Feed aggregator

More than 1,200 foreign airline crew members from countries that do not maintain diplomatic relations with Israel have been permitted to enter the country since the beginning of 2026, including citizens of Syria, Lebanon and Oman, according to newly revealed figures that are raising fresh questions about Israel’s screening of foreign aviation personnel.

The number, reported Tuesday by Kan News, has taken on particular significance following the attempted hijacking of a FlyDubai flight bound for Tel Aviv, after it emerged that the Omani co-pilot accused of carrying out the attack had previously drawn the attention of authorities in his own country over concerns about extremist activity.

The figure does not mean that the 1,200 crew members were suspected of terrorism or other wrongdoing. Rather, it highlights the extent to which foreign airline personnel from countries ordinarily subject to heightened Israeli entry restrictions routinely arrive as part of international flight crews — and has fueled questions about exactly how those individuals are vetted before being permitted to fly into Israel.

The Omani co-pilot at the center of the FlyDubai attack, Imam Al-Hamami, had not previously escaped the notice of authorities. According to reports that emerged following the attack, Omani officials had become concerned about his online activity and what they regarded as an excessive interest in radical ideology.

Those concerns were serious enough that Al-Hamami was reportedly removed from flying duties at Oman Air, the country’s national carrier. He was transferred to an office position and sent through an anti-extremism program.

But the information apparently stopped there. The Wall Street Journal reported that the concerns surrounding Al-Hamami were not transmitted to other relevant authorities or entered into a system that would have prevented him from obtaining another aviation job abroad.

Al-Hamami subsequently secured employment with FlyDubai. According to information published since the attack, the airline did not approach Omani authorities for a detailed account of his previous employment or the reasons he had stopped flying for Oman Air. Instead, the hiring process reportedly relied on a criminal-background check that did not reveal the earlier security concerns.

The apparent gap proved particularly consequential because Al-Hamami was not merely hired as a commercial pilot. He was assigned to routes serving Israel and had reportedly flown into the country several times before the attempted hijacking without being identified as a potential security threat.

Only after the attack did investigators begin piecing together the history of warnings surrounding him. Reuters reported that Al-Hamami subsequently told investigators in the United Arab Emirates that he had planned the attack even before FlyDubai hired him, a revelation that has intensified scrutiny of how he was able to secure the position and repeatedly operate flights to Israel.

Authorities in the UAE are now examining the conduct of FlyDubai personnel involved in hiring Al-Hamami and whether proper procedures were followed before he was permitted to fly for the carrier.

Investigators in Abu Dhabi and Yerushalayim are also reportedly examining whether Al-Hamami’s radicalization may have begun earlier, including during a period in which he lived in Australia. Authorities are seeking to reconstruct his activities and determine when warning signs first appeared and whether information existed that could have prevented him from gaining access to an Israel-bound cockpit.

The attempted attack has now expanded into a broader examination of the system governing foreign airline crews entering Israel. Unlike ordinary travelers, airline personnel operate under specialized aviation procedures, raising questions about which Israeli agency is ultimately responsible for ensuring that potentially dangerous crew members are identified before they reach the country.

Transportation Minister Miri Regev said over the weekend that the responsibility for intelligence screening and security vetting of foreign flight crews does not rest with the Transportation Ministry. She said those duties belong to Israel’s security authorities.

The Wall Street Journal, however, has reported that the failures were not confined to FlyDubai or Oman. Its reporting also pointed to shortcomings on the Israeli side, including within the mechanisms overseen by Israeli authorities and the Transportation Ministry for screening foreign airline crews entering the country.

The disclosure that more than 1,200 crew members from countries without diplomatic relations with Israel have entered since January is now adding urgency to that dispute. Among those personnel were citizens of countries that remain formally hostile to Israel, including Syria and Lebanon, as well as Oman, which has no diplomatic relations with Israel.

The central question facing investigators is no longer only how Al-Hamami was hired by FlyDubai, but how information about a pilot who had reportedly already been flagged for extremist concerns failed to follow him through the international aviation system — and how he was subsequently able to fly repeatedly into Israel before allegedly attempting to bring down a passenger aircraft bound for Tel Aviv.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli President Isaac Herzog will present Israel’s highest civilian award for heroism on Thursday to six Israelis whose actions helped avert catastrophe aboard the FlyDubai flight from Dubai to Tel Aviv after the co-pilot attacked the captain and the aircraft plunged thousands of feet.

The six recipients of the President’s Award for Civilian Heroism are Or Bardilov, Yaniv Hayun, Dr. Shota Musayev, Tali Manes, Zvika Manes and Assaf Rajuan. The awards will be presented at a ceremony at the President’s Residence in Yerushalayim.

The six played different roles during the dramatic events aboard FlyDubai Flight FZ1073, which was carrying more than 170 people when the co-pilot attacked Indian Captain Smit Machchhar inside the cockpit as the aircraft was en route to Israel.

Despite suffering serious wounds, Machchhar fought with the attacker and managed to open the cockpit door, a move that ultimately allowed passengers to reach the cockpit and intervene.

Tali Manes, who was near the cockpit with her young daughter, heard the sounds of a violent struggle coming from inside and was the first to raise the alarm, calling on other passengers to help.

Yaniv Hayun, Zvika Manes and Assaf Rajuan responded and rushed toward the cockpit, where they confronted the attacker and managed to overpower and restrain him while placing themselves in serious danger.

During the struggle, with the aircraft rapidly losing altitude, Hayun also grabbed the controls and pulled back on them in an effort to stabilize the plane. Hayun, a plumber with no formal aviation training, later said that his limited understanding of what to do came from watching the television program “Air Crash Investigation.”

The passengers ultimately restrained the attacker with materials available aboard the aircraft, including headphone cables, while others guarded him as efforts shifted toward saving the wounded captain and getting the plane safely onto the ground.

Tali Manes continued taking action even after the immediate threat had been brought under control. According to the President’s Residence, she called for qualified pilots who were traveling as passengers in the rear of the aircraft to come forward and assist in regaining control of the plane.

Dr. Shota Musayev, a dentist, turned his attention to Machchhar, who was suffering from severe wounds and substantial blood loss. Musayev treated the captain for an extended period, working to stop the bleeding, monitoring his condition and keeping him conscious until the aircraft could make its emergency landing in Saudi Arabia.

The plane ultimately landed safely in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, where the attacker was taken into custody. The captain was transported for emergency medical treatment.

In the days following the incident, the actions of the passengers and Machchhar drew widespread praise in Israel and abroad, with government leaders saying their intervention had prevented what could have become one of the deadliest aviation terror attacks in years.

Last week, Herzog personally contacted four of the passengers to tell them that he intended to recommend them to the advisory committee responsible for the civilian heroism award. As additional testimony about the incident emerged, the full extent of Tali Manes’ role became clearer, and Herzog subsequently spoke with her as well.

“Tali, the more we learn about what happened during those dramatic moments, the clearer it becomes just how significant a role you played in saving the lives of the passengers on the plane,” Herzog told her. “You heard that something terrible was happening, immediately understood the magnitude of the danger, raised the alarm, called for help, and did not stop taking action even after the attacker had been neutralized.”

Herzog praised Manes for continuing to think and act during the emergency even after the assailant had been restrained.

“The resourcefulness, sense of responsibility, and composure you displayed in moments of life-threatening danger are civilian heroism in the fullest sense of the word. You are a hero, Tali, and I am proud of you and thank you on behalf of the State of Israel.”

Herzog has also singled out Machchhar for praise, saying the Indian captain’s determination despite his grave injuries made it possible for the passengers to intervene and ultimately helped save those aboard the aircraft.

The President’s Award for Civilian Heroism is Israel’s highest civilian decoration recognizing acts of heroism. Herzog established the award following the October 7 massacre to formally recognize civilians who knowingly put their own lives in genuine danger to save others.

Recipients are selected after their actions are examined and an advisory committee submits its recommendations to the president. Previous honorees have included civilians whose extraordinary actions saved lives during the October 7 attacks and other life-threatening incidents.

Thursday’s ceremony will now recognize the six Israelis whose actions, together with those of Machchhar and others aboard the flight, turned what appeared to be a rapidly unfolding disaster in the skies into an extraordinary rescue in which the passengers were brought safely to the ground.

{Matzav.com}

Sen. Ted Cruz launched an extraordinary broadside against Tucker Carlson, accusing the conservative commentator of defending Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany after Carlson repeatedly questioned whether Britain benefited from defeating Hitler in World War II during a contentious interview with former British Cabinet minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Cruz devoted a significant portion of Monday’s “Verdict with Ted Cruz” podcast to Carlson’s interview, joining co-host Ben Ferguson in dissecting Carlson’s statements about Hitler, Britain, World War II and Russia. Cruz argued that the comments were part of what he sees as a broader shift in Carlson’s politics and worldview.

“Come on, Tucker didn’t go full Nazi, did he?” Cruz said sarcastically before playing audio from Carlson’s interview. “I want you to give a listen to Tucker saying that he really wishes Hitler had won World War II.”

Carlson did not, however, explicitly state during the exchange that he wished Hitler had won the war. Rather, Carlson repeatedly pressed Rees-Mogg on whether Britain was ultimately better off because it fought and defeated Nazi Germany.

“We did the right thing,” Rees-Mogg said.

“Is it a better country than it was? To have defeated Hitler, yes. So the U.K. is a better country now? It’s a healthier country now?” Carlson responded.

“Otherwise, we’d be speaking German,” Rees-Mogg replied.

“Who cares?” Carlson said. “There are a lot of people in Britain who can’t speak English. So it would be nice to have at least a European language spoken in your country.”

Rees-Mogg immediately rejected that reasoning. “We want to speak English. Thanks so much.”

Ferguson said he was “truly shocked” by the exchange, while Cruz pointed to his own public response to Carlson’s remarks.

“Yes, Tucker. The U.K. is better off for winning World War II. America is better off for winning World War II. And the world would be much worse off if the Nazis had won World War II. This is not complicated.”

The Carlson-Rees-Mogg interview, released Friday, was originally framed largely around Britain’s approach to Russia and the war in Ukraine. But the discussion expanded into an extended debate about Britain’s role in World War II, including whether Hitler actually intended to wage war against Britain.

“Hitler did not want to go to war with the U.K.,” Carlson said, later stressing that Hitler had “repeatedly” said publicly and through diplomatic channels that he did not want war with Britain.

Rees-Mogg challenged Carlson’s reliance on Hitler’s stated intentions, pointing to the Nazi leader’s record of violating agreements and breaking promises as Germany expanded across Europe.

“You seem to be putting more trust in Hitler than I would,” he told Carlson, pointing to Hitler’s broken agreements and adding, “I’m very surprised you’re verging on defending Hitler.”

“Yeah, I guess I’m just a secret Nazi,” Carlson responded. “I’m actually not a secret Nazi.”

“I’m reassured,” Rees-Mogg dryly replied.

“And hardly a public Nazi,” Carlson added.

Cruz seized on that portion of the interview, describing Carlson as “blazingly naive and willfully naive” in his approach to dictators and authoritarian governments.

“We’re now less than a month away from Election Day, and Tucker Carlson decided, what do you want to do right before Election Day?” Cruz asked rhetorically.

Cruz then delivered his most blistering attack of the podcast, tying the World War II controversy to his longstanding disputes with Carlson over President Trump, Israel, antisemitism and foreign policy.

“I know, become a full-on Nazi. Embrace Adolf Hitler, defend the Nazis, argue America should have been standing with the Nazis. You know, poor Adolf was just misunderstood. We’re going to come with the receipts of even for Tucker, long after he’s gone down the road of hating Donald Trump, long after he’s gone down the road of hating Israel and Jews, long after he’s gone down the road of hating Christian Zionists, and becoming a full-on jihadist, long after he has embraced Abdul El-Sayed, Tucker decided, you know, I don’t have enough Nazi love on my show, and this past week he sought to correct that. You can hear and judge for yourself.”

The episode marked another escalation in an increasingly bitter feud between two highly influential figures on the American right. Cruz has become one of Carlson’s most vocal conservative critics, particularly over Carlson’s treatment of Israel, Jews and figures accused of promoting antisemitism.

The dispute intensified after Carlson interviewed Nick Fuentes last year. Cruz subsequently called Carlson “the single-most dangerous demagogue in this country” and warned about what he sees as the increasing acceptance of antisemitism within portions of the political right.

Cruz’s latest criticism was not limited to Carlson’s discussion of Hitler. He also targeted Carlson over another exchange with Rees-Mogg concerning the relative economic strength of Russia and Britain.

Carlson asserted that Russia has a “much larger economy” than Britain, pointing to the country’s natural resources, manufacturing capacity and size.

Rees-Mogg challenged him, noting that Russia’s nominal gross domestic product is smaller than that of the United Kingdom despite Russia possessing a substantially larger population and enormous natural resources. Carlson countered that GDP was not the only measure of a country’s economic strength and pointed instead to Russia’s underlying resources and industrial capacity.

“Tucker has an ideological mission,” Cruz charged. “It is a mission to tear down America, to tear down free enterprise, to tear down the Constitution.”

Cruz went further, accusing Carlson’s rhetoric of working to “build up the Nazis” as well as Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The two conservatives have also diverged sharply over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Carlson has repeatedly questioned Washington’s support for Kyiv and argued that U.S. leaders exaggerate the threat posed by Moscow, while Cruz has taken a far more hawkish approach toward Russia.

Another portion of Carlson’s interview focused on Britain’s treatment during World War II of Oswald Mosley, the leader of the British Union of Fascists, who was detained by the British government along with hundreds of other suspected fascist sympathizers under wartime emergency regulations.

Cruz interpreted Carlson’s criticism of those actions as another example of the same pattern he saw throughout the interview.

“Tucker is all in on defending the Nazis against the West.”

The uproar over Carlson’s interview has extended beyond Cruz. Rees-Mogg subsequently said he could not understand Carlson’s increasingly extreme positions and suggested that the incentives of online media and the pursuit of audience engagement could be contributing to Carlson’s provocative rhetoric.

Poland’s government has also entered the controversy after Carlson discussed Hitler’s grievances against Poland and questioned the circumstances that led Britain to declare war on Germany following the Nazi invasion of Poland in September 1939. Bogdan Klich, Poland’s top diplomat in Washington, demanded that Carlson retract his remarks and apologize, accusing him of becoming “an apologist for Adolf Hitler.”

Cruz ended his discussion by describing Carlson’s rhetoric as “profoundly dangerous” and telling listeners that they did not need to rely on his characterization of Carlson’s views because the underlying interview was available for them to hear themselves.

“You don’t have to take my word for it,” Cruz said, “because you can listen in his own words as we played today.”

{Matzav.com}

Poland’s top diplomat in Washington has demanded that Tucker Carlson publicly retract and apologize for his remarks about Nazi Germany’s 1939 invasion of Poland, accusing the prominent commentator of advancing a false version of history and becoming “an apologist for Adolf Hitler.”

Bogdan Klich, chargé d’affaires at the Polish Embassy in Washington, issued the extraordinary rebuke after Carlson questioned Britain’s decision to enter World War II and argued during an interview with former British Cabinet minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg that Adolf Hitler had legitimate grievances against Poland over German territory lost following World War I.

Klich said Carlson’s portrayal of the events leading to World War II was “false and deeply troubling,” describing his treatment of Hitler’s invasion as a “colossal insult” to the millions of victims of Nazism, including American servicemen killed or wounded in the fight to liberate Europe.

“Nazi propaganda cannot be rehabilitated under the guise of free speech,” Klich wrote, demanding an immediate public retraction and apology.

The clash erupted following Carlson’s lengthy conversation with Rees-Mogg, during which Carlson challenged the conventional understanding of Britain’s entry into World War II and questioned whether the United Kingdom ultimately benefited from fighting Nazi Germany.

Carlson argued that Germany had lost territory populated by Germans to Poland following World War I and disputed the characterization of Hitler’s Sept. 1, 1939, invasion as an unprovoked act of aggression. Rees-Mogg repeatedly pushed back, at one point accusing Carlson of “verging on defending Hitler.”

Carlson also questioned why Britain had declared war on Germany when Hitler had publicly claimed that he did not intend to attack Britain. Britain and France declared war on Germany on Sept. 3, 1939, two days after German forces invaded Poland.

Polish officials responded that Hitler’s assurances about his territorial ambitions cannot be separated from his repeated pattern of making commitments and subsequently violating them.

At Munich in September 1938, Britain and France agreed to Germany’s annexation of the predominantly German-speaking Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia after Hitler pledged that the territorial settlement would satisfy Germany’s demands and that future disputes would be handled peacefully.

Within six months, Hitler violated that understanding. German forces entered the Czech lands in March 1939, dismantling what remained of Czechoslovakia and placing Bohemia and Moravia under German occupation.

Germany had similarly signed a nonaggression pact with Poland in 1934, ostensibly committing the two countries to resolve disputes without military force. Hitler renounced the agreement in April 1939, and Germany invaded Poland just over four months later.

The invasion was also preceded by the secret Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Nazi Germany and Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union. Under a secret protocol attached to the agreement, the two totalitarian powers divided Poland and other parts of Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence.

Germany attacked Poland from the west on Sept. 1, while Soviet forces invaded from the east on Sept. 17. Poland was subsequently partitioned between the two regimes.

While Germany’s public demands before the war centered heavily on the Free City of Danzig and transportation access across the Polish Corridor, diplomatic records from the period indicate that Hitler’s demands expanded as the crisis intensified.

A U.S. diplomatic report produced shortly before the invasion described Hitler as demanding Danzig, the Corridor and Polish provinces including Pomerania and Silesia while threatening to “crush Poland.”

Klich said Carlson’s presentation ignored the broader historical record of Nazi Germany’s plans for Poland and Europe. He argued that the Sept. 1 invasion was a deliberately planned war of aggression intended to destroy the Polish state and ultimately facilitate further German conquest.

Poland suffered catastrophic losses under Nazi occupation. Approximately six million Polish citizens were killed during World War II, roughly half of them Jews murdered as part of the Holocaust. Poland was also the site of Nazi extermination camps where millions of Jews from across Europe were murdered.

Rees-Mogg continued challenging Carlson throughout their exchange, rejecting Carlson’s contention that Britain’s decision to confront Nazi Germany had been a mistake.

Following the interview, Rees-Mogg suggested that Carlson’s increasingly provocative positions could be influenced in part by the incentives of the online media environment and the audiences generated by controversial material.

The controversy also drew a sharp response from Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who has become one of Carlson’s most outspoken Republican critics.

“Yes, Tucker, the UK is better off for winning WWII,” Cruz wrote. “America is better off for winning World War II. And the world would be much worse off if the Nazis had won WWII. This is not complicated.”

Cruz has previously called Carlson “the single-most dangerous demagogue in this country” while warning about the growth of antisemitism on the political right.

The Texas senator has been particularly critical of Carlson’s decision to conduct a friendly interview with Nick Fuentes, who has openly expressed antisemitic views and praised Hitler. Cruz has accused Carlson and others in his orbit of attempting to move parts of the conservative movement toward hostility to Israel and greater tolerance of antisemitism.

Carlson, meanwhile, has become increasingly outspoken in his opposition to U.S. support for Israel and has repeatedly clashed with prominent Republicans and pro-Israel conservatives over the issue. His critics have accused him of amplifying antisemitic figures and conspiracy theories, accusations Carlson and his supporters have pushed back against.

In February, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee challenged Carlson directly over several of his claims during a contentious interview between the two men.

For Polish officials, however, the latest confrontation is centered squarely on World War II and what they view as an attempt to rewrite the circumstances surrounding the Nazi invasion that devastated their country.

“History must not be distorted,” Klich wrote. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

{Matzav.com}

[Video below.] United Torah Judaism chairman MK Yaakov Asher issued a blistering condemnation Monday of a campaign video released by Sharren Haskel, warning that if a chareidi person is harmed as a result of what he called the video’s incitement, responsibility will rest with Haskel.

The controversial video, published by Haskel, chairwoman of the newly established Israel First party, depicts a chareidi bochur approaching a wounded IDF soldier and taking money from him. The video was posted under the Hebrew caption “Kahal Shavui,” meaning a “captive audience.”

WATCH:

Asher accused Haskel and those responsible for the video of using imagery and messaging that demonizes the chareidi community.

“An antisemitic incitement video that mainly testifies about its creators — haters of people and haters of religion,” Asher said. “This is the permitting of chareidi blood in a style remembered from dark periods in history.”

The UTJ chairman then issued an even sharper warning about what he said could be the consequences of such rhetoric.

“If a chareidi is harmed as a result of this incitement, the blood is on Sharren Haskel’s hands,” Asher said.

UTJ MK Meir Porush also condemned the video, characterizing it as antisemitic election propaganda and noting Haskel’s recent service as deputy foreign minister.

“What complaints can we have against the Green Party in Britain when a former deputy foreign minister here in Israel publishes antisemitic election propaganda?” Porush wrote.

Haskel served until recently as deputy foreign minister in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. She subsequently left Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar’s New Hope faction and established a new political party, Israel First, as she prepared for the upcoming elections.

Her new political venture has received the backing of Jonathan Pollard, who served 30 years in an American prison after being convicted of spying for Israel. Pollard joined Haskel’s party in August, appearing with her near the Kosel to announce his support.

“At October 7, I saw that the country was abandoned and betrayed. With you, I hope there will be a new government dedicated to protecting the land and the people of Israel,” Pollard said at the time.

Pollard also praised Haskel for the efforts she made on his behalf before his release from the restrictions that remained following his imprisonment.

“You fought for me without boasting about it,” Pollard told her.

The dispute over Haskel’s video comes amid an increasingly charged election campaign in which the military draft and the status of chareidi yeshiva bochurim have emerged as major political flashpoints, with chareidi lawmakers accusing political rivals of exploiting hostility toward their community for electoral gain.

A seemingly ordinary photograph of an Israeli boy posing with Flydubai Captain Smit Machchhar has taken on extraordinary significance after the veteran pilot was critically wounded while battling to save Flight FZ1073 from an attempted takeover.

The photograph was shared by Mor Levy Aharoni, a Dubai-based real estate attorney, who said her son Ariel had insisted on taking a picture with Machchhar approximately one month before the terrifying incident aboard the Flydubai flight from Dubai to Tel Aviv.

At the time, it was simply a photograph with a pilot. After what happened aboard FZ1073, Aharoni said she sees the picture very differently.

“Apparently he felt that he was taking a picture with a hero, and we didn’t even know it. If not for this hero, only God knows where we would be today,” she wrote.

Aharoni said the remarkable coincidence generated an emotional response online, as people reacted to the image of the young Israeli standing beside the man who, just weeks later, would play a critical role in preventing a potentially catastrophic attack involving a plane filled with Israeli passengers.

Machchhar was critically wounded during the attack inside the cockpit when the Omani co-pilot allegedly assaulted him and attempted to seize control of the Boeing 737.

During the struggle, the aircraft plunged nearly 14,000 feet in less than 30 seconds before control was restored, as passengers and crew members fought to restrain the alleged attacker.

Speaking from his hospital bed with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Machchhar later described how, despite his serious wounds, he understood that he had to act immediately.

The captain managed to open the cockpit door, allowing passengers and other crew members to intervene and overpower the attacker. Two additional pilots who happened to be traveling aboard the flight subsequently helped stabilize the aircraft and safely divert it to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.

Machchhar brought extensive experience to the cockpit that day. He has accumulated approximately 9,750 flight hours aboard Boeing 737 aircraft and joined Flydubai as a captain in 2022 following many years with Indian carrier SpiceJet.

For Aharoni and her son, however, the story now has an intensely personal dimension: a photograph taken on an ordinary day in Dubai, weeks before anyone knew the captain’s name, captured Ariel smiling alongside the pilot who would soon be hailed for helping save the lives of those aboard Flight FZ1073.

{Matzav.com}

Forty-eight survivors of the Nova massacre have taken upon themselves to keep Shabbos after spending the past year studying its halachos, according to Rebbetzin Tzila Schneider of Kesher Yehudi, who described an extraordinary Simchas Torah gathering that brought hundreds of Nova survivors and bereaved families together for tefillah, hakafos and a hachnosas Sefer Torah in memory of those murdered on October 7.

Speaking with Rav Moshe Ben Lulu on the “Begovah Halev” program on Kol Chai, Schneider said approximately 350 people gathered at Yerushalayim’s Olive Tree Hotel on the eve of Yom Tov for a memorial ceremony and candle lighting in memory of the victims.

During Simchas Torah itself, the hakafos were dedicated to those who were murdered, while participants accepted various new commitments in their personal avodas Hashem, including keeping Shabbos, putting on tefillin, wearing tzitzis, honoring their parents and reciting Krias Shema al hamitah.

“A large part of this group spoke about the rectification — where were we three years ago, where were we dancing, what were we dancing with in our hands, and where are we now? Seeking only closeness to God,” Schneider said.

The gatherings carried particular meaning for survivors of the Nova music festival, where hundreds were murdered during the Hamas-led massacre on Simchas Torah three years ago. For some of those who survived, Schneider said, the anniversary has become a time for spiritual growth and a reconsideration of how they want to live their lives.

On Motzoei Simchas Torah, Kesher Yehudi held a hachnosas Sefer Torah at the shul of one of the Nova survivors who has since undertaken to observe Shabbos. The celebration took place during hakafos shniyos and drew hundreds of participants.

Among those standing on the stage were 48 Nova survivors whom Schneider described as “heroes of Shabbat.” Over the past year, she said, the group underwent an intensive program studying the halachos of Shabbos, both through Zoom classes and individual chavrusas, culminating in their commitment to become shomrei Shabbos.

Each of the 48 participants dedicated a portion of the new Sefer Torah in memory of a friend who was murdered at Nova.

“There were rivers of tears,” Schneider said.

Schneider said the experience demonstrated what she described as a widespread desire among secular Israelis to learn more about Yiddishkeit, and she issued a direct appeal to the chareidi and broader Torah-observant community to personally become involved.

“I want every Torah-observant person to take one chavrusa for themselves,” she said, explaining that Kesher Yehudi is currently receiving numerous requests from secular Jews who want someone with whom they can learn and grow.

Schneider related the story of a girl named Lin who began dressing more b’tznius and was mocked by classmates because of the change. Eventually, she said, Lin’s family also began keeping Shabbos.

She also spoke about another girl, Romi, who now comes to the family’s home every Shabbos so that she can spend the day observing Shabbos together with them.

Schneider said opportunities for such relationships are often much closer than people realize and urged observant Jews not to assume that someone who appears distant from Yiddishkeit is uninterested in learning.

“There is a neighbor, there is a friend at work, there is a friend’s son who is interested. Offer people — I want to learn with you once a week,” she said.

Those interested in volunteering as a chavrusa through Kesher Yehudi can contact the organization at 073-2244555.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib is demanding that Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer stop an Israeli defense technology company from establishing a new manufacturing operation in the state, attacking a project expected to bring at least $5 million in investment and 125 jobs to the Detroit area.

The Michigan Democrat is targeting Capture Group Inc., the newly established American arm of Israel-based Capture Systems Ltd., which plans to open a manufacturing and engineering hub in Sterling Heights, a major center of Michigan’s defense industry in Macomb County.

The project was publicly celebrated by Whitmer’s administration just last month. The state approved a $936,000 performance-based grant through the Michigan Business Development Program to support the expansion, which is expected to generate at least 125 new jobs over five years.

The jobs are slated to begin at $25 an hour plus benefits, according to state officials. Capture Group has committed to investing at least $5 million in the facility.

Tlaib, however, is urging Whitmer, a fellow Democrat, to reverse course and prevent state taxpayer money from going toward the Israeli-owned company.

In comments Sunday, Tlaib accused Michigan of directing public funds toward “bombs that kill children” while “small businesses, many of them black- and women-owned” are struggling for support.

She further charged that Capture Systems manufactures weapons “used to commit genocide.”

Calling Michigan an “anti-war and anti-genocide state,” Tlaib declared that Capture Systems has “no place in our state and should not be receiving a dime of public funds.”

Capture Systems specializes in defense and homeland-security technology, with a particular emphasis on counter-drone systems designed to detect, identify and neutralize unmanned aerial threats. The Israeli company created Capture Group Inc. this year as part of its effort to establish a permanent American presence and expand its access to the U.S. defense market.

Once operational, the Sterling Heights facility is expected to manufacture counter-UAS platforms, optical surveillance equipment and mobile defense systems. It will also serve as a center for developing, integrating and testing advanced counter-drone technology and remote-controlled weapon stations.

The company had considered locating the operation in Florida or Virginia before selecting Michigan, according to state officials.

When Whitmer announced the investment in September, she portrayed the project as a significant addition to Michigan’s growing defense industry.

“Michigan is on the move and open for business, competing for and winning big projects in next-generation industries from aviation to defense,” Whitmer said. “Today’s announcement will create 125 new good-paying jobs and help cement Michigan as the best place for cutting-edge research and development that moves our nation forward. Let’s keep working together to show the world that Michigan is the best place to build the future.”

Capture Systems Group Chief Operating Officer Avi Braun similarly described the decision to build in Michigan as part of the company’s broader expansion into the American market.

“We are honored to partner with the State of Michigan as we establish Capture Systems’ U.S. manufacturing and engineering hub,” Braun said. “This investment represents a major milestone in our global expansion strategy and reflects our long-term commitment to creating high-value jobs, investing in advanced manufacturing, and strengthening America’s defense industrial base. Michigan offers an exceptional combination of engineering talent, manufacturing excellence, and a business-friendly environment, making it the ideal location for our next phase of growth. We look forward to becoming a long-term member of Michigan’s defense and aerospace ecosystem while delivering innovative technologies that help protect critical infrastructure, law enforcement, and military personnel.”

Tlaib’s effort to derail the project has also drawn opposition from within her own party.

Michigan state Rep. Noah Arbit, a Democrat representing the state’s 20th District, defended Capture Systems and argued that the technologies it produces are important to American national security.

Arbit said the company develops “the kinds of systems that the U.S. needs to compete with China, Russia and other adversaries.”

The dispute pits Tlaib against an economic-development project championed by Whitmer’s administration at a time when Michigan has been working to expand its defense and advanced-manufacturing footprint. Sterling Heights already forms a major part of the state’s defense corridor, and local officials welcomed Capture Group’s decision to establish its U.S. operations there.

Tlaib, a member of the progressive congressional faction known as “The Squad,” has been one of Israel’s most outspoken opponents in Congress and has repeatedly sought to curtail American military assistance to the Jewish state.

Following the Hamas massacre in Israel on October 7, 2023, Tlaib continued accusing Israel of maintaining an “apartheid system” and criticized American funding “to support the apartheid government”.

She has also repeatedly defended her use of the slogan “from the river to the sea,” describing it as an expression of support for Palestinian Arab freedom despite widespread criticism that the phrase calls for eliminating Israel as a Jewish state.

Tlaib also came under intense criticism after initially blaming Israel for the October 2023 explosion at Gaza’s Al-Ahli Hospital. Subsequent U.S. and Israeli assessments determined that the blast was caused by a failed rocket fired from Gaza by Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Whitmer’s administration has not indicated that it intends to withdraw the grant or abandon the Capture Group project in response to Tlaib’s demand.

{Matzav.com}

Some 1,400 chareidi men already serving in Israel’s civilian national service program could see their monthly stipends reduced by thousands of shekels after the Supreme Court declined to dismiss a petition challenging the substantially higher payments they receive compared with participants in the general national service program.

The law governing civilian service for chareidim expired at the end of August, preventing new candidates from entering the program. However, approximately 1,400 chareidi participants who began their service while the law was still in effect are continuing under a provision protecting their existing rights until they complete their service.

The legal battle over how much those participants should receive is now continuing despite the law’s expiration.

Supreme Court Justice David Mintz ordered the state to submit an updated response by October 13 addressing whether proceedings over the monthly stipends should continue. The state had argued that the petition became moot once the civilian service law expired, but the organization Israel Hofsheet countered that the dispute remains relevant because approximately 1,400 chareidim are still actively serving under the program.

The controversy traces back to 2014, when legislation established a national civilian service framework for individuals who had previously held Toraso umnaso status. At the same time, provisions of Israel’s military service law allowed yeshiva bochurim to receive military-service deferments.

The legal arrangement governing Toraso umnaso expired in June 2023. The civilian service law was subsequently extended periodically through temporary provisions.

In late 2025, Israel Hofsheet petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that in the absence of a valid military draft arrangement, chareidi candidates should no longer be referred to or funded through the civilian service program.

The petition also challenged what it described as a significant disparity between the monthly stipends provided to chareidi civilian-service participants and those received by people serving through the general national service framework.

On June 11, the Supreme Court issued an order to show cause directing the state and Knesset to explain, among other issues, why the stipends received by chareidi participants should not be equalized with those provided to participants in the general national service program.

When the law expired on August 31, the state informed the court that new candidates could no longer enter the chareidi civilian service track and argued that the petition therefore no longer had practical relevance.

At the same time, however, the state said that under Section 36(b) of the law, approximately 1,400 people who had already begun their service could continue and would retain their existing rights through the completion of their service.

Israel Hofsheet responded that this was precisely why the case was not moot: the disputed payment arrangement remains in effect for those 1,400 active participants.

The Supreme Court has now declined to dismiss the petition at this stage, leaving the stipend issue open for further consideration.

The financial difference is substantial. According to figures presented in the proceedings, payments under the chareidi civilian-service track can reach approximately 4,580 shekels per month, compared with approximately 1,305 shekels under the parallel general national service arrangement — a difference of as much as 3,275 shekels each month.

If the Supreme Court ultimately orders the payments to be equalized at the lower level, some chareidi participants could therefore lose thousands of shekels in monthly support even though they entered the program while the existing payment structure was in force.

No such reduction has been ordered at this point. The court has only allowed the legal challenge to remain active while it considers whether the payment disparity should continue for the approximately 1,400 chareidim already serving.

The state must now submit its updated position by October 13, after which the Supreme Court could determine whether the current stipend arrangement for those already enrolled in civilian service may remain in place.

{Matzav.com}

The Brisker Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Velvel Soloveitchik, delivered an unusually sharp attack over Sukkos against prominent chareidi institutions that hosted Israeli President Isaac Herzog, accusing them of compromising longstanding principles for government funding and declaring that “the Chazon Ish must be trembling in his grave over what they did to his home.”

Rav Soloveitchik, son and successor of Rav Meshulam Dovid Soloveitchik, made the remarks during a lengthy address at a Simchas Bais Hashoeivah attended by hundreds of talmidim at the Brisker Yeshiva in Yerushalayim.

His criticism focused on Herzog’s recent appearances at two institutions: a visit to a cheder affiliated with Ateres Shlomo in Telz Stone at the beginning of Elul zman, and a visit connected with the Tashbar institutions in Bnei Brak.

Before addressing the controversy directly, Rav Soloveitchik spent approximately an hour discussing the halachos surrounding chibut aravah in the Bais Hamikdash. He then drew a comparison between Chazal’s struggle against the Tzedukim and what he described as the obligation to maintain separation from Zionism today.

“We are in a year when the shofar was not blown on Shabbos and the Daled Minim were not taken on Shabbos,” he said. “Chazal canceled chiyuvim de’Oraisa out of concern that one might come to violate the prohibition of carrying in a reshus harabim on Shabbos. But the Gemara explains that aravah could not be canceled, and therefore they arranged that Hoshana Rabbah would never fall on Shabbos, so that it would not be canceled.”

He continued by citing the Ran’s question as to why Torah obligations such as shofar and lulav could be suspended on Shabbos, while the practice of chibut aravah was protected from ever being canceled.

“The Ran explains that the reason is because the Tzedukim wanted to abolish this practice, as is explained in the Gemara,” Rav Soloveitchik said. “Therefore, they were particular that specifically this matter should never be canceled, even though there is no mitzvah involved. We see that Chazal agreed to cancel mitzvos de’Oraisa, but a practice that the Tzedukim wanted to abolish would never be canceled and was treated even more stringently than shofar and the Daled Minim.”

Rav Soloveitchik then cited the incident described in the Gemara in which esrogim were thrown during a confrontation with the Tzedukim in the Bais Hamikdash.

“We see in the Gemara that when they fought the Tzedukim, they threw esrogim at them in the Bais Hamikdash,” he said. “The question is why they were not concerned about disgracing the mitzvah of the esrogim, which are cheftzei mitzvah. But it is explained in the Rishonim that because it was necessary to fight the Tzedukim, they permitted even disgracing the mitzvah of the Daled Minim and throwing esrogim. The main thing was to disgrace the Tzedukim.”

After citing additional sources regarding Chazal’s battles with the Tzedukim, the Brisker Rosh Yeshiva turned directly to the present day.

“Today, in our generation, when it comes to the battle against the Tzedukim of our generation, the Zionists, there are those who have forgotten Chazal’s battle against them,” he said.

Rav Soloveitchik cited a story about the Chazon Ish, saying that even when he served as sandek on the fifth of Iyar, the date marking the establishment of the State of Israel, he instructed that Tachanun be recited.

“It was all in order to reject the position of the Tzedukim, so that they should not say that the Chazon Ish did not say Tachanun because of the establishment of the state,” he said. “We see how much the Gedolei Yisroel were prepared to set aside halachos so that there should not be even the slightest suggestion of a connection with the Zionists.”

Rav Soloveitchik then turned his criticism toward the Tashbar institutions in Bnei Brak, referring to the historic association of the institution with the Chazon Ish.

“And who could believe,” he said, “that we are standing decades later, and in the home of that very Chazon Ish, where they established Tashbar on taharas hakodesh, in Yiddish, without taking any government funding until a few years ago — and recently they switched to Hebrew and began taking funding — they have now turned the place into a museum in order to receive a little money from the government.”

“And more than that, they dared to bring President Isaac Herzog to affix a mezuzah in that very museum,” he continued. “Someone brought me pictures of it, so it is clear that it actually happened. Have the people of Bnei Brak gone crazy? How can they sink to such a level? Have a little respect for the Chazon Ish! Instead of throwing his budgets back in his face, instead of throwing esrogim at him, they let him affix a mezuzah and even appear before hundreds of children. How can this be?!”

The Brisker Rosh Yeshiva then referred to another rosh yeshiva whom he did not name, but whom he said had previously spent time at the Brisker Yeshiva and had also hosted Herzog before talmidim at the beginning of Elul zman.

“Recently, I was also told about a rosh yeshiva who used to come around here in our yeshiva, someone who also knows how to sing ‘Beshilton Hakofrim,’ and he too dared to do this and brought the president of the state to appear before the students at the beginning of Elul zman,” Rav Soloveitchik said.

“I sent for him to come speak with me about the matter, but he doesn’t respond. He claims that he is busy establishing Torah. How is it that someone wears the hat of kana’us and sings ‘Beshilton Hakofrim,’ and afterward honors the Zionist president in front of hundreds of students, all for a little money?!”

Rav Soloveitchik said his grandfather, the Brisker Rav, would certainly have cried out against such conduct, and invoked the Chazon Ish as well.

“My grandfather, the Brisker Rav, certainly would have cried out over such a thing, and even the Chazon Ish. Apparently, the Chazon Ish is trembling in his grave over what they did to him in his own home,” he said.

“Today, everything is done for money. Soon we will hear the loudspeakers in the streets screaming, ‘Hatzilu! We must have an eighth seat in the Knesset in order to save the yeshivos!’ If they would not honor and flatter the resha’im this way, and if they would not take all their money from them, they would not need to scream ‘Hatzilu!’”

Rav Soloveitchik went on to recount an episode involving Rav Chaim Mann and the maskil Yechiel Michel Pines. According to the story, Pines encountered Rav Mann at the Kosel and asked where he was going. When Rav Mann replied that he was going to Rav Yehoshua Leib Diskin, Pines remarked that he presumably already knew what Rav Yehoshua Leib would tell him — that he should merit sitting in the sukkah made from the skin of the Livyasan — because that was the bracha he routinely gave people.

Rav Mann nevertheless continued, and Pines accompanied him. When they arrived and knocked on Rav Yehoshua Leib’s door, Rav Yehoshua Leib saw them and told Rav Mann, “You should merit sitting in the sukkah of the Livyasan — and whoever does not want to sit there does not have to.”

Rav Soloveitchik applied the story to the roshei yeshiva he had been criticizing.

“I am certain that those roshei yeshiva with the beautiful beards who do everything for a little money are declaring that they do not want to sit in the sukkah of the Livyasan, and indeed they will not merit it,” he said.

The Brisker Rosh Yeshiva concluded with another story about Rav Yehoshua Leib Diskin, recounting how he was imprisoned following accusations made against him by maskilim. Community activists sent an attorney to speak with him, but Rav Yehoshua Leib refused even to look at the lawyer’s face because, he maintained, the man was a rasha.

When the case reached court, Rav Soloveitchik related, the attorney used Rav Yehoshua Leib’s refusal as part of his defense, arguing to the judges that a man so uncompromising in his religious principles that he would not even look at the lawyer who had come to save him could hardly be suspected of acting contrary to his Torah convictions. Rav Yehoshua Leib was subsequently released from prison.

“The Torah tells us, ‘Mesanecha Hashem esna.’ Where is the Jewish feeling for that?” Rav Soloveitchik asked in conclusion.

{Matzav.com}

Maran Rav Dov Landau, Slabodka rosh yeshiva, sharply condemned remarks attributed to former Israeli journalist Rina Matzliach, who reportedly said that when she arrives somewhere and sees chareidim, she moves away, declaring that “a civilized person doesn’t talk like that.”

The exchange took place during Sukkos, when members of Degel HaTorah, led by United Torah Judaism chairman MK Yaakov Asher, visited Rav Landau in his sukkah. During the lengthy meeting, the group discussed the approaching elections and received the Rosh Yeshiva’s bracha.

Rav Landau also warmly blessed Dudi Zaltz, who is overseeing the party’s information campaign and is expected to become a member of the Knesset.

In newly released footage from the meeting, Asher raised remarks attributed to Matzliach and described them to Rav Landau.

“There is a former journalist — today she just has opinions,” Asher said, identifying Matzliach. “She said that when she arrives somewhere and sees chareidim there, she runs to the side.”

Asher told Rav Landau that he believed similar language directed at another sector of Israeli society would have generated outrage.

“If I would say such a thing, chalilah, about the Arab sector, they would accuse me of antisemitism,” Asher said.

Rav Landau appeared puzzled by the remark and asked Asher what supposedly prompted Matzliach’s reaction.

“Why did she say that? Why does she run away?” the Rosh Yeshiva asked.

“She apparently can’t be with chareidim,” Asher responded.

Rav Landau immediately replied: “She should go to a doctor.”

Asher responded that Matzliach’s decision to avoid chareidim was not what concerned him.

“I’m not worried that she runs away,” Asher said.

Rav Landau then remarked: “She’s also a liar — she doesn’t run away.”

“Imagine if someone chareidi would say such a thing,” Asher added.

Rav Landau then delivered his strongest response to the comments.

“A hateful person — not just hateful, a primitive hater — talks like that. A civilized person doesn’t talk like that. These are uncivilized people,” Rav Landau said.

The meeting was one of several political gatherings held at Rav Landau’s home over Sukkos, as senior Degel HaTorah figures consulted with the Rosh Yeshiva ahead of the upcoming elections.

During the meetings, Rav Landau reportedly stressed that the Olam HaTorah is approaching what he described as a “fateful and existential campaign.”

Among those who came to receive detailed guidance from Rav Landau were the new UTJ chairman, Yaakov Asher, and veteran MK Yitzchok Pindrus.

They were joined by Dudi Zaltz, who heads the party’s information campaign; Yehuda Weissfish, director of its communities campaign; prospective MKs Moshe Rosenthal and David Ohana; and former MK Eliyahu Baruchi.

Following their meeting with Rav Landau, the Degel HaTorah representatives visited fellow Slabodka rosh yeshiva Maran Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch.

{Matzav.com}

Ninety-six yeshiva bochurim and avreichim who were recently imprisoned in Israeli military prisons after refusing to enlist in the IDF each received a $500 grant Monday in a special event honoring what organizers described as their mesirus nefesh for limud haTorah.

The initiative was funded by American philanthropist Ari Schwartz, who has close ties to members of the IDF’s chareidi Chashmonean Brigade. Altogether, Schwartz distributed $48,000 to the 96 recipients, who have become known in the chareidi community as the “Prisoners of the Torah World.”

The grants were presented as a gesture of both financial assistance and recognition for the bochurim and avreichim who served time in military prison after declining to enlist.

Those behind the initiative said Schwartz wanted to demonstrate publicly the importance he places on limud haTorah and to express his opposition to what they described as “the great injustice of throwing those who toil in Torah into prison.”

Schwartz has recently attracted attention for his involvement with members of the Hasmonean Brigade. During Chol Hamoed Sukkos, he sponsored an elaborate Simchas Bais Hashoeivah for members of the unit at the Vista halls in Yerushalayim.

Monday’s event, however, focused on those from the chareidi community who followed the instructions of their rabbonim and refused military service. Organizers said the $500 grants were reserved specifically for individuals who had been imprisoned over their refusal to enlist and who had acted in accordance with the direction of Gedolei Yisroel.

At the height of the gathering, envelopes containing $500 were handed to each of the 96 former military prisoners.

Participants thanked Schwartz for what they described as both material and moral support, saying the grants provided significant chizuk to those who had endured imprisonment rather than depart from the path laid out for them by their rabbonim.

The event comes amid the continuing confrontation over the military status of chareidi yeshiva bochurim in Israel, with arrests and prison sentences becoming increasingly prominent following the expiration of the previous legal framework governing yeshiva deferments.

{Matzav.com}

Cabinet Secretary Yossi Fuchs pushed back Monday against claims by senior Israeli security officials that all of the hostages could have been brought home much earlier in the Gaza war, arguing that such an agreement would have required Israel to completely withdraw from Gaza, abandon the Philadelphi Corridor and guarantee that it would not resume the war.

Fuchs, who also serves as secretary of the Security Cabinet, said he had participated in the most restricted hostage-negotiation discussions since the Oct. 7 massacre and was therefore personally familiar with the proposals and conditions that were considered behind closed doors.

“As Cabinet Secretary and Secretary of the Security Cabinet, I participated in all of the most restricted hostage negotiations since October 7 and assisted in the ongoing effort led by the prime minister, with the help of President Trump, until the return of all the hostages,” Fuchs wrote.

His remarks came amid renewed debate over whether Israel passed up opportunities during the war to secure the release of all the captives. The controversy has resurfaced during Israel’s national remembrance period, with former senior defense officials criticizing decisions made by the political leadership during the hostage negotiations.

Fuchs said he was particularly disturbed to hear such claims coming from security officials who had themselves been present for the sensitive discussions.

“It greatly disturbed me to hear, in the midst of the days of remembrance, claims from senior security officials who were in those discussions that it was possible to return all of the hostages at an earlier stage of the war,” Fuchs wrote.

According to Fuchs, those officials were fully aware that Hamas’s terms for a comprehensive agreement at that stage went far beyond a hostage-prisoner exchange. He said bringing everyone home would have required Israel to end its military campaign and relinquish positions that the government considered essential to preventing Hamas from rebuilding its military capabilities.

“Those senior officials know very well that the return of all the hostages at an earlier stage was conditioned on a complete IDF withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, including from the Philadelphi Corridor, with international guarantees not to return to the war, and the significance would have been victory for Hamas and defeat for Israel after the October 7 massacre,” Fuchs wrote.

The statement amounted to a direct rebuttal of arguments made by former defense officials, including former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, that opportunities existed earlier in the war to secure the release of additional hostages and that decisions by the government delayed a broader agreement.

The dispute over the Philadelphi Corridor — the narrow strip along the Gaza-Egypt border — became one of the most contentious issues in the negotiations. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly argued that maintaining Israeli control there was essential to preventing Hamas from rearming through smuggling routes from Egypt.

Critics of the government countered that the insistence on retaining forces along the corridor complicated negotiations at crucial moments and placed the hostages at additional risk. The government maintained that abandoning the area without adequate security arrangements could allow Hamas to rebuild and eventually recreate the conditions that led to Oct. 7.

Fuchs himself publicly addressed the issue during the January 2025 hostage agreement. At the time, he said the framework included continued Israeli deployment along the Philadelphi Corridor during its initial phase and preserved Israel’s ability to return to fighting if negotiations over subsequent stages failed to produce terms consistent with Israel’s war objectives.

Monday’s statement, however, focused on earlier proposals for the release of all the hostages, which Fuchs said came with substantially different conditions: complete Israeli withdrawal and guarantees that the war would permanently end.

Fuchs argued that accepting those conditions would have allowed Hamas to survive the war while presenting the Oct. 7 attack as having forced Israel to withdraw from Gaza in exchange for the people abducted during the massacre.

He contrasted that scenario with what he described as the results ultimately achieved under Netanyahu’s strategy.

“Thanks to the proper management of the campaign by the prime minister, Israel is in a deep security zone in Gaza, with dozens of outposts in enemy territory, including the Philadelphi Corridor,” Fuchs wrote.

He also pointed to the eventual return of the hostages and the changed security situation along the Gaza border as evidence supporting the government’s approach.

“The living hostages returned to their homes and the fallen were brought to Jewish burial,” Fuchs said, adding that the Gaza border communities — now referred to as the Tekuma region — have returned to working their fields, “with IDF outposts behind the fence instead of Hamas tunnels.”

The competing accounts reflect one of the most bitter debates to emerge from the war: whether Israel could have brought the hostages home sooner by accepting an earlier agreement, or whether doing so would have required ending the campaign on terms that left Hamas in power and Israel without the ability to resume military operations.

{Matzav.com}

[Videos below.] A late-night attempt by Israeli military police to arrest a yeshiva bochur classified as a draft evader ended with his release after hundreds of chareidim rushed to the scene, blocked the roadway and prevented authorities from taking him into custody.

The dramatic confrontation unfolded at 20 Ya’ar Yerushalayim Street in Modiin-Maccabim-Reut, near Modiin Illit. According to reports from the Tzeva Shachor organization, military police arrived at the young man’s home shortly before midnight. The bochur, Yair, is reportedly scheduled to get married in just several weeks.

His rov, Rav Dor Salti, said the young man’s parents, who were abroad, had learned two days earlier that military police were searching for their son and contacted him about the situation.

“Two minutes before midnight, military police soldiers knocked on the door and his sister opened it. They didn’t let him change his clothes, because he was already in pajamas,” Rav Salti said.

Word of the arrest attempt spread rapidly, and within a short period dozens of protesters began arriving from nearby Modiin Illit and surrounding communities. Their numbers soon swelled into the hundreds as demonstrators sought to prevent the military police from removing the bochur from the building.

Stormy confrontations erupted both inside the building and outside it as the crowd surrounded the area. Demonstrators repeatedly shouted, “Yair, we are with you,” while others moved into the roadway and blocked traffic.

As the standoff continued, protesters sitting and standing in the street began singing “Utzu eitzah vesufar,” as additional people continued arriving at the scene.

Police said during the incident that officers from the Modiin station were responding to a public disturbance that had developed during a military police operation to arrest a draft evader. Large numbers of police officers were dispatched to extract the military personnel from the area and restore order.

As the situation escalated, the Central District Police declared the incident a district-level emergency requiring an intensified response. Large contingents of Israel Police, Yasam riot-control officers and Border Police personnel from the Central District and the Shfela region were summoned to the scene.

At the same time, negotiations reportedly began between police officials and activists from Tzeva Shachor, the organization that mobilizes in response to arrests of bnei yeshivos over military-service issues.

According to reports from the scene, an agreement was ultimately reached under which the bochur would be released and the demonstrators would disperse.

Military police subsequently released Yair, bringing the hours-long confrontation to an end without his being taken into military detention.

Following his release, the bochur traveled to the entrance of Modiin Illit, where supporters gathered around him and celebrated the outcome of the standoff.

{Matzav.com}

An Israeli medical student who helped subdue and handcuff the Omani terrorist who allegedly tried to crash a Flydubai passenger jet into Israel has revealed new details of the extraordinary struggle aboard the aircraft, including a moment when passengers debated whether they needed to kill the attacker because they feared he remained armed with a knife.

Adar Hayot, who was aboard Flydubai Flight 1073 from Dubai to Tel Aviv, was among the passengers who rushed into the cockpit after Captain Smit Machchhar, despite suffering severe injuries, managed to open the cockpit door during the Sept. 30 attack.

Hayot described the enormity of what happened — and how narrowly the passengers escaped death.

“It is very difficult to process, as a passenger who was on the plane, that in the situation where I was lucky, I am alive — and in any other situation, I am dead,” Hayot said in an interview with Israel’s Channel 13.

Inside the cockpit, Hayot found Machchhar badly wounded after being attacked by co-pilot Hamam al-Hammami, an Omani national who investigators say struck the captain repeatedly with the cockpit’s emergency crash axe while attempting to seize control of the Boeing 737 MAX.

“There was a pool of blood around his head, and I turned him over, but it was impossible to do that because the terrorist was still on his feet,” Hayot recalled. “In order to turn Smit over, we had to move the terrorist — and he still had not been neutralized.”

With al-Hammami still posing a potential threat, another passenger produced plastic zip ties. Hayot used them to restrain the attacker tightly enough that he would be unable to break free.

“Then I saw that he didn’t have a knife. I tightened the zip ties so that no matter how much he resisted — he would not be able to free himself,” Hayot said.

But before the passengers were certain that al-Hammami had been disarmed, Hayot said they faced a chilling question: whether they might have to kill him to protect themselves and everyone else aboard the aircraft.

“We were afraid he had a knife. We debated whether we needed to kill him — but we didn’t really have a way to do it,” he said.

Other passengers have described the confusion that erupted after the cockpit was breached, saying they initially did not know whether additional members of the Flydubai crew might be involved in the attack. At one point, a confrontation reportedly broke out when crew members objected to the way passengers were handling the subdued al-Hammami.

“You are not God, you cannot kill him,” flight attendants told the Israeli passengers, according to passenger testimony.

“We just wanted him not to kill us,” one of the passengers responded.

Despite the passengers’ fears, they ultimately took steps to keep al-Hammami alive, including placing an oxygen mask over his face so that he could survive and later be questioned by investigators.

The UAE investigation has since determined that the other foreign pilots aboard the aircraft did not cooperate with al-Hammami at any stage of the attack. Two off-duty pilots who were traveling aboard the flight ultimately took control of the aircraft and safely diverted it to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.

Investigators now believe al-Hammami’s plot was planned long before he boarded Flight 1073. According to officials familiar with his interrogation, he specifically sought employment with an airline that operated flights to Israel.

“I checked which of them flew to Tel Aviv. That’s why I chose Flydubai. I planned it even before I was hired,” al-Hammami reportedly told investigators.

Investigators have also learned that al-Hammami allegedly contemplated carrying out an attack aboard an earlier flight to Tel Aviv but backed out of that plan. Authorities are examining reports that he abandoned the earlier attempt because someone he knew was aboard that flight.

An Israeli investigative team traveled to the United Arab Emirates over the weekend to participate in the interrogation and investigation alongside Emirati authorities and security personnel from other countries. Investigators are examining whether al-Hammami had previously flown into Israel as a crew member and whether he had conducted reconnaissance ahead of the attack.

The current assessment among Israeli investigators is that al-Hammami likely acted alone, although authorities continue examining whether he received assistance, direction or encouragement from another party. No conclusive evidence has been publicly presented tying him to Iran or another foreign government or terrorist organization.

The investigation has simultaneously exposed troubling questions about the procedures that allowed Omani nationals — including aviation personnel — to enter Israel despite Oman having no diplomatic relations with the Jewish state.

Official figures presented in Israel show that at least 10 Omani citizens entered the country in 2022, followed by 29 in 2023, nine in 2024 and 11 in 2025, with additional Omani nationals entering during 2026.

Separate reporting has indicated that dozens of Omani pilots and crew members have landed at Ben Gurion Airport aboard Flydubai flights in recent years, prompting an examination of whether the arrangements governing those flights were properly followed.

Under the aviation arrangements in question, aircrew members from countries without diplomatic relations with Israel were reportedly supposed to possess diplomatic passports issued by a country that does maintain relations with Israel. The repeated arrival of Omani personnel has therefore raised questions about whether that requirement was enforced and which Israeli authority was responsible for verifying compliance.

Israeli officials have acknowledged that they cannot currently state with certainty that the required procedure was followed in every case.

“The working assumption is that it did not happen, but we cannot say that with certainty,” the Transportation Ministry acknowledged.

The controversy has deepened amid revelations that Israel received information about the Flydubai flight’s crew, including names and nationalities, yet al-Hammami was not flagged before the aircraft departed Dubai. Conflicting accounts have emerged over which Israeli government or security body was responsible for checking that information and when the relevant lists were received.

The security questions are particularly serious because al-Hammami had reportedly already been identified as a concern while working for Oman Air. Authorities say he was removed from flying duties for a period after extremist material was discovered in his possession, yet he was subsequently able to obtain employment with Flydubai and fly the route to Israel.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump said that he personally believes Iran was responsible for the attempted terror attack aboard Flydubai Flight 1073, going further than both Israeli investigators and senior U.S. officials, who say they have not yet found conclusive evidence tying Tehran to the plot.

Asked by a reporter outside the White House whether he believes Iran was responsible for the Sept. 30 attack, Trump gave an unequivocal response.

“I do. I personally do,” Trump said.

The president did not elaborate on what information led him to that conclusion. His comments came just hours after Vice President JD Vance said U.S. intelligence officials had yet to establish an Iranian connection.

“That’s something that I defer to (CIA Director) John Ratcliffe and some of the intelligence folks on,” Vance said. “I don’t want to get ahead of any announcements there, but it’s certainly something that we’re looking at. But I wouldn’t say I’ve seen anything conclusively just yet.”

Trump’s assessment also differs from the preliminary conclusion reached by Israeli investigators, who currently believe that 29-year-old Omani national Hamam al-Hammami likely acted as a lone wolf. Israeli officials have stressed that the investigation remains active and that all possibilities, including potential assistance or direction from Iran or another outside organization, are still being examined.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has likewise repeatedly declined to attribute the attack to Iran, saying investigators need additional evidence before determining whether al-Hammami had accomplices or was operating on behalf of Tehran.

“We will get to the bottom of this. We will investigate whether the pilot had accomplices and whether Iran was behind him. I think we will know very soon,” Netanyahu said last week.

The investigation, led by the United Arab Emirates with participation from Israeli and other international authorities, has expanded considerably as officials reconstruct al-Hammami’s background, travel, employment history and apparent radicalization.

Al-Hammami is accused of attacking Captain Smit Machchhar with an emergency crash axe while the Flydubai aircraft was traveling from Dubai to Tel Aviv with more than 170 passengers and crew aboard, most of them Israelis. Investigators believe his objective was to seize control of the Boeing 737 MAX and deliberately crash it into Israel.

The aircraft plunged thousands of feet during the struggle in the cockpit before the badly wounded Machchhar managed to open the cockpit door. Passengers and Flydubai personnel rushed inside and overpowered al-Hammami, while two off-duty pilots aboard the flight subsequently took control and made an emergency landing in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.

Investigators now believe al-Hammami had planned the attack well before the Sept. 30 flight. Officials familiar with the investigation say he intended to crash the aircraft into Ben Gurion Airport or another major target in the Tel Aviv area.

Authorities are also examining evidence that al-Hammami had contemplated attacking another Israel-bound flight earlier in the year but abandoned that plan, reportedly because someone he knew was aboard the aircraft.

The suspect’s background has raised serious questions about how he was permitted to serve as a Flydubai co-pilot on a flight to Israel. Al-Hammami had previously worked as a trainee pilot for Oman Air, where he was reportedly identified as a security concern after extremist material was discovered in his possession. He was removed from flying duties for approximately a year but was permitted to continue working in an administrative capacity.

Investigators have since uncovered a broader trail of extremist material and online activity, including reported expressions of support for Al Qaeda figures. Authorities in several countries where al-Hammami previously lived, studied or trained are now examining whether he developed extremist contacts during those periods.

Despite those findings, investigators have not publicly produced evidence showing that al-Hammami received orders, money, training or operational assistance from Iran. Israeli investigators’ preliminary assessment remains that he probably acted independently, although officials have cautioned that the probe is far from complete.

Trump had already raised the possibility of Iranian involvement shortly after the attack. Asked on Oct. 1 whether he had been briefed about a possible link between al-Hammami and Iran, the president suggested that information reaching him pointed in that direction.

“I would say the answer, based on what I’m hearing, is yes, but we’re working on it right now,” Trump said.

Asked at the time whether al-Hammami might have been trained by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Trump replied, “Could have been.”

Trump also warned Tehran that the consequences would be severe if investigators ultimately determine that Iran directed or assisted the attack.

“They’ll be hit very hard. Don’t worry about it, you just ask them.”

The president’s latest comments Monday were more definitive than those earlier remarks. Instead of saying merely that investigators were examining a possible Iranian connection, Trump stated that he personally believes Tehran was responsible, even as the official investigations have yet to establish such a link.

The question of Iranian involvement carries particularly high stakes because the United States and Iran remain at war more than seven months after Trump ordered the opening round of U.S. strikes against Iran as part of an effort to eliminate Tehran’s nuclear program.

Trump has repeatedly said Iran will never be permitted to obtain a nuclear weapon and has predicted that Tehran will ultimately agree to terms ending the conflict, possibly following the Nov. 3 U.S. midterm elections.

For now, however, the Flydubai investigation presents an unusual divergence: Trump says he personally believes Iran was behind the attempted attack, while Israeli investigators currently lean toward the conclusion that al-Hammami acted alone and Vance says U.S. intelligence has not yet shown him anything conclusive.

{Matzav.com}

Americans are virtually certain to turn their clocks back again on Nov. 1, with legislation to make daylight saving time permanent stalled in the Senate despite overwhelming House approval and an increasingly aggressive campaign by President Donald Trump to get the measure passed.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has expressed serious doubts that the Sunshine Protection Act can attract the 60 votes necessary to advance through the Senate, leaving the bipartisan measure without a clear path forward before this year’s return to standard time.

The timing alone effectively guarantees another clock change. The Senate adjourned last week ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections and is holding only pro forma sessions during the recess. Senators are not expected to resume their regular legislative schedule until the week of Nov. 9 — more than a week after daylight saving time ends.

Under current federal law, daylight saving time will end at 2 a.m. on Sunday, Nov. 1. In most of the country, clocks will move back one hour, giving Americans the familiar extra hour of sleep while bringing sunset an hour earlier.

The House overwhelmingly approved the Sunshine Protection Act in July by a bipartisan 308-117 vote, with 193 Republicans and 114 Democrats supporting the measure. The legislation would end the twice-a-year clock changes and establish daylight saving time as the year-round standard for most of the country.

States that already remain on standard time throughout the year would not be forced to adopt daylight saving time, and the legislation provides a mechanism for states to choose permanent standard time instead.

Trump has thrown his weight behind the effort, repeatedly pressing Senate Republicans to act and portraying the issue as a simple quality-of-life change that enjoys broad public support. He has argued that additional evening daylight would benefit families, businesses, sports and recreation while also improving public safety.

The president’s campaign for permanent daylight saving time has become unusually intense in recent days, particularly because of opposition from Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, a Republican who is ordinarily a close Trump ally.

“Everybody in Arkansas, Tom Cotton, a friend of mine, is holding up a very important Bill. It’s called, ‘The Sunshine Protection Act’ or, ‘We Don’t Want to Change Our Clocks Twice a Year Act,’” Trump wrote on Truth Social over the weekend.

Trump subsequently urged Arkansas residents to contact Cotton and publicly posted what he identified as the senator’s personal cellphone number.

“To the Great People of Arkansas, please let your Senator know it would be a GREAT Bipartisan WIN for the United States Senate, and for America, itself,” Trump said.

The pressure campaign quickly attracted widespread attention, and Cotton’s voicemail was reportedly full after Trump posted the number. Cotton, however, has shown no indication that he intends to change his position.

Cotton agrees that changing clocks twice each year is unpopular, but he strongly opposes making daylight saving time permanent. His principal concern is that doing so would push sunrise much later during winter, forcing many children to travel to school before daylight and requiring workers to commute in darkness.

“No one likes changing the clock, me included, but Congress has enacted permanent Daylight Savings Time multiple times before and repealed it each time once Americans experienced absurdly late sunrises in the winter. Arkansans don’t want their kids going to school in the pitch dark, and I’ll always put Arkansas first.”

The disagreement reflects the larger obstacle that has repeatedly prevented Congress from settling the daylight saving time debate: while there is substantial support for ending the twice-yearly clock changes, lawmakers remain divided over which time should become permanent.

Supporters of permanent daylight saving time favor keeping more sunlight in the afternoon and evening, arguing that later sunsets encourage outdoor activity, recreation and consumer spending. Businesses connected to golf and other outdoor activities have been among the proposal’s supporters.

Opponents argue that standard time more closely follows the body’s natural circadian rhythm and avoids exceptionally late winter sunrises, particularly in northern parts of the country. Parents and school-safety advocates have also raised concerns about children waiting for buses or walking to school in darkness.

Those geographical differences have complicated the politics of the bill. Senators representing southern and coastal states have generally shown greater enthusiasm for permanent daylight saving time, while some lawmakers from northern states have been more skeptical because winter sunrise already comes relatively late in their communities.

Thune, whose home state of South Dakota would experience particularly late winter sunrises under permanent daylight saving time, has acknowledged that concern. He previously voted against the proposal in committee and has questioned whether supporters can assemble the 60 Senate votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles.

Other Republican senators have also voiced reservations, while Democrats are divided as well, making the dispute considerably less partisan than many other issues currently before Congress.

Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri said Monday that he favors having more daylight later in the day but remains uncertain that Congress can reach an agreement on the legislation. Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana has also expressed opposition to the permanent daylight saving time approach.

The United States has tried permanent daylight saving time before. Congress enacted year-round daylight saving time during the 1970s energy crisis, but the experiment quickly became unpopular, particularly as Americans encountered dark winter mornings. Congress ultimately reversed course.

Advocates say circumstances have changed considerably since then and argue that Americans increasingly organize work, school, shopping and recreation around evening hours. Critics contend that the basic problem of winter darkness in the morning has not changed at all.

The current legislation has been championed in the House by Florida Republicans Vern Buchanan and Greg Steube and in the Senate by Sen. Rick Scott of Florida. Florida lawmakers have pursued the change for years; the state approved its own Sunshine Protection Act in 2018, but federal law prevents Florida from implementing permanent daylight saving time without congressional action.

Steube celebrated the House vote in July as the culmination of an effort he began while serving in the Florida Legislature, recalling that frustration over the clock change first caught his attention during a conversation in a barbershop years ago.

Trump has continued to insist that the Senate should finish the job, presenting permanent daylight saving time as a broadly popular accomplishment Congress could deliver before the midterms. The White House has described the proposal as a bipartisan reform that would preserve evening daylight when Americans are most likely to be awake and active.

But barring an unexpected development while the Senate is away, the immediate question has effectively been settled for this year. Most Americans will once again move their clocks back one hour at 2 a.m. on Nov. 1, while the larger battle over whether the country should ever have to do it again remains unresolved.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump has approved the execution by U.S. Army firing squad of Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist who murdered 13 people and wounded 32 others in the 2009 terrorist attack at Fort Hood, clearing a major legal hurdle toward what would be the first U.S. military execution in more than 65 years.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell announced the decision Monday night, saying Secretary of War Pete Hegseth recommended that Hasan be put to death by firing squad and Trump gave his approval. The secretary of the Army will now determine the date and location of the execution.

“Judgment day for Hasan has finally come,” Parnell wrote.

Hasan, now 56, has been on military death row at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, since being convicted and sentenced to death by a court-martial in 2013. He was found guilty of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder.

The massacre unfolded on November 5, 2009, at Fort Hood, the sprawling Army installation in Texas now known as Fort Cavazos. Hasan, then an Army major and psychiatrist, entered the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, where troops were preparing for deployment, and began firing on the unarmed soldiers and others inside.

Witnesses said Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar” as he opened fire. Twelve active-duty soldiers and retired Chief Warrant Officer Michael Cahill were killed, while dozens of others were wounded.

Investigators determined that before the attack, Hasan had attended noon prayers at a mosque and then traveled to the processing center armed with a pistol and a .357 revolver. He deliberately went to an area where he knew large numbers of soldiers would be gathered and unarmed.

Hasan later made his intent unmistakable in a sanity board report.

“I shot to kill,” Hasan stated.

The shooting ended when Hasan exchanged gunfire with law enforcement officers. He was struck multiple times and left paralyzed from the chest down.

The investigation into Hasan also uncovered contacts with Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical Islamic cleric who became a senior al-Qaeda figure in Yemen and was later killed in a U.S. drone strike. Hasan had communicated with al-Awlaki before the massacre, and evidence presented in connection with the case documented his increasingly radical views.

During his 2013 court-martial, Hasan represented himself and made little effort to contest that he had carried out the killings. At one point, he said his actions were intended to protect “the Taliban, the leaders of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.”

His court-appointed standby attorneys became so concerned about his approach to the case that they argued he appeared to be deliberately seeking a death sentence. Hasan called no witnesses during the guilt phase and did not testify in his own defense.

A military jury convicted him in August 2013 and sentenced him to death. Under the military justice system, the sentence automatically triggered an extensive appeals process.

The U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals upheld Hasan’s conviction and death sentence in 2020, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces upheld the sentence again in 2023.

Hasan subsequently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case, raising procedural objections involving the conduct of his trial, including the handling of disputes between Hasan and the attorneys assigned to assist him. On March 31, 2025, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal.

Hegseth later moved to bring the lengthy case to an end. In September 2025, he publicly made clear that he wanted Hasan’s execution carried out.

“I am 100 percent committed to ensuring Nidal Hassan’s execution.”

“This brutal terrorist deserves the harshest legal punishment for the 2009 Fort Hood shooting,” Hegseth said at the time. “The victims and survivors deserve justice without delay.”

Trump’s approval is required under military law before a military death sentence can be carried out. The Pentagon said Monday that Hegseth recommended an Army firing squad as the method of execution and that Trump approved the recommendation.

Hasan is one of only a handful of prisoners currently under military death sentences. No member of the U.S. military has been executed since Army Pvt. John Bennett was hanged at Fort Leavenworth on April 13, 1961, following his conviction for the rape and attempted murder of an 11-year-old girl in Austria.

A military execution by firing squad would be even more historically unusual. The U.S. military has not carried out an execution by firing squad since 1945.

President George W. Bush approved another military death sentence during his presidency, but the planned execution was blocked by a federal court in 2008 and never carried out.

Hasan may still attempt additional litigation in federal court challenging the implementation of his death sentence, meaning Trump’s authorization does not necessarily guarantee that the execution will take place immediately.

For now, however, the final scheduling authority shifts to the Army, with the secretary of the Army responsible for setting the time and place of Hasan’s execution.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump escalated his criticism of Fox News on Sunday, accusing the network of failing to adequately cover his recent campaign rallies and warning that MAGA viewers could abandon the channel if it continues to give what he considers insufficient attention to his events.

Trump’s broadside followed a rapid series of campaign appearances in Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama and Ohio as Republicans step up their efforts ahead of the November midterm elections. The president has been using the rallies to promote Republican candidates and his administration’s record while also offering praise for television personalities and outlets whose coverage he views favorably.

His immediate complaint Sunday centered on Fox & Friends and its coverage — or lack of coverage — of his Saturday night rally in Vandalia, Ohio.

“Sad to see that Fox & Friends is not covering our packed house and incredibly enthusiastic (beyond!) Rally that took place in Ohio last night, or the ones in Alabama, Texas, or Oklahoma over the past two days,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Trump argued that the rallies provided a more accurate picture of enthusiasm among Republican voters than viewers would receive from watching Fox’s programming.

“These Election Rallies were representative of what is really happening with our great Republican Party,” Trump continued, saying the events were sold out with thousands more supporters seeking admission.

Trump then directly warned Fox that viewers loyal to his political movement may simply stop tuning in if they believe the network is ignoring events they want to see.

“Our people want to see our Rallies, and reports on our Rallies, on FoxNews, or they will very quickly stop watching (like I am doing right now!),” Trump wrote.

A review of Fox’s recent coverage found a more complicated picture than a complete blackout of Trump’s campaign appearances. Fox & Friends Weekend did not report on the Ohio rally Sunday morning, the specific omission that triggered Trump’s criticism, but Fox has carried or covered some of his other recent rallies. Hannity, for example, aired coverage of Trump’s Oklahoma appearance last Thursday.

Trump has nevertheless been voicing growing dissatisfaction with the network, arguing that Fox gives too much airtime to Democrats and commentators critical of his administration while failing to adequately showcase the support he receives at rallies.

“Fox spends more time talking to Communists, Socialists, and Dumocrats, often without rebuttal, and MAGA is not, to put it mildly, happy,” he wrote on Truth Social. “We don’t like stupid [Democrat co-host] Jessica Tarlov, and all of the others, that are forced down MAGA’S throats.”

Trump’s criticism of Fox comes despite the network’s continued close relationship with numerous figures in his administration and political orbit. Several prominent Fox personalities have attended administration events, and multiple people who previously worked at the network have gone on to serve in senior positions in Trump’s second administration.

At the same time, Trump has repeatedly praised Newsmax and some of its personalities. During his Oklahoma rally Thursday, he specifically mentioned several of the network’s primetime hosts.

“Greg Kelly. Rob … We have, I mean, you take a look at Finnerty. You take a look at Schmitt,” Trump said at the rally.

“There are a lot of great shows,” he said of Newsmax. “We have more support than you think.”

“We have such great support and support based on pure common sense,” Trump added.

Trump’s latest clash with Fox also comes amid lingering controversy surrounding the September departure of longtime Fox News and Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo, who left the company after more than 12 years.

Fox announced on September 3 that Bartiromo was no longer with Fox News Media, thanking her for her years at the network and wishing her well. The company did not initially provide a reason for the sudden departure and subsequently described it as a “business decision.”

Reports at the time claimed that the dispute involved Bartiromo sharing internal Fox guidance concerning the network’s treatment of Trump-related coverage with members of the White House. Bartiromo’s attorney disputed reports that she had been fired, while Fox declined to elaborate beyond describing the separation as a business decision.

White House senior counselor Peter Navarro later said Bartiromo had sent him information concerning Fox’s internal guidance and that he forwarded it because he believed he had an obligation to do so.

Trump on Sunday explicitly tied Bartiromo’s departure to his complaints about the network’s treatment of him.

“Who makes these decisions at FoxNews?” Trump wrote. “Probably the same loser that fired the great Maria Bartiromo because she complained about not being allowed to cover ‘TRUMP.’ She’ll end up bigger and better than ever – watch!”

Navarro has separately urged Trump administration officials to stop appearing on Fox News until he believes the network changes its approach.

“Fox News is much more dangerous to MAGA, much more dangerous to the Republican Party because they wear our colors when they’re in fact helping the other side undermine the president,” Navarro said on RAV.

Navarro has specifically argued that prominent administration officials — including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Secretary of State Marco Rubio — should refrain from appearing on Fox. He has simultaneously praised Newsmax’s treatment of the administration and encouraged viewers to watch the network.

The tensions have not prevented Fox from continuing to bring Trump allies into its lineup. On Monday, the network announced that Karoline Leavitt, who stepped down as White House press secretary in August, will become a Fox News contributor beginning November 1, an indication that the relationship between Fox and Trump’s political orbit remains substantial despite the president’s public attacks on the network.

Trump, however, made clear Sunday that he believes Fox risks alienating the conservative audience that helped make it the dominant cable-news network if its editorial decisions continue to anger MAGA viewers.

“Cover our ‘happenings,’ and not the opposition to Greatness for America,” Trump wrote, “or FoxNews will soon have the ratings of FAKE NEWS CNN or MSNOW (MSDNC).”

{Matzav.com}

The United States abruptly withdrew all 12 B-1 bombers stationed at RAF Fairford in Britain after receiving intelligence that Iran may have been preparing a drone attack against the aircraft and hundreds of American personnel at the base, according to a new report detailing the threat that prompted the extraordinary weekend evacuation.

The suspected operation was believed to involve Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and may have included several methods of attack against RAF Fairford, the strategically important base in southern England that has been used by American bombers during the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran.

The new details provide the clearest explanation yet for the sudden decision to return the entire B-1 contingent to the United States over the weekend. American officials had previously acknowledged a threat to the base but had stopped short of publicly describing its precise nature.

Vice President JD Vance said Monday that the Pentagon moved the aircraft “out of an abundance of caution trying to protect our guys.”

“We do feel with some confidence that the Iranians are trying to do what the Iranian state has done for 49 years, which is engage in acts of terrorism against the United States and against a lot of other people as well,” Vance told reporters at Joint Base Andrews. “We are being extremely cautious.”

President Donald Trump also confirmed that the bombers were removed because of threats against them.

“There were some threats,” Trump told reporters. “Why should we leave them there?”

The suspected Iranian operation was reportedly more extensive than a simple attempt to fly drones directly from Iran toward the British base. Intelligence examined by Western officials raised concerns about an attack launched from much closer to Fairford, potentially involving operatives or recruits inside Britain.

Officials reportedly feared a complex, multipronged operation intended to destroy American aircraft and inflict casualties on U.S. personnel. One possibility under examination was an attack involving drones launched from relatively close range, potentially accompanied by a diversion or other form of assault.

The concept bore similarities to Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb in June 2025, when drones concealed and transported inside Russia were launched near military airfields and struck Russian strategic bombers. The operation demonstrated how comparatively small drones positioned close to their targets could threaten valuable aircraft located thousands of miles from the country directing the attack.

The Fairford threat emerged against the backdrop of a dramatic counterterrorism operation near the base on September 27.

Five British men were arrested after three suspicious white vans were spotted near RAF Fairford in the middle of the night. Police were called shortly after 12:45 a.m., and armed officers descended on the area. Approximately 85 nearby homes were evacuated as bomb-disposal specialists examined the vehicles.

The men were initially detained on suspicion of explosives offenses and preparing terrorist acts. Although investigators ultimately found no viable explosive devices in the vans, petrol and other accelerants were reportedly discovered. The five suspects were released on bail the following day while the investigation continued.

A British-Iranian dual national was subsequently arrested on suspicion of preparing terrorist acts. He, too, was later released as investigators continued examining possible connections among the suspects and any potential involvement by Tehran.

Investigators have reportedly considered whether the activity involving the vans could have served as a diversion connected to a larger operation against the base, although British authorities have not publicly established that such a coordinated plot existed.

U.S., British, German and Israeli officials have been examining whether the suspected operation was connected to the IRGC or another Iranian military command. Iran has denied involvement.

RAF Fairford had already been considered a potential Iranian target because of its role in American military operations against Tehran. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards previously warned that bases used to facilitate attacks against Iran could be considered legitimate targets.

The American response to the intelligence was dramatic. The B-1s were rapidly flown out of Britain and returned to their home stations in the United States, temporarily removing the large concentration of American strategic bombers from Fairford.

The sudden withdrawal came despite British assurances that the installation remains secure. British officials have emphasized that the country maintains established procedures for protecting military facilities and that the investigation into the September 27 incident remains active.

British Defense Secretary Wes Streeting said Britain has “tried and tested approaches to defend our bases around the country and throughout the world.”

American officials, however, determined that leaving a dozen highly valuable bombers concentrated at one location while intelligence agencies investigated a possible Iranian attack presented an unnecessary risk.

Trump indicated that Washington had information about those behind the threat, telling reporters, “We actually know the people who made the threat.”

Asked whether the aircraft had specifically been moved because of the threat, Trump responded: “Yeah, I think we can say that. They didn’t fly out by accident.”

The investigation is continuing into whether Tehran or Iranian-linked operatives were preparing an attack on RAF Fairford and whether the suspicious activity near the base was connected to the broader threat that ultimately prompted Washington to pull the bombers out of Britain.

{Matzav.com}