election

One of Israel’s top ultra-Orthodox rabbis, Dov Lando, has become the centre of controversy in Israel after comments emerged in which he denigrated Zionism.

In a recently released video recording, the 96-year-old rabbi is heard saying the ideology of Zionism caused the Jewish people to suffer “disasters”, and that Jewish Israelis may have been better off without a state.

The remarks have drawn rebukes from Israeli politicians weeks before landmark legislative elections, in which the role of the country’s growing ultra-Orthodox community – particularly over military service – is a major issue. The political alignment of ultra-Orthodox parties could also prove crucial to the formation of the next government.

So, who is Lando and why are his comments significant?

Who is Dov Lando?

Dov Lando is a 96-year-old rabbi regarded as the leader of Israel’s Lithuanian ultra-Orthodox community. Born in Poland and raised in the Lithuanian-style ultra-Orthodox tradition, Lando heads a yeshiva – a traditional Jewish academy – in the Israeli city of Bnei Brak.

He is a member of Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, a council of senior ultra-Orthodox rabbis that offer religious guidance to the community, as well as the spiritual leader of Israel’s Degel HaTorah party. That party is part of the United Torah Judaism (UTJ) alliance, which is a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition.

What has Lando said about Zionism?

Earlier this week, Israeli media released a video of Lando making year-old comments that harshly criticise Zionism, military service and secular Israelis.

Lando, who has made similarly critical remarks before, is heard in the video saying that Zionism “caused the Arabs to hate us” and brought physical as well as spiritual “disasters” on the Jewish people.

“It is possible to live well with the Arabs without a state,” Lando said, adding that international or Palestinian rule would have been “the best situation” for Jews.

Lando went on to castigate soldiers who adhere to Religious Zionism – a strand of Orthodox Judaism that upholds Zionism – saying “they are killed because their rabbis teach them a distorted Torah.” Many military operations, he said, are carried out “not for saving lives, but for the honour of the state”.

The veteran rabbi also had harsh words for secular Israelis, who he said have “no connection to Judaism at all”. He described them as having built “a state of apostasy and heresy”.

What has been the reaction in Israel?

Lando’s remarks have drawn fierce criticism from numerous Israeli politicians, including all major figures that have joined an opposition alliance challenging Netanyahu.

Gadi Eisenkot, head of the Yashar party who is viewed as the opposition bloc’s most likely candidate for prime minister, said Lando’s “outrageous statements” were “the embodiment of anti-Zionism”.

Yair Lapid, the head of Israel’s opposition in the Knesset, called the comments “a disgrace to every Jew”.

Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, who leads the Together alliance co-founded with Lapid, said Lando’s remarks are “anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist” and against the Israeli military.

Netanyahu has not commented on Lando’s latest reported remarks, but he publicly condemned earlier statements by the rabbi in July, when Lando accused the Religious Zionism movement of “incitement to murder” for its support for drafting religious seminary students into the military.

Could the controversy impact Israel’s upcoming elections?

Potentially.

Members of the anti-Netanyahu opposition bloc have called for the UTJ, which Lando’s party is part of, to be cast out of any future government, and criticised Netanyahu for staying aligned with the group.

Yair Golan, head of the Democrats party, said Netanyahu is “silent because without Rabbi Lando and his emissaries, he has no government”.

Netanyahu’s “political survival is more important to him than Zionism, more than equality in service, and more than the blood of our soldiers”, Golan said.

But breaking with the UTJ would come at a huge political cost to Netanyahu, whose coalition is already in for a tough election battle on October 27 and is polling well below the 61-seat threshold needed for a majority.

UTJ is projected to win 8 seats in parliament, according to an October 5 poll by Israel’s Channel 12.

“If Netanyahu attacks Lando forcefully, he pays a price with the Haredim (ultra-Orthodox) he needs to form a government,” said Ehab Jabareen, a researcher on Israeli affairs. “If he stays silent, he hands his rivals material to tell right-wing voters that the man who speaks of Zionism and security depends on a religious leadership that doubts Zionism itself.”

Italy’s parliament is voting on Thursday on a new electoral law that would make it easier for election winners to form a majority government.

The law, proposed by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, would award extra seats to any party or coalition that obtains more than 42 percent of seats in both parliamentary chambers, ensuring it holds a majority.

Meloni has framed the legislation as a route to greater stability in Italy’s political system, which has often been run by fragile coalition governments. Her critics, however, say the move is actually aimed at boosting her own chances in elections next year.

Here’s what we know about the electoral law and what it means for Italian politics:

What is Italy’s current electoral system?

Italy currently has a mixed electoral system for its 600-seat parliament, with about 36 percent of members of parliament elected directly in constituencies where the candidate with the most votes wins, and the rest decided through proportional representation.

The system, called “Rosatellum”, has been in place since 2017. It encourages coalition-building but can produce fractured results that make a governing majority hard to forge.

What would the new law change?

The new legislation would replace the mixed electoral system with a fully proportional one, as well as awarding extra seats to the party or coalition that wins the most seats if it secures at least 42 percent in both chambers.

The bonus would be as many as 70 seats in the 400-member Chamber of Deputies, the lower house, and up to 35 seats in the Senate, which has 200 elected members.

That means if a party or coalition meets the 42 percent share threshold in both chambers, it would have stronger power to govern. If no party or coalition meets the threshold, representation would be decided proportionally.

The new law would also force coalitions to announce their candidates for prime minister before the elections. Rado Fonda, head of research at Italian pollster SWG, told the Reuters news agency this provision could “prove problematic for the centre-left, potentially forcing an early leadership contest and exposing divisions that could weaken the bloc”.

Meloni, who currently leads the country’s longest-serving government since World War II, has said the reform will help stabilise the country rather than serve any one political group. “Whoever wins the elections will have the numbers to govern,” she said.

What stage is the legislation at?

The proposed law has already been approved by the Senate and must now undergo a final secret-ballot vote in the Chamber of Deputies.

Giovanni Orsina, a political scientist at Rome’s Luiss Guido Carli University, predicted that the law is “extremely likely” to pass.

If it fails, Meloni has said she will resign.

Why is the legislation controversial?

Opponents say the law is undemocratic because it could potentially grant a winning coalition a disproportionate level of power in parliament.

They also say that the legislation is intended to favour Meloni, whose Brothers of Italy party (Fdl) is bracing for a tough election battle next year.

Riccardo Magi, head of the liberal More Europe party, who is on a hunger strike to protest the proposed reform, has called it an “anti-democratic law” that risks giving a minority bloc a huge majority in parliament.

Senator Matteo Renzi, who leads the Italia Viva party, has accused Italy’s governing coalition of pushing the electoral reform due to a fear of losing power.

Other critics have pointed out that the law would do little to stabilise the political system if no party or coalition reaches the 42 percent threshold in both chambers – a relatively high bar.

“This could produce a hung parliament, making post-electoral negotiations necessary to form a government,” Vincenzo Emanuele, a political science professor at Luiss Guido Carli University in Rome and a member of the Italian Center for Electoral Studies (CISE), told Al Jazeera. “Even relatively small changes in coalition composition could make the difference between a clear parliamentary majority and a situation of political deadlock.”

When are Italy’s next elections, and what do the polls show?

Italy’s next general election must be held by December 22, 2027, although the government can call elections earlier if it wishes.

Currently, Meloni’s Fdl is polling ahead of all other parties, with 27 percent support, according to Politico’s polling aggregator. Her coalition partners, Lega and Forza Italia, have a combined 12 percent support, according to Politico, bringing the coalition share to 39 percent.

Fdl’s polling has been dented by support for a new far-right group, Futuro Nazionale (National Future), Reuters reported. It currently has 7.8 percent support, according to Italian polling institute SWG.

In opposition, the Democratic Party (PD) has 21 percent support, the Five Star Movement (M5S) has 12 percent and the Alliance of Greens and Left (AVS) has 6 percent, according to Politico. The Italy Viva (IV) and More Europe parties have 2 percent support each.

Emanuele said the current landscape means the proposed electoral law would not necessarily favour Meloni and could even benefit the opposition.

He said recent simulations by the CISE have shown that a centre-left coalition including the PD and M5S could potentially reach 44 percent of the vote, securing a “comfortable parliamentary majority”, though that could change if Meloni allies with National Future.

“The reform does not inherently favour the incumbent government: Its effects will depend crucially on how the competing coalitions are formed,” said Emanuele.

Former Tottenham Hotspur defender Ramon Vega says he intends to stand as a candidate in next year’s Fifa presidential election.

The 55-year-old is the first person to confirm they want to challenge Gianni Infantino, who has defied calls to step down in the wake of his failed plan to sell off stakes in the World Cup to private investors, which has sparked a major backlash across football.

A former Switzerland centre-back, Vega also played for Celtic and Watford and has worked in finance since retiring from football in 2004.

“I am standing to reunite the global football family, deliver genuine and lasting reform, modernise Fifa for the 21st Century, restore stability and credibility, and rebuild the trust that our game urgently needs,” he said.

Meanwhile, Sheikh Salman bin Ibrahim Al Khalifa – president of the Asian Football Confederation – has written to Infantino, distancing himself from an external review of Fifa’s governance system.

In his letter – seen by BBC Sport – Sheikh Salman proposes that Fifa’s council sets up a working group to examine potential reforms, “rather than being outsourced to an external party”.

Last month, Infantino said he was “fully committed to leading Fifa” despite Uefa, Concacaf and the Asian Football Confederation calling for him to quit.

Vega considered running for Fifa’s top job in 2015 following the suspension of former president Sepp Blatter.

Four years later he said he would stand against Infantino, but failed to garner enough support to be included in the ballot, having required the backing of five of Fifa’s 211 member federations.

Candidates must also be proposed by a member association and have played an active role in the game for two of the past five years, as well as passing an eligibility check by a review committee.

“I am standing because my life has prepared me to serve the game,” Vega said in a statement announcing his candidacy.

“Football does not belong to presidents, confederations or administrators. Football is greater than any position, any individual or any institution.

“It is the people’s game and belongs to everyone: the players, coaches, referees, supporters, volunteers, clubs, leagues, associations and communities that give football its life.

“It belongs to every child discovering the game, every professional carrying the hopes of a nation, and the billions of supporters whose passion makes football the world’s game.

“Football must always come first. Yet for too long, division has fractured our football family.

“The current leadership has demoralised the game. Weak governance has damaged Fifa’s credibility and eroded trust across the global football family. We must stop this conflict from escalating.

“Ego-driven battles within football administration must never be allowed to damage those who matter most: the players, coaches, referees and supporters around the world. They are not responsible for these conflicts. They deserve better.”

Vega concluded: “Football is in the emergency room, on life support. We cannot wait any longer. Fifa needs a new direction and fundamental reform.

“We must reunite the football family, restore trust, bring stability and modernise Fifa’s governance. This requires decisive change – not cosmetic adjustments.”

Business groups such as the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Teachers Assn. and Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California oppose the proposal.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democrat Xavier Becerra and Republican Steve Hilton, who are running to replace Newsom, also have spoken out against it.

Opponents describe the wealth tax as a “flawed experiment” that will harm California’s economy because companies and rich people will flee the state.

“If they leave, it will create a huge hole in our budget, threatening core services like education, healthcare and public safety,” arguments against the proposition say.

Opponents of the measure say the proposal is an ineffective attempt to address the long-term effects of the healthcare cuts and would harm California’s economy and budget.

The state budget in California already is largely dependent on income taxes paid by its highest earners. Because of that, revenues are prone to volatility, hinging on capital gains from investments, bonuses to executives and windfalls from new stock offerings, and are notoriously difficult for the state to predict.

Billionaires such as Palmer Luckey, the co-founder of defense tech startup Anduril Industries, and entrepreneur Mark Cuban have pushed back against the proposal on social media. Some tech executives have been relocating or moving their assets to try to avoid the potential tax. Google co-founder Sergey Brin has been cutting ties to California, relocating to Nevada while funding groups such as Building a Better California that are backing ballot measures that could nullify the billionaire tax.

More than $187 million has been spent opposing the proposition, with the bulk coming from Building a Better California, cryptocurrency company Ripple Labs and its co-founder Chris Larsen, data from the secretary of state show.

Proposition 39 is opposed by leading state Democrats, major civil rights organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union and major labor unions in the state, who say the measure would disenfranchise eligible voters and expose voters to identity theft by forcing them to write personal ID numbers on mail ballot envelopes.

According to campaign finance reports, the ACLU of Northern California has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to defeating the measure. Quinn Delaney, a major Democratic donor and fundraiser for former President Obama, and Patty Quillin, a major philanthropist and wife of Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings, both have given $1.5 million.

The Service Employees International Union Local 2015, which represents long-term caregivers, provided $1 million, the SEIU California State Council for Working People gave $500,000, and the California Teachers Assn., through its independent expenditure committee, gave another $500,000.

Arnulfo De La Cruz, president of SEIU California and SEIU Local 2015, said in a statement that the group’s members “know our nation is stronger when working people make their voices heard and have their ballots counted,” and that strict voter ID laws “are part of Trump and MAGA extremists’ agenda to rig the election system so they can cling onto their own power and get richer from corporate corruption.”

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) recently convened a news conference where a slate of Democratic leaders — including state Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) — called on Californians to vote no on Proposition 39.

The Democrats called the measure a “dirty trick” from “Trump acolytes” akin to historic poll taxes designed to disenfranchise Black voters, and a power grab that would seriously harm millions of eligible voters, especially in Black and Latino communities.

“Proposition 39 is a direct assault on everything California stands for. Our people, our values and our fundamental belief that every eligible voter here in California deserves to have their voice heard and deserves to have their vote counted,” Rivas said.

A Gallup survey highlights a deep – and historic – partisan divide over confidence in the country’s elections.

With less than a month to go before the United States’ pivotal midterms, a new survey found that most independent voters and supporters of President Donald Trump’s Republican Party do not believe the elections will be honest.

Polling from Gallup, released on Wednesday, found 37 percent of Republicans and 35 percent of independents have confidence in the country’s electoral system, significantly lower than US Democrats (63 percent).

Overall, 49 percent of Americans said they were confident in the honesty of elections, while 51 percent said they were not. Those figures are unchanged from the country’s last midterm election in 2022.

This “marks a change from 2025, the first year of Trump’s second term, when confidence was nominally higher among approvers (51 percent) than disapprovers (45 percent)”, Gallup wrote in a statement highlighting the results of the survey.

The numbers highlight a deep, historic partisan divide over confidence in US elections.

“Since 2025 and Trump’s return to the White House, the relationship between leadership approval and confidence in elections has disappeared,” Gallup wrote.

Gallup said that the US is the only country out of more than 100 polled annually over the past 15 years to show this pattern – trust in US election integrity is markedly higher among those who disapprove of the country’s leadership under Trump (52 percent) than those who approve (41 percent).

In more than 100 countries where the polling organisation tracks views of national leadership and confidence in elections, people who approve of their governments have generally been more likely to trust their country’s elections.

In 2025, 70 percent of people globally who approved of their national leadership expressed confidence in the honesty of their elections, compared with 30 percent among those who disapproved.

“The current US pattern is highly unusual compared with the rest of the world,” Gallup wrote.

Under former US President Joe Biden, 81 percent of Americans who approved of the government expressed confidence in elections, compared with just 30 percent of those who disapproved, according to Gallup.

Gallup said the unusual divide could have implications for the November elections, raising questions about whether some voters will view the results as legitimate.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Rahul Gandhi has been arrested several times at protests demanding the resignation of poll body chief.

Indian opposition leader Rahul Gandhi has been detained for the third time in two days during a protest demanding the resignation of the election chief over a controversial revision of voter lists.

Gandhi and other opposition lawmakers were apprehended by police on Wednesday as they marched towards Jantar Mantar, a designated protest site in India’s capital, New Delhi.

A live feed on the YouTube channel of Gandhi’s Congress Party showed police taking him into a vehicle and driving away. Authorities also detained several other opposition lawmakers and protesters.

Opposition parties, their student units and the “Cockroach” youth movement have been demanding the resignation of Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, accusing the poll body he heads of benefiting Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.

India’s Election Commission has so far removed more than 130 million names from the voter lists, with millions appealing the removals. About 969 million people were eligible to vote in the 2024 election.

Protesters allege the changes disproportionately removed voters who support opposition parties while preserving or adding voters more likely to back Modi’s party.

The commission and government deny the allegations. They say the revision has no political motive but is aimed at removing duplicate and ineligible entries while ensuring eligible voters remain registered.

Opposition lawmakers led by Gandhi protested on Tuesday as well, before police broke up their gathering and ‌‌briefly detained them.

Speaking before his detention on Wednesday, Gandhi said protesters showed up unannounced after Delhi police “stopped” their gathering the day before.

“We will go to the designated protest site, sit there, and tell the country that, for us, Gyanesh Kumar is not the legitimate commissioner,” he told reporters, referring to Jantar Mantar.

“The people who have done this [vote theft] are traitors … Gyanesh Kumar will have to resign,” he ⁠⁠added.

There was no immediate comment from the police on the detentions.

The demonstrations present a new political challenge to Modi midway into his third term, just months after similar protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party ‌‌youth ‌‌movement forced the resignation of his education minister over exam paper leaks.

The “Cockroach” protests, one of the most visible signs of public dissent against Modi’s government in recent years, reflected growing anger over job scarcity, corruption and a lack of government accountability.

Comments by one of Israel’s most senior ultra-Orthodox rabbis postulating that Jews may have been better off without a state have prompted controversy in the country.

In footage broadcast by Channel 12 on Monday, the 96-year-old Rabbi Dov Lando, the spiritual leader of the Degel HaTorah party, also said that soldiers adhering to “Religious Zionism” killed in Israel’s wars were dying because of what their rabbis had taught them. The remarks, made at a closed meeting at his home in Bnei Brak, have set off a political storm three weeks before Israel’s October 27 parliamentary election.

“They are killed because their rabbis teach them a distorted Torah,” Lando said, adding that many military operations are carried out “not for saving lives, but for the honour of the state”.

Lando’s comment came in response to a question about admiration among some ultra-Orthodox Jewish men – who have traditionally refused the military draft – for religious Zionists who combine Torah study with military service.

His comments aren’t new – they were first published in February 2025. However, their reemergence this week comes amid an election campaign in which ultra-Orthodox military service has become one of the sharpest fault lines in Israeli politics.

The Israeli Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that there was no legal basis for ultra-Orthodox seminary students to have exemptions from military service, and the government has since not been able to pass legislation restoring the exemptions. The issue has led to large protests on both sides of the divide.

“The question is not what he said, but why this discourse has been placed at the heart of the Israeli debate three weeks before the election,” Ehab Jabareen, a researcher on Israeli affairs, told Al Jazeera.

Better ‘without a state’

Lando’s party is one of the two factions of the United Torah Judaism (UTJ) alliance, which won seven seats during the last election in 2022, and had been part of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government before its ministers resigned last year.

The bloc did continue to intermittently support the coalition government, however, and Netanyahu has been wary of removing the military exemption – despite widespread opposition to it from many in Israel – out of fear that the UTJ and similar parties would remove their support completely.

Along with his role within Degel HaTorah, Lando is also one of the spiritual leaders of Israel’s Lithuanian ultra-Orthodox community, which makes up roughly a third of the country’s estimated 1.45 million ultra-Orthodox Jews, also known as Haredim.

In May, he said he no longer trusted Netanyahu and called for parliament to be dissolved.

In the footage, he goes further. “It is possible to live well with the Arabs without a state,” he says, adding that international or Palestinian rule would have been “the best situation”.

Zionism, he argues, “caused the Arabs to hate us” and brought physical as well as spiritual disaster on the Jewish people. He describes secular Israelis as having built “a state of apostasy and heresy”.

The comments reflect non-Zionist and anti-Zionist positions that used to be dominant within ultra-Orthodox Judaism, but take on an overt reference to the possibility of living within a non-Zionist state, something that is even more controversial in Israel.

Ibrahim Khatib, a conflict studies scholar at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, said Lando’s remarks drew a line between Zionism and Judaism “from inside the Jewish community itself”, at a time when the official Israeli establishment “tries to bind them together”.

They also put to the test the narrative that Jewish communities in Arab societies were in danger and threatened, and that the Zionist movement came to “save them” at the formation of the state of Israel in 1948, he told Al Jazeera. However, Khatib cautioned that the ultra-Orthodox polity in Israel “is right-wing, its leaders hold right-wing positions, and some of them have made clearly offensive statements about Arabs and Palestinians”.

Political ammunition

Israeli opposition leaders moved quickly after the footage of Lando emerged this week, taking it as an opportunity to attack a figure from a party within Netanyahu’s electoral bloc.

Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett – one of Netanyahu’s main challengers in the upcoming elections – called the remarks “anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist and anti-[Israeli military]”, but aimed his fire at Netanyahu and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who he said “back [Lando] and funnel tens of billions of shekels to him and his friends”.

Gadi Eisenkot, another opposition leader whose Yashar party has campaigned on enforcing the military draft, urged every Zionist party to pledge not to sit with Lando’s party.

Netanyahu, who publicly rejected Lando’s remarks in July when the rabbi accused the Religious Zionism movement of “incitement to murder” for its support of the drafting of religious seminary students to the military, has not yet commented.

Yair Golan, leader of the Democrats, put it bluntly: “Netanyahu is silent because without Rabbi Lando and his emissaries, he has no government.”

Jabareen sees Netanyahu’s silence as “calculated”.

“If Netanyahu attacks Lando forcefully, he pays a price with the Haredim he needs to form a government,” he said. “If he stays silent, he hands his rivals material to tell right-wing voters that the man who speaks of Zionism and security depends on a religious leadership that doubts Zionism itself.”

Who fights and who dies

The military draft of the ultra-Orthodox, Jabareen added, has turned “from an old dispute over religion and state into a question about the Israeli [social] contract itself: Who fights? Who dies? And who gets the exemptions, the budgets and the political influence in return?”

Mohammad Abu Rumman, an academic adviser at the Politics and Society Institute in Amman, said the significance of Lando’s remarks lay in the question that prompted them. The example of a young religious man who combines Torah study with military service, he said, “raises a question inside the ultra-Orthodox world itself: Why don’t we do the same?”

“When Lando describes their teaching as a distorted Torah, he is trying to close the door on emulating them,” Abu Rumman told Al Jazeera. “His words are aimed at his own audience as much as at his opponents.”

But Jabareen argued that the row exposes a rift more dangerous for Netanyahu than the familiar clash between secular and religious Israelis, because it runs through the right itself. Religious Zionists have paid a heavy human price in the war, while the ultra-Orthodox leadership still rejects conscription. Caught between those who pay the price of war and those who refuse to, Netanyahu needs both, and cannot satisfy them at once.

Whether the outrage over Lando’s comments translates into votes is less clear. Abu Rumman expects the remarks to “reinforce existing positions more than change voters’ choices”. The space where they could matter, he said, lies among right-wing voters who serve in the army and resent Netanyahu’s protection of ultra-Orthodox demands.

“If Netanyahu needs these parties to build a majority, that need will not disappear because of a rabbi’s remarks, however shocking,” Abu Rumman said. Netanyahu is also not the UTJ’s only suitor: Channel 12 reported that, frustrated by his failure to secure a law exempting ultra-Orthodox men from military service, the party would not rule out or oppose a government led by Eisenkot.

“The Israeli right has managed to bring under one political roof two currents with almost contradictory visions of the Jewish state,” Jabareen said. “One sanctifies the state and the expansion of its sovereignty. In the other, one of its most important rabbis can say it might have been better had the state never been founded.”

Far-right and far-left parties gain ground in local elections as Merz’s approval rating sinks.

Chancellor ⁠Friedrich Merz has hit out at what he called political “extremism” in Germany after recent stinging defeats in local elections to far-right and far-left parties.

“This is a task for ⁠our society as ⁠a whole, and it is ⁠one I intend ⁠to play ⁠my part in,” he said on Wednesday at an ‌event in Berlin.

Merz said “extremism” was forcefully making its way into the country’s parliaments, a day after a member of the far-right Alternative for ‌Germany (AfD) was elected president of the state parliament in Saxony-Anhalt and the Left Party won out in Berlin’s state election last month.

“Anyone who casts their vote for ⁠the AfD is ⁠playing the extremists’ game and undermining credibility,” ⁠Merz said. “In ⁠any case, this is incompatible with the values of ‌my party, the CDU [Christian Democratic Union of Germany].”

Despite winning the vote in the September 6 election in Saxony-Anhalt, the AfD fell three seats short of the absolute majority it had had sought. AfD lawmaker Tobias Rausch won the presidency of the parliament in the eastern German state Tuesday, backed by the left-populists in a secret ballot.

Founded in 2013 as a Eurosceptic movement, the AfD won over voters with an increasingly hardline opposition to immigration after about a million people fled to Germany in 2015, many of them from war-torn Syria.

The party has since become a dominant political force in much of eastern Germany, especially among voters disillusioned with mainstream parties, though most traditional parties have pledged not to enter coalitions with the AfD.

Berlin election

Merz’s comments followed the far-left Left Party’s victory in the Berlin state election on September 20, in another defeat for the chancellor’s ruling Christian Democrats.

Lead ‌candidate Elif Eralp campaigned on the soaring cost of housing in the German capital and immediately promised to follow through with a pledge to nationalise private housing associations that account for a large share of the city’s housing stock.

The result, which roughly doubled the party’s previous score, could see her become the first mayor of Berlin from the Left Party, which grew out of the former East German communist party following the reunification of the country 36 years ago.

Eralp, the 45-year-old daughter of left-wing Turkish parents who fled a coup in 1980, said the increasingly difficult rental situation was the biggest social problem in the capital.

She promised to proceed with nationalising the housing associations she said drove property speculation, in accordance with a referendum from 2021 in which 58 percent of voters backed a proposal to promulgate the move.

While the AfD has attracted most attention, the ⁠Left Party has also benefitted from a general turn against the mainstream centre-left and centre-right parties.

Meanwhile, Merz has received a record low approval rating. Earlier this month, a survey by Germany’s public broadcaster ARD found that only one in 10 respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with his performance, the lowest figure for any chancellor since the survey began in 1997.

Another major election test will come in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany’s most populous state, where voters are set to elect a new parliament in April.

Parti Quebecois returns to power, promising a third referendum on Quebec’s independence from Canada.

The secessionist Parti Quebecois has won the most seats in Quebec’s election and will form the next government in the predominantly French-speaking Canadian province, according to media reports.

The result on Monday revives the question of whether the province should leave Canada, testing Prime Minister Mark Carney’s message of national unity.

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, the party’s leader, is set to become premier.

During the campaign, he promised a third referendum on leaving Canada during his first term, although he said he would wait until US President Donald Trump leaves office in January 2029.

It was not yet clear whether the party had reached the 64 seats needed for a majority in the 127-seat National Assembly.

If it falls short, it would lead a minority government and need support from opposition lawmakers to pass major legislation and survive confidence votes.

The Parti Quebecois, or PQ, last governed the province from 2012 to 2014.

Monday’s victory marks a sharp recovery for the PQ, which won just three seats in the 2022 provincial election.

Its return also ends eight years in power for the Coalition Avenir Quebec, or CAQ, a centre-right Quebec nationalist party that does not support independence.

Daniel Beland, a political science professor at McGill University in Montreal, told The Associated Press news agency that the victory reflects Quebec’s multiparty system, where support is divided among several parties, rather than a surge in secessionist sentiment.

Support for independence remains at about 30 percent, low by historical standards, he said.

Still, Beland said a secessionist government in Quebec represents a new national-unity challenge for Carney, particularly with another independence-related vote approaching in Alberta.

“Seeing that a pro-independence party won in Quebec barely two weeks before an independence-related referendum takes place in Alberta might suggest to the Trump administration that national unity remains a major issue in Canada despite the popularity of Mark Carney,” Beland said.

Quebec held two previous referendums on independence, in 1980 and 1995, and voters rejected secession both times.

The second vote was decided by a narrow margin, but there has been no further referendum in the three decades since.

Sanchez calls early vote after Parliament rejected housing relief measures proposed by his minority government.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has announced a snap general election after Parliament rejected housing relief measures proposed by his minority government.

Sanchez said on Monday the vote would take place on November 29. “We need to renew people’s support,” he said in a televised address.

“We need to mobilise and win a much larger progressive majority in Parliament, one that will allow us to overcome vested interests, deliver new social advances and continue transforming Spain.”

He also acknowledged having made mistakes and falling short of previous campaign promises.

“I also know that part of that social majority is dissatisfied today,” Sanchez said.

The government’s defeat in Parliament on Friday was the latest in a series of political setbacks for the centre-left leader, followed by mass protests across the country over the housing crisis.

The government said more than 70,000 people took part in a housing protest in the capital, Madrid, on Saturday.

Anger had been building since late last month, when an 87-year-old woman, Marai del Carmen Abascal, was evicted from her home of 70 years in Madrid after an international investment fund bought her building and increased the rent.

Far right gains ground

But facing the electorate is a risky move for Sanchez. Opinion polls suggest that a coalition led by the conservative People’s Party (PP), with support from the far-right Vox party, is the most likely outcome in the election.

If they win, it would be the first time since the death of dictator Francisco Franco that a far-right party has entered central government.

If Sanchez loses the election, it would also mark the end of one of Europe’s last left-leaning governments as the far right continues to gain ground across the continent.

Sanchez has stood out worldwide for his strong stance on progressive ideas, from defending the rights of Palestinian people to defending multilateral institutions and cracking down on tech oligarchs.

The prime minister, who has never won enough votes to form a majority government, has brought together a series of fragile and seemingly impossible coalitions, ranging from the far left to the separatist right, to remain in power for three successive terms, lasting eight years.

The election was due next year before Sanchez brought it forward.

Close race expected as left-wing Lula seeks fourth non-consecutive term against right-wing Flavio Bolsonaro, son of convicted former president.

Polls have opened in Brazil’s presidential election, once again pitting left-wing incumbent Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva against a right-wing candidate from the Bolsonaro family – Senator Flavio Bolsonaro, the eldest son of former President Jair Bolsonaro.

Some 160 million registered voters are eligible to cast ballots in Sunday’s elections, which will elect lawmakers, governors and senators.

If no presidential candidate wins more than 50 percent of valid votes, the top two contenders will proceed to a run-off on October 25.

Most opinion polls ahead of the vote showed a close contest, with Lula holding a marginal advantage over Bolsonaro that tightens further in a potential second round.

Lula, of the Workers’ Party, is seeking a fourth nonconsecutive term. The 80-year-old, who previously served as president from 2003 to 2010, wants to continue his series of social programmes aimed at addressing inequality.

Bolsonaro, of the Liberal Party, has promised a hard stance on crime and insecurity. The 45-year-old has also pledged close collaboration with the United States under President Donald Trump.

His father is currently serving a 27-year prison sentence over his role in a coup plot following his election loss to Lula by 1.8 percentage points in 2022. The far-right leader’s conviction and that of several military officers raised questions about the strength of Brazilian democracy, reviving past traumas of the 21-year-long period during which Brazil was ruled by a US-backed military dictatorship.

The presidential election has been dominated by issues such as crime, insecurity and the high cost of living. Corruption and concerns about US intervention in the country’s domestic affairs have also loomed over the campaign.

A recent survey by Quaest says violence was cited as the biggest concern by 31 percent of respondents, followed by corruption (20 percent), economy (19 percent) and healthcare (12 percent).

“The stakes of this election are incredibly stark because the candidates stand for such opposing visions about what Brazil’s recent history means,” Andre Pagliarini, an assistant professor of history and international studies at Louisiana State University and the author of a book on Lula, told Al Jazeera.

He added that while Lula embodies the “consolidation of Brazilian democracy since the end of the dictatorship”, the Bolsonaro family argues that “the institutions that Brazilian democracy has erected since the end of dictatorship are either rotten and unresponsive”.

With reporting by Brian Osgood

With elections one month away, the media discourse in Israel has narrowed in on one question about one man: What did Benjamin Netanyahu know before October 7?

The prime minister is suing the Israeli newspaper that reported the claim, while the right-wing Channel 14 insists none of it matters. Missing from the coverage is any reckoning with what Israel has done in Gaza.

Contributors:
Dan Perry – Author, Ask Questions Later on Substack
Diana Buttu – Human rights lawyer
Ron Skolnik – Political consultant, Partners for Progressive Israel
Yael Berda – Associate professor, Hebrew University of Jerusalem

On our radar

Donald Trump gathered some of the biggest names in AI this week and got them to agree to regulate themselves. Meenakshi Ravi examines the “morally binding” pact.

Kidfluencers: The business of broadcasting childhood

One of the most popular genres of online content these days is made by children – or rather, made of them.

Family vlogging has become one of the internet’s most profitable genres. But questions remain over its stars’ labour protections and ability to consent to what is published about them. The Listening Post’s Tariq Nafi looks at the business of broadcasting childhood.

Featuring: 
Caymi Barrett – Former child influencer
Fortesa Latifi – Author, Like, Follow, Subscribe
Sarah Adams – Founder, Mom.Uncharted

Bosnians are heading to the polls to choose the next government at all three of the state, entity and canton levels. It may seem complicated, but for a country divided into two entities – the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska, along with Brcko District – this is nothing new.

When do Bosnia’s elections take place?

The general elections are scheduled for Sunday, October 4. More than 3.4 million people are eligible to vote.

What’s different about this election?

This year, new election technology will be used. Voters will be identified using biometric devices, while ballot papers will be scanned rather than simply placed in ballot boxes.

The use of scanners, however, does not mean voting will be fully electronic. Votes will still be cast and recorded on paper, but verification and counting should be faster and more transparent, while voter identification should be more accurate.

Who is running for the Presidency?

Candidates for the Bosniak representative include current Presidency member Denis Becirovic of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), Bakir Izetbegovic of the Party of Democratic Action (SDA), Semir Efendic of the Party for Bosnia and Herzegovina (Stranka za BiH), and Fahrudin Radoncic of the Union for a Better Future of BiH (SBB).

Izetbegovic, the president of the centre-right SDA, the biggest Bosniak party in the country, is running for his third term after being defeated by Becirovic in 2022.

Three candidates will run for the Croat seat in the Presidency: Darijana Filipovic of the Croatian Democratic Union of Bosnia and Herzegovina (HDZ BiH), Slaven Kovacevic of the Democratic Front (DF), and Zdenko Lucic, a candidate supported by a coalition of five Croat parties.

The current Serb member of the Presidency, Zeljka Cvijanovic from the right-wing Alliance of Independent Social Democrats (SNSD), is running for a second term. During her term on the country’s top state body, which began in November 2022, just a few months after Russia’s war in Ukraine started, she maintained close and continuous cooperation with Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin.

SNSD is led by Milorad Dodik, the former president of Republika Srpska, best known for his separatist moves and for challenging the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the decisions of former High Representative Christian Schmidt.

Cvijanovic will face Marinko Bozovic of the Serb Democratic Party (SDS) and Nebojsa Vukanovic of the List for Justice and Order.

Who else is on the ballot?

Voters will be choosing representatives for 14 governments, as well as members of the country’s three-member Presidency.

Each entity has its own president, assembly, prime minister and ministers. The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is further divided into 10 cantons, each with its own government.

For all this to happen, the Central Election Commission (CIK), the main body responsible for overseeing the voting process, earlier said that 75 political parties and four independent candidates were registered and eligible to participate.

How are Presidency members chosen?

When registered voters go to the polls, they do not elect one president, but choose one of three members of the country’s collective head of state. They are the representatives of the three constituent peoples – Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs.

The Bosniak and Croat members are elected from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, while the Serb member is elected from Republika Srpska.

This is because the majority of Bosniaks and Croats live in the Federation, while most Serbs live in Republika Srpska.

The election of the Croat member has weighed on Bosniak-Croat relations for years and has often been used as a reason for political blockades.

Parties gathered around the centre-right Croatian Democratic Union of Bosnia and Herzegovina (HDZ BiH) are demanding changes to the Election Law, saying they want to prevent Bosniak voters from influencing the election of the Croat member of the Presidency.

But that would also require changes to the Constitution, which allows all citizens in the Federation to choose whether they want to vote for the Bosniak or the Croat member.

What about citizens who live outside their constituent group’s voting area?

A Serb living in the Federation, or a Bosniak or Croat living in Republika Srpska, who wants to run would not be able to do so, nor can they vote for those they consider to be their own representatives.

That is one of the many paradoxes of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s electoral system.

How is the state-level government chosen?

Citizens elect representatives to the Parliamentary Assembly, which consists of two houses.

Forty-two representatives will be elected to the House of Representatives.

Two-thirds are directly elected from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and one-third from Republika Srpska.

A quorum consists of a majority of all members elected to the House of Representatives.

The second chamber – the House of Peoples – has 15 delegates and is elected indirectly through the institutions. It consists of Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs – five from each group.

What happens with the entities?

The election of entity-level authorities works somewhat differently.

In Republika Srpska, citizens directly elect the National Assembly, as well as the entity president and vice presidents.

They do not directly elect the government – it is confirmed by the National Assembly.

In the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, citizens directly elect the House of Representatives of the Federation Parliament and the cantonal assemblies.

Those cantonal assemblies then elect delegates to the Federation’s House of Peoples.

The president of the Federation, the entity government and the cantonal governments are formed after the elections, through parliamentary majorities and political agreements.

Why is it a challenge to form the government?

It is difficult not only because the electoral system is complex, but also because of the lack of agreement among representatives of the three different ethnic communities.

Frequent blockades and obstruction make decision-making difficult at all levels, even though many politicians invoke the politics of compromise.

Elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina, therefore, are not only about who wins, but about whether a system designed to represent everyone can serve its citizens.

Why are the elections important?

New election technologies might reduce potential fraud, but much more will be needed for the country’s path towards the European Union.

The outcome of the election could unblock, or further slow down, the adoption of key laws needed for the country’s progress towards EU membership.

The EU granted Bosnia and Herzegovina candidate status in December 2022 and opened accession negotiations in 2024.

However, the country’s progress has since been assessed as very limited and slowed by political blockades.

These elections will also be a test for the ruling coalition, which promised to focus on social and economic issues amid the rising cost of living.

When are the results?

The first preliminary results are traditionally published by CIK late on election night, on October 4, and are updated every few hours.

In the days after the elections, CIK gradually enters votes from the remaining polling stations, mobile voting teams, as well as ballots received by mail and from diplomatic and consular missions.

The official results will be known no later than November 20.

Latest polls suggest Lula’s lead over Bolsonaro is narrowing, with neither candidate likely to win outright on Sunday.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and right-wing Senator Flavio Bolsonaro have wrapped up their election campaigns, each voicing confidence in victory ahead of Sunday’s tightly contested first-round presidential vote.

Lula, 80, closed his re-election bid on Saturday with a march through Sao Paulo, Brazil’s economic powerhouse, drawing what his campaign called a record crowd for a closing rally.

“Tomorrow, we’re going to win the elections in the first round,” he told supporters, describing Sunday’s vote as a choice between “democracy and barbarism” and promising to “defeat the far right”.

He has also framed the election as a test of Brazil’s sovereignty, warning against “meddling” by Washington.

Bolsonaro led a motorcycle caravan through towns in Sao Paulo state, echoing the campaign style of his father, before rallying later in Rio de Janeiro. “I am convinced that everything is in place for us to win this election in the first round,” he said.

The 45-year-old is the son of former President Jair Bolsonaro, a close ally of US President Donald Trump. The former leader, 71, is serving a 27-year prison sentence for attempting to overturn his 2022 election loss to Lula.

The younger Bolsonaro was photographed at his rally holding a portrait of his father.

Trump has not formally endorsed Bolsonaro but has said he is watching the election “very closely”, a level of US interest that has become a flashpoint in the campaign.

Lula’s supporters have seized on it as evidence Washington is trying to meddle in the elections, while some Bolsonaro supporters, frustrated by the cost of living, say they would welcome US pressure if it helped force change at home.

Polls released on Saturday suggested Lula was still ahead but his lead was narrowing, with neither candidate likely to win outright on Sunday. Such a result would send the race to a run-off on October 25 between the two frontrunners, a contest polls suggest would also be close.

It is a far tighter race than Lula’s last victory in 2022, when he beat the elder Bolsonaro by less than two percentage points.

Meanwhile, the Bolsonaro campaign has faced scrutiny over a film-funding scandal. Flavio Bolsonaro is under investigation over financing for Dark Horse, a biopic about his father, bankrolled by a jailed banker tied to one of Brazil’s biggest financial scandals.

Brazil’s Supreme Court authorised federal police in April to investigate whether Flavio Bolsonaro made defamatory statements about Lula.

Bolsonaro has pledged to seek his father’s release from prison if elected, and has echoed his father’s unsubstantiated claims questioning the reliability of Brazil’s electronic voting system, which analysts say could be laying the groundwork to contest the result if he loses.

Beyond the presidency, Brazil’s nearly 160 million registered voters will also choose lawmakers, governors and senators on Sunday.

Right-wing candidates have gained ground in Latin America in recent months.

On a sweltering Saturday, around 100 people gathered in Culver City for a rally and march to deliver a message to several major media companies: Help us protect our democracy.

Spotlighting Sony Pictures Studios, Apple, Pinterest and Amazon MGM Studios, all with local offices, protesters demanded that the companies sign on to the “Business for Democracy Pledge” ahead of the elections in November.

After hearing from a few speakers outside Culver City’s City Hall, the band of demonstrators marched a few blocks to the offices of Sony Pictures Studios. From there — walking by posters for the upcoming Sony release “The Social Reckoning” — they made their way back across downtown Culver City to stop outside the historic Culver Studios, now owned by Amazon MGM.

Local groups Culver City and Friends Rising and Keep Showing Up led the protests. This week, they sent letters to the chief executives of all four corporations asking them to sign the pledge. No response has been received. (Messages from The Times to spokespeople for all four companies also were not returned.)

“Businesses and particularly large corporations like Sony, Apple, Pinterest and Amazon, who are our focus today, have a particular role to play in defending democracy,” Phil Ansell, leader of Culver City and Friends Rising, said before the rally. “They have weight, and this administration cares what business says.”

He added, “We’ve seen internationally that in situations where democracy has been under threat, that when the business community stands up for democracy, it can make a huge difference in preventing a full-on shift to authoritarianism.”

Bryan “Bubba” Fish, Vice-Mayor of Culver City, was on hand as a featured speaker and noted how Culver City, a relatively small community that is home to offices for multiple international media companies, is uniquely positioned to help ensure residents’ voices are heard.

“The message of this event is that these major corporations, that are the largest and richest corporations in the history of the planet, benefit from our civilized society,” Fish said before the rally. “…The only reason they’ve been able to grow to the size that they are is because we have stable, legitimate governance, and the bare minimum should be that they commit to defending and speaking out when our elections and our democracy is at risk. That should be the floor.”

Fish added, “We’re here saying you’re a part of our community, stand for free and fair elections and defend democracy alongside us.”

Demonstrators march to the offices of Sony Pictures Studios and past posters for the upcoming Sony release “The Social Reckoning.”

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

Reverend Dr. Frances Wattman Rosenau, pastor at Culver City Presbyterian Church, spoke outside of both Sony and Amazon MGM.

“Democracy is one of our core values as a country, and me as a person of faith, I care deeply about giving voice to the voiceless and making sure that no one is marginalized,” Rosenau said while walking from one location to the other. “And calling our business partners to come alongside us is an act of partnership. It’s time for everybody to be in the boat and rowing, affirming what we stand for as a people for the common good.”

The Culver City event is one of a series around the country this week in collaboration with the group May Day Strong. Representatives of other local activist groups, including PowerSwitch Action, National Nurses United and Singing Resistance Santa Monica, were also in attendance on Saturday.

Amy Schur, campaign director with Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE), is involved with coordinating the national campaign for the “Business for Democracy” pledge.

“We’re in a unique moment where people are rising up all across the country of their own accord,” Schur said. “People are seeing what’s at stake. So they’re ready to march, they’re ready to speak out.”

Schur noted that much work remains to harness that energy and turn it into real change.

“The critical question is, can we do it in ways that are strategic and have the impact that we need in this moment?” she said. “Just marches are not enough because it’s kind of easy to ignore those. But when it’s a march with a purpose and calling out big corporations, it has more impact.”

The march in Culver City was one of several nationwide actions this week.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

Ansell noted that companies such as Apple and Amazon spoke out after the insurrection of Jan. 6, 2021 and hopes they will continue in that same spirit.

“We’re here today to say don’t wait for the equivalent of January 6 to happen again,” Ansell said. “Commit yourself now publicly to opposing any efforts to undermine this election. And our view is that to the extent that many large corporations across this country take that public stance, it will significantly reduce the risk of a major effort to subvert this election.”

Organizers see Saturday’s protest as part of an ongoing effort and hope more people will feel empowered to participate.

“People are not alone,” Ansell said. “No one should feel like they have to stay home alone and despair. There are many opportunities for action, and we have to be prepared. Today’s action is one of many to defend this election.”

Proposition 42 would prohibit new taxes on “retirement holdings, individually-owned assets, and other forms of personal savings” that take effect after Jan. 1, 2026. That includes financial assets, investment accounts, intellectual property, personal belongings and other assets used for retirement or financial planning.

It also would bar retroactive taxes on past earnings unless the state is using revenue from the tax to respond to emergencies such as a fire or a flood.

Proposition 42 could nullify Proposition 40, the proposed billionaire tax, because the two measures conflict with one another. If voters approve both, the one with the most “yes” votes generally would become law, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Proposition 42 could reduce state tax revenue but it’s unclear by how much, according to the office’s analysis. Currently, the state does tax certain personal property such as vehicles. It doesn’t tax people for owning financial assets like stocks and investment accounts but does tax income from them.

California Professional Firefighters, the California Federation of Teachers, the Nurse Alliance of SEIU California and the California School Employees Assn. all oppose the measure. They argue that it will make it harder to pass tax hikes to pay for police and fire departments, fix and repair local roads, staff local schools or backfill federal healthcare cuts.

They also argue that Proposition 43 skirts the California Supreme Court’s opinion on the threshold.

Gubnatorial candidate Xavier Becerra opposes Proposition 43. In a statement, he called corporations “special interests” that want the proposition to pass in order to block new taxes.

“Prop. 43 would hand special interests the power to block the resources our communities count on most: fire protection, safe roads, good schools,” Becerrra said.

Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), who authored the legislation that became Proposition 43 — ACA 22 — opposes the measure and has urged Californians to vote against it. She said the only reason she crafted the bill was because it was a necessary bargaining chip to torpedo another ballot measure backed by the Jarvis taxpayers group that would have devastated revenues for local governments and retroactively rescinded some local tax increases.

The California Taxpayers Assn., the California Society of Certified Public Accountants, the CalAsian Chamber of Commerce and others back the proposition. They say it would result in the government spending taxpayer dollars more wisely while improving transparency.

The bulk of the contributions to support the proposition have come from Building a Better California, data from the California secretary of state’s website show. Top contributors to Building a Better California include Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founder; John Doerr, chairman of venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins; and Eric Schmidt, the former chief executive of Google.

Proposition 41 “requires more accountability, transparency and trackable progress of programs funded by our taxes, so that we stop funding failure and start funding successful outcomes,” a website for the proposition states.