A new US intelligence report released on Monday cast doubt on whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel could remain in power, as the CIA director said a hostage deal was the most practical way to end the war in Gaza, at least temporarily, to stop.

The annual threat assessment for 2024 expressed concern about Israel’s view on the end of the war and said Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition “may be in danger.”

“Public distrust in Netanyahu’s ability to govern has deepened and widened from already high levels before the war, and we expect major protests demanding his resignation and new elections,” the report said. “Another, more moderate government is a possibility.”

The report predicted that Israel would struggle to achieve its goal of “destroying Hamas.”

“Israel will likely face continued armed resistance from Hamas for years to come, and the military will struggle to neutralize Hamas’s underground infrastructure, which allows insurgents to hide, gain strength and surprise Israeli forces,” he said. the report.

Tensions between President Biden and Mr Netanyahu have flared in recent days over Israel’s planned military operations in Rafah in southern Gaza. But the intelligence report, months in the making, was written before the most recent tensions.

The annual report is usually accompanied by two days of hearings before the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. Intelligence officials were not asked Monday about the Netanyahu government’s assessment in testimony before the Senate panel. Instead, questions about Israel and Gaza focused on the hostage negotiations.

William J. Burns, the director of the CIA, returned Saturday from his eighth trip abroad to negotiate the release of hostages. U.S. officials had hoped to reach an agreement before the start of Ramadan, but that deadline passed.

Mr Burns said he was focused on pursuing a first phase deal to pause fighting in Gaza for six weeks to allow more humanitarian aid to flow into the area and secure the release of 40 hostages. That group – the remaining women, elderly men and injured or sick people – would be exchanged for Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.

Mr. Burns did not indicate how many Palestinians would be released, but others briefed on the talks said hundreds of low-level prisoners and 15 people convicted of serious crimes would be released.

But Mr Burns said the only way to help Gazans suffering in “desperate conditions”, and to provide aid to Israeli hostages and their families, is to take a first step towards something that will become a reality over time. could become a ‘more sustainable arrangement’.

“I learned long ago in crises like this that you have to find a practical goal and pursue it relentlessly,” Mr. Burns said.

“I don’t think anyone can guarantee success,” he said. “But I think you can guarantee that the alternatives are worse for innocent civilians in Gaza who are suffering in desperate conditions, for the hostages and their families who are also suffering in very desperate conditions, and for all of us.”

Protesters interrupted the hearing several times, calling on Israel to stop bombing Gaza and shouting that the war was “exterminating the Palestinian people.” Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, asked Mr. Burns if he agreed with the protesters.

Mr. Burns said he understood Israel’s need to respond to the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, but that “we must all also be aware of the enormous toll this has taken on innocent civilians in Gaza.”

“As the president has said, it is very important that Israel is extremely aware of this and avoids further loss of civilian lives,” he said.

Mr. Burns testified along with Avril D. Haines, the director of national intelligence, and other intelligence leaders, including Christopher A. Wray, the director of the FBI.

Mr. Wray said the United States faces increased terrorism threats from homegrown extremists, foreign organizations and others.

“Since October 7, however, that threat has gone to a whole different level,” he said. “And so it is time for much greater vigilance.”

In the annual report, the intelligence services concluded that “Israel will face increasing international pressure over the dire humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip.”

The war in Gaza poses a “challenge” to America’s Arab partners because of growing public sentiment against both Israel and the United States caused by “the death and destruction in Gaza.” Those countries see the United States as the power broker that can end the conflict before it spreads.

The report says what many U.S. officials have said in recent months: that Iran did not orchestrate or have prior knowledge of the Oct. 7 attacks.

Both Iran and Israel are trying to coordinate their actions and avoid direct conflict, the report said. But intelligence officials say they believe Iran will continue to arm and aid proxy forces that threaten the United States even after the Gaza war is over.

As Nikki Haley heads into the final stretch of South Carolina's Republican primary on Feb. 24, her presidential campaign on Tuesday unveiled a new national coalition aimed at making inroads against one group in particular: suburban women who have been rejected by former President Donald J. Trump.

The group, the National Women for Nikki Coalition, includes more than 4,500 members in all 50 states and Puerto Rico, organizers said. These members will ramp up campaign initiatives for voting, phone banking and other surrogate events in the coming weeks as Ms. Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, looks to continue her campaign after the next GOP contest.

Although she has long odds against Mr. Trump, Ms. Haley has indicated she wants to stay in the race at least until Super Tuesday, March 5, when 15 states and one territory will vote on a Republican presidential candidate.

“They are a good representative of Republican women, suburban women, independent women who have had enough and know we can do better — so much better,” said Annie Dickerson, the coalition's national co-chair, adding that Ms. Haley spoke on behalf of 'the forgotten middle' of American politics.

Haley campaign officials say they are looking to reach independents, new Republican voters and women in increasingly diverse and highly educated suburbs across the country who left the Republican Party in the recent election amid the rise of Mr. Trump. But as the former president maintains his hold on the Republican base, they face an uphill climb.

A poll released in December by The New York Times and Siena College found that 63 percent of female Republican primary voters supported Mr. Trump, despite his long history of misogynistic comments and accusations of sexual misconduct. Ms. Haley received 12 percent support from that group. Other studies show that she receives more support men than women.

Ms. Haley's female supporters tend to highlight her leadership qualities and foreign policy experience more than her gender in celebrating her bid. Ms. Haley herself tends to toe a careful line on that aspect of her identity, nodding to her high heels and jabbing at the “boys” in the race while rarely, if ever, mentioning that she's vying to be the first female to become a woman. president.

More recently, she has brought up this fact mainly to attack President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, suggesting that Mr. Biden would not get a second term and might not even be selected as the Democratic nominee.

“What I will tell you is that there will be a female president of the United States,” she said to cheers during a bus stop on Saturday in Greenwood, S.C. “The hard truth is that it will either be me or Kamala Harris. ”

Finland’s main conservative party announced a new coalition government on Friday after weeks of negotiations, in a deal that moves the country firmly to the right and follows a pattern of similar political shifts elsewhere in Europe.

Petteri Orpo, leader of the centre-right National Coalition Party, would become prime minister under the coalition, which also includes the right-wing nationalist Finns Party.

“Finland needs change,” Orpo said at a press conference on Friday. “Our prosperity is at stake.”

Assuming the coalition is approved when lawmakers likely vote on the prime minister in parliament next week, it will see the more liberal Social Democratic party led by former prime minister Sanna Marin, who became a political rock star while in office, in the leave opposition. The new government is expected to usher in an era of financial tightness and stricter immigration policies.

Despite popular support for Ms Marin’s handling of issues such as the war in Ukraine and Finland’s entry into NATO, April’s elections hinged largely on economic concerns such as high inflation and rising national debt. Right-wing parties made gains by focusing on concerns about the country’s financial situation and calling previous migration policies too lenient. They also criticized the high spending on the social security system.

The National Coalition Party, led by Mr Orpo, promoted a conservative economic agenda, including cuts to some housing benefits and unemployment benefits, and claimed a narrow victory, taking 20.8 percent of the vote. The Finns Party came in second with 20.0 percent and campaigned for pledges to curb immigration, reduce financial contributions to the European Union and delay action on climate change. The Social Democrats came third with 19.9 percent, underlining the closeness of the vote.

Other European countries have moved to the right in recent years, including Italy, which is governed by a coalition led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, leader of a party with post-fascist roots; Sweden, which swapped a center-left government for a right-wing bloc in September; and Spain, which will hold early national elections next month after Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s Socialist Workers’ Party was defeated in regional and local elections.

After no party achieved a majority in parliament, National Coalition Party leaders began efforts to form a government in talks that would last for weeks. Mr Orpo said the negotiations were taking so long because the potential coalition partners were trying to decide where to make heavy cuts and how to increase revenues. Orpo eventually struck a deal with the Finns, but also with two other smaller parties, each receiving about four percent of the vote.

One of these is the Swedish People’s Party, which aims to represent Finland’s Swedish-speaking minority. The party, which is centrist, pro-European and socially liberal, was also part of Ms Marin’s government.

The other party in the coalition is the Christian Democrats, a centre-right group.

On Thursday, representatives of the parties gave a joint press conference to announce they had agreed on a government programme.

“We managed to reach an agreement under great pressure,” said Mr Orpo. “What unites us is that we want to improve Finland.”

What will the coalition change?

The new coalition plans to reduce debt levels through measures such as cutting subsidies, the program said.

Direct cuts in government spending would amount to 4 billion euros or 4.37 billion dollars, Orpo said at Friday’s press conference.

“This is not easy,” he added. “We have to cut back where it feels bad.”

The coalition also pledged to halve the number of refugees Finland takes in each year from about 1,000 to 500, and to take a generally tougher stance on immigration.

The coalition also pledged to keep Finland’s military spending in line with NATO’s target of at least 2 percent of gross domestic product and to promote alliance membership for both Sweden and Ukraine.

There are still some formal steps to be taken before the new government is installed, but Jenni Karimaki, a political scientist at the University of Helsinki, said that with the details already settled by the parties in the coalition, they cannot make any last-minute changes. .

Mr Orpo, 53, has served as finance minister and deputy prime minister in previous governments and has held several other ministerial positions. He is now about to take on the top job.

Orpo’s style is known as a compromise maker and negotiator and for his austere approach to public finances. It contrasts with that of its predecessor.

“Finland’s prosperity cannot be based on debt,” he said on Friday.

Ms. Marin, 37, gained a global profile for her defense of Ukraine and also for her off-duty activities after she was caught on private videos partying with her friends, sparking some debate within Finland about the appropriateness of her behaviour.

BERLIN — Germany’s coalition government has always been an uneasy trio of centre-left social democrats, climate-conscious greens and pro-business free democrats. But in the heady days following their 2021 election victory, the parties pledged to maintain a tradition of consensual politics and keep the drama behind closed doors.

Those doors are now swung open.

In recent days, the parties have engaged in unusual public ridicule over a shaky bill with the seemingly modest goal of reducing fossil fuel emissions from heating appliances in homes and other buildings.

While the stakes seem relatively small, the level of vitriol is anything but a reflection of a new era in which Germany’s once steadfast politics has become more unruly.

No one predicts a collapse of the coalition. But the public sparring has raised questions about how Germany will meet its commitments to Europe’s climate targets – as well as Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s ability to maintain effective stewardship of Europe’s most powerful economy.

“It is critical that the federal government demonstrates its ability to act,” he said Your Jun, a political scientist at the University of Trier. “Scholz has to show he can protect this government.”

For months, European Union officials have complained that the battle between the German coalition had begun to ripple through the bloc, overshadowing fossil fuel regulations, budget plans and debt policies.

The first signs of tension in the coalition came last summer, during a tug-of-war between the Greens and the Free Democrats over keeping nuclear power plants running beyond a previously agreed deadline. Then came a clash over European legislation on fossil fuel engines.

Now the gap on climate policy has widened even further due to the bill, which should ensure that newly installed heating systems run on at least 65 percent renewable energy from 2024.

Just a year ago, the mood seemed very different. The Russian invasion of Ukraine pushed the parties closer together.

As Europe tried to halt the purchase of fossil fuels from Russia, Germany seemed particularly vulnerable: More than 50 percent of its natural gas came from Russia, thanks to a decades-long policy of doubling up on natural gas as a “bridge technology” to carbon neutrality.

But the German coalition has coped with the looming energy crisis with much more success than initially seemed possible.

Usually suspicious of climate policy, Treasury Secretary and head of the Free Democrats Christian Lindner hailed the promotion of renewable energy as “freedom energy”. The economy minister, Robert Habeck, a leader of the Green Party, became the unlikely face for the construction of liquefied natural gas terminals and the re-firing of coal plants.

Now, safely through the worst, the two underlings in Mr. Scholz’s coalition have gone into attack mode.

In recent days, a Conservative politician portrayed Mr Habeck as an East German Stasi, or secret police officer, spying on people’s homes.

Free Democratic Leaders leaned into the conservative caricature of the Greens as the “ban party” and dubbed the bill the “heating ban bill.”

When the Free Democrats blocked the bill from entering parliament last week – despite having previously approved it in cabinet – the Greens described them as dishonest salesmen and an “unreliable and destructive cabal”.

In the midst of the mudslinging, political observers are beginning to wonder: Where is the Chancellor?

“It is no longer just about the content,” wrote the weekly Die Zeit. “It is now about trust within the government. The question is whether the coalition is still operational after a year and a half. And it’s about the authority of Olaf Scholz.”

For the Greens, Mr Habeck’s heating bill is key to their plans to meet Germany’s climate targets.

For the Free Democrats, the bill’s restrictions on private household choices are annoying belief that technological innovation, not regulation, should determine climate policy. .

“This law makes our people feel insecure, and we need to reassure them,” said Bijan Sjir-Sarai, the secretary general of the Free Democrats. “It’s just a matter of preventing a bad law and achieving a good law. And that should be the goal of politics as far as I’m concerned.”

None of this lightens the mood among the Germans. Concerned about being left out in the cold last winter come spring, they’ve turned their concerns to their wallets and personal choices.

Part of the bill’s challenge may lie in the coalition’s failure or unwillingness to link the bill to recent painful lessons about Germany’s dependence on fossil fuels.

Weaning Germany off Russian gas took 300 billion euros, about $320 billion, from the state coffers last year. Today, Germany has simply traded its energy dependency from Russia to countries like Norway, the United States or Qatar.

The fear of being temporarily disadvantaged has taken over a more important long-term reality, said Nina Scheer, the spokeswoman for climate and energy politics for the Social Democrats in parliament.

“This should be a bill about enabling people, not restrictions,” she said. As climate policies are put in place, fossil fuel prices will rise, she said – and households will bear the cost: “It is a false certainty to believe that if you keep everything as it is, it will be safe. We learned what that means last year.”

The German heating bill would really only do what other European countries have already done. From Scandinavia to France to Italy, they all have laws promoting low-carbon heating systems. Even in Poland, which clings to coal, heat pump installations increased by 120 percent last year.

German buildings are responsible for 15 percent of the country’s total CO2 emissions. Reducing that level is essential if the country hopes to meet its climate goals.

Last year, Germany barely met its targets to cut emissions by nearly 2 percent, and the country’s environmental agency has warned that further reductions are needed in the coming years.

The Greens, supported by climate experts and scientists, argue that changes in personal habits are urgently needed. But after successive German governments promoted natural gas heating, it’s now an uphill battle to make that case.

“This is the first time that climate protection has reached people in their private lives,” says Elisabeth Staudt, an energy efficiency researcher at Environmental Action Germany, a non-profit advocacy group. “It’s so emotional because it has to do with people’s homes.”

Looking for a way out of the crisis, Mr Habeck, the economy minister, has proposed possible revisions to his bill and invited coalition partners to negotiate on Tuesday.

But amid questions about how the coalition can heal its openly displayed wounds, Mr Scholz has largely remained silent. And his Social Democrats can only give a muted answer.

This is the conclusion of Katja Mast, first secretary of the parliamentary group of the Social Democrats the Greens had also blocked parts of other bills on tolls and highways – a possible escalation in the fight over climate policy.

She urged the parties to come together to pass the necessary bills: “It is with great goodwill that we will achieve this. I appeal to that goodwill.”

For decades, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, has championed the free market economic doctrine. As Finance Minister 20 years ago, Mr. Netanyahu was lauded by Milton Friedman, the godfather of neoliberal economics, as he slashed benefits, slashed government spending, accelerated privatization and promoted the country’s celebrated tech industry.

In his autobiography last year, Mr. Netanyahu three chapters explaining how his tenure in the treasury had rescued the economy from an “outdated semi-socialist quagmire,” in part by cutting alms to ultra-conservative Jewish Israelis, who often eschew the job market for religious study, and more of them get to work.

Mr Netanyahu’s new national budget, passed early Wednesday by the Israeli parliament, threatens to turn that legacy on its head.

Bowing to the demands of his ultra-Orthodox partners in a shaky coalition government, Mr. Netanyahu massively cuts government funding for private ultra-Orthodox schools, seminaries and other religious and social projects, as well as ministries run by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank.

Mr Netanyahu said the increases were necessary to ensure equality between religious and secular school systems. But critics said his move would hurt Israel’s economy in the long run, as it supports an ultra-Orthodox school system that largely fails to teach math, science and English, leaving children unprepared for the modern workplace.

Mr Netanyahu’s stance on the issue has created a storm in Israel, heightening tensions between ultra-conservative believers, who want to maintain their autonomous lifestyle, and their secular neighbors, who argue that their taxes are increasingly being spent on a portion of the economy. the population that provides little in return and largely avoids military service.

The debate led a secular television host to describe the ultra-Orthodox as “bloodsuckers,” while religious leaders said their communities’ volunteer work for charities and medical aid groups was not appreciated.

And the budget shake-up has also undermined Mr. Netanyahu’s free-market credentials amid accusations that he makes economic decisions based on political expediency.

“It seems that the Netanyahu of 20 years ago and the Netanyahu of today have opposing economic values ​​and agendas,” said Prof. Karnit Flug, a former governor of the Bank of Israel who is now vice president of the Israel Democracy Institute. a research group in Jerusalem.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews, or Haredim, are the fastest-growing segment of Israel’s population, currently making up about 13 percent of its citizens, a proportion expected to triple within four decades. Economists say this increase will cost Israel trillions of dollars — unless the largely autonomous ultra-Orthodox school system better prepares Haredi children for the world of work, and more Haredi adults are encouraged to work rather than study in seminaries.

Israel’s new budget does the opposite. It increases annual government funding for seminaries, or yeshivas, and student stipends in those institutions by at least 50 percent, or more than $160 million, according to a research by analysts at the Berl Katznelson Center, a political research group. And it more than triples annual government funding for Haredi schools, an increase of more than $400 million, according to the same analysts.

Asked for comment on this article, the Prime Minister’s office said the increases would encourage, not hinder, Haredi labor market participation, and ensure parity between state funding for Haredi schools and secular schools.

“Religious children should have the same opportunities as secular children,” the Prime Minister’s Office wrote in a statement. “This is an important step towards social cohesion and inclusiveness.”

The statement added that the budget was “in line with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s free-market principles that launched Israel’s economy two decades ago and turned it into an innovative and economic force. Prime Minister Netanyahu remains committed to these principles.”

But economists are unconvinced, even within both the Treasury Department and a right-wing research group that otherwise broadly supports Mr. Netanyahu.

Israeli governments, including previous governments led by Mr. Netanyahu, funded Haredi education as well as secular schools and colleges for many years. But such a large increase in that funding has raised alarm.

In an internal assessment of the government published in the Israeli news media, a senior finance ministry economist warned that, even before the new budget was passed, sluggish employment rates under Haredim could cost the Israeli economy nearly $2 trillion over the next four decades. cost. Israelis in the workforce would face a 16 percent income tax increase to maintain current levels of government services, the assessment said.

That report even raised concerns among the Kohelet Forum, a right-wing research group that has strongly supported the government’s other flagship project, the judicial overhaul. Kohelet’s chief economist Michael Sarel released a statement supporting the Haredim’s right to live “according to their preferences” but criticized the government for creating “deeply wrong economic incentives for ultra-Orthodox families.”

Three hundred economists from across the political spectrum then issued a joint call for the government to “come to its senses,” warning that the budget would “in the long term transform Israel from a progressive and prosperous country into a backward country where much of the population lacks basic skills for life in the 21st century.”

The full budget will cover all government expenditures, including the military, transportation and infrastructure, and will provide ministries with approximately $270 billion over two years. Among other measures, it has increased resources for the Ministry of National Security, led by Itamar Ben-Gvir, a far-right former activist, and launched a new food stamp program.

The government also said the budget would help lower the cost of living, a claim disputed by the opposition.

In his memoirs last year, Mr. Netanyahu said he had been willing to cut subsidies and maintain fiscal discipline in the 2000s because “I was willing to risk my political future for it.”

Now political commentators say that is no longer the case. Mr Netanyahu’s four-seat majority in parliament depends on two ultra-Orthodox political parties. Had they voted against the budget, as some of their leaders threatened, the government would have automatically fallen, paving the way for new elections.

“Survival – that’s the summary,” said Anshel Pfeffer, a biographer of Mr. Netanyahu.

“Netanyahu’s belief in the absolute necessity of being Israel’s leader goes much deeper than his belief in fiscal conservatism,” Pfeffer said. To retain power, “he is willing to pay the price in the form of a budget that betrays all the economic principles in which he believes.”

Gabby Sobelman contributed reporting from Rehovot, Israel, and Myra Noveck from Jerusalem.