Feed aggregator

Secretary of State Marco Rubio personally ordered Iran’s high-level delegation to leave the United States after diplomatic efforts on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly failed to produce a breakthrough, delivering an unusually sharp rebuke to Tehran as tensions between the two countries continue to escalate.

The delegation, led by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, was told Monday evening that it had to leave New York immediately. The order came after U.S. officials concluded that indirect negotiations with Tehran had reached an impasse despite mediation efforts by Qatar.

Two sources familiar with the episode confirmed the directive, with a U.S. official saying the Iranian officials had “overstayed their welcome.”

According to the U.S. account, the White House began Monday believing that additional discussions might produce progress. By later in the day, however, officials concluded that the negotiations had stalled and neither side was prepared to make the concessions necessary for an agreement.

Rubio then instructed the U.S. Mission to the United Nations to inform the Iranian mission that Araghchi and the rest of his delegation were to leave New York immediately.

The Iranians departed several hours later, traveling from New York to Doha shortly after 1 a.m. Tuesday. Qatar has been playing a central role as an intermediary between Washington and Tehran and has continued communicating with both sides despite the failure to reach an agreement in New York.

The Iranian government strongly disputed the American characterization of what happened, insisting that Araghchi and his delegation had always intended to leave Monday and had informed Washington of their itinerary weeks earlier.

“The Iranian delegation left New York on Monday evening, in accordance with the schedule that had also been communicated to the US Department of State in advance on September 17,” an Iranian mission statement read. “Having achieved nothing, the State Department has resorted to promoting baseless reports.”

One source familiar with the discussions similarly acknowledged that Araghchi had already been expected to depart Monday night, although U.S. officials maintained that Rubio nevertheless issued a direct instruction requiring the delegation to leave.

The diplomatic clash followed days of indirect contacts aimed at finding a way out of the prolonged conflict between the United States and Iran, with the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear program among the central issues under discussion.

Araghchi used his visit to New York to promote what Tehran described as a “seven-day initiative” that could lead to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and renewed negotiations with Washington.

The Iranian proposal called for the United States to end its maritime blockade, ease sanctions affecting Iran’s oil sector and address frozen Iranian assets. Tehran, in return, offered steps toward restoring freedom of navigation through the Strait and reopening negotiations over its nuclear program.

Iranian Foreign Ministry official Saeed Khatibzadeh said Tehran continued to seek a diplomatic solution despite the latest breakdown in negotiations, maintaining that Iran wanted “to resolve issues diplomatically.”

“We presented this plan to the American side via Qatar, and we recently received the other party’s views through the Qatari mediator and during the Foreign Minister’s brief stopover while returning from New York,” Khatibzadeh reportedly shared.

Araghchi had publicly unveiled the seven-day proposal late last week, arguing that the framework could rapidly restore shipping through the Strait of Hormuz if Washington accepted Tehran’s conditions.

President Donald Trump rejected the proposal in its current form, arguing that Iran’s economic difficulties and the impact of the American blockade had placed Tehran under enormous pressure and that Washington had little reason to accept an agreement on Iranian terms.

“They want to make a deal where they open the Strait immediately because they’re losing so badly,” Trump told reporters on Shabbos. “They don’t have any money now, because they wanted to close the Strait. And I said, that’s fine. We’re going to close it on you, but everybody else is able to use it.”

“They want to make a deal, and I think that’s fine,” he added. “I like making a deal too, but that deal would not be acceptable.”

The confrontation is the latest development in the war that erupted on Feb. 28, when the United States and Israel launched major military operations against Iran. Iran retaliated with missile and drone attacks throughout the region, while fighting and disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz sent shock waves through global energy markets.

The United States and Iran reached an agreement in June outlining steps intended to restore navigation through the Strait and create a path toward broader negotiations. That arrangement subsequently broke down, however, leaving the two countries once again locked in confrontation while intermediaries attempted to revive diplomacy.

The latest talks in New York included indirect contacts involving U.S. officials and Araghchi, with Qatar shuttling messages between the two sides. Despite expectations early Monday that movement might still be possible, the discussions ended without an agreement.

The confrontation comes as Iran faces mounting economic pressure at home. The rial has fallen sharply during the conflict, while inflation, shortages and the disruption of energy revenues have intensified economic hardship for ordinary Iranians.

Iran has also faced significant domestic unrest, following major anti-government protests in late 2025 and early 2026 and a violent government crackdown that rights groups say left thousands dead or detained.

Against that backdrop, Tehran has continued publicly calling for negotiations while insisting that Washington must make significant concessions before a broader settlement can be reached.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has shown little willingness to ease the pressure without substantially different terms from Iran. The abrupt order for Araghchi and his delegation to leave New York underscored just how little progress was made during their stay in the United States.

Qatari mediators are continuing contacts with Washington and Tehran in an effort to salvage a compromise, but Rubio’s decision to send the Iranian delegation packing provided a stark conclusion to a week of diplomacy that had begun with hopes of progress and ended with the two sides still far apart.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump says he regrets appointing all three of his Supreme Court justices — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — declaring that the trio he placed on the nation’s highest court has ruled against him too frequently in a series of major cases involving his second-term agenda.

Trump made the striking admission during a wide-ranging interview with TIME conducted at the White House on Monday and published Thursday. Asked directly whether he regretted selecting the three conservative justices, Trump answered in the affirmative.

“Yeah. Yeah. What can I do? I put them in,” Trump said. “They voted against me too often. I was very—I gave them the position of a lifetime, and they vote against me often. They vote for me too.”

Gorsuch was Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment, taking his seat in 2017. Kavanaugh joined the Court in 2018, followed by Barrett in 2020. Those appointments helped establish the Court’s current 6-3 conservative majority, one of the most consequential legacies of Trump’s first term.

Trump’s frustration has intensified during his second term as the Court has handed his administration several significant defeats, including rulings involving birthright citizenship, his emergency tariff program and restrictions affecting mail-in voting.

One of the biggest clashes came in June, when the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to parents who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the country. The Court concluded that the policy violated the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Trump told TIME that he regarded the decision as damaging to the country rather than merely a personal political setback.

“It’s unfortunate what they did—not to me, to our country,” Trump said of the citizenship ruling. “And it’s become a corrupt business, all because of the Supreme Court decision.”

The June decision was 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson concluding that Trump’s order violated the 14th Amendment. Kavanaugh agreed that the administration’s policy could not stand but wrote separately on the statutory issue, while Gorsuch dissented.

Trump has also been sharply critical of the Court over its February decision invalidating the global tariffs he imposed under emergency powers. The ruling created a major dispute over tariffs that had already been collected and whether importers would be entitled to refunds.

The president argued that the justices could have substantially reduced the financial consequences simply by adding language preventing previously collected tariff revenue from having to be returned.

“All they had to do was a little clause saying any money paid does not have to be paid back…would have saved $400 billion,” Trump said. “They chose not to save that.”

Trump’s displeasure with his appointees became especially public in September after the Supreme Court blocked his administration’s attempt to impose new restrictions involving mail ballots ahead of the November midterm elections.

Following that ruling, Trump called the outcome “another bad decision” and accused the Court of having been “bullied and cajoled by the Radical Left.”

“These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves,” Trump wrote on Truth Social at the time.

Trump has repeatedly contrasted the conduct of his three appointees with the Court’s Democratic-appointed justices, arguing that the latter tend to remain more unified in politically consequential cases.

During the TIME interview, Trump praised what he described as the loyalty displayed by Democratic appointees, prompting the interviewer to ask whether he wanted similar loyalty from the justices he selected.

“I do like loyalty, yeah,” Trump said. Pressed on the point, he added: “No, I don’t want loyalty. I want good decisions.”

The comments underscore the increasingly public rupture between Trump and three justices whose confirmations were once celebrated as among his most significant achievements. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett have all joined major conservative rulings during their years on the Court, but they have also broken with positions advanced by Trump and his administration in several high-profile disputes.

The president’s latest remarks come as the Supreme Court prepares to begin a new term containing additional cases involving his administration. On Thursday, the Court agreed to hear a major dispute over the administration’s policy of subjecting certain illegal immigrants to mandatory detention without bond hearings while their deportation proceedings are underway.

Despite Trump’s increasingly pointed criticism of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, the three justices hold lifetime appointments under the Constitution and do not answer to the president who nominated them. Their votes in the cases now reaching the Court could therefore continue to place Trump’s second-term agenda — and his relationship with the Supreme Court he helped reshape — under intense scrutiny.

{Matzav.com}

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Thursday to hear a major challenge to the Trump administration’s policy requiring certain illegal immigrants arrested inside the United States to remain in custody without the opportunity for a bond hearing while their deportation proceedings are pending.

The case, Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, could resolve a sharp disagreement among federal appeals courts over how broadly federal immigration law permits mandatory detention. The justices accepted the administration’s appeal just days before the Supreme Court begins its new term on Monday.

At the center of the dispute is a policy adopted by the Department of Homeland Security in July 2025 that dramatically expanded the category of immigrants considered subject to mandatory detention. For decades, many immigrants arrested in the interior of the country while facing removal proceedings were permitted to ask an immigration judge for release on bond.

The Trump administration adopted a different interpretation of federal law, maintaining that immigrants who entered the United States illegally without being inspected or formally admitted can be treated as applicants for admission even if they have lived inside the country for years. Under that interpretation, they can be detained throughout their removal proceedings without receiving a bond hearing.

The administration has relied on a provision of federal immigration law providing that certain applicants for admission “shall be detained.” Opponents argue that immigrants who have long been living in the United States instead fall under a different section of immigration law that generally allows the government to detain them but also permits an immigration judge to consider releasing them on bond.

The case reaching the Supreme Court involves Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian national who entered the United States without inspection around 2005 and remained in the country for approximately two decades. He applied for asylum in 2016, received authorization to work in the United States, purchased a home and operated a small business.

Barbosa da Cunha was arrested by ICE in 2025 and placed in removal proceedings. When he sought a bond hearing, an immigration judge determined that the administration’s new interpretation of the law made him ineligible for one.

He subsequently turned to federal court, challenging his detention and arguing that he was entitled to have an immigration judge consider whether he could be released on bond.

A federal district court ruled in his favor, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit subsequently sided with him, concluding that his detention was governed by the section of immigration law allowing consideration of bond rather than the mandatory-detention provision invoked by the administration.

The Second Circuit reasoned that although someone who entered without inspection may technically qualify as an applicant for admission under immigration law, a person who has been living inside the United States for years is not necessarily seeking admission in the sense required by the mandatory-detention provision.

The policy has triggered extensive litigation around the country since it took effect, with thousands of challenges reaching federal courts as detainees sought the opportunity to request release on bond.

The federal appeals courts have divided sharply over the issue. The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have backed the administration’s interpretation, while the Second, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits have reached the opposite conclusion.

The conflicting decisions have created dramatically different rules depending on where an immigrant is detained, one of the principal reasons the Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to intervene.

Justice Department lawyers argued that the division among the appeals courts has produced an unworkable system in which an immigrant can be subject to mandatory detention in one part of the country while someone in essentially the same circumstances may be eligible for a bond hearing elsewhere.

The dispute could have far-reaching consequences because the administration’s interpretation potentially applies to a large population of immigrants who entered the United States illegally and remained in the country for years before eventually being arrested by ICE.

The administration argues that federal immigration law requires those individuals to remain detained during removal proceedings and that courts rejecting the policy have improperly narrowed the statute enacted by Congress.

Opponents contend that the administration has overturned decades of immigration practice by treating immigrants arrested deep inside the United States — including people who have lived in the country for many years — in essentially the same manner as individuals apprehended while seeking entry at the border.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the dispute comes amid President Trump’s intensified immigration enforcement campaign during his second term, with detention and deportation policies generating a series of significant legal battles across the country.

ICE has reported more than 356,000 removals during fiscal year 2026 as the administration continues its broad effort to increase immigration arrests, detention and deportations.

The case also comes at an unusual moment in Trump’s relationship with the Supreme Court. Three current justices — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — were appointed by Trump during his first term.

Trump said this week that he regrets appointing all three following several high-profile rulings that went against his administration. Asked whether he regretted selecting them, Trump replied, “Yeah. Yeah,”

The justices have given no indication of how they will ultimately decide the detention case. The Court’s decision to accept the administration’s appeal means only that it will review the dispute and does not indicate how any member of the Court will vote.

The case is formally titled Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, with Philip L. Rhoney, acting director of ICE’s Buffalo Field Office, challenging the lower-court ruling in favor of Barbosa da Cunha.

Briefing will now continue ahead of oral arguments, which are expected early next year. The eventual ruling could determine nationwide whether immigrants who entered the country illegally years earlier may automatically be detained throughout their deportation proceedings or must be given an opportunity to seek release on bond.

{Matzav.com}

[Video below.] New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has renewed his call for Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu to face arrest under an International Criminal Court warrant, saying in a newly released interview that the United States should join the ICC and enforce all of its warrants — including the one targeting Netanyahu.

Mamdani made the comments during an appearance on comedian Theo Von’s popular “This Past Weekend” podcast, where the conversation turned to Netanyahu’s recent visit to New York for the United Nations General Assembly and Mamdani’s longstanding support for enforcing the ICC warrant against him.

Mamdani had repeatedly said before taking office that Netanyahu should be arrested if he came to New York. He has since acknowledged that New York City itself does not possess the legal authority to carry out the ICC warrant and that such an action would require the federal government.

During the podcast, Mamdani explained that conclusion while making clear that his underlying position has not changed.

“If I had my say, the US government would have joined the ICC, honored every single warrant that they’ve issued.”

Earlier in the discussion, Mamdani said he believes the United States should become a member of the International Criminal Court and argued that Washington should enforce warrants issued by the tribunal. The United States is not currently a party to the ICC’s Rome Statute, and Israel also disputes the court’s jurisdiction in the case.

Mamdani presented his support for the ICC as part of a broader argument about the rule of law, saying that when governments fail to enforce international rules, the public begins questioning whether those rules have any meaning.

He pointed to international institutions established in the aftermath of World War II and argued that a lack of enforcement undermines the concept of accountability and multilateralism.

The ICC issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and then-Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant in November 2024. The court alleged that there were reasonable grounds to believe they bore criminal responsibility for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection with the Gaza war. Netanyahu and Israel have rejected the allegations and challenged the ICC’s jurisdiction.

The warrant does not accuse Netanyahu of genocide. Mamdani, however, separately repeated his own accusation during the Theo Von interview that Netanyahu is responsible for genocide in Gaza — a characterization Netanyahu and the Israeli government emphatically reject.

Mamdani described Netanyahu as “the architect of a horrific genocide.”

The mayor also addressed the distinction between his attacks on the Israeli government and his responsibility toward New York’s enormous Jewish population. He said Jewish New Yorkers should never be held responsible for decisions made by Israel’s government.

“No Jewish person in New York City is responsible for the actions of the state of Israel,” Mamdani said.

He argued that responsibility should instead be directed toward Israeli decision-makers and toward what he described as American complicity through U.S. military assistance to Israel.

Mamdani also reiterated his position that “critique of the state of Israel, the policy actions, the genocide, that in and of itself is not antisemitic.”

His comments came shortly after his administration unveiled a citywide strategy for combating antisemitism. The plan includes measures involving security for Jewish institutions, education about Jewish history and efforts to prevent antisemitic incidents. Mamdani has sought to draw a distinction between combating hatred directed at Jews and allowing fierce criticism of Israel.

The podcast appearance also gave Mamdani an opportunity to respond at length to Netanyahu’s extraordinary attack on him from the podium of the United Nations General Assembly.

During his UN address last week, Netanyahu directly accused Mamdani of spreading falsehoods about Israel and contributing to an atmosphere in which Jewish New Yorkers feel increasingly unsafe. He called Mamdani “the antisemitic mayor of New York” and accused him of inverting the roles of aggressor and victim in describing the Gaza war.

Netanyahu had previewed the confrontation before arriving in New York, declaring, “Shame on you, Mr. Mamdani,” while sharply criticizing the mayor’s positions on Israel and Hamas. Mamdani has rejected allegations that he supports Hamas.

Mamdani said he learned about Netanyahu’s remarks after returning from a meeting and described the episode as strange.

Asked whether Netanyahu’s criticism felt personal, Mamdani dismissed the idea that the dispute should be viewed as a personal feud between the two men.

“It’s not about me and him.”

Mamdani argued that Netanyahu was attempting to redirect attention away from his own conduct and Israel’s actions in Gaza.

“It’s about the fact that he’s the architect of a genocide.”

He then added: “And it’s like, yeah, if I was the architect of a genocide, I would probably talk about anything but that.”

Netanyahu, for his part, used his UN address to categorically reject the genocide accusation, calling it “the biggest lie of the century.” Israel maintains that its military campaign has targeted Hamas and other terrorist organizations following the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre and rejects accusations that its actions constitute genocide.

The escalating war of words between the Israeli prime minister and New York’s mayor has taken on particular significance because New York is home to the largest Jewish population of any American city and hosts the United Nations, making visits by Israeli leaders a recurring issue for City Hall.

Before Netanyahu’s latest visit, Mamdani acknowledged publicly that his earlier rhetoric about arresting the prime minister ran into a fundamental legal obstacle: New York City cannot independently execute an ICC arrest warrant. During preparations for the General Assembly, his administration instead worked with federal and local law-enforcement agencies to provide security for visiting foreign leaders.

Mamdani nevertheless made clear during his conversation with Von that his inability to order Netanyahu’s arrest as mayor has not changed what he believes Washington should do.

His position amounts to a call for a major change in American foreign policy: joining the International Criminal Court and committing the federal government to enforcing its warrants, including the outstanding warrant against the Israeli prime minister.

WATCH:

{Matzav.com}

Thousands of Israelis trying to return home remained stranded Friday after planned El Al evacuation flights from Dubai were canceled when the United Arab Emirates failed to provide Israeli airlines with the necessary permission to land in the country.

The setback came only hours after Israel’s Transportation Ministry announced that Israeli carriers were preparing to begin operating special repatriation flights from Dubai to Ben Gurion Airport on Friday, Oct. 2, as authorities scrambled to bring home Israelis caught up in the disruption caused by Flydubai’s suspension of service to Israel.

The plan depended on Israeli aircraft being permitted to fly into Dubai, collect the stranded passengers and return them to Israel. But the UAE did not provide the required landing permits, forcing El Al to cancel its planned flights and leaving the rescue operation in limbo.

The Transportation Ministry had earlier cautioned that even if the flights went ahead, passengers should expect delays while officials completed complicated operational and security arrangements.

“Following coordination with all relevant parties, it was agreed that flights operated by Israeli airlines from Dubai to Israel will begin on Friday, October 2,” the Ministry stated. “However, due to necessary preparations and required security coordination, delays are expected in the departure of repatriation flights from Dubai.”

The Ministry subsequently said Israeli officials were continuing efforts to resolve the situation and get the evacuation flights into the air.

The Transportation Ministry added that it is “continuing to work with all relevant parties, both in Israel and abroad, to enable the flights to operate as soon as possible. Israeli citizens currently in Dubai should remain in contact with their respective airlines and follow their instructions and updates.”

The latest cancellation followed a sudden reversal by Emirati authorities regarding landing authorization for the Israeli rescue aircraft. The decision left airlines unable to carry out the evacuation schedule that Israeli officials had been preparing.

The disruption is affecting far more travelers than those currently vacationing or staying in Dubai. Finance Ministry estimates indicate that approximately 10,000 Israeli citizens are seeking to return home, including travelers stranded in destinations farther east who ordinarily use Dubai as an important connection point on their journey to Israel.

Among them are Israelis in Thailand, India and other Asian countries whose return itineraries have been disrupted by the suspension of flights between Dubai and Israel.

The crisis began following Wednesday’s attempted hijacking of Flydubai Flight FZ1073, which had been traveling from Dubai to Tel Aviv when authorities say its Omani co-pilot attacked Indian captain Smit Machchhar inside the cockpit and apparently attempted to crash the aircraft.

The captain was wounded during the struggle but managed to open the cockpit door, allowing passengers and other pilots aboard the aircraft to intervene. The alleged attacker was eventually overpowered, and the aircraft was diverted to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, where it landed safely.

In the aftermath of the extraordinary incident, Flydubai suspended its service to Israel for six days, immediately creating a major transportation problem for Israelis who had traveled through the UAE or were depending on Dubai connections to return from Asia.

With regular Flydubai service unavailable, Israeli authorities began working on an emergency airlift using Israeli carriers, including El Al.

But sending Israeli aircraft into the UAE requires approval from Emirati authorities, and the absence of that authorization Friday morning prevented the planned flights from proceeding.

The situation has prompted intensive contacts involving Israeli transportation officials, the airlines and officials abroad as Israel seeks a solution that will allow the repatriation operation to begin.

The financial side of the operation had already been addressed before the latest diplomatic and logistical obstacle emerged.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich on Thursday evening directed senior Finance Ministry officials to make available the entire amount requested by the Transportation Ministry to pay for the rescue flights.

The Finance Ministry began completing the arrangements needed to transfer the money, with officials seeking to ensure that funding would not become an obstacle to bringing the stranded travelers back to Israel.

That left landing authorization from the UAE as the immediate hurdle Friday morning.

The flight disruption comes at a particularly sensitive moment in Israeli-Emirati aviation ties following the Flydubai incident. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are conducting investigations into the attempted attack, while Israel has asked to remain informed about the probes and sought permission to send observers to follow the investigations.

The UAE is investigating because Flydubai is an Emirati carrier and the flight originated in Dubai, while Saudi authorities are questioning the suspected attacker after the aircraft made its emergency landing in Saudi territory.

Israeli security officials have said that no confirmed connection between the Omani co-pilot and Iran has yet emerged from the investigation, although that possibility has not been ruled out. President Donald Trump, meanwhile, told reporters Thursday that information he was receiving indicated that the suspect appeared to have an Iranian connection, while stressing that the matter was still being investigated.

For the roughly 10,000 Israelis attempting to make their way home, however, the immediate issue is considerably more practical: until Israeli airlines receive authorization to land in Dubai, the evacuation flights that were supposed to begin Friday cannot operate.

Israeli officials are continuing negotiations in an effort to secure the necessary approvals, while travelers in Dubai have been instructed to remain in contact with their airlines rather than heading to the airport until they receive updated flight information.

{Matzav.com}

Chinese artificial intelligence company Moonshot AI has launched an internal investigation after security researchers managed to bypass safeguards in its Kimi AI system, prompting the models to provide detailed information involving biological weapons, assassination planning, terrorism, malware and other potentially deadly activities.

The findings emerged from testing conducted by AI security firm Mindgard, which said researchers were able to “jailbreak” Kimi — manipulating the system into ignoring restrictions intended to prevent it from providing dangerous information. The vulnerabilities were discovered during testing in July and were subsequently reported to Moonshot.

Researcher Peter Garrigan told Fox News that Kimi could be manipulated into providing information about developing biological weapons and carrying out assassinations. Researchers also obtained material involving terrorist attacks using real-time information, the creation of sarin gas, malware development and methods for bringing down aircraft.

“What we found is quite damaging and worrying,” Garrigan said.

Mindgard said its testing found that once Kimi’s safety controls were bypassed, the system produced detailed material across numerous dangerous categories, including biological weapons, explosives, terrorism, targeted violence, assassination planning and malicious computer code.

The security firm said the vulnerability was initially discovered on July 20 and disclosed to Moonshot AI on July 27. Mindgard publicly released its findings in September.

The testing involved two Kimi models, K2.6 and K3 Swarm. Researchers used what is known as jailbreaking — specially constructed instructions designed to determine whether an AI model can be induced to disregard the safety rules imposed by its developer.

Mindgard said the significance of the discovery was not simply that Kimi was willing to discuss dangerous subjects. Researchers said the model could turn relatively brief requests into considerably more detailed information, potentially reducing the amount of expertise needed by someone seeking harmful material.

The researchers did not attempt to carry out any of the attacks described by the models, and the investigation has not established that the instructions generated by Kimi would actually work in practice. Mindgard also withheld key technical details needed to reproduce the jailbreak.

Moonshot AI is now conducting an internal review of the findings and has been communicating with Mindgard about the vulnerabilities. The Chinese company has said it welcomes outside scrutiny of its systems as part of its effort to develop safer AI technology.

The case is raising broader concerns about whether safety protections can keep pace with increasingly powerful artificial intelligence systems, particularly as newer models gain access to the internet, computer code and other external tools.

Researchers have warned that a vulnerability that merely causes a chatbot to produce dangerous text is troubling on its own, but the potential risk becomes considerably greater when an AI system is capable of performing tasks, accessing outside information or interacting with computer systems.

The findings are also fueling concern about advanced AI models behaving in ways that their developers did not anticipate or successfully prevent.

Garrigan stressed that the vulnerability is not exclusively a Chinese AI problem, saying researchers have uncovered similar weaknesses while testing American-developed systems.

“We’ve also seen these problems within the U.S. models as well. It’s a fundamental flaw in the technology,” Garrigan said.

The issue has become an increasingly important focus for AI companies as models become more sophisticated. Developers generally install restrictions intended to prevent their systems from assisting users with weapons development, terrorism, serious cyberattacks and other dangerous activities, but security researchers routinely test whether those protections can be circumvented.

Mindgard has previously tested major Western AI systems as well and says jailbreaking remains a widespread challenge across the industry. The central problem is that developers must anticipate numerous ways users might attempt to defeat safeguards, while an attacker needs to discover only one method that succeeds.

The Kimi findings are particularly significant because of the rapid growth of Moonshot AI and the increasing prominence of its models. The Beijing-based company has emerged as one of China’s major AI developers as Chinese firms race American companies for leadership in increasingly powerful generative AI technology.

The episode also highlights a fundamental difficulty facing the industry: the same increasingly sophisticated reasoning and technical abilities that make advanced AI models useful for legitimate research, programming and scientific work can potentially be exploited for malicious purposes if their safeguards fail.

Moonshot’s investigation is expected to focus on how researchers were able to circumvent Kimi’s restrictions and what additional protections may be necessary to prevent similar jailbreaks as the company continues developing more powerful models.

The Trump administration is pressing European governments to immediately release diesel from their strategic reserves as soaring fuel prices threaten economies on both sides of the Atlantic, with European Union countries set to meet Friday to consider a coordinated response to the worsening energy crunch.

Washington has stepped up its demands as the war with Iran continues to disrupt global energy markets and drive up the cost of diesel and other refined fuels. U.S. officials are particularly seeking action from major European economies, including France and Germany, in hopes that additional supplies entering the market will help bring prices down.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent publicly called on America’s European allies Thursday to move quickly rather than wait for the fuel crisis to worsen.

“Our European partners should accelerate delivery on their existing commitments and make additional supplies immediately available to address ongoing disruptions,” Bessent said in a post on social media.

EU member states are expected to meet with the European Commission on Friday to discuss possible joint measures aimed at addressing the surge in fuel prices, according to a Commission spokesman.

The pressure from Washington comes as President Donald Trump considers an even more dramatic step: restricting or banning American diesel exports in an effort to increase supplies available to U.S. consumers and bring down prices at the pump.

“It is in Europe’s best interest to work with the United States as we pursue multiple pathways to boost the supply of refined products and lower costs for consumers,” a U.S. official told AFP.

Diesel has become one of the most acute economic consequences of the Iran war. The fuel is essential to trucking, agriculture, construction, manufacturing and shipping, meaning sustained increases can spread rapidly throughout the economy as businesses pass higher transportation and production expenses on to consumers.

In the United States, the national average price of diesel has soared more than 70% since the Iran war began, reaching approximately $6.39 per gallon, according to AAA data cited Thursday.

The extraordinary increase has intensified pressure on the administration to find additional supplies ahead of November’s midterm elections, with Republicans increasingly concerned about the political effects of higher fuel prices and the resulting increase in household expenses.

The administration has been exploring several ways to increase supplies of refined petroleum products. One option under consideration would restrict U.S. diesel exports, keeping more American-produced fuel inside the country rather than allowing it to be shipped overseas.

Trump confirmed Wednesday that the proposal remains under active consideration.

“I’m thinking about it,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

But an export ban would carry significant risks. While keeping additional diesel in the United States could increase domestic supply and potentially ease prices in some regions, refiners produce gasoline, diesel and other petroleum products together. Disrupting the market for one product could alter refinery economics and potentially contribute to higher gasoline prices.

Trump himself acknowledged that possibility while discussing the proposal Wednesday.

An American export restriction could also deepen the fuel shortage overseas. Europe and other markets depend heavily on U.S. refined petroleum exports, and removing American diesel from the international market could drive global prices still higher unless producers elsewhere could quickly replace the lost supply.

That prospect has alarmed European officials, who are simultaneously being asked by Washington to release their own emergency stocks.

At the G20 trade talks in Milwaukee, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer nevertheless sought to emphasize cooperation between Washington and Brussels, saying there was an “eagerness on both sides to work together” on the diesel issue.

European officials made clear, however, that the possibility of an American export ban has caused concern.

EU trade chief Maros Sefcovic said Thursday that such a decision by Washington would be “unexpected for Europeans.”

Sefcovic spoke after meeting with Greer on the sidelines of the two-day gathering of G20 trade ministers in Milwaukee. He said the two did not engage in detailed discussions about energy exports, but agreed that communication would continue as governments search for a response to the crisis.

The transatlantic partners “decided to stay in close touch to avoid any surprises here,” he said.

Sefcovic warned that cutting Europe off from U.S. diesel supplies could inflict serious economic damage.

“It would have very dramatic consequences for our economic performance,” Sefcovic said of any potential diesel export ban.

France also expressed skepticism that Washington would ultimately take such a drastic step.

France’s minister delegate for international trade, Nicolas Forissier, told AFP in Milwaukee: “I can’t imagine that there will be a ban.”

Forissier emphasized that a reliable supply of diesel is critical to the economies of both Europe and the United States, saying governments on both sides of the Atlantic should instead work together to increase supply.

He said both sides will “try to find solutions.”

“In France, we’ll try to find balanced solutions all over the world,” Forissier added. “If not with the Americans, it will be with other countries.”

The administration, meanwhile, has strongly suggested that announcements from European governments could be imminent.

Speaking alongside Trump on Wednesday, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the world would “hear announcements from our friends in Europe” concerning efforts to bring diesel prices down.

One of the central questions is whether European countries will draw down strategic petroleum or diesel reserves, injecting emergency supplies into the market in an attempt to relieve the shortage.

France said Thursday that Trump had not specifically asked President Emmanuel Macron to release French strategic reserves when the two leaders met on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly last week.

Macron, however, is preparing to convene G7 leaders by video to discuss the fuel crisis and possible coordinated measures.

According to the French presidency, the meeting is intended “to make progress on the various levers that can be used to address the rising fuel prices… including coordination on releasing reserves.”

Macron first announced plans for the meeting on Sept. 18. His office has said the G7 discussion is expected to take place in mid-October.

The pressure on global diesel supplies comes amid severe disruptions to energy markets resulting from the Iran war, which has pushed crude oil and refined-product prices sharply higher and raised concerns about the reliability of major shipping and production routes.

Because diesel inventories were already relatively constrained before the latest disruptions, the loss or interruption of additional supplies has had an outsized impact on prices. Refining capacity is also an important factor: additional crude oil alone cannot immediately solve a shortage of diesel if refineries lack sufficient capacity to turn that crude into the refined products consumers need.

For the Trump administration, the challenge is particularly urgent because diesel prices feed into far more than the cost paid directly by motorists driving diesel-powered vehicles. Nearly every product transported by truck can become more expensive when diesel costs surge, while farmers, construction companies and manufacturers also rely heavily on the fuel.

With average U.S. diesel prices now reported at $6.39 per gallon — more than 70% higher than when the Iran war began — the issue has become an increasingly significant economic and political concern just weeks before Americans vote in the midterm elections.

The administration is therefore pursuing several approaches simultaneously: pressing Europe to release strategic stocks, seeking additional supplies of refined fuel and keeping open the possibility of restricting American diesel exports.

For now, attention is turning to Friday’s European meeting, where EU governments will discuss whether they are prepared to respond to Washington’s demand and put emergency diesel supplies onto a global market struggling with some of the sharpest fuel-price increases in years.

{Matzav.com}

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has authorized the release of $320 million in U.S. military assistance to Egypt that had been held back because of human rights concerns, with the Trump administration citing Cairo’s growing security cooperation with Washington and its role in diplomatic efforts surrounding the ongoing conflict with Iran.

The State Department confirmed Thursday that Rubio exercised his authority to waive the human rights conditions attached to the funding “in the interest of US national security.”

In explaining the move, the department pointed to “the importance of Egypt to US national security interests, and the concrete security cooperation Egypt provides to the United States.”

The decision frees up hundreds of millions of dollars in Foreign Military Financing, the U.S. program that allows allied and partner governments to purchase American-made weapons, equipment and other defense-related material.

The most notable element of the administration’s justification, however, was Egypt’s involvement in efforts surrounding Iran.

In a notification sent to Congress, Rubio specifically cited Egypt’s “helpful role” in the conflict with Iran, according to The Associated Press. Cairo has emerged as an intermediary in U.S.-Iranian contacts aimed at bringing an end to the war, which has now continued for more than seven months.

Egypt’s position has given Cairo unusual diplomatic importance. President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi’s government maintains relationships and channels of communication across competing blocs in the Middle East, while Egypt’s control of the Suez Canal and its longstanding military relationship with Washington give it substantial strategic importance to the United States.

The administration’s decision does not mean Washington is dropping its concerns about Egypt’s human rights record. The State Department said those issues will continue to be raised with Egyptian officials as part of discussions encompassing “the full range of issues in our bilateral relationship.”

But U.S. officials said the current security environment and the importance of maintaining close military cooperation with Egypt ultimately outweighed the concerns that had caused the money to be restricted.

The $320 million is part of the roughly $1.3 billion in military assistance that the United States has traditionally provided Egypt each year, a relationship dating back decades to the American-brokered peace agreement between Egypt and Israel.

Egypt has remained one of the largest recipients of American military assistance in the world. Much of the aid is provided through Foreign Military Financing rather than as cash that Cairo can freely spend, meaning the funding is generally used to purchase U.S. defense equipment and services.

Congress has nevertheless attached conditions to portions of the assistance in an effort to pressure Cairo over human rights. American government reports over the years have documented allegations of torture, arbitrary detention, severe restrictions on political opposition and freedom of expression, and other abuses.

Those conditions have repeatedly produced tension between Washington’s human rights policies and the strategic importance successive administrations have placed on maintaining the American-Egyptian security relationship.

Presidents of both parties have frequently resolved that conflict by invoking national-security waivers permitting aid to move forward despite Egypt’s failure to satisfy all of the human rights benchmarks established by Congress.

The Biden administration took that approach in September 2024, approving the full amount of military assistance available to Egypt and invoking a waiver for funding subject to human rights conditions. At the time, Washington emphasized Cairo’s role in negotiations aimed at ending the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, securing the release of hostages and facilitating humanitarian assistance.

That represented a change from earlier decisions under President Joe Biden. In 2022, his administration withheld $130 million in military assistance after determining that Egypt had failed to meet human rights requirements attached to the money.

The administration subsequently withheld another $130 million the following year over similar concerns, even as most American military assistance to Egypt continued.

The longstanding debate over the aid has repeatedly forced U.S. administrations to weigh concerns about Al-Sisi’s domestic policies against Egypt’s strategic value.

Cairo is a key American defense partner, controls the Suez Canal — one of the world’s most strategically important shipping routes — maintains a peace treaty with Israel and has frequently served as a mediator during regional conflicts.

The relationship has also experienced periods of significant strain.

Following the Egyptian military’s 2013 removal of Islamist President Mohammed Morsi, the Obama administration suspended delivery of some military equipment and assistance to Cairo. The restrictions were later eased, and military aid was restored as Washington sought to rebuild security ties with the Egyptian government.

Relations became considerably warmer during President Trump’s first term. Al-Sisi publicly welcomed Trump’s election in 2016 and expressed optimism that the incoming administration would deepen American involvement and cooperation in the Middle East.

Trump and Al-Sisi subsequently developed a close working relationship, with the two governments cooperating on counterterrorism, regional security and diplomatic issues even as human rights organizations continued criticizing Egypt’s treatment of political opponents and detainees.

Egypt’s importance to Washington has increased further amid the current regional turmoil, particularly because of its involvement in diplomatic contacts related to Iran.

Rubio’s decision makes clear that, at least for now, the Trump administration considers that cooperation sufficiently important to override the congressional human rights restrictions on the $320 million.

The State Department stressed that the waiver does not amount to an endorsement of Egypt’s human rights practices. Instead, officials framed the decision as a national-security determination that preserving Washington’s military and diplomatic relationship with Cairo is especially important amid the extraordinary security challenges confronting the Middle East.

Millions of Americans who receive food assistance are seeing new Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program rules take effect Thursday, Oct. 1, with maximum monthly benefits rising modestly to account for inflation even as sweeping federal changes impose tougher work requirements and shift significantly more of the program’s costs onto states.

The annual cost-of-living adjustment for fiscal year 2027 raises the maximum SNAP allotment for a single-person household in the 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., from $298 to $306 per month.

For a household of two, the maximum rises from $546 to $562; a three-person household can receive up to $808; and the maximum for a family of four increases from $994 to $1,023 per month.

The maximum rises to $1,217 for five people, $1,463 for six, $1,616 for seven and $1,841 for eight. Larger households generally receive an additional $225 per person, subject to a new federal cap for very large households.

The minimum monthly benefit for eligible one- and two-person households also increases, from $24 to $25.

The new amounts, which remain in effect through Sept. 30, 2027, do not mean that every SNAP recipient will receive the maximum benefit. Individual payments are calculated using household income, family size and allowable deductions, among other factors.

SNAP income limits and deductions are also being adjusted for the new fiscal year.

For most households in the contiguous United States and Washington, D.C., the standard gross monthly income limit is now $1,729 for one person, $2,345 for two, $2,960 for three and $3,575 for a family of four.

The standard deduction is increasing to $217 for households with one to three members, $229 for four-person households, $268 for five people and $308 for households of six or more.

The maximum excess shelter deduction is also increasing, from $744 to $769 per month, while the homeless shelter deduction rises to $205.66.

But the modest increase in maximum benefits comes as SNAP undergoes some of the most consequential changes to the program in years under President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was signed into law in 2025.

One of the most significant changes involves work requirements.

Federal law now generally extends SNAP’s time-limited work requirement through age 64 for able-bodied adults who do not qualify for an exemption. Affected recipients generally must work, participate in an approved training program, volunteer or engage in a combination of qualifying activities for at least 80 hours per month to continue receiving SNAP beyond the program’s time limit.

Recipients subject to the rule who fail to satisfy the requirement can generally receive SNAP for only three months during a three-year period.

The previous federal rules applied the time limit to a narrower age range. The 2025 law expanded the requirement to adults ages 55 through 64 and narrowed several categories of exemptions.

Among the major changes, veterans, people experiencing homelessness and young adults who recently aged out of foster care no longer receive the broad automatic exemptions they had under previous law.

There remain exemptions for certain groups, including people who are unable to work because of a physical or mental limitation, pregnant women and some people responsible for caring for dependent children or incapacitated individuals.

The consequences are already becoming visible. Federal data released this year showed SNAP enrollment falling from approximately 42.2 million recipients in May 2025 to about 36.6 million in May 2026 — a decline of more than 13% in a single year.

The decrease has varied sharply from state to state, with some states reporting particularly steep reductions as the new eligibility and work rules have been implemented.

At the same time, Oct. 1 marks another major change that recipients themselves may never see directly: states are now responsible for a substantially larger share of the administrative expense of running SNAP.

Until now, the federal government and states generally divided SNAP administrative costs evenly, with Washington paying 50% and states covering the other 50%.

Beginning with the new federal fiscal year Thursday, the federal government’s share falls to 25%, leaving states responsible for 75% of SNAP administrative expenses.

That shift could translate into hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs for state governments nationwide. Forty states have already partially or fully appropriated money to cover their increased administrative obligations.

An even larger financial change is scheduled to arrive in fiscal year 2028. For the first time in SNAP’s history, states with sufficiently high payment-error rates could be required to pay a portion of the actual food benefits distributed to recipients rather than merely sharing administrative expenses.

Depending on a state’s error rate, its required share of benefit costs could eventually reach 5%, 10% or 15%.

Supporters of the changes argue that the new rules will encourage employment, improve accountability and give states a financial incentive to reduce erroneous payments and administer the program more efficiently.

Critics contend that the expanded work rules will cause eligible low-income Americans to lose food assistance because of paperwork, reporting problems or unstable work schedules, while the increased financial burden on states could pressure some governments to reduce administrative services.

The changes come as SNAP remains the nation’s largest food-assistance program, providing grocery benefits through electronic benefit transfer cards to tens of millions of low-income Americans.

For recipients, the immediate Oct. 1 change is therefore something of a mixed picture: maximum benefits and several eligibility thresholds have increased with inflation, but the broader federal overhaul of SNAP is simultaneously tightening eligibility for some recipients and transferring substantially more of the program’s financial responsibility from Washington to the states.

American homebuyers were hit with another major affordability blow Thursday as mortgage rates surged to their highest level in nearly three years, propelled by a dramatic selloff in U.S. government bonds that briefly pushed benchmark Treasury yields to levels not seen in nearly a quarter-century.

The average rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage jumped to 7.28% for the week ending Oct. 1, according to Freddie Mac, up sharply from 7.03% just one week earlier. The quarter-percentage-point increase was the largest weekly jump in roughly four years.

Some daily mortgage-rate measures, which move more rapidly than Freddie Mac’s weekly survey, climbed considerably higher, with readings approaching 7.6% during the latest bond-market turmoil. But the official Freddie Mac weekly benchmark stood at 7.28% — its highest level since November 2023.

The increase has been remarkably swift. The average 30-year mortgage stood at 6.34% one year ago, meaning borrowing costs have risen by nearly a full percentage point over the past 12 months.

Rates have now increased for six consecutive weeks, reversing the relief homebuyers enjoyed earlier this year and once again placing the cost of financing a home near levels last experienced during the severe housing-affordability crunch of late 2023.

The 15-year fixed mortgage also moved substantially higher, rising to 6.60% from 6.42% the previous week.

Behind the mortgage surge is a violent repricing in the enormous U.S. Treasury market.

The yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note — one of the most important interest rates in the global financial system and a key influence on U.S. mortgage pricing — surged as high as approximately 5.34% Thursday morning.

That marked the highest 10-year Treasury yield since early 2002, surpassing even the highs reached before the 2008 financial crisis.

The 30-year Treasury yield also soared, briefly reaching approximately 5.68% as investors continued dumping long-term U.S. government debt.

Bond prices and yields move in opposite directions. When investors sell Treasury securities, their prices decline and their yields rise. Those higher Treasury yields then ripple through the economy, affecting mortgage rates, corporate borrowing, auto loans and other forms of credit.

The third quarter was particularly brutal for the Treasury market. The 10-year yield recorded its largest quarterly increase of the 21st century as investors reassessed inflation, economic growth, federal borrowing requirements and the future path of Federal Reserve interest rates.

Persistent inflation remains one of the principal forces driving the selloff. Inflation continues to run more than a percentage point above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target, while sharply higher energy costs have intensified concerns that price pressures could remain elevated for considerably longer than investors previously expected.

Oil prices have risen dramatically amid the wars involving Iran and Ukraine, feeding directly into transportation, manufacturing and household energy costs. Brent crude surged roughly 40% during the third quarter and was trading around $100 a barrel as October began.

The American economy has also proven more resilient than many investors anticipated. Revised government data showed economic growth during the first half of 2026 was stronger than previously estimated, while other indicators suggest that momentum continued into the third quarter.

That combination — stronger growth alongside stubborn inflation — has forced investors to reconsider expectations that the Federal Reserve would soon be able to substantially reduce interest rates. Markets instead see the possibility of additional monetary tightening if inflation fails to retreat.

Another concern hanging over the bond market is the sheer quantity of debt the federal government must finance. Investors are demanding increasingly attractive yields to absorb enormous amounts of Treasury issuance as federal deficits remain elevated.

For ordinary Americans, however, the most immediate effect of the turmoil can be seen in the monthly cost of buying a home.

A buyer taking out a $400,000 30-year mortgage at 7.28% would face a monthly principal-and-interest payment of roughly $2,740. At 6.34%, approximately where mortgage rates stood a year ago, that same loan would have required a payment of roughly $2,485 — a difference of more than $250 every month and over $3,000 per year.

The difference becomes still larger in expensive housing markets where buyers routinely borrow $600,000, $800,000 or more.

The renewed rate surge threatens to further paralyze a housing market already struggling with affordability problems. Existing homeowners who locked in mortgages at 3% or 4% during the ultra-low-rate era remain reluctant to sell and surrender those loans, limiting the supply of homes available to prospective buyers.

At the same time, would-be purchasers are confronting home prices that remain high even as financing costs have risen dramatically.

Mortgage demand is already showing signs of renewed weakness. Applications declined again in the latest weekly data as higher rates discouraged both prospective buyers and homeowners considering refinancing.

“Mortgage rates increased for the sixth straight week, reaching a nearly three-year high,” Mortgage Bankers Association President and CEO Bob Broeksmit said.

“Affordability and borrower demand have weakened in recent weeks as the higher-rate environment continues to put pressure on both prospective homebuyers and homeowners looking to refinance.”

The increase has also pushed more borrowers toward adjustable-rate mortgages, which initially offer lower rates than traditional 30-year fixed loans but expose homeowners to the possibility of higher payments later.

There was some relief in the Treasury market later Thursday, with yields retreating from their morning peaks as buyers returned to government bonds. The 10-year yield fell back toward the 5.2% range after touching 5.34%.

But even after that retreat, borrowing costs remain extraordinarily high by recent standards, leaving the housing market facing a renewed squeeze just months after buyers had hoped that mortgage rates were finally heading sustainably lower.

New York City’s historic rent freeze officially took effect Thursday, Oct. 1, blocking rent increases on both one-year and two-year leases for approximately one million rent-stabilized apartments across the five boroughs and delivering on one of Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s signature campaign promises.

Under the new guidelines, tenants entering into or renewing a rent-stabilized lease beginning between Oct. 1, 2026, and Sept. 30, 2027, face a 0% Rent Guidelines Board increase regardless of whether they choose a one-year or two-year lease.

That means a rent-stabilized tenant paying $2,000 per month whose renewal lease begins during the covered period can renew for either one or two years without the annual Rent Guidelines Board adjustment pushing that $2,000 rent higher.

The freeze does not apply to every renter in New York City. Market-rate apartments are not covered, and landlords of those units remain generally free to seek rent increases subject to applicable state and city laws. The measure specifically governs apartments covered by the city’s rent-stabilization system, which encompasses roughly one million homes.

It also does not retroactively erase increases on leases that began before Oct. 1. Rent-stabilized leases beginning between Oct. 1, 2025, and Sept. 30, 2026, were subject to the previous Rent Guidelines Board order, which permitted a 3% increase for a one-year lease and 4.5% for a two-year lease.

The new freeze was approved June 25, when the nine-member Rent Guidelines Board voted 7-1 to set the allowable increase at zero for both lease terms. It marked the first time in the board’s history that rents were frozen simultaneously on both one-year and two-year rent-stabilized leases.

Mamdani immediately hailed the vote as the fulfillment of the affordability pledge that became a centerpiece of his mayoral campaign.

“This is a historic victory for New York City tenants,” Mamdani said after the June vote. “This is the relief that working people across our city deserve.”

The policy affects a massive segment of the city’s housing stock. Rent-stabilized apartments account for roughly 40% of New York City’s rental housing, with more than two million New Yorkers living in affected units.

The freeze, however, arrives under a significant legal cloud.

A coalition of landlords filed suit seeking to overturn the Rent Guidelines Board’s decision, arguing that the process was improperly influenced by Mamdani and his administration and that the supposedly independent board was effectively steered toward fulfilling the mayor’s campaign promise.

Mamdani appointed six of the board’s nine members. Before the June vote, one of the board’s two landlord representatives resigned, saying he believed the outcome had effectively been predetermined.

The lawsuit has taken on additional significance in recent weeks. A Staten Island judge ordered City Hall and Rent Guidelines Board officials to turn over written communications between the mayor’s office and board personnel covering the period from Jan. 1 through the June 25 vote.

The judge wrote that allegations raised in the case “have raised significant concern to this court regarding the lawfulness of the Board’s procedure” in approving the freeze.

Documents emerging in the litigation show that officials in Mamdani’s administration and Rent Guidelines Board personnel were in regular contact during the months leading up to the vote. Attorneys representing landlords contend those communications bolster their argument that the board’s process was compromised, while the administration maintains that the RGB acted lawfully and reached its decision after considering the economic data and public testimony before it.

Despite the ongoing lawsuit, the court did not block the freeze from taking effect Oct. 1. As a result, the 0% guideline is now the operative rule while the litigation proceeds.

Landlord organizations have fiercely opposed the freeze, arguing that building owners continue to face rising property taxes, insurance premiums, labor expenses, utilities and maintenance costs even while their regulated rental income is being held flat.

“When you restrain and restrict the revenue and finances of a building and they have no ability for the costs that continue to go up, especially on an unprecedented two year rent freeze as if we know what’s going to happen in two years, this is going to cause a lower quality housing for so many tenants,” said Kenny Burgos, who represents property owners.

Tenant advocates counter that years of rent increases have placed severe pressure on working-class New Yorkers and that stabilized-building owners as a whole remain capable of operating profitably. Rent Guidelines Board data cited by tenant advocates showed net operating income for stabilized buildings increasing 6.2% in the latest year studied and more than 30% over three years.

For tenants, one of the most important practical points is that the date the lease begins — rather than simply the date a renewal offer arrives — determines which Rent Guidelines Board order applies. A qualifying one- or two-year rent-stabilized lease commencing from Oct. 1, 2026, through Sept. 30, 2027, receives the 0% guideline adjustment.

Tenants paying a preferential rent are also generally entitled to have the guideline adjustment calculated from that preferential rent for the duration of their tenancy. With this year’s guideline set at zero, the RGB portion of such a renewal increase is likewise zero.

The freeze does not necessarily mean that every conceivable charge associated with a rent-stabilized apartment can never change. Separate increases authorized under state law — including certain lawful adjustments unrelated to the annual RGB percentage — operate under their own rules. The Rent Guidelines Board order itself specifically sets the annual lease adjustment at 0%.

For Mamdani, the Oct. 1 implementation represents one of the most tangible policy victories of his administration to date. For landlords challenging the measure, however, the battle has shifted from the Rent Guidelines Board hearing room to the courthouse.

Unless a court ultimately overturns the decision, rent-stabilized tenants signing qualifying renewals over the coming year will be able to choose either a one-year or two-year lease with the same Rent Guidelines Board increase: zero.

Dramatic new video from aboard Flydubai Flight FZ1073 has provided the clearest look yet at the desperate battle to save the Israel-bound aircraft, showing the wounded captain opening the cockpit door and passengers rushing forward as the plane plunged thousands of feet following an alleged attack by the co-pilot.

The newly released passenger footage, aired by CBS News on Thursday, captures portions of the frantic struggle aboard the Boeing 737 MAX 8 as passengers and crew fought to regain control of the Dubai-to-Tel Aviv flight.

The video adds extraordinary visual detail to accounts given by passengers following Wednesday’s incident, when authorities say the Omani co-pilot attacked Indian captain Smit Machchhar inside the locked cockpit and apparently attempted to crash the aircraft. The motive remains under investigation by authorities in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The footage shows the injured Machchhar managing to unlock and open the cockpit door and calling for help, giving passengers their first opportunity to intervene in the battle taking place behind the reinforced door.

A small group of passengers immediately surged into the cockpit.

The video shows the chaotic scene as passengers fought to assist the badly wounded captain, regain control of the aircraft and overpower the co-pilot. Passengers reportedly pulled back on the aircraft’s controls before ultimately subduing the alleged attacker and restraining him with cords from a headset.

The intervention came during a terrifying series of altitude changes. Flight-tracking records show the aircraft dropping from approximately 34,000 feet to around 16,600 feet during the emergency, with the plane subsequently climbing and descending again as the struggle continued. The aircraft transmitted both a general emergency code and a hijacking/interference code during the ordeal.

Passengers have described the opening of the cockpit door as the moment that gave them a chance to save the aircraft.

Yaniv Hayoun, one of the passengers who rushed forward, said he instinctively tried to help bring the aircraft out of its dive. Other passengers converged on the attacker, while off-duty pilots traveling aboard the flight ultimately assisted in taking control of the jet.

The aircraft eventually stabilized and was diverted to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, where it landed safely.

Machchhar suffered serious stab wounds during the cockpit confrontation. He was initially treated in Saudi Arabia before being transferred Thursday to a hospital in the United Arab Emirates. Indian officials said he was conscious and in good condition.

The Omani co-pilot remains in custody and is being questioned as investigators seek to determine why the attack occurred and whether it was planned in advance or connected to terrorist activity. Emirati investigators are examining whether the incident involved advance planning or possible terrorist connections.

Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has said the co-pilot apparently tried to deliberately crash the plane. Israeli officials are also investigating whether the suspect had accomplices and whether an outside actor was involved.

The release of the cockpit footage is particularly significant because several unrelated or misleading videos have circulated online since the incident. One viral clip purportedly showing the Flydubai aircraft during the attempted hijacking was determined to be unrelated footage, while another video supposedly showing passengers celebrating after surviving the attack was actually footage from an earlier event.

The newly aired footage, by contrast, was recorded aboard Flight FZ1073 and shows the actual effort by passengers and crew to regain control of the aircraft.

The images provide a striking new perspective on how close the flight came to catastrophe — and how the wounded captain’s ability to open the cockpit door allowed passengers and other pilots aboard the aircraft to intervene.

The flight ultimately landed safely with the passengers surviving an ordeal that began as a routine trip from Dubai to Tel Aviv and ended with a wounded captain, a restrained co-pilot and passengers helping save an aircraft that had been plunging toward the ground.

Shas chairman Aryeh Deri sharply attacked Naftali Bennett on Thursday after the former prime minister described the extraordinary rescue of more than 170 people aboard the Flydubai flight as an act of heroism rather than a miracle. Speaking in his sukkah, Deri declared that the remarkable chain of events was a clear neis from the Ribono Shel Olam and said it demonstrated the zechus of lomdei Torah protecting Klal Yisroel.

“Yesterday I heard that someone who presumes to be prime minister, an arrogant and brazen man, said that what happened yesterday in Dubai was not a miracle, it was heroism,” Deri said. “I said: Oy, HaKadosh Boruch Hu, ‘I have chosen the path of faith.’ We go with simple, pure emunah.”

Deri asked his listeners to contemplate what could have occurred had the attempted attack succeeded, noting that more than 170 people, including approximately 30 children, were aboard the aircraft.

“Try to think about what could have happened yesterday… 170-something Jews, 30 children. Hashem… what a disaster could have happened! What terrible mourning! And Hashem, Boruch Hashem, turned darkness into light and gave us such a yeshuah. But this time — pure, pure, pure, enormous. Revealed.”

Deri said the circumstances surrounding the plane’s survival made the neis especially striking.

“All the aviation experts say there is no way in the world that this plane remained intact. A plane that falls from such a height, in such a short amount of time — there is no way in the world! With its tail that fell — there is no way in the world! HaKadosh Boruch Hu put together all these combinations, these circumstances. It is so revealed, so clear.”

The aircraft plunged roughly 14,000 feet in about 30 seconds after the copilot attacked the captain and allegedly attempted to crash the plane. The wounded captain managed to open the cockpit door, allowing passengers to overpower the attacker, while other pilots aboard the flight ultimately took control and safely landed the aircraft in Saudi Arabia.

Deri emphasized that unlike many security incidents in Eretz Yisroel, there had been no advance intelligence, Israeli security personnel or other conventional protective apparatus aboard the flight.

“Yesterday it was pure, enormous: no intelligence, no Mossad, no advance warning, no one from the Shin Bet was on the plane, there were no Israeli security guards, there was a plumber there who had seen the plans, British pilots who were not supposed to be on the plane. There is nothing else in the history of aviation where a pilot wants to bring down a plane and does not succeed.”

Deri then turned to what he said was the deeper message of the extraordinary rescue, connecting it directly to the zechus haTorah and the emunah of Klal Yisroel.

“I asked myself: For anyone who questioned and did not know what the contribution of bnei Torah is to Am Yisroel… Every time there are excuses: No, there are soldiers, there are planes — that is true, but people do not understand that we are few against all the Arabs. This tremendous miracle — it is the merit of those who learn Torah, the merit of the faith of Am Yisroel, the merit of the lulavim and esrogim.”

His remarks came after Bennett said in a television interview that the outcome of the Flydubai incident was “not a miracle” but the result of the heroism displayed by passengers and crew. The passengers who intervened have been widely praised for their actions, with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu also describing their conduct as extraordinary heroism.

Deri, however, rejected the notion that recognizing the actions of those aboard the plane should diminish the role of Hashgachah Pratis, pointing to the remarkable convergence of circumstances that allowed the disaster to be prevented.

He also connected the episode to Sukkos, citing the Gemara’s explanation of the waving of the arba minim: “One moves them outward and inward — to the One to Whom the four directions belong; upward and downward — to the One to Whom the heavens and earth belong.”

The gathering in Deri’s sukkah concluded with the crowd breaking into song: “Hashem Yitbarach Tamid Oheiv Oti.”

{Matzav.com}

The Torah community in Yerushalayim is mourning the petirah of Rav Avrohom Shmuel Fekete zt”l, a prominent Satmar chossid from the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood and a longtime ben Torah who endured tremendous yesurim with remarkable emunah. He was 64 years old.

During the past year, Rav Fekete suffered from a difficult illness and endured severe yesurim. Those close to him related that he accepted his suffering with extraordinary emunah and ahavas Hashem, continuing to strengthen those around him even as his own condition deteriorated.

Rav Fekete was born on Rosh Chodesh Shevat 5722 to his father, Rav Tzvi Fekete, one of the distinguished Satmar chassidim in Bnei Brak, and his mother, who survives him.

Upon reaching marriageable age, he married his wife, Mrs. Tziporah Fekete, daughter of the noted mechanech Rav Dovid Nachman Blau zt”l.

Throughout his life, Rav Fekete was known as an exceptionally warm and pleasant person who greeted others with a smile and possessed outstanding middos. Above all, he was known for his extraordinary dedication to limud haTorah, spending decades immersed in Torah with tremendous hasmadah.

He was among the prominent members and pillars of the kollel of the Gaavad of Yerushalayim, Rav Moshe Aryeh Freund zt”l, where he spent his days and nights immersed in learning with exceptional diligence.

Approximately a decade ago, Rav Fekete experienced a frightening ordeal during a visit to the United States. A robber attacked him, stole from him and stabbed him severely, leaving him critically wounded.

Through tremendous chasdei Shomayim, he survived the attack and ultimately recovered. Those who knew him said that from that point onward, he constantly expressed his gratitude to the Ribono Shel Olam for the tremendous neis that had been performed for him.

Rav Fekete leaves behind his wife and a beautiful dor yesharim mevorach of 11 children and grandchildren following in the path of Torah and chassidus. Among his children are two young daughters still at home, a kallah whose wedding is scheduled to take place in approximately one month, and another unmarried daughter.

The levayah wa sheld today at the Shamgar Funeral Home in Yerushalayim, passing the Satmar bais medrash, Ohel Rochel, on Rechov Yoel Street, before continuing to Har Hamenuchos for kevurah.

Yehi zichro boruch.

{Matzav.com}

Christa Pike, the Tennessee death-row inmate who survived an extraordinary failed execution after receiving two doses of a drug intended to kill her, remained alive and in critical condition Thursday, with her attorneys saying she was receiving life-saving treatment and may have suffered brain damage.

The unprecedented ordeal has prompted Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee to halt executions for the remainder of 2026 and order a comprehensive independent investigation into how the state administered two rounds of pentobarbital without killing Pike. The 50-year-old convicted murderer was ultimately rushed by ambulance from Riverbend Maximum Security Institution in Nashville to Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

Pike’s attorneys revealed Thursday that the failed execution was even more harrowing than initially known, saying execution personnel spent roughly an hour repeatedly trying to establish intravenous access as Pike herself attempted to direct them toward veins they might be able to use.

“What we have been told is that she is in critical condition, receiving lifesaving care,” her attorney Randy Spivey told a press conference.

Pike had been scheduled to become the first woman executed in Tennessee in more than two centuries. Instead, she became what experts described as the first known American death-row prisoner to survive after lethal-injection drugs were actually administered in an execution attempt.

Witnesses said Pike remained visibly alive after receiving two doses of pentobarbital, each intended to be lethal. She continued breathing and at points could be heard snoring even after the execution chamber’s viewing curtain was closed.

The attempt began after a dramatic day of legal maneuvering. Pike’s execution had originally been scheduled for 10 a.m. CDT Wednesday, but approximately an hour before it was to take place, a federal appeals court issued a stay related to her claim that evidence concerning sexual abuse and rape she suffered as a child had not been properly considered during sentencing.

The U.S. Supreme Court later lifted the stay, allowing Tennessee to proceed with the execution Wednesday evening.

But the process quickly ran into serious problems.

According to Pike’s attorneys, medical personnel tried at least seven times to place IV lines, leaving her with multiple puncture wounds. One needle was reportedly bent when it was removed from her arm.

“My arm feels like it’s about to bust. One spot is really throbbing,” Pike said, according to witness Tori Gessner, a reporter with WKRN.

Her legal team said Pike had warned before the execution that officials could have difficulty accessing her veins. During the procedure, they said, she went so far as to try to assist the people who were preparing to kill her.

“It took an hour despite the fact that Ms. Pike was not just cooperative, but was trying to help instruct the people placing the IV lines where they could find them (her veins),” Stephen Ferrell of the Federal Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee said.

“She over and over again said ‘Please try up on my shoulder higher. Please try here, I think it will be okay.’”

Ferrell said the prolonged procedure was particularly traumatic because of Pike’s history of sexual abuse.

“That was her biggest fear as the survivor of sexual abuse, that she would be pinned down, prodded, poked, cut, for a prolonged period of time” he said.

Once IV access was established, Tennessee officials administered pentobarbital under the state’s single-drug execution protocol.

But Pike did not die.

Witnesses reported that she continued breathing, moving and making sounds after the drugs entered her body. At one point, she reportedly looked toward prison officials and asked whether what she was experiencing was supposed to feel that way.

Even after a second dose was administered, Pike remained alive. Witnesses said she could be heard loudly snoring for several minutes, and when reporters were eventually escorted from the execution area, she was still showing unmistakable signs of life.

Her attorneys rushed to court seeking emergency intervention as it became apparent that the execution had failed. Pike was subsequently removed from the prison and transported to a hospital for emergency treatment.

Her legal team blamed the failure on “difficult vein access, blown veins, degraded pentobarbital, no emergency medical care available when things inevitably go wrong, all under a protocol that remains veiled in secrecy.”

The Tennessee Department of Correction, however, said its personnel had followed the state’s approved execution procedures and maintained that the pentobarbital used in the protocol had previously proven effective.

The department said the protocol did not permit officials to continue with additional procedures after the prescribed steps had been completed, leaving the state with a bizarre situation in which its execution protocol had been exhausted while the condemned prisoner remained alive.

Lee subsequently suspended the state’s remaining execution for 2026 and ordered a “comprehensive, third-party review” of what occurred.

Pike’s attorneys said that response does not go far enough and called on Lee to commute her death sentence to life imprisonment.

“The governor’s call for an independent review does not go far enough,” Spivey said in response.

“After having endured solitary confinement for more than 20 years, and a full attempt to kill her by lethal injection, Christa has endured punishment greater than any other person in the history of the American death penalty.

It remains uncertain whether Tennessee will ultimately attempt to execute Pike again. Legal experts said a second attempt would almost certainly trigger extensive constitutional litigation, although previous cases involving failed executions have established that surviving an execution attempt does not automatically prevent a state from trying again.

The controversy has also spilled into Tennessee politics, with Sen. Marsha Blackburn, the Republican nominee for governor, calling for the state to return to electrocution.

“While there should be a thorough review of what happened and why the process failed, the answer is simple: bring back the electric chair and deliver justice for these victims swiftly,” Blackburn wrote on social media.

“As your governor, I will do just that.”

The botched execution is especially damaging for Tennessee because it follows years of problems surrounding the state’s lethal-injection procedures.

Tennessee abandoned its previous three-drug lethal-injection method in favor of a single dose of pentobarbital in 2024. That overhaul followed the state’s admission two years earlier that it had failed to properly test execution drugs, leading Lee to suspend executions and order a review.

Questions surrounding the state’s execution system intensified again earlier this year when Tennessee attempted to execute Tony Carruthers, who was sentenced to death for the 1994 kidnapping and murders of three people in Memphis.

Carruthers’ execution was also halted. His sister later filed a complaint against the doctor involved in the procedure, alleging that Carruthers endured severe pain and was left partially paralyzed after suffering a stroke.

Pike’s failed execution has now produced another review of a system Tennessee had already overhauled following its previous problems.

Pike has been on death row for three decades for the brutal 1995 murder of 19-year-old Colleen Slemmer, a fellow student in the Job Corps program in Knoxville.

Prosecutors said Pike, then 18, became convinced that Slemmer was trying to steal her boyfriend, 17-year-old Tadaryl Shipp. Pike, Shipp and 18-year-old Shadolla Peterson lured Slemmer to an isolated location on the University of Tennessee’s Knoxville campus.

Peterson served as a lookout while Pike and Shipp subjected Slemmer to a prolonged and horrific attack. Prosecutors said they carved a pentagram into her chest with a box cutter, struck her with a meat cleaver and repeatedly cut her throat while she begged for her life.

Investigators said the torture lasted at least 30 minutes before Pike killed Slemmer by smashing her head with a large piece of asphalt. Pike subsequently kept a fragment of Slemmer’s skull as a souvenir.

Pike was convicted and sentenced to death in 1996. Shipp received life imprisonment because he was a juvenile when the murder occurred, while Peterson received probation after pleading guilty as an accessory and testifying against Pike and Shipp.

Pike’s troubles continued behind bars. In 2001, she was convicted of attempting to murder another inmate by strangling her with a shoestring and received an additional 25-year sentence.

Authorities later uncovered an elaborate 2012 plot to help Pike escape from the Tennessee Prison for Women in Nashville. The scheme involved a corrections officer and a New Jersey personal trainer with whom Pike had developed a relationship.

Wednesday’s execution would have made Pike the first woman put to death by Tennessee since 1820, when Martin Eve, who had been convicted as an accessory to murder, was executed by hanging.

Instead, Pike remained hospitalized Thursday after an execution that lasted for more than an hour, involved repeated attempts to access her veins and two administrations of pentobarbital — and ended with the condemned prisoner being taken from the death chamber for emergency life-saving medical care.

Thirty years after Bibi Netanyahu’s dramatic election as prime minister, a remarkable account is shedding new light on the crucial role played by the Pnei Menachem of Ger zt”l and Rav Elazar Menachem Man Shach zt”l in rallying the chareidi community behind Netanyahu at a time when his chances of defeating Shimon Peres appeared remote.

At the center of the story was a lengthy and highly confidential meeting between Netanyahu and the Pnei Menachem in January 1996. The Gerer Rebbe urged Netanyahu to first unite the fractured right-wing camp, while assuring him that the Rebbe would deal with the question of chareidi support through the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah.

The backdrop was one of the most turbulent periods in Israeli politics. Yitzchak Rabin had brought Labor back to power in 1992 after 15 years of right-wing rule, and his government subsequently pursued the Oslo Accords amid a devastating wave of Palestinian terrorism. Netanyahu, who assumed leadership of Likud after Yitzchak Shamir’s departure, emerged as one of the leading opponents of the Oslo process.

Following Rabin’s assassination, Shimon Peres became prime minister and initially appeared to hold a commanding advantage over Netanyahu. Elections scheduled for later in 1996 were moved up to May 29, and under Israel’s new direct-election system, voters would cast one ballot for a party and a separate ballot for prime minister.

That created an unprecedented shailah for the chareidi community: Should Torah-observant Jews be instructed to cast a direct ballot for a secular candidate for prime minister?

Netanyahu had been seeking a meeting with the Pnei Menachem, then the nasi of Agudas Yisroel’s Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah. With the assistance of Chaim Miller, a close confidant of the Rebbe and deputy mayor of Yerushalayim, the meeting was finally arranged.

On 17 Teves 5756, January 9, 1996, Netanyahu traveled discreetly to the Rebbe’s home in an ordinary vehicle. The Gerer leadership had insisted that the meeting be conducted in complete secrecy.

The private conversation lasted approximately an hour and a half, an unusually lengthy meeting for a political visitor to the Rebbe.

The Pnei Menachem was deeply familiar with the Oslo agreements and the political and security situation facing Eretz Yisroel. He listened to Netanyahu, discussed the situation with him and concluded that the dangers facing the country required preparations for the coming election.

The right-wing camp at the time was badly divided. Likud itself contained competing power centers, while Rafael Eitan headed Tzomet and David Levy led Gesher.

The Pnei Menachem gave Netanyahu a clear directive: First put your own house in order. Unite the right-wing parties and their leaders, and the Rebbe would bring the issue before the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah and deal with the chareidi community.

Netanyahu subsequently devoted considerable effort to unifying the right, ultimately producing the joint Likud-Gesher-Tzomet list under his leadership.

After Netanyahu left, the Pnei Menachem reportedly told his son Rav Daniel Alter that there was no other viable candidate representing the right and that efforts therefore had to be made to ensure Netanyahu’s election.

The issue subsequently came before the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah in a tense and consequential meeting. The central shailah was whether the Moetzes could explicitly instruct the chareidi public to cast its prime-ministerial ballot for a candidate who was not a shomer Torah u’mitzvos.

Some members favored issuing instructions only regarding the Agudas Yisroel ballot while remaining silent about the separate vote for prime minister.

The Pnei Menachem, together with the Sadigura Rebbe, the Modzitzer Rebbe and Rav Fishel Rabinowitz, favored an explicit directive to vote for Netanyahu.

The Pnei Menachem reasoned that many chareidim would vote for Netanyahu regardless. If the Moetzes remained silent, it could effectively amount to a directive that much of the public would find impossible to follow. Better, he argued, to reach appropriate understandings with Netanyahu beforehand and then issue a clear directive.

There was also precedent. During the 1993 Yerushalayim mayoral race between Ehud Olmert and Teddy Kollek, the Pnei Menachem had sent representatives to Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt”l to discuss whether the chareidi community could support Olmert, a secular candidate. Ultimately, the chareidi community backed Olmert, who defeated Kollek.

Rav Shach zt”l, who by then was rarely seen publicly, was also presented with the question of whether the Torah community should support Peres or Netanyahu. According to the account, Rav Shach gave then-Degel HaTorah chairman Rav Avrohom Ravitz a decisive ruling in favor of Netanyahu.

Although Netanyahu was not a shomer Torah u’mitzvos, Rav Shach strongly opposed the political and ideological direction represented by Peres and signed a public letter calling for support of the right-wing candidate. The directive was publicized through Yated Ne’eman and the chareidi election apparatus and helped mobilize tens of thousands of voters.

The Pnei Menachem himself did not live to see the election. He was niftar suddenly on 16 Adar 5756, several months before Israelis went to the polls.

Before his petirah, however, he reportedly met Netanyahu again and reiterated his message: Netanyahu should unite his own camp, while the Rebbe would ensure that his own community supported him.

The Pnei Menachem then reportedly gave Netanyahu an extraordinary assurance: “Don’t worry, you will be elected.” At the time, with Peres still appearing to hold a substantial advantage, the prediction seemed difficult to understand.

Following the Pnei Menachem’s petirah, the current Gerer Rebbe assumed the leadership of Ger. He investigated what his predecessor’s position had been and continued along the same path. Together with the direction of the other members of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, the result was overwhelming chareidi support for Netanyahu.

A remarkable story from election night illustrates the confidence that remained in the Pnei Menachem’s home.

When the polls closed at 10 p.m., the initial picture suggested that Peres had won. One of the Pnei Menachem’s household members telephoned the Rebbetzin in distress and told her that things looked bleak.

The Rebbetzin was unmoved. She instructed him to call her again the following morning, explaining that after the Rebbe’s meeting with Netanyahu, she had heard her husband say explicitly that the left-wing government would fall and that Peres would not remain prime minister.

By morning, the country awoke to a political earthquake. Netanyahu had defeated Peres by less than one percentage point and would become prime minister.

Another remarkable episode took place during the shivah for the Pnei Menachem. Netanyahu came to be menachem avel the Rebbe’s sons and told them that their father had urged him to continue pursuing the premiership with all his strength and had assured him that he would one day become prime minister.

Rav Shaul Alter responded that his father’s assurance had come together with another instruction: Netanyahu had to make certain that the entire right-wing camp was united.

Netanyahu reportedly responded that if he became prime minister, the Pnei Menachem would have been proven a prophet.

One final episode provides a particularly revealing glimpse into what stood behind the Pnei Menachem’s involvement.

Dr. Eli Schussheim zt”l, widely known as the “doctor of the Gedolei Yisroel,” later related that shortly after Netanyahu’s meeting with the Pnei Menachem, he received a telephone call from Netanyahu requesting an urgent meeting.

According to Dr. Schussheim, Netanyahu told him that the Pnei Menachem had said that if he wanted the support of the Rebbe, Agudas Yisroel and the broader chareidi community, he should assist Dr. Schussheim in his work concerning abortion.

Dr. Schussheim later expressed his amazement at what the encounter revealed. With a national election looming and enormous political questions on the table, the matter occupying the Pnei Menachem was the protection of Jewish life and the strengthening of Torah and Yiddishkeit.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli authorities are seeking to question the Flydubai copilot accused of attacking the captain of Flight FZ1073 after both pilots were transferred from Saudi Arabia to the United Arab Emirates, as investigators work to determine the motive for the extraordinary midair attack and whether anyone else was involved.

Saudi Arabia’s Interior Ministry issued its most detailed account of the incident Thursday, confirming that its preliminary investigation found that the copilot attacked the captain before the Dubai-to-Tel Aviv flight was forced to make an emergency landing in Tabuk.

The Saudi statement notably did not mention that the aircraft had been headed to Israel or that most of its passengers were Israeli. It also did not identify the nationalities of either pilot and stopped short of describing the incident as terrorism.

According to the Saudi Interior Ministry, FZ1073 received authorization for an emergency landing and touched down at Tabuk International Airport at 9:45 a.m. Wednesday. There were 174 passengers and eight crew members aboard, all of whom received assistance following the landing.

At approximately 5:40 p.m., the passengers departed Saudi Arabia aboard a replacement Flydubai aircraft. The other crew members were flown back to Dubai on a separate company aircraft, while the captain and copilot remained in Saudi Arabia to receive medical treatment.

Saudi officials said the preliminary investigation was carried out together with a security team from the UAE. According to the initial findings, “the captain was attacked by his deputy, causing both of them to be injured.”

Both pilots have now left Saudi Arabia. After their medical conditions improved and doctors approved their transfer, the captain and copilot were flown Thursday morning to Abu Dhabi accompanied by UAE security personnel.

The UAE has since opened its own investigation into the incident, with a specialized team of prosecutors assigned to determine precisely what occurred aboard the aircraft. Emirati authorities are examining the motive for the attack, including whether it was connected to terrorism and whether it involved advance planning or direction from others.

Saudi Arabia’s account described the episode as an assault between two members of the flight crew but offered no explanation for what prompted it. The statement also did not address reports that the copilot is an Omani citizen or Israeli allegations that he attempted to seize control of the aircraft and deliberately crash it.

A source familiar with the investigation said Israeli authorities are seeking to question the alleged attacker in the coming days as they attempt to establish his motive, background and whether he had accomplices.

Israeli security officials are also examining how an Omani national was reportedly assigned to operate a flight bound for Israel. Under aviation-security arrangements between Israel and the UAE, crew members from countries that do not maintain diplomatic relations with Israel are reportedly not supposed to serve aboard flights to Israel.

The investigation has also expanded to determine whether an outside actor played any role in the attack, with particular attention being given to possible Iranian involvement. Israeli officials have said they have not yet established such a connection and are examining whether the copilot acted alone.

President Donald Trump was asked Thursday whether he had received information connecting the Omani copilot to Iran.

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

Asked whether the United States would retaliate against Iran if investigators ultimately determined that Tehran was responsible, Trump responded: “Yes, they will be hit very hard – don’t worry.”

Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has said investigators are working to establish exactly what motivated the alleged attacker and whether anyone assisted or directed him.

“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.

Netanyahu also said Thursday that information obtained thus far indicates that the copilot had undergone Islamist radicalization. Israeli intelligence officials are reportedly examining whether he was acting independently or had been recruited or directed by another party.

Flight FZ1073 departed Dubai Wednesday morning bound for Tel Aviv with 174 passengers and eight crew members aboard. Four Americans were reportedly among the passengers.

During the flight, the aircraft transmitted emergency signals, including a code indicating unlawful interference aboard the plane. Israeli fighter jets were scrambled and senior security officials convened urgent consultations as authorities attempted to understand what was unfolding in the air.

According to passenger accounts and Israeli officials, the copilot attacked Captain Smit Machchhar, an Indian citizen, inside the cockpit. The badly wounded captain nevertheless managed to open the cockpit door, allowing passengers and other crew members to enter.

Passengers then fought with and subdued the alleged attacker as the aircraft rapidly lost altitude. Flight-tracking data showed the Boeing 737 MAX plunging thousands of feet within seconds before eventually stabilizing.

Several Israelis helped restrain the copilot, while medically trained passengers treated the wounded captain. Qualified pilots who happened to be traveling aboard the aircraft subsequently entered the cockpit and helped bring the plane safely to Tabuk.

Machchhar, an experienced commercial pilot with thousands of flight hours, was initially hospitalized in Saudi Arabia before being transferred to Abu Dhabi for continued treatment and recovery.

India’s ambassador to the UAE visited Machchhar in the hospital and reported that he was recovering well and in good spirits.

The alleged attacker was also transferred to the UAE, where investigators are now seeking to determine whether the incident was an individual act, an ideologically motivated terror attack or part of a broader plot.

Saudi authorities concluded their statement by emphasizing that the kingdom handled the emergency in accordance with its international and humanitarian obligations and that its aviation and security agencies are prepared to respond quickly to unusual incidents.

{Matzav.com}

An urgent legal application has been filed in Yerushalayim District Court against BSH Home Appliances, the Israeli importer and distributor of Bosch, Siemens and Neff ovens, over allegations that ovens marketed with a “Shabbos Mode” can cause users to unknowingly violate Shabbos.

According to the application, opening the oven door while the feature is activated causes the heating elements to shut off, while closing the door causes them to resume operation. The applicants contend that Shabbos-observant consumers relied on the feature believing that ordinary use of the oven would not directly affect its electrical operation.

The legal action was brought by Beni Landau and Varda Teller as part of a request to have the case certified as a class action.

The two are now seeking temporary relief from the court even before the class-action request is decided. They want BSH to be required to clearly inform both existing customers and prospective purchasers about precisely how the ovens’ “Shabbos Mode” operates.

According to the filing, the very use of the term “Shabbos Mode,” together with the program’s features, creates the impression for a Shabbos-observant customer that the setting was designed to permit use of the oven on Shabbos without routine actions by the user switching electrical components on or off.

The applicants specifically point to opening the oven door, an ordinary and necessary action when removing food.

Teller said in a declaration submitted with the case that she purchased a Siemens oven in December 2023 and that the availability of “Shabbos Mode” was an important consideration in her decision. She said the feature ultimately helped determine which appliance she selected from among the products she was considering.

According to Teller, she understood the setting to mean that the oven could be used on Shabbos without opening or closing the door triggering changes to the heating system.

She subsequently discovered, however, that opening and closing the door did affect the heating elements. Teller said that after learning how the system operated and making a halachic inquiry, she stopped using the oven on Shabbos.

The court filing also includes details of a conversation with a service manager representing the importer.

During that conversation, the manager reportedly explained that European regulations require the heating elements to shut off when an oven door is opened and to resume operation once the door is closed.

At the same time, the company representative stressed that BSH does not advertise the ovens’ “Shabbos Mode” as carrying halachic certification.

Landau and Teller are asking the court to intervene immediately rather than wait for a final determination on whether the case should proceed as a class action.

Among the measures they are requesting is an order preventing the relevant ovens from being sold without customers receiving clear information about how the feature works.

They are also asking the court to require BSH, within 96 hours, to publish a notice on its websites and customer-service pages, place notices in two daily newspapers, and directly contact customers whose information is already in the company’s possession.

At this stage, the applicants are not asking the court to order BSH to replace or repair the ovens, halt their sale altogether or pay compensation.

Instead, the immediate relief being sought focuses specifically on warning consumers while the court considers whether to certify the broader class-action case.

Bosch had not responded to a request for comment by the time the original report was published.

Dr. Itamar Miron, an attorney with the Miron Ben Zion Prives law firm representing the applicants, sharply criticized BSH’s alleged handling of the matter.

“This is one of the most serious consumer scandals to have occurred in the State of Israel. More than five years ago, BSH saw fit to warn Shabbos-observant customers abroad and open a service channel for them regarding Shabbos Mode in Bosch and Siemens ovens. Nevertheless, no similar public warning was issued in Israel, and innocent customers continue to violate Shabbos while mistakenly relying on the setting known as Shabbos Mode. Instead of selectively offering a complaining customer a budget for two replacement ovens in order to bury the affair, the importer must promptly inform, address and compensate thousands of other customers whom it chose to mislead regarding something that is more precious to them than anything else.”

{Matzav.com}