The New York Times 2024-11-07 12:12:03


For Ukraine, Trump Victory Signals a Shift. To What, Is Unclear.

Sign up for the On Politics newsletter.  Your guide through Election Day and beyond, with the latest race results, expert analysis and key takeaways.

With Donald J. Trump’s victory in the United States presidential election, Ukrainians now face an all-but-certain American policy shift in the midst of a war that is turning against them. Russia has made some of the swiftest territorial advances in recent months, and diplomatic efforts are underway by multiple countries to find a negotiated settlement.

Mr. Trump will enter office with a record of skepticism, if not outright hostility, to continued U.S. aid to Ukraine, and he has promised that he could end the war in one day — without saying how. It is unclear how any initiative by Mr. Trump would dovetail with existing cease-fire discussions, but his pledge to bring the war to a rapid end has stirred concern in Kyiv that he will pressure Ukraine into an agreement on unfavorable terms.

“His desire for a deal — and probably a quick one — does not bode well for sustained U.S. support,” the Royal United Services Institute, an analytical group based in London, wrote on Wednesday, referring to Mr. Trump.

Russia will most likely respond to Trump’s win by pressing its advantage of numbers on the battlefield in anticipation of reduced Western support, the group said.

Ukrainska Pravda, a Ukrainian news outlet, wrote in a commentary on the American election that the war in Ukraine was less central to U.S. politics than the wars in Vietnam or Korea had been. There, “American boys fought and died,” the site noted.

Ukraine has said all year that it is prepared to work with either a Republican or Democratic administration, and in September President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine met with Mr. Trump while on a visit to the United States.

Mr. Zelensky wasted no time in offering his congratulations, writing on Wednesday that he appreciated “President Trump’s commitment to the ‘peace through strength’ approach in global affairs.”

“This is exactly the principle that can practically bring just peace in Ukraine closer,” he wrote. “I am hopeful that we will put it into action together.”

After assuming the presidency, Mr. Trump will inherit the United States’ role as armorer and financier in the war against Russia. The United States is Ukraine’s single most important benefactor for military and financial support, though taken together, the countries of the European Union provide more.

Mr. Trump has not only questioned the need to continue to support Ukraine; he has also spoken admiringly of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, while castigating Mr. Zelensky. And Mr. Trump’s pledge to end the war in a day has raised concerns in Kyiv that he would press a peace settlement on unfavorable terms to Ukraine.

“We’ll see, but I am very skeptical that the war will end quickly, in 24 hours, as Trump promised,” a former economy minister, Tymofiy Mylovanov, wrote on Facebook. Mr. Mylovanov noted, however, that Ukrainian government bonds were expected to rise in anticipation of a negotiated settlement.

As Mr. Trump racked up the electoral votes needed to win, the war was still raging in Ukraine. Air alarms sounded in Kyiv, and Ukraine’s general staff headquarters reported that Russia had launched 71 airstrikes by 10 p.m. on Tuesday.

Ukrainian soldiers viewed the election result as yet another challenge in an increasingly difficult situation. Oksana Vedmid, 32, a private, was in a bunker with a drone unit in eastern Ukraine early Wednesday outside the city of Chasiv Yar, watching for any movement of Russian forces while also checking in on the latest election news.

“It feels like a small loss of hope for better support in our difficult struggle, knowing his stance and sympathy toward our enemies,” she said by telephone, referring to Mr. Trump. “At the same time, I understand that the situation has become so tough recently that even the aid we’ve received hasn’t been enough to improve our position.”

Lt. Pavlo Velychko, reached by phone after returning from an overnight patrol, said that the result could prompt Europe to take a larger role in defending its eastern borders and Ukraine.

“We should not hope for a miracle from across the ocean,” he said, referring to the United States. “Europe is awakening. That will be a necessary prerequisite for successfully resisting the imperial encroachment of the Russians.”

Trends on the battlefield have been bleak for months and have grown more worrying for Ukraine in recent days.

Russian advances in the eastern Donbas region, creeping at first, began to accelerate in August and have picked up since. Ukraine, short of soldiers, has resorted to shifting troops between hot spots on the front to hold the line. Early signs of an unraveling are emerging in an army that, despite the odds, had largely held off a much bigger and better-armed adversary for more than two years.

The shuffle of soldiers has opened other sectors to attack. As positions fail or are at risk, soldiers are rushed from elsewhere to reinforce the lines, only for Russia to attack or menace the vacated sites.

Mobilization in Ukraine, which picked up over the summer with men being pulled from rock concerts or out of cars at roadblocks, has tapered amid deep reluctance to fight in the trenches, military analysts say. Desertion is a mounting problem. From January to September, Ukrainian prosecutors recorded about 51,000 cases of soldiers being away without leave, more than double the number who deserted the previous year.

Some of the army’s best troops were committed in August to an attack into the Kursk region of Russia in the hopes of diverting Moscow’s soldiers. But Ukraine has since lost about 40 percent of the territory it occupied there, and Moscow did not redeploy troops from the Donbas.

Russia has also honed its tactics for a grinding, methodical advance pushing through Ukrainian lines with infantry attacks. Battlefield maps in recent weeks have shown multiple, horseshoe-shape curves along the front as Russia sets up its troops to encircle Ukrainian positions.

Another risk looms as North Korean soldiers enter the war to aid Moscow’s efforts. Those soldiers have now joined the fight, according to U.S. and Ukrainian intelligence agencies, raising the specter of a surge in soldiers on the Russian side, though the numbers now deployed are not considered decisive.

Mr. Zelensky said on Monday that 11,000 North Koreans were already in the Kursk region of Russia.

The wobbly military picture for Ukraine clouds the prospects for a negotiated settlement. Mr. Trump has not said on what terms he would negotiate a halt in hostilities.

Delicate, multiparty talks are already underway and have gained some traction in recent months. It is unclear how a role for Mr. Trump in mediating would combine with those efforts, according to diplomats involved in the talks, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the efforts.

Short of an overall cease-fire, Mr. Zelensky has nodded in recent comments to the prospect of side deals to tackle specific issues, like a moratorium by both militaries on strikes on energy infrastructure and an agreement to safeguard commercial shipping in the Black Sea. Russia has been bombarding Ukrainian electrical infrastructure, and Ukraine has been striking at Russian oil refineries with a fleet of domestically produced, long-range drones.

Ukraine has in recent weeks also softened its stance toward a Brazilian and Chinese plan that Mr. Zelensky had initially dismissed as serving Russia’s interests.

A so-far-quiet diplomatic effort is underway to align that plan with Ukraine’s own 10-point proposal for negotiations, the officials familiar with the talks said. In the most recent movement on Ukraine’s plan, Canada last week hosted a conference on prisoner exchanges and on returning Ukrainian children abducted by Russia, one of the points in Ukraine’s plan.

Frustration with the United States has run deep among military units and in Kyiv over the slow deliveries of arms and restrictions prohibiting their use on targets inside Russia, other than along a narrow belt on the border. The current policies have led only to a losing situation on the front, according to Ukrainian officials, military analysts and diplomats.

Given all of the turns in the war, some Ukrainians took the news of Mr. Trump’s win in stride. “I am sure that it is overblown how important the elections are for Ukraine,” said Natalia Chepeliuk, 43, the director of a restaurant in Kyiv. “We still need to fight for our country no matter who is the U.S. president.”

Maria Varenikova, Liubov Sholudko and Nataliia Novosolova contributed reporting.

Netanyahu Faces Backlash for Firing Israel’s Defense Minister

Pinned

Adam Rasgon and Patrick Kingsley

Reporting from Jerusalem

Here are the latest developments.

Israeli opposition leaders on Wednesday accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of risking national security for political purposes, echoing widespread public discontent over his decision to fire the defense minister.

Mr. Netanyahu’s surprise announcement on Tuesday night that he was dismissing the defense minister, Yoav Gallant, was seen as a risky step at a time when the country is fighting wars in Gaza and Lebanon while bracing for a possible Iranian retaliatory attack.

The men had repeatedly clashed over domestic issues as well as the conduct of the war. Mr. Gallant, a popular and experienced former general, was pushing for a cease-fire deal in Gaza that would secure the release of hostages held there. His firing removed the main proponent in the Israeli government for such an agreement.

But it quickly prompted accusations that Mr. Netanyahu was prioritizing personal goals over national ones by trying to appease the right wing of his coalition. Centrist columnists described it as an attack on democracy, and protesters blocked traffic and lit bonfires on a major Tel Aviv highway overnight.

Yair Lapid, a rival of Mr. Netanyahu, told a news conference on Wednesday that Gallant’s firing was “not normal.”

“There is no one left in the government,” he added. “The prime minister cannot be trusted, the cabinet cannot be trusted, the last person who could be trusted in this crazy government was fired yesterday.”

Mr. Netanyahu opted to replace Mr. Gallant with Israel Katz — a staunch ally who was serving as foreign minister and is viewed as unlikely to criticize or push back against his hard-line approach to cease-fire discussions. Unlike Mr. Gallant, a popular and experienced former general, Mr. Katz has never held a top military position.

Here’s what else to know:

  • U.S. election: Israel’s right-wing government celebrated Donald J. Trump’s victory effusively. Even before the race was officially called, Mr. Netanyahu spoke of “true friendship” in congratulating Mr. Trump on a “huge victory.” The sentiment reflects Mr. Trump’s record of strong support for Israel, even when that meant reversing decades of American policy. The results of the U.S. election could have major implications on the approach to the war in the Middle East.

  • Hezbollah rockets: The Israeli military said that Hezbollah had fired around 120 “projectiles” into Israel on Wednesday, the date marking the end of the formal grieving period in Islam for Hassan Nasrallah, the group’s leader. Mr. Nasrallah was killed by an Israeli airstrike in September.

  • Evacuation warnings: As Hezbollah’s new leader, Naim Qassem, commemorated Mr. Nasrallah in a televised address, Israel’s military issued new evacuation warnings for buildings in the Dahiya, the area near Beirut where Mr. Nasrallah was killed. About an hour later, a deafening explosion was heard throughout Beirut and smoke was seen rising above the Dahiya.

  • Syria strikes: Israel appears to be intensifying its focus on Syria. The Israeli military announced on Tuesday that it had struck targets in Syria for the second day in a row, attacks it said were aimed at cutting off the flow of weapons and intelligence between Hezbollah, the armed Lebanese group, and its sponsor, Iran. The announcement was the third time in a week that Israel made the rare admission of attacking inside Syria.

Euan Ward, Isabel Kershner, Liam Stack and Gabby Sobelman contributed reporting.

Netanyahu spoke to Donald J. Trump this evening about the results of the U.S. election and the threat from Iran, according to a statement from the Israeli prime minister’s office. “The conversation was warm and friendly,” the statement said. “The prime minister congratulated him on his victory in the election, and the two agreed to work together for the sake of Israel’s security.”

Who is Gideon Saar, Israel’s new foreign minister?

Gideon Saar, Israel’s newly appointed foreign minister, has served in a string of government posts, switching political alliances while maintaining hard-line opposition to Palestinian statehood.

Over the years, he has been both a supporter and foe of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at one point starting his own party in a challenge to the Israeli leader.

Mr. Saar realigned with the prime minister only five weeks ago, just months after he quit the government in March, when Mr. Netanyahu refused to put him on the war cabinet overseeing Israel’s strategy against Hamas in Gaza.

“This is a time in which it’s my obligation to try to contribute to decision making,” he said when he rejoined the government in September.

Opposition leaders see Mr. Saar’s shifts as evidence of his enduring pursuit for political relevance.

“Political considerations are the leading considerations for him, that’s his way,” said Benny Gantz, a former defense minister who quit the government’s war cabinet last summer and who had created a political coalition with Mr. Saar’s party, New Hope, in 2022 to oppose Mr. Netanyahu. “It is impossible to predict what he will do politically.”

Mr. Saar — who had previously served as Israel’s education, interior and justice ministers — did not respond to requests for comment on Wednesday. He is expected to start at the Foreign Ministry as soon as Thursday, his spokesman, Michael Maoz, said.

Under Mr. Saar, the Foreign Ministry will receive what the Israeli government described on Wednesday as an “unprecedented” budget increase of $145 million to improve the country’s global image with foreign media, social networks and on American college campuses.

The Israeli government said Mr. Saar would have a “permanent” role in security decisions, including policy toward Iran and its nuclear program, which Mr. Netanyahu and other senior officials have long warned threatens Israel.

Experts said Mr. Saar generally agrees with Mr. Netanyahu’s hard-line approach to Iran, the war against Hamas in Gaza and the conflict against Hezbollah.

“He is even more to the right of Netanyahu,” said Yossi Mekelberg, a senior consultant on Middle East Policy at Chatham House, a London-based research group.

He said Mr. Saar is not expected to push for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza, has not supported independent statehood for Palestinians or negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, and has called for Israeli annexation of some of the West Bank.

Still, Mr. Saar has shown he is unafraid to buck Mr. Netanyahu on high-priority issues. He opposed efforts to weaken Israel’s judiciary, which he once reportedly described as the government’s “regime coup.” He was later given some veto authority over legislation to overhaul the judiciary.

“Maybe he still is the only, or the most significant, keeper of honesty, justice, and rule of law — I give him credit for that,” said Dan Meridor, a former Israeli deputy prime minister and intelligence minister. Mr. Meridor worked with Mr. Saar when he was Israel’s education minister from 2009 to 2013.

But when it comes to foreign policy, experts agreed that Mr. Saar will likely take a backseat role to Mr. Netanyahu, who, as prime minister, will make the major decisions for Israel.

“Bibi will still be the main person who decides foreign policy,” Mr. Meridor said. “Foreign policy is very important here, and this is why I think you will still have the decision in his hands.”

Trump has a history of strong support for Israel.

Donald Trump has won the 2024 presidential election. Follow live updates and results.

Israeli officials were some of the first foreign leaders to congratulate Donald J. Trump on his election victory on Wednesday, with some hailing it as a win for their country. The sentiment reflects Mr. Trump’s record of strong support for Israel, even when that meant reversing decades of American policy in the Middle East.

Here’s a look at Mr. Trump’s policies on Israel during his first term as president.

The Abraham Accords

Under the first Trump administration, the number of Arab states that had diplomatic relations with Israel went from two to six. New agreements with Morocco, Sudan, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates expanded a list that for decades had only been comprised of Egypt and Jordan.

The most prominent of those agreements was the Abraham Accords in 2020, which brought Bahrain and the U.A.E. into the fold — both Persian Gulf monarchies eager to shore up alliances with the West against their neighbor and longtime rival to the north, Iran.

Separate agreements with Morocco and Sudan were made weeks after the Abraham Accords were struck.

Jerusalem

Soon after he took office, Mr. Trump reversed decades of careful diplomacy when in 2017 he recognized Jerusalem as the Israeli capital of Israel and said the United States would move its embassy to the city. The embassy was relocated from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem the following year.

Israel declared West Jerusalem its capital in 1949, when the city was divided and East Jerusalem and its Arab residents were ruled by neighboring Jordan. But the position of the U.S. and most other countries had been that the city’s status should be determined through negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, who have long wanted East Jerusalem to be the capital of a future Palestinian state.

The issue of whether to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital grew more complex when Israel captured East Jerusalem in the 1967 Middle East war and subsequently annexed it. The annexation was not widely recognized by the international community.

Congress passed a law requiring the U.S. embassy to move to Jerusalem in 1995, but successive presidential administrations deferred implementing the law out of concerns it could increase instability in the Middle East.

The Golan Heights

The United States, under the first Trump administration, became the first country in the world to recognize Israel’s authority over the long-disputed Golan Heights.

In 2019, Mr. Trump signed a presidential proclamation declaring the territory part of Israel. That move was also a reversal of longstanding U.S. policy on the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria during the 1967 Middle East war and subsequently annexed.

The annexation of the Golan Heights has never been recognized by the United Nations, which condemned it at the time. Mr. Trump’s decision was criticized internationally and carried primarily symbolic weight.

The population of the Golan Heights is roughly evenly divided between Israelis and Arabs who lived there before 1967.

In honor of Mr. Trump’s decision, the Israeli government planned a new settlement in the Golan that now bears his name: Trump Heights.

UNRWA

The Trump administration cut off all American funding to the United Nations agency that provides assistance to millions of Palestinian refugees, UNRWA, in 2018.

The year before, the U.S. had contributed about $360 million to the agency, which provides health care, education and other humanitarian services to stateless Palestinians.

The decision was widely denounced by world leaders. It was described at the time as political tactic to pressure Palestinian leaders to give up the right of Palestinian refugees under international law to return to property taken from their ancestors during the creation of Israel in 1948.

UNRWA has been in focus in recent months since the war in Gaza began. Israeli officials claimed that a small number of UNRWA employees were connected to the Hamas-led Oct. 7 attack on Israel last year — an assertion that prompted several countries to suspend funding and for which Israel failed to provide evidence. Last week, the Knesset passed a law banning the agency from operating in Israel.

A look at the battlefield after Yoav Gallant was ousted as Israel’s defense minister.

Israel’s incoming defense minister, Israel Katz, will oversee a military embroiled in conflicts on multiple fronts — in Gaza, in Lebanon, in the West Bank and against Iran. He also begins the job on the day that former President Donald J. Trump won re-election in the United States, signaling a change in the leadership of Israel’s most important ally and potentially affecting Israel’s military calculations.

Mr. Katz’s predecessor, Yoav Gallant, was fired by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday.

Here is a look at the key battlegrounds in the war, which began on Oct. 7 last year when Hamas led a deadly attack on Israel, and some challenges that Mr. Katz will face.

Gaza

Israel’s military said on Wednesday that it had killed “approximately dozens” of militants in an operation in the town of Jabaliya over the previous 24 hours — part of what is effectively a re-invasion of northern Gaza aimed at preventing Hamas from re-establishing there. The military said that it had also conducted operations in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, which Israeli forces invaded in May.

Over the past year, Israel’s military has demolished Hamas’s main fighting units and, in October, they killed the group’s leader, Yahya Sinwar. But critics of the country’s military strategy argue that the fact that Israel has had to send troops back into parts of the enclave where it had previously taken control suggests that its plan to destroy Hamas entirely is flawed.

At the same time, many governments, as well as the United Nations and rights groups, have criticized the Israeli military’s strategy of bombarding Gaza, which has resulted in the deaths of more than 43,000 people, according to the Palestinian health authorities, and devastated the enclave. The toll does not distinguish between civilians and militants, though most of those identified by the health authorities are women, children and older people.

Ahron Bregman, an Israeli former military officer who is now a political scientist and expert in Middle East security issues at King’s College London, said that Mr. Katz would likely “not be keen on a cease-fire,” given the concessions that would need to be made to Hamas to enable it.

Lebanon

Israel’s military on Wednesday pounded southern Lebanon as part of an invasion that began early last month. That invasion is aimed at stopping Hezbollah, another militia group backed by Iran, from launching missiles and drones across the border.

Israel said that it had killed a Hezbollah commander who operated in the area of Khiam, southern Lebanon, and that it had carried out airstrikes that killed dozens of other militants.

Israel significantly escalated its campaign against Hezbollah in September, killing the group’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in an airstrike before launching the invasion. Thousands of Lebanese people have been killed in the Israeli campaign, and about a quarter of Lebanon’s population has fled their homes.

The campaign has not stopped Hezbollah from firing rockets at Israeli towns across the border. On Wednesday, sirens sounded in northern and central Israel to warn of a possible missile attack, and at least 10 projectiles crossed from Lebanon, the Israeli military said. It said that most had been intercepted or had fallen in open areas.

In his new role, Mr. Katz will need to confront questions of how deeply Israeli forces should penetrate into southern Lebanon and how long they remain there.

Lina Khatib, an associate fellow at Chatham House, a think tank in London, said that Mr. Trump’s victory “gives Israel space to increase the intensity of its military campaign in Lebanon and against Hamas.”

“Israel will try to increase the pressure as much as it can,” she added.

Iran

Senior Iranian officials said last week that their country would respond to an Oct. 26 missile attack by Israel. The scope and timing of any Iranian action, however, is unclear. The two nations have engaged in two rounds of missile strikes this year, in April and October, the first direct military confrontation after a clandestine war that lasted for decades.

West Bank

Israeli forces raided Palestinian villages in the northern part of the occupied West Bank on Tuesday, provoking clashes in which four Palestinians were killed, according to the Palestinian health authorities.

Israel has intensified its crackdown in the West Bank, which it says is a response to the rise of new militant groups, an influx of weapons smuggled into the area by Iran and an apparent increase there in support for Hamas at the expense of the more moderate Palestinian Authority. More than 700 people have also been killed in the West Bank, in part as a result of settler violence.

Ms. Khatib said that Mr. Katz would likely “double down” on the West Bank strategy.

A deafening explosion was just heard throughout the Lebanese capital. I can see a plume of thick, black smoke rising above the skyline in the Dahiya, the area south of Beirut where Israel’s military had called for evacuations.

Ayman Khatib, a 56-year-old barber from the Qalandiya refugee camp for Palestinians in the West Bank, told me today that Trump was biased toward Israel in his previous four years as president. He cited Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Many have long hoped Jerusalem — or at least the city’s Palestinian areas — would become the capital of a Palestinian state. “He didn’t do anything for the Palestinians,” Khatib said.

Sapir Cohen, who was held hostage in Gaza for 55 days, urged President-elect Trump to help secure the release of those still held captive in the enclave. “I’m begging you, ensure that rescuing these hostages remains a top priority,” Cohen, whose boyfriend Sasha Troufanov is still being held hostage, said in a statement addressed to Trump.

Hezbollah’s new leader, Naim Qassem, is delivering a televised speech to commemorate Hassan Nasrallah, his predecessor who was killed in an Israeli airstrike in September. As he began speaking, the Israeli military issued fresh evacuation warnings for buildings in the Dahiya, the area near Beirut where Hezbollah holds sway and where Nasrallah was killed. The warnings suggested that strikes on the area could be imminent.

Qassem called U.S.-led diplomatic efforts to stem the conflict with Israel futile, saying that the only way to end the war was “on the battlefield.” Claiming that Hezbollah still had tens of thousands of trained fighters and large stockpiles of weapons, he said the group was prepared to fight “a long war” and make Israel “beg for this war to end.”

‘An act of madness’: Israeli news commentators condemn Gallant’s firing.

Before the results of the U.S. presidential elections swept news sites on Wednesday morning, the headlines in Israel were dominated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to fire the country’s defense minister.

The dismissal of the popular defense minister, Yoav Gallant, on Tuesday night comes as Israel’s military is fighting on several fronts, and many news outlets emphasized the danger of the moment in their coverage.

“Netanyahu Fires Defense Minister Gallant at the Peak of a Regional War,” read the top headline on the left-leaning news outlet Haaretz’s English site, followed by a damning analysis with the headline: “Netanyahu Is a Clear and Present Danger to Israel. Now Its Defense Chiefs Face a Dire Dilemma.”

The Hebrew-language daily Maariv documented an “Outpouring of Anger” after tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets of Israel overnight and blocked traffic in Tel Aviv for hours.

Channel 13 News called it “An Act of Madness,” quoting Israel’s opposition leader, Yair Lapid.

In the Times of Israel newspaper, co-founder David Horovitz declared that “Netanyahu’s firing of Gallant mid-war is reckless, divisive and dangerous to Israel.

The conservative Israel Hayom, a widely distributed free Hebrew-language paper, disparaged the dismissal and echoed accusations from Israeli opposition leaders that it was a political move designed to secure Mr. Netanyahu’s standing with religious conservatives.

“Last night, it became official: Israel is being led by a prime minister who is a danger to state security,” columnist Yoav Limor wrote, calling the move “a stinging slap in the face to everyone who has paid the price of this terrible war.”

“They now know more than ever before that it is not the country’s security that guides the man who sends them into the battlefield, but personal and political whims,” he said.

The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth carried the headline “Gallant’s Dismissal was Carried Out for the Sake of Haredi Parties” — a reference to political pressure from ultra-Orthodox groups to scuttle a bill that challenges their exemption from military service. Columnist Sima Kadmon likened Mr. Gallant’s dismissal to “a drone attack on the heart of the nation.”

“Is there a single sane person left who doesn’t understand what is happening here?” she wrote. “A segment of society that doesn’t serve, that shares no role in the war effort, a segment of society that shirks its responsibility and which is suffocating the reservists and their families to look out for itself—decided yesterday who would be at the helm of our military.”

Another columnist, Nahum Barnea, was more succinct.

“As of this morning you are living in a former democracy,” he wrote in the same news outlet.

“There are some democracies that die overnight, in a blood bath,” he added. “Our democracy has died slowly, gradually, softly.”

Ramy Nasr, 44, a displaced former trader in Gaza City, said that it doesn’t matter to him who the next U.S. president is. His main concern, Nasr said, is finding necessities like water — and being able to properly bury three of his siblings, who were killed in an Oct. 10 strike. “I only care about the war ending and being able to return to our homes, so I can pull my dead siblings from under the rubble,” he said.

Despite Trump’s unpredictability, Netanyahu sees a more favorable U.S. president.

Only a few hours had passed since Donald J. Trump was elected president, when Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, announced that he had already spoken to the U.S. president-elect, noting he was “among the first” to call him.

It was further evidence of the enthusiasm Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing government feels — it had already been celebrating Mr. Trump’s victory since breakfast local time on Wednesday as if it had just won the American election itself.

Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s ultranationalist minister of national security, posted a festive “Yesssss” on social media, along with emojis of a flexed biceps muscle and the Israeli and American flags, even before the last polls had closed in Alaska.

Mr. Netanyahu himself weighed in soon after Mr. Trump’s victory speech, writing on social media, “Dear Donald and Melania Trump, Congratulations on history’s greatest comeback!”

“Your historic return to the White House offers a new beginning for America and a powerful recommitment to the great alliance between Israel and America. This is a huge victory!” the Israeli leader enthused, in a departure from the chill that has descended on his relationship with President Biden, and signing off, “In true friendship, yours, Benjamin and Sara Netanyahu.”

Mr. Netanyahu’s office described the phone conversation with Mr. Trump as “warm and cordial,” adding that the pair had “agreed to work together for Israel’s security and also discussed the Iranian threat,” without elaborating.

An overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis view Mr. Trump as a better option for Israel’s interests than Vice President Kamala Harris. They assume that he will go easier on Israel than the Biden administration, which has widely supported Israel’s war effort in Gaza over the past year but has also criticized the humanitarian aspects of it, including the high civilian death toll.

Mr. Netanyahu may now feel emboldened by the prospect of a more amenable U.S. president as he continues to insist on total victory in Israel’s wars and engages in a high-wire exchange of blows with the country’s archenemy, Iran.

On Tuesday, Mr. Netanyahu fired his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, a main interlocutor with the Biden administration, against a backdrop of differences between the prime minister and Mr. Gallant over ending the war in Gaza and over pressing domestic issues that were threatening the stability of Mr. Netanyahu’s governing coalition.

Mr. Trump has, like the Biden administration, called for Israel to wrap up the wars in Gaza and Lebanon that were set off by the Hamas-led terrorist attack against Israel 13 months ago, but analysts say that a Trump administration would probably support ending them on terms more favorable to Israel.

That sentiment is largely based on Mr. Trump’s first term, when he bestowed political gifts on Mr. Netanyahu’s previous government, including moving the United States Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

But analysts also note that the policies of the next Trump administration are unknown, and that Mr. Trump is notoriously unpredictable.

“I think Netanyahu prefers the unpredictability of Trump over Harris,” said Kobi Michael, a fellow at the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy, a conservative-leaning Jerusalem-based research group. “But there’s a degree of wishful thinking,” he said, “because Trump can easily turn on us in seconds.”

In all his years as Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, starting from his first term in the 1990s, Mr. Netanyahu has worked with only one Republican president: Mr. Trump.

But their relationship has become more complicated. Last year, Mr. Trump publicly accused the Israeli prime minister of having let the United States down by pulling out of an operation to kill Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the leader of Iran’s Quds Force, at the last minute in 2020.

Mr. Netanyahu may have been hoping that his swift congratulatory message on Wednesday morning, before the final count was in, might erase Mr. Trump’s resentment over the congratulations Mr. Netanyahu offered President Biden last time around, after multiple news organizations had called the race but while Mr. Trump was still contesting the election result.

It is unclear how much the Republican Party’s most extreme factions will affect the foreign policy, or lack thereof, of the next administration, or how much influence the pro-Zionist Evangelist supporters of Mr. Trump will have. But in general, Mr. Trump has opposed doling out foreign aid, while Israel depends on U.S. military assistance to the tune of billions of dollars per year.

“There’s an illusion about Trump — that he doesn’t get into details or go deep, and supports Israel,” said Nachman Shai, a former minister from Israel’s center-left Labor Party. “But would Trump give $15 billion to Israel?” he said, referring to the military aid package signed by President Biden in April.

“He says ‘You get, you pay!’” Mr. Shai said of Mr. Trump. Mr. Netanyahu, he added, favors Mr. Trump “because he thinks he is less interested in foreign affairs and will bug him less about letting more food into Gaza.”

Mr. Trump has said that he wants to end wars, not start them, but he has not articulated any vision for an end game when it comes to Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon, or for his approach to Iran. Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York, said Mr. Trump was likely to provide Mr. Netanyahu with a break from pressure to resolve the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict, at least for a few months.

“For Netanyahu,” Mr. Pinkas said, “a president that doesn’t lean on him on the Palestinian issue is a good president.”

Beyond the natural affinity between a second Trump administration and Mr. Netanyahu’s governing coalition, the most right-wing and religiously conservative in Israeli history, many liberal Israelis also consider a second Trump term good for Israel.

“President Trump is a true friend of Israel — demonstrated through not only his words but actions,” Benny Gantz, the leader of a centrist party in the Israeli opposition, said in a statement on Wednesday. He pointed to Mr. Trump’s first tenure, when he brokered the Abraham Accords, allowing Israel to normalize diplomatic relations with several former hostile countries in the region, including the United Arab Emirates — a process the Israelis are hoping will expand.

But analysts said that a Trump administration would also be much more forgiving of any revival by the Netanyahu government of its judicial overhaul plans, which seek to curb the powers and independence of Israel’s Supreme Court and concentrate more authority in the hands of the elected government. The judicial plans deeply polarized Israel in the months before the war began and created tension with the Biden administration.

“That is probably something Trump would want to do himself, but he doesn’t need to because he already has a majority in the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Prof. Reuven Hazan, a political scientist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The Trump win will make Mr. Netanyahu feel less constrained, he said, adding, “It’s his dream world, policy wise.”

Between now and Mr. Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, however, lie President Biden’s final months in office, a potentially perilous and challenging period for Mr. Netanyahu, since Mr. Biden will no longer be limited by electoral considerations.

A Nov. 14 deadline is looming for Israel to take specific steps to facilitate a significant increase of humanitarian aid into Gaza or risk a cutoff of U.S. military aid. The threat was laid out in a letter signed last month by Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III and Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken, and addressed to Mr. Gallant and Israel’s minister of strategic affairs, Ron Dermer.

“The two-month period may decide what kind of legacy Biden wants to leave,” said Shira Efron, senior director of policy research at the Israel Policy Forum, a New York-based research group. The Trump win could lead Mr. Biden to be “more adventurous,” she added, since he will not have to worry about complicating things for Ms. Harris.

At the same time, Mr. Biden will be in his “lame duck” period, and other than possible moves against Israeli policy at the United Nations, there are probably not many measures he could do that Mr. Trump could not potentially reverse.

Yet the Trump victory may also bolster Mr. Netanyahu domestically at a time of political turmoil after Mr. Gallant’s dismissal.

“A Trump win strengthens Netanyahu politically at home, because there’s a feeling he’s on our side,” said Mazal Mualem, an Israeli political commentator for Al-Monitor, a Middle East news site, and the author of a biography of the Israeli leader, “Cracking the Netanyahu Code.”

“It gives Netanyahu a tailwind,” she added.

Hussein al-Sheikh, one of the most senior Palestinian Authority officials, congratulated Trump on his election, saying in a text message to the Times that “we hope his administration will adopt clear policies that end the wars and that push for bringing peace, security, and stability to the region and the world.” Mr. Sheikh is a close confidant of Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority.

Trump — who took staunch pro-Israel stances during his term as president — has expressed his support of the country’s invasion and bombardment of Gaza. But he has also urged Israel to “finish up” the war.

Israel’s opposition parties are holding a news conference to condemn Netanyahu’s decision to dismiss Gallant last night, although they have little recourse to attempt to overturn it. “Firing the defense minister for the political purpose of legislation that exempts the ultra-Orthodox from military service is a grave blow to national security,” Benny Gantz, a former member of Netanyahu’s war cabinet, said at the news conference.

Yair Lapid, another opposition leader, called Netanyahu’s firing of Gallant a political move that risked national security. “What happened yesterday is not normal. It goes beyond all logic,” he told the news conference. “Let every Hebrew mother know: the army has no one to trust.”

Israel’s military says some of the “approximately 10 projectiles” fired into the country from Lebanon were intercepted. One rocket struck Ra’anana, a city of roughly 100,000 people north of Tel Aviv, according to Israel’s public broadcaster, KAN. It shared a photo of a rocket sticking out of a crushed car in a parking lot. Magen David Adom, Israel’s emergency response service, released pictures of the same incident to the news media.

Air raid sirens sounded across central Israel, including in Tel Aviv, the first in the city in roughly a week. I am in southern Tel Aviv and just heard more than a dozen loud booms overhead.

The Israeli military said the sirens were triggered by “projectiles” fired from Lebanon.

Hamas, the Palestinian armed group, appeared to hedge its bets as Trump appeared on the verge of victory, calling the elections “a private matter for the Americans.” Basem Naim, a Hamas spokesman, said in a written statement that “Palestinians look forward to an immediate cessation of the aggression against our people, especially in Gaza.” He added that “blind support” for Israel and its government “must stop immediately.”

News Analysis

By firing Gallant, Netanyahu removes one threat but risks another.

By dismissing his defense minister, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has consolidated his hold over his coalition by removing his main internal critic, making it easier for him to set wartime policy in the short term.

But the move also comes with long-term risks. By firing a popular rival who had opposed some of his most divisive policies, Mr. Netanyahu has fueled criticism that he thinks his personal survival is more important than the national interest.

The departing minister, Yoav Gallant, had broken with Mr. Netanyahu by pressing for a cease-fire with Hamas, saying it was the only way to free dozens of Israeli hostages held by the group in Gaza. On the domestic front, Mr. Gallant had pushed to scrap an exemption from military service for ultra-Orthodox Jews, a measure that risked collapsing Mr. Netanyahu’s government because it angered its ultra-Orthodox members.

“Netanyahu saw Gallant as the opposition within his own coalition,” said Nadav Shtrauchler, a political analyst and former strategist for Mr. Netanyahu. “Now, it will be easier for him to go in his own direction, not just politically, but militarily and strategically.”

Mr. Netanyahu swiftly denied that he would use Mr. Gallant’s departure to fire other senior members of the security establishment. Still, commentators speculated that after replacing Mr. Gallant with Israel Katz, who is expected to be a more pliant defense minister, Mr. Netanyahu would find it easier to remove the military chief of staff, Herzi Halevi.

On a similar note, the re-election of Donald J. Trump on Wednesday may temper any backlash in Washington over Mr. Gallant’s dismissal. The Biden administration saw Mr. Gallant as a trusted partner, especially as its relations with Mr. Netanyahu soured, but the election result has further reduced its influence over the prime minister’s thinking.

“Maybe the Biden administration people didn’t like his firing, but by Jan. 20, you will have Trump,” said Itamar Rabinovich, a former Israeli ambassador to Washington. Mr. Netanyahu is “not very much concerned” by the Biden administration’s frustrations, Mr. Rabinovich said.

Still, the move still comes with potential costs for Mr. Netanyahu.

In firing the defense minister, Mr. Netanyahu has drawn accusations that he is prioritizing personal goals over national ones to appease far-right and ultra-Orthodox members of his coalition. And the move suggested that he will press ahead with policies that are either deeply unpopular, in the case of the exemption for the ultra-Orthodox, or at least polarizing — like his refusal to compromise in the cease-fire negotiations with Hamas.

Neither move will immediately bring down his government, but they could both damage him in a future election.

As Israel fights the longest war in its history, some Israelis are completing their third tours of reserve duty in Gaza or Lebanon. That has raised questions among soldiers about why they should shoulder the burden on the battlefield while Mr. Netanyahu allows ultra-Orthodox Jews to avoid military service.

The resentment over that imbalance could rise over time, even within Mr. Netanyahu’s base, much of which is conservative and religious but still serves in the military.

In a sign of widespread discontent over Mr. Netanyahu’s decision to fire Mr. Gallant, tens of thousands of protesters spilled into the streets in Israel on Tuesday night, blocking a major highway, while newspaper columnists wrote strong condemnations in the Wednesday papers.

“Netanyahu’s sacred principle, his only principle: clinging to power at any cost,” Nadav Eyal wrote in a column for Yediot Ahronot, a centrist newspaper.

“If you, the brave reservist who served 230 days this year, whose children do not sleep at night, whose businesses have suffered, whose relationships with your spouses have suffered — if you have to pay a price so that Netanyahu can close a deal with the ultra-Orthodox, you will pay,” Mr. Eyal added.

The anger has been compounded by recent allegations that Mr. Netanyahu’s office illegally obtained secret documents from the military and leaked them to foreign news outlets in order to torpedo a deal to pause the war in Gaza and free the hostages held there. Mr. Netanyahu has denied the claims and one person in his office has been arrested.

By firing Mr. Gallant, Mr. Netanyahu is “evidently calculating that it will only be a short-term firestorm and he will then be left in a better position,” said Michael Koplow, an analyst at the Israel Policy Forum, a New York-based research group.

But his support for the policies opposed by Mr. Gallant “will cost him in the long term,” Mr. Koplow said. “So even if his short term calculation is correct, he may turn out to be penny-wise and pound-foolish.”

On issues that matter most to Israel’s critics, like the conduct of Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon, Mr. Gallant was fairly aligned with Mr. Netanyahu.

Prosecutors at the International Criminal Court sought arrest warrants for both men in relation to the Gaza offensive. It was Mr. Gallant who played a bigger day-to-day role in managing a campaign against Hamas that has killed tens of thousands of Gazans and damaged most of the enclave’s buildings. Mr. Gallant was also one of the first ministers to push for the killing of Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, months before the government signed off on his assassination.

But within Israel, Mr. Gallant was seen as a thorn in Mr. Netanyahu’s side.

His public disputes with the prime minister began several months before the war, when in March 2023 he spoke out against Mr. Netanyahu’s efforts to overhaul the judicial system. Mr. Netanyahu fired him days later, only to rescind his dismissal after mass protests swept the country.

During the war, Mr. Gallant had spoken publicly about Palestinian governance in postwar Gaza, an idea that Mr. Netanyahu had avoided discussing in detail for fear of angering far-right allies who seek to settle Jewish civilians in the territory.

And Mr. Gallant had developed a strong and independent relationship with the Biden administration, irking Mr. Netanyahu, whose relationship with President Biden has become fractious even as the president continues to arm and fund Israel’s military.

Johnatan Reiss and Gabby Sobelman contributed reporting.

Who is Yoav Gallant?

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel fired Yoav Gallant, his powerful and popular defense minister, on Tuesday, after the two clashed over the course of Israel’s war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Mr. Netanyahu announced his decision in a video statement published by his office, saying that “significant gaps on handling the battle” had created a wedge between him and Mr. Gallant. “In recent months, that trust between the defense minister and I was damaged,” the prime minister said.

Mr. Netanyahu named the country’s foreign minister, Israel Katz, who has minimal defense experience, to replace Mr. Gallant.

Here’s more background on the ousted defense minister.

A history of clashes

After the Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which killed about 1,200 people and led to the abduction of 250 others, Mr. Gallant emerged as the most high-level dissident to Mr. Netanyahu within his own government.

The ousted defense minister, who was a moderate voice on security issues, had been viewed as an internal roadblock to Mr. Netanyahu’s approach to cease-fire talks. Mr. Gallant repeatedly broke with Mr. Netanyahu and urged him to reach a deal to free the remaining hostages in Gaza.

In August, the defense minister questioned the Israeli leader’s goal of “total victory” over Hamas in Gaza, calling it “nonsense.”

The defense minister also suggested that Mr. Netanyahu was letting Israel slide toward long-term military rule in Gaza — a choice that Mr. Gallant said would be disastrous.

Mr. Katz, an ally of the prime minister, is unlikely to stand in the way of Mr. Netanyahu’s approach to cease-fire talks, which critics say have undermined the possibility of a deal.

Even before the war in Gaza, Mr. Gallant had repeatedly clashed with Mr. Netanyahu over the prime minister’s hotly contested plans to weaken the country’s judicial system.

Amid widespread street protests, in March 2023, after Mr. Gallant gave a speech warning that the proposals were tearing the country apart, Mr. Netanyahu sought to fire him.

That attempted dismissal roiled the country further, prompting mass protests and a general strike. Mr. Netanyahu ultimately backed down and walked back his decision to oust Mr. Gallant.

Political and family background

Before entering politics, Mr. Gallant, 65, served as a senior general who led the Israeli military’s southern command, which oversees Gaza. In 2010, he was tapped to potentially serve as the military’s chief of staff, but the appointment never came to pass.

Mr. Gallant joined the Israel Defense Forces in 1974 and served in a commando unit before holding various leadership roles over a 35-year military career.

After leaving the military, Mr. Gallant entered politics, first with a centrist party before switching over to Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud faction. In 2022, about a dozen years after his failed bid to become chief of staff, he became defense minister in Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing government, taking him to the apex of the Israeli security establishment

Mr. Gallant studied economics and business administration at the University of Haifa and completed a senior management program at Harvard University, according to his Ministry of Defense profile.

He lives in Moshav Amikam and is married to Claudine Gallant, with whom he has three children.

Response to Gallant’s firing

In a televised speech on Tuesday, Mr. Gallant blamed his dismissal on disagreements with Mr. Netanyahu over three issues.

Mr. Gallant said the two differed over:

  • The proposed mandatory conscription of ultra-Orthodox Israelis.

  • A cease-fire deal in Gaza that would secure the release of hostages held there.

  • And Mr. Gallant’s insistence on an independent commission to investigate the security failures that led to the Oct. 7 attacks.

“I’ve been responsible for the security apparatus during the past two years, its successes, failures, and moments of pain,” Mr. Gallant said of his call for an investigative commission. “Only sunlight, and an investigation of the truth, would allow us to draw lessons and build our forces to face the challenges of the future.”

Late on Tuesday, large crowds of protesters opposing Mr. Netanyahu’s firing of the defense minister took to city streets. They blocked traffic and lit bonfires on a major highway in Tel Aviv.

In Jerusalem, protesters also gathered near the Mr. Netanyahu’s residence.

Johnatan Reiss contributed reporting.

Netanyahu and Gallant had a history of clashes.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Tuesday dismissed his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, as the country fights a two-front war and waits for the results of a pivotal U.S. presidential election.

In a video statement, Mr. Netanyahu said that the critical trust needed between a leader and defense minister — in a time of war, especially — no longer existed between him and Mr. Gallant. He said the two had worked well together in the early months of the war but that in recent months relations had broken down.

Mr. Gallant, who has argued for a cease-fire deal in Gaza that would secure the release of hostages held there, said he was fired for three primary reasons: he had called for universal conscription, prioritized the return of hostages still being held in Gaza and demanded an independent commission to investigate security failures that led to the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas.

But Mr. Netanyahu has fired Mr. Gallant before — and then un-fired him — and there have been many public disagreements between the two men, who both belong to the Likud party. Here are some of the high-profile clashes between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gallant that led up to today’s events.

Conscription of the ultra-Orthodox

In June, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered an end to a longstanding exemption from mandatory military service for the country’s ultra-Orthodox Jews. Mr. Gallant approved initial conscription orders for thousands of ultra-Orthodox men.

The ultra-Orthodox exemption has long polarized Israeli society, where most Jewish 18-year-olds, men and women, are conscripted for years of obligatory service. Many ultra-Orthodox view sending their children to the Israeli military as unacceptable, fearing they might be swayed by secularism or looser interpretations of religious practice.

As the ultra-Orthodox population has grown to over one million — more than 13 percent of the country — other Jewish Israelis have become increasingly frustrated and resentful of its military exemption. They say it is fundamentally unfair and untenable, especially as Israel is fighting wars on multiple fronts.

Political analysts said that the government’s internal struggle over conscription also threatened the stability of Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition, which depends on the support of two ultra-Orthodox parties that support the exemption.

Yesterday, Mr. Gallant approved the conscription of an additional 7,000 ultra-Orthodox men, adding new fuel to the dispute.

‘Total victory’ over Hamas

Mr. Netanyahu’s office publicly slammed Mr. Gallant in August after Israeli news media reported that the defense minister had disparaged the prime minister’s goal of achieving a “total victory” over Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Mr. Gallant reportedly told lawmakers in a private security briefing that the idea was “nonsense.”

“When Gallant adopts the anti-Israel narrative, he harms the chances of reaching a hostage-release deal,” the prime minister’s office said in a statement. Victory over Hamas and the release of hostages, the statement said, is the “clear directive of Prime Minister Netanyahu and the cabinet, and it obligates everyone — including Gallant.”

In his video statement on Tuesday about dismissing Mr. Gallant, Mr. Netanyahu began by saying that his primary obligation as prime minister was to ensure Israel’s security and lead the country to “total victory,” and he again accused Mr. Gallant of playing into narratives that undermine Israel’s interests.

Postwar reckonings, for Gaza and Israel

Mr. Netanyahu’s rift with the defense minister was evident in May when Mr. Gallant, in a televised address, criticized Mr. Netanyahu’s lack of vision for a postwar Gaza.

This failure, Mr. Gallant said, was driving Israel toward two possible outcomes, both unappealing: Either Israeli would occupy Gaza militarily, or Hamas would return to power, undermining Israel’s military gains. “We will pay in blood and many victims, for no purpose, as well as a heavy economic price,” Mr. Gallant said.

The defense minister also implicitly accused Mr. Netanyahu of putting his own political survival above national interests.

In addition, Mr. Gallant and other Israeli officials have called for an investigation into the security failures that led to the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel that ignited the current conflicts. More than a year into the war, there has been no such reckoning, which could lay blame at the feet of both the prime minister and the defense minister.

Mr. Netanyahu has said that an investigation should wait until after the war. Mr. Gallant said on Tuesday after his dismissal that “only sunlight, and an investigation of the truth, would allow us to draw lessons and build our forces to face the challenges of the future.”

Israel’s judicial overhaul

In early 2023, Mr. Netanyahu announced that he had fired Mr. Gallant — and then reversed his decision 15 days later — during a contentious clash within Israel over Mr. Netanyahu’s proposed overhaul of the judicial system to limit the power of Israel’s Supreme Court

With many military reservists vowing not to serve if the overhaul was enacted, Mr. Gallant criticized the plan and said it threatened military readiness. His dismissal spurred nationwide protests and intensified an already dramatic domestic crisis — one of the gravest in Israeli history, which many in Israel have come to believe helped to embolden Hamas to execute the Oct. 7 attacks.

The episode cemented Mr. Gallant’s reputation among some Israelis as a bulwark against the most extreme far-right elements of Mr. Netanyahu’s government, and the defense minister seemed to embrace that image throughout the war.

Announcing the decision last year to keep Mr. Gallant in his cabinet, after all, Mr. Netanyahu said: “There were disagreements between us, even serious disagreements on some issues, but I decided to leave the disagreements behind us.”

Aaron Boxerman contributed reporting

Who is Israel Katz, the new defense minister of Israel?

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel named Israel Katz as the country’s new defense minister after firing Yoav Gallant on Tuesday over policy differences amid wars in Gaza and Lebanon.

Mr. Katz, who was serving as the foreign minister, has been a staunch ally of the prime minister and is viewed as unlikely to criticize or push back against Mr. Netanyahu’s hard-line approach to cease-fire discussions.

In a video statement issued by his office, Mr. Netanyahu announced the change and said Gideon Saar would replace Mr. Katz as foreign minister.

Mr. Katz’s tenure as foreign minister was defined by the regional conflict, as he sought to defend Israel against increasingly fierce and widespread global criticism for how it carried out the war, first against Hamas in Gaza and later against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Both militant groups are backed by Iran, a country which attacked and was attacked by Israel during his time as the country’s top diplomat.

After Israel barred the secretary general of the United Nations, António Guterres, from the country last month for failing to strenuously condemn an Iranian missile attack, one of the largest such barrages in history, Mr. Katz criticized him. In a statement, Mr. Katz said of the secretary general “anyone who cannot unequivocally condemn Iran’s heinous attack on Israel, as nearly all the countries of the world have done, does not deserve to set foot on Israeli soil.”

Mr. Katz previously served as foreign minister from 2019-2020 before being reappointed in early 2024 as part of a political agreement implemented before the country’s war against Hamas. He is a former member of the Israeli Parliament and has worked in other government positions such as minister of finance, transportation, energy and agriculture.

He has never held a top military position, unlike the popular Mr. Gallant, an experienced former general.

After former President Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in 2017, Mr. Katz, then serving as a minister of transportation and intelligence, petitioned to name a train station after the American leader, “for his courageous and historic decision.”

Like the prime minister, Mr. Katz is a decades-long member of the Likud party and a supporter of the settlement movement.

Before firing Mr. Gallant on Tuesday, Mr. Netanyahu had clashed with him both over the conduct of the war and domestic issues.

The two disagreed over proposals for the future administration of Gaza and the cease-fire talks. They also disagreed over legislation supporting the overhaul of the Israeli judiciary and about the conscription of ultra-Orthodox Israelis into the country’s armed forces.

“In recent months, the trust between me and the defense minister was damaged,” Mr. Netanyahu said on Tuesday.

Israel strikes targets in Syria for a second day in a row.

The Israeli military on Tuesday said its Air Force had struck targets in Syria for the second day in a row, attacks it said were aimed at cutting off the flow of weapons and intelligence between Hezbollah, the armed Lebanese group, and its sponsor, Iran.

The announcement was the third time in a week that Israel made the rare admission of attacking inside Syria. The strike on Tuesday targeted “weapons storage facilities used by Hezbollah’s munitions unit” in Al Qusayr in Syria, near the Lebanese border, according to a statement from the Israeli military.

The military has said that Hezbollah’s munitions unit recently expanded its activities into Syria, and accused the armed group of deliberately establishing weapons infrastructure within civilian areas.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a British-based group that monitors violence in Syria, on Tuesday reported that Israeli jets struck warehouses in and near Al Qusayr, an industrial city, and that about seven explosions were heard. There were no immediate reports of casualties.

Last week, Israel said it had hit Hezbollah weapons storage facilities and command centers in Al Qusayr “to reduce the transfer of weapons from Iran through Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon.”

On Monday, the Israeli Air Force said it had targeted a branch of Hezbollah’s intelligence headquarters in Syria. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that Israeli strike hit three farms that had previously been used as camps by members of Hezbollah and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Syria’s foreign ministry on Monday condemned the attacks, calling on the United Nations to act swiftly to stop the Israeli incursions, according to Syria’s state news agency SANA.

As Israel expands its war efforts in the Middle East, it appears to be intensifying its focus on Syria. On Sunday, the Israeli military said it had transferred a Syrian citizen to Israel for interrogation after a special operation in Syrian territory that took place in connection with “Iranian terror networks” near the Golan Heights.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday said that regardless of whether a cease-fire deal could be reached with Hezbollah in Lebanon, there were several keys to achieving security along Israel’s northern border with Lebanon, including “cutting Hezbollah’s oxygen line from Iran via Syria.”

The strikes in Syria comes as the Israeli military continues its fight in Gaza, Lebanon and in the occupied West Bank. The Israeli military raided Palestinian villages in the northern part of the West Bank early Tuesday, setting off clashes with militants. Four Palestinians were killed, according to Palestinian health authorities.

It was not clear whether the dead included militants or civilians and Palestinian authorities do not differentiate in their death tolls. But the Israeli military said it had engaged in firefights during the raids that killed militants in the village of Tamoun and that it had carried out airstrikes there and near the city of Jenin.

The armed wing of Islamic Jihad, an Iranian-backed militant group, said fighters in villages south of Jenin were firing bullets at Israeli forces and detonating explosive devices.

Israel has been ramping up a crackdown in the West Bank that began before the Hamas-led Oct. 7 attacks, with authorities increasingly concerned about bolder and more sophisticated attacks by Palestinian militants. The raids have left a swath of destruction in the Israeli-occupied territory, churning up roads and leaving many civilians scared to leave their homes.

Israeli officials have said destroying the roads was necessary because of the threat of buried explosives.

Sadeq Nazzal, 60, an owner of a nursery in Qabatiya, not far from Jenin, said he heard a powerful explosion on Tuesday morning. He described a chaotic scene, with military vehicles moving along the main north-south highway and sounds of gunfire in the distance.

“We’ve become used to this situation,” he said. “But every time it happens, it upends our lives. Workplaces and schools shut down.”

During a funeral procession held in Tamoun, one of the Palestinians killed on Tuesday had been wrapped in an Islamic Jihad flag. Palestinian militant groups often drape their fallen members in flags bearing their emblems. They also will occasionally claim unaffiliated people as being among their ranks.

The raids in the West Bank suggested that Israel’s military was continuing to target armed fighters in the northern part of the territory even as it conducts major operations in Gaza and Lebanon and braces for the possibility of a wider conflict with Iran.

In northern Gaza, a deadly strike hit the town of Beit Lahia overnight, Zaher al-Waheidi, an official at the health ministry in Gaza, said on Tuesday. Israel launched a wide-scale operation in northern Gaza in October, targeting what it says is a resurgence of Hamas in the area.

The Israeli military said it struck a weapons storage facility where a militant was operating. It said it had sought to reduce the risk to civilians before the strike, without explaining what measures it had taken.

Video from the scene obtained by Reuters showed people digging through rubble around a half-collapsed building in Beit Lahia, indicating it was caused by a recent strike.

The New York Times independently verified that the scene in the Reuters video matched other imagery captured by professional photographers on Tuesday morning. Walls and concrete beams had collapsed, and a sofa appeared half buried amid the debris. In a clearing surrounded by heavily damaged buildings, four white plastic shrouds could be seen being buried at a makeshift grave.

Here’s what else is happening in the Middle East:

  • Defense minister dismissal: Mr. Netanyahu fired his defense minister, Yoav Gallant, on Tuesday over differences on the prosecution of the war in Gaza and over domestic political issues. Mr. Gallant was pushing for a cease-fire deal in Gaza to secure the release of hostages, and his dismissal removes the main proponent in the government for such an agreement. The two men had also clashed over the conscription of ultra-Orthodox Israelis.

  • Gaza evacuations: The World Health Organization is preparing to evacuate an expected 113 critically injured and sick Palestinians from Gaza on Wednesday in what would be one of the biggest such operations in months, according to Rik Peeperkorn, the organization’s representative for the Palestinian territories.

  • Polio vaccines: The Gaza Health Ministry and U.N. aid agencies extended an emergency polio vaccination campaign in northern Gaza by an additional day, aiming to increase vaccination coverage among children under 10. The start of the second phase of the campaign had been postponed because of a lack of access and assurances about pauses in the fighting, according to U.N. agencies.

  • Lebanon strikes continue: The Israeli military continued to conduct airstrikes across Lebanon on Tuesday. At least 20 people were killed and more than a dozen were wounded by an Israeli strike in the Lebanese town of Barja, a largely Sunni Muslim area outside of southern Beirut, according to Lebanon’s health ministry. Earlier in the day, one person was killed and 20 others were wounded in the nearby town of Jiyeh, a popular summer resort destination along the coast, according to the health ministry.

Rawan Sheikh Ahmad, Nick Cumming-Bruce, Nader Ibrahim and Euan Ward contributed reporting.

What’s at Stake for Mexico in a Second Trump Presidency?

Donald Trump has won the 2024 presidential election. Follow live updates and results.

Few places in the Americas stand to be as jolted by a new Trump presidency as Mexico, the nation of nearly 130 million people that the president-elect made the target of numerous threats during his campaign.

Now as Donald Trump prepares to return to the White House, Mexico finds itself again at the center of his aggressive stances on trade, immigration and drug trafficking.

Despite a sharp decline in border crossings this year after Mexico emerged as an enforcer of the Biden administration’s migration restrictions, Mr. Trump’s campaign vows suggest a complex and contentious road ahead.

He is promising steep tariffs, renegotiated trade deals and even military intervention against cartels. How Mexico’s leaders, under President Claudia Sheinbaum, navigate this landscape will be pivotal, potentially setting the tone for North American diplomacy for years to come.

Here are four things to know about how a newly elected Mr. Trump might reshape the United States’ relations with Mexico.

Like his predecessor, Mr. Trump has big plans for remaking America’s immigration system. But their visions could not be more different.

Illegal crossings at the border are at their lowest levels in more than four years. Still, Mr. Trump has said his government would hire 10,000 new agents to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border and proposed using some of the military’s budget for border security.

“We’ve seen what Trump does. What he is proposing is the 3.0 version of the same increased pressures on Mexico,” said Tonatiuh Guillén, a former head of Mexico’s National Migration Institute, adding that in 2019 Mr. Trump’s demands led Mexico to take a militarized approach to enforcement.

“Mexico gave in to the pressures back then, and the question is whether Mexico will give in again,” Mr. Guillén added. “I think the likelihood it will is high.”

For the past two U.S. administrations, Mexico effectively turned into an extension of the White House’s border policies. It became the wall, some analysts have said, that Mr. Trump vowed to build during his first term.

However, this election could lead the United States to enact new transit and entry bans, further tightening the border.

“Many immigrants would not be able to enter through regular pathways, as they are doing now, or they would be very quickly turned back from the United States,” said Ariel Ruiz Soto, a senior policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute in Washington.

Mr. Trump has also vowed to carry out the largest deportation program in U.S. history, targeting many of the estimated 11 million undocumented migrants living in the United States.

Undocumented migrants are most commonly from Mexico, accounting for about four million people. While a mass deportation program would face legal and logistical challenges, Raul Hinojosa, director of U.C.L.A.’s North American Integration and Development Center, said that there are growing concerns about the effect that the such deportations could have on Mexico.

If Mexican migrants are sent home, much of the money they send back to Mexico — $63 billion in 2023 — would plummet, depleting Mexico’s economy of one of its most important sources of income, Mr. Hinojosa said.

Mexico could also find itself pressured, as in the past, to accept Venezuelans, Nicaraguans or Cubans, who are sometimes unable to be deported to their origin countries for diplomatic reasons.

Unemployment in Mexico would also increase, with many of the deportees in the suddenly larger labor force looking for jobs.

“We’re going to see deportees who are harder to reintegrate,” said Eunice Rendón, the coordinator of Migrant Agenda, a coalition of migrant advocacy groups.

Taken together, Mexico’s economy could be pushed into a sharp recession, according to a study by researchers from U.C.L.A., the Petersen Institute for International Economics and the U.S. Naval Academy.

Mr. Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on Mexico, which has eclipsed China to become the largest source of imports in the United States. At one of his last rallies, he vowed to immediately place 25 percent tariffs on all goods from Mexico unless the government halts the flow of migrants and drugs to the United States.

That could send shock waves across Mexico, which is exceptionally dependent on trade with the United States. Around 80 percent of its exports go to the American market, according to Capital Economics, a research firm based in London.

“Mexico now looks potentially like the most exposed major economy” to Trump tariffs, said William Jackson, Capital Economics’ chief emerging markets economist.

Mr. Trump has also threatened to impose 100 percent tariffs — or even 200 percent — on vehicles imported from Mexico. That could deal a staggering blow to an industry that exports nearly $90 billion of finished vehicles to the United States, accounting for about 5 percent of Mexico’s G.D.P.

But given how deeply connected production chains are between Mexico and the United States, a move like this would likely harm American companies and consumers as well.

“Trump calls himself ‘The Tariff Man,’” said Pedro Casas, the general director of the American Chamber of Commerce of Mexico. “If you put 25 percent tariffs on everything exported from Mexico today, you’ll cause an inflationary shock in the U.S. market. I mean, that is not viable.”

During his previous term, Mr. Trump suggested shooting missiles into Mexico to take out drug labs. Other Republicans leaders have since embraced the idea of using U.S. military force against cartels in Mexican territory — even without Mexico’s consent.

In an interview with Fox News in July, Mr. Trump was asked whether he was prepared to use military force against Mexican drug cartels. “Absolutely,” Mr. Trump said. “Mexico’s going to have to straighten it out really fast, or the answer is absolutely.”

Such a move would be “extremely damaging” for the U.S.-Mexico relationship, said Rebecca Bill Chavez, head of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based research institute. It could jeopardize all cooperation between the two countries, she said, including commercial ties, but also efforts to control the flow of U.S.-bound migrants and drugs, such as fentanyl.

Mexican officials have warned that violation of the country’s sovereignty will not be tolerated.

“We are a country that must be respected,” Roberto Velasco Álvarez, the top North American official in Mexico’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, told The New York Times last year. “We are not anyone’s colony or protectorate.”

Others caution that military strikes on cartels or targeted assassinations of their leaders may barely affect the drug flow into the United States.

Time and again during the decades-long drug wars in Latin America, similar efforts actually opened the way for new suppliers to muscle into the drug trade — as Mexican cartels did in the 1990s when Colombian cartels were on the decline.

“Maybe you get some heads put on a post, or whatever the 21st-century equivalent of that would be,” said Christopher Fettweis, a political science professor at Tulane University. “It’s not going to actually stop drugs from coming in.

Ms. Sheinbaum has repeatedly said that Mexico would collaborate with any U.S. leader, including Mr. Trump. “There is no reason to worry,” she told reporters on Wednesday morning. “There will be good relations with the United States, I am convinced of that.”

Earlier this week, Mr. Trump said at a rally in Raleigh, N.C., that he would inform her “on Day 1 or sooner” that if Mexico did not stop an “onslaught” of criminals and drugs, he would immediately impose tariffs.

Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Ms. Sheinbaum’s predecessor and mentor, also faced Mr. Trump’s promised tariffs. He diffused those threats by deploying Mexico’s armed forces to manage the flow of migrants. The informal agreement between Mr. López Obrador and Mr. Trump was that Mexico would manage migration issues, while the White House would refrain from interfering in Mexico’s domestic affairs.

The strategy worked for Mr. López Obrador — who shares a populist, larger-than-life personality with Mr. Trump — to the point that he boasted, on several occasions, how he had convinced Mr. Trump to moderate his decisions.

It is unclear whether Ms. Sheinbaum will have the same influence on Mr. Trump. But on her Tuesday news conference, she seemed to send a message for both Democrats and Republicans. “Sometimes they don’t have enough information,” she said, “about the effort that Mexico has made to reduce migration.”

In Trump, Netanyahu Sees a More Favorable U.S. President

In Trump, Netanyahu Sees a More Favorable U.S. President

There is a belief in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing Israeli government that a Trump administration will allow it to end its wars on favorable terms.

Isabel Kershner

Reporting from Jerusalem

Only a few hours had passed since Donald J. Trump was elected president, when Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, announced that he had already spoken to the U.S. president-elect, noting he was “among the first” to call him.

It was further evidence of the enthusiasm Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing government feels — it had already been celebrating Mr. Trump’s victory since breakfast local time on Wednesday as if it had just won the American election itself.

Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s ultranationalist minister of national security, posted a festive “Yesssss” on social media, along with emojis of a flexed biceps muscle and the Israeli and American flags, even before the last polls had closed in Alaska.

Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like.

By Firing Gallant, Netanyahu Removes One Threat but Risks Another

News Analysis

By Firing Gallant, Netanyahu Removes One Threat but Risks Another

Yoav Gallant, the departing defense minister, opposed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on key policies. His dismissal has stirred public discontent.

Patrick Kingsley

reporting from Jerusalem

By dismissing his defense minister, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has consolidated his hold over his coalition by removing his main internal critic, making it easier for him to set wartime policy in the short term.

But the move also comes with long-term risks. By firing a popular rival who had opposed some of his most divisive policies, Mr. Netanyahu has fueled criticism that he thinks his personal survival is more important than the national interest.

The departing minister, Yoav Gallant, had broken with Mr. Netanyahu by pressing for a cease-fire with Hamas, saying it was the only way to free dozens of Israeli hostages held by the group in Gaza. On the domestic front, Mr. Gallant had pushed to scrap an exemption from military service for ultra-Orthodox Jews, a measure that risked collapsing Mr. Netanyahu’s government because it angered its ultra-Orthodox members.

“Netanyahu saw Gallant as the opposition within his own coalition,” said Nadav Shtrauchler, a political analyst and former strategist for Mr. Netanyahu. “Now, it will be easier for him to go in his own direction, not just politically, but militarily and strategically.”

Mr. Netanyahu swiftly denied that he would use Mr. Gallant’s departure to fire other senior members of the security establishment. Still, commentators speculated that after replacing Mr. Gallant with Israel Katz, who is expected to be a more pliant defense minister, Mr. Netanyahu would find it easier to remove the military chief of staff, Herzi Halevi.

On a similar note, the re-election of Donald J. Trump on Wednesday may temper any backlash in Washington over Mr. Gallant’s dismissal. The Biden administration saw Mr. Gallant as a trusted partner, especially as its relations with Mr. Netanyahu soured, but the election result has further reduced its influence over the prime minister’s thinking.

“Maybe the Biden administration people didn’t like his firing, but by Jan. 20, you will have Trump,” said Itamar Rabinovich, a former Israeli ambassador to Washington. Mr. Netanyahu is “not very much concerned” by the Biden administration’s frustrations, Mr. Rabinovich said.

Still, the move still comes with potential costs for Mr. Netanyahu.

In firing the defense minister, Mr. Netanyahu has drawn accusations that he is prioritizing personal goals over national ones to appease far-right and ultra-Orthodox members of his coalition. And the move suggested that he will press ahead with policies that are either deeply unpopular, in the case of the exemption for the ultra-Orthodox, or at least polarizing — like his refusal to compromise in the cease-fire negotiations with Hamas.

Neither move will immediately bring down his government, but they could both damage him in a future election.

As Israel fights the longest war in its history, some Israelis are completing their third tours of reserve duty in Gaza or Lebanon. That has raised questions among soldiers about why they should shoulder the burden on the battlefield while Mr. Netanyahu allows ultra-Orthodox Jews to avoid military service.

The resentment over that imbalance could rise over time, even within Mr. Netanyahu’s base, much of which is conservative and religious but still serves in the military.

In a sign of widespread discontent over Mr. Netanyahu’s decision to fire Mr. Gallant, tens of thousands of protesters spilled into the streets in Israel on Tuesday night, blocking a major highway, while newspaper columnists wrote strong condemnations in the Wednesday papers.

“Netanyahu’s sacred principle, his only principle: clinging to power at any cost,” Nadav Eyal wrote in a column for Yediot Ahronot, a centrist newspaper.

“If you, the brave reservist who served 230 days this year, whose children do not sleep at night, whose businesses have suffered, whose relationships with your spouses have suffered — if you have to pay a price so that Netanyahu can close a deal with the ultra-Orthodox, you will pay,” Mr. Eyal added.

The anger has been compounded by recent allegations that Mr. Netanyahu’s office illegally obtained secret documents from the military and leaked them to foreign news outlets in order to torpedo a deal to pause the war in Gaza and free the hostages held there. Mr. Netanyahu has denied the claims and one person in his office has been arrested.

By firing Mr. Gallant, Mr. Netanyahu is “evidently calculating that it will only be a short-term firestorm and he will then be left in a better position,” said Michael Koplow, an analyst at the Israel Policy Forum, a New York-based research group.

But his support for the policies opposed by Mr. Gallant “will cost him in the long term,” Mr. Koplow said. “So even if his short term calculation is correct, he may turn out to be penny-wise and pound-foolish.”

On issues that matter most to Israel’s critics, like the conduct of Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon, Mr. Gallant was fairly aligned with Mr. Netanyahu.

Prosecutors at the International Criminal Court sought arrest warrants for both men in relation to the Gaza offensive. It was Mr. Gallant who played a bigger day-to-day role in managing a campaign against Hamas that has killed tens of thousands of Gazans and damaged most of the enclave’s buildings. Mr. Gallant was also one of the first ministers to push for the killing of Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, months before the government signed off on his assassination.

But within Israel, Mr. Gallant was seen as a thorn in Mr. Netanyahu’s side.

His public disputes with the prime minister began several months before the war, when in March 2023 he spoke out against Mr. Netanyahu’s efforts to overhaul the judicial system. Mr. Netanyahu fired him days later, only to rescind his dismissal after mass protests swept the country.

During the war, Mr. Gallant had spoken publicly about Palestinian governance in postwar Gaza, an idea that Mr. Netanyahu had avoided discussing in detail for fear of angering far-right allies who seek to settle Jewish civilians in the territory.

And Mr. Gallant had developed a strong and independent relationship with the Biden administration, irking Mr. Netanyahu, whose relationship with President Biden has become fractious even as the president continues to arm and fund Israel’s military.

Johnatan Reiss and Gabby Sobelman contributed reporting.

Tiny Homes Face the Ax in Hong Kong, Leaving Many Families Worried

As she surveyed her home in Hong Kong, Liu Lanhua tried not to be bothered that her narrow kitchen doubled as the family’s only bathroom.

Colanders, pans and hairbrushes dangled above the toilet. Jars of chili oil were precariously balanced on water pipes. A stew of chicken wings and chestnuts warmed on an electric stove a few feet from the shower faucet.

She and her 12-year-old daughter are among 220,000 people in Hong Kong living in subdivided homes, which have long been among the starkest examples of the city’s vast income inequality.

Now her home is under threat. Hong Kong’s leader, John Lee, last month announced that the city would impose minimum standards on the size and fixtures of such apartments. The policy is expected to phase out more than 30,000 of the smallest subdivided homes.

In Ms. Liu’s home, there was no space for a sink; the only spot for two pet turtles was in a basin under the fridge. “If we had money, these would be in separate rooms,” she said, looking at the cluttered kitchen and toilet.

Beijing has urged the Hong Kong government to get rid of subdivided units and other tiny homes by 2049, because it regards the city’s housing shortage as one cause of the antigovernment unrest of 2019.

But Mr. Lee’s plan has raised concerns among experts and advocates of more public housing, who say it would raise already high rents for the poor and evict a number of people without clear plans for their resettlement. It also doesn’t address the worst types of housing in the city: rental bed spaces so small they are known as coffin, or cage, homes.

Hong Kong’s subdivided homes, created when apartments are carved into two or more units, are usually in old tenement buildings in densely packed, working-class neighborhoods. Despite their often dilapidated conditions, the units are in high demand because affordable housing is in short supply.

Hong Kong has among the world’s most expensive homes, and highest rents. The average living space per person is 64.6 square feet — less than half the size of a New York City parking space. Owners of tenement apartments partition the units into smaller ones to rent them to more people.

“These are effectively slums and the landlords are slumlords,” said Brian Wong, a researcher at the Liber Research Community, an independent group in Hong Kong focused on land use and urban issues.

He added that the landlords who rent out subdivided units are often upper-middle-class residents looking to maximize profits. Paradoxically, the rent price of such units, on a per-square-foot basis, is usually higher than that of larger private apartments.

Ms. Liu pays $500 a month for her home of about 80 square feet, about a quarter of what she earns working at a construction site. Her unit is in a 60-year-old tenement building with peeling pink and yellow paint in Kwun Tong, a district in east Kowloon that was once an industrial heartland, with cotton mills and a soy sauce factory.

“I will live where it’s cheap,” she said, adding that she wanted to pay for after-school classes for her daughter. She has been waiting for six years to move into public housing but has no idea when that might happen.

Ms. Liu and her daughter sleep on bunk beds in the 60-square-foot main room, pushed against windows that are covered with paper for privacy and always closed to keep rats out. Ms. Liu appreciates that her neighbors don’t complain when her belongings spill into common spaces.

Kwun Tong is the most densely populated district in Hong Kong, and the poorest. People are drawn to it for its connectivity and services. Ms. Liu moved there six years ago to take a housekeeping course. Her daughter rides two stops on the subway to attend public school and studies with a tutor nearby until dinnertime. Their apartment is close to a large wet market.

Ms. Liu’s home would not meet the standards required under the policy outlined by Mr. Lee, the city’s chief executive, which stipulates that each home must have a separate bathroom and kitchen. It would likely require significant renovation or remodeling.

The policy also calls for apartments to be at least 86 square feet and come with windows.

Ms. Liu’s bathroom and stove are in a narrow cubicle that is slightly more than 20 square feet, separated from the main room by a common hallway. There is one faucet but no shower cubicle or sink, so she soaks ingredients in a bowl on the floor. The fridge faces the toilet.

Merged toilet and kitchen setups like this are common in subdivided apartments. Some apartments come only with toilets or kitchens that are shared with other households.

The government estimates that 30 percent of the city’s 110,000 subdivided homes will fall short of the new standards.

The Housing Bureau said in a response to questions from The New York Times that the rules were needed to improve living conditions. It said it would inspect apartments and that landlords could face prison time for not complying with the rules.

The bureau also said that landlords would have a few years to renovate their units to meet the standards, and register them in a centralized system.

At a recent meeting between social workers with the Kwun Tong Subdivided Home Concern Group, a nonprofit, and residents of the district, questions were raised about the government’s plan. What are the standards for a proper toilet? If rents go up, will the government provide tenants with subsidies? Will those evicted be given priority in housing wait-lists?

“The standards have been raised but our finances haven’t,” said Moon Tang, a mother of three. She also wondered what would happen to people if they were evicted. “If they had money, they would have rented a more expensive space in the first place,” she said. “Where do they go?”

In its emailed response to questions, the Housing Bureau said the government would “adopt a gradual and orderly approach” to the changes and would help residents “where necessary.” Most affected tenants would be able to turn to an increased supply of permanent and temporary public housing apartments by the time the rules come into force in the coming years, it said.

Experts note, however, that the new policy also fails to address problems faced by those living in “cage homes” or “coffin homes” — bed spaces separated by wired metal or panels of wood. (Such spaces are regulated by a separate law.)

Siu Ming Chan, an assistant professor at the City University of Hong Kong who researches poverty and housing, said the rules could lead to a rise in rents, making apartments even more unaffordable. The government should increase subsidies for those affected by the policy, many of whom are older and live alone, he added.

Ben Shek, 68, a former technician who lives alone in a 60-square-foot Kwun Tong apartment that would likely be considered substandard, does not want to move. He suffered a stroke more than a decade ago that left him with a limp and unable to work. He shares a bathroom with two other families, inside a carpentry workshop. He likes his place because it is on the ground floor, making it easy for him to get around.

“Since I’m not working anymore, I don’t get to have too many expectations,” he said. “And even if I did, they can’t be too high.”

Germany’s Coalition Collapses, Leaving the Government Teetering

Sign up for the On Politics newsletter.  Your guide through Election Day and beyond, with the latest race results, expert analysis and key takeaways.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz fired his finance minister on Wednesday, effectively ending his three-party ruling coalition and destabilizing his center-left government just as the election of Donald J. Trump in the United States presented Europe with new economic and security challenges.

“I would have liked to have spared you this difficult decision,” said Mr. Scholz during an impromptu news conference in the chancellery on Wednesday evening after several days of talks aimed at salvaging the coalition. “Especially in times like these, when uncertainty is growing,” he added.

Mr. Scholz vowed to keep governing until the end of the year and then to demand a confidence vote in Parliament in January, a test he may fail. That would open the way for early elections, a rarity in Germany since World War II, possibly in March.

The extraordinary trouble in Berlin leaves the European Union evermore rudderless at a particularly difficult time. France’s government is in a crisis after elections there this year yielded a deadlocked Parliament, and Russia has made important advances on the battlefield in Ukraine and continues to threaten Europe broadly.

Now Europe faces the possibility of a trade war with the United States and a weakening of the NATO alliance — both of which Mr. Trump has threatened — as Germany, its most populous country, becomes mired in political instability as well.

The collapse of the coalition in Germany came after the leaders of the three parties — Mr. Scholz’s Social Democrats, the left-leaning Greens and the pro-business Free Democrats — had mostly stopped talking to each other in recent weeks over widening disputes in negotiations for a new federal budget.

On Wednesday night the resentment between Mr. Scholz and Christian Lindner, the leader of the Free Democrats and his finance minister, who spoke with reporters 30 minutes after the chancellor, was on clear display.

“Olaf Scholz has sadly shown that he does not have the strength to give our country a new start,” said Mr. Lindner, who called Mr. Scholz’s suggestions to promote economic growth “dull and unambitious.”

Mr. Scholz told reporters that Mr. Lindner had acted irresponsibly for not being willing to compromise.

The coalition, which has governed Germany since the former chancellor, Angela Merkel, left office in 2021, was an uneasy set of political bedfellows from the start. It was the first three-party coalition since the early 1960s, one of the reasons, many in the government say, for its instability, frequent leaks and paralysis.

The coalition’s collapse is stunning for a country long known for plodding and predictable consensus that avoided the political gyrations of some of its more volatile European partners. It may signal a new era of political instability for Germany, as populist parties on the far right and far left gain more popularity on a fracturing political landscape.

Speculation about a collapse of the coalition had grown since last week after Mr. Lindner wrote a position paper, leaked to the news media, that challenged the progressive fiscal policies of his two left-of-center coalition partners.

Many of his proposals, like the end to national climate policies or cuts to social services, appeared designed to antagonize them. Experts saw the paper as Mr. Lindner’s attempt to get himself pushed out of the coalition without having to leave it himself. The opposition, which has been calling for an end to the coalition, called it the “divorce document.”

Mr. Scholz and Robert Habeck, Germany’s economy minister and member of the Greens party, had initially tried to hold the coalition together. Calling for “pragmatism” in a post on social media on Monday, Mr. Scholz continued: “Coalition governments can sometimes be challenging. But the government is elected, and there are issues that need to be resolved.”

At the heart of the dispute was a roughly 10 billion euro, or $10.7 billion, hole in the 2025 budget.

On Monday Mr. Habeck sought to keep Mr. Lindner in the government by offering him several billion euros earmarked as a subsidy for a planned Intel factory to help balance the budget. “This is the worst time for the government to fail,” he told reporters then.

On Wednesday, Mr. Habeck called the firing “as logical as it is unnecessary,” saying that many offers were on the table to meet Mr. Lindner’s economic demands.

On Wednesday, Mr. Scholz announced that his Social Democrats would govern with the Green Party as a minority government until at least the end of the year. They will need to secure parliamentary majorities on a case-by-case to pass any laws.

On some issues — notably aid to Ukraine, rebuilding the military and cracking down on immigration — they might be able to count on the support of the opposition Christian Democrats, who have similar views on them.

Germany is Europe’s biggest economy and the biggest contributor to the E.U. budget; they need to have certainty,” said Sudha David-Wilp, the Berlin-based regional director of the German Marshall Fund, a think tank. “And a minority government means instability for the country and its partners in Europe,” she added.

Ultimately such an arrangement can only work with the tacit support of the conservative Christian Democratic Union, or C.D.U., the biggest opposition party that is leading opinion polls to win the next election.

“We cannot afford this unstable government a single day longer,” Carsten Linnemann, the party’s secretary general, told the German tabloid Bild earlier this week.

The Scholz coalition had billed itself as a restart from the sleepy Merkel years. The partners successfully managed pressing problems early in its term after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 and Germany stopped importing Russian gas.

But a ruling by the country’s highest court in 2023 forced the government to make drastic cuts in the budget, leading to strife among the partners over the limit on borrowing that is anchored into the constitution.

The final break comes against the backdrop of a stagnant German economy, which is expected to contract by 0.2 percent in 2024, the second year in a row that Germany has stagnated. The country is the weakest member of the Group of 7 and among nations using the euro currency.

In a sign of deepening woes, Volkswagen, Germany’s largest industrial employer, is threatening major job cuts and factory closures as it struggles to return its flagship brand to profitability.

With Mr. Lindner’s insistence on economic reforms and his exit from the government, he appears to have picked the timing of his election campaign.

His Free Democratic Party has been struggling to break 5 percent support in the polls, the threshold for entering Parliament. Leaving the government on a principled stance could allow Mr. Lindner to pick up voter support for the next election whenever it is held.

Melissa Eddy contributed reporting.