Israeli analysts describe confusion after US President Trump unexpectedly shifts from threatened strikes on Iran to talks.

Israeli analysts have described a sense of disappointment and confusion in the country after United States President Donald Trump’s claim that negotiations with Iran to wind down the war would continue.

Trump’s comments come despite his threats to launch a wave of strikes against Iran’s energy infrastructure, and denials from Iran that any negotiations are taking place.

Throughout the war, Israeli leaders have framed themselves as being at the forefront of the fight against Iran, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu frequently boasting of having convinced the US to join what he has repeatedly framed as an existential threat posed to Israel by Iran.

In a video statement released on Monday after Trump’s comments, Netanyahu said that the US president believed that it was possible to leverage “the mighty achievements obtained by [the Israeli military] and the US military to realise the goals of the war in an agreement … that will safeguard our vital interests”.

“In parallel, we continue to attack, both in Iran and Lebanon,” the prime minister added. “We are methodically dismantling the missile programme and the nuclear programme, and continue to hit Hezbollah hard.”

Despite that framing, many in Israel are acutely aware that the war was presented to the Israeli people at the outset as one that would likely overthrow the Iranian government and end the threat from the country. With the Islamic Republic still standing and deadly Iranian attacks hitting Israel in the last few days, talk of a negotiated end to the conflict is unsettling to many.

Former Israeli ambassador Alon Pinkas told Al Jazeera that, if Trump has pushed for negotiations over Netanyahu’s objections, it may be a sign that the US president is aware that “Netanyahu may have duped [Trump] on how quick and resounding a victory would be, and how viable regime change is”.

Political scientist Ori Goldberg said that Israel did not appear to have been consulted about negotiations beforehand, a stark rejection of Netanyahu’s efforts in convincing the US to entrench itself further in the war.

“Is it a defeat for Netanyahu? Hell, yes!” he told Al Jazeera from outside Tel Aviv. “It’s Trump essentially ditching Israel. For now, at least, we’ll still be able to destroy Lebanon and starve Gaza, but any idea that we’re a serious player that the US or any state would want to talk with has gone. Nobody wants to talk to us.”

Objectives achieved?

Netanyahu and his allies on Israel’s far right have placed great store in the support of the US president, whose 2024 US presidential election victory was celebrated by the Israeli prime minister and framed as marking a new period of closer Israel-US partnership.

However, Trump’s unpredictable behaviour, as well as the huge power imbalance between the two countries, has led to various periods of concern, such as when the US imposed a ceasefire on Israel in Gaza in late 2025, as well as ordering the cessation of its previous attacks on Iran in June 2025.

But given the outsized role of the US in Israeli politics, some analysts have suggested that even if it is true that Israel has been sidelined in any current negotiations, that does not negate the gains it has achieved in its fight against Iran.

“I don’t think there was any expectation that Israel would be involved in diplomatic efforts to end the war. Israel is no longer a country that does diplomacy,” Israeli political analyst Nimrod Flashenberg said from Berlin. “[But] I’m doubtful that Netanyahu was ever serious about regime change. If he was, he wouldn’t have sabotaged or even killed so many people inside the regime that could have brought that about.”

“If you assume, instead, that this was about downgrading Iran’s military capabilities, then he’s done that, and he’s done it in such a way that’s going to ensure the US’s long-term commitment to making sure it remains downgraded.”

World Opinion + Agencies

L’article Debate. Where do reported US-Iran ‘negotiations’ leave Israel? est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

US President Donald Trump said « nothing definitive » was agreed but that he had « insisted » talks with Iran continue during a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday.

The two leaders met at the White House as tensions continue to rise across the Middle East and negotiations intensify over curbing Iran’s nuclear weapons programme.

Netanyahu was expected to press Trump to pursue a deal that would not only halt Iran’s uranium enrichment, but cut its ballistic missile programme and support for proxy groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Iran has suggested it is ready to limit its nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief, but has rejected the other demands.

Ahead of the White House meeting, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian warned his country would « not yield to their excessive demands ».

Netanyahu’s visit marks his sixth trip to the US since Trump’s return to office – more than any other world leader. The Israeli Prime Minister was brought in through a side entrance for the closed-door meeting on Wednesday.

In a post on Truth Social afterwards, Trump said the meeting between the leaders had been « very good ».

« There was nothing definitive reached other than I insisted that negotiations with Iran continue to see whether or not a deal can be consummated, » he said.

He added a deal was his « preference » but if one could not be reached « we will just have to see what the outcome will be ».

Netanyahu’s office said the leaders had discussed « the security needs of the State of Israel in the context of the negotiations » and agreed to continue their « close coordination and relationship ».

A close Trump ally, Netanyahu has long argued that Iran represents an existential security threat to Israel and has pushed the US to curb Tehran’s influence in the region.

« The prime minister believes that any negotiations must include limiting ballistic missiles and ending support for the Iranian axis, » Netanyahu’s office said in a statement ahead of his trip.

After arriving in Washington on Tuesday, Netanyahu met Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner. The pair « provided an update on the first round of negotiations they held with Iran last Friday », according to the prime minister’s office.

Netanyahu’s visit comes as the US increases its military presence in the Middle East, with Trump warning Tehran of strikes if it fails to reach a deal on its nuclear programme and to stop killing protesters.

On Tuesday, the president said that he was « thinking » about sending a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Middle East.

The USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group was sent to the region last month after Trump threatened to strike Iran to stop a government crackdown on mass protests in which thousands of people were killed.

« We have an armada that is heading there and another one might be going, » Trump said in an interview with Axios. He said Iran « wants to make a deal very badly », adding that a diplomatic solution remained possible.

Trump told Fox Business that a good deal would mean « no nuclear weapons, no missiles ».

In a speech at a rally in Tehran on Wednesday marking the 47th anniversary of Iran’s Islamic revolution, Pezeshkian said: « Our Iran will not yield in the face of aggression, but we are continuing dialogue with all our strength with neighbouring countries in order to establish peace and tranquillity in the region. »

The Iranian president also reiterated that his country was « not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons ». « We have stated this repeatedly and are ready for any verification, » he added.

Israeli officials have also said their country reserves the right to take military action against Iran if it does not reach a nuclear agreement with the US.

Netanyahu is under pressure from far-right allies in his government to use his ties to Trump to push for a wide-ranging US-Iran deal that meets the Israeli government’s security concerns, experts say.

« Israel is concerned that in the haste to get a deal with Iran, the president might embrace a deal that doesn’t address Iran’s missile programme or support for proxy groups, or that allows it to have some remnant of its nuclear programme, » said Daniel Byman, a professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service.

« One worry Israel and other allies have about the US under Trump is that he wants a deal more than he wants a particular outcome, » added Byman.

Analysts say Iran’s leaders are in a weaker position now after the mass protests and a 12-day air campaign by the US and Israel last year, during which Iranian nuclear and military sites were bombed.

« The Iranian regime today is really vulnerable, » said Mohammed Hafez, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School and expert on Middle Eastern politics. « The US and Israel feel they hold all the cards, Iran is on its back foot, and they can make these maximalist demands. »

World Opinion + Agencies

L’article Trump tells Netanyahu Iran nuclear talks must continue est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

The trade deal between India and the European Union is as much about geopolitics as it’s about intercontinental business relations.

The EU is already India’s largest partner with trade in goods reaching $142.3bn (£104.07bn) in 2024, amounting to 11.5% of the South Asian nation’s total trade. India is the EU’s ninth largest trading partner.

These are impressive numbers and reflect strong relations. And yet, trade talks were stuck for two decades.

That raises the question: what’s changed now? The answer lies in the fast-evolving geopolitical landscape and the unpredictability of the US administration under President Donald Trump.

The US leader has used tariffs as a bargaining chip in some negotiations but he has often used them to punish countries, including partners, which don’t agree with his worldview.

The US has imposed 50% tariffs on Indian goods, which include a 25% penalty for Delhi’s refusal to stop buying oil from Russia.

Some EU countries recently faced fresh tariff threats from Trump as the US president was put out by their refusal to accept his proposed takeover of Greenland. He later withdrew the threat, but experts say it did rattle the EU.

The EU and India are not alone in looking to hedge their bets when it comes to the US – the free trade agreement (FTA) in Delhi was secured amid a flurry of countries striking deals and patching things up as they try to cope with global unpredictability.

The EU-India pact – the seventh trade deal India has completed recently – comes after Brussels signed a trade accord with South American trade bloc Mercosur earlier this month after 25 years of negotiation. Experts say the Trump factor helped speed that up too, though it’s now facing legal challenges in Europe.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney – who warned of a « rupture » in the post-war international order last week – is just back from a visit resetting ties in China which will boost trade ties, drawing Trump’s ire and fresh threats of 100% tariffs. Carney is also due to travel to India in the near future, with trade high on the agenda. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is heading to Beijing this week, accompanied by dozens of British business executives, following years of strained ties with China.

Against this backdrop, the India-EU trade deal, which is still subject to ratification, assumes greater geopolitical significance as it achieves more than just trade results – for both Brussels and Delhi.

It sends a message to Trump that global powers have started to look at ways to club together to protect themselves against his administration.

« One could argue that the Trump factor provided a very strong impetus to the deal because both India and the EU are facing shock US tariffs that they never expected, » said Michael Kugelman, senior fellow for South Asia at the Atlantic Council.

He added that Trump is a big reason why the EU and India have been able to overcome most of their differences and put issues they couldn’t resolve on the back-burner for future negotiations.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen both called Tuesday’s agreement « the mother of all deals ».

« This is the tale of two giants – the world’s second and fourth largest economies – two giants who choose partnership in a true win-win fashion, a strong message that co-operation is the best answer to global challenges, » said von der Leyen, standing beside Modi after they exchanged agreements.

« By combining these strengths, we reduce strategic dependencies at a time when trade is increasingly weaponised… We are not only making our economies stronger – we are also delivering security for our people in an increasingly insecure world. »

Modi said the global order is in « great turmoil » and the trade deal would strengthen supply chains globally.

« This means it is not just a trade agreement. This is a new blueprint for shared prosperity, » he said.

The two leaders’ may or may not have intended the deal to annoy the Trump administration, but they appear to have done exactly that.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told ABC News on Sunday that the EU was « financing the war against themselves » by signing a trade deal with Delhi.

He was referring to India’s purchase of Russian crude, which US officials have often said was indirectly financing Moscow’s war in Ukraine. India has always denied this, saying the purchase of Russian oil secures energy needs of millions of its people.

The time-tested Delhi-Moscow relations are also the reason why India has been reluctant to abruptly cut business ties with Russia. It has long relied on Moscow for military hardware but today’s deal will help it build on already strong defence ties with France as it looks to diversify its defence imports portfolio with other European nations too.

The India deal also gives the EU access to another huge market and may help it reduce its reliance on China in the future.

« India will also look at this partnership as a way to counter China’s dominance in global trade, which it envisaged doing with the US. But it’s a different state of play right now. The EU likewise sees India as a useful country to partner within its own efforts to counter China, » Kugelman added.

But it’s worth remembering that behind the chest-thumping headlines, there is still plenty of work to do for both India and the EU. While negotiations around the deal have concluded, the formal signing of the agreement will take a long time..

World Opinion + BBC News

L’article Trump’s shadow looms over India-EU trade deal est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

PM Bayrou lost the vote, but a deadlock in Parliament means France might struggle to find a replacement who can pass a budget aimed at cutting the deficit.

French Prime Minister François Bayrou has lost a confidence vote of MPs, ending his nine months in office during a period of chaos in the country’s parliament, the National Assembly.

Bayrou, 74, was the fourth prime minister in two years under President Emmanuel Macron, whose second term is office has been overshadowed by political instability.

The outgoing PM’s minority government called for €44bn (£38bn) of budget cuts to tackle France’s mounting public debt. It has now effectively collapsed.

The BBC looks at what led to his removal by MPsand what could happen next.

Ahead of the no-confidence vote, Bayrou spoke on Monday afternoon in the National Assembly, France’s lower house of Parliament, where he told lawmakers that the economy faced serious risks because of its deep indebtedness. He then fielded questions from parliamentarians, before the vote took place.

Here’s what you need to know:

What could happen next?

For several weeks, lawmakers had made it clear they would vote against Bayrou’s state-slashing budget. Opposition parties from the far left to the far right hold 330 seats in the 577-seat National Assembly – so Monday’s ouster was widely expected.

After Monday’s vote, Bayrou’s government has collapsed. However, he will stay in office until President Emmanuel Macron decides what to do next. Unfortunately for the president, France lacks a consensus figure to replace Bayrou.

Macron is faced with uniquely hard choices – appoint another prime minister in the hope that he or she can pass an unpopular budget, call new elections to try to re-establish a parliamentary majority, or stand down himself, something he has refused to do before his term ends in 2027.

With the arithmetic in Parliament unchanged, picking a new premier risks simply repeating the events from last year when Bayrou succeeded Michel Barnier.

A fiscal conservative, Macron is unlikely to appoint a premier who advocates for higher state spending. But after the government recently tried to cut deals on the right of the political spectrum, some wonder if Macron might try something new.

According to Stefano Palombarini, assistant professor of economics at the University of Paris VIII, “the two previous appointments, Barnier and Bayrou, both failed. He [Macron] lost a lot of credibility in that process, and if he tries a similarly centrist approach, he’d lose even more.”

Palombarini told Al Jazeera that “in this context, it would make the scenario of a relative opening towards the left possible. Some Macronist, Socialist and Green politicians say they’re ready for compromises to form a government that lasts until 2027.”

Does this mean there is a clear political path?

Not really.

According to an opinion poll this month for Le Figaro Magazine by the Verian Group, just 15 percent of the electorate has confidence in Macron, down 6 percentage points since July. However, the president has consistently ruled out resigning from office.

Separate surveys by Ifop, Elabe and Toluna Harris Interactive indicated that 56 to 69 percent of French people want snap parliamentary elections, indicating growing dissatisfaction with current party politics in a country run by minority cabinets since 2022.

For Palombarini, “there’s general political malaise [in France] and also dissatisfaction specifically with Macron. So overall, opinion polls are actually quite stable.” Indeed, the latest polls show no material change in voting intentions over the past year.

This means there is no certainty that a new prime minister would be safe from a similar fate as Bayrou.

What are the origins of this crisis?

At the heart of France’s political paralysis is Macron’s risky decision to call snap parliamentary elections last year. That came after he was re-elected in 2022.

Macron’s gamble in June 2024 was an effort to shore up support for the political centre. But French voters edged towards the extremes, leaving Macron with a weakened minority government and limiting his ability to pass legislation.

The vote resulted in a hung Parliament split between three groups. A left alliance won the most seats, but fell far short of a majority. The far-right National Rally won the most votes, but also doesn’t have a majority. Macron’s centrist coalition lost seats, but still forms a significant third bloc.

This parliamentary shake-up has made France hard to govern. Divisions have shown up most clearly around spending.

How does the budget fit into it?

The immediate reason for Bayrou’s fall is his budget proposal for next year. His unpopular 44-billion-euro ($51bn) deficit-reduction plan, including freezing most welfare spending and scrapping two public holidays, has been widely rejected by parliamentarians.

On August 25, Jordan Bardella, head of the National Rally, said his party would “never vote in favour of a government whose decisions are making the French suffer”. Bayrou in effect has announced “the end of his government”, Bardella said.

The French budget deficit is now nearly 169 billion euros ($198bn), or 5.8 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), well above the 3 percent limit set by the European Union for countries using the euro.

Bayrou is trying to lower the government’s borrowing to 4.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2026 and to 2.8 percent by 2029. In turn, that would lower the overall debt-to-GDP ratio to 117.2 percent in 2029, compared with 125.3 percent if no changes are made.

Bayrou recently said young people will be saddled with years of debt payments “for the sake of the comfort of boomers” if France fails to tackle its fiscal pressures. Born in 1951, Bayrou himself qualifies as a baby boomer, the generation born in the years soon after World War II.

But any attempt to curtail social benefits is politically difficult in France, as made clear by conflicts in 2023 over Macron’s decision to raise the retirement age to 64 from 62.

Still, investors worry that France’s persistent deficits will cause ever higher debt ratios and undermine its credit score.

Is more gridlock expected?

A series of street demonstrations known as “Block Everything” is expected this week, followed by union-led hospital and rail strikes in the second half of September.

In 2018 and 2023, France witnessed what became known as the “gilets jaunes”, or yellow vest. anti-government protests against various domestic policies overseen by Macron, who will want to avoid a repeat this time, analysts said.

“Macron’s policies since 2017 have been very unpopular. If there were legislative elections tomorrow, a Macronist government would not get elected,” Palombarini said.

But with the president rejecting the idea that he might resign early, “he is likely to continue to enjoy power of the office for a few more years”, Palombarini added.

Beyond that there are also voices – from the far left this time – calling for Macron’s resignation. That is most unlikely to happen.

Who could replace Bayrou?

Pressure will be on Macron to name a successor from the left. The last two prime ministers were from the right and centre, and a left alliance came out numerically top in the 2024 election.

Olivier Faure, the leader of the Socialist Party, would be one possibility. The 57-year-old has a group of 66 deputies in the National Assembly.

Two other possibilities from the left are former PM Bernard Cazeneuve, and the veteran ex-minister Pierre Moscovici, currently head of the Cour des Comptes, the official accounting office.

If Macron decides to stick with the centre and right, his first choice would probably be Sebastien Lecornu, 39, the current defence minister who is a member of Macron’s Renaissance party and said to be close to the president.

Another conservative whose name has been mentioned is the current minister of labour and health, Catherine Vautrin.

Two other possibilities from inside government are Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau, who now leads the Republicans, and Justice Minister Gérald Darmanin.

But with all eyes on the 2027 presidential election, would these heavyweights want the electoral kiss-of-death which is to be Macron’s next PM?

World Opinions – BBC News – Aljazeera

L’article Why has the French PM had to go and what happens next? est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

Democratic presidential candidate in ‘excellent health’ before November’s US election, doctor says.

United States Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, released a letter from her doctor that pronounced her in “excellent health” and fit for high office, in an effort to draw a contrast with her counterpart, Donald Trump.

As president, I will take on corporate price gouging to lower the cost of groceries.

Donald Trump can’t figure out what groceries are. pic.twitter.com/fhvYsYj9Ep

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) October 12, 2024

In a memo released on Saturday, physician Joshua Simmons said Harris’s April exam was “unremarkable”, noting her active lifestyle, “very healthy diet”, seasonal allergies, sporadic hives, and moderate alcohol use.

“In summary, Vice President Harris remains in excellent health. She possesses the physical and mental resiliency required to successfully execute the duties of the presidency, to include those as chief executive, head of state and commander in chief,” Simmons wrote.

Donald Trump’s Project 2025 plan will gut Social Security and Medicare. pic.twitter.com/BcmhhA593n

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) October 9, 2024

Harris, 59, is running against Republican Trump, 78, for the White House in November.

Locked in a tight race, Harris’s campaign hopes that contrasting her comparative youth and mental acuity with Trump’s more advanced age and tendency to meander, along with the differences in transparency between the two, will help convince undecided voters that she is more fit for office than he is.

Simmons said Harris’s allergies had been well-managed with over-the-counter and prescription medications.

Her urticaria, or hives, were “sporadic and transient and do not seem to be triggered by any particular exposure nor are they associated with other symptoms” and respond well to antihistamine treatment.

Harris has been on allergen immunotherapy for the last three years, dramatically improving her allergy and urticaria symptoms and negating her need for medication other than occasional nasal spray, he said.

Trump’s health

Former President Trump questioned President Joe Biden’s health when the 81-year-old president was seeking re-election. Since Biden was replaced on the ticket with Harris, Trump’s own health has drawn more attention.

According to a Harris aide, the vice president made her medical information public on Saturday in an effort to draw attention to Trump’s refusal to do so.

Trump has released very little health information, including after his ear was grazed by a bullet during an assassination attempt in July.

Last November, Trump marked Biden’s birthday by releasing a letter from his physician that reported the former president was in “excellent” physical and mental health.

The letter posted on Trump’s social media platform contained no details to support its claims – measures like weight, blood pressure and cholesterol levels, or the results of any test.

World Opinions + Agencies

L’article Kamala Harris releases medical report, drawing contrast with Donald Trump est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

Ahead of Tunisia’s presidential election scheduled for October 6, many Tunisians are taking stock of the past five years under the presidency of Kais Saied. The country remains divided between his long-term supporters, and opponents who say the regime is repressive. Our reporters Lilia Blaise and Hamdi Tlili went to meet voters on both sides of the political divide, from Tunis to Paris.

Tunisia will hold a presidential election on Sunday against the backdrop of a crackdown on dissent and human rights violations committed against undocumented migrants seeking to cross the Mediterranean to Europe.

The incumbent, Kais Saied, whose most prominent critics are behind bars, is expected to sail to an easy win after a campaign with few rallies and public debates, marking a significant step back for a country that long prided itself as the birthplace of the Arab spring uprisings of 2011.

Only 11% of the electorate of 9 million voted in December’s local elections. Similarly low voter turnout this weekend would provide a hint of disapproval with Saied’s tenure so far.

Observers say Saied, who has been in office since 2019, has increasingly bent the country’s institutions to his will.

Last year, he ordered a crackdown on undocumented black migrants that drew criticism from around the world, but the EU nevertheless proceeded with a €105m deal with Tunisia to stem irregular migration.

The deal has helped fund security units that, according to a recent Guardian investigation, have been perpetrating widespread sexual violence against women on migration routes in its territory.

In the run-up to the election, the Independent High Authority for Elections (ISIE) whittled down an initial longlist of 17 presidential candidates to three after a raft of controversial disqualifications. Of the remaining trio, the former lawmaker Ayachi Zammel was jailed this week for reportedly falsifying documents. It is unclear if his candidature remains valid despite his detention.

Bassam Khawaja, a deputy director for Middle East and north Africa at Human Rights Watch, said: “Since the start of the electoral period on 14 July, authorities have prosecuted, convicted, or detained at least nine prospective candidates.”

Late in September, Tunisia’s parliament voted with an overwhelming majority to strip the courts of the power to reverse decisions made by its electoral body. The vote followed a row between the ISIE and a court that overturned the former’s disqualification of three presidential contenders.

The latest development has made Saied, who will lead for another five years if victorious on Sunday, near unstoppable.

Sarah Yerkes, a senior fellow in the Middle East programme at the Washington-based thinktank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the election would “almost certainly be a low point in the trajectory of what was once the sole democracy in the Arab world”.

After the Arab spring protests ousted the longstanding ruler Ben Ali in 2011, Tunisia was hailed as one of the region’s brightest democratic lights, a reputation boosted by back-to-back elections.

Saied stood as an independent candidate and establishment outsider in the previous election in 2019, campaigning on a platform of strong government after nearly a decade of deadlock between Islamist and secular blocs since the 2011 revolution. The political outsider won by a landslide, with 73% of the vote in a second round runoff with turnout of 58%.

In 2021, he suspended the opposition-controlled parliament and fired the prime minister. The following year, a referendum changed the constitution and gave Saied sweeping powers in a newly introduced unitary system of government. He apportioned to himself the power to appoint magistrates and the seven ISIE members by presidential decree – and fire them at will.

More than a dozen leaders of the leading opposition party, Ennahda, including the former MP Said Ferjani, who was also imprisoned under Ali, were detained. Many remain in captivity.

Khawaja said: “Holding elections amid such repression makes a mockery of Tunisians’ right to participate in free and fair elections.”

Saied’s pursuit of an authoritarian agenda has coincided with downturn in Tunisia’s economic fortunes. Unemployment has risen and inflation is in double digits. According to the World Bank, the country’s economic recovery from years of a cost-of-living crisis and a recession in 2023 has slowed.

Throughout his tenure, Saied has accused civil society and opposition groups critical of his governance of having nefarious motives and being puppets of foreign countries. That line of thinking was echoed by the lawmakers in September, as some even outside the ruling party accused judges of acting on behalf of unnamed foreign interests.

With the coast clear for his re-election, there are fears of more democratic backsliding and populist propaganda efforts in the years to come.

Yerkes said: “By manipulating the 2024 presidential election, Saied has put one more nail in the coffin of Tunisia’s democratic transition and ensured the outcome well before the process began.”

World Opinions + Agencies

L’article Debate. Arab spring dreams in ruins as Tunisia goes to polls against backdrop of repression est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

An exit poll carried out by polling company Ipsos, and paid for by the BBC, ITV and Sky says Starmer’s Labour Party will win the general election with 410 seats. The final outcome of the election should be clear by early on Friday.

Labour set to win a general election landslide with majority of 170, according to exit poll for the BBC, ITV and Sky

If the forecast is accurate, it means Keir Starmer will become UK prime minister with 410 Labour MPs – 326 seats are needed for a majority#BBCElection live ⬇️

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) July 4, 2024

Labour is set to win a general election landslide with a majority of 170, according to an exit poll for the BBC, ITV and Sky.

To everyone who has campaigned for Labour in this election, to everyone who voted for us and put their trust in our changed Labour Party – thank you. https://t.co/q6yDNPnAbo

— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) July 4, 2024

If the forecast is accurate, Sir Keir Starmer will become prime minister with 410 Labour MPs – just short of Tony Blair’s 1997 total.

The Conservatives are predicted to slump to 131 MPs, their lowest number ever.

The Liberal Democrats are projected to come third with 61 MPs.

The Scottish National Party will see its number of MPs fall to 10, while Reform UK is forecast to get 13 MPs, according to the exit poll.

The Green Party of England and Wales is predicted to double its number of MPs to two and Plaid Cymru is set to get four MPs. Others are forecast to get 19 seats.

The exit poll, overseen by Sir John Curtice and a team of statisticians, is based on data from voters at about 130 polling stations in England, Scotland and Wales. The poll does not cover Northern Ireland.

At the past five general elections, the exit poll has been accurate to within a range of 1.5 and 7.5 seats.

If the exit poll is correct it will be a remarkable turnaround for the Labour Party, which had its worst post-war election result in 2019.

The Conservatives may avoid the wipe-out predicted by some opinion polls but their predicted result will be a devastating blow for the party after 14 years in government.

The Tory losses are likely to have been inflicted by the resurgent Liberal Democrats and Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, which looks set to win more seats than many polls predicted.

We will have to wait until the early hours, when the bulk of results start rolling in, to see if the exit poll is accurate.

Scotland’s former first minister Nicola Sturgeon said it was « not a good night » for the SNP, which is predicted to lose 38 seats, adding that she believed the prediction would be « broadly right ».

Labour’s predicted landslide would be just short of the 179 majority won by Tony Blair in 1997 and the party may achieve it on a smaller share of the vote than former leader Jeremy Corbyn won in 2017, according to Sir John Curtice.

But it will be seen as a vindication of Sir Keir Starmer’s efforts to change his party and move it back to the centre ground of British politics.

Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner told the BBC Sir Keir had done a « tremendous job » of transforming the the party but added « the exit poll is a poll so we haven’t had any results yet ».

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said: « It looks like this will be our best result for a generation. »

The Conservatives are on course for their worst election since 1906, when they got 156 seats.

Rishi Sunak had insisted he could still win right to the end despite failing to make a dent in Labour’s commanding opinion poll lead over the six-week campaign.

Conservative Work and Pensions Secretary Mel Stride told BBC Radio 4: « This is a very difficult moment for the Conservative Party. »

He says he is « very sorry » that the exit poll is projecting that a number of his colleagues will lose their seats. On keeping his own seat, he says « we will have to wait and see ».

On Wednesday – the day before the election – Mr Stride made headlines when he admitted he thought it was likely there would be a massive Labour majority, effectively conceding defeat.

Not an ‘existential catastrophe’ for the Conservatives

Tim Bale, a politics professor at Queen Mary University, says that while Labour’s predicted win was “very impressive,” the ruling Conservative party also did better than earlier opinion polls suggested.

“The Conservatives haven’t done quite as badly, it has to be said, as some of the polls during the campaign suggested. Some even suggested that it would go under 100 seats, it looks as if they’re going to pick up about 131…[but] it is a disaster for the Conservative Party but not an existential catastrophe,” Bale told Al Jazeera.

“I think they will be able to build back from this, how it will take for them to do this, however, is the big question”.

Bale added that the party has been in “chaos” since the Brexit referendum in 2016.

“None of the benefits the Conservatives so promised that would come about through Brexit have really materialised. So, I really couldn’t catch a nation if you like of circumstances which has led to this very, very bad result,” he said.

World Opinions + Agencies

L’article UK general election 2024: Exit poll points to Labour victory est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

Elected, accused of corruption – fired, accused of rape – acquitted, elected president, accused of corruption again – denied again, ousted, imprisoned for contempt of court – freed, barred from becoming an MP.

For most politicians almost any of these punches would have proved fatal to their career, but not for South Africa’s Jacob Zuma.

Like a resolute prize-fighter, the 82-year-old former president may have been knocked down on occasions, but he has never been knocked out.

During the recent election campaign he has been doing his familiar dance and the results of last week’s vote show he still wields huge influence.

He is at the helm of a new party that took on the African National Congress (ANC), gaining 15% of the vote.

The results have been humiliating for the ANC, the liberation movement Mr Zuma once led, as it has lost its outright parliamentary majority for the first time in 30 years – and the “Zuma tsunami”, as it has been dubbed, is partly responsible.

In the centre of the coastal city of Durban, the main city in KwaZulu-Natal province, Mr Zuma’s smiling face beams down from virtually every street lamp on green-and-black election posters of his recently formed party, uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) or Spear of the Nation.

There is no doubting the octogenarian’s exalted status here in his heartland, where he is respected for upholding his cultural and traditional Zulu beliefs.

He is also lauded for his role as a peace broker during political violence in the early 1990s, which almost derailed the country’s transition to democracy.

And more than 20 years ago, he was credited with bringing voters in KwaZulu-Natal from the Zulu nationalist Inkatha Freedom Party to the ANC.

This year he was able to take his loyal supporters with him to MK, which is named after the ANC’s former armed wing and holds huge political symbolism because of its role in fighting for the end of white-minority rule.

The launch of MK’s manifesto, a week before the 29 May election at a packed 40,000-seater stadium, was a clear signal that “uBaba” (father), as Mr Zuma is known, was back.

The sea of his supporters braving the scorching heat chanted: “Zuma! Zuma!”

One shouted: “Uyinsizwa nxamala”, which loosely translates from Zulu as “a fearless warrior who never backs down”.

On election day, arriving at his polling station, a modestly built primary school without flushing toilets, the MK party leader was greeted by hundreds of people who called out his clan names: “Msholozi, Nxamalala, Maphum’ephethe”.

The former president waved and smiled at them before entering a classroom to vote.

As he left the polling station, his supporters sang a pro-Zuma song in Zulu made popular several years ago when the former president was accused of corruption.

One refrain they belted out translates as: “What has Zuma done? You’re influenced by propaganda from so-called white monopoly capital.”

Many politicians can rely on a loyal core of backers, but Mr Zuma’s ability to genuinely connect with the poor and marginalised is what sets him apart.

And this may explain his enduring popularity despite facing numerous scandals and damning accusations.

Six years ago, it seemed that his luck had finally run out when he was forced from the presidency, following a litany of corruption allegations, which he denied.

Cyril Ramaphosa replaced him as president and Mr Zuma became a political pariah and a damaged brand.

Then three years ago, things got worse: he was sent to jail after being found in contempt of court for failing to give evidence and testify at a judicial investigation into corruption during his nine-year term as president.

His arrest in July 2021 sparked the deadliest riots since the end of white-minority rule in 1994 and led to the deaths of more than 300 people.

He had been sentenced to 15 months, but President Ramaphosa released him after he had served only three, in an attempt to placate him and his angry supporters.

Just a few weeks ago, it seemed Mr Zuma was dealt another blow after being legally barred from standing as a member of parliament because of his conviction.

But none of that seemed to matter to voters, and his propensity to outsmart his political opponents was evident, which the ANC acknowledged.

“Jacob Zuma is a force to be reckoned with in South African politics… we never underestimated him,” admitted ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula, as he reflected on his party’s dismal performance.

Despite his suspension from the ANC, Mr Zuma remains a member of the party that brought an end to apartheid.

With no formal schooling and a modest upbringing, his anti-apartheid activism eventually saw him jailed for 10 years at the notorious Robben Island prison along with Nelson Mandela.

After the ban against the ANC was lifted by the white government in 1990, Mr Zuma returned from exile and rose through the party’s ranks. In 1999 he was appointed deputy president of the country.

He was then implicated in corruption allegations in 2005, which he denied, involving a 1999 arms deal and was fired by then-President Thabo Mbeki. This case continues to drag on – and he still faces charges over the multi-billion dollar scandal.

In December of that year, he was accused of raping the daughter of a party comrade. He admitted to having sex with the woman, who was HIV positive, but said the encounter was consensual.

Mr Zuma invited ridicule when he said he had had a shower after sex to prevent HIV transmission and believed that a healthy man was unlikely to catch HIV from a woman.

The following year, he was acquitted of rape.

He then fought his way back to the top of the ANC and became president in 2009.

Mr Zuma remained in the role until he was forced to resign in 2018 after intense pressure from his own party.

This came after he was accused of being involved in a process known as “state capture”, where he allowed a family of wealthy businessmen – the Guptas – to wield massive political influence.

Mr Zuma and the Gupta brothers have dismissed the allegations of corruption as a fabrication.

The former president and his supporters blame his successor, Mr Ramaphosa, for his downfall.

And now he might want to settle a score with his rival.

With coalition talks under way, the MK party has made it clear that it will only form a partnership with the ANC if the president resigns.

Freshly emboldened by his party’s performance, Mr Zuma threw the first punch on Saturday, alleging irregularities.

“Nobody must declare results, don’t provoke us, don’t start trouble,” he said on the eve of the announcement of the final election results.

The electoral commission has strongly denied these allegations.

Police are now on alert because of the risk of potential unrest following Mr Zuma’s comments.

Yet despite this acrimonious situation and relationship, the ANC has not ruled out a coalition with the MK party.

“We are talking to everybody who is prepared to form a government with us,” Mr Mbalula said.

It all shows Mr Zuma’s remarkable ability to remain in the ring.

By Nomsa Maseko – BBC News

L’article Analysis. Behind the ‘Zuma tsunami’ in South Africa est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

The leaders of Norway, Ireland and Spain have said their countries will formally recognise Palestine as a state next week for the sake of “peace in the Middle East“, prompting Israel to immediately recall its envoys.

The three European countries will formally enact recognition on May 28 despite Israel’s warnings of the consequences.

Spain and Ireland said the decision was not against Israel nor in favour of Hamas, but rather in support of peace.

Israel reacted angrily, warning the move would mean more instability in the region and recalling its ambassadors to all three countries.

Both Hamas and its rival, the Palestinian Authority, have welcomed the recognition.

Norway was first to make its announcement Wednesday in a move co-ordinated with the other two countries.

Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre said in an address that the move was « in support of moderate forces that are on a retreating front in a protracted and cruel conflict ».

« This is an investment in the only solution that can bring lasting peace in the Middle East, » he added, referring to the so-called two-state solution which would see an Israeli and a Palestinian state existing peacefully next to each other.

Ireland and Spain followed suit soon after.

« Today, we state clearly our unambiguous support for the equal right to security, dignity, and self-determination for the Palestinian and Israeli peoples, » Irish Foreign Minister Micheál Martin said.

The country’s Prime Minister Simon Harris later stressed that « Hamas is not the Palestinian people ».

« Today’s decision to recognise Palestine is taken to help create a peaceful future, » he said.

Mr Harris’s comments were echoed by Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, who said the move was « not against Israel, is not against the Jews ».

« It is not in favour of Hamas which is something that has been said. This recognition is not against anyone, it is in favour of peace and coexistence. »

Israel reacted to the announcements with fury. Foreign Minister Israel Katz said he was ordering the immediate return of the Israeli ambassadors to all three countries for « consultations ».

« Israel will not go over this in silence – there will be other serious consequences, » he said.

Mr Katz also said that the three countries’ ambassadors in Israel will be summoned for « reprimand talks », during which they will be shown a video of the abduction of female Israeli soldiers on 7 October.

Hamas, which controls Gaza and is currently at war with Israel, said Wednesday’s announcements would be a « turning point in the international position on the Palestinian issue ».

In a statement to AFP, Bassem Naim, a senior Hamas figure, said the « brave resistance » of the Palestinian people was behind the move.

Hamas’s rival, the Palestinian Authority (PA) – which controls parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank – said Norway, Spain and Ireland had demonstrated their « unwavering commitment » to « delivering the long overdue justice to the Palestinian people ».

Also on Wednesday, the Israeli military approved the return of Israeli citizens to the sites of three settlements in the occupied West Bank, which they had been banned from entering since 2005.

Israel’s parliament had voted to allow its citizens to return in March last year, but military permission was needed for the bill to be enforced.

Most of the international community considers the settlements illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.

The issue of Palestinian statehood has vexed the international community for decades.

Since the 7 October attacks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has doubled down on his opposition to such a plan, saying the creation of a Palestinian state would compromise Israel’s security.

Israel’s foreign ministry said in a post on social media on Tuesday that recognising a Palestinian state would lead to more « terrorism, instability in the region and jeopardise any prospects for peace ».

About 1,200 people were killed in the unprecedented attacks on 7 October, when Hamas gunmen burst into Israel. They took 252 others back to Gaza as hostages.

Since then, more than 35,000 people, mostly civilians, have been killed in Israel’s Gaza offensive, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.

Most of the world already recognises the state of Palestine. Earlier this month, 143 of the 193 members of the United Nations General Assembly voted in favour of it joining the UN, something only states can do.

Before Wednesday’s announcements, only nine European countries supported Palestinian statehood and most of those took the decision in 1988 when they were part of the Soviet bloc.

Most other European countries, and the US, still believe recognition should come only as part of a long-term two-state solution to the conflict.

A White House spokesperson said US President Joe Biden was a « strong supporter » of the two-state solution, and believed « a Palestinian state should be realised through direct negotiations, not through unilateral recognition ».

Slovenia and Malta have also said recently that they were considering a formal recognition.

Norway’s prime minister also said on Wednesday that he hoped the recognition of Palestinian statehood by the three countries would bring renewed momentum to the peace talks.

Long-running negotiations in Cairo aimed at securing a truce and further hostage releases are currently stalled.

Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation in Gaza continues to deteriorate. Earlier this week, the UN said food distribution in the southern Gaza city of Rafah had been suspended due to a lack of supplies and insecurity.

The chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) recently applied for arrest warrants for Mr Netanyahu and Hamas’s leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, for war crimes. Both Israel and Hamas have condemned the move.

Israel says an offensive in Rafah is needed to eliminate Hamas but the international community has warned against it, saying it will greatly exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

World Opinions – Agencies

L’article Ireland, Norway and Spain to recognise Palestinian state.. Video est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.

Europe and the US need each other and are « stronger together », the secretary-general of Nato has said.

Jens Stoltenberg was speaking at a ceremony marking the alliance’s 75th anniversary.

While the US provided Europe with security, he said it also needed the militaries, intelligence and diplomatic leverage of its European allies.

« I don’t believe in America alone just as I don’t believe in Europe alone, » Mr Stoltenberg said.

« I believe in America and Europe together in Nato, because we are stronger and safer together. »

The Nato chief’s remarks came as the alliance considered a €100bn (£86bn) five-year fund to provide long-term military support for Ukraine, so aid to Kyiv is not jeopardised by political changes either in the US or other Nato states.

A US package worth $60bn (£47bn) has been stalled in Congress for months because of resistance from Republican lawmakers, as well as Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who has spoken of ending the war « in one day ».

During his speech, Mr Stoltenberg said Nato must be « doing something right », as it had grown from 12 countries at its inception to 32. Its newest members Sweden and Finland abandoned their neutrality and joined the alliance as a result of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in response to the speech that relations between Russia and Nato had « slid to the level of direct confrontation » as the alliance was already « involved » in the conflict around Ukraine.

The Nato chief’s remarks came as the alliance considered a €100bn (£86bn) five-year fund to provide long-term military support for Ukraine, so aid to Kyiv is not jeopardised by political changes either in the US or other Nato states.

A US package worth $60bn (£47bn) has been stalled in Congress for months because of resistance from Republican lawmakers, as well as Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who has spoken of ending the war « in one day ».

During his speech, Mr Stoltenberg said Nato must be « doing something right », as it had grown from 12 countries at its inception to 32. Its newest members Sweden and Finland abandoned their neutrality and joined the alliance as a result of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in response to the speech that relations between Russia and Nato had « slid to the level of direct confrontation » as the alliance was already « involved » in the conflict around Ukraine.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken told reporters support for Ukraine within the alliance is « rock solid » and that he believes Ukraine will eventually become a member of Nato, Reuters reported.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba told reporters at Nato headquarters that while he did not want to « spoil [Nato]’s birthday party », his country needed help in improving its air defences – specifically Patriot missiles.

« Saving Ukrainian lives, saving the Ukrainian economy and saving Ukrainian cities depends on the availability of Patriots and other air defence systems, » Mr Kuleba said.

Lacking air superiority and faced with formidable Russian defences, Ukraine’s counter-offensive ground to a halt last year and is now at risk of being outgunned on the front line in the east.

The US has given Ukraine more financial aid than any other Nato state- more than $44bn (£34bn) since the 2022 invasion, according to the White House in December. However, its aid has now become caught up in a political row months before the presidential election.

Republican candidate Donald Trump has often criticised the level of spending. He has also long complained that the US has shouldered a greater financial burden than the rest of the alliance.

Fewer than two-thirds of Nato members are on course to reach their 2% funding goal.

Highlighting the importance of Nato’s European allies to the US, Mr Stoltenberg noted it was America’s allies that came to its help after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. That was the only occasion that a key principle of the alliance has been invoked, in which an attack on one ally is seen as an attack on all.

Nato allies closest to Russia have stepped up efforts to boost their armed forces.

Norway is increasing its number of conscripted soldiers, while Denmark says it intends to extend conscription to women and increase the duration of service. Latvia and Sweden recently restarted military service, while Lithuania brought it back after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.

Norway is increasing the number of conscripted soldiers, while Denmark says it intends to extend conscription to women and increase the duration of service. Latvia and Sweden recently restarted military service, while Lithuania brought it back after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.

By Laura Gozzi – BBC News

L’article Analysis. Europe and US need each other, Nato chief Stoltenberg says est apparu en premier sur World Opinion | Alternative Média.