South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol lifted martial law early Wednesday, just hours after imposing it, following a dramatic nighttime confrontation that saw troops surrounding parliament and lawmakers voting unanimously to reject military rule.

The declaration was formally rescinded at 4:30 a.m. during an emergency Cabinet meeting, after being in effect for approximately six hours, according to the Associated Press. The retreat came as troops and police were seen withdrawing from parliament grounds following a bipartisan vote to overrule the president's decree.

National Assembly Speaker Woo Won Shik had swiftly declared the martial law "invalid" and promised that lawmakers would "protect democracy with the people." All 190 lawmakers present voted to lift the extraordinary measures.

The president's unprecedented move, reminiscent of the country's authoritarian era of the 1980s, drew immediate condemnation from both the opposition and the leader of his own conservative party. The declaration allowed the military to restrict press freedom, assembly rights, and judicial powers.

Lee Jae-myung, who heads the liberal Democratic Party holding the majority in the 300-seat parliament, led his party's lawmakers in occupying the Assembly's main hall until the order was formally lifted.

In Washington, the White House expressed serious concern over the developments in Seoul. A National Security Council spokesperson told the Associated Press that President Joe Biden's administration had not been notified in advance and was in contact with South Korean officials. At the Pentagon, spokesman Maj Gen Pat Ryder said the situation did not affect the more than 27,000 US service members stationed in South Korea.

Protesters gathered outside parliament, with some engaging in scuffles with troops. One demonstrator attempted to grab a soldier's rifle while shouting "Aren't you embarrassed?" At least one window was broken as troops tried to enter the Assembly building, though no major injuries or property damage were reported.

While announcing the lifting of martial law, Yoon continued criticizing parliament, accusing lawmakers of "unscrupulous acts of legislative and budgetary manipulation that are paralyzing the functions of the state."

The declaration marked South Korea's first implementation of martial law since its democratization in 1987. The country's previous martial law period occurred in October 1979, following the assassination of former military dictator Park Chung-hee.

The post South Korean president revokes martial law after parliament's rebuke appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The founding of Israel

On May 14, 1948, David Ben Gurion declared Israel's independence. This moment marked the culmination of decades of Zionist efforts to establish a Jewish state. Israel's founders envisioned a society that would uphold equal rights for all citizens and protect civil liberties. Yet, the reality of building a democracy in a region with a history of conflict and authoritarianism presented significant challenges. Most of the Jewish and Arab population had little experience with democracy, coming from countries with limited political rights.

What Israelis think about Israeli democracy

The concept of a "Jewish democracy" raises important questions about identity and inclusivity. Critics argue that the emphasis on Jewish identity can lead to discrimination against non-Jewish citizens. However, many Israelis assert that Jewish values inherently support democratic principles, allowing for coexistence and equality.

To understand Israeli democracy, it's essential to consider public perception. Many Israelis believe their country embodies democratic values, citing the ability to vote and freedom of speech as fundamental rights. Surveys reveal a strong belief in civil rights among citizens, with many feeling secure in their freedoms.

Do Israelis have civil rights?

While Israelis enjoy certain civil rights, the absence of a written constitution means these rights are not guaranteed. The Declaration of Independence includes lofty promises of equality and freedom, but the absence of a formal legal framework creates vulnerabilities. Civil rights are not enshrined in law, leaving them susceptible to political whims.

Experts note that this lack of constitutional protection poses challenges for minority rights and can lead to potential abuses. The absence of checks and balances allows for the possibility of changing laws that could undermine civil liberties.

Israel's basic laws

Instead of a constitution, Israel relies on basic laws, which serve as interim measures. These laws cover various aspects of governance but lack the stability and permanence of a constitution. The basic laws are meant to function as foundational principles, but their lack of entrenchment means they can be modified or repealed. This framework allows for frequent changes by a parliamentary majority, leading to concerns about the strength of democracy in Israel.

Branches of Israel's government

Israel's government comprises three main branches: the Knesset (parliament), the executive branch led by the Prime Minister, and the judiciary. While these branches are intended to provide a system of checks and balances, the reality is that they often operate with limited oversight of one another.

In practice, this means that the Knesset can enact laws without substantial checks from the judiciary or the executive, leading to concerns about the potential for tyranny of the majority. The lack of a robust system of checks and balances makes it difficult to prevent abuses of power.

Political chaos in Israel

Israel has experienced significant political turmoil in recent years, with six elections held in five years. This instability has raised questions about the effectiveness of its democratic processes. The frequent elections have led to a sense of frustration among citizens, who often feel that their votes do not lead to meaningful change.

The political landscape is characterized by fragmentation, with numerous parties vying for power. This fragmentation can lead to gridlock and inefficiency in governance, further complicating the democratic process.

2023 saw massive protests in Israel against proposed judicial reforms. These reforms aimed to alter the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive, raising alarms among citizens concerned about potential threats to democracy. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis took to the streets, expressing their discontent with the government's actions.

Israel's cultural tribes as a check

Israeli society is characterized by diverse cultural tribes, each with its own values and beliefs. This fragmentation serves as a unique check on power, preventing any single group from dominating the political landscape. The existence of numerous political parties representing various tribes fosters a system of negotiation and compromise. While this tribalism can lead to tensions, it also creates opportunities for dialogue and collaboration. The ability of different groups to work together is crucial for maintaining a vibrant democracy.

This dynamic can lead to unexpected alliances, as seen in the cooperation between ultra-Orthodox and Islamist parties in fighting for religious rights. Such coalitions demonstrate the complexity of Israeli politics and the potential for unity amid diversity. By finding common ground, these groups can address pressing issues and work towards a more inclusive society.

The post Is Israeli democracy really in danger? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A perennial discussion in the cauldron that is Middle Eastern politics concerns the degree to which a sovereign Palestinian state, should one ever be created, would be democratic.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The democratic character of any state is determined in the main by three elements. First, the frequency and transparency of elections; second, limits on the power of elected officials and defined boundaries between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary; and third, the extent to which basic civil rights like freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are respected.

An independent Palestine would probably host elections on a regular basis, although the integrity of these would always be a subject for debate, as would the ever-present prospect of armed conflict between rival Palestinian factions. As far as an honest, accountable government that subordinates itself to the rule of law is concerned, there is very little evidence to suggest that a future State of Palestine would be administered in this way.

To the contrary, throughout the existence of the Palestinian Authority – now in its 28th year – there has been a constant stream of news stories regarding corruption, political violence and violations of core civil rights by Palestinians against other Palestinians. The latest example occurred last week when the Yasser Arafat Museum in Ramallah removed artwork depicting the late PLO leader that loyalists deemed "offensive." The principle underlying this act of censorship is one that Arafat himself would have appreciated; a client of the Soviet Union who spent much of his time meeting with dictators in the Communist bloc and in the Arab world, Arafat was an admirer of those systems of government where the state is the ultimate regulator of what the people living under its jurisdiction see, hear and read.

In totalitarian states, artistic depictions of leaders are by definition sycophantic. From the Soviet Union's Joseph Stalin to North Korea's Kim Jong-un, from "Chairman Mao" of China to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the official portraits of those who wield near-unlimited power invariably show them as steely-jawed and commanding the love of their people; as strong and paternal; and as courageously unwavering in their convictions. In Arafat's case, his 1974 address to the UN General Assembly, when he wore his pistol bolted to his waist, or any of the numerous occasions when he flashed a victory sign at photographers would be appropriate subject matter for this style of art.

Less so was the case with the portraits of Arafat chosen for display at the museum in Ramallah. Photographs of some of them were shared on Twitter by the Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh, and the selection on display might be described as underwhelming. There is a drawing of Arafat with an olive branch clenched between his teeth, another showing him adjacent to Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, and another of Arafat wearing a carefree grin beneath his keffiyeh. One might conclude that there is some gentle mockery in these caricatures, though nothing that could be considered insulting, and certainly nothing that could be construed as a slur on either Arafat's Arab nationality or his Muslim faith – a marked divergence from the antisemitic tropes and Nazi imagery that routinely accompanies Arab and even some Western caricatures of Israel's elected leaders.

But when the Ramallah exhibition, unimaginatively titled "Palestine and Yasser Arafat," opened to the public last Sunday, not all the works met the loyalty standard such art demands. The exhibition's purpose – "solidarity with Palestine and the roots of Yasser Arafat's memory in the international community" – didn't preclude less conventional artistic representations, but that made no difference. A row duly broke out, manifesting on ideological and party lines, and reflecting the fractured personal relations between some Palestinian leaders.

The exhibition lacked "honesty in representing Yasser Arafat," said Nasser al-Kidwa, a veteran Palestinian diplomat and former head of the Yasser Arafat Foundation before he was sacked last year following a bitter disagreement with the Fatah movement. On this occasion, though, Fatah agreed with al-Kidwa's assessment. "The insult to Yasser Arafat is an insult to all the Palestinian people," it declared, before delivering a threat: "We therefore call upon the Yasser Arafat Foundation to remove all the insulting works and apologize, or we will have to remove them ourselves."

Mohammad Sabaanah, a Palestinian cartoonist, told The New Arab media outlet last week that he had turned down an invitation to participate in the Arafat exhibition because he didn't trust the organizers. "When I found out that some prominent artists were not invited to participate, I doubted the criteria behind the exhibition, and I withdrew from it," he said. Sabaanah then explained that there was a "clear confusion" between political cartoons and caricature portraits, which are "basically a satirical representation of a personality." It was those latter representations of Arafat that were judged unacceptable, according to Sabaanah.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

In its own statement, the Yasser Arafat Foundation, which staged the exhibition, forlornly insisted that the offending artworks did not "insult Yasser Arafat's personality or symbolism." However, it continued, "all works exhibited have been removed due to lack of acceptance by the Palestinian public." Unquestionably, what transpired in Ramallah was a victory for censorship.

It is also another strong reminder of the absence of a democratic culture in Palestinian politics. Even now, at a time when most Western societies are bitterly polarized and democracy is dismissed as overrated, our media outlets do not shy away from lurid cartoons of Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Anthony Fauci or any of the other personalities that have dominated recent news headlines. Western publics do not expect their leaders to be treated with respect all the time, nor do they demand limits on what can be said about them or how they are depicted. But among the Palestinians, anything other than uncritical veneration of their political leaders is regarded with suspicion. Those Palestinian artists who forget to censor themselves can expect a visit from Fatah's enforcers in the not-too-distant future.

Ben Cohen is a New York City-based journalist and author who writes a weekly column on Jewish and international affairs for JNS.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Brouhaha over Arafat caricatures explains a lot about Palestinian politics appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

One year after the violent assault on the US Capitol, Americans remain deeply concerned about the health of their democracy, and about a third say violence against the government can sometimes be justified, according to two polls published Sunday.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The Jan. 6 attack on the seat of Congress, led by supporters of then-President Donald Trump, was "a harbinger of increasing political violence," and American democracy "is threatened," according to two-thirds of those surveyed for a CBS News poll.

Meantime, Americans' "pride" in their democracy dropped sharply, from 90% in 2002 to 54% now, a Washington Post/University of Maryland survey found.

With the Jan. 6 anniversary nearing, the polls offer specific causes for concern: CBS found that 28% of respondents believe force can be used to defend the result of an election, while 34% told The Washington Post that violent action against the government can sometimes be justified – the largest percentage in decades.

The results underscore the seemingly almost irreconcilable views dividing American society, which US President Joe Biden – who took office 14 days after the Capitol rioting – promised to overcome.

Two-thirds of Trump supporters continue to believe that Biden is not the legitimately elected president, the polls showed.

Some 60% of respondents say Trump bears a heavy responsibility for the invasion of the Capitol, which was perpetrated just as lawmakers were set to certify Biden's victory.

i24NEWS contributed to this report

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Over a third of Americans say anti-government violence can be justified appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The US State Department published a list of countries invited to participate in its virtual Summit for Democracy next month with Israel listed alongside more than 100 other countries. Israel and Iraq were the only Middle Eastern countries invited.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

The two-day event is scheduled to take place from Dec. 9 to Dec. 10.

The State Department said that US President Joe Biden will host "leaders from government, civil society, and the private sector."

The online summit is set to "focus on challenges and opportunities facing democracies and will provide a platform for leaders to announce both individual and collective commitments, reforms and initiatives to defend democracy and human rights at home and abroad."

It will address three key themes: counteracting authoritarianism; addressing and combating corruption; and promoting respect for human rights.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

US allies such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates were not invited. Turkey, a NATO ally, is also not on the participant list. China and Russia were similarly not included.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Israel invited by Biden administration to democracy summit appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Sudan's deposed prime minister signed a deal with the military on Sunday that will see him reinstated, almost a month after a military coup put him under house arrest. A key pro-democracy group that has mobilized dozens of protests had dismissed the deal as "a form of betrayal."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The country's top general, Abdel Fattah Burhan, said in televised statements that Abdalla Hamdok will lead an independent technocratic cabinet until elections can be held. It remains unclear how much power the government would hold. It would still remain under military oversight.

It also remains unclear whether any political parties or pro-democracy groups have signed off on the agreement.

The deal expects the military to release government officials and politicians arrested since the Oct. 25 coup.

The coup, more than two years after a popular uprising forced the removal of longtime autocrat Omar al-Bashir and his Islamist government, has drawn international criticism.

"The signing of this deal opens the door wide enough to address all the challenges of the transitional period," Hamdok said, speaking at the signing ceremony broadcast on state TV.

Sudanese have been taking to the streets in masses since the military takeover, which upended the country's fragile transition to democracy. The agreement comes just days after doctors said at least 15 people were killed by live fire during anti-coup demonstrations. Hamdok has been held under house arrest by military leaders for weeks.

The deal also stipulates that an investigation shall be conducted to identify those responsible for the killing and injuring of civilians and troops that marred protests following the coup.

Hamdok thanked Sudan's "regional and global friends" who helped in reaching this agreement but he did not name the countries.

The 14-clause deal also stressed that power should be handed over to an elected civilian government after the end of the transitional period.

"By signing this declaration, we could lay a genuine foundation to the transitional period," Burhan said.

The Sudanese Professionals' Association, a group that played a key role in the uprising against Bashir, voiced their vehement opposition to the agreement, accusing Hamdok of committing "political suicide."

"This agreement only concerns its signatories and it is an unjust attempt to bestow legitimacy on the latest coup and the military council," tweeted the group shortly after the deal was signed.

Earlier, the Forces for the Declaration of Freedom and Change, an umbrella of many political parties and pro-democracy groups, objected to any deals with the military.

In a statement Sunday, the group reiterated its opposition to any new political partnership with the military, insisting the perpetrators of the coup should be brought to justice.

"We are not concerned with any agreements with this brute junta and we are employing all peaceful and creative methods to bring it down," the statement said.

The largest of the political parties said to be included in the deal, the Umma Party, had also issued a statement implying that it did not sign off on it.

Cameron Hudson, a former US State Department official and Sudan expert at the Atlantic Council's Africa Center, said the deal allows the generals to largely retain their control and avoid accountability for the coup and the deaths of dozens of protesters.

"This is a deal among elites that largely seems to prioritize their preservation over the demands of the street," he said.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Month after coup, Sudan's deposed prime minister reinstated in deal appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

If anything unites all party leaders after the results of this week's election for the 24^th Knesset, it is the hope of gaining the support of Yamina leader Naftali Bennett.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Bennett, who throughout the campaign tried to position himself to tip the scales, is now able to do just that, with neither side in possession of enough mandates to form a government without him. Incidentally, there's no guarantee that there will be a government even after he joins a side, but without him, there definitely won't be.

The Yamina leader is facing a difficult decision. A few officials from Gideon Sa'ar's New Hope party, Blue and White, and even Labor and Meretz, are saying that the desire to oust Netanyahu is stronger than any other aspiration, so they would agree to support Bennett – who is farther to the Right than Netanyahu – as prime minister. It would be hard for any politician to turn down an offer to be prime minister.

But the price might be too high. If Bennett were to accept their offer, the government would depend on members of the Joint Arab List. It's not certain Bennett is willing to accept that, as it would mean cutting himself off from the Right. Such a government would be mostly left-wing, especially in civil and legal areas, and would be unlikely to remain in power for long. It took Bennett a long time to throw off the "alliance" he once made with Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid, an alliance that did serious damage to his right-wing base, and it's not certain he's willing to set out on a similar adventure now.

But the alternative isn't terribly attractive, either. If Bennett joins a Netanyahu government, he can have his choice of ministerial portfolios, but Netanyahu would remain prime minister. The same Netanyahu who went after him for months, made videos about him, and waged a propaganda war to weaken him – and succeeded. The same Netanyahu who also chose not to bring him into the coalition.

What's more, Bennett jointing Netanyahu and the right-wing bloc won't secure the necessary majority of mandate. It would bring the bloc to 59, no more. In that case, there would be room for creative solutions such as bringing in Sa'ar, MKs who defect from other parties, or Ra'am abstaining, but none of these would be easy, and we cannot know if they will work. In the meantime, if Bennett announces that he's joining Netanyahu, he will be "burned" in the eyes of the people who want to replace the prime minister, who already suspect Bennett of being "in his pocket."

A battle is now underway for the ear of the president, and the Likud has to wait. If Bennett recommends himself as prime minister or does not recommend anyone else, Lapid might have more votes than Netanyahu. In this case, Netanyahu wouldn't insist on being given the first mandate, because he would have nothing to do with it. As long as Bennett is on the fence, Netanyahu's options will open only when the other side tries and fails. But the other side could also succeed.

 Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Blue and White, Labor, New Hope, Meretz consider backing Bennett appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Gideon Sa'ar is arriving at the finish line of the election far from where he planned to be. What befell the many parties that have appeared on the scene with a bang didn't skip New Hope. He has dropped from second place in the polls at the start of the campaign, with nearly 20 projected seats, to fourth, with about half as many. 

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The original plan was for him to become prime minister, with New Hope rather than the Likud at the center of a right-wing, religious coalition. The other plan was to prevent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from forming the next government and forcing an alternative government by bringing in the Haredi parties. Now that Naftali Bennett has overtaken him and Netanyahu is nearing the 61 seats he needs to form a government, Sa'ar's hand is looking less good. Sa'ar is definitely realizing that he could wind up in the opposition, but promises to be a fighting member of it. 

Q: We are nearing the end of the election campaign. At the beginning, you defined yourself as a candidate for prime minister. But since then, polls have shown you losing steam, and you're far from where you wanted to be. 

"First of all, I'm not summing up the election yet. The biggest changes happen in the last week. But if I look back, I'll say that when I resigned from the Likud and founded a new movement, I had no idea what would happen and how many would come with me. I was alone, but I did it out of deep conviction that it was what I needed to do for the country. Today I know that hundreds of thousands are following me, that we have a living movement with 10,000 activists and 150 branches and traction in the field. We've done something great. Other parties that were founded pulled out in the middle or have no chance, so I'm very proud of how far we've come, I believe in our path and I'm fighting to the very end."  

Q: But your goal was to replace Netanyahu, and according to the polls at least, you aren't achieving it. 

"First of all, it's too early to determine that. I don't see how he has a majority. He doesn't have 61. So it's impossible to say whether or not we've achieved our goal. We are dependent on the public. We came to the general public, which is to the right of center and understands that Netanyahu has to be replaced. They can't vote for parties that are left of the center, because they don't identify with them. We liberated that large sector of the public. Now we want to liberate the country from Netanyahu, who in my view has very seriously perverted the values of the Likud.

"He operates like someone who opts for what is good for him rather than what is best for the country and conduct like that is something someone in the national camp can't accept. Therefore, I'm convinced that we need to end Netanyahu's time in office, but only from the national camp, as the camp whose ideas represent the overwhelming majority of the Israeli public." 

Q: Based on the polls, is there a realistic scenario for a coalition of the national camp without Netanyahu as leader? 

"In the event that Netanyahu can't form a government, and can't enlist 61 seats, I call on him to release the Likud and the country and do the patriotic thing and allow someone else from the Likud to lead. That would easily allow the formation of a broad government that can meet all the challenges facing Israel at this time." 

Q: You are calling on him to step down, but you know that won't happen. 

"I don't want to make predictions about what will happen after the election." 

Q: Are there quiet conversations or understanding between you and Bennett about the day after the election? 

"As of today, no. But I assume that later on, there will be a dialogue like that. Sadly, Bennett still hasn't demonstrated commitment to change and he is laying the groundwork for joining another Netanyahu government. But if Bennett is committed to change for Israel, there will be cooperation, and he'll be a good partner. I will never join a Netanyahu government." 

Q: Even if that means a fifth election? 

"That's a very manipulative way of putting it. Netanyahu is directly responsible for Israel holding a fourth election in under two years, which have so far cost $15 billion. He is the sole person who led Israel into this situation and he is the only one who can release it from it. Netanyahu had a coalition of 70 MKs but he avoided passing a budget and dragged Israel into an election, because he preferred what was best for himself. So it's ridiculous to present things as if someone else is responsible for the election, when it's clear that it's him. I don't trust him. His words or any agreements with him are worthless.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Q: I hear your harsh criticism of Netanyahu, and I conclude that to avoid a fifth election, you'd prefer a government under Lapid, just as long as Netanyahu is out. 

"Not at all. I've already said that such a government would be unfeasible and I won't recommend Lapid to the president. A government can't rest on a party that represents a minority of the public, which will be a minority in the next Knesset, too. After the election, the people who believe in change need to organize, and I hope that Yamina will join us and we will work to form a government. In a situation in which Netanyahu manages to form a government with his partners and Bennett, we will serve the people from the opposition." 

Q: Which begs the question, if you don't succeed in replacing Netanyahu, will you stay in politics and not resign from political life again? 

"Certainly not. I founded a new political movement that just got started. It is already putting down roots. It has support everywhere in Israel. I have no intention of resigning, and I can already see the fingerprints of the person who is spreading those false rumors. True, I took a break, but I came back to serve the people, and I can say that I'll do so until I'm 70 at least. I chose my path, which isn't easy or simple, because I believe that these are the right decisions for the country. I see a large part of the public following me, and I'll continue." 

Q: To sum up, Netanyahu says that he got the vaccines because he is well-known throughout the world. Speaking honestly, can you say he's mistaken, or that you would have achieved the same results? 

"He deserves praise for that success. But the success doesn't make him less responsible for the total failure in managing the COVID crisis, in enforcing the law, the problem of the airport, which had serious ramifications on the spread of the virus and mortality, the school system, and businesses. I don't take any credit from him when it's deserved, but it's appropriate for a leader to know how to not only take credit for success – which has partners – but also not to blame others when there are failures." 

Q: Would you have managed the crisis better? 

"I have no doubt I would have handled it better." 

The post 'Netanyahu, free us from you'  appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Could Israel be headed toward a fifth election? The drama ahead of the March 23 vote has stepped up a notch, with the left-wing and right-wing blocs tied with a projected 60 seats apiece.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The Israel Hayom-i24NEWS poll, conducted by Maagar Hamohot Institute under Professor Yitzhak Katz, used a large sample of 2,087 respondents and had only a 2.1% margin of error.

The results showed that if the election were held today, the Likud under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would win 29 seats, followed by Yair Lapid's Yesh Atid with 18 seats. The poll showed Netanyahu having the more stable bloc, but the narrow gap between him and Lapid indicates that there is virtually no possibility that either Naftali Bennett or Gideon Sa'ar will be tapped to form the next government.

The poll projected 29 seats for Likud, 18 for Yesh Atid, and 10 seats each for Bennett's Yamina, Sa'ar's New Hope, and the Joint Arab List.

When it comes to how certain respondents were of how they would be voting, Sa'ar's situation improved, with 59% of those who said he was their preferred candidate saying they would definitely vote for him, compared to 57% of Yamina supporters who said they were certain about how they would be voting.

Shas was projected to win nine seats, followed by Yisrael Beytenu with eight and United Torah Judaism with seven.

Left-wing parties Labor and Meretz were each projected to win five seats, followed by the Religious Zionist Party, also with a projected five seats, and Blue and White with four seats – just skimming the minimum electoral threshold of 3.25%.

 Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

Neither Mansour Abbas' Ra'am Party nor Yaron Zelikha was projected to make it past the minimum threshold.

However, the parties at the bottom of the list appeared to have more determined supporters: 83% of respondents who preferred Meretz said they were certain they would vote; 74% of Blue and White supporters said they were certain about their vote; and 71% of Religious Zionist supporters and Labor supporters said they were certain about casting their ballots.

Not even two-thirds of respondents said they would definitely be voting. Only 62% said they would definitely vote on March 23, with another 23% saying there was a "strong chance" they would vote. Another 4% said there was a "middling" chance they would vote, and 11% said the chances they would vote were slim.

When asked when they would make a final decision about whom to vote for, 40% of respondents said they would decide in the next few days. Over a third (36%) said they would decide on Election Day. Another 21% said they didn't know, and 3% said they thought they wouldn't vote at all.

When asked who was the best candidate to serve as prime minister, 45% picked Netanyahu, and 25% picked Lapid, followed by 13% who said Gideon Sa'ar, 12% who said Bennett, and only 5% who picked Gantz.

The post Last poll before election shows blocs in dead heat appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Monday urged the United States to quickly rejoin the international agreement limiting Iran's nuclear ambitions, warning that the Islamic Republic's upcoming elections could stymie progress in any talks.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

The Trump administration in 2018 unilaterally withdrew the US from the Iranian nuclear accord, in which Tehran had agreed to limit its uranium enrichment in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.

When the US then re-imposed some sanctions and added others, Iran gradually and publicly abandoned the deal's limits on its nuclear development.

White House officials have said the new US administration is prepared to return to the deal as soon as Tehran shows "strict compliance" with its terms.

Zarif said that as Iran's June elections approach, the United States will find itself dealing with a government unable to make progress in the nuclear talks.

"A lame duck government will not be able to do anything serious. And then we will have a waiting period of almost six months. We will not have a government before September," Zarif said at an online conference with the European Policy Centre think-tank in Brussels.

"A lot of things can happen between now and September. So, it is advisable for the United States to move fast," Zarif said.

Going into the presidential election, the Iranian public is disenchanted with President Hassan Rouhani and his allies who struck the nuclear accord. Rouhani, a cleric who is a relative moderate in Iran's theocratic government, is term limited from running again.

In December, Iran's parliament passed a bill requiring the government to limit its cooperation with UN inspectors and push the nuclear program beyond the agreement's limits. Tehran then began enriching uranium up to 20% purity and other work barred by the deal.

But Iran believes that the US, as the country which first reneged on the 2015 agreement, must make the first move, and should not set any preconditions.

"We are ready to go back immediately, after the United States goes back to implementation of the deal. That's as simple as that," Zarif said. He rejected renegotiating any parts of the deal, or adjusting the "time-frame" under which Tehran should take certain steps.

"We don't see any reason for talks; we can go immediately to implementation and then have talks," Zarif said, adding that he has seen no new proposals from the US yet. "Up until now, this administration has done nothing different from the Trump administration."

The sanctions imposed on Tehran lock it out of international financial markets and bar the country from selling its crude oil abroad. Iran's economy has cratered in the meantime as inflation remains unchecked and its currency, the rial, suffers. The coronavirus pandemic has only worsened those woes.

Zarif said that a significant amount of Iranian money is now being held in Iraq.

"We are selling Iraq gas and electricity … but the US doesn't permit Iraq to give us the money, as if they give us permission to donate to Iraq gas and electricity. And we need that money very badly for corona, for the vaccine, for food and medicine for our people."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Iran urges US to rejoin nuclear pact before election stalls 'progress' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.