place. Israeli spokespeople are suddenly being taken apart on mainstream television. Sky News is demanding the Prime Minister answer if genocide is taking place. But the media narrative still has not clearly shifted to reality – that is, a crime of historic proportions is being facilitated by Western governments, which means questions should be focused on 'how can this crime be stopped, and perpetrators held to justice' rather than 'is Israel doing something very bad here?' The latter is an improvement on where the narrative was stuck for so long – which was essentially 'Israel is waging a war of self-defence', with a side debate about whether the 'response' was 'proportionate'. What is clear is that an understanding is creeping into the political and media elites that a reckoning is coming, where those who facilitated this abomination will be forced to answer for what they did and what they didn't do. Time is running out.
Reuters
5 hours ago
- Reuters
North Korea internet hit by a major outage, analyst says
SEOUL, June 7 (Reuters) - North Korea's internet is experiencing a major outage on Saturday, said a UK-based researcher, adding that the cause may be may be internal rather than a cyberattack. North Korea's main news web sites and its Foreign Ministry internet site were inaccessible on Saturday morning, according to checks by Reuters. "A major outage is currently occurring on North Korea's internet - affecting all routes whether they come in via China or Russia," said Junade Ali, a U.K.-based researcher who monitors the North Korean internet. North Korea's entire internet infrastructure is not showing up on systems that can monitor internet activities, he said. "Hard to say if this is intentional or accidental - but seems like this is internal rather than an attack," he said. Officials at South Korea's Police cyber terror response centre which monitors North Korea's cyber activities could not be reached for comment.
NBC News
8 hours ago
- NBC News
Trump can bar The Associated Press from some White House events for now, appeals court rules
President Donald Trump is free to bar The Associated Press from some White House media events for now, after a U.S. appeals court on Friday paused a lower court ruling mandating that AP journalists be given access. The divided ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit temporarily blocks an order by U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, who ruled on April 8 that the Trump administration must allow AP journalists access to the Oval Office, Air Force One and White House events while the news agency's lawsuit moves forward. The 2-1 ruling was written by U.S. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, joined by fellow Trump appointee U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas. Rao wrote that the lower court injunction 'impinges on the President's independence and control over his private workspaces' and that the White House was likely to ultimately defeat the Associated Press' lawsuit. The White House and a lawyer for the Associated Press did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In a dissent, Circuit Judge Cornelia Pillard, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said her two colleagues' ruling cannot be squared with 'any sensible understanding of the role of a free press in our constitutional democracy.' The AP sued in February after the White House restricted the news outlet's access over its decision to continue referring to the Gulf of Mexico in its coverage despite Trump renaming the body of water the Gulf of America. The AP's lawyers argued the new policy violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which protects free speech rights. McFadden, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, said in his ruling that if the White House opens its doors to some journalists it cannot exclude others based on their viewpoints. Trump administration lawyers said the president has absolute discretion over media access to the White House and that McFadden's ruling infringed on his ability to decide whom to admit to sensitive spaces. 'The Constitution does not prohibit the President from considering a journalist's prior coverage in evaluating how much access he will grant that journalist,' lawyers for the administration said in a court filing. On April 16, the AP accused the Trump administration of defying the court order by continuing to exclude its journalists from some events and then limiting access to Trump for all news wires, including Reuters and Bloomberg. Reuters and the AP both issued statements denouncing the new policy, which puts wire services in a larger rotation with about 30 other newspaper and print outlets. Other media customers, including local news organizations that have no presence in Washington, rely on the wire services' real-time reports of presidential statements as do global financial markets.
