these are the top stories -- u.s. president joe biden has announced measures to limit the surge in omicron cases including expended testing, support for hospitals, more vaccinations. he has stopped short, though, of calling for another lockdown. >> all these people who have not been vaccinated, you have an obligation to yourselves, to your family, and, quite frankly -- and i'm going to be criticized for this -- to your country. get vaccinated now.

it is free. it is convenient. i promise you, it saves lives. >> israel now said to offer a fourth dose of the covid-19 vaccine for people aged over 60. the prime minister says it will help overcome the spread of the omicron variant. the decision comes after israel reported its first death related to omicron. that was on tuesday. in the u.k., the government has announced a $1.3 billion support package for businesses affected by the omicron outbreak. prime minister boris johnson says tighter coronavirus measures will be considered but only after christmas. and some other headlines for you, sudan's prime minister close to stepping down. he was removed in a military takeover in october but was reinstated last month after signing a deal with the military. protesters called that agreement a betrayal. in libya, the presidential election is likely to be

postponed after a dispute over the rules and regulations. there has been no official announcement that the vote is delayed, but the head of the electoral commission has dissolved the electoral committees and polling stations have been told to stop their work. in the u.s., the trial of a former police officer charged with killing a black motorist. the jury has been told to carry on deliberating if they fail to reach consensus on a verdict. kim potter has pleaded not guilty to manslaughter, saying shipment to use her taser but drew her gun instead and shot daunte wright. the killing triggered nationwide protests. those are your headlines from al jazeera. the latest on "inside story" is next. ♪

>> the promise of a new beginning for libya could be slipping away, despite months of negotiations and preparations, the country's first presidential elections will not happen as planned. this is "inside story." hello and welcome to the program. libya was among the arab spring nations, and since the revolution toppled the government a decade ago, it has not known piece power political stability, but after months of arduous negotiations and international mediation, their work fresh hopes for the future.

they signed a united nations cease-fire deal and agreed to hold elections on december 24, but the head of the electoral commission has now dissolved all electoral committees just days before polling stations were due to open. the future for libya is again unclear, and the united nations peace plan hangs by a threat. we have this report from the capital, tripoli. >> we are just a few days away from the scheduled first round of presidential elections in libya, and it is becoming clear that the vote will be delayed, but there has not been a government institution or any senior officials that have been willing to announce the postponement. the electoral commission has said that it is the parliament's responsibility to announce the postponement. parliament has turned back and said it is the electoral commission that should tell the

libyan people why there was a postponement, and there's also been a lot of controversial figures that have put in their bid to run in the presidential elections, including muammar gaddafi's second son. he is wanted by the international criminal court for crimes against humanity. you have an eastern libyan who has been accused of war crimes in his failed attempt to capture the capital, tripoli, militarily. you also have the prime minister who when he took on the position signed a promissory note that he would not run for elections. for now, what is clear is that these elections are not going to happen and we are waiting for an official announcement by the electoral commission or the parliament. >> we will bring in our guest in

a moment, but first, let's look at how we got to this point. libya has been in turmoil since an uprising toppled muammar gaddafi in 2011. in the years after that, different political groups backed by international powers competed mostly through violence to gain control. in 2015, the government of national accord was formed in the west and with backing from the united nations, it was meant to serve as an interim government in libya after this turmoil, but the following year, the administration backed by a warlord voted against approving it and cooperation between both ends of libya broke down. since then, there have been years of war and attempts to take control of the capital by force. finally and after months of united nations-backed negotiations, the two sides agreed to a cease-fire in march and formed a unity government pending elections this month.

let's bring in our guest from paris, a journalist whose -- who specializes in libyan politics. and an expert in north africa affairs and board member with the institute of saharan studies. thank you for joining us. the general feeling was that basically the 24th of december was going to be the culmination of a mammoth task that started years ago that would have paved the way for presidential elections, and that was going to be the moment when people were going to say violence and instability is over. that is not happening anymore. >> first of all, thank you for having me. you are right. it is not happening anymore. even if a last-minute dash is

trumped up somehow by local actors or national actors, in this case, it would be quite difficult. the election commission has failed so far to publish the finalist contestants of the presidential election. it was required by law to give them some time to campaign, something like two weeks' time to campaign before the elections, and that time has never been granted. the permission to do the campaigning has never been given by the commission, so there is no election in december, for sure. >> the election commission had dissolved for sure. the decision to delay the election, was it purely a domestic issue, or do you think

international intervention plays a role here? >> libya has become a theater for great power competition, and i think that's why so much of today's conundrum of deciding if they will have elections, tells you a lot about libya's history with foreign actors, with many of the local actors themselves that were responsible for fighting in the last several years were actually mercenaries that did not hold the emblem of either faction for were working on behalf of international actors. what comes to the root of this is that the actual sequence of events since january 2020, since the berlin process decided there was going to be an end to the conflict and the beginning of a new chapter, so much

international interference has taken place, the electoral commission had to dissolve its local committees, but that is just the crest of the tide. it is not really the deeper endemic symptoms of what has been going on for many weeks. could that be as destructive to the kind of settlement that many international actors have been trying to preside over, a two-horse race, not a three-horse race? the actual supreme court has been for several moments and has now been reshaped and reassembled. there has to be a determination on the process. there are so many shaky and faulty foundations that we cannot just label it a responsibility of one commission. >> should we be concerned about what is next for libya? >> first of all, anyone who has

been following the libyan conflict can definitely easily pinpoint, perceive, and say -- this is due first of all to several device seekers. because of the lack of agreement over the powers of the next government, i think that in terms of -- you know, on the ground, in terms of the situation on the ground, there are many who want the elections. they want the vote. they did not want the vote on a specific date. so i think that i would call it

a technical delay of the elections, not something that would cause significant tension at the level of the population, and it might cause however, tension and maneuvering at the level of not only the political club, but also other groups. the fight is now over the electoral process for whoever controls what happens next, so i think that whatever has been done by the united nations representative definitely needs to continue, but i would put it really as a technical deal. >> was it a major failure of the legal institutions of libya to say to some candidates they will not be able to run for elections because they did not meet the standards or had pending legal

issues? and then they decided it is better for libya not to go for presidential elections? >> i don't really see it as a failure of the judiciary in the country because the judiciary is actually not very concerned about this. they say it should not have anything to do with this business except for the legal wrangling that has taken place early on at this stage of candidates submitting their files to the commission for the presidential election. they played their role nicely

and quietly despite what they faced when judges could not access the court building for a few days, but they did finally and decided what should be done. they decided that legally speaking, which is their role, it does not have any problems. if they have some kind of legal problems, i don't think those judges who gave them the green light would have hesitated to give them the red light, so the judiciary should be out this week, and on the other hand, it is not the job of the judiciary of the country to decide politically if this candidate is a divisive figure or not or can he actually govern the country if he wins the election.

it is not their business. what is happening now, the different local political actors are trying to blame the judiciary where their thinking is shared by the electoral commission as well as the parliament. >> the united nations said it was crucial for libya to have presidential elections. yes, the international community said it was paramount for stability in the country, but when you end up having three key players, people were concerned that the winner most likely was just going to further tear apart libya, so it is better not to have elections than to have elections with divisive figures? >> those divisive figures, you rightly mentioned, bring the prospect because they are

military figures of more war, not peace. to get back to what your other guest was saying, the court is not there to decide if they are politically acceptable. the court is there to decide if they are criminals. in all three cases, there's good evidence to suggest they have all committed various crimes. so if he has been found guilty in up center for his role in 2011, others have left libya covered in crime scene tape over the last years, but i think if anyone is under the illusion he was not responsible, his own forces have been sharing postings on social media for years. the paper also has financial questions about his role for the beginning of the year but also

how he amassed -- his clan amassed billions over several years, but the big question is that they head speaker has not passed the law. they had speaker past no law. when it comes to the idea of not only who these candidates are and their divisive nature, it is not just that. these conditions are not conducive to peace. they are not conducive, in fact, to democracy. you have a legacy of a strong man who can never leave power. the second aspect is they are presiding over violent states, which is absurd because if you can elect someone to be your president but does not preside over a subservient state, does not preside over a military that will accept their commander that rules, this is not the state that they want to obey, so it

also makes no sense, especially in january 2020, they began the business that was supposed to culminate with the elections, not begin with elections. the real question i have today is not about being delayed or postponed for political expedients or to have candidates divisive or less divisive, but what kind of state do you want to bring in, is this going to usher in this process today or in two weeks or two decades, will it usher in a democracy? will it allow democrats to fulfill their democratic rights or rob them of their democratic rights? >> yes, the international community was hoping to have presidential elections that would bring about someone that would ultimately unify libya. when you look at the profiles of the three candidates, it is very much clear no one will be able to unify a libya that has been divided for quite some time. >> actually, since november

2020, the institution has wanted to have elections on december 24 and to have a parliamentary election the same day, we are talking about the international community over the last year that they have become something that would protect as a holy grail the international focus on these elections in a way that was quite striking, as there was very little discussion, very little thought on what it would be like post-elections. they did not mention these people, and from a european perspective, it had been interesting to see how the europeans had been, i would say, battling for relevance after the tripoli offensive, and we have seen the french and italians coming together, but i think what is more important now is

that we see how turkey and russia, which are still the main external powerbrokers inside libya, what is happening is really interesting in the last few days. we have seen countries that have an constantly dropping references to december 24, in their announcement -- public pronouncements, so there has been deterrence in language, but what is interesting is that early this week, the foreign minister of russia said that moscow has not had any problems in delaying elections. in fact, russia is the only international player so far that has come out and said something about those elections. i think the international

community did not mention much these people other than, you know, they felt that the international -- libya is not ready for the elections. >> in the meantime, should they -- should the internal government step in to prevent a power vacuum in libya? >> there's a lot of debate about the issue and having a caretaker government, but to have a different government, first of all, it has to be commonly accepted, widely accepted, and i don't think that will happen easily. today, the information i'm getting, there is a lot of mobilization of malicious with english armaments around different parts of the city, especially western parts of the

city and eastern parts of the city. many accuse -- many are accused of wasting public money in an election campaign, and he has created some kind of face for him. determining what is the next goal could be quite difficult to do. it could spark something like internal fighting among the supporting malicious themselves, and, of course, in his base as well. >> the rationale behold -- behind this whole political process was basically following these premises, first of all, to bridge the divide, we need to have a national government, hoping that one day we will have a president who will be a strong

man of libya, that will pave the way for parliamentary elections, and that democracy would prevail in libya. that's not happening any time soon. >> i think we have to have a sequence process that tackles the reasons why many of the actors can go to war. there's no danger of the two that have an authoritarian legacy of becoming authoritarians if the institutions themselves are not owned by their tribal cane for their children, as has been the case now as they previously controlled the army. if you have an institution that is neutral, then you are ok. it is not about libyans themselves wanting to go with war with each other, it is the capacity to bring more.

though i would agree with what was mentioned in terms of capacity to just canvas the roads using populism and using money that has been badly spent over the last year, but all those are just distractions. the root cause is that the militia formations will not be unified if we have a political unity government or a combination of three or a little bit of peace, a little bit of rest, it does not work that way. it does seem the factions came to an agreement to stop fighting but have not bridged the divide to unify under a subservient state, then libya will have another war, irrespective of the election today or tomorrow. the proof will be in the pudding. unless they prioritize the state link and how spoilers can prioritize the process and drag libya back to war, we will almost be at square one. i would argue we have never left square one. >> in the meantime, we are

waiting for authorities to come back and say we will have elections january, february, or march. do you think the troops, those who have benefited in libya will use this for more political leverage? >> of course they will, but business as usual is no longer an option. it would be very delusional to believe that this small transition to democracy is possible, why these thousands of foreign forces and mercenaries are still roaming the country. if it is a technical delay, be it. as long as these -- as long as there are these thousand foreign mercenaries, i think the situation will stay the same, so only when foreign mercenaries and forces are forced to leave can we regain sovereignty and recover from a decade-long war. the fact that the industrial

consequences, that the scenario would have on the well-being of the people of libya, i think prolonging the conflict will provide ground for the islamic state and other terrorist groups in the region. >> in less than a minute, do you think they will be talking about for quite some time east/-- the divide we have been talking about for quite some time of east and west is becoming more east/south where you have gaddafi loyalists? >> i'm not sure. the possibility that somebody as president could unify the country, that's what happened in a short time or even in 10 years time, the [indiscernible] is there going to be a rush to

war for example of something like this? i don't think there will be. there is no momentum and nobody is interested in war now, but that does not mean it is not an option on the table right now. as i said, mobilization is quite high today. >> quite interesting to look into the different elements of the libyan puzzle. we really appreciate your insight. thank you, too, for watching. you can see the program again at any time by visiting our website. for further discussion, go to our facebook page. you can also join the conversation on twitter. from the on the entire team in doha, goodbye for now.

■■■■■■■ donald trump: i'm establishing new vetting measures to keep radical islamic terrosts out of the united states of america. we don't want 'em here. lara kiswani: there's a stigma of arab people, muslim people in this country designed to perpetuate and justify the war on terror, and that's what a lot of arabs and muslims are facing today, sort of a really undignified struggle to just live. dr. ramzi salti: it takes courage to be able to stand up to racism, turn it into a positive moment a moment of learning where you actually use that moment to educate, to let people know about the rich diversity of your culture. lamees dahbour: we o