Feed aggregator

United Nations special rapporteur Francesca Albanese is calling on the International Criminal Court to investigate Israeli journalists, media personalities and government officials for alleged incitement to genocide in Gaza, expanding her accusations against Israel to include individuals working in the country’s news media.

The recommendation appears in a 29-page report dated July 21 and made public last week. Albanese contends that Israeli news organizations have helped create an atmosphere in which violence against Palestinian Arabs has become increasingly accepted, and she wants international prosecutors to examine whether public statements by journalists and political figures constitute criminal incitement.

“The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court should investigate direct and public incitement to commit genocide by government officials and media figures as part of the ongoing Palestine investigation,” Albanese wrote.

The ICC, headquartered in The Hague, operates independently of the United Nations. The court has previously issued arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, in connection with the war in Gaza. Israel has rejected the allegations underlying those proceedings and disputes the court’s jurisdiction.

Albanese serves as the UN special rapporteur assigned to examine human rights conditions in Palestinian territories designated by the organization as occupied. Her latest report accuses the Israeli government of shaping domestic media coverage through official messaging and public communications.

According to Albanese, “the Israeli government’s communication strategy has significantly manipulated media discourse, building on a long-standing pattern of dehumanization of Palestinians across Israeli media.”

She went further in her criticism of Israeli news organizations, alleging that their role has extended beyond reporting government statements or reflecting prevailing public attitudes.

The Israeli press, she asserted, “does not merely relay or amplify these narratives. In many instances, it explicitly incites to violence, including genocide, contributing to the normalization of mass atrocities.”

The latest recommendation follows similar allegations Albanese raised in October 2024, when she called for legal examination of Israeli media coverage during the Gaza war.

“The role of the Israeli media in inciting this genocide, by helping to foster an unchecked genocidal climate, ought to be examined judicially, as has occurred in other contexts,” she wrote in that earlier report.

Albanese has also claimed that Israeli military operations have resulted in the deaths of 300 journalists in Gaza since Hamas launched its October 7, 2023, terrorist assault on Israel.

Those figures have been the subject of scrutiny. Organizations documenting journalist deaths have revised certain classifications after Hamas identified some individuals previously described as journalists among its own dead. Disputes remain over how to distinguish journalists, media workers and individuals affiliated with terrorist organizations.

The new report adds to a lengthy record of confrontations between Albanese and Israeli officials, American policymakers and Jewish organizations, many of whom have accused her of displaying persistent hostility toward Israel and making antisemitic statements.

In 2025, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on Albanese in response to her activities and statements concerning Israel, including her efforts involving international legal proceedings.

Her public remarks have also generated criticism from European governments. In February, several European Union foreign ministers condemned comments she delivered during an Al Jazeera conference about countries continuing to provide Israel with military, diplomatic and financial assistance.

“The fact that instead of stopping Israel, most of the world has armed, given Israel political excuses, political sheltering, economic and financial support … We who do not control large amounts of financial capitals, algorithms and weapons, we now see that we as a humanity have a common enemy,” Albanese said.

The reference to a common enemy drew criticism from those who interpreted it as a description of Israel. Albanese subsequently rejected that interpretation.

In a later interview, she insisted she “never, ever, ever said ‘Israel is the common enemy of humanity,'” calling the allegations against her “completely false accusations.”

Concerns about Albanese’s statements began before the current war in Gaza. In 2022, previously published social media comments resurfaced in which she had suggested that the “Jewish lobby” exercised control over the United States.

Albanese disputed accusations that those remarks reflected antisemitism, arguing that her comments had been “mischaracterized”.

Following Hamas’s October 7 massacre, Albanese drew additional criticism when she maintained that the attacks needed to be understood in their broader “context” and described them as a reaction to Israeli “aggression.”

In March, she again accused Israel of systematic mistreatment of Palestinian prisoners, claiming that the international community had effectively granted the Jewish state “a license to torture Palestinians” and alleging that “torture has effectively become state policy” in Israel.

More recently, Albanese was forced to apologize after making historically inaccurate assertions about Nazi concentration camps and the origins of the term antisemitism.

During an interview, she claimed that Jewish prisoners being led toward Nazi gas chambers were sometimes described as Muslims.

“In fact, when they were being taken to the gas chambers, there are some accounts of life in the concentration camps saying that Jews were called ‘the Muslims,’” she said.

Albanese made the assertion while advancing an incorrect explanation of the historical meaning of antisemitism.

“When the word ‘antisemitism’ was coined, it referred to anyone who was not European and who came from the Middle East,” she claimed, arguing that the term eventually became associated primarily with Jews because of their presence in Europe.

Her remarks drew criticism from Yad Vashem and other Holocaust researchers, who pointed out that the concentration camp expression Muselmann referred to prisoners reduced by starvation, exhaustion and abuse to a state of extreme physical deterioration. It was not a designation for Jews being transported to gas chambers.

Historians also rejected her explanation of antisemitism, noting that the term was introduced in the nineteenth century specifically to describe hostility toward Jews.

Following the criticism, Albanese acknowledged that she had misunderstood the historical terminology and publicly apologized.

“I sincerely apologize,” she wrote on X.

“I misread the term ‘Muselmann’ (Muslim) used in Nazi camps for prisoners at the brink of death, wrongly inferring that the term antisemitism originally meant hatred of all Semitic peoples. In fact it was coined specifically to denote hatred of Jews.”

The latest report has also drawn a detailed response from UN Watch, the Geneva-based organization that monitors the United Nations. In an analysis published October 12, the group challenged Albanese’s accusations against Israeli journalists, arguing that her report failed to establish the legal elements required to prove direct and public incitement to genocide.

UN Watch also disputed her treatment of Gaza journalist casualty figures, pointing to individuals whom Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad had identified as members of their organizations. The watchdog said that the Committee to Protect Journalists had removed 27 individuals from its relevant casualty lists since June 2025 after determining that they were members of those terrorist groups.

The organization further criticized Albanese for invoking precedents involving media incitement during the Rwandan genocide, arguing that the circumstances of those cases differed substantially from the Israeli broadcasts cited in her report.

UN Watch’s analysis also addressed Albanese’s suggestions that technology companies could face legal consequences for carrying Israeli government advertising challenging accusations against Israel. The group argued that publishing disputed government messaging, without evidence of the required criminal intent and assistance, does not itself establish complicity in international crimes.

{Matzav.com}

LISTEN:

​​For more info, email bitachon4life@gmail.com.

LISTEN:

A small chareidi protest party seeking to draw votes away from United Torah Judaism has reportedly secured approximately 2.5 million shekels in campaign funding and assembled a network of roughly 500 activists ahead of Israel’s October 27 elections, raising concerns within UTJ over the potential loss of votes from dissatisfied chareidi voters.

The party, known as Tzeva Shachor, or Black Color, is concentrating its efforts on Election Day itself, when it plans to mobilize supporters and encourage voters opposed to UTJ’s handling of the military draft controversy to cast protest ballots.

According to sources, the party’s organizational preparations are already well underway, with most of its approximately 500 registered activists based in Modiin Illit.

The activists have reportedly completed their operational plans for Election Day, with an emphasis on identifying potential supporters and ensuring that they actually arrive at polling stations.

The party’s principal target audience consists of yeshiva bochurim and other chareidi men classified by Israeli authorities as military draft evaders, whose status has become a central issue in the ongoing confrontation over compulsory military service.

Organizers intend to encourage as many of these individuals as possible to vote for Tzeva Shachor, while also attempting to persuade their family members to support the party.

The effort is designed to channel dissatisfaction with United Torah Judaism into a direct electoral challenge, potentially depriving the established chareidi party of votes it would otherwise expect to receive.

The financial resources reportedly available to Tzeva Shachor are particularly notable given the party’s relatively limited public profile.

Emess reported that approximately 2.5 million shekels, equivalent to roughly $800,000, has been secured for the campaign, with the overwhelming majority of that money earmarked for Election Day operations rather than conventional campaigning in the weeks beforehand.

The party’s chairman, Chaim Yankel Miller, was also questioned about speculation that the Satmar chassidus was providing financial backing for the initiative.

Miller denied having received any money from Satmar thus far, although he made clear that he would welcome such assistance.

“I would be very happy to receive money from them. So far, they have not given me any. What I have raised until now has come from other donations to the party,” Miller said.

The party’s campaign comes amid growing tensions within segments of the chareidi community over the military draft issue and the response of established chareidi political representatives.

Although Tzeva Shachor faces a substantial challenge in securing enough votes to cross the Knesset’s electoral threshold, its organizers are focusing on the possibility of drawing protest votes away from United Torah Judaism.

With approximately two weeks remaining until the election, the party is directing its financial and organizational resources toward a concentrated Election Day effort, relying on its activist network to translate opposition to UTJ into votes at the ballot box.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump delivered another forceful warning to Iran on Tuesday night, suggesting that the United States was preparing additional action against the Islamic Republic and declaring that Washington had reached the limits of its patience with Tehran.

Speaking at a midterm election campaign rally in Alaska, Trump indicated that Iran could soon face further American measures, although he did not specify whether those steps would involve military strikes or other forms of pressure.

“Oh, wait till you see what we do to Iran. We’re going to do a number. Wait till you see,” Trump told the crowd.

Trump: Oh, wait until you see what we do to Iran. We're going to do a number. We sort of had it. You know we've had it. pic.twitter.com/iCeLL3AyjU

— Acyn (@Acyn) October 14, 2026

The president repeated his warning moments later, emphasizing that his administration remained determined to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

“They’re just waiting. They’re waiting. Wait till you see what we do to Iran, because we’ve sort of had it. You know, we’ve had it,” Trump continued.

He then returned to the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, declaring, “But, you know, it doesn’t matter. The big thing is they were not going to have a nuclear weapon, and they won’t. That’s buried under thousands of tons of rock.”

President Trump slams Iran: "Iran is a failed country… We'll make a decision on Iran very soon." pic.twitter.com/bO2DoxqBJ0

— CSPAN (@cspan) October 13, 2026

The remarks came amid mounting speculation about whether Washington might launch another round of strikes against Iranian targets before the November 3 congressional elections, despite earlier indications from Trump that additional military action would be postponed until after Americans went to the polls.

Earlier Tuesday, the president told reporters outside the White House that a decision on Iran’s future was approaching, describing the country’s economic condition in bleak terms and suggesting that its leadership was struggling to maintain basic government operations.

Trump characterized Iran as a “failed country” and cited severe inflation, financial difficulties and alleged problems paying military personnel.

“They have no economy. They have 300% inflation. They have no money. They’re not paying their troops. They’re not paying anybody. We’ll make a decision on Iran very soon,” he said.

The president’s comments appeared to signal that the administration was actively weighing its options as the confrontation with Tehran continued, with the possibility of further military operations remaining under consideration.

Trump had also addressed the possibility of further action on Monday, telling reporters that the approaching congressional elections would not dictate his decisions regarding Iran.

He predicted that the confrontation would soon reach a conclusion and argued that an end to the conflict would bring substantial relief to global energy markets.

“As soon as the war ends with Iran, which will be very soon, oil will drop like a rock. And it’s going to end very soon,” Trump said.

The president’s latest warnings contrast with his announcement last Thursday that the United States would hold off on additional military attacks until after the November 3 midterm elections.

In that statement, Trump pointed to ongoing diplomatic engagement between Washington and Tehran as a reason for delaying further strikes.

“We are having productive discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he wrote on Truth Social.

Trump said at the time that Iran was under considerable economic and military pressure and that the American blockade would remain in effect. He also reiterated that his administration would not permit Tehran to acquire nuclear weapons.

The diplomatic contacts have included indirect negotiations mediated by Qatar, with the two countries exchanging proposals intended to end the fighting and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical route for international oil shipments.

The negotiations have encountered significant obstacles. Iran has resisted American demands concerning its uranium enrichment program and nuclear stockpiles, while Tehran has sought relief from the economic restrictions imposed by Washington.

The confrontation began in February with American and Israeli military strikes against Iran. Since then, the conflict has disrupted regional shipping, driven up energy costs and placed considerable pressure on both countries’ economies.

Iran has continued threatening commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf, while American sanctions and a naval blockade have restricted Tehran’s ability to export oil and generate revenue.

Recent reports indicate that the Pentagon has instructed U.S. Central Command to prepare for the possibility of renewed large-scale military operations. Potential targets reportedly include Iranian energy infrastructure, military facilities and nuclear installations, although Trump has not publicly authorized another major offensive.

American and Israeli officials have also discussed the possibility of additional military action, with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Trump holding conversations about the conflict in recent days.

The military deliberations are taking place against the backdrop of upcoming elections in both countries, with Israel scheduled to vote on October 27 and Americans heading to the polls one week later.

Despite the speculation surrounding the timing of any renewed offensive, Trump has insisted that his decisions about Iran will be based on national security considerations rather than the American election calendar.

The president has repeatedly expressed confidence that the conflict can be brought to an end, either through a negotiated agreement or additional military pressure.

During a White House event last Friday, Trump said he believed the confrontation was approaching its conclusion and that Washington remained prepared to pursue either option.

“We can do it either way, but it’s very simple – one way or another it’s gonna be over soon,” he declared.

{Matzav.com}

Police officers and bomb disposal specialists were dispatched to the Meah Shearim neighborhood of Yerushalayim on Tuesday evening following a report of a suspicious vehicle that raised security concerns in the area.

The incident prompted a police response in the heart of the chareidi neighborhood, with officers securing the immediate vicinity and ordering bystanders to remain at a safe distance while specialists examined the vehicle.

Members of the Yerushalayim District bomb squad arrived at the scene to investigate whether the vehicle posed a danger to the public.

Footage recorded during the incident showed a heavily damaged vehicle surrounded by police personnel, with residents gathering nearby as officers conducted their examination.

The circumstances surrounding the damage to the vehicle were not immediately clear, and authorities did not provide an explanation for its condition.

Police subsequently announced that the bomb squad had completed its inspection and ruled out any security threat.

The incident ended without any suspicious or dangerous findings being reported.

{Matzav.com}

With just two weeks remaining before Israel’s October 27 elections, two new polls released Tuesday evening indicate that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s political bloc remains short of the 61 seats needed to secure a Knesset majority, while Gadi Eisenkot’s party has emerged as a major contender with 21 seats in both surveys.

The polls, conducted for i24NEWS and Channel 16, present sharply different projections for Netanyahu’s Likud party, with one giving it 27 seats and the other just 18. Both surveys, however, place Eisenkot’s Yashar! party at 21 seats and Naftali Bennett’s Beyachad party at 13.

The surveys also highlight the uncertainty surrounding several smaller parties, particularly Ofer Winter’s Amcha Yisrael party, whose prospects of entering the Knesset could have significant consequences for the distribution of seats among the political blocs.

According to the i24NEWS survey, conducted by Direct Polls, Likud would win 27 seats, maintaining its position as the largest individual party in the Knesset. Eisenkot’s Yashar! would receive 21 seats, followed by Bennett’s Beyachad with 13.

Otzma Yehudit, headed by Itamar Ben-Gvir, and the Democrats would each secure nine seats. United Torah Judaism would receive eight, while Shas and Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu would each win seven. The Religious Zionism–Zehut alliance would receive six seats.

Winter’s Amcha Yisrael party, however, would fail to enter the Knesset, receiving just 3.1% of the vote, below Israel’s 3.25% electoral threshold.

The second survey, conducted by Maagar Mochot for Channel 16 among more than 2,000 respondents, presents a considerably weaker showing for Likud.

In that poll, Netanyahu’s party would receive only 18 seats, placing it behind Eisenkot’s Yashar!, which again receives 21 seats. Bennett’s party remains at 13, while the Democrats and Otzma Yehudit each receive nine.

United Torah Judaism and the Joint Arab List would each receive eight seats, Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu seven apiece, and Religious Zionism–Zehut six.

One of the most consequential differences between the two surveys concerns Winter’s political future.

While the i24NEWS poll places his party below the electoral threshold, Channel 16 projects that Amcha Yisrael would win four seats, allowing Winter to enter the Knesset.

Another significant discrepancy involves the party associated with Yoaz Hendel and Yaron Zelekha. The i24NEWS survey gives the party just 2.2% of the vote, leaving it outside the Knesset, while the Channel 16 poll projects five seats.

Those differences have a substantial impact on the projected balance between Netanyahu’s bloc and the parties seeking to replace his government.

According to i24NEWS, the current coalition parties would receive a combined 57 seats, four short of the 61 required for a majority. The opposing bloc would receive 50 seats, while the Arab parties would hold 13.

The Channel 16 survey presents an even more difficult picture for Netanyahu. Under its projections, the coalition bloc, including Winter’s Amcha Yisrael, would receive 52 seats, while the opposition would hold 50.

The Arab parties would account for another 13 seats, with the Hendel-Zelekha party securing the remaining five.

Both surveys therefore place Netanyahu’s bloc below the threshold needed to form a government on its own, although they differ considerably on the relative strength of Likud and the smaller parties.

The results also underscore the importance of Israel’s electoral threshold, as parties receiving less than 3.25% of the vote are excluded from the Knesset, potentially changing the distribution of seats among the larger parties.

With the election scheduled for October 27, the contrasting results leave considerable uncertainty over the eventual composition of the next Knesset, particularly regarding parties polling close to the threshold.

IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir renewed his call for increased chareidi enlistment on Tuesday, declaring that military service constitutes one of the highest mitzvos and emphasizing that expanding the army’s ranks is an operational necessity as Israel continues to confront security threats on multiple fronts.

Speaking at a memorial ceremony honoring fallen soldiers of the IDF’s Commando Brigade, Zamir said the responsibility to defend Israel must be shared more broadly across Israeli society. His remarks reflected the military leadership’s continued efforts to increase recruitment from the chareidi community amid growing demands on active-duty soldiers and reservists.

“In times of war, the importance of the mission of meaningful military service in the IDF becomes even clearer. This is the highest of mitzvos – the mitzvah of defending the land, its citizens, and our historical heritage,” Zamir declared before bereaved families and military personnel.

“It is a privilege, a duty, and a burden that we carry with pride. We must strengthen the value of service in the IDF, expand the ranks, and support the soldiers as the heroes of the nation and models of Zionist excellence.”

Although Zamir did not explicitly mention chareidi enlistment in those remarks, his comments were consistent with his repeated public statements calling for greater participation by the chareidi community in military service.

Since assuming command of the IDF, Zamir has consistently argued that recruiting additional soldiers, including chareidim, is essential to meeting the military’s manpower requirements.

During previous meetings with chareidi soldiers serving in the Negev Company and the newly established Chashmonaim Brigade, Zamir described expanding recruitment to include the chareidi population as “an essential operational necessity.”

He has also characterized broader enlistment as “a moral obligation” toward soldiers and reservists who have shouldered the demands of military service over an extended period.

Tuesday’s remarks came during a ceremony dedicated to the memory of soldiers who fell while serving in one of the IDF’s most demanding combat formations, whose personnel routinely undertake complex and dangerous missions.

By invoking the language of religious obligation, Zamir framed military service as more than a matter of national security or civic responsibility, presenting participation in the country’s defense as a mitzvah and a mission of profound importance.

His comments come as Israel continues to grapple with military manpower shortages, the prolonged demands placed on reservists, and the debate over legislation governing chareidi military service.

The IDF has maintained that extending mandatory service for existing soldiers cannot, by itself, resolve the military’s personnel needs. Senior commanders have repeatedly emphasized that additional recruitment is necessary to sustain operational readiness and reduce the pressure on those already serving.

The military has also moved forward with measures intended to facilitate chareidi enlistment, including the establishment of specialized service frameworks and the signing of a General Staff directive governing the integration of chareidi personnel into the IDF.

The issue remains deeply contentious within Israeli society, particularly among chareidi leaders who maintain that full-time Torah learning is itself essential to the protection of Klal Yisroel and have opposed compulsory enlistment of yeshiva bochurim.

Zamir’s latest comments underscored the military leadership’s position that the demands of national defense require an expanded pool of recruits, including members of communities that have historically had limited participation in military service.

{Matzav.com}

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro confirmed Tuesday that federal prosecutors are investigating the financial disclosures of Rep. Ilhan Omar, adding to the legal scrutiny surrounding the Minnesota Democrat just one day after federal agents searched her Washington, D.C., residence as part of a separate immigration-related criminal investigation.

Pirro, who oversees the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, disclosed the investigation during an appearance on Fox News’ “America Reports,” emphasizing that her office would conduct an independent examination regardless of the findings of congressional investigators.

The announcement comes after the Office of Congressional Conduct, an independent congressional watchdog, recommended in September that the House Ethics Committee dismiss allegations that Omar had violated federal law or House rules by submitting inaccurate or incomplete financial disclosures.

Pirro made clear that the congressional recommendation would not determine how federal prosecutors proceeded.

“That doesn’t matter what the House does. It doesn’t matter, you know, what this agency or that does. We’re looking at the facts. Based upon the facts, we’ll follow them wherever they take us,” Pirro said.

The Office of Congressional Conduct launched its review of Omar’s financial filings earlier this year. Although the findings were classified as confidential, The Wall Street Journal obtained and reviewed the watchdog’s recommendation to dismiss the allegations.

The congressional review focused on possible violations of House ethics rules and financial disclosure requirements. Pirro’s announcement establishes that federal prosecutors are separately examining the matter.

The controversy centers on a dramatic discrepancy between the value of Omar’s household assets as initially reported in her annual financial disclosure and the significantly lower figures that appeared in an amended filing.

In her original disclosure, submitted May 14, 2025, covering the previous calendar year, Omar reported household assets valued at between $6 million and $30 million.

A substantial portion of that reported wealth was attributed to business interests held by her husband, Tim Mynett.

The filing listed Mynett’s ownership interest in ESTCRU LLC, a California winery, as worth between $1 million and $5 million. His stake in Rose Lake Capital LLC, a venture capital management company, was reported as having a value between $5 million and $25 million.

Those figures attracted considerable attention because they appeared to indicate that Omar’s household possessed millions of dollars in assets.

Omar subsequently amended the disclosure, reducing the reported asset range to between $18,004 and $95,000, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Her representatives attributed the original valuations to accounting errors, maintaining that the larger figures did not accurately reflect the household’s financial position.

The substantial difference between the two filings has fueled questions about the accuracy of the congresswoman’s financial reporting, although the discrepancies alone do not establish that she deliberately provided false information.

Members of the House of Representatives are required to submit annual financial disclosures detailing their income, assets, liabilities, gifts, travel reimbursements and certain outside financial arrangements.

The reporting requirements also cover specified financial interests belonging to lawmakers’ spouses, providing the public with information about potential conflicts of interest and the financial circumstances of elected officials.

The financial inquiry is separate from the federal immigration investigation that led Homeland Security Investigations agents to Omar’s Washington residence on Monday.

The Justice Department confirmed that federal agents executed a judicially authorized search warrant as part of an ongoing criminal investigation. Authorities have not publicly disclosed the precise nature of the evidence being sought.

Omar responded angrily to the search, accusing the Trump administration of targeting her for political reasons.

In a statement posted on X, she characterized the operation as “an attempt to target political enemies and weaponize federal law enforcement.”

The congresswoman has been involved in a prolonged political confrontation with President Donald Trump, who has frequently criticized her positions on immigration and repeatedly singled her out in public remarks.

Trump has also made pointed comments about Omar’s Somali background and religious attire.

During remarks last year, he described her as “always wrapped in her swaddling hijab” and “the worst ‘Congressman/woman'” in the country. He has also publicly referred to her as “crooked.”

Omar represents Minnesota’s Fifth Congressional District, which includes Minneapolis and several surrounding suburbs.

Born in Somalia, she fled the country’s civil war with her family and spent four years in a refugee camp in Kenya before immigrating to the United States. She was elected to Congress in November 2018 and began serving in January 2019.

When contacted about the financial investigation, Omar’s office referred Axios to The Wall Street Journal’s reporting on the congressional watchdog’s recommendation to dismiss the allegations.

Pirro’s office did not respond to Axios’ request for additional comment regarding the investigation.

The precise scope of the federal financial inquiry remains unknown, including whether prosecutors are examining the discrepancies in Omar’s disclosures alone or reviewing additional financial transactions.

Pirro did not announce any criminal charges or findings of wrongdoing Tuesday, and federal authorities have not indicated whether the investigation will result in prosecution.

Thirteen years after the petirah of Rav Ovadia Yosef zt”l, Shas chairman Aryeh Deri has revealed extraordinary details about the final months of the revered Sephardic posek’s life, recounting how Rav Ovadia, suffering from excruciating pain and barely able to function, personally pleaded with members of Israel’s Chief Rabbinate electoral body to support his son, Rav Yitzchak Yosef, in the 2013 election for Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel.

In an emotional interview with journalist Yishai Cohen of Kikar Hashabbat ahead of Rav Ovadia’s yahrtzeit, Deri described the intense political maneuvering, the tears and tefillos that filled the Yosef home as the votes were counted, and the extraordinary decision to defy medical warnings so that Rav Ovadia could attend his son’s installation as Rishon Letzion.

The events unfolded during Tammuz 5773, less than three months before Rav Ovadia’s petirah, at a particularly difficult time for the Shas movement. The party had been pushed into the opposition, and control of the Religious Affairs Ministry rested with Naftali Bennett’s Jewish Home party and Eli Ben-Dahan.

The election for Israel’s Chief Rabbinate was fiercely contested, with several prominent candidates competing for the prestigious position. For Rav Ovadia, securing the election of his son was a matter of profound personal and religious importance.

Complicating matters was his rapidly deteriorating health. Rav Ovadia was experiencing agonizing back pain that left him suffering terribly, with doctors unable to determine its precise cause. A medical specialist was even brought from France in an effort to provide relief.

Despite his condition, Rav Ovadia insisted on doing everything possible to secure his son’s election.

Deri recalled that the campaign reached a point where members of the electoral body had to be brought directly to Rav Ovadia’s home at 45 Hakablan Street in Yerushalayim so that he could personally appeal for their support.

“We had to bring all the members of the electoral body to Maran’s bedside,” Deri recounted. “Maran was sitting in a chair, wearing his robe, suffering indescribable pain, and crying before each and every one of them! He explained to them how important this was and gave them a bracha. Every single one! And we were still convinced we were going to lose. Behind the curtain, anything could happen.”

The tension intensified as election day progressed, particularly in the final hours before voting closed.

One of the most dramatic moments involved Ashdod Mayor Dr. Yechiel Lasri, who arrived in Israel that afternoon and traveled directly from Ben Gurion Airport to Rav Ovadia’s home.

According to Deri, Lasri was the final member of the electoral body to cast his ballot.

“Lasri was the last voter,” Deri said. “When he entered the room and saw Maran in such terrible pain, he was a doctor by profession, and he was absolutely shaken to his core. He asked us in shock: ‘What are you doing to him?!’ We told him: ‘This is the Rav’s very life!’ At ten minutes to six in the evening, ten minutes before the polls closed, he went out to vote. The very last voter.”

Once voting ended, Rav Ovadia was returned to his bed, and an atmosphere of dread descended over the house.

Deri said those present feared that their efforts had failed and that Rav Yitzchak would lose the election.

“We put Maran back in bed, took off his robe, and the house fell completely silent,” Deri recalled. “Everyone was afraid to be there, because there was a terrible feeling in the air that we had lost. I sat alone with Maran in the room. And Maran was lying in bed, speaking to the Ribbono Shel Olam and crying bitter tears: ‘Ribbono Shel Olam, don’t let me be ashamed! Don’t let me be ashamed!'”

The emotional scene continued until Tzvi Chakak entered the room carrying the election results.

Even then, Rav Ovadia was so overcome with anxiety and tears that he initially could not believe what he was being told.

“Tzvi Chakak came into the room with the results, but Maran, because of all his anxiety and tears, didn’t believe him,” Deri said. “I came in, grabbed the Rav, kissed him on his head, and told him: ‘Rav Yitzchak was elected!’ At that moment, Maran began crying, but this time it was an overwhelming cry of gratitude and joy to the Creator of the World: ‘That You did this kindness for me!'”

The atmosphere in the home immediately changed from fear and uncertainty to extraordinary joy.

Deri recalled that Rav Ovadia was dressed again, and those gathered accompanied him downstairs, where they began reciting Nishmas Kol Chai in gratitude for the election victory.

But the drama surrounding Rav Yitzchak Yosef’s appointment was far from over.

Traditionally, the installation of the Sephardic Chief Rabbi takes place at the historic Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai shul in the Old City of Yerushalayim. Rav Ovadia desperately wanted to attend the ceremony and personally place the ceremonial headpiece upon his son.

His doctors, however, were adamantly opposed.

Given Rav Ovadia’s extremely fragile condition, the medical team warned that traveling to the Old City could pose a serious danger to his health.

Deri recalled speaking privately with Rav Ovadia to determine what he truly wanted.

“The doctors absolutely forbade him from traveling,” Deri said. “I sat with the Rav privately, looked him in the eyes, and asked: ‘Rav, what do you really want?’ Maran looked at me and said explicitly: ‘I want to be at Rabban Yochanan Ben Zakkai, at my son’s installation!'”

Deri decided that he would find a way to make it happen, despite the objections of the medical team.

“I turned the world upside down. I obtained a special vehicle and took full responsibility upon myself, despite the doctors shouting and warning of a real danger. We arrived there, and Maran, with trembling, pain-ridden hands, placed the ceremonial headpiece on his son’s head. It was a sight that shook everyone present and remains engraved in all our memories.”

The installation ceremony became one of the final major public appearances of Rav Ovadia’s life, an unforgettable occasion for those who witnessed the elderly posek overcome his tremendous physical suffering to participate in his son’s elevation to the position of Rishon Letzion.

For Deri, however, the most unforgettable moment came after the ceremony, once Rav Ovadia had been brought back to the waiting vehicle.

As he sat behind Rav Ovadia’s wheelchair, supporting him and ensuring that he remained comfortable, Deri heard the elderly posek ask a simple question.

“When we returned to the vehicle, I sat behind Maran’s wheelchair to support him and hold him,” Deri recalled. “Suddenly Maran asked weakly: ‘Where is Aryeh?’ I told him: ‘Rav, I’m right here behind you.’ Maran slowly turned his head and his face lit up with a happy smile. I would give everything today, absolutely everything, just to see that smile again! And then he told me: ‘It was worth it. I’m the happiest man alive!'”

{Matzav.com}

Rep. Ilhan Omar’s congressional staff arranged to have her birth year changed in official biographical records in 2019, months after she was elected to Congress, according to correspondence obtained by the New York Post. The change, from 1981 to 1982, has renewed allegations from political opponents who question whether the Minnesota Democrat qualified for U.S. citizenship through her father’s naturalization.

The disclosure comes amid reports of a federal immigration-fraud investigation involving Omar, whose Washington, D.C., residence was searched Monday by Homeland Security Investigations agents. Omar has repeatedly rejected allegations that she obtained citizenship improperly and has accused President Donald Trump of pursuing a politically motivated campaign against her.

The controversy centers on whether Omar was younger than 18 when her father became a naturalized American citizen in 2000. Under the citizenship laws applicable at the time, a child’s age could be a critical factor in determining eligibility to acquire citizenship through a parent, although other legal requirements also applied.

For years, Omar’s date of birth appeared as October 4, 1981, in the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library and other publicly accessible biographical sources, including Wikipedia and the BBC. That date remained in circulation throughout her service in the Minnesota House of Representatives and during the opening months of her congressional career.

The information was revised in May 2019, following the circulation of a video produced by a political opponent questioning whether Omar had accurately represented her age.

Emails reviewed by the newspaper show that members of Omar’s congressional staff contacted the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library and requested that her listed birth year be changed to 1982.

“On May 17, 2019, Library staff were informed by Rep. Omar’s congressional staff that her birth year was incorrect and requested that we change it to 1982,” the library’s director wrote in an email shortly after the correction.

The correspondence also indicates that Omar’s office was seeking similar changes to other prominent biographical references.

“Rep. Omar’s congressional staff are working with Wikipedia and with the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress and other sources to correct her birth year on those sites. As of today, the birth year has not been corrected on the two sites I mentioned,” the director wrote on May 24, 2019.

In another email, the library director explained that the original listing had not been based on independently obtained documentation. Instead, the institution had relied on information already circulating in other public sources.

The 1981 birth year, the director said, was “widely available—in Wikipedia and the Biographical Directory–and so we added that birthdate without documentation.”

That acknowledgment is significant because it establishes that the library’s original entry was not independently verified. The fact that the date was subsequently changed does not, by itself, establish that either year was correct or that Omar intentionally provided false information.

Omar and representatives of her office have consistently denied accusations of immigration fraud.

Responding Monday to the reported federal investigation, the congresswoman again rejected the allegations and accused Trump of attempting to intimidate her.

“For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns. This is just the latest escalation in his campaign of political intimidation,” Omar wrote on X.

Omar has long maintained that she became an American citizen through her father, Nur Omar Mohamed, who, according to her account, obtained U.S. citizenship in 2000 after the family arrived from Somalia in 1995.

In a September 2018 interview with The Intercept, Omar described how she acquired citizenship while still a teenager.

“I became a citizen actually before I turned 18,” she said. “My father became a citizen and so I got my citizenship through that process.”

AJ Kern, a former congressional candidate who unsuccessfully challenged Omar in the 2022 Democratic primary for Minnesota’s Fifth Congressional District, has been among the most persistent critics questioning that account.

Speaking Tuesday, Kern said that “she claims her citizenship narrative is that she derived citizenship through her father when she was a 17-year-old minor.”

Kern contends that the original birthdate listing raises questions about whether Omar was already 18 or older when her father reportedly naturalized, potentially affecting her eligibility for citizenship through him.

“For derivative citizenship, two things have to be true — one, her father had to naturalize; and two, she still had to be a minor — and what I have found is that it’s highly likely that neither of those things are true,” Kern claimed.

The former candidate previously submitted a complaint to the Federal Election Commission seeking scrutiny of Omar’s citizenship qualifications. That effort did not result in a finding that Omar had obtained citizenship improperly.

Kern said the complaint failed to advance because a judge determined that reviewing congressional qualifications was “the job of Congress to vet their members.”

Additional questions have centered on records concerning Omar’s father. Documents obtained by Kern in 2023 reportedly indicated that a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services records search had not located naturalization documentation under his name or certain variations of it.

However, an unsuccessful records search does not establish that someone was never naturalized, and the documents have not been shown to prove that Omar’s account of her citizenship was false.

The official Biographical Directory of the United States Congress currently identifies Omar’s birthdate as October 4, 1982, and states that she became an American citizen in 2000 at age 17.

The Department of Justice has confirmed that federal agents executed a court-authorized search warrant at Omar’s Washington residence on Monday as part of an ongoing criminal investigation. Authorities have not publicly disclosed the specific evidence supporting the warrant.

People familiar with the investigation have indicated that federal officials are examining Omar’s immigration paperwork and possible false statements in documents submitted to the government.

Kern suggested that investigators may have been seeking “her citizenship papers, her father’s naturalization record.”

The investigation has also drawn attention to whether any allegedly inaccurate information might have appeared in more recent federal documents, such as passport applications or renewals.

Legal experts note that statutes of limitations can complicate efforts to prosecute alleged misconduct dating back decades. A false statement on a later application could potentially constitute a separate offense, depending on the circumstances, but the existence of conflicting biographical information alone would not establish criminal wrongdoing.

President Trump previously amplified Kern’s allegations in a December 2025 Truth Social post, while administration officials have repeatedly raised questions about Omar’s immigration history.

The search of Omar’s home has generated considerable political controversy, particularly because it occurred only weeks before the November midterm elections.

Senior congressional Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Democratic Whip Katherine Clark, condemned the operation, accusing the administration of using federal investigative powers against a political opponent.

The Justice Department has maintained that the search was authorized by a federal judge, while Omar has insisted that the investigation is an effort to intimidate her because of her outspoken opposition to Trump.

Separately, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office is examining issues involving Omar’s financial disclosures and earlier ethics allegations, according to reporting Tuesday. That inquiry is distinct from the immigration-related investigation that prompted the search of her residence.

As of Tuesday, no criminal charges had been announced against Omar in connection with the reported immigration investigation, and authorities had not publicly established that her birthdate, citizenship status or immigration documents were fraudulent.

Gov. Kathy Hochul faced off against Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman in a debate for Governor of New York.

WATCH:

{Matzav.com}

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu accused Iran on Tuesday of attempting to influence Israel’s upcoming elections through Hamas and Hezbollah, warning that Tehran and its terrorist proxies are seeking to remove him from power as the country approaches what he described as an extremely close election.

Speaking during an appearance on Channel 14’s “The Patriots” program, Netanyahu raised concerns about possible foreign interference in the October 27 vote and urged his supporters to turn out in large numbers, saying the election could be decided by a narrow margin.

“Iran is trying to sabotage the elections through the terrorist arms of Hamas and Hezbollah,” Netanyahu declared, alleging that the Iranian regime is actively seeking to shape Israel’s political future.

The prime minister claimed that Tehran’s opposition to his leadership stems from his government’s policies toward Iran and its regional terrorist organizations.

“That is absolutely true – they openly say they need to bring me down, because their real desire is to destroy the State of Israel,” Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu then turned to the political situation within Israel, expressing concern that the election remains too close to predict and that the outcome could depend heavily on voter participation.

“I am very concerned. We are in a tight tie. We will decide this battle only if our public gets up and goes out to vote,” he said.

The interview came amid heightened security concerns ahead of the elections, including warnings about possible attacks by terrorist organizations and fears that hostile forces could attempt to disrupt voting.

Netanyahu also addressed reports concerning alleged intelligence warnings before the Hamas massacre of October 7, 2023, firmly rejecting claims that he had met with a senior Egyptian official who warned him about the impending attack.

The prime minister said he had approached the relevant authorities to establish the facts surrounding the allegations and denied suggestions that he had attempted to secure an Egyptian denial of previous warnings.

Earlier reports had also referred to Netanyahu’s visit to the United Arab Emirates at the invitation of the country’s president, but Netanyahu rejected any suggestion that the visit was connected to efforts to obtain a denial regarding intelligence warnings before October 7.

Turning to security policy in Yehudah and Shomron, Netanyahu launched a sharp attack against Israel’s Supreme Court over proceedings involving the possible return of Palestinians to areas of Jenin and Tulkarm following Israeli military operations.

“The Supreme Court wants to return the residents of Jenin and Tulkarm? It can want that – there is a limit to the madness! It simply will not happen,” Netanyahu declared.

His remarks followed a visit earlier Tuesday to the security seam line, where he reviewed military preparations and emphasized that the IDF would maintain control over areas considered vital to Israel’s security.

“The one who will control this territory and remain in it is the Israel Defense Forces. There will be no Arab army west of the Jordan River,” Netanyahu said during that visit.

The prime minister also used the interview to criticize smaller political parties, warning voters that supporting certain factions could ultimately strengthen his political opponents.

Netanyahu singled out former senior IDF officer Ofer Winter, suggesting that votes cast for his political movement could eventually benefit Avigdor Lieberman.

“They are misleading the public. The danger with Winter is that he will pass the electoral threshold – and give his votes to Lieberman. His success is their success,” Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu also demanded an immediate end to his ongoing corruption trial, following courtroom testimony by former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, who authorized the original indictments against him.

The prime minister argued that Mandelblit’s testimony had exposed serious problems with the investigation and prosecution, and called for those involved in what he described as a politically motivated campaign against him to be investigated.

“This trial should never have started in the first place – and now it is time to stop it. Everyone who took part in this political witch hunt must be thoroughly investigated,” Netanyahu said.

His remarks followed Mandelblit’s testimony, during which the former attorney general acknowledged that he had been unaware of certain details presented by Netanyahu’s defense attorney, Amit Hadad.

Mandelblit nevertheless disputed suggestions that prosecutors had deliberately withheld information from him and maintained that his decisions in the Netanyahu cases had been made independently.

“I did not make any decision in the Netanyahu cases under pressure,” Mandelblit testified.

The interview coincided with separate warnings from Defense Minister Yisrael Katz, who said Tuesday that Israeli security officials had identified efforts by Iran and its proxies to promote attacks intended to influence the election results.

Speaking at a ceremony marking the inauguration of the Irgun Museum and the Altalena cannon, Katz said Israeli authorities were closely monitoring potential threats connected to the approaching vote.

Israeli security officials have also reportedly discussed scenarios involving coordinated attacks across several fronts, including Gaza, Lebanon, and Yehudah and Shomron, as the country prepares for the October 27 election.

A 42-year-old Georgia father and schoolteacher plunged to his death from a 200-foot roller coaster at Six Flags Over Georgia on Monday, with the horrifying incident reportedly captured by the ride’s souvenir cameras as stunned passengers watched him fall from his seat.

The victim, identified as Hassan Jihad Ibn Kariem, was riding the Goliath roller coaster alongside his son when he was apparently thrown from the ride during its final descent. His wife and daughter were watching from the ground when the tragedy unfolded at the amusement park in Austell, outside Atlanta.

Witnesses described scenes of panic as Kariem reportedly struck other passengers and parts of the coaster before falling to the ground near a haunted house attraction. Several riders said they were splattered with blood, while others described seeing images of the fatal incident displayed among the photographs ordinarily offered to guests as souvenirs.

“He’s in our Goliath pictures,” one shaken witness told Atlanta television station WXIA. “The picture that they take and that you keep.”

The coaster’s automated cameras apparently photographed the precise moment Kariem was thrown from his seat. Images circulating online appeared to show a passenger outside the ride’s seating area, although the authenticity of those pictures has not been independently established.

One woman who was aboard the coaster described how Kariem allegedly struck another passenger before falling.

“He hit a girl two rows in front of us on the Goliath ride right where the pictures are taken,” she told WXIA.

“His blood splattered over everybody, and his body fell behind one of the haunted attractions.”

Investigators have not yet established exactly how Kariem became separated from his seat or whether a malfunction involving the restraint system contributed to the fatal incident.

Fellow passenger Fred Sowemimo told NBC that Kariem’s safety restraint appeared to have come loose moments before he was ejected.

According to Sowemimo, the safety belt “dislodged” and “he flew out.”

He said the photographs taken by the ride’s cameras showed the victim outside his seat and coming into contact with another passenger.

“You can see images of the person out of the seat,” Sowemimo said. “You can see him on the girl on her row.”

The incident was so unexpected that some passengers initially struggled to understand what they were witnessing.

“We initially thought it was a prank,” said Sowemimo’s wife, Vanessa.

Another witness, Logan Conner, said he and his fiancée were close enough to see Kariem as he began to rise out of his seat.

The couple “made direct eye contact with him,” Conner recalled, describing how the passenger “started levitating in the air sideways.”

Other guests described the sudden transformation of an ordinary amusement park outing into a scene of terror.

“It went from having a great time to just screaming, ‘Oh my God, what is happening,’” one passenger recalled.

“You don’t see things like this happen. It should never happen,” said another woman who had been riding alongside her husband.

Cobb County police confirmed that the incident occurred at approximately 3:58 p.m. Monday. Officers assigned to the amusement park responded and discovered Kariem beneath the roller coaster, unconscious and not breathing.

The department’s Major Crimes Unit was summoned to investigate. Preliminary interviews with witnesses and park employees confirmed that Kariem had been ejected from the ride and struck other passengers before falling beneath the attraction.

Four additional people were reported injured in the incident. Authorities have not disclosed the severity of their injuries or whether they required hospitalization.

The Goliath roller coaster, which rises 200 feet above the ground and reaches speeds of approximately 70 miles per hour, is the tallest roller coaster in Georgia. The ride has operated at Six Flags Over Georgia since 2006.

Following the fatal accident, the attraction was immediately shut down, leaving passengers stranded on an elevated section of the track while emergency personnel worked to evacuate them.

Rescuers used an emergency stairway alongside the coaster to bring riders down in groups of four, a process captured by television news helicopters flying over the park.

Investigators from the Georgia Office of the Insurance and Safety Fire Commissioner have joined local police in examining the incident, including whether a mechanical defect, restraint-system failure, operator error or another factor contributed to Kariem’s death.

Some passengers have reported concerns about the ride’s restraints, including accounts of unusual clicking sounds before the accident. Authorities have not determined whether those observations were connected to the fatality.

The tragedy has prompted Six Flags Entertainment to temporarily suspend operations on nine similar roller coasters at six parks in the United States and Canada while safety reviews are conducted.

The closures include other attractions that share characteristics with Goliath, as the company and safety investigators assess whether the circumstances of the accident could present risks elsewhere.

The Swiss ride manufacturer Bolliger & Mabillard, which designed Goliath, is also examining the incident.

Kariem worked at Wesley International Academy, an Atlanta charter school, where he served as an information technology manager. School officials remembered him as a valued member of their community whose death has deeply affected colleagues and students.

The fatal accident has also shaken the amusement park industry. Shares of Six Flags Entertainment fell sharply Tuesday, dropping to levels not seen since 2009 as investors reacted to the tragedy and the widespread ride closures.

Six Flags said it was cooperating with investigators and providing assistance to guests and employees affected by the incident.

“Our thoughts and heartfelt condolences are with the guest’s family, friends, and loved ones,” a company spokesperson said.

Authorities have not announced a definitive cause of the accident. The Cobb County Police Department is asking anyone with information about the incident to contact its Major Crimes Unit as the investigation continues.

A suspected criminal who was supposed to be confined to house arrest managed to leave Israel through Ben Gurion Airport, allegedly using another person’s biometric passport to bypass border controls, and remained overseas for nearly two months before being arrested upon his return, according to a report by i24NEWS.

The extraordinary incident has raised serious questions about security procedures at Israel’s main international airport, particularly how an individual subject to court-imposed restrictions could pass through multiple screening checkpoints and board an international flight without being stopped.

The suspect, a man in his 20s who is well known to police, allegedly arrived at Ben Gurion Airport accompanied by another individual who assisted him in circumventing the airport’s automated passport control system.

According to investigators, the accompanying individual presented his own biometric passport at an automated border control station. However, rather than the passport holder passing through the checkpoint, the suspect allegedly proceeded through in his place and continued toward his departing flight.

The individual whose passport was used reportedly remained in Israel, while the suspect successfully boarded the aircraft and departed the country.

The incident is particularly troubling because the suspect was reportedly subject to house arrest at the time of his departure and should not have been traveling abroad.

Despite those restrictions, he allegedly managed to complete the airport departure process without security personnel identifying the discrepancy between the person presenting the passport and the individual actually passing through the checkpoint.

The suspect subsequently spent nearly two months outside Israel as police conducted an undercover investigation into the circumstances surrounding his departure.

Investigators sought to determine how he had managed to evade border controls, whether another individual had deliberately facilitated his escape, and what security failures may have allowed the incident to occur.

In recent days, the suspect returned to Israel, where he was arrested in a joint operation involving officers from the Israel Police’s Shai District and detectives stationed at Ben Gurion Airport.

During questioning, the suspect denied knowingly violating the conditions of his house arrest. He reportedly told investigators that he believed the restrictions imposed on him had already expired and that he was therefore permitted to travel.

Police are continuing to investigate the identity and involvement of the individual who accompanied him to the airport and allegedly provided the passport used to facilitate his departure.

The investigation has also encountered complications surrounding access to airport surveillance footage.

According to the report, detectives requested security camera recordings from Ben Gurion Airport to reconstruct the suspect’s movements through the terminal and determine precisely how he passed through the border control system.

However, investigators initially experienced difficulties obtaining the requested footage, creating an additional obstacle in their efforts to establish the sequence of events.

The Population and Immigration Authority, which oversees Israel’s border control operations, responded to questions about the incident by stating, “We are not familiar with the case.”

{Matzav.com}

A 33-year-old upstate New York man accused of making chilling antisemitic threats against a Jewish charitable organization in Lakewood, New Jersey, has been arrested on federal charges after allegedly threatening FBI agents who attempted to question him about the calls.

Dylan Daniell, a resident of La Fargeville in Jefferson County, allegedly contacted the Lakewood nonprofit repeatedly in May, expressing a desire to murder Jews, including by placing them in gas chambers. Months later, when federal investigators arrived at his residence to question him, prosecutors say he responded with threatening statements and subsequently sent an intimidating message to one of the agents.

Daniell appeared in federal court on October 9 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mitchell Katz in the Northern District of New York. He was ordered held pending a detention hearing scheduled for October 15.

Federal prosecutors have charged Daniell with threatening federal law enforcement officers with the intent to impede, intimidate or interfere with their official duties. If convicted, he could face a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison.

According to a criminal complaint filed October 8, the investigation began with a series of disturbing telephone calls received by an unidentified Jewish nonprofit organization in Lakewood on May 17.

During one of the recorded conversations, the caller allegedly declared, “I would like to put all the Jews in a gas chamber and kill them.”

In another call, the individual stated, “I would like to blow up Israel and kill all the Jews.”

The caller also allegedly made a specific reference to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, saying, “I would like to kill Benjamin Netanyahu and all the Jews.”

The threatening remarks prompted an FBI investigation, with agents working to determine the identity of the person responsible for the calls.

According to the FBI affidavit, investigators traced the telephone number used to contact the charity through law enforcement records and information associated with a Cash App account, ultimately connecting it to Daniell.

The FBI’s efforts to interview Daniell culminated in a confrontation outside his La Fargeville apartment on October 7, according to the complaint.

Two federal agents initially arrived at the residence but found that Daniell was not home. They subsequently attempted to contact him by telephone.

At approximately 12:30 p.m., Daniell returned to the property in a vehicle and emerged “accompanied by an adult female, a dog and an infant child,” the court documents state.

When the agents approached and identified themselves as FBI personnel, Daniell allegedly responded with an obscene remark and a series of threatening statements.

Among other things, he reportedly declared that the “only good cop is a dead cop,” before warning the agents to “get the f\*\*\* out of here before I pull something out on you.”

The agents departed the property following the confrontation, but prosecutors allege that Daniell’s threatening behavior continued after they left.

Approximately four hours later, one of the investigators received a text message from the same telephone number that had been used to contact the Lakewood charity.

“You ever come to my house again, you will not like it,” the message stated, according to court records. “That’s not a threat. That’s a promise to all you tyrant, pedophile FBI agents.”

The alleged threats against the agents became the basis for the federal criminal charge filed against Daniell the following day.

The Justice Department announced his arraignment on October 9 at the federal courthouse in Syracuse, where Magistrate Judge Katz ordered him detained pending further proceedings.

In addition to a possible 10-year prison sentence, Daniell faces a fine of up to $250,000 and as many as three years of supervised release if convicted. Any sentence would be determined by the court under federal sentencing law.

First Assistant U.S. Attorney John A. Sarcone III issued a forceful warning following the arrest, emphasizing that threats directed at federal investigators would be prosecuted.

“Threatening law enforcement officers is not a joke,” Sarcone stated. “It is not something that we will brush aside, and it will not be tolerated.”

Sarcone further warned that individuals who believe they can intimidate federal officers must recognize that such conduct carries serious legal consequences, pledging aggressive prosecution of those responsible.

Craig L. Tremaroli, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Albany Field Office, also condemned the alleged conduct, describing the initial calls to the Jewish charity as deeply disturbing and the subsequent threats against investigators as an additional serious offense.

Tremaroli said the FBI would continue taking action against individuals who threaten violence, particularly against officers carrying out their responsibilities to protect the public.

The case is being investigated by the FBI with assistance from the New York State Police. Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew J. McCrobie is handling the prosecution.

Although the investigation originated with the antisemitic telephone calls to the Lakewood organization, the criminal complaint presently charges Daniell with threatening federal law enforcement officers. Prosecutors have not announced separate criminal charges arising directly from the calls to the charity.

Daniell remains in federal custody ahead of his October 15 detention hearing. The allegations against him have not been proven in court, and he is presumed innocent unless convicted.

Israeli police arrested a 25-year-old Bnei Brak resident Tuesday evening on suspicion of stealing the personal laptop computer of Bnei Brak Mayor Chanoch Zeibert while the mayor was using a local mikvah earlier this week.

Detectives from the Bnei Brak–Ramat Gan police station apprehended the suspect following an investigation that included reviewing surveillance footage from the location where the theft occurred. The suspect is also being investigated in connection with an alleged break-in involving the mayor’s vehicle.

The incident took place Sunday at the Machnovka-Belz mikvah on Rebbe of Gur Street in Bnei Brak, a facility the mayor regularly visits.

According to the report, Zeibert arrived at the mikvah carrying his personal laptop and entered the building. While the mayor was immersed in the mikvah, the suspect allegedly took advantage of his absence and stole the computer.

Following the discovery of the theft, a complaint was filed with police, who obtained recordings from security cameras installed at the premises. The footage reportedly captured the individual suspected of taking the laptop.

Investigators launched efforts to identify and locate the suspect, using the surveillance recordings and other investigative measures to track him down.

On Tuesday evening, police announced that detectives had located the individual and taken him into custody. The suspect, a 25-year-old resident of Bnei Brak, was brought to the Bnei Brak–Ramat Gan police station for questioning on suspicion of burglary and theft.

According to local reports, the suspect is known in Bnei Brak for alleged previous incidents involving break-ins to vehicles and the theft of money.

Police have not yet announced whether the mayor’s laptop has been recovered or whether additional charges are expected.

{Matzav.com}

A member of the United Nations commission that accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza has acknowledged that the panel did not independently verify a key statistic concerning Palestinian civilian deaths, raising fresh questions about the evidence used to support its highly controversial findings.

Chris Sidoti, an Australian jurist serving on the U.N. Commission of Inquiry on Israel and the Palestinians, made the admission during a public discussion at Caulfield Hebrew Congregation, an Orthodox synagogue in Melbourne, where he faced questions from American military law expert Brian Cox and members of the audience.

The exchange focused on the commission’s conclusion that Israel had committed genocide during its military campaign against Hamas in Gaza, an allegation the Israeli government has repeatedly and emphatically rejected.

Sidoti acknowledged that the commission had relied on a comparatively low evidentiary threshold in reaching its conclusions and stressed that the panel was an investigative body rather than a judicial institution empowered to determine criminal guilt.

He also conceded that the commission had not independently established the accuracy of a widely circulated claim that 83% of Palestinians killed during the fighting were civilians.

The discussion exposed a central disagreement over the legal requirements for establishing genocide, particularly the need to demonstrate that a government or military acted with the specific intention of destroying a protected national, ethnic, racial or religious group.

Sidoti acknowledged that establishing genocidal intent involves “a very, very high test,” which he described as “higher than the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.”

Nevertheless, he argued that Israel’s stated objective of eliminating Hamas did not necessarily rule out the possibility that its military campaign could also constitute genocide.

According to Sidoti, “if we accept that the goal of the Israeli authorities in Gaza has been the destruction of Hamas, that does not preclude the possibility of genocide being the strategy by which their goal is going to be attained.”

His argument was that a military operation directed against a terrorist organization could still involve genocidal conduct if the methods employed were intended to destroy a protected population, in whole or in part.

Israel has consistently maintained that its military operations were directed against Hamas following the terrorist organization’s October 7, 2023, massacre and that it did not pursue the destruction of the Palestinian civilian population.

Sidoti explained that the commission had based its conclusions on what it considered “reasonable grounds,” acknowledging that this was “not a high standard.”

“We are not a court,” he told attendees. “We are not even prosecutors. We are an investigative body.”

The distinction is particularly significant because the 1948 Genocide Convention requires proof of a specific intent to destroy a protected group, known in legal terminology as dolus specialis. The existence of civilian casualties, even on a large scale, does not by itself establish that particular intent.

The controversy has been sharpened by comments from Navi Pillay, the commission’s previous chairwoman, who offered a markedly different description of the panel’s investigative procedures.

Pillay, a former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights who was awarded the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize last week, told a German newspaper that the commission “essentially worked like a court” and operated with “all the instruments of the separation of powers.”

She also maintained that “Every fact was verified by us,” an assertion that appeared difficult to reconcile with Sidoti’s acknowledgment that at least one significant statistic had not been independently checked.

Pillay received the Nobel Peace Prize on October 9 in recognition of her decades of work promoting international law and accountability for serious human rights violations. Her selection drew criticism from Israel, which has accused the commission she chaired of anti-Israel bias.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee, however, praised her contributions to international justice, including her work on international criminal tribunals and her efforts to strengthen the rule of law.

Another disagreement raised during the Melbourne event concerned the commission’s interpretation of proceedings before the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

The U.N. panel had previously asserted that the court “put all States on notice of the plausibility of the State of Israel committing genocide.”

Cox challenged that characterization by playing an audio recording of Joan Donoghue, who served as president of the International Court of Justice when it issued provisional measures in the genocide case brought against Israel by South Africa.

In the recording, Donoghue explained that the court had not determined that the allegation of genocide itself was plausible, contrary to how its preliminary decision had frequently been portrayed.

The court’s provisional-measures ruling addressed the plausibility of certain rights claimed under the Genocide Convention and the need to protect those rights while the case proceeded. It did not establish that Israel had committed genocide.

Sidoti nevertheless defended the commission’s description of the ruling.

“Our paragraph is entirely consistent with then-President Donoghue’s comments,” he told the audience.

The debate then turned to the methods the commission used to gather and evaluate evidence.

Sidoti insisted that the investigators did “not come to conclusions unless we ourselves have conducted an investigation.”

An audience member challenged that assertion by raising the commission’s use of a claim that 83% of Palestinians killed in Gaza were civilians.

The commission had cited the figure in connection with its allegation that Israeli forces were deliberately targeting Palestinian civilians. However, the statistic has been disputed, including over the underlying methodology used to distinguish civilians from combatants.

Asked whether the commission had independently confirmed the percentage, Sidoti acknowledged that it had not.

“No. We didn’t, because we don’t have that information,” he replied. “We literally don’t know, nor does the IDF know.”

The exchange was particularly significant because the civilian casualty rate had been presented as part of the evidence supporting the commission’s conclusions about Israel’s conduct during the war.

The Melbourne event, held October 8 before a packed audience at Caulfield Hebrew Congregation, brought together Sidoti and Cox for a public examination of the commission’s findings. Cox, a former professor of international law at Cornell University and a senior fellow at Canada’s Macdonald-Laurier Institute, has been a prominent critic of the legal reasoning underlying the genocide allegations.

Organizers reported that the event’s livestream was disrupted during the first half of the program by what appeared to be a coordinated denial-of-service attack involving hundreds of automated connections. The broadcast was restored for the second half.

The gathering was organized by several groups, including ABC Watch, the Australian Jewish Association, Allies for a Strong Australia and The Hague Initiative for International Cooperation. Organizers said the event had not been widely publicized beforehand because of security concerns, and attendees were screened individually.

Sidoti’s acknowledgment that the commission had not verified the 83% figure does not, by itself, establish that all of the panel’s findings were unsupported. It does, however, raise questions about how the commission distinguished independently established facts from outside estimates when reaching its conclusions.

The commission’s September 2025 report had accused Israel of committing four categories of genocidal acts in Gaza and asserted that Israeli authorities possessed the specific intent required under the Genocide Convention. Israel rejected those conclusions, maintaining that its military campaign was directed against Hamas and that its forces operated under the laws of armed conflict.

The report also accused senior Israeli officials of incitement to genocide, allegations that Israeli authorities have likewise denied.

The competing accounts of the commission’s investigative methods now leave a pointed question about the evidentiary foundation of its conclusions, particularly in light of Pillay’s insistence that every fact had been verified and Sidoti’s admission that the commission lacked the information necessary to independently confirm a prominent civilian casualty statistic.

President Donald Trump pushed forward with the October 2025 hostage agreement between Israel and Hamas despite Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s belief that the terrorist organization had effectively rejected the American proposal, according to new details revealed Tuesday evening by Kan News, marking one year since the agreement that secured the return of the remaining hostages from Gaza.

The report describes how Trump repeatedly treated disputed developments in the negotiations as breakthroughs, including publicly announcing that an agreement had been reached before Israeli negotiators believed the final outstanding issues had been resolved.

According to an individual familiar with the negotiations, the first major disagreement emerged after Hamas submitted its response to Trump’s 20-point peace proposal.

Netanyahu reportedly examined the terrorist organization’s response and concluded that it amounted to a rejection of the American initiative. During private discussions, the prime minister declared that “there is nothing to talk about,” indicating that he believed Hamas had failed to accept the conditions necessary for an agreement.

Trump, however, adopted a dramatically different interpretation. Rather than treating the Hamas response as a refusal, the president publicly characterized it as an acceptance of his plan, effectively keeping the diplomatic process moving despite Netanyahu’s reservations.

That decision proved significant because it prevented the negotiations from collapsing over the initial response and placed additional pressure on the Israeli government to continue pursuing an agreement.

A second revealing incident reportedly occurred during the negotiations in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, in October 2025, when senior representatives of the parties were still working through unresolved details.

Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, arrived at the talks and arranged for the president to address the participants by telephone.

According to a source who attended the meeting, Trump congratulated those involved, telling them “well done” for reaching an agreement.

The problem, according to the account, was that the negotiations had not yet concluded and the agreement had not been formally signed.

A senior Israeli official attempted to correct the president’s impression, explaining that significant work remained before the parties could finalize the arrangement.

“Wait, we still have work to do,” the official reportedly told Trump.

Nevertheless, Trump proceeded to issue a public announcement declaring that an agreement had been secured, even as negotiators continued working on the remaining details.

The agreement took effect in October 2025, culminating in the return of the remaining 20 living hostages on October 13. The arrangement also provided for the return of the remains of 28 deceased hostages, bringing the total number covered by the agreement to 48, alongside an Israeli military withdrawal to an agreed line in Gaza.

In his announcement on Truth Social, Trump declared that Israel and Hamas had accepted the first phase of his peace initiative, including the release of the hostages and the withdrawal of Israeli forces to designated positions.

The agreement brought an end to the major fighting that had followed the Hamas massacre of October 7, 2023, and paved the way for Trump’s visit to Israel and the international peace summit in Sharm el-Sheikh on October 13, 2025.

A year later, however, significant portions of the broader American peace initiative remain unresolved. Disagreements persist over the disarmament of Hamas, the withdrawal of Israeli troops from additional areas of Gaza, and the establishment of a postwar governing authority.

Israel has insisted that Hamas must surrender its weapons before further Israeli withdrawals can take place, while Hamas has demanded that Israel fulfill additional ceasefire commitments before it agrees to relinquish its military capabilities.

The anniversary was also marked Tuesday by the US State Department, which credited Trump’s diplomatic intervention with securing the return of all the hostages and establishing the foundations for a longer-term arrangement in Gaza.

In its anniversary statement, the department pointed to the establishment of the Board of Peace, the creation of a Palestinian technocratic administration, and plans for Gaza’s reconstruction, while acknowledging that implementation of the broader peace initiative remains a difficult, multiyear undertaking.

{Matzav.com}

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to take up a potentially consequential immigration case involving a Nigerian asylum seeker who was forced to prepare meals for an armed separatist group, raising the question of how much assistance must be provided before an individual can be considered to have given “material support” to terrorists.

The dispute centers on Izuchukwu Ozurumba, a Nigerian citizen whose application for asylum in the United States was denied after immigration authorities determined that his involuntary work cooking food for members of a violent Nigerian organization known as the “Unknown Gunmen” qualified as assistance to a terrorist group.

Although Ozurumba maintained that he had acted under duress, authorities concluded that the food he prepared fell within the federal immigration law’s restrictions on individuals who have provided material support to terrorist organizations.

Ozurumba was deported to Nigeria in 2025. Later that year, however, a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned the legal basis for his removal in a 2-1 ruling, concluding that the government had applied the material-support provision too broadly.

The appeals court majority accepted the argument that supplying meals under coercion does not automatically establish the level of assistance necessary to trigger the immigration law’s terrorism-related restrictions.

Judges James Andrew Wynn and Nicole Berner, both appointed by Democratic presidents, warned that the government’s interpretation could produce unreasonable consequences by treating virtually any provision of food as support for terrorism.

“To say that every provision of food is support for terrorism is to collapse the statute into absurdity,” the two judges wrote. “Under the dissent’s theory, a soup kitchen feeding the hungry—some of whom may be unsavory characters—would find itself guilty of aiding terrorism.”

The judges rejected the idea that such an expansive interpretation was required by the statute’s wording.

“That’s not textual fidelity,” they wrote. “That is judicial overreach.”

Judge Julius Richardson, appointed by President Donald Trump, disagreed with his colleagues and argued that their interpretation improperly narrowed the meaning of material support.

In his dissent, Richardson accused the majority of effectively requiring assistance to be “‘significant’ or even ‘essential’ to ‘the commission of terrorism.’”

The federal government subsequently asked the Supreme Court to review the decision, and the justices agreed Tuesday to hear the dispute.

The case, formally titled Blanche v. Ozurumba, could have significant consequences for the federal government’s ability to deny asylum to foreign nationals accused of assisting terrorist organizations, including individuals who claim they were compelled to provide assistance against their will.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, foreign nationals who provide material support to terrorist organizations can be barred from receiving asylum and certain other forms of immigration protection. The law identifies several types of assistance, including transportation, money, weapons, false identification documents and training, but does not establish a precise minimum threshold for what makes support material.

Federal prosecutors have also relied on separate material-support statutes in criminal cases involving individuals accused of assisting terrorist organizations, including people who purchase travel arrangements for prospective recruits or pledge themselves to groups such as ISIS.

Although the Supreme Court case directly concerns immigration law, its resolution could influence broader legal arguments over how assistance to terrorist organizations should be evaluated.

The circumstances surrounding Ozurumba’s involvement with the Unknown Gunmen are central to the dispute.

According to court records, Ozurumba accepted what he believed was legitimate cooking employment at a rural camp in Nigeria. After arriving, he discovered that the facility was controlled by armed separatists and was prevented from leaving.

He testified that he was required to prepare three meals daily, seven days a week, for approximately 15 to 17 leaders of the organization. He remained at the camp for several months, receiving no pay, before eventually escaping.

Fearing further threats from the group, Ozurumba left Nigeria and traveled through Venezuela before entering the United States through the southern border in July 2023. He was detained by Border Patrol authorities and subsequently sought asylum.

An immigration judge denied his application in March 2024, concluding that his cooking duties constituted material support because they provided sustenance to the organization’s leadership. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld that determination in September 2024.

The Fourth Circuit reversed the decision in September 2025, finding that Ozurumba’s forced labor did not sufficiently advance the group’s terrorist activities to qualify as material support under the statute.

Richardson, however, argued that the majority had imposed a limitation Congress never intended. He maintained that assistance need not be directly connected to a particular terrorist attack to benefit an organization engaged in terrorism.

“Material support requires enough support to have some meaningful impact on the terrorist organization’s ability to achieve its goals,” Richardson wrote in his dissent. “For example, though food can constitute material support, selling a hot dog to a terrorist would not count.”

The judge said Ozurumba’s situation was fundamentally different from an ordinary commercial transaction involving an individual who happened to be a terrorist.

“Ozurumba did not run a hot dog stand that the Unknown Gunmen happened to stop by once or twice,” Richardson wrote. “Rather, he acted as a private chef, providing three meals a day for over a dozen leaders of a terrorist organization—for months.”

Richardson reasoned that consistently feeding the leadership of an armed organization helped sustain its operations, regardless of whether the meals themselves were connected to particular acts of violence.

The appeals court majority took the opposite position, concluding that the evidence showed Ozurumba had been a captive worker whose cooking was unrelated to the planning or execution of terrorist activities.

The Supreme Court will now consider whether the federal material-support provision requires assistance to advance actual terrorist conduct or whether substantial help in maintaining an organization’s ordinary operations is enough to trigger the immigration restrictions.

The justices have not yet announced an oral argument date. A ruling is expected by the end of the Court’s current term, potentially in June 2027.