Feed aggregator

LISTEN:

New questions have emerged regarding the cancellation of an El Al flight from Eretz Yisroel to Newark that was diverted to Paris early Friday morning after one of the aircraft’s pilots experienced a medical emergency, leaving passengers scrambling to make alternative arrangements as Shabbos approached.

A passenger aboard Flight LY27 contacted Matzav.com following our original report, questioning whether the approaching onset of Shabbos adequately explained why the aircraft did not continue to Newark after landing in Paris.

The passenger also stated that a frum physician aboard the aircraft had treated the ailing pilot during the flight.

“There certainly was plenty of time for the plane to refuel and reembark to Newark,” said the passenger. “Indeed, many passengers were able to book flights back to the States which took off more than 6 hours after we landed. Also, the pilot was treated by a frum physician on board.”

The Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner had departed Ben Gurion Airport shortly after midnight Friday, October 23, bound for Newark Liberty International Airport. Several hours into the flight, one of the pilots reportedly became ill, prompting the crew to divert to Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, where the aircraft landed at approximately 5:30 a.m. local time.

Following the diversion, El Al canceled the remainder of the flight and began arranging alternative transportation for passengers wishing to continue to the United States. Others were accommodated at an airport hotel in Paris, where arrangements were made for kosher meals, minyanim, a Sefer Torah, and assistance from a local rav for Shabbos.

Initial aviation reports attributed the inability to continue the flight to the medical incident and the limited time remaining before Shabbos.

However, the passenger who contacted Matzav.com said that other flights departing considerably later were available to passengers traveling to the United States, raising questions about the specific circumstances that prevented the original El Al aircraft from continuing.

The availability of alternative flights does not necessarily establish that the El Al flight itself could have resumed. A medical emergency involving a pilot can create additional operational complications, including the need for a replacement pilot, crew-duty limitations, and other safety requirements.

Nevertheless, the precise reason for the cancellation of the original flight’s remaining segment has not been publicly clarified.

{Matzav.com}

It is with great sadness that Matzav.com reports the petirah of R’ Naftali Hirschfeld z”l. He was in his nineties.

R’ Naftoli was among the talmidim who had the extraordinary privilege of learning directly under Rav Aharon Kotler zt”l, rosh yeshiva of Beth Medrash Govoha, in Lakewood, whose vision and leadership transformed the landscape of Torah learning in America.

He belonged to the generation that knew Lakewood Yeshiva long before it became the enormous Torah institution recognized throughout the world today. In those early years, BMG was a relatively small but intensely dedicated makom Torah, where a select group of bnei Torah devoted themselves to learning under the personal guidance of Rav Aharon.

As one of Rav Aharon’s talmidim, R’ Naftoli was privileged to witness firsthand the rosh yeshiva‘s extraordinary dedication to Torah, his fiery shiurim, and the uncompromising standards that became the foundation of the Lakewood Yeshiva.

Over the years, R’ Naftoli was recognized as someone who possessed personal recollections of Rav Aharon, his approach to learning, and his leadership during the formative period of the American Torah world.

Those recollections carried particular significance as the years passed and the number of individuals who had personally learned under Rav Aharon steadily diminished.

Following his years in Lakewood, R’ Naftoli continued his involvement in harbotzas haTorah. At one point, he joined Rav Shmuel Feivelsohn in establishing a yeshiva in St. Louis, Missouri, bringing the dedication to Torah learning that characterized Rav Aharon’s talmidim to another American Jewish community.

Later in life, R’ Naftoli pursued a professional career and resided for many years in Queens, New York.

In more recent years, he lived in Lakewood with his son R’ Eli, returning to the community where he had spent his formative years learning under Rav Aharon.

R’ Naftoli and his contemporaries were part of the foundational generation of Beth Medrash Govoha, a group of talmidim whose commitment to Torah helped establish the mosad during an era when the concept of full-time, advanced Torah learning in America was still developing.

The petirah of R’ Naftoli marks the loss of another member of that remarkable generation.

The levayah will take place Sunday at 11 a.m. at the Congregation Sons of Israel Holocaust Memorial Chapel, located at 613 Ramsey Avenue in Lakewood, NJ.

Yehi zichro baruch.

{Matzav.com}

Rav Avraham Moshe Ziskind, rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Kesser Torah, delivered an emotional address at an emergency election gathering in Telz Stone, recounting a personal experience involving Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch that he said transformed his understanding of emunas chachomim. According to Rav Ziskind, guidance he received from Rav Hirsch regarding a difficult decision in his life proved accurate in every detail, despite having initially appeared impossible.

The account was shared during a large gathering in Kiryat Ye’arim, also known as Telz Stone, attended by thousands of residents, avreichim, and yeshiva bochurim ahead of the upcoming Knesset elections.

Among the Gedolei Yisroel seated at the dais were Rav Dov Landau and Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch, who have been leading efforts to address the challenges facing the Torah community during the election campaign.

Rav Ziskind was invited to deliver the concluding address. Rather than speaking exclusively about the elections, he chose to relate an experience from his own life that he said demonstrated Rav Hirsch’s extraordinary insight and ability to foresee developments that others considered impossible.

Opening his remarks, Rav Ziskind told the assembled crowd that he wanted to discuss the meaning of emunas chachomim, explaining that an experience several years earlier had brought him to an entirely different level of understanding.

“I need to share with you a subject called emunas chachomim,” he began. “I once stood at the level of emunas chachomim. But the Ribbono Shel Olam, several years ago, showed me something far greater than emunas chachomim!”

He then described a period when he was confronted with an exceptionally difficult personal decision, one that involved numerous complications and considerable uncertainty.

According to Rav Ziskind, every friend he consulted insisted that the step he was considering was simply not feasible.

Nevertheless, he turned to Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch for guidance and continued consulting with him repeatedly over an extended period.

“I had a very difficult step to take in my life, something extremely complicated and complex,” Rav Ziskind related. “All my friends told me that taking such a step was completely out of the question. I went in to Maran Rav Moshe Hillel, and I consulted with him many times over a long period.”

Rav Ziskind explained that the guidance he received was difficult for him to comprehend at the time. Each conversation left him wondering how the course of action Rav Hirsch recommended could possibly succeed.

Yet he was struck by the remarkable clarity and depth of Rav Hirsch’s words.

“Each time, I heard things from him that I could not understand. How could such a step possibly be taken? But every sentence I heard from Maran the rosh yeshiva was filled with such extraordinary insight, such honesty, faithfulness, dedication, and profound understanding.”

Although Rav Ziskind said he generally does not have a particularly strong memory for details, he explained that the precise words Rav Hirsch spoke during those consultations have remained with him throughout the intervening years.

“I am not someone who remembers many things, but the exact words I heard years ago from Rav Moshe Hillel are engraved in my memory. I could not believe or understand how a human being could say such things when all my friends were telling me it was impossible!”

The rosh yeshiva then described what happened in the years following those conversations.

Despite his own doubts and the objections of those around him, he had followed Rav Hirsch’s instructions because of the emunas chachomim with which he had been raised.

Over time, he said, events unfolded exactly as Rav Hirsch had predicted.

“It took several years, and the Ribbono Shel Olam taught me and showed me that every word that emerged from his holy mouth was divrei Elokim chaim! Things I never believed could happen in reality took place with absolute precision, exactly as he said!”

Rav Ziskind emphasized that following the guidance had been extraordinarily difficult, particularly because he could not envision how the situation would develop as Rav Hirsch had described.

“It was only because I had been raised with emunas chachomim that I followed his instructions, even though it was unbearably difficult. But I saw with my own eyes how everything I had thought impossible became a simple reality right before me!”

He explained that the experience fundamentally changed the way he understood the authority and guidance of Gedolei Yisroel.

What had previously been a matter of belief, he said, had become something he regarded as knowledge acquired through personal experience.

“That is why I tell you: For me, this has already gone beyond the category of emunah. It has become clear knowledge! The words of the Gedolei Hador are divrei Elokim chaim. The Ribbono Shel Olam gives them the very words to speak, that same ‘kol gadol velo yasaf’ from Maamad Har Sinai!”

Rav Ziskind’s account formed the centerpiece of his remarks, which concluded with an appeal to the assembled public regarding the upcoming elections.

He connected his experience of following Rav Hirsch’s guidance to the broader principle of accepting the direction of Gedolei Yisroel in communal matters.

Referring to the United Torah Judaism list, whose ballot symbol is Gimmel, Rav Ziskind characterized the vote as an expression of confidence in the rabbinic leadership rather than simply a choice between political parties.

“Therefore, voting Gimmel is not a matter of a political party, but a vote and an expression of confidence in the Gedolei and leaders of Klal Yisroel, who have guided us until today and who will continue to guide us forever!”

{Matzav.com}

Eliakim Stark, the 35-year-old Belzer chossid selected to replace longtime Knesset member Yisroel Eichler on the United Torah Judaism slate, has pledged to become a voice for working chareidim and younger members of the community, declaring that the growing population of chareidim who do not fit traditional communal categories can no longer be dismissed as a marginal group.

In his first extensive interview since being chosen as Belz’s new Knesset candidate, Stark also disclosed his close personal friendship with Motti Leitner, chairman of the newly established HaTzibur HaChareidi party, which is competing against United Torah Judaism in the upcoming elections.

Speaking with Yishai Cohen in the Kikar HaShabbat studio, Stark discussed his unexpected entry into national politics, the circumstances surrounding Eichler’s departure, his position on the military draft controversy, and his plans to introduce a more accessible style of political representation.

Stark, who was born in Belgium, moved to Eretz Yisroel at age 16 to study at the Belzer yeshiva in Rishon LeZion. He subsequently served as a rosh chaburah at Yeshivas Mir before becoming involved in communal affairs within Belz.

His selection as the chassidus’s Knesset representative came shortly before the deadline for submitting party lists, marking a significant generational change in Belz’s political leadership.

Stark described the transition from Eichler, who has represented Belz in the Knesset for many years, as an unusually warm and respectful process.

Rather than portraying the change as a political confrontation, he recalled visiting Eichler at his home and discussing how they could publicly demonstrate the cordial nature of the transition.

“I called him as I normally do and asked, ‘Rav Yisroel, can I come up now? They are supposed to make the change. I understand that you have heard about it, that you know, and that you are waiting.’ He said, ‘Yes, yes, come up now,’” Stark related.

“I went up to his home, and he was waiting for me with his radiant smile. We entered the room, talked, laughed, and joked, and said: Let us do this so that all of Klal Yisroel can see how beautiful it is.”

Stark also cited remarks made by the son of the Belzer Rebbe, who was involved in the process leading to his selection.

“Sending a chareidi person to the Knesset requires very broad shoulders, and it must be done in the cleanest possible manner, with genuine consultation, thorough consideration, and all sides presented before the Rebbe, who then made the decision completely and unequivocally, rather than merely agreeing after the fact.”

According to Stark, his appointment followed a process in which the relevant considerations were presented to the Belzer Rebbe before the final decision was made.

Throughout the interview, Stark repeatedly emphasized his intention to establish a closer relationship between elected representatives and the younger generation of chareidim.

He argued that younger voters increasingly expect their representatives to explain decisions, engage in open discussion, and address concerns that might previously have received little attention.

“The plans for the Knesset are to bring a young spirit to the representation,” Stark declared. “I don’t want all the formalities surrounding me. I am part of you. I see it as a mission to involve the younger generation. The younger generation demands what it deserves, but it is not prepared to take for granted everything that has existed here all these years.”

To illustrate his approach, Stark recalled an educational gathering held several years ago at the Belzer Rebbe’s home, attended by mechanchim from around the world.

During that gathering, he said, the Rebbe addressed the changing expectations of younger people and the importance of helping them understand the reasoning behind communal practices and decisions.

“The Rebbe said in Yiddish, from the depths of his heart: ‘Today’s generation is sometimes no longer prepared to accept everything that existed until now as a matter of course. It wants to learn and understand!’ And I think the spirit I bring is truly one of involving the public.”

Stark acknowledged that his relatively young age and lack of parliamentary experience would likely make him a target of scrutiny.

Nevertheless, he said he was prepared to acknowledge mistakes and learn from them.

“I take into account that everyone will be watching me closely, and there will be missteps, and I am also young. I am not embarrassed to say that I made a mistake. I will learn.”

Turning to the military draft controversy, Stark said that resolving the legal status of yeshiva bochurim must remain a central priority for United Torah Judaism in the next Knesset.

He indicated that the party should not accept government positions before securing an arrangement addressing the status of yeshiva students.

“I heard this term, and I want to be precise: ‘Not taking positions.’ In other words, ultimately there is a feeling that a person sits down in his chair… We will truly do our utmost to establish this in the best possible way and bring it about.”

His remarks reflected the position that obtaining government appointments should not take precedence over resolving the conscription issue.

Asked whether United Torah Judaism would categorically reject alternative political alliances if another coalition offered a solution to the draft controversy, Stark declined to rule out possibilities in principle.

“A public representative who enters office must keep the objective before his eyes, and the objective is to be a faithful representative of those who sent him. And who are you to disqualify anyone? After all, this is politics, without disqualifying and without boycotting.”

He nevertheless acknowledged that the question was largely hypothetical, given the composition of the political parties on the other side of the Israeli political spectrum.

One of the interview’s most notable exchanges concerned HaTzibur HaChareidi, the new political party led by Motti Leitner, deputy mayor of Beit Shemesh.

The party has sought to attract younger and working chareidim who believe their interests have not received sufficient attention from the established chareidi political factions.

Stark surprised viewers by revealing that he and Leitner have maintained a close friendship and have discussed the establishment of the new party at considerable length.

“Motti is a very good friend of mine. We have spoken for countless hours, including about the new party. My position is that the greatest change can be created from within the system, from within the establishment.”

Although the two men now find themselves associated with competing political parties, Stark made clear that their personal relationship has not prevented them from discussing the issues confronting the community.

He also acknowledged the underlying concerns that have contributed to the emergence of HaTzibur HaChareidi.

According to Stark, the number of chareidim who identify with a somewhat different communal lifestyle has grown substantially, making it increasingly unrealistic to treat them as an insignificant minority.

“In the past, there were people who were labeled ‘modern chareidim,’ and they were pushed to the fringes,” Stark explained. “Today, those fringes have become very large fringes. They are no longer fringes! Today, the public says: Listen, I want to live this way. I want a shul that suits me, in my spirit, and I am here to stay.”

When Cohen asked whether he was personally committing to represent this population in the Knesset, Stark answered without hesitation.

“Absolutely!”

Stark then recounted an incident in Ramat Beit Shemesh Daled involving a dispute over the allocation of land for shuls.

The disagreement involved the Belzer community and a Kerestir shul associated with Leitner.

According to Stark, some individuals urged him not to engage with Leitner’s community, arguing that doing so would give legitimacy to a group they opposed.

Stark said he refused to accept that approach.

“Various people came to me and said, ‘Listen, this is Leitner. You must not speak with them. Don’t give them legitimacy!’ I said: Absolutely not! I called Motti, we sat down, and we worked things through.”

He said he made it clear that Belz would not pursue its own interests by trampling on the rights of Leitner’s community.

“I said: There is no way Belz will receive an allocation at the expense of trampling on Motti Leitner, his party, and his community! And indeed, boruch Hashem, we worked things out.”

Stark presented the episode as an example of his belief that communal disagreements should be addressed through direct discussion and mutual accommodation rather than through exclusion.

He argued that the growth of the working chareidi population requires a practical response from established communal institutions.

To illustrate the point, he offered an analogy involving a shul in which a small number of bochurim begin talking during davening.

If only three bochurim are talking, he explained, the appropriate response might be to approach them individually and ask them to stop.

But when the number grows dramatically, the situation can no longer be addressed as an isolated disciplinary problem.

“You have a shul with 400 people davening, and you see three bochurim standing outside and chatting during davening. You approach them and reprimand them. When you go outside and see 60 bochurim talking, you understand that this is a phenomenon!”

Stark continued by arguing that communal leaders must respond to such developments by identifying the underlying needs and establishing appropriate frameworks.

“Either you solve it at its root, or you open a separate minyan for them, or you establish activities for them. If you ignore them or think they will be pushed to the side of the road, that will not happen. We need to take care of them and provide them with everything. And I am their representative!”

The remarks were particularly significant given the political controversy surrounding Leitner’s party, which has drawn criticism from senior chareidi rabbonim and political leaders over its decision to compete independently in the Knesset elections.

As previously reported, Rav Dov Landau has issued an exceptionally sharp letter condemning the activities of those involved with HaTzibur HaChareidi, warning that the new party was causing serious harm to chareidi Jewry.

Maran Rav Dov Landau, rosh yeshiva of Slabodka, has issued an unusually forceful handwritten letter condemning the newly established HaTzibur HaChareidi political party, declaring that he will fight its activities with every resource at his disposal and accusing its supporters of causing serious harm to chareidi Jewry.

The letter comes as tensions intensify ahead of Tuesday’s elections for the 26th Knesset, with the new party seeking to challenge the established chareidi factions of United Torah Judaism and Shas.

The recipient of the letter has been identified in Israeli media reports as Rav Yosef Ben Arza, author of the Yosef Daas series, a rebbi at Yeshivas Hesder Mishmar HaTorah, and a descendant of Rav Yaakov Moshe Charlap zt”l.

According to sources, Rav Ben Arza, who supports HaTzibur HaChareidi, recently visited Rav Landau’s home to inquire about his position on the new party. During the visit, he spoke with the rosh yeshiva’s son and raised questions concerning the political representation of chareidim whose circumstances differ from those of full-time yeshiva and kollel members.

After learning of the conversation, Rav Landau personally wrote a letter expressing his opposition to the party and its supporters.

“My son told me what you said, which is great foolishness, if not great wickedness,” Rav Landau wrote.

He then declared that he would actively oppose the party’s efforts, using exceptionally sharp language to convey the seriousness with which he views the matter.

“I will fight against you with all the strength I have and even the strength I do not have, because you are causing great harm to Chareidi Judaism.”

The rosh yeshiva went further, comparing the activities of the party’s supporters to violations of some of the Torah’s most severe prohibitions.

“Your actions are like eating forbidden fats on Yom Kippur and eating chametz on Seder night. I wrote this comparison to emphasize the severity of these matters. Retract, retract your actions, and do not cause harm.”

Despite the warning, however, reports indicate that Rav Ben Arza has not withdrawn his support for HaTzibur HaChareidi.

A source familiar with the exchange told Israeli media that Rav Ben Arza had raised substantive questions during his conversation with Rav Landau’s son, particularly regarding the needs of chareidi men serving in the Israeli military and the economic difficulties faced by working chareidi families.

Among the issues he reportedly raised was who would represent and assist chareidi soldiers and who would address the livelihood concerns of families outside the traditional full-time kollel framework.

According to that source, Rav Ben Arza did not receive answers that satisfied his concerns.

The source further indicated that the subsequent handwritten letter had not caused him to reconsider his support for the new party.

HaTzibur HaChareidi is headed by Motti Leitner, deputy mayor of Beit Shemesh, who has positioned the party as an alternative for chareidi voters dissatisfied with their representation by the longstanding chareidi political parties.

The party’s platform focuses heavily on the needs of working chareidim, employment opportunities, education, and the situation of chareidi men who serve in the military.

Its leadership argues that certain segments of the chareidi population have not received adequate attention from the established political representatives.

On the military draft issue, the party supports enlistment for chareidi men who are not engaged in Torah study, while opposing arrests and punitive sanctions against chareidim.

That position differs from the approach advocated by much of the traditional chareidi leadership, which has placed particular emphasis on protecting the independence of the yeshiva world and resisting government efforts to impose military conscription.

The emergence of the new party has generated considerable controversy within the chareidi community, particularly because it is competing for votes traditionally cast for United Torah Judaism and Shas.

Senior figures within the established chareidi political leadership have expressed concern that the creation of competing lists could divide the chareidi electorate and weaken its representation in the Knesset.

Rav Landau has addressed the issue repeatedly in recent days, urging voters to maintain their allegiance to United Torah Judaism and warning against supporting newly established parties that do not have the backing of the traditional rabbinic leadership.

At an election gathering in Ashdod earlier this week, the rosh yeshiva spoke about dissatisfaction among some chareidi voters, acknowledging that complaints and resentment had developed over the performance of political representatives.

He nevertheless stressed that such frustrations should not lead voters to abandon the party supported by the Gedolei Yisroel.

Rav Landau also addressed concerns that working chareidim have been overlooked by the political establishment, emphasizing that those who earn a livelihood while remaining committed to Torah observance are an integral part of the Torah community.

In a separate development, Rav Landau hosted a gathering at his home attended by dozens of chareidi businessmen and other representatives of the working chareidi community.

The meeting was arranged against the backdrop of complaints that the educational and communal needs of working families have not received sufficient attention from United Torah Judaism’s elected officials.

During the gathering, Rav Landau acknowledged that some families have legitimate grievances concerning the services and representation they receive.

He also indicated that he would personally approach the party’s leadership and Knesset representatives to seek improvements in the handling of those concerns.

Among the issues raised were the availability of suitable Torah educational frameworks for children from working chareidi households and the difficulties encountered by families whose circumstances do not fit the conventional yeshiva and kollel model.

The rosh yeshiva emphasized that working chareidim remain part of the Torah world and that their concerns deserve attention.

His statements at that gathering reflected an effort to address the complaints underlying the new party’s appeal, even as he maintained his opposition to separate political representation.

The dispute has also drawn the attention of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

According to Israeli media reports, Netanyahu recently met with Leitner and sought to persuade him to withdraw HaTzibur HaChareidi from the Knesset race.

The meeting came amid growing pressure on the party to avoid competing against the established chareidi factions.

Leitner subsequently acknowledged that he had met with the prime minister and heard his proposal.

On Wednesday, October 21, he publicly announced that the party intended to remain in the race despite the pressure being exerted upon it.

Leitner also accused leaders of Shas and United Torah Judaism of directing threats against his party, allegations that formed part of the increasingly contentious campaign surrounding the new movement.

The party chairman argued that the concerns motivating HaTzibur HaChareidi’s establishment extend beyond the political ambitions of any individual candidate.

He maintained that substantial numbers of chareidim feel politically unrepresented and that the party was established to address their concerns.

The publication of Rav Landau’s handwritten letter has brought the dispute into sharper focus, particularly because the recipient is himself a rav who has publicly associated with the new political initiative.

The exchange highlights a fundamental disagreement over whether the needs of working chareidim and other groups should be addressed through the existing chareidi parties or through a separate political framework.

Supporters of the new party contend that independent representation is necessary to secure meaningful attention to those concerns.

{Matzav.com}

Rav Shabtai Levi, rosh mosdos of Halichos Moshe and rav of the Ramat Aharon neighborhood in Bnei Brak, has issued a letter addressing widespread dissatisfaction with Shas’s political representatives over the past four years, while calling for continued support of the party in light of concerns over the future of the Torah world and assurances that major decisions will be brought before the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah.

The letter comes amid growing frustration within portions of the Sephardic chareidi community over the conduct of Shas lawmakers during the outgoing Knesset term, particularly against the backdrop of the ongoing confrontation over the draft of yeshiva bochurim.

Rather than dismissing those grievances, Rav Levi acknowledges that serious complaints have been raised against the party’s representatives and indicates that many of them appear justified.

Nevertheless, he argues that political decisions affecting the Torah community must be guided by Torah considerations rather than by disappointment with individual politicians.

A central element of his position is what he describes as a change in the leadership of the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah, together with a reported commitment to convene the council before major political decisions are made.

Rav Levi presents that commitment as an important safeguard to ensure that the party’s future actions reflect the guidance of Gedolei Yisroel.

In his letter, Rav Levi recalls instructions he personally received from Rav Ovadiah Yosef zt”l, who urged him to work toward strengthening Shas’s representation in the Knesset.

According to Rav Levi, Rav Ovadiah’s request was rooted in concern for the preservation of the Torah world and the welfare of yeshiva bochurim.

That responsibility, he explains, remains particularly relevant under present circumstances, when the status of yeshiva students and the continued functioning of Torah institutions are subjects of intense political and legal controversy.

Rav Levi emphasizes the importance of maintaining political representation capable of defending the interests of the Torah community and supporting its educational institutions.

The letter places particular emphasis on the distinction between supporting the Torah community’s political representation and approving every decision made by its elected officials.

Rav Levi makes clear that his support does not erase the complaints accumulated during the past four years. Instead, he points to the reported commitment to consult the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah before major decisions as an important development in the party’s leadership.

He stresses that adherence to Daas Torah cannot be replaced by the independent political judgment of party officials, even when those officials believe the appropriate course of action is obvious.

The requirement to convene the Moetzes before major decisions, he explains, is intended to ensure that matters affecting the Torah community are decided under the guidance of its rabbinic leadership.

The letter comes amid a broader dispute within the Sephardic chareidi community over Shas’s handling of the military draft issue.

In a separate development Saturday night, reports emerged that Rav Moshe Tzadka, rosh yeshiva of Porat Yosef and one of the senior Sephardic roshei yeshiva, had signed a letter opposing a vote for Shas over the party’s reported willingness to support conscription of young chareidi men who are not studying in yeshiva.

The reports prompted an unusual intervention by senior members of the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah, five of whom visited Rav Tzadka’s home in an effort to address his concerns.

Among those who participated were Rav Yitzchak Yosef, Rav Moshe Maya, Rav Avraham Salim, Rav Yehuda Cohen, and Rav Shmuel Betzalel.

According to subsequent reporting, Rav Tzadka clarified during the meeting that although he and his father had not participated in Knesset elections, this did not constitute opposition to Shas, and that those who do vote should support the party for the sake of the Torah world.

The conflicting reports and competing rabbinic positions illustrate the sensitivity surrounding Shas’s campaign, particularly as the question of military conscription continues to dominate discussions within the Sephardic yeshiva community.

Against that backdrop, Rav Levi’s letter reflects an effort to address dissatisfaction with the party’s elected representatives while emphasizing the role of the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah in determining its future direction.

He concludes by calling upon the public to support Shas, strengthen the standing of Torah, and act in a manner that brings about a Kiddush Hashem.

{Matzav.com}

Former President Barack Obama ridiculed President Donald Trump’s extensive renovations of the White House during a Democratic campaign rally in Cleveland today, comparing the president’s decorating preferences to those of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and mocking the gold accents and major construction projects undertaken during Trump’s second term.

Speaking at Cleveland Public Auditorium on October 24, Obama delivered the remarks while campaigning for Ohio Democratic gubernatorial candidate Amy Acton and Senate candidate Sherrod Brown, with the midterm elections just 10 days away.

The former president used the appearance to criticize Trump’s priorities, arguing that the administration has devoted considerable attention to changes at the presidential residence while Americans contend with economic concerns and other national challenges.

“I mean, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but he seems very focused on home renovations,” Obama said. “He should be on HGTV.”

Obama then listed several of the president’s projects, including construction of a new White House ballroom, alterations to the Rose Garden, and the installation of an upgraded helicopter landing area on the South Lawn.

He reserved his sharpest remark for Trump’s preference for elaborate gold-colored furnishings and decorative finishes.

“He’s got the White House looking like Saddam Hussein opened a Cheesecake Factory,” Obama quipped.

The comparison drew attention to the president’s decorating style, which has featured prominent gold detailing in several White House rooms.

Trump’s renovation program, however, has involved more than aesthetic changes, with the administration arguing that several projects address longstanding operational needs at the presidential complex.

One of the most visible alterations was the transformation of the Rose Garden in 2025.

Under Trump’s direction, the garden’s central grass lawn was replaced with limestone paving, creating a patio designed to accommodate outdoor receptions, presidential speeches, and other official gatherings.

The traditional rose plantings were preserved along the garden’s perimeter, while the redesigned central area provides a more durable surface for events involving large numbers of guests.

The administration has presented the changes as a practical improvement to an outdoor space frequently used for White House functions.

Trump also oversaw construction of a new granite helipad on the White House grounds, incorporating the presidential seal into the landing surface.

The upgraded facility was unveiled in September, with official White House photographs showing Marine One using the new landing area during a September 21 ribbon-cutting ceremony.

The helipad project was designed to modernize the area used for presidential helicopter arrivals and departures.

Another major undertaking is the construction of a permanent White House ballroom, intended to provide expanded facilities for large official gatherings.

For decades, the White House has relied on temporary tents and other arrangements to accommodate events that exceed the capacity of its existing indoor reception spaces.

The Trump administration has argued that a purpose-built ballroom would provide a more secure and practical setting for state dinners, receptions, and other functions requiring substantial guest capacity.

A National Park Service environmental assessment of the project noted that the need for additional White House event space had been identified in a planning document dating back to 2000.

The ballroom has nevertheless become a prominent subject of political controversy, with critics questioning its scale, design, and impact on the historic presidential complex.

Obama’s criticism of Trump’s construction projects also comes amid scrutiny of the former president’s own major building project in Chicago.

The Obama Presidential Center, constructed in Jackson Park, has faced criticism over its distinctive granite-clad tower, substantial construction expenses, and years of delays.

Some architectural critics have nicknamed the structure the ‘Obamalisk,’ a reference to its imposing, monument-like appearance.

The center’s projected construction costs have reportedly exceeded $1 billion, nearly three times the original estimate of approximately $350 million.

The project has also generated disputes involving subcontractors who allege they are owed millions of dollars for completed work.

Separately, public infrastructure improvements associated with the development have involved hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded expenditures beyond the center’s own construction budget.

The comparison between the two presidential construction projects has become part of the broader political debate over the costs and design choices associated with high-profile presidential developments.

Obama’s remarks were not limited to the White House renovations. He also criticized Trump’s handling of the conflict with Iran, blaming the administration’s military decisions for increased energy costs and accusing the president of involving the United States in a conflict that Americans had not sought.

“Most importantly, he decided to start an unnecessary war that nobody asked for and nobody voted for,” Obama said.

The former president also defended the nuclear agreement reached between Iran and world powers during his administration, arguing that the arrangement had prevented Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

“Iran didn’t have nuclear weapons because I had put a deal in place that everybody knows kept them from getting nukes,” Obama claimed.

Trump withdrew the United States from the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement in 2018, maintaining that its restrictions were inadequate and that the arrangement failed to address important threats posed by Tehran.

The president argued that the deal’s temporary limitations on Iran’s nuclear activities, combined with its failure to adequately confront the country’s ballistic missile development and support for terrorist organizations, made it unacceptable.

Under the agreement, Iran received relief from international sanctions in exchange for restrictions on its nuclear program and a system of international inspections.

Inspectors reported Iranian compliance with certain provisions before the American withdrawal, although Tehran subsequently increased uranium enrichment beyond the agreement’s established limits.

The two presidents have long disagreed over the agreement’s effectiveness, with Obama defending it as a diplomatic achievement and Trump maintaining that it provided Iran with financial benefits without sufficiently eliminating its long-term nuclear ambitions.

Obama also criticized the administration’s broader economic policies, arguing that decisions made by Trump have contributed to higher costs for American consumers.

He took aim at the president’s immigration enforcement measures and accused Republican lawmakers of failing to adequately challenge administration policies.

During the Cleveland appearance, Obama additionally criticized Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy over a campaign advertisement featuring the estranged mother of Democratic candidate Amy Acton.

The advertisement, which addresses Acton’s personal background, has drawn criticism from some Republicans as well as Democrats. Ramaswamy and his supporters have defended the campaign’s approach.

Obama’s Ohio appearance was part of a broader series of campaign events intended to support Democratic candidates ahead of the November 3 elections.

Following the Cleveland rally, he traveled to Detroit, where he appeared in support of Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed and other Michigan Democrats.

During that appearance, Obama continued his criticism of Trump’s economic record, tariffs, the Iran conflict, and White House renovation projects.

He is also scheduled to campaign in Georgia next week as Democrats seek to increase voter participation in the closing days before Election Day.

In Ohio, Acton is challenging Ramaswamy for the governorship, while Brown is attempting to return to the Senate by unseating Republican Sen. Jon Husted.

Brown previously represented Ohio in the Senate before losing his reelection bid in 2024.

Obama carried Ohio in both of his successful presidential campaigns, winning the state in 2008 and again in 2012.

The state’s presidential voting patterns subsequently shifted, with Trump carrying Ohio in 2016, 2020, and 2024.

The publication of the Israeli Agudas Yisroel’s traditional election proclamation has been postponed yet again as disagreements among the courts of the Chassidic Rebbes continue over the document’s wording, particularly a controversial passage that could be understood as condemning voters who support Shas rather than United Torah Judaism.

Yaakov Veltzer, secretary of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of Agudas Yisroel, instructed the editorial offices of Hamodia and Hamevaser not to publish the proclamation on Sunday, as had been anticipated. The new target for publication is Monday, although no final agreement has yet been reached.

The latest delay follows an objection raised by the Gerer Rebbe to language in the original document that appeared to characterize anyone who failed to vote for United Torah Judaism, whose ballot designation is Gimmel, as indirectly participating in a chillul Hashem and bearing responsibility for a particularly serious sin.

The original proclamation had already received approval for publication before it was withdrawn at the last moment on Thursday evening.

According to the report, the Gerer Rebbe questioned how such language could be published when it would seemingly include those voting for Shas, who are themselves following the instructions of their own Gedolei Yisroel.

His objection focused on the implication that a person obeying the guidance of Sephardic rabbonim by voting for Shas could nevertheless be described as committing a serious transgression simply because he had not voted Gimmel.

The concern prompted renewed discussions over the wording of the proclamation, which is traditionally issued by the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah ahead of elections to instruct the Chassidic public regarding its voting obligations.

A revised version was subsequently proposed in an effort to address the Gerer Rebbe’s concerns while preserving the Moetzes’ clear endorsement of United Torah Judaism.

Under the alternative wording, the proclamation would state that United Torah Judaism is the only electoral list that the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah calls upon its followers to support.

It would also caution against voting for parties that do not enjoy the approval of the Gedolei Yisroel.

Significantly, the revised draft would eliminate the original declaration that anyone who fails to vote Gimmel is indirectly responsible for a chillul Hashem.

The modification was intended to distinguish between an explicit directive to Agudas Yisroel supporters to vote for United Torah Judaism and a broader condemnation that could be interpreted as applying to voters following other recognized rabbinic authorities.

Veltzer circulated the revised text among the various Rebbes’ courts on Friday and again on Motzoei Shabbos, seeking the approval necessary to proceed with publication.

Despite those efforts, the consultations failed to produce a final consensus, forcing another postponement.

The parties are now considering several possibilities, including adopting the softened language, restoring the stronger warning contained in the original proclamation, or developing an additional compromise that would satisfy the different positions.

The disagreement comes at a sensitive moment in the election campaign, with the chareidi parties working to mobilize their supporters amid continuing disputes over military conscription and the future political representation of the Torah community.

The wording of the proclamation carries particular significance because it is issued under the authority of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah and is intended to convey the position of the Chassidic leadership to its followers.

The current disagreement does not concern whether United Torah Judaism should receive the support of Agudas Yisroel voters. Rather, it centers on how strongly the proclamation should characterize the consequences of voting for another party, particularly when that party is Shas.

For the Gerer Rebbe, the concern reportedly lies in ensuring that an endorsement of United Torah Judaism does not inadvertently cast aspersions on Sephardic voters who are following the instructions of their own rabbonim.

The discussions also reflect the challenge of securing agreement among the different Chassidic courts on language that carries both halachic and political implications.

As of Motzoei Shabbos, the revised proclamation had not received the necessary final approval, and the newspaper editors were instructed to hold off on printing it.

Efforts to reach an agreement are continuing, with Monday now being discussed as the next possible publication date.

{Matzav.com}

A massive fire has nearly destroyed Adolf Hitler’s notorious mountaintop retreat in the Bavarian Alps, reducing much of the historic Nazi-era building known as the Eagle’s Nest to ruins as approximately 200 firefighters battled flames through snow, fierce winds, and treacherous mountain conditions. German authorities have arrested a 33-year-old man on suspicion of arson and are investigating whether the blaze was deliberately set.

The fire erupted Friday night at the Kehlsteinhaus, the imposing stone-and-granite structure perched approximately 6,000 feet above sea level near Berchtesgaden in southeastern Germany. By the time emergency crews reached the isolated mountain complex, flames had engulfed the building, which survived World War II largely unscathed and had stood for nearly nine decades as one of the most recognizable surviving landmarks associated with the Nazi regime.

Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann said today that investigators believe the blaze may have been deliberately started. Prosecutors are examining the suspect’s possible motives, including whether the incident had a political dimension.

The fire was first reported late Friday evening after an automatic alarm was activated at approximately 9:15 p.m. Firefighters and police immediately began making their way toward the remote property, which sits at the end of a narrow mountain road that winds through the Alps and includes several tunnels.

As emergency vehicles approached, crews could already see flames shooting into the night sky above the mountain.

By the time they arrived, the structure was completely engulfed.

Firefighters faced extraordinary difficulties reaching the building and bringing the blaze under control. The Eagle’s Nest stands at an elevation of 1,834 meters, and the narrow access road severely restricted the movement of emergency vehicles and firefighting equipment.

Weather conditions compounded the difficulties. Heavy rain was followed by snowfall, while powerful winds swept across the exposed mountain summit, complicating efforts to contain the flames.

Firefighters were forced to operate in hazardous conditions, using specialized breathing equipment as smoke and fire spread through the historic building.

Approximately 200 firefighters and other emergency personnel were mobilized for the operation, which continued through the night and into today.

Michael Brandl, a senior fire official, said crews were still working to extinguish the remaining flames this afternoon.

Authorities were particularly concerned about the structural stability of the building. The intensity of the fire had severely weakened portions of the complex, raising fears that walls, roofing, or other sections could collapse without warning.

As a result, firefighters were unable to enter the structure to conduct a full inspection.

Despite the scale of the disaster, officials reported that nobody had been injured.

“We are very lucky that there are no injuries,” Brandl said.

Investigators believe the building was unoccupied when the fire began. The Eagle’s Nest operates as a seasonal tourist destination and was not receiving visitors at the time.

Police announced that a suspect had been apprehended shortly after emergency personnel responded to the fire.

According to Bavarian police official Robert Holzinger, officers traveling toward the burning complex encountered a man riding a red motorcycle without a license plate in the opposite direction, away from the mountain.

The officers stopped the motorcyclist and took him into custody.

Authorities subsequently identified the suspect as a 33-year-old German citizen with connections to the region, although he reportedly does not currently reside there.

Prosecutors said investigators were considering the possibility of a political motive but had also observed indications that the suspect might be suffering from mental illness.

The man was expected to be transferred to a psychiatric facility as authorities continued their investigation.

Police have not publicly established precisely how the fire began, and the suspect’s alleged involvement remains under investigation. Officials have not reported evidence suggesting that additional individuals participated in the incident.

The extent of the destruction became increasingly apparent today as firefighters worked to bring the remaining hot spots under control.

Large sections of the building were severely damaged, and authorities indicated that the structure had been almost completely destroyed.

The blaze represents a remarkable development in the history of a building that survived Allied bombing raids and the collapse of Nazi Germany, remaining largely intact even as many other structures associated with Hitler were destroyed during and after the war.

The Eagle’s Nest was constructed between 1937 and 1938 high above the Obersalzberg area, where Hitler maintained another residence known as the Berghof.

The elaborate mountaintop complex was developed as a prestigious retreat and reception venue for Nazi leaders and visiting dignitaries. It was associated with Hitler’s 50th birthday and intended to serve as an architectural symbol of the regime’s power.

Its remote location and commanding views across the Bavarian and Austrian Alps were meant to impress foreign visitors.

The building was constructed from stone and granite and reached by an extraordinary mountain access route, making it one of the Nazi regime’s most distinctive architectural projects.

Although the property became closely associated with Hitler, historians note that he rarely visited the mountaintop retreat.

He reportedly made approximately 14 visits between 1938 and the end of World War II, preferring to spend time at his nearby Berghof residence.

The Eagle’s Nest was used primarily for selected official visits and receptions rather than as Hitler’s principal residence or military headquarters.

The property nevertheless became an enduring symbol of the Nazi dictatorship responsible for the Holocaust and the murder of six million Jews, along with millions of other victims of Nazi persecution and aggression.

Unlike Hitler’s Berghof residence, which was heavily damaged during the war and subsequently demolished, the Eagle’s Nest survived and was eventually preserved.

Since 1952, the site has operated as a restaurant and tourist attraction, drawing visitors interested in both its panoramic Alpine views and its historical significance.

An exhibition at the property documented its connection to the Nazi era, while the nearby Obersalzberg Documentation Center provided additional historical information about Hitler’s regime and its crimes.

Bavarian authorities have estimated that the Eagle’s Nest attracts approximately 350,000 visitors annually, making it one of the region’s best-known historical destinations.

The property’s own historical presentation has described it as a reminder of the destructive ideology of the Nazi regime and the activities conducted in the Obersalzberg area, where plans for war and mass murder were developed.

The fire has now raised questions about the future of the structure and whether the historic building can be reconstructed after such extensive damage.

Despite the destruction, Bavarian officials have already indicated that they intend to preserve the site’s historical significance.

Interior Minister Herrmann said the building would not simply be abandoned in its damaged condition.

“This house — the entire site and its surroundings — is linked to a specific history. It is important that we continue our work of remembrance,” Herrmann said.

He further declared that the retreat “will under no circumstances be left in a state of ruin”.

The nearby Obersalzberg Documentation Center was not damaged by the fire, allowing its historical exhibits and educational resources to remain intact.

For German authorities, the question of rebuilding the Eagle’s Nest extends beyond preserving an architectural landmark. The property has long presented a complicated historical challenge because of its direct association with Hitler and the Nazi leadership.

Officials have sought to ensure that the site serves as a place for historical education rather than a monument glorifying the Nazi regime.

The destruction of the building, which had stood since 1938, comes amid continuing debates in Germany over how to preserve physical reminders of the Nazi period while confronting the atrocities committed under Hitler’s rule.

Investigators are expected to continue examining the fire scene once the structure is considered sufficiently stable for forensic teams to enter.

It is with profound sadness that Matzav.com reports the petirah of Malka Grossman a”h of Lakewood, NJ, who was nifteres on Shabbos morning following a three-year battle with illness. She was just 19 years old.

Malka a”h was the beloved daughter of R’ Meir and Tziporah Grossman of Lakewood. Her prolonged illness prompted an extraordinary outpouring of tefillos and zechusim from Jewish communities across the country, as countless individuals united in davening for her refuah sheleimah.

Tens of thousands of girls recited Tehillim on her behalf, while challah bakes were organized in cities throughout the United States as a zechus for her recovery. Her plight touched hearts far beyond her immediate family and community, inspiring an exceptional display of achdus, compassion, and concern for a fellow Yid.

Throughout the three years of her illness, the tremendous efforts undertaken on her behalf reflected the deep connection felt by so many to Malka and her family. The news of her petirah at such a young age has brought immense sorrow to the Lakewood community and to the many people who had joined in davening for her.

May Hashem accept the countless tefillos and zechusim generated on her behalf, and may Malka a”h be a meilitzas yosher for her family and all of Klal Yisroel.

The levayah is scheduled to take place on Sunday afternoon at 1:00 p.m. at Bnos Devorah, located at 360 Oak Street in Lakewood, NJ. Kevurah will follow in Lakewood.

May the Grossman family know no further sorrow, and may they find nechamah among the mourners of Tzion and Yerushalayim.

Yehi zichrah baruch.

I’m asking you personally to help. A mother of six, a righteous giyores, is suffering and urgently needs medical treatment. Her family simply cannot afford it.

Please take a moment to watch Rabbi Ari Bensoussan’s message and give whatever you can.

Let’s help this mother get the care she needs. CLICK HERE TO DONATE.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has accused Israel’s chareidi political representatives of preventing the dismissal of Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara at the beginning of the government’s term, claiming that their refusal helped create the legal and political situation now confronting the chareidi community. In a wide-ranging interview with Bechadrei Chareidim, Ben-Gvir also criticized the arrests of yeshiva bochurim, defended his visits to Har Habayis, expressed concern that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu may form a unity government without him, and revealed that he intends to demand the Defense Ministry in post-election coalition negotiations.

Ben-Gvir claimed that chareidi lawmakers had opposed his efforts to remove Baharav-Miara because they believed maintaining a working relationship with her would help them secure government appointments. He argued that the same attorney general is now pursuing policies harmful to the chareidi community, particularly regarding military conscription.

The Otzma Yehudit chairman also revealed that he wants Likud MK Tally Gotliv appointed justice minister in the next government, saying he considers changes to Israel’s judicial system and security policies essential conditions for joining a future coalition.

Addressing criticism from chareidi politicians who have attacked him during the election campaign, Ben-Gvir insisted that he had consistently assisted their community throughout his time in office.

He said chareidi Knesset members had regularly contacted him whenever they encountered difficulties and that his office had made itself available to them at all hours.

Ben-Gvir recalled that Shas chairman Aryeh Deri had repeatedly described him as a genuine friend of the chareidi community, making the current criticism particularly surprising to him.

He suggested that the change in tone was connected to the approaching elections and accused chareidi politicians of attempting to distance themselves from him for political reasons.

According to Ben-Gvir, their refusal to support the attorney general’s removal early in the government’s term was a serious miscalculation whose consequences are now becoming apparent.

The minister returned to that allegation several times during the interview, portraying Baharav-Miara as the central obstacle to policies sought by both his party and the chareidi factions.

Ben-Gvir said he had advocated her dismissal from the outset but encountered opposition from chareidi representatives who believed they could negotiate effectively with her.

He claimed that some had told him, “We know how to get along with her; we can do deals with her,” using an expression suggesting that they believed they could maneuver around potential obstacles.

Ben-Gvir maintained that he refused to abandon his position despite the political consequences and said those now criticizing him should remember who supported removing the attorney general and who opposed it.

His accusations come amid continuing tensions between the government, the attorney general, and chareidi parties over the enforcement of military conscription requirements for yeshiva students.

Asked about the arrests of yeshiva bochurim and the role of the police under his authority, Ben-Gvir insisted that responsibility for the detentions rests with the military police rather than the Israel Police.

He said the military police were carrying out arrests under the direction of the attorney general and that the national security minister has no authority over those operations.

Ben-Gvir argued that arresting yeshiva students would undermine rather than encourage chareidi enlistment.

He further alleged that Baharav-Miara was pursuing the arrests for political reasons, specifically to damage Israel’s right-wing government.

The minister again criticized chareidi lawmakers for failing to support his earlier attempt to dismiss her, saying their decision had allowed the present situation to develop.

His remarks placed responsibility for the enforcement controversy on the attorney general and the chareidi parties rather than on his own ministry.

The question of responsibility remains contested, however, as military enforcement, government policy, judicial rulings, and the attorney general’s legal positions all play roles in the ongoing conscription dispute.

Ben-Gvir also discussed his efforts to encourage chareidi participation in the Israel Police and Border Police, arguing that these institutions can accommodate religious recruits without requiring them to abandon their way of life.

He said his ministry had developed specialized frameworks with adjustments to training, service conditions, and other requirements intended to make police service more accessible to chareidi men.

According to Ben-Gvir, increasing the number of chareidi officers could also improve relations between the police and chareidi communities, particularly following confrontations during demonstrations over military conscription.

In a separate interview earlier this month, Ben-Gvir claimed that the number of chareidim serving in the Israel Police had increased from several dozen when he entered office to more than 1,000. He also said hundreds of chareidim were now serving in the Israel Prison Service.

The minister has additionally cited his efforts to restrict the use of police crowd-control measures at chareidi demonstrations, including the controversial skunk-water spraying system.

Ben-Gvir has argued that the attorney general’s attempt to remove him from office is connected in part to his demands that police treat chareidi demonstrators according to the same enforcement standards applied to other protesters.

In March, Baharav-Miara asked the Supreme Court to order Netanyahu to dismiss Ben-Gvir, arguing that his involvement in police operations and appointments threatened the independence of law enforcement. Netanyahu rejected the demand, maintaining that the minister had been lawfully appointed and that there was no legal basis for his removal.

Ben-Gvir has portrayed the legal proceedings as an attempt to prevent him from implementing his policies, including those he says are intended to protect chareidi rights.

The interview also addressed criticism from former Sephardic Chief Rabbi Rav Yitzchak Yosef, who recently condemned visits to Har Habayis and criticized political support for Ben-Gvir.

Ben-Gvir responded that he respects Rav Yitzchak Yosef and other leading Torah scholars and does not wish to engage in public disputes with rabbonim.

He said his own conduct is guided by rabbinic authorities, including Rav Dov Lior and Rav Shmuel Eliyahu, who hold different halachic positions regarding visits to Har Habayis.

Ben-Gvir acknowledged that legitimate halachic disagreements exist but maintained that he follows the rulings of the rabbonim upon whom he relies.

His criticism, he explained, is directed at politicians who turn halachic disagreements into instruments of political confrontation.

The question of ascending Har Habayis remains a significant point of disagreement between Ben-Gvir and much of the chareidi rabbinic leadership, which maintains the longstanding prohibition against entering the site because of concerns involving ritual purity and the sanctity of areas where entry is forbidden.

Turning to the approaching elections, Ben-Gvir addressed chareidi voters who are disappointed with their political representatives and considering abstaining.

He said he respects those who follow the voting instructions of their rabbonim and would not interfere with such decisions.

At the same time, he urged dissatisfied voters not to remain home or support parties that fail to cross the electoral threshold, arguing that doing so would weaken the political camp opposed to the attorney general.

Ben-Gvir openly appealed to chareidi voters who are reconsidering their political affiliations to support Otzma Yehudit.

The minister also expressed concern that Netanyahu might abandon his existing coalition partners after the elections and instead establish a unity government with former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot.

He said comments from individuals close to the prime minister had increased his concern about the possibility.

According to Ben-Gvir, Netanyahu has indicated that he would not retain him as national security minister, while Likud officials have publicly discussed forming a unity government.

Ben-Gvir further claimed that messages had been conveyed from the Prime Minister’s Office to foreign governments indicating that he would not be included in the next coalition.

Those assertions were presented by Ben-Gvir as his understanding of discussions surrounding the next government.

He suggested that Netanyahu might prefer a coalition with fewer internal disagreements, particularly because Ben-Gvir has repeatedly challenged the prime minister over security policy and judicial reform.

The Otzma Yehudit leader said he is unwilling to abandon his positions merely to preserve coalition stability.

He maintained that a government’s success should be measured by the policies it implements rather than the absence of disputes among its ministers.

Ben-Gvir’s concerns about a potential Netanyahu-Eisenkot arrangement come as coalition possibilities have become a major issue in the closing stages of the election campaign.

The minister has repeatedly warned that a broad unity government could prevent the policy changes he considers necessary in the judicial and security establishments.

Asked what he would demand in negotiations following the elections, Ben-Gvir made clear that he intends to seek a more powerful position than the National Security Ministry.

He said he wants to become defense minister, a position that would place him in charge of Israel’s military establishment and allow him to pursue major changes in national security policy.

He also revealed that he wants Likud MK Tally Gotliv appointed justice minister, arguing that she would advance substantial reforms within Israel’s judicial system.

Ben-Gvir stressed that participation in any future government would depend on detailed policy commitments and assurances that those agreements could actually be implemented.

Apple’s long-awaited entry into the foldable smartphone market is generating considerable excitement, with reviewers praising the iPhone Duo’s innovative design and impressive display. But the company’s most expensive iPhone is already facing questions about its durability after several early buyers reported cracked screens, including one customer who said the device broke just six hours after purchase.

The $1,999 iPhone Duo officially arrived in stores Friday, marking Apple’s first attempt to compete in a category that Samsung and other manufacturers have been developing for years. Although technology critics have largely applauded Apple’s engineering, they have also identified significant drawbacks involving the phone’s weight, camera performance, software compatibility, and limited multitasking capabilities.

The early reviews reflect a mixture of enthusiasm and reservations. Engadget awarded the Duo an 8.8 out of 10, while The Verge and WIRED each gave the device a 7 out of 10.

Engadget described Apple’s first foldable as “worth the wait,” while The Verge called the experience a “messy, expensive, good time.”

WIRED offered similarly favorable impressions of the hardware, characterizing the Duo as an “astonishingly good first foldable.”

Much of the praise has focused on the device’s folding mechanism and its expansive 7.6-inch interior display, which opens to provide a tablet-like viewing experience.

Apple developed a hinge designed to operate smoothly while allowing the screen to remain open at various angles. Reviewers also highlighted the titanium construction and the company’s efforts to minimize the visible crease that has been a longstanding drawback of foldable smartphones.

The inner display features a matte, anti-reflective finish intended to reduce glare, making the larger screen easier to use under different lighting conditions.

However, the launch was quickly overshadowed by complaints from several customers who reported damage to their new phones.

One Reddit user claimed the device developed a crack along the folding mechanism after only a few hours of use.

“iPhone Duo screen cracked within 6 hours of ownership,” the customer wrote.

According to the account, the problem occurred while the owner was opening the phone to demonstrate it to a friend.

The customer reported having “felt something around the internal hinge, underneath the screen.”

“As I continued opening it, I heard an audible crack, and the screen broke right along the hinge,” the post continued. “There were no marks or damage on the inner screen’s surface or the external hinge to suggest anything had been caught or damaged.”

The owner subsequently returned to an Apple store, where employees reportedly replaced the damaged phone with a new Duo.

Other users shared photographs and video footage showing similar damage near the folding area.

“Looks like some of them are cracking in the exact same area,” one Reddit commenter observed.

Another person posted an image of a damaged handset with the caption, “I’ve seen several iPhone Duos with damage in this exact same spot.”

The complaints have raised questions about whether the failures involve isolated defective units or a more widespread issue affecting the new folding mechanism.

The number of reported incidents remains small relative to the device’s overall launch, and there is not yet sufficient evidence to determine whether the Duo has a systemic durability problem.

Nevertheless, the reports are likely to attract attention because of the phone’s unusually high price and the additional mechanical complexity involved in a folding display.

For a device costing nearly $2,000, customers may be particularly concerned about the possibility of damage occurring during ordinary opening and closing.

The concerns come despite the generally favorable reception of Apple’s hinge engineering.

Reviewers found that the folding mechanism feels sturdy and operates with impressive precision. The interior screen also reduces the prominence of the central crease compared with many earlier foldable devices.

The crease has not been eliminated completely, however. Several reviewers observed that it remains visible under certain lighting conditions and can still be detected when sliding a finger across the display.

The anti-reflective screen coating also involves compromises.

Although it substantially reduces reflections, some critics found that colors appear less vivid and dark images lack the deep black tones associated with Apple’s premium conventional iPhones.

Another frequently mentioned drawback is the Duo’s size and weight.

The device weighs 254 grams and measures 11.3 millimeters thick when folded, making it noticeably bulkier than a standard premium smartphone.

While the interior screen provides considerable space for reading, viewing photographs, and watching videos, the exterior display measures only 5.4 inches.

Some reviewers appreciated the smaller outer screen because it makes the folded device relatively compact. Others found it restrictive, particularly when browsing websites, typing messages, or using applications designed for larger smartphone displays.

The Wall Street Journal delivered one of the more critical assessments of Apple’s new product, describing it as “Too Much iPhone, Too Little iPad.”

The newspaper argued that the Duo’s larger display does not necessarily translate into the productivity advantages users might expect from a tablet.

Although the phone opens into a substantially larger screen, its software does not provide the same flexibility available on Apple’s iPad.

Multitasking, keyboard functionality, and application management remain more limited, reducing the usefulness of the expanded display for certain types of work.

Software compatibility has emerged as another significant weakness.

Apple’s own applications generally transition smoothly between the smaller exterior screen and the larger interior display, but many third-party developers have not yet fully adapted their software to the new format.

As a result, some applications continue to appear in narrow, smartphone-sized windows even when the Duo is completely unfolded.

WIRED reviewer Julian Chokkattu described the resulting display as having “Thick, black bars on the sides, with a phone-sized app in the middle of this tablet-like display.”

Engadget reviewer Sam Rutherford identified the inconsistency between compatible and incompatible applications as “the biggest growing pain you’ll face on Apple’s first foldable.”

The limitations extend beyond applications that have not yet been redesigned.

Even Apple’s own multitasking system imposes restrictions that reviewers found frustrating.

Users can operate two applications simultaneously on the larger screen, but the software requires each to occupy exactly half the available space.

Unlike certain Android foldable phones, the Duo does not permit users to adjust the relative size of the two windows.

Nor can users open a third floating application above the split-screen arrangement, despite Apple having offered similar functionality on iPads for years.

“If you have two apps split-screen on the Duo, Apple won’t let you resize one app to be slightly bigger than the other like you can on Android,” Chokkattu wrote in WIRED.

“Here, a 50-50 split is always enforced. You can’t add a floating third app when in split-screen either, even though Apple has offered a similar capability on iPads for years.”

These restrictions could prove disappointing for customers who view the foldable design as a way to combine the convenience of a smartphone with the productivity features of a tablet.

Some of the software shortcomings may improve as developers update their applications.

WIRED reported that several widely used apps received compatibility improvements during the review period.

Creative Strategies also observed a substantial increase in the proportion of its installed applications optimized for the Duo over approximately six days, suggesting that software support is developing quickly.

Unlike hardware limitations, application compatibility and multitasking features can potentially be improved through future updates.

Other limitations, however, are built into the device itself, including a camera system that does not match the capabilities of Apple’s highest-end conventional iPhones.

Despite being the most expensive iPhone Apple has ever released, the Duo does not include the company’s most advanced photographic hardware.

“Despite being Apple’s most expensive iPhone, the iPhone Duo does not have its most powerful camera system,” Chance Miller of 9to5Mac observed.

The phone’s primary and ultrawide cameras generally received positive reviews, but several critics found that they could not match the iPhone 18 Pro’s performance, particularly when taking photographs in poorly lit environments.

The Duo also includes a concealed 4-megapixel camera beneath its larger interior display, a feature intended to preserve an uninterrupted viewing area.

However, reviewers found that the under-display camera produced noticeably weaker photographs, including images with washed-out colors and reduced clarity.

Gizmodo reviewer Raymond Wong questioned the decision to omit Apple’s most versatile camera hardware from such an expensive product.

“I hear you: it feels absurd that a $2,000 phone—the most expensive iPhone ever—does not have the most versatile camera system that Apple has to offer,” Wong wrote.

He also reported that he “noticed more lens flares coming off streetlights and more smeared details.”

The folding design does offer some photographic advantages unavailable on a conventional iPhone.

Users can take selfies using the higher-quality rear cameras while previewing the photograph on the smaller exterior screen, potentially producing better results than the dedicated front-facing cameras.

The device can also be positioned at different angles without a separate stand, allowing users to capture photographs or videos more easily in certain situations.

Battery performance was another area in which the Duo exceeded some reviewers’ expectations.

Although its large interior display requires considerable power, the phone managed to deliver respectable battery life during testing.

Tom’s Guide recorded 13 hours and 20 minutes of operation during a continuous web-browsing test conducted over a 5G connection while using the larger screen.

That result exceeded the 10 hours and six minutes achieved by Samsung’s Galaxy Z Fold 8 under the same testing conditions.

However, the Duo remained well behind Apple’s iPhone 18 Pro Max, which lasted 17 hours and 31 minutes.

Other reviewers reported that the new foldable could comfortably last through a normal day of use, although prolonged activity on the larger display reduced battery life more quickly.

Apple has equipped the Duo with its A20 Pro processor, a redesigned cooling system incorporating a vapor chamber, and a dual-battery arrangement intended to support the demands of the foldable design.

The device runs iOS 27, which Apple modified to accommodate transitions between the smaller outer screen and the larger internal display.

Apple officially introduced the Duo on September 9, describing it as a major development in the iPhone’s evolution. Preorders opened October 16, followed by the October 23 retail launch.

The handset is available in two colors, star white and night sky, and features a polished titanium exterior.

Apple has emphasized that the Duo’s compact folded dimensions and expansive interior screen are intended to provide users with both smartphone convenience and tablet-style functionality.

The company has also promoted the durability of the precision hinge, making the early reports of broken displays particularly noteworthy.

Additional accounts emerging since Friday’s launch have raised further questions about the device’s reliability.

One customer in Dallas reported that the interior screen cracked before the initial setup process had been completed. According to the customer’s account, the hinge became unusually difficult to move after approximately four openings, followed by a loud popping sound.

The customer said an Apple Store replaced the phone without charge.

Other reports have described discoloration, dark lines, and bright bands of malfunctioning pixels near the folding area.

Photographs circulating online show some affected screens developing a distinctive pattern, with damage extending along the crease and across part of the interior display.

Reports have emerged from the United States, Australia, and China, although the circumstances surrounding some of the photographs remain unverified.

Independent durability testing has also raised concerns.

In a video published by the JerryRigEverything YouTube channel, technology reviewer Zack Nelson subjected the Duo to a series of demanding tests involving scratches, dirt, repeated folding, and bending.

The exterior screen demonstrated substantial scratch resistance, but the flexible interior display proved much easier to mark, a weakness common to foldable smartphones.

During testing, dirt and sand interfered with the hinge mechanism, eventually preventing the phone from closing completely.

A separate bending test damaged the internal display and produced visible screen defects.

Those tests involved conditions considerably more extreme than ordinary daily use, however, and do not establish that the phone will fail under normal circumstances.

Some technology publications have also cautioned against drawing sweeping conclusions from the relatively small number of complaints appearing online.

AppleInsider reported contacting employees at seven Apple stores, including four major locations, and found that none of the stores surveyed had received a Duo for service or return because of a broken display.

That account suggests the early complaints may not reflect a widespread problem, although the device has been available for only a short period.

The distinction is important because isolated manufacturing defects can occur during the launch of virtually any electronic product, particularly one introducing an entirely new mechanical design.

Apple has not publicly identified a common cause behind the reported screen failures.

For affected customers, the company’s standard warranty and return policies may provide protection, depending on the circumstances of the damage.

Some early buyers have already reported receiving immediate replacements at Apple retail locations, although individual experiences may vary.

The mixed reception illustrates the challenge Apple faces in introducing its first foldable smartphone several years after competing manufacturers entered the market.

While the Duo’s engineering, materials, and screen design have impressed reviewers, the product also requires customers to accept compromises that are difficult to overlook at its $1,999 starting price.

Its camera system is less capable than that of some less expensive iPhones, its folded dimensions make it relatively heavy and thick, and its software has yet to take full advantage of the larger display.

At the same time, the phone offers an entirely different experience from a conventional smartphone, allowing users to carry a substantially larger screen in a device that can still fit into a pocket.

Tom’s Guide praised the Duo as the “best designed foldable yet,” reflecting the enthusiasm surrounding Apple’s approach to the category.

9to5Mac, meanwhile, concluded that most consumers would still be better served by a traditional iPhone.

For now, the Duo’s biggest test may have less to do with its innovative features than with how reliably its folding screen performs after weeks and months of regular use.

With reports of cracks appearing within hours of the product’s release, Apple faces an early challenge in reassuring customers that its most expensive smartphone can withstand the ordinary demands of daily operation.

{Matzav.com}

France was rocked by another wave of nationwide unrest today as approximately 410,000 demonstrators poured into the streets to protest rising living costs, stagnant wages, and deteriorating public services. What began as largely peaceful marches descended into violent confrontations in several cities, with nearly 1,000 people arrested, two seriously injured, and police battling masked rioters who hurled explosives, erected barricades, and attempted to overwhelm security forces.

The disturbances marked the second consecutive weekend of major unrest in France, prompting authorities to deploy approximately 70,000 police officers and gendarmes across the country. The massive security operation included armored vehicles, water cannons, and special riot-control units as officials sought to prevent a repeat of the widespread destruction that accompanied the previous weekend’s demonstrations.

Paris experienced one of its largest protest gatherings, with an estimated 110,000 people participating in a sanctioned march through the capital. Demonstrators carried signs demanding higher wages, improvements to public education, greater protection of public services, and economic relief for struggling households.

Although much of the demonstration proceeded peacefully, violence erupted as the march concluded, when groups of masked individuals began confronting police, throwing projectiles, and attempting to move beyond the authorized protest route.

Authorities reported that approximately 500 rioters were involved in the most serious confrontations in Paris, while disturbances were also reported in Marseille, Bordeaux, Toulouse, and other French cities.

The scale of the unrest forced the closure of the Louvre and several other major Paris museums, with officials taking precautions against possible vandalism and attacks on public buildings.

French Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez said nearly 1,000 people had been detained nationwide, a sharp increase from the approximately 385 arrests recorded during the previous weekend’s violence.

Despite the confrontations, Nuñez maintained that the overall security situation had improved compared with the preceding week, when rioters set fires, smashed storefronts, looted businesses, and attacked public facilities.

“The marches went well,” the interior minister said, emphasizing that most participants had demonstrated peacefully.

He nevertheless acknowledged that police had encountered serious violence from organized groups of extremists.

“In Paris, we had a major demonstration that took place peacefully, like most protest marches across the entire country,” Nuñez told reporters.

“But as we had anticipated, several high-risk groups formed, consisting of individuals who disguised themselves, mostly dressed in black, radical far-left and ultra-left activists.”

Nuñez said police had successfully prevented the disorder from spreading into some of the capital’s most sensitive areas, although limited looting occurred.

Unlike the previous weekend, authorities reported “no targeted attacks” against municipal buildings and police stations.

Security forces nevertheless encountered an “extremely high level of violence … with projectiles constantly being thrown and mortar fireworks fired.”

The minister said there were “500 rioters who were absolutely determined to attack internal security forces or carry out looting,” as the Paris march came to an end.

At least two people sustained serious injuries during the nationwide disturbances. In Toulouse, a 20-year-old man suffered devastating injuries when several of his fingers were blown off. Another person was seriously injured in Clermont-Ferrand.

Authorities did not immediately establish whether the injured individuals were protesters, bystanders, or members of law enforcement, nor did they disclose the precise circumstances of the injuries.

The confrontation in Paris intensified near Porte de Vincennes, on the southeastern side of the capital, where the authorized demonstration was supposed to end.

As crowds gathered at the conclusion of the march, riot police deployed high-pressure water cannons to disperse demonstrators attempting to continue beyond the permitted area.

Masked rioters responded by throwing stones, smoke devices, and other objects at police officers. Security forces subsequently used tear gas to push back the crowds.

A police helicopter was dispatched to assist ground units in locating smaller groups that had separated from the main demonstration.

According to authorities, the principal march along Cours de Vincennes “has been completely dispersed along the Cours de Vincennes” and “a Gendarmerie helicopter has been deployed to support ground units and locate any remaining rioters.”

Earlier in the day, Paris police officials had expressed cautious confidence that the demonstrations could be contained.

“For the moment, the situation is pretty much under control, apart from some attempts to block the peripherique, which we stopped,” said Olivier Bourde, the Paris police force’s deputy director for public order.

“Last week, we finished at 2 a.m. Now, it will depend on if the protesters disperse normally, like a normal protest, or if we have breakaway groups.”

The situation deteriorated as evening approached, with officers confronting groups that refused to disperse and attempted to break through police lines.

In Marseille, demonstrators wearing masks constructed makeshift barricades from large sheets of metal near Porte d’Aix, where a permitted march had been scheduled to conclude.

Other protesters threw rocks and glass bottles at riot police, while some launched fireworks directly toward security personnel.

Video recorded by French journalist Nicolas Farmine showed groups of rioters firing red and green mortar-style fireworks toward officers as other demonstrators cheered.

The masked protesters subsequently advanced toward police positions while continuing to launch the fireworks.

Officers responded with tear gas before moving forward with shields and batons to clear the area.

Similar disturbances unfolded in Bordeaux, where protesters and police clashed in the historic Place de la Bourse.

Masked individuals erected barricades and threw objects at officers, prompting police to deploy tear gas across the square.

Local authorities warned residents and visitors to stay away from the area.

“Hostile groups are attacking law enforcement, throwing projectiles and building barricades in Place de la Bourse. Avoid the area,” officials announced.

The unrest also extended to Toulouse, Lyon, and other cities where police maintained a heavy presence to prevent violence and property destruction.

In Paris, groups of demonstrators climbed onto bus shelters, waving French and Palestinian flags alongside other banners while chanting against President Emmanuel Macron and the police.

“Everyone hates the police!” some protesters shouted.

Others called for “Macron demission,” demanding that the French president resign.

The nationwide security deployment included approximately 20 armored vehicles stationed in Paris and Marseille.

The French National Gendarmerie used its Centaure armored vehicles, each weighing approximately 14.5 tons and capable of transporting ten officers.

The vehicles are equipped with ballistic protection and other security features intended to protect officers during violent confrontations.

France has acquired a fleet of approximately 90 Centaure vehicles at a reported cost approaching 70 million euros, or more than $78 million.

Authorities also deployed approximately 15 water cannons as part of the nationwide operation.

Early in the demonstrations, police reported arresting at least 135 individuals, many of whom were allegedly carrying fireworks, metal ball bearings, or other objects that could be used as weapons.

“We have to be ultra, ultra responsive. We have significant calls for disruption from political groups and quite simply from criminals,” Nuñez warned.

“It is going to be a long day.”

As the protests continued, the arrest figures climbed substantially, ultimately approaching 1,000 nationwide.

French officials attributed much of the violence to organized radical groups that joined otherwise peaceful demonstrations and attempted to provoke confrontations with security forces.

Nuñez specifically blamed “ultra-left” activists for an “an extremely elevated level of violence,” arguing that their actions were responsible for much of the disorder.

The demonstrations themselves were driven by a broad range of economic and political grievances.

The latest wave of protests began last month following complaints about staffing shortages at a high school southwest of Paris, a dispute that quickly developed into a wider movement over the condition of France’s education system.

Students have demanded additional teachers, improved educational resources, and the creation of approximately 250,000 additional places in higher education.

They have also called for changes to Parcoursup, France’s national university admissions system, which critics argue places excessive restrictions on students seeking higher education.

Workers and labor organizations have joined the demonstrations to demand increased wages, improved pensions, and stronger protections for public services.

Many protesters say their earnings have failed to keep pace with the rising cost of food, housing, and other basic necessities.

Others have expressed anger over government spending priorities, political corruption, and the handling of international conflicts.

Palestinian flags were visible at several demonstrations, with some participants using the protests to express opposition to Israeli military operations in Gaza.

Economists have described the unrest as the product of several overlapping grievances rather than a single political or economic event.

Andrew Kenningham, chief Europe economist at Capital Economics, said there was no one “single trigger” responsible for the demonstrations.

Some protesters openly defended the violence that accompanied the demonstrations, arguing that peaceful appeals had failed to bring meaningful changes.

Kyara Nissan Olivier, who participated in the Paris protests, said she had joined the movement because she believed the government was ignoring basic public grievances.

“I came here for my rights because apparently they’re still not respected,” Olivier said.

“What the police is doing is not legal. I’m scared to protest and that means it’s the start of the rise of fascism. I’m here for everything — at the start it was the high schools, but it’s like a snowball causing an avalanche.”

Olivier also defended the destruction that occurred during the previous weekend’s riots, suggesting that anger over economic hardship had reached a breaking point.

“The breakage is part of it … It’s not black and white. Violence is a response. There’s people who are angry, there’s people who have suffered. It’s enough. That’s it. It’s a logical response,” she said.

Another demonstrator, Oussama Mendrek, accused police of contributing to the confrontations and said the government needed to address the financial pressures facing working families.

“They have to raise the minimum wage. Because people are scared of working for nothing. People work and by the end of the month they have nothing to eat,” Mendrek said.

The demonstrations have also become a major political confrontation for President Emmanuel Macron, with opposition leaders using the unrest to challenge his administration.

Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of the far-left France Unbowed party, participated in the Paris march and praised the scale of the mobilization.

He described the demonstrations as a “total victory for the social movement.”

“The march gathered at the newly authorized location and is now moving forward peacefully, stretching over more than four kilometers,” Mélenchon wrote on X.

“The attempts by the Prefect of Police and (Prime Minister Sebastien) Lecornu to incite disorder have failed completely.”

“It is time for the authorities to yield; otherwise, the only option left to them will soon be the exit door,” he added.

Mélenchon also demanded increased government investment in education, warning Macron that continued resistance to the protesters’ demands could intensify calls for his departure.

“After that, all he’ll have left is the exit door,” he said.

The unrest has also become a prominent issue for Marine Le Pen and the National Rally, France’s nationalist right-wing party.

Le Pen has sharply criticized the government’s handling of the disturbances, arguing that the destruction reflects a broader breakdown in public order and confidence in political leadership.

“You saw yesterday our cities, our streets, our country, battered, mistreated, ransacked,” Le Pen wrote on X on October 18.

“We are living through a profound crisis of trust, of authority that poses a threat to democracy,” she continued.

“This observation must alert us: our country is caught in a vise, or even taken hostage, between violence and powerlessness.”

The protests coincided with the National Rally’s party congress in Orléans, where Jordan Bardella secured another term as party president.

Le Pen and Bardella are positioning their party for the 2027 presidential election, with public concern over security, immigration, and economic conditions becoming central political issues.

Prediction-market prices also shifted during the unrest, with contracts associated with a Le Pen presidential victory trading at approximately 65% on Polymarket and 50% on Kalshi.

Those figures represent market prices rather than election results or scientific polling, and they can change substantially as political developments unfold.

The market movements came as other potential presidential contenders, including Cannes Mayor David Lisnard, saw lower prices on the same platforms.

The demonstrations were not confined to France. A broader wave of protests unfolded across several European countries, with clashes reported in Italy, Spain, Belgium, and Albania.

In Italy, demonstrations over living costs, housing, pensions, education, and government policies spread through Rome, Milan, Turin, Naples, and Bologna.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni announced additional security measures, including the deployment of approximately 500 troops to Milan and tougher penalties involving minors accused of participating in violent disturbances.

The additional deployment followed unrest the previous weekend, when approximately 2,000 young demonstrators gathered in Milan and groups of rioters looted clothing and sporting goods stores.

Italian authorities said many of those involved were young people, including second-generation Italians and foreign nationals.

Today’s demonstrations in Milan were largely peaceful and gradually dispersed during the evening, but violence continued in other cities.

In Turin, protesters clashed with police into the night, while in Rome, officers deployed water cannons and tear gas near Piazza della Repubblica after confrontations involving anti-war demonstrators.

Police also intervened in Bologna, where rioters erected barricades using garbage containers and other objects.

Some Italian protesters carried banners bearing slogans such as “No to lies of the state.”

In Spain, hundreds of demonstrators gathered in central Barcelona as student-led protests spread across the country.

Video footage showed a large fire burning in a city street while police vehicles moved through the area attempting to restore order.

Rioters were reported to have caused “damage to vehicles, businesses, and urban furniture,” according to local reporting.

Belgium also experienced unrest, with police using water cannons to dismantle barricades erected by students in Brussels.

In Albania, demonstrators demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Edi Rama set fire to garbage containers and threw stones during confrontations with police.

Security forces responded with water cannons outside the Ministry of Education in the capital, Tirana.

The widespread demonstrations have underscored mounting frustration across parts of Europe over the cost of living, public services, and government policies, although the protests in individual countries have been driven by different local grievances.

In France, the size of today’s demonstrations was disputed by organizers and government authorities.

The Interior Ministry estimated that 410,000 people participated nationwide, including 110,000 in Paris.

The CGT labor union, which helped organize the demonstrations, placed the national turnout at approximately 800,000 and estimated that 250,000 people participated in the capital.

The union accused the government of imposing excessive restrictions on public demonstrations and pledged to continue its campaign.

Organizers have called for another nationwide day of strikes and demonstrations on November 5, indicating that the movement is unlikely to end with the latest weekend of unrest.

The demonstrations have also placed additional pressure on Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu, whose government is struggling to address public dissatisfaction while confronting difficult budgetary and economic decisions.

In Lyon, where unauthorized gatherings continued despite restrictions, local authorities reported further property damage, injuries, and arrests.

The city’s mayor, Grégory Doucet, criticized the decision to prohibit demonstrations in certain areas, arguing that the restrictions had contributed to gatherings outside approved locations.

He also condemned the destruction of businesses and public property, insisting that such acts had no connection to the legitimate demands of demonstrators.

Marseille Mayor Benoît Payan likewise acknowledged that the security operation had prevented a recurrence of some of the previous weekend’s worst disturbances, while warning that groups of rioters continued attempting to loot businesses.

Police in Marseille worked alongside municipal officers and emergency personnel to contain the violence and protect commercial areas.

The mayor urged residents to remain cautious and allow security and rescue personnel to carry out their duties.

Despite the significant police presence and the large number of arrests, the French government faces the prospect of continued demonstrations in the coming weeks.

Today’s events demonstrated both the scale of public dissatisfaction and the difficulty authorities face in separating peaceful demonstrations from groups determined to engage in violence.

With hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets, renewed calls for Macron’s resignation, and further strikes already being organized, France remains in the midst of a major confrontation over economic conditions, government policy, and public order.

Rep. Ilhan Omar has enlisted two prominent Washington attorneys with extensive experience in politically sensitive federal investigations as she confronts scrutiny of her immigration history and questions surrounding her family’s finances. The Minnesota Democrat’s new legal team includes an attorney who represented President Joe Biden during the investigation into his use of an autopen and another who played a major role in both impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.

The attorneys, Amy Jeffress and Joshua Matz, are partners at the Washington law firm Hecker Fink. Both have handled major legal disputes involving Congress, the Justice Department, and the Trump administration, although neither is principally known for practicing immigration law.

Their involvement comes as federal authorities investigate matters involving Omar’s immigration records and financial disclosures, including questions about the reported value of business interests associated with her husband, Timothy Mynett. The investigation has also brought renewed attention to longstanding allegations about Omar’s earlier marriage, which she has denied.

Jeffress became Biden’s personal attorney in 2025, replacing Bob Bauer, who had served as one of the former president’s closest legal advisers.

In that capacity, she represented Biden as investigators examined his administration’s use of an autopen to sign official documents, including presidential pardons and legislation. The controversy centered on whether the automated signatures had been properly authorized and whether Biden had personally approved the actions taken in his name.

Before joining Hecker Fink, Jeffress worked at the prominent Washington firm Arnold & Porter, where she developed a practice involving high-profile investigations, government enforcement matters, and disputes involving federal officials.

Her previous clients included Lisa Page, the former FBI attorney whose private text messages with FBI official Peter Strzok became a major controversy during investigations into the bureau’s handling of matters involving Trump and the 2016 presidential election.

The messages, which included criticism of Trump, prompted allegations of political bias within the FBI. Page subsequently left the bureau, and the episode became a significant point of contention in congressional investigations of federal law enforcement.

Jeffress also served as outside counsel to the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. Her work included assisting the committee in its efforts to obtain testimony and documents from government officials and other witnesses.

Omar’s second attorney, Joshua Matz, has an equally prominent history in legal battles involving Trump and congressional Democrats.

Matz represented House Democrats during both impeachment proceedings against Trump and subsequently worked with the House January 6 committee.

He has also represented several major universities, including Brown University, New York University, and Columbia University, in legal disputes involving the Trump administration.

The selection of attorneys with extensive experience in congressional investigations and politically charged litigation has attracted attention because the federal inquiry reportedly encompasses both immigration-related questions and the financial affairs of Omar’s household.

Federal authorities searched Omar’s Washington, D.C., residence on October 12 as part of an investigation into whether immigration documents submitted decades ago contained false information.

Investigators from Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, executed a court-authorized search warrant and seized documents, electronic devices, and Omar’s passport.

The search was carried out under restrictions imposed by a federal magistrate judge to protect constitutional interests associated with Omar’s position as a member of Congress.

The investigation reportedly involves questions about immigration paperwork submitted by Omar’s family when they entered the United States after fleeing Somalia. Authorities have also examined whether information concerning her birth date and her father’s background was accurately represented during the immigration process.

Omar has consistently denied wrongdoing and maintains that she obtained American citizenship legally.

The investigation has also renewed attention to allegations involving her former husband, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi. Claims circulated for years that Elmi was actually her brother and that their marriage was connected to immigration fraud. Omar has repeatedly denied those accusations, and the allegations have not been established in court.

Documents associated with the recent search reportedly reference the name Nur Said Elmi, a detail that has attracted attention because of the earlier controversy surrounding her marriage and immigration history.

The immigration inquiry is separate from another federal investigation concerning Omar’s financial disclosures, although both matters have intensified scrutiny of the congresswoman.

Questions surrounding her finances emerged after congressional disclosure forms listed business interests associated with her husband, Timothy Mynett, at values potentially reaching $30 million.

The reported increase attracted attention because earlier filings had placed the couple’s financial holdings at substantially lower amounts.

Omar subsequently amended her disclosures, explaining that accounting errors had resulted in misleading valuations of the businesses. Her office maintained that the original figures did not accurately reflect the couple’s net worth.

Federal prosecutors have nevertheless continued examining the financial filings, while congressional Republicans have sought additional information about Mynett’s business interests.

The congresswoman recently addressed her personal finances during an interview with MS NOW, claiming that she lives “paycheck to paycheck” despite receiving an annual congressional salary of $174,000.

She also described difficulties contacting her legal representatives during the search of her home, alleging that federal agents prevented her from speaking with an attorney for approximately one hour.

The raid prompted an immediate response from Jeffress and Matz, who challenged the manner in which federal investigators conducted the operation.

In a seven-page letter sent to the Justice Department on October 16, the attorneys demanded the return of Omar’s passport, electronic devices, and other property taken from her residence.

They accused federal authorities of disregarding judicial safeguards intended to protect the constitutional rights of members of Congress.

The lawyers also demanded preservation of recordings made during the search and questioned whether investigators had properly complied with requirements involving notification of congressional legal officials.

In their letter, the attorneys characterized the investigation as politically motivated and challenged its legal foundation.

“This vindictive, retributive, and politically motivated criminal investigation into one of the President’s chief congressional critics violates Representative Omar’s constitutional rights and threatens the separation of powers,” the attorneys wrote.

They further argued that federal authorities had failed to establish a legitimate basis for questioning Omar’s citizenship.

The Justice Department rejected the accusations, maintaining that investigators had complied with the applicable legal requirements and the court’s instructions.

The investigation has also expanded beyond Omar herself. Reports indicate that several members of her family received grand jury subpoenas seeking information concerning their immigration histories and documents submitted to federal authorities.

The renewed inquiry follows an earlier examination of Omar’s immigration background during Trump’s first administration. According to subsequent reporting, immigration officials who reviewed similar allegations in 2019 did not find sufficient evidence to justify a full investigation at that time.

Omar’s attorneys have pointed to the earlier review in questioning why the Justice Department is now pursuing allegations that have circulated for years.

The congresswoman has also sought financial assistance from supporters to cover the mounting expenses associated with her legal defense.

In a video recorded inside a moving vehicle and released Tuesday evening, Omar warned that the legal proceedings would impose a substantial financial burden.

“It is going to be a very expensive and challenging time and so we appreciate whether you’re able to send $5, $10, $20,” she said.

A review of Omar’s campaign finance disclosures found no payments to Jeffress, Matz, or their law firm recorded through the October 15 reporting deadline. That does not necessarily establish whether the attorneys have received compensation through other arrangements.

Meanwhile, President Trump has continued publicly criticizing Omar and calling for her departure from Congress.

On Thursday evening, Trump demanded that the Minnesota Democrat “IMMEDIATELY” resign, accusing her of having used a different name when taking her oath of office.

The president has repeatedly raised questions about Omar’s immigration background and has defended the administration’s scrutiny of the congresswoman.

Omar, one of the most prominent members of the progressive Democratic group commonly known as the Squad, has frequently clashed with Trump over immigration enforcement, foreign policy, and other administration priorities.

Barack Obama returned to the campaign trail today with a series of attacks on President Donald Trump and Ohio Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, accusing the administration of fueling higher living costs, pursuing an unnecessary war with Iran, and lowering standards of political conduct. Speaking before a Democratic crowd in Cleveland, Obama also ridiculed Trump’s renovations of the White House and condemned a controversial campaign advertisement targeting Ramaswamy’s Democratic opponent.

The appearance at Cleveland Public Auditorium marked the beginning of a series of campaign events intended to strengthen Democratic candidates ahead of the November 3 midterm elections. Obama appeared alongside former Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, who is attempting to reclaim his Senate seat from Republican incumbent Jon Husted, and former state health director Amy Acton, who is running against Ramaswamy for governor.

Obama’s speech was particularly critical of Trump’s handling of the economy and the conflict with Iran. He argued that the president had failed to deliver on promises to lower everyday expenses while devoting considerable attention to changes at the White House.

The former president singled out Trump’s construction of a new White House ballroom, renovations to the Rose Garden, and installation of an upgraded presidential helicopter landing area.

“I mean, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but he seems very focused on home renovations,” Obama told the crowd. “He should be on HGTV.”

Obama then mocked the president’s preference for elaborate gold decorations, drawing laughter from the audience.

“He’s got the White House looking like Saddam Hussein opened a Cheesecake Factory,” Obama said.

The comments referred to several projects undertaken during Trump’s second term, including a new ballroom intended to accommodate large official gatherings. The administration has defended the construction as a practical improvement to the White House, noting that major events have traditionally required temporary facilities on the grounds.

The ballroom project has been among the administration’s more visible construction initiatives, while changes to the Rose Garden and helicopter landing facilities have also drawn public attention.

Obama’s criticism came despite controversy surrounding the cost of his own presidential center in Chicago. The Obama Presidential Center’s projected price has exceeded $1 billion, substantially above its original estimate of approximately $350 million, and the development has faced questions about construction expenses, delays, and associated public infrastructure costs.

Beyond the White House renovations, Obama accused Trump of failing to address the economic concerns that helped return him to office.

He argued that Americans had been promised lower prices but were instead confronting increased expenses, including higher energy costs that Obama attributed partly to the conflict with Iran.

The former president directly criticized Trump’s decision to launch military operations against Tehran.

“Most importantly, he decided to start an unnecessary war that nobody asked for and nobody voted for,” Obama said.

Obama also defended the nuclear agreement negotiated between Iran and world powers during his presidency, asserting that the arrangement had successfully prevented Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

“Iran didn’t have nuclear weapons because I had put a deal in place that everybody knows kept them from getting nukes,” he declared.

Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement in 2018, arguing that its restrictions were inadequate and that it failed to address Iran’s ballistic missile development and support for terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East.

The agreement had provided sanctions relief in exchange for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities and international inspections. Although inspectors verified Iranian compliance with several provisions before the American withdrawal, critics argued that the agreement’s expiration provisions and other limitations left significant long-term security concerns unresolved.

Trump has repeatedly defended his decision to abandon the arrangement, maintaining that Iran could not be permitted to develop nuclear weapons and that stronger economic and military pressure was necessary.

Obama also attacked the administration’s immigration policies and trade measures, including tariffs imposed on imports from Canada.

Mocking the administration’s confrontational approach toward America’s northern neighbor, Obama remarked, “These are the people who gave us maple syrup and Martin Short.”

“Canadians are the nicest people,” he added.

The former president also directed criticism at Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, portraying him as excessively concerned with appearances and military culture rather than the administration’s broader responsibilities.

“He’s very focused on very important matters like the jawlines and testosterone levels of our troops and live-streaming executions, because that’s how he thinks you cultivate that manly, warrior spirit,” Obama said.

“How much time do you think this defense secretary spends looking at himself in the mirror in the morning?” he asked.

Hegseth has defended his approach to military leadership as an effort to restore combat readiness, physical standards, and a stronger emphasis on military effectiveness.

Some of Obama’s strongest remarks, however, were directed at Ramaswamy, whose gubernatorial campaign has become embroiled in controversy over an advertisement featuring Acton’s estranged mother.

The advertisement includes accusations by Donna Arthur, Acton’s mother, who challenges her daughter’s account of her childhood and attacks her honesty.

Acton has publicly discussed experiencing abuse, neglect, and homelessness during her childhood. Her campaign has also released court records and contemporary news reports supporting her account of being removed from her mother’s home following serious allegations of abuse involving her stepfather.

Arthur and Acton have reportedly been estranged since 1978.

Ramaswamy’s campaign initially released a 60-second advertisement featuring Arthur, who accused her daughter of lying about her past and questioned her suitability for public office.

The campaign announced plans to spend approximately $4 million promoting the advertisement across Ohio.

The commercial drew criticism from both Democrats and Republicans, including Ohio Governor Mike DeWine, who called for its removal.

Nevertheless, Ramaswamy defended the advertisement, maintaining that questions about Acton’s truthfulness and personal history were legitimate campaign issues.

President Trump and Vice President JD Vance also defended Ramaswamy’s decision to run the advertisement.

By Saturday, the campaign had begun airing a shortened 30-second version that removed some of Arthur’s more personal accusations, including statements questioning Acton’s need for help and disputing her account of having lived in a tent.

Obama devoted part of his Cleveland speech to the controversy, accusing Ramaswamy of crossing basic standards of decency in pursuit of political office.

“In recent days, we’ve seen there is no line he will not cross, no low he will not sink to,” Obama said.

The former president referred to Acton’s accounts of childhood abuse, neglect, and homelessness, arguing that Ramaswamy had improperly turned those experiences into political ammunition.

“There’s a decency we should expect out of our public officials,” Obama continued. “And I don’t know what’s happened where the standards of behavior are so low that somebody could run an ad like that.”

Obama also characterized Ramaswamy as a politician eager for attention and willing to pursue it at the expense of accepted standards of conduct.

The controversy has become a central issue in the closing days of Ohio’s gubernatorial campaign, with Acton accusing her Republican opponent of deliberately exploiting painful events from her childhood.

Speaking at the rally before Obama, Acton addressed Ramaswamy’s campaign directly.

“My opponent has chosen to exploit, intentionally, my childhood to save his stumbling campaign, but it’s not going to work,” she said. “Decency still matters.”

Acton then intensified her criticism of Ramaswamy.

“Mr. Ramaswamy, you are not just out of touch, you are out for yourself and you are a danger to my state. Apparently there is no low to which you won’t stoop.”

Ramaswamy, a businessman who sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, has made his gubernatorial campaign a major test of his political appeal in his home state.

The contest has attracted national attention because Ohio has increasingly supported Republican candidates in presidential elections, despite having voted for Obama in both 2008 and 2012.

Trump carried Ohio in 2016, 2020, and 2024, winning the state by more than 11 percentage points in the most recent presidential election.

Ohio has not elected a Democratic governor since Ted Strickland won the office in 2006.

Nevertheless, recent polling has indicated a competitive race between Acton and Ramaswamy, with some surveys placing the Democrat narrowly ahead within the margin of error.

The Senate contest between Brown and Husted has also become an important battleground as Republicans and Democrats compete for control of Congress.

Brown, who previously served three terms in the Senate, is attempting a political comeback against Husted, a Republican who succeeded Vice President Vance in the chamber.

Both Trump and Vance have traveled to Ohio in recent weeks to campaign for Republican candidates, while Democrats are relying on Obama and other prominent party figures to generate enthusiasm among their supporters.

Obama acknowledged during his speech that Trump would remain president for another two years, regardless of the midterm election results.

He argued, however, that voters could change the balance of power in Congress and state governments.

“We’re not stuck with a spineless Congress and Republican governors who are handling lawlessness and carelessness and cruelty and indifference for working people,” Obama said.

He characterized the administration’s first two years as a period of political turmoil and urged Democrats to view the midterms as an opportunity to respond.

“After two years of chaos and cruelty and corruption and incompetence … you get a chance to say enough is enough,” he declared.

The Cleveland rally was the first stop in a broader campaign swing for Obama, who was also scheduled to appear in Detroit on Saturday evening to support Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed.

El-Sayed, a former public health official, is running against Republican Mike Rogers in another closely watched Senate contest.

The Michigan campaign has presented its own complications for Democrats, including earlier criticism of Obama’s political record by El-Sayed himself.

Following Obama’s reelection in 2012, El-Sayed publicly expressed disappointment with the president’s failure to fulfill some progressive campaign promises. More recently, however, he has described Obama as an important influence on his political development.

Obama is also scheduled to travel to Georgia on Wednesday to campaign alongside Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff and gubernatorial candidate Keisha Lance Bottoms.

The former president’s return to the campaign trail reflects the Democratic Party’s efforts to mobilize voters during the final stretch of an election that will determine control of Congress for the remaining two years of Trump’s presidency.

For Republicans, the campaign has centered heavily on defending the administration’s economic and national security policies, while portraying Democratic candidates as offering a return to policies rejected by voters in 2024.

Trump has continued holding campaign appearances of his own, including events supporting Republican candidates in competitive states.

The exchanges between Obama and Trump have also revived their longstanding political rivalry, which dates back to Trump’s emergence as a prominent national political figure during Obama’s presidency.

With Election Day approaching on November 3, Obama’s Cleveland appearance demonstrated that the two men remain central figures in their respective parties’ efforts to frame the stakes of the midterm elections, even though neither is personally on the ballot.

The rally also placed Ramaswamy’s controversial advertisement at the center of the national political discussion, adding another issue to an already contentious Ohio gubernatorial race.

[COMMUNICATED]

Quiet Kavanah is a gentle reminder, a shared commitment to quiet the distractions and focus on what matters.

It isn’t about “shushing” others; it’s about connecting to the meaning of the words you’re saying. 

Make a personal commitment or sign up for your shul TODAY at quietkavanah.com.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is facing accusations that his administration is using $1.6 million in taxpayer money to influence the outcome of five ballot proposals that would expand executive authority, eliminate certain layers of government oversight, and reduce opportunities for public input. Critics charge that the city-funded advertising campaign is effectively promoting measures that would transfer important decision-making powers away from elected representatives and local communities.

The controversy centers on five proposed amendments to the City Charter that New Yorkers will decide in the November 3 general election. The measures were placed on the ballot by a 15-member Charter Revision Commission appointed by Mamdani and would make substantial changes to how the city approves outdoor dining structures, street redesigns, government contracts, construction permits, and other municipal matters.

New York City law prohibits public officials from spending government money to campaign for or against ballot proposals. Opponents contend that the Mamdani administration is attempting to circumvent that restriction by presenting its promotional effort as a neutral public education campaign.

The administration and the Charter Revision Commission have launched an extensive advertising effort that includes social media videos, text messages, and other public communications urging residents to participate in the upcoming election. The advertisements repeatedly characterize the proposals as a way to create a “faster government” by eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy.

Critics argue that the campaign highlights the supposed advantages of the amendments while failing to explain that several proposals would also eliminate existing checks on mayoral authority and reduce the influence of the City Council, community boards, and borough presidents.

One video released by the Mayor’s Office last month features Mamdani moving rapidly through City Hall in a comedic sequence accompanied by cartoon-style sound effects. In the video, the mayor declares that “New Yorkers will be able to vote on how fast our government runs.”

Opponents maintain that the presentation amounts to a political sales pitch rather than an objective explanation of the proposals, particularly because it does not address the potential loss of public oversight.

Councilwoman Joann Ariola, a Queens Republican, accused the administration of using government resources to advance the mayor’s political objectives.

“Taxpayer dollars are supposed to be used to serve the public — not bankroll the mayor’s political agenda,” Ariola said.

“The whole thing is completely illegitimate, and we are getting closer to socialist totalitarianism every day with this administration. These proposals want to take power away from the people and put it in the hands of bureaucrats.”

Councilman Phil Wong, a Queens Democrat, similarly questioned whether the advertising effort complies with the restrictions on government-funded election advocacy.

Wong said “we’ve seen” previous mayors “walk right up to the line” separating permissible public information from prohibited political campaigning, but argued that Mamdani’s effort goes considerably further.

“this isn’t even close. It’s way over,” Wong said.

Among the most disputed amendments is a proposal changing the approval process for private structures and installations on public property. The measure covers sidewalk cafes, outdoor dining sheds, accessibility ramps, benches, planters, and similar uses of streets and sidewalks.

The administration argues that the current process imposes unnecessary delays and expenses on businesses and property owners. Under the proposed changes, however, public hearings would no longer be mandatory, and the City Council would lose its existing authority to reject sidewalk cafe applications after approval by the Department of Transportation.

Community boards, borough presidents, and local council members would continue receiving notice of applications and would retain the ability to submit comments, but several formal review requirements would be eliminated. Opponents say those changes would weaken neighborhood influence over decisions affecting public spaces.

Another proposal would accelerate the installation of bus lanes, bicycle lanes, and other transportation projects by eliminating certain consultation requirements currently imposed on the Department of Transportation. Under the proposed arrangement, the agency would have greater flexibility to proceed with street redesigns without the existing mandatory review process involving community boards and other government agencies.

The same amendment would change how the city handles certain sales and leases of municipal property. Some transactions involving unused city-owned land would be transferred to a faster approval process involving the City Planning Commission rather than the existing City Council review.

It would also eliminate several approval requirements for city office leases, including public hearings and reviews by the City Planning Commission and City Council. Supporters argue that the changes would reduce delays and unnecessary expenses, while opponents warn that they would remove important safeguards over decisions involving public property.

The remaining proposals address government contracting, construction permits, and the city’s financial reserves.

One measure would permit the Procurement Policy Board to simplify paperwork required of companies and nonprofit organizations seeking city contracts. It would also require the board to meet at least quarterly and make other changes intended to shorten the contracting process.

Another would establish a centralized construction-permitting system, authorize additional Department of Buildings officials to approve construction documents, and transfer responsibility for certain waterfront construction permits from the Department of Small Business Services to the Department of Buildings.

The fifth proposal would establish a financial reserve target equal to at least 12% of the city’s tax revenue from the preceding year. The money would be intended to help New York City respond to economic downturns, emergencies, and unexpected budget shortfalls.

Although the city already maintains a rainy-day fund, there is currently no comparable target governing the amount it should hold. The amendment would require the administration to develop a methodology for reaching the proposed reserve level, with actual deposits remaining subject to the normal budget approval process.

Opposition to the transportation-related amendment has also emerged among Brooklyn residents concerned about the expansion of bicycle infrastructure and dedicated bus lanes.

A coalition of neighborhood organizations operating under the name “Our Streets! Our Voices! Our Vote!” announced plans for a demonstration outside Barclays Center on Saturday. The groups oppose what they describe as the city’s anti-car policies and object to proposals that would reduce residents’ opportunities to challenge street redesigns.

Their concerns center on the possibility that transportation projects affecting parking, traffic patterns, and neighborhood access could advance with fewer opportunities for public objections.

Within City Hall, Council Speaker Julie Menin has circulated information among council members describing the potential reduction in legislative authority and government transparency if the amendments are adopted.

The City Council has not taken an official position on the five proposals, however, and Menin has indicated that she does not intend to authorize taxpayer-funded advertising concerning this year’s ballot questions.

That position contrasts with the Council’s approach during the 2025 election, when the legislative body, under then-Speaker Adrienne Adams, spent more than $1.5 million opposing charter amendments advanced by then-Mayor Eric Adams.

Those amendments were ultimately approved by voters and changed portions of the city’s land-use approval process, reducing the Council’s authority over certain housing and development decisions.

The earlier campaign has become part of the current debate over whether government institutions should use public money to influence voter decisions on proposed changes to the City Charter.

The controversy has also attracted the attention of Citizens Union New York, a government reform organization that questioned the legal boundaries of the Mamdani administration’s advertising campaign.

In a statement published on X, the organization said “it’s hard to tell” whether the promotional effort crosses “the line into electioneering.”

The organization said “the more honest truth” is that New York City lacks a clearly designated ethics enforcement authority responsible for ensuring compliance with the prohibition on government-funded election advocacy.

Citizens Union called for legislation expressly establishing that the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board “is indeed tasked with regulating the ban on government-funded electioneering.”

The organization’s concern centers on the absence of a clear enforcement mechanism for determining when an official public information campaign becomes an improper effort to influence an election.

The Conflicts of Interest Board, however, has indicated that the matter does not fall within its existing authority.

Board Executive Director Carolyn Miller said the legality of the administration’s advertising campaign “is beyond the scope of the board’s jurisdiction.”

The uncertainty has left critics questioning which government agency, if any, is responsible for investigating whether the taxpayer-funded campaign violates election-related restrictions.

The Mayor’s Office rejected the suggestion that the advertising constitutes improper political advocacy, maintaining that the Charter Revision Commission is fulfilling its responsibility to educate voters about the proposals.

“Per state law, the [Charter Revision] Commission is charged with providing public education and is leveraging the tools available to inform New Yorkers about the proposed ballot props in an effort to encourage them to make their voices heard,” a mayoral spokesperson said.

The administration has also defended the underlying amendments as practical measures intended to make city government more responsive and efficient.

When the Charter Revision Commission released its recommendations in July, officials said the changes could substantially shorten approval periods for outdoor dining applications, accelerate street improvement projects, and reduce delays in government contracting and construction permitting.

The commission has estimated that its proposed changes could reduce the outdoor dining approval process from approximately eight months to two months and shorten certain contracting procedures by as much as 30 days.

Those projected improvements form a central part of the administration’s argument that the amendments would benefit residents and businesses frustrated by lengthy bureaucratic procedures.

Critics counter that administrative efficiency should not come at the expense of public hearings, legislative review, and opportunities for neighborhood residents to influence government decisions.

The debate is unfolding as early voting begins ahead of the November 3 election, when New Yorkers will be asked to vote separately on each of the five proposed amendments.

If approved, the measures would alter several significant aspects of city government, including the authority of elected representatives, the procedures governing public property, and the requirements imposed on agencies before implementing transportation and construction projects.

The controversy over the $1.6 million advertising campaign has therefore become part of a larger dispute over how much authority should rest with the mayoral administration and how much oversight should remain in the hands of the City Council and the public.

With voters preparing to decide the proposals, opponents are demanding greater scrutiny of the administration’s use of taxpayer funds, while City Hall maintains that its campaign is a lawful effort to inform residents about changes it believes would improve the functioning of municipal government.

Elon Musk acknowledged today that SpaceX deliberately restricted access to its Starlink satellite internet network in Ukraine, interfering with military operations that depend on the technology for communications, drone missions, and defense against Russian attacks. The admission came after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that service had finally returned to normal following more than a week of disruptions along the front lines.

Musk’s acknowledgment on X followed Zelenskyy’s announcement that both Starlink and Starshield, the military-oriented satellite communications system, were once again operating at their previous speeds. The restrictions had caused considerable concern among Ukrainian commanders, who reported interruptions to battlefield communications and drone operations.

The controversy has raised questions about who authorized the service limitations, particularly those involving Starshield, which plays an important role in Ukraine’s military communications and unmanned aircraft operations. Ukrainian officials have been seeking answers since the restrictions began last week.

“The speeds are now where they need to be,” Zelenskyy wrote on X, explaining that restoration efforts began overnight and that performance had improved sufficiently by this morning. The Ukrainian president said the return of normal service would help restore battlefield logistics and strengthen efforts to intercept Russian jet-powered Shahed drones.

Musk defended SpaceX’s decision to limit Starlink access, accusing the Ukrainian military of violating the conditions governing use of the commercial satellite network.

“Using Starlink, a civilian commercial service, for offensive drone strikes to kill people has never been allowed, nor should it be,” Musk wrote. “Ukraine military violated Starlink terms of service and used it for offensive drone strikes to kill people. That loophole was closed last week.”

The SpaceX chief distinguished between Starlink, the company’s commercial satellite internet service, and Starshield, its military-focused system. Musk maintained that decisions concerning Starshield restrictions were under the control of the United States government, rather than SpaceX acting independently.

He also pointed to the assistance SpaceX has provided Ukraine since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022, defending the company’s broader record of supporting Ukrainian communications and military capabilities.

The Starshield restrictions imposed last week reportedly caused serious operational difficulties for Ukrainian forces. Military commanders described drone losses, interrupted missions, and problems coordinating activities in areas where reliable satellite connectivity is essential.

The restoration comes amid a new diplomatic effort by Washington to bring the war to an end. On Wednesday, the Kremlin announced that Russia had agreed in principle to participate in another round of negotiations with the United States and Ukraine next month, potentially reopening talks aimed at reaching a settlement.

A separate diplomatic development emerged Friday, when Russia and Ukraine agreed to a limited ceasefire around Oleshky, a devastated town in the Russian-occupied portion of Ukraine’s southern Kherson region. The arrangement was brokered through an initiative involving First Lady Melania Trump and is intended to permit humanitarian assistance and civilian evacuations. The temporary ceasefire is scheduled to begin October 29.

The satellite communications controversy has further complicated relations between Kyiv and Washington, which were already under pressure following President Trump’s reported agreement concerning Russian diesel purchases. Ukrainian officials viewed that development as a concession to Moscow at a time when they have been seeking stronger American pressure on Russia.

Ukrainian Defense Minister Yevhenii Khmara attributed the restoration of satellite communications to “direct dialogue” and Zelenskyy’s diplomatic engagement with American officials. He emphasized that the return of reliable connectivity was especially important “for our front, for the military, the work of drones, logistics and communications.”

Ukraine’s Defense Ministry reported that its monitoring equipment had detected stable Starlink and Starshield connections on systems moving at speeds exceeding 400 kilometers per hour, or approximately 250 miles per hour. During the restrictions, Ukrainian officials said connections had been disrupted when equipment traveled at approximately 160 kilometers per hour, severely limiting the effectiveness of certain drone operations.

The question of responsibility for the restrictions remains contentious. Trump has denied personally ordering the limitations and has defended Musk against accusations concerning the disruptions. Vice President JD Vance has suggested that the White House coordinated with Musk, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth have denied that the administration directed the restrictions.

Musk’s latest comments clarify SpaceX’s role in limiting the commercial Starlink service, although they do not settle the separate dispute over who authorized changes affecting Starshield. Reuters has previously reported that the directive to restrict Starshield originated within the White House, an account that has been disputed by administration officials.

In his public comments, Musk also stressed that Starlink has been essential to Ukraine’s ability to maintain communications since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February 2022. He argued that SpaceX has provided extraordinary assistance to Ukraine, while maintaining that its commercial network should not be used for offensive attacks.

The developments unfolded as fighting continued across Ukraine and Russian-controlled territory despite the renewed diplomatic activity.

In Ukraine’s Kharkiv region, a Russian missile strike on the city of Lozova killed one man and wounded two other people, according to local authorities. The attack added to the continuing civilian casualties caused by Russian strikes on Ukrainian cities and infrastructure.

Meanwhile, Russian-installed officials in occupied Crimea reported electricity outages following overnight Ukrainian attacks. The disruptions affected several communities on the peninsula, which Russia seized from Ukraine in 2014.

Ukraine also reported striking military-related industrial facilities deep inside Russian territory. The Ukrainian General Staff announced that its forces had targeted a chemical manufacturing plant in Tolyatti, a Russian city whose industrial facilities produce materials used in rocket fuel.

Tolyatti Mayor Ilya Sukhikh confirmed that an overnight attack had damaged industrial installations in the city, although Russian authorities did not immediately provide a full assessment of the destruction.

Ukrainian forces also attacked an electronics manufacturing facility in Oryol, according to Ukraine’s General Staff. Ukrainian military officials said the plant produces components used in Russian cruise and ballistic missiles, making it a target in Kyiv’s campaign against Moscow’s weapons-production infrastructure.

Local authorities in Oryol reported that three people were killed in Friday’s attack. Ukrainian officials confirmed the strike on the industrial facility but did not provide an independent assessment of the reported casualties.

The attacks extended even farther into Russia, with Ukrainian drones reaching the Omsk region of western Siberia, more than 1,200 miles from the Ukrainian border.

Omsk Governor Vitaly Khotsenko acknowledged that drones had “reached a northern industrial hub,” indicating that Ukrainian unmanned aircraft had penetrated deep into Russian territory.

Russian online retailer Ozon subsequently reported that one of its logistics facilities in Omsk had been struck by a drone. The company said no employees were injured.

Ozon competes with Wildberries, another major Russian online retailer whose facilities have previously been targeted in Ukrainian attacks.

The continuing strikes underscore the intensity of the conflict even as Washington pursues renewed negotiations and limited humanitarian agreements.

For Ukraine, however, the immediate significance of the latest developments is the restoration of satellite communications that have become indispensable to its military operations.

The episode has also exposed the country’s dependence on technology controlled by an American private company and, in the case of Starshield, subject to decisions involving the U.S. government.

Although Kyiv says the systems have returned to their previous operating capabilities, the controversy has raised fresh questions about whether Ukraine can rely on uninterrupted access to the communications networks supporting its battlefield operations as the war continues.

{Matzav.com}