Feed aggregator

Despite his advanced age and health challenges, Rav Yitzchok Katz, rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Nishmas Yisroel in Paris, made a special trip from France to Eretz Yisroel to participate in the elections for the 26th Knesset, continuing a practice he began years ago at the personal instruction of Maran Rav Aharon Leib Shteinman zt”l.

Rav Katz, who was approaching the age of 80, departed France on Monday, undertaking the journey specifically to cast his ballot in Israel. His decision came just one week after he publicly recounted the instructions he had received from Rav Shteinman and Maran Rav Gershon Edelstein zt”l concerning the importance of participating in Israeli elections.

The rosh yeshiva explained that his decision to travel was motivated not only by his commitment to the instructions of his rabbeim, but also by his desire to set a personal example for others whom he encouraged to vote.

“How can I encourage the public to vote when I myself do not do so?” Rav Katz asked, explaining why he was prepared to undertake the journey despite the difficulties involved.

The trip was reported Monday by Kol Chai Radio, where Rav Katz had discussed his previous election-related journeys during an interview the preceding week on the program Tzav Hasha’ah, hosted by Bnei Brak Deputy Mayor Gudi Silman.

During that interview, the rosh yeshiva revealed that he had previously flown from France to Israel on two separate occasions solely to participate in Knesset elections, following a direct instruction from Rav Shteinman.

“Twice I traveled especially to Eretz Yisroel to vote, in accordance with Rav Shteinman’s instruction,” Rav Katz recalled. “He told me that one must vote, that it is literally a matter of pikuach nefesh.”

Rav Katz explained that he had regarded the instruction as binding despite the considerable inconvenience involved in traveling internationally for the purpose of casting a ballot.

The trips had required financial expenditures, time away from his responsibilities in the yeshiva, and interruptions to his regular learning schedule. Nevertheless, he said, the directive he had received from Rav Shteinman left no doubt in his mind about the importance of making the journey.

Although he could no longer recall precisely which election campaigns had prompted those earlier trips, Rav Katz said he vividly remembered the instruction itself and his determination to fulfill it.

Rav Katz had spent decades involved in harbotzas Torah in France, having originally traveled there on a mission from Maran Rav Elazar Menachem Man Shach zt”l.

As rosh yeshiva of Nishmas Yisroel in Paris, he had devoted many years to Torah education and strengthening Jewish religious life in the French community.

His connection to the Gedolei Yisroel in Eretz Yisroel had remained a significant part of his approach to communal matters, including questions concerning political participation.

During the radio interview, Rav Katz also recounted a particularly memorable encounter with Rav Gershon Edelstein that had taken place following another election-related journey from France.

On that occasion, Rav Katz had traveled to Israel accompanied by a Jewish man from France who had obtained Israeli citizenship.

The two had arrived in Israel during the morning hours and proceeded to cast their ballots.

Later that evening, they traveled to the home of Rav Edelstein, hoping to visit the rosh yeshiva.

However, Rav Edelstein had been experiencing elevated blood pressure that day and, because of his medical condition, was not receiving visitors.

When Rav Edelstein was informed that the two men had traveled all the way from France specifically to participate in the election, he agreed to receive them despite his weakness.

Rav Katz recalled the encounter with emotion.

“Even though he was lying down, he got up and received us warmly, thanked us, and blessed us. It was truly a special occasion,” he said.

The rosh yeshiva described the meeting as an experience that had remained with him long afterward, particularly because Rav Edelstein had made the effort to greet them despite not feeling well.

For Rav Katz, the encounter had reinforced the importance that the Gedolei Yisroel attached to participation in the electoral process.

With another Knesset election approaching, Rav Katz once again decided to make the journey.

The passage of time had made the undertaking more difficult. Approaching his eightieth birthday and dealing with health challenges, the rosh yeshiva faced greater physical demands than during his previous trips.

Nevertheless, he chose to travel to Israel rather than simply encourage others to participate from abroad.

His latest journey followed the same pattern as his earlier visits, in which he had traveled from France to Eretz Yisroel specifically for the purpose of voting.

The decision also carried particular significance for his talmidim and other Israeli citizens living outside the country, some of whom faced practical obstacles when seeking to participate in elections.

Unlike many countries, Israel generally did not permit its citizens residing abroad to vote at embassies or consulates. With limited exceptions for certain categories of official personnel, eligible Israeli voters were required to be physically present in Israel to cast their ballots.

For an Israeli citizen living in France, participating in a Knesset election therefore required international travel in most circumstances.

{Matzav.com}

[Video below.] Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, confronted UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese during a heated session on Monday, presenting her with a resignation letter already drafted in her name and demanding that she step down over what he described as her persistent anti-Israel bias, false accusations, and willingness to overlook the crimes of Hamas.

The extraordinary confrontation unfolded as Albanese, the UN’s special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, presented her latest report accusing Israel of systematically targeting journalists and media personnel during the war in Gaza. Danon rejected her findings and accused her of exploiting her international position to promote an extremist political agenda rather than conducting an impartial examination of human rights violations.

“You are a liar, a fraud, and a stain on the United Nations. Your accusations are not proof, your assumptions are not evidence, and repeating the word ‘genocide’ does not make it true. You claim to defend human rights while ignoring the Hamas terrorist organization that tramples them,” Danon declared.

The Israeli envoy then produced a resignation letter that had been prepared for Albanese to sign. The document, written as though Albanese herself were submitting her resignation, accused her of abusing her UN mandate to advance Hamas’s ideology, excuse terrorism, and spread hostility toward Israel while claiming to act in defense of human rights.

Danon made clear that he believed Albanese had forfeited the credibility necessary to continue serving as a UN human rights investigator.

“You are undermining the credibility of the United Nations and exploiting its emblem to spread anti-Israel propaganda. The only official letter you should issue is your resignation letter. It’s time for you to go home,” he told her.

https://matzav.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/VIDEO-2026-10-27-08-09-13.mp4

The confrontation marked another escalation in the long-running dispute between Israel and Albanese, an Italian lawyer who has served as the UN special rapporteur for the Palestinian territories since 2022. Throughout her tenure, she has repeatedly accused Israel of grave violations of international law, including genocide, while Israeli officials have denounced her reports as politically motivated and fundamentally hostile to the Jewish state.

The latest dispute centers on Albanese’s report to the UN General Assembly, identified as document A/81/249, which examines the treatment of Palestinian journalists and media organizations during the Gaza war. Albanese alleges that Israeli actions against members of the media form part of a broader pattern of violations. Israel disputes her conclusions and rejects the suggestion that its military operations constitute a deliberate campaign against journalists.

Danon’s confrontation was accompanied by a separate American demand for Albanese’s removal, adding significant diplomatic pressure to the calls for her resignation.

During a meeting of the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee on Monday, Jeff Bartos, the United States representative for UN management and reform, delivered a sharply worded condemnation of Albanese, accusing her of spreading hostility toward Israel, the United States, and Jewish people.

Bartos described Albanese as a “moral fugitive” and a “lunatic,” and accused the United Nations of allowing its human rights apparatus to be used to promote inflammatory political messages.

“[The UN] allows a charlatan to soil the UN uniform—even as she stokes the very conflicts this body was created to end—and even as her words are found in terrorists’ chants,” Bartos said.

The American representative also claimed that other diplomats privately share his concerns about Albanese but have been unwilling to express them publicly.

“Start by saying publicly what you say to me privately. That the UN should not be a nursery for evil. That its brand has been soiled long enough. That Albanese must go,” Bartos declared.

The coordinated criticism from Israeli and American representatives comes more than a year after the Trump administration imposed sanctions on Albanese in July 2025. The administration accused her of pursuing actions against American and Israeli individuals through the International Criminal Court and engaging in what Washington characterized as an illegitimate campaign against Israel.

Albanese condemned the sanctions as an attack on her independence and maintained that her work was grounded in international law. Her supporters have similarly argued that efforts to punish or remove her threaten the independence of UN human rights investigators.

The controversy surrounding Albanese predates the latest confrontation. In 2022, previously published social media comments surfaced in which she had referred to the influence of the “Jewish lobby” over American policy. Critics described the language as antisemitic, while Albanese rejected that interpretation and maintained that her remarks had been “mischaracterized.”

Her statements following the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre further intensified criticism from Israeli officials. Albanese argued that the attack needed to be examined within the broader historical and political “context” of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an approach critics said minimized the responsibility of Hamas for the atrocities committed against Israeli civilians.

In subsequent reports, Albanese accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza, allegations that the Israeli government has consistently rejected. Israel maintains that its military campaign was launched in response to the October 7 massacre and was directed against Hamas and its military infrastructure.

Earlier this year, Albanese faced renewed international criticism after participating in an Al Jazeera conference in Doha. During her remarks, she criticized governments that had continued supplying Israel with military, diplomatic, and economic support.

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

Her remarks prompted criticism from European officials, including French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot, who called for her resignation. However, the controversy also involved disagreement over an edited recording of her comments, with Albanese insisting that critics had falsely attributed to her a statement identifying Israel itself as humanity’s common enemy.

She subsequently insisted she “never, ever, ever said ‘Israel is the common enemy of humanity,'” describing the allegations as “completely false accusations.”

France nevertheless maintained its demand that she leave her position, citing what its foreign minister characterized as a broader history of unacceptable statements concerning Israel and the October 7 massacre.

The latest confrontation also follows another controversy involving Albanese earlier this month, when she called for an International Criminal Court investigation of Israeli journalists and public officials over alleged incitement to genocide. Her proposal prompted criticism from those who argued that it threatened freedom of expression and improperly targeted members of the Israeli media.

Last week, Israeli actress and model Sarai Givaty filed a defamation lawsuit seeking 500,000 shekels in damages from Albanese over an alleged comparison involving Nazi imagery. The legal action added another dimension to the disputes surrounding the rapporteur’s public statements.

Despite the mounting criticism, Albanese has continued defending her work and insisting that international scrutiny of Israel’s actions is necessary. She has argued that accusations of antisemitism are being used to discredit investigations into alleged abuses against Palestinians.

Her supporters contend that special rapporteurs must be free to investigate governments without facing political retaliation, while Israel and the United States maintain that the independence of such officials does not exempt them from standards of impartiality and professional conduct.

UN special rapporteurs are independent experts appointed by the Human Rights Council. They do not serve as diplomatic representatives of their home countries, and their findings do not constitute binding legal judgments by the United Nations. Their mandates allow them to investigate and report on human rights concerns, but their conclusions may be challenged by governments and other parties.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul has openly expressed her desire to see Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu defeated in Israel’s election, suggesting that his departure from office would make governing New York considerably less difficult. Her remarks, published Tuesday in an interview with Politico, have drawn attention to her apparent connection between Netanyahu’s policies and the escalating antisemitism confronting Jewish communities across New York.

Hochul, who has repeatedly emphasized her commitment to protecting Jewish residents, indicated that the political direction of Israel has complicated her responsibilities at home. Asked about the prospect of Netanyahu losing power, the Democratic governor acknowledged that her job would become “a lot easier” if the Israeli leader were no longer in office.

Reflecting on her visit to Israel following the Hamas massacre of October 7, 2023, Hochul said she had privately warned Israeli officials against pursuing a military response that could diminish international sympathy for the Jewish state.

“I went to Israel right after Oct. 7. I saw a lot of pain there. But I actually cautioned the government there, in private conversations, not to overreach,” Hochul said. “The world is with you when it comes to the brutal assault by a terrorist organization known as Hamas on innocent Israeli people. An overreach could change that dynamic, and that’s what’s happened.”

Her comments suggested that she believes Israel’s conduct during the war in Gaza contributed to a deterioration in public attitudes toward Israel, creating additional challenges for Jewish communities in New York. The governor did not, however, establish a direct causal connection between Netanyahu’s leadership and individual antisemitic attacks in her state.

“A lot of people are anxious about antisemitism, which is sky-high right now,” she added, “And I take that personally, because I represent everyone.”

Hochul also reiterated her support for the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, arguing that Netanyahu’s continued leadership represents a major obstacle to achieving such an arrangement.

“I believe we have to get people of goodwill who can make this happen, and as long as Netanyahu is sitting there, that is not in his interest to do that. It’s just not, and it won’t happen.”

The governor maintained that she remains committed to safeguarding New York’s Jewish population, particularly as synagogues, yeshivos, and other Jewish institutions face continuing security concerns. She pointed to the need for government funding to protect religious facilities from threats and violence.

“Those of us who are just trying to just do the right thing and let the Jewish people know I’m protecting them in the city, that I have to worry about security grants to protect synagogues and yeshivas from violence. There was another attack recently.”

Hochul’s remarks come amid continuing criticism of her response to antisemitism, with detractors arguing that her administration has failed to confront certain political figures and activist organizations whose rhetoric and activities have alarmed Jewish New Yorkers.

Among the issues cited by critics is her relationship with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, whose statements concerning Israel and the war in Gaza have repeatedly generated controversy. Critics have accused Hochul of failing to challenge Mamdani forcefully, including following his statement marking the anniversary of the October 7 massacre, which they said devoted substantially greater attention to accusations against Israel than to the Hamas atrocities that precipitated the war.

The controversy has also extended to anti-Israel demonstrations targeting Jewish gatherings and institutions in New York City. Jeffrey Lax, a professor at the City University of New York School of Law and founder of Students and Faculty for Equality at CUNY, criticized Hochul in a New York Post opinion piece published Monday, accusing her of failing to respond adequately to harassment directed at Jewish participants in a real estate gathering in Riverdale, in the Bronx.

According to Lax, activists involved in the Riverdale incident were affiliated with the same anti-Israel organization associated with previous demonstrations targeting Jewish communities and synagogues throughout the city. His criticism centered on what he characterized as the governor’s unwillingness to take a sufficiently forceful stand against intimidation of Jewish New Yorkers.

The dispute places Hochul in a politically sensitive position as she seeks to balance her stated support for Jewish security with her opposition to Netanyahu’s policies. Her latest comments have brought renewed attention to the question of whether New York’s elected leaders are adequately addressing antisemitism as a domestic public safety problem, independently of their positions on Israeli politics.

The Riverdale controversy involved a planned gathering for Jewish families interested in purchasing property in Israel. After the anti-Israel group Pal-Awda announced plans to demonstrate against the event, organizers canceled the physical gathering and moved it online. The activist organization subsequently celebrated the cancellation, while local elected officials denounced the effort to intimidate Jewish participants.

Congressman Ritchie Torres, New York City Councilman Eric Dinowitz, Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, and Bronx Borough President Vanessa Gibson were among the officials who condemned the campaign. The incident followed similar protests against events involving Israeli property and immigration, including a Nefesh B’Nefesh fair in Queens that was relocated amid concerns about demonstrations.

Hochul’s comments also come against the backdrop of her increasingly cooperative relationship with Mamdani. In the same Politico interview, she described her relationship with the mayor as “very positive,” even as she distanced herself from the idea that his socialist political philosophy would necessarily appeal to voters throughout New York State.

Meanwhile, Israelis headed to polling stations Tuesday in a closely contested national election that could determine Netanyahu’s political future. His principal challenger, former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, has sought to capitalize on public dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of the October 7 attack and its aftermath. However, Israel’s multiparty parliamentary system means that even a strong showing by Netanyahu’s opponents would not necessarily guarantee his removal from office.

The election has also exposed differences between prominent American political figures. While Hochul has expressed a preference for Netanyahu’s defeat, President Donald Trump has publicly endorsed the Israeli prime minister, portraying his continued leadership as important to the American-Israeli partnership and efforts to confront Iran.

Former Israeli Supreme Court President Aharon Barak has issued a stark warning about the future of Israeli democracy, declaring that even the Supreme Court would be powerless to preserve the country’s democratic system if the public itself rejected its underlying principles. In an interview released on the eve of Tuesday’s Knesset elections, Barak sharply criticized Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government, described its ministers as puppets, and warned that Israel could become an autocracy if Justice Minister Yariv Levin’s proposed judicial changes were implemented.

Speaking with Oron Schwartz on the Israeli public broadcaster’s Mishpat Chozer podcast, Barak addressed the continuing struggle over the authority of the Supreme Court, the independence of Israel’s judiciary, and the relationship between elected political leaders and the legal establishment.

The former court president, widely regarded as the architect of Israel’s judicial revolution, expressed confidence in the current Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting the country’s democratic institutions. However, he acknowledged that the judiciary’s ability to preserve those institutions ultimately depends on the willingness of the broader public to maintain a democratic system.

“I think today’s Supreme Court is a court that will preserve Israeli democracy,” Barak said.

He immediately qualified that assessment with a warning about the limits of judicial power.

“If the people don’t want democracy, the court will not succeed in preserving democracy,” he declared.

Barak went further, suggesting that even Israel’s Declaration of Independence could eventually be replaced if the public no longer supported the principles associated with the founding document.

“If the people don’t want the Declaration of Independence, then they will find a way to cancel the Declaration of Independence, and they will create a new Declaration of Independence,” he said.

The remarks come at a particularly sensitive moment in Israeli politics, with the country preparing to vote in an election shaped in part by years of confrontation between Netanyahu’s government and the judiciary.

At the center of that dispute is a fundamental disagreement over the meaning of democratic government and the proper balance of authority between elected representatives and unelected judges.

Barak has long maintained that democracy involves more than the ability of a parliamentary majority to enact legislation. His judicial philosophy places substantial importance on constitutional principles, individual rights, and legal limitations on the exercise of governmental power.

Critics of Barak’s approach, including supporters of judicial reform, argue that the Israeli Supreme Court has accumulated excessive authority and that judicial intervention in political and legislative decisions can undermine the ability of elected officials to implement policies supported by voters.

Those competing views have driven one of the most divisive political controversies in Israel in recent years.

Barak’s latest comments addressed the question of what happens when the judiciary and the elected government fundamentally disagree over the boundaries of democratic authority.

His warning that the court could not preserve democracy against the wishes of the public reflected his view that judicial institutions cannot independently sustain a constitutional order without broader public support.

The former Supreme Court president also directed unusually harsh criticism at Netanyahu and the ministers serving in his government.

“Netanyahu’s ministers are puppets,” Barak said.

He argued that the concentration of political authority in Netanyahu’s hands had weakened the separation of powers, claiming that the prime minister effectively controlled both the executive branch and the Knesset.

In Barak’s assessment, the existing political arrangement has undermined the institutional independence that he considers necessary for democratic government.

He reserved particular criticism for Justice Minister Yariv Levin, whose proposals to restructure aspects of Israel’s judicial system have been at the center of the longstanding confrontation between the government and its opponents.

Barak warned that implementing Levin’s agenda would fundamentally alter Israel’s system of government.

“We will become an autocracy,” he said.

The assertion reflects Barak’s opposition to judicial reforms that would change the balance of power between the Supreme Court, the government, and the Knesset.

Supporters of Levin’s proposals have argued that changes to judicial appointments and the scope of judicial review are necessary to restore accountability and prevent the courts from exercising powers that properly belong to elected officials.

Opponents have maintained that such changes could weaken judicial independence and reduce institutional safeguards against government overreach.

The controversy has remained a central issue in Israeli political life, with disagreements extending beyond the details of individual legislative proposals to broader questions about the structure of the state.

During the interview, Barak also disclosed an unsuccessful attempt to influence Netanyahu’s selection of a justice minister before the government was formed.

According to Barak, he contacted American constitutional lawyer Alan Dershowitz and asked him to convey a message to Netanyahu urging him not to appoint Levin to the position.

Instead, Barak recommended Moshe Arbel, the Shas politician who later served as interior minister and health minister.

Explaining his preference for Arbel, Barak spoke warmly about his academic relationship with the Shas figure.

“I have a student at the university, at Reichman, who is a member of Knesset and asks me questions. He has a sharp and wonderful mind,” Barak recalled.

The former Supreme Court president indicated that he believed Arbel would have been a preferable choice to lead the Justice Ministry.

His intervention, however, failed to change Netanyahu’s decision.

“It didn’t help, and Bibi appointed Yariv Levin,” Barak said.

The disclosure was notable given the considerable ideological differences between Barak and the chareidi political parties, including Shas.

Despite those differences, Barak’s comments reflected his favorable personal assessment of Arbel, whom he knew through their academic interactions.

The former court president’s criticism of Levin also highlighted the extent to which the justice minister has become a central figure in the broader debate over Israel’s judiciary.

Levin has advocated structural changes intended to increase the influence of elected officials over the judicial system, while Barak and other opponents have warned that the proposed reforms threaten the independence of the courts.

Asked whether Israel was already approaching the political system he fears, Barak declined to make a definitive prediction about the outcome of the election.

“We will see what the election results are. I don’t know. With this government, we are heading in that direction,” he said.

The comments placed the approaching election at the center of Barak’s assessment of Israel’s democratic future.

Although Barak has repeatedly warned that the government’s judicial agenda threatens democratic institutions, he also acknowledged in the interview that the Supreme Court cannot indefinitely prevent political changes if the public supports them.

His remarks highlight the distinction he draws between electoral democracy, in which governments derive their authority from the voters, and liberal democracy, which also requires institutional checks on government power and protections for individual rights.

For supporters of judicial reform, the central issue remains whether judges should possess broad authority to overturn decisions made by elected representatives. Critics of the reforms, including Barak, contend that judicial oversight is necessary to prevent a parliamentary majority from weakening fundamental democratic safeguards.

The disagreement is especially significant in Israel, which does not have a single, comprehensive written constitution and instead relies on a series of Basic Laws, judicial precedents, and institutional arrangements to define the powers of government.

Barak’s legal philosophy has played a major role in shaping those arrangements, particularly through the expansion of judicial review during his years on the Supreme Court.

His opponents have long criticized that legacy, arguing that the judiciary acquired powers that were never explicitly authorized by the electorate. His supporters credit the same developments with strengthening legal protections against arbitrary government action.

The former Supreme Court president’s latest interview also drew attention to his unusual recommendation that Netanyahu appoint a Shas politician rather than Levin to the Justice Ministry, illustrating that his concerns about the government’s legal agenda are not limited to conventional divisions between religious and secular political parties.

Ultimately, Barak did not argue explicitly that an unelected minority should govern Israel or that election results should be disregarded. Rather, he maintained that the authority of an elected majority must operate within democratic limits, while warning that those limits themselves could be endangered if public support for them erodes.

{Matzav.com}

Rav Zamir Cohen, rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Avnei Nezer and rov of the Esrog neighborhood in Beitar Illit, has issued a strongly worded letter to his talmidim ahead of Tuesday’s Knesset elections, urging participation in the electoral process and warning against disregarding the instructions of Gedolei Yisroel when deciding how to vote.

In the letter, released Monday, Rav Cohen addresses the growing debate within the chareidi community over whether participation in the election is worthwhile, particularly amid dissatisfaction with the performance of chareidi political representatives and concerns about the future of Torah institutions in Eretz Yisroel.

The letter calls for Ashkenazi chareidim to support United Torah Judaism and Sephardic chareidim to support Shas, in accordance with the respective instructions of their rabbinic leadership.

Rav Cohen presents the issue as extending beyond ordinary political considerations, describing the election as a moment with significant implications for the future of Torah life and the religious character of the country.

His appeal comes as Israel prepares to elect the 26th Knesset, with the chareidi parties facing intense scrutiny over their handling of the yeshiva draft controversy, restrictions affecting Torah institutions, and other issues that have generated considerable frustration within portions of their traditional electorate.

At the beginning of his letter, Rav Cohen addresses those who are considering abstaining from the election because they believe their participation will accomplish little, as well as those contemplating support for parties that do not have the backing of Gedolei Yisroel.

He describes voting to strengthen Torah interests as “a privilege that is an absolute obligation according to halacha.”

According to Rav Cohen, that responsibility is particularly significant at the present time because of what he views as the serious challenges confronting Torah institutions and the future of Yiddishkeit in Eretz Yisroel.

The rosh yeshiva emphasizes that even a single additional Knesset seat could affect the political balance and the ability of chareidi representatives to address matters involving religious education and Torah institutions.

A central theme of the letter is Rav Cohen’s insistence that the significance of voting cannot be measured exclusively by the eventual distribution of Knesset seats.

He argues that participation also represents a public expression of identification with the Torah community and its rabbinic leadership.

“Every vote determines that another Jew belongs to the camp of those who tremble at the word of Hashem,” Rav Cohen writes.

He therefore urges his talmidim not to limit their involvement to casting their own ballots, but also to encourage others to participate.

The letter specifically distinguishes between the electoral instructions directed toward Sephardic and Ashkenazi chareidi voters, reflecting the traditional political affiliations of the two communities.

For Sephardic voters, Rav Cohen points to Shas, while for Ashkenazi voters he identifies the list endorsed by their Gedolei Yisroel, United Torah Judaism.

Rav Cohen also addresses the argument that individuals should independently evaluate the competing political options and reach their own conclusions, even when those conclusions differ from the guidance of their rabbonim and roshei yeshiva.

In one of the letter’s strongest passages, he warns against what he characterizes as an attitude of disregarding the authority of Torah leadership.

“And anyone who considers himself clever enough to follow his own judgment and the dictates of his heart, contrary to the guidance of his yeshiva and the Gedolei HaTorah of the generation, is paving his way toward a lowly and terrible course of life that no accomplished ben Torah would ever aspire to reach,” Rav Cohen writes.

The language reflects the emphasis Rav Cohen places on the relationship between a talmid and his rabbinic mentors, particularly when confronting questions that he regards as affecting the broader Torah community.

His letter comes amid a contentious election campaign in which some chareidi voters have openly questioned whether the established parties have adequately represented their interests.

The prolonged dispute over military conscription for yeshiva bochurim, together with financial restrictions affecting Torah institutions, has intensified public debate over the effectiveness of chareidi political representation.

Several smaller political movements have attempted to attract support from voters dissatisfied with the traditional parties, raising concerns among established party leaders about ballots being cast for lists that may fail to cross the electoral threshold.

Under Israel’s electoral system, a party must receive at least 3.25% of valid votes nationwide to qualify for Knesset representation. Votes cast for parties that fall below that threshold do not result in seats for those parties.

Rav Cohen’s letter addresses this broader atmosphere by placing particular emphasis on adherence to the instructions of Gedolei Yisroel rather than on individual assessments of political strategy or the accomplishments of particular representatives.

He portrays participation in the election as part of a larger responsibility toward the preservation and strengthening of Torah life in Eretz Yisroel.

The appeal is directed primarily to his own talmidim, whom he urges to recognize the importance of their actions and the influence they can have on others.

In his concluding remarks, Rav Cohen offers a bracha that the bnei hayeshiva merit continued growth and greatness in Torah and bring honor to Klal Yisroel.

He closes with a tefillah for the fulfillment of the words, “When Hashem returns to Tzion with mercy,” expressing his hope for the spiritual future of the Jewish people.

{Matzav.com}

Chareidi activists affiliated with Israel’s Otzma Yehudit party staged an unusual protest outside the Tel Aviv residence of Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara on Monday evening, presenting what they described as a symbolic “gift” of votes that could be lost to small political parties failing to cross the electoral threshold in Tuesday’s Knesset election.

The demonstrators installed a protest display outside the attorney general’s home, seeking to draw attention to concerns within the right-wing and chareidi political camps that thousands of ballots could be effectively wasted if voters support parties that do not receive enough votes to enter the Knesset.

The protest was organized as part of Otzma Yehudit’s final campaign efforts to reach chareidi voters, particularly those considering supporting smaller parties rather than the established chareidi and right-wing lists.

Explaining their decision to demonstrate outside Baharav-Miara’s residence, the activists declared, “We came to give Gali a ‘gift’ — the votes of chareidim who intend to vote for parties that will not cross the electoral threshold and throw their votes in the garbage.”

The demonstrators argued that ballots cast for parties that fail to enter the Knesset ultimately reduce the number of seats available to the political bloc those voters would otherwise support.

Under Israel’s electoral system, a party must receive at least 3.25% of the valid nationwide vote to qualify for Knesset representation. Parties falling below that threshold receive no seats, regardless of how many ballots they collect.

The activists used the display to portray such votes as a political benefit to Baharav-Miara and other figures whom the protesters regard as opponents of the right-wing government.

According to the demonstrators, votes lost to unsuccessful small parties represent a “political prize” for the attorney general and the political opposition.

The choice of location was intended to reinforce that message, with activists using Baharav-Miara as a symbol of the legal establishment that has frequently clashed with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government.

The attorney general has been at the center of numerous disputes involving the government, including disagreements over legal policy and the status of yeshiva students facing military conscription.

The demonstration came amid growing concern among right-wing party officials about the number of smaller political lists competing for votes from the same general electorate.

With the election only hours away, senior political figures have been making last-minute attempts to persuade leaders of smaller parties to withdraw their candidacies rather than risk dividing the vote.

On Sunday evening, Netanyahu met with Moti Leitner, chairman of the Chareidi Public Party, and urged him to withdraw from the election.

According to reports, Netanyahu warned that the party’s continued participation could result in votes being lost if it failed to cross the electoral threshold, potentially affecting the distribution of Knesset seats.

Leitner did not immediately agree to withdraw. Instead, he indicated that he would await commitments from the established chareidi parties before making a final decision.

The meeting reflected broader efforts by Netanyahu and other right-wing leaders to consolidate support among voters who might otherwise cast their ballots for smaller parties.

A separate effort involved Religious Zionism chairman Bezalel Smotrich, who approached Ofer Winter, the former senior IDF officer heading the Amcha Yisrael party, with an offer intended to persuade him to abandon his Knesset campaign.

Smotrich reportedly proposed appointing Winter to a ministerial position within the Defense Ministry in exchange for withdrawing his party from the race.

The proposal came amid warnings from Smotrich that the participation of Amcha Yisrael could have serious consequences for the right-wing bloc if the party attracted a significant number of votes but failed to secure parliamentary representation.

Smotrich described the possibility as a national political disaster and warned, “The votes that will be burned below the electoral threshold will make the difference between victory and defeat in the election.”

Winter’s party has been among the smaller lists attracting attention during the final stages of the campaign, particularly because of concerns that its supporters could otherwise have voted for parties already represented in the Knesset.

Meanwhile, another small party announced Monday that it was withdrawing from the contest.

The Hakahal party, headed by attorney Shlomo Elboim, said it would no longer participate in the election, just one day before voters were scheduled to head to the polls.

In announcing its decision, the party stated, “The decision was made out of deep responsibility toward the Jewish people and its Torah, and out of a commitment to the success of the camp of those who observe Torah and mitzvos in the election.”

The withdrawal followed mounting pressure on smaller parties to reconsider their participation as the election approached.

Although such withdrawals may be intended to influence voter behavior, their practical electoral implications depend on the applicable election procedures and whether a party’s name can still appear on ballots after the deadline for formally withdrawing has passed.

The dispute over smaller parties has become particularly prominent within the chareidi community, where some voters have expressed dissatisfaction with the established political leadership over the draft controversy, the arrest of yeshiva bochurim, and other unresolved issues.

That dissatisfaction has created an opening for smaller political movements seeking to attract voters who identify with the chareidi community but do not feel adequately represented by the traditional parties.

Leaders of the larger right-wing parties have responded by warning that votes for lists unable to reach the electoral threshold could alter the parliamentary balance, even if those voters share many of their political priorities.

The mathematical consequences of the threshold are straightforward: Ballots cast for a party that fails to qualify for the Knesset do not contribute to that party receiving seats. However, the precise effect on other parties depends on the overall distribution of votes and the electoral arrangements governing seat allocation.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, visited the Kosel Hamaaravi in Yerushalayim on Monday evening, just hours before Israelis were scheduled to head to the polls for the 26th Knesset elections. During the visit, Netanyahu placed a handwritten note between the ancient stones of the Kosel, offering a prayer for the safety of Israeli soldiers, victory over the country’s enemies, and the success of the Jewish people.

The prime minister’s office subsequently released an image of the note, which included a drawing of the Israeli flag alongside Netanyahu’s handwritten message.

In the note, Netanyahu wrote: “For the lives of the IDF soldiers, our heroes, for victory over our enemies, for the success of our people, the Eternity of Israel will not lie!”

The final words of the message were drawn from the posuk in Shmuel I, 15:29, “Netzach Yisroel lo yeshaker,” a phrase that Netanyahu has invoked on other occasions when speaking about the endurance of the Jewish people.

The prime minister was photographed writing in the Kosel’s guest book before approaching the stones and inserting his personal note into one of the crevices.

Sara Netanyahu accompanied her husband throughout the visit and was photographed wearing a black head covering, a detail that attracted attention in the photographs distributed following the appearance.

Images of the couple at the Kosel were released by the Western Wall Heritage Foundation, which oversees the holy site’s operations and arrangements for official visits.

Netanyahu has visited the Kosel on numerous occasions throughout his political career, particularly ahead of major national events, important political developments, and periods of heightened security concern.

One of his previous high-profile visits took place alongside Argentine President Javier Milei in the period preceding the outbreak of the war with Iran. The two leaders appeared together at the Kosel during Milei’s visit to Israel, reflecting the Argentine president’s publicly expressed admiration for Jewish history and his close relationship with Israel.

Monday evening’s appearance came against the backdrop of a highly charged election campaign, with Netanyahu seeking to retain the premiership amid political challenges and continuing debates over Israel’s security, the conduct of the war, and the composition of the next governing coalition.

The visit also followed a similar appearance by Gadi Eisenkot, the former IDF chief of staff and leader of the Yashar party, who visited the Kosel last week as part of his activities ahead of the election.

According to reports from that visit, several people at the site shouted expressions of disapproval toward Eisenkot as he arrived.

Visits to the Kosel ahead of elections and other major national events have become a familiar practice among Israeli political figures, who frequently come to the site for personal prayer at significant moments in their public lives.

For Netanyahu, Monday’s visit placed particular emphasis on the country’s soldiers and security challenges rather than explicitly referring to the election itself.

The handwritten note focused on the welfare of IDF personnel, the defeat of Israel’s adversaries, and the future of the Jewish people, with the biblical declaration at its conclusion expressing the theme of Jewish continuity.

The visit was also part of a busy final day of campaigning for the Likud leader. Earlier Monday, Netanyahu recorded numerous campaign videos, participated in interviews, spoke with undecided voters, and made a final series of appeals ahead of the opening of polling stations at 7 a.m. Tuesday.

Other Israeli political leaders also visited religious sites during the final hours of the campaign. Religious Zionism chairman Bezalel Smotrich and Otzma Yehudit leader Itamar Ben-Gvir visited the Kosel earlier Monday, while Eisenkot had made his appearance the previous week.

Netanyahu’s choice of words in Monday’s handwritten note was particularly notable because he had used the same biblical phrase, “Netzach Yisroel lo yeshaker,” to conclude his address to the United Nations General Assembly earlier this year.

The prime minister has previously left handwritten messages at the Kosel reflecting the circumstances facing Israel at the time of his visits.

In June 2025, shortly before Israel launched Operation Rising Lion against Iran, Netanyahu visited the Kosel together with Argentine President Javier Milei. On that occasion, he left a note containing the words from Parshas Balak, “Am kelavi yakum vecha’ari yisnasa,” the posuk from which the military operation took its name.

Approximately ten days later, Netanyahu returned to the Kosel and placed another note between its stones, declaring, “Hein am kelavi kam — Am Yisroel chai.” During that visit, he also offered prayers for Israeli soldiers and the hostages amid the continuing confrontation with Iran.

Netanyahu has similarly visited the Kosel before previous elections. In March 2020, ahead of voting for the 23rd Knesset, he arrived with Sara and left a handwritten prayer asking that the final campaign effort produce a government that would serve the Jewish people, Eretz Yisroel, and the State of Israel.

In January 2013, another election-related visit included a brief handwritten message expressing hope for Israel’s future with Divine assistance.

{Matzav.com}

[Video below.] In an unusually candid and wide-ranging conversation just hours before Israel’s Knesset elections, Maran Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch, rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Slabodka, addressed some of the most sensitive issues dividing the chareidi community, including the concerns of working chareidim, difficulties obtaining suitable schooling for their children, dissatisfaction with political representatives, and the ongoing controversy surrounding the draft of yeshiva bochurim.

During the meeting, Rav Hirsch firmly rejected the state-chareidi educational system, known in Israel as the Mamlachti Chareidi or MAMACH system, warning that its underlying purpose was to gradually transform the identity of chareidi families. At the same time, he acknowledged that families seeking stronger secular studies alongside a Torah education have legitimate needs that the established chareidi educational system should work to accommodate.

The conversation took place Monday at the rosh yeshiva’s residence, where businessman R’ Yissachar Knoll presented a series of questions reflecting concerns expressed by members of Israel’s working chareidi population. The discussion was held against the backdrop of the election campaign and the activities of a special organization working to mobilize employed chareidim on behalf of United Torah Judaism.

Rather than limiting the exchange to the immediate election, Knoll raised broader questions about the relationship between working families and the chareidi establishment. Among the issues discussed were the challenges parents encounter when seeking admission to schools and yeshivos, the desire for educational institutions offering substantial Torah instruction together with stronger general studies, and the perception that working chareidim are approached by political representatives primarily when their votes are needed.

The meeting also addressed feelings of distance from Gedolei Yisroel, criticism of chareidi political activists, and the question of how a father who works for a living can maintain an atmosphere of deep respect for Torah within his home.

Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch: Complete Questions and Answers With R’ Yissachar Knoll

Question: There are chareidi families who want educational institutions that combine Torah studies with high-level secular studies. People who work for a living feel that they are not treated with proper respect, that they are remembered only before elections, and that throughout the rest of the year they encounter difficulties getting their children accepted into schools and yeshivos. There is also a feeling of distance from Gedolei Yisroel. What do you say to those who ask why they should vote for United Torah Judaism when they do not feel that the party represents them?

Answer: There are two questions here. I will address the substance of the matter shortly, but even if we assume that you are correct, it is still appropriate to vote Gimmel. The reason is that there is a war against religion being waged against us unlike anything we have ever experienced here. Everything that can possibly be done to make things difficult for us is being done.

In Chinuch Atzmai, for example, it would have been possible to establish precisely the types of schools you want if there were more money and greater flexibility in how the existing funds could be used. That is how things worked over the years. The budget was provided in a manner that allowed us to do things and to exercise flexibility in its use.

Today, they have completely eliminated that possibility. This affects you as well. Chinuch Atzmai cannot provide what it previously could because of these restrictions.

Now they are also beginning with the seminaries. You send your daughters to Bais Yaakov and to seminary, and things are being done that increasingly diminish the kedushah of the seminaries. It could reach a point where the situation will no longer be good even for you.

There is also the problem of the Reform movement, which is investing millions to establish itself in Eretz Yisroel.

Today, even people who do not observe everything still recognize religion as the religion of Klal Yisroel. They know that Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are ours, even if they find it difficult to observe them.

The Reform movement wants to change that.

This will certainly affect you as well. It will affect all of us.

Therefore, even if we assume that nothing else is being accomplished, there must be a strong Gimmel. That is one answer.

Question: And what about the feeling of distance experienced by the working chareidi community? Would roshei yeshiva be willing to come and deliver a shiur or an address in more modern communities as well?

Answer: The claim that there is no activity throughout the year is incorrect. Throughout the entire year, work is being done to strengthen and bring closer people who work for a living.

There is an enormous amount of thought and effort invested in this. Much is being done to bring people closer, to arrange for kollel yungeleit to be together with them, and for roshei yeshiva to be together with them.

That feeling of distance was accurate ten years ago. Not now. Not today.

Question: Is the rosh yeshiva referring to programs such as Chelki B’Kehillasi and similar initiatives?

Answer: Yes. More and more is being done, and it is growing stronger.

Question: Is it possible to provide a solution for families who want educational institutions with more secular studies?

Answer: Part of the problem is that we do not have the money in Chinuch Atzmai that would enable us to provide you with the solution you need. That is the problem that leads people to turn to MAMACH.

Question: Parents say that in their MAMACH schools there is yiras Shomayim and the education is exceptional. Why oppose it?

Answer: I want to say one thing about MAMACH.

People come and say that in terms of yiras Shomayim, it is truly exceptional.

I ask: Was that the intention of those who established MAMACH? To create something that would be stronger than Chinuch Atzmai?

The intention was to bring you in, and then gradually introduce you to the concept that we are not a nation of the Torah, but a nation like all the other nations, and gradually change you.

You come and say: Do you know what my MAMACH school is like? It is truly exceptional. Why are you opposed to MAMACH?

But one does not have to be a great person to see what their objective is.

The fact that it is so good today was certainly not their objective. Their objective was something entirely different.

That is why MAMACH is not good.

But yes, we should have provided you with what you need.

If we have influence in the government, we will be able to strengthen Chinuch Atzmai as it was in the past, and then you will have what you need.

On the contrary.

Question: In other words, in principle, such an educational option could exist if there were sufficient funding and the flexibility to provide it?

Answer: Yes. We agree with the basic idea. In girls’ education as well, there are institutions with certain leniencies and differences intended to address these needs.

Question: In the wake of the draft crisis, the financial and personal restrictions, and the arrests of yeshiva bochurim, there is a strong feeling among the public that the chareidi representatives have failed to achieve their objectives and, at times, have even contributed to the atmosphere of anger directed against chareidim. Alongside the respect for Gedolei Yisroel, there is also criticism of the askanim and a feeling that sometimes the askanim do more harm than good. What do you say to those who do not want to continue supporting these representatives or askanim?

Answer: Several new, younger people have been chosen, people who have proven themselves in other positions and have been very successful.

We hope that here, too, their success will be more extensive.

We understand the complaint.

I think that the roshei yeshiva themselves will be more involved.

Because there are people in the Knesset who have closer connections to the roshei yeshiva, there will be a stronger relationship, so that what happened in the past will not happen again.

Question: A person who has gone out to work to support his family maintains a chareidi lifestyle, is careful about everything, and raises his children in the ways of the Torah, but his way of life is different from that of a kollel yungerman. What should be at the center of how he conducts his home, and how can he strengthen his own sense of belonging and that of his family?

Answer: I will take an example from America.

There are many people there who work, and they have a strong connection with bnei Torah.

This is expressed in the way they speak about bnei Torah: They speak about them with respect and admiration.

The child sees that his father looks in the Mishnah Berurah and does not simply issue a ruling on his own.

He sees that this is the halacha, that this is something important.

It is also important for the father to have a regular time for learning.

If the child sees that his father works, but values the Torah and also sets aside time himself to learn Torah, then, naturally, the child remains connected.

Question: Ultimately, it is what the father does at home that has the influence?

Answer: Yes.

At the conclusion of the conversation, R’ Knoll thanked the rosh yeshiva for the time he had devoted to the discussion.

{Matzav.com}

Kashrus In The Yeshiva Kitchen

In this episode of Let’s Talk Kashrus, Rabbi Meilech Friedman, Rosh HaMashgichim at Tartikov, discusses a critical but often overlooked issue: kashrus in yeshiva and school kitchens. From bishul Yisroel and the separation of milchigs and fleishigs to ingredient verification and proper supervision, he shares firsthand examples of the challenges that can arise when no one is taking responsibility. He also offers a practical suggestion for how parents can help bring about change by simply asking one important question: Does the mosad have hashgachah in its kitchen?

WATCH:

View it in its entirety at: https://www.kashrusawareness.com/post/nisht-beseder 

Listen wherever you get your podcasts!

https://open.spotify.com/show/6Rj5rIndHc886Fblqh8U49 

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/lets-talk-kashrus/id1631553497 

https://24six.app/app/podcast/collection/985

https://mytat.me/o112

https://www.kosher.com/shows/lets-talk-kashrus-73

CLICK HERE to watch more episodes of Let’s Talk Kashrus

______

We invite your questions, comments, or feedback. If there’s a specific kashrus topic you’d like to bring to public attention, feel free to contact us by email: info@kashrusawareness.com

Message or call: 678-8-Kosher

You can also visit our website  www.kashrusawareness.com for a growing list of resources, timely conversations, and to watch episodes of the Let’s Talk Kashrus audio-visual series.

Join a Let’s Talk Kashrus WhatsApp Group for educational content and kashrus updates

Click here to Join a LTK WhatsApp Group

Transcription

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: Hello, everyone, and welcome back to Let’s Talk Kashrus, presented by the Kashrus Awareness Project in conjunction with the Chicago Rabbinical Council. Today I am privileged to be joined by Rabbi Meilech Friedman, Rosh HaMashgichim at Tartikov. Thank you, Rabbi Friedman, for being here.

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: My pleasure.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: Shalom aleichem.

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: Aleichem shalom.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: Thank you again. I want to talk to you today about a topic that comes up all the time. I get asked about it wherever I go, and it seems like nothing has changed in this field, and that is kashrus in yeshivas. Now, to most people who are not in yeshivas, it doesn’t affect them. But we have thousands and thousands of tinokos shel beis raban, boys, girls going to school every day eating lunches, and in mesivtas they’re eating suppers and sometimes breakfast, and so on and so forth. There’s very often a kitchen operating from morning to night, and as far as I know, unless you could tell me otherwise, most yeshivas, if not all, do not have hashgacha. Talk to me about this topic. Why is it that way? Is it acceptable in your eyes, and what improvement should be made?

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: Okay. It is a very, I would even say, a painful topic because, unfortunately, we have hundreds of thousands of kids being served every day, three meals a day, and there’s no hashgacha whatsoever in I would say 99% of the kitchens of yeshivas, schools, and chadarim. Is it is it the reason for that probably because when it started it was, let’s call it, more local, and people knew the administrator and the manager and the cook, and they relied on them, which is, let’s say, acceptable. But at the rate it was going and growing at all different parts in yeshivas and schools, that meant that the administrator wasn’t in touch with the kitchen, and the manager is not in charge of the kitchen, and you have a cook, sometimes a frum Yid, sometimes not. Most of the times nowadays, he’s just in and out for to guide the people who work in the kitchen what to do and not actually in the kitchen all day long. And what improvement, we’ll leave for the end, try to get some idea what people just which are not involved in the hanhala of moisdosare able to do in order to get something done. So now, does it need hashgacha? I would say a little bit of harsh statement, but I would say that the worst scenarios in kashrus that I’ve seen during my years in kashrus were in yeshiva kitchens.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: Really?

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: Yes. And I’ll give just some examples. I’m not want to go into too much stories and so on, but just to get an idea what we’re talking about. One of nice yeshiva, chassidisheyeshiva in Boro Park reached out to us for hashgacha, and the reason why they understood they did need hashgacha was because, unfortunately, the cook took breaded cutlets and put it in a pan, and laid on that mozzarella cheese because he thought that it’s breaded eggplant instead of breaded cutlets.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: Chicken, it was chicken cutlets?

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: It was chicken cutlets. He thought it’s eggplant. It was baked and served, and only the first people who saw that it’s actually something wrong were actually the people biting into it.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: So again, mistakes happen even with hashgachos.

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: That’s 100%. No one is perfect. But such a mistake comes with lack of organization, lack of awareness that milchigs and fleishigs have to be completely separated. That brings us to our next point, that most kitchens who operate are either milchig or fleishig. Most restaurants, caterers, even the big caterers have a separate kitchen for milchig and a separate kitchen for fleishig. Most yeshivas have one kitchen operating out of that milchigs, fleishigs, and parve. And that means utensils, open spice boxes that you use for milchigs and fleishigs, you pour into in the morning into a pot of scrambled eggs with cheese inside, and then at night you pour it into a pot of soup, a chicken soup. Same open spice buckets are used for both, and that’s a big kashrus issue. I’ve been called to a certain yeshiva, a different yeshiva, for hashgacha, also because one one of the parents went into the kitchen once and saw what’s going on, and he made a big tummel, and the yeshiva said, “Okay, let’s bring in someone, maybe it’s not so bad, we can just consult them what to do.” So we came in. Small, small place, really small. And it was like a sink in the middle of the room, two sides of sinks and a divider. And it was like, probably 75 sheet pans laying around over there, and I asked the goy, there’s no Yid inside, I asked the goy, “How do you know which sheet pans are milchig and which sheet pans are fleishig?” And he said, “What do you mean? What’s on this side is milchig, what’s on that side is fleishig.” So not talking about a concrete wall, you’re talking about a small divider, small room, and six people working. No way to trace anything what’s over there. It’s beside that in that kitchen there was no Yid in charge of actually turning on the fires, which is a big issue in most of the kitchens. People assume that it’s in a yeshivah, there’s Rebbis, melamdim going in and out all the time, so there’s Yidden all the time, what’s the issue? But the real the real metzios is there’s no one in charge. No one actually comes in, looks at the fire, did I put this on, or not? You have 10 people passing by, everybody assumes that someone else turned that on, and that means that the goy knows nobody knows if he if he turned it on or another one. So if it happens to be that a rabbi is pass- passing by when he wants it, he’s going to ask him, not bad, but if he has to go call someone, he’s never going to do it, because why should he? Nobody

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: It’s inconvenient.

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: Yeah, he should go now look for someone? So, over there the same thing. In this yeshivah, we they had a chef that came in once in a while, let’s say once every two days, to make sure the kitchen’s up and running. So now I asked him who is actually achrai on turning on the fires? He said, “There’s no one, but there’s always bochurim around in and out. Probably they they turn it on.” So I asked the Rosh Yeshivah. He said, “What do you mean? A bochur that gets catched going into the kitchen gets thrown out! It’s it’s a choshive yeshivah, they can’t be in the kitchen.” So this is a gap, and that means that for unfortunately, for years, the goyim were turning on the fires on a daily basis.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: Wow.

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: And no one took charge of it because no one was actually on this position to take achrayus on it. So, we told them for the Rosh Yeshivah that either you hire someone in the kitchen, or you have to make exception to the rule and get two bochurim actually in the kitchen once in a while. They don’t have to be all day long, once in a while. We did a very interesting system on the knobs of the range to they shouldn’t be able to turn it off, it should be on all the time.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: Oh, really?

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: Yeah, yeah, it’s a very…

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: Interesting.

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: I wouldn’t say it’s something to present for people, but more like wood with screws, something very yeshivish, but it worked.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: Uh-huh. But, hey, it did work. To ensure bishul Yisroel.

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: It did work. Yes, so that’s why it had a lock, only one bochur had a key. He’d open it up in the morning, turn on the fires, lock it back in order they shouldn’t be able to turn it off all day long. So now, this is not something’s going to happen in your ordinary commissary, your ordinary restaurant, that no one has achrayus at all on what’s going on in the kitchen.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: If I can mention, you mentioned bishulYisroel, you mentioned mixing milchigs, fleishigs, side pots, and also ingredients, but I would say also just ordering the the food items, right? The the stock room the stock room in the yeshivah, that who’s taking care of the ordering and making sure that every item is under a reliable hechsher?

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: 100%. In most places, happens to be there are the Yiddish managers who are actually ordering, the goyim are not ordering, but no one is looking it over. When it comes in, there’s no receiver who actually takes the bill of lading, looks over the boxes: “I ordered this, I got this.”

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: Right.

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: It doesn’t happen.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: And and if they run out of something, if they have to run out to a store and get something, right?

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: A very big issue. Yeah. And also there’s government programs giving out produce, canned food, and all these kind of stuff over here in in New York, and most of them come with a hashgachah, not a hashgachah on the actual box, but it has a letter of certification. But because it doesn’t have a a a hashgachah on the actual can, someone who walks in the kitchen wouldn’t see that it’s something wrong. I’ll give a very striking example. There was a time, it’s not actual anymore, in that time there was StarKist tuna was made a special run of bishul Yisroel for the moisdos. Anyone who walks into the kitchen who sees StarKist tuna has no idea if this is the bishul Yisroel run or not.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: Uh-huh.

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: The only way to know it is by the letter of certification, it had a lot code, and you had to compare the lot code. So, two things: number one, nobody could see, and even if there’s no one to accept the order, match the lot codes, and confirm it, very possible that you got the lot number that is not bishulYisroel, it’s a case away. This is another very strong point. And then it has far-going in in in terms of, you make an alumni Shabbos, yeah, very common all the places. Who serves the Shabbos in a lot of places? The yeshivas. So the the chef, the cook in the kitchen in the yeshivah cooks it, sends it out to the hotel, house, whatever they rented for the for the Shabbos, and along with that, pots, pans, utensils. Who takes achrayus on that? Nobody knows what’s happening over there. Sometimes they forgot it over there, I’ve had in the past, it stayed a week over there, a goyishe place, and it came back to the kitchen. Who takes achrayus for this week?

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: Wow.

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: And then there’s the next step, all related to that, is the summer camps. So now, I know there’s an initiative from AKO and the CRC to review summer camps, but I would say 80% are still not assigned to that, and nothing nothing is happening.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: And it sounds from you like really that initiative should be for yeshivos, just as much.

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: Absolutely. Absolutely. Just as much or even more, because that’s 10 months a year, and this is two months a year.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: So I believe there are several mosdos, I think in Lakewood, that that do have some kind of supervision. Obviously, I’m sure you’ve heard this from mosdos when you bring it up to them. They say, listen, we’re we’re we’re not making ends as at, you know, we’re not making ends meet. We need to fundraise. Now we should take on another achrayus, financial responsibility of of a of a mashgiach or so on and so forth. And obviously the response to that is timtum halev, you know, who who is taking achrayus on the timtum halev? You’ll spare some money on the tutors that you have to hire for the kids who are eating food that is questionable, right, if I may say.

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: Right. It’s something…

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: If you if you were to institute, I’m curious, if you were to institute a a system of supervision for a yeshiva, do dothey need mashgiach temidi? Do they need a a yotzei venichnas? What what is the right approach?

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: So, I would say a lot depends on the volume, how much meals they serve a day, how much portions they have to produce. It’s up for debate, let’s say, because since it is in a place there’s a lot of Yidden around and everything, but I think the bare minimum is to have at least two or three people within the staff who are in the kitchen, not like some rosh yeshiva who’s in his office most of the day and just goes in. I usually say it has to be more nichnas than yotzei. If it’s more yotzei than nichnas, it doesn’t work. People just don’t… yotzei venichnas is a real thing.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: And if the cook is a frum Yid, is that enough, or is he so busy with the food that he’s not going to be able to supervise the kashrus?

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: So there are more cooks that are capable, some are who are less. Again, we had a big girls school in Boro Park who called us up, and he said, listen, some parents asked that we need a hashgacha, we think we don’t we don’t need, come down, send a mashgiach for a day, he should write a report, let’s see. By the end of the day, we had probably 30 or 35 issues in one day in the kitchen, yes, and you’re talking about a place with two frum women working there full time.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: Could you could you give us some of the example some of the examples of those 30, 35 issues?

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: Sure. From cereal not pas Yisroel, bishul Yisroel, again, not everyone is makpid, but in a place that is established that it needs to be makpid, it’s supposed to be.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: I would also think that a that a mosad of chinuch habonim vehabanos should be on the highest standard, right?

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: 100%, 100%, yeah. Filters not working or missing, water filters. I’ve had in the past, I came in, I asked the administrator, do you have a filter on the water? Of course, we invested a lot of money, we installed the filter on the main. All the water in this place is filtered. I come down to the filter, this part of being a mashgiach is being like a half-time plumber, and the filter was bypassed, meaning to say every filter when they install it, in order to be able to to make maintenance on the filter, they put in a valve that shuts off the filter, and the water gets diverted through another pipe into the system. That means that for that time, the filter doesn’t work, the water doesn’t pass by the filter. This was by default on a bypass mode, none of the water was filtered. Now it could happen, it can happen all the time. Every mashgiach who goes into a place knows that every here and there he has to make a stop at the filter to make sure it’s up and running. When there’s no one achrayuson that, it never happens, never. And what happens ends up happening is that the filter gets clogged, the water pressure gets low, the goy sees that it doesn’t work, he goes there, bypasses the filter, and sholom al Yisroel. So, I would say hundreds of keilim not marked if it’s milchig or fleishig, keilim who are marked milchig and fleishig mixed up all the time, having a goy taking out meat with a dairy spoon, having a goy turn on the flame, of course, ovens not bypassed. Now, again, we can debate that if it’s needed or not. Standard in most kashrus organizations are that ovens, convection ovens, need to be bypassed, that when you open the door, it shouldn’t shut off. None of them were done over there. And having ingredients in the stockroom which were totally not approved, meaning to say not at the lower standard. So we gave them a list, we showed it to them. We said, it’s your decision, we are not here… they paid the mashgiach for the day, it’s your decision. And happens to be that place is chashuve people, and they said, you’re right. They hired us, and it’s already probably 15 years that we give hashgacha over there.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: Oh wow.

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: Yes. Again, there’s no sign on the wall, there’s no papers, and we don’t get any kavod out of it, but it’s kashrus, and it’s real kashrus, and we know, and the administrator knows that he does what’s right, and he serves kosher food for Yiddishe kinderlach.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: But I’m thinking maybe it would be a good idea for there to be a paper on the wall so that maybe other people will see it and say, “You know what? If this mosad has it, yeah.”

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: This was their decision. I don’t know why, but this was their decision. We have a different kitchen in Flatbush that has a paper on the wall, and he is someone who supplies for different mosdos, and we have a real certificate, and he sends it out.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: So, you should know, when I brought up this topic, I was schmoozing with with different people, and they said, “You know, we feel uncomfortable going to our son’s mosad or our girl’s mosad to ask this question. It’s almost like we’re questioning them. No one wants to be seen as the parent who’s questioning a mosad. You know, then you become the difficult parent. You know, leave us alone. We have enough to worry about in the chinuchrealm. Now you want us, you know, you’re you’re breathing down our back in kashrus.” And I think that’s perhaps why some parents think twice before they’re going to open their mouths to their child’s mosad. But it sounds from what you’re saying that it’s it’s it’s really lo zo haderech. It really can’t continue this way.

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: 100%.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: I don’t know what the path forward is. Maybe it’s conversations like this one that will result in significant change, you know, in mosdos of all types. But any final thoughts on this topic?

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: So, I I would say that the simplest and most calm way to institute a change is, just as when you send in an application, it has 100 different questions on your application, just as important as whom your grandparents’ mechtonim were, it is important you should ask one simple question: Do you have a hashgacha in the kitchen? Not in a way of offending. Just matter of fact: Do you have a hashgacha or not? And if the answer is not, you can put down the phone. If they’ll get 100 parents per registration season asking this simple question without any conversations after that, they will get a hashgacha. That’s my opinion, and I believe that people are not bad, people not the administrators, as we we spoke about it, they have so much to do, so much on their head, it doesn’t pass by that the kitchen needs a hashgacha. If they’ll hear it from 100 parents per registration season, I believe that will be a big, big change.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: I do want to mention that, especially in the last 10, 15 years, newer mosdos, I think when when I went to yeshiva, I don’t know, when you went to yeshiva, it was standard fare for a yeshiva to have a full operating kitchen with a a cook, milchigs, fleishigs, so on and so forth. A lot of newer mosdos now, I think it’s just easier, instead of hiring a chef, they get food from outside for for all meals: breakfast, lunch, and supper. I know where I live in Lakewood, it’s definitely more common to have that than to have a a chef in the in the school. Is is that as serious? Is that less serious, especially because presumably the vendors that they’re getting the food from have reliable hashgachos?

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: So, it’s a question now of delivery and chosamos and things of that sort. So, it depends what means vendor in terms of what they are getting. Some people just get, let’s say, from big vendors, commercial companies, they get potato knishes and blintzes, they just warm it up. That’s one aspect. In this area, I would say 99% are good, and they have reliable hashgachos, and everything’s okay. But, in other sense, they don’t want to be busy buying this from that vendor and the other stuff, and they just call up a different mosad who has a bigger kitchen and tell them, “I need 200 portions for breakfast, 200 for lunch,” and that mosad sends it. Now, in a certain sense, that’s even worse, because just now the other mosad has more pressure, more portions to provide, and that makes a lot of pressure. But on the other hand, it’s less offensive when you know that your mosad buys from a different mosad, call up the administrator and tell him, “I know when you would run the kitchen, you would have a hashgacha. Call up that administrator, ask him to get a hashgacha.” It’s always easier to pressure someone else than yourself. And this will probably work. I know a certain kitchen that got a hashgacha only because they wanted to expand business. They hired a few mosdos to take from their stuff, and the first question was, “Who’s your hashgacha?” And they didn’t have. Now, if that the other mosad had a hashgacha when they had their own kitchen, not so sure. But it’s always easier to point fingers on someone else, unfortunately, but it works. And when people know that their mosad takes from a different kitchen, call up the administrator, tell him, “Ask that mosad to get a kitchen to get a hashgacha in the kitchen.” And I think that it should make a big difference and a big impact on real kashrus.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: Rabbi Friedman, thank you very much for joining us for this very important conversation, and our our hope is that be’ezras Hashem, conversations like these will lead to improvement, especially as kashrus keeps going from from one level to another, be’ezras Hashem, in the realm of yeshivos and schools we’ll see the same.

Rabbi Meilech Friedman: My pleasure. Mamash a kavod to be here, and you should keep up your good work, mezakeh, to be mezakeh es harabbim.

R’ Yitzchok Hisiger: Amen, thank you so much. Kol tuv.

{Matzav.com}

Americans could face higher online shopping costs this holiday season as UPS and FedEx impose steep fuel surcharges that are pushing package delivery expenses to unprecedented levels. With diesel prices soaring and major shipping companies changing the formulas used to calculate their fees, retailers are confronting another round of transportation cost increases just as the busiest shopping period of the year approaches.

Shipping expenses are expected to climb sharply during the final three months of 2026, when the number of packages moving through delivery networks can double as consumers place holiday orders. The increases are particularly significant for businesses that depend heavily on home deliveries and must decide whether to absorb the additional costs or pass them along to customers.

According to the TD Cowen/AFS Freight Index, the average cost of ground parcel delivery, including shipments associated with online retail purchases, is projected to rise 5.8% during the fourth quarter compared with the corresponding period in 2025.

The outlook is even more challenging for companies relying on expedited shipping services. Express parcel delivery prices are forecast to increase 13.8% from a year earlier, reflecting mounting pressure on businesses that promise customers rapid delivery.

The index draws on anonymized shipping information collected from approximately 1,800 businesses, including large retailers. Because the price of delivering an individual package depends on its dimensions, weight, destination, and service level, the analysis measures percentage changes rather than presenting a single nationwide shipping price.

“Fuel is front ⁠and center in everybody’s consideration and, again, no real good news there,” said Mingshu Bates, chief analytics officer at AFS Logistics.

The surge in transportation expenses comes amid a dramatic increase in diesel prices following the outbreak of the American and Israeli military campaign against Iran earlier this year.

Figures from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that the average nationwide price of on-highway diesel reached $6.28 per gallon as of October 19. That represents an increase of approximately 65% since February 28, when the United States and Israel launched their attacks against Iran.

Higher diesel costs have placed significant pressure on transportation companies, which depend on fuel to operate the trucks and delivery vehicles moving millions of packages across the country.

However, industry analysts say the increase in fuel prices tells only part of the story. A substantial portion of the growing burden on retailers comes from changes UPS, FedEx, and other carriers have made to the way they calculate their fuel surcharges.

Bates estimated that the actual rise in diesel prices accounts for slightly less than 30% of the increase in fuel surcharge expenses. The remaining growth largely reflects changes in carrier pricing formulas that have caused surcharges to climb considerably faster than the underlying cost of fuel.

The result is that shipping companies can collect substantially higher fuel-related fees even when diesel prices remain unchanged or return to previous levels.

Data from the freight index illustrate the extent of the shift. During the first quarter of 2021, when diesel averaged $2.91 per gallon, the fuel surcharge represented 7.75% of the underlying shipping charge.

Under current pricing formulas, that same diesel price would produce a fuel surcharge of 23.75%, approximately three times the rate imposed five years earlier.

The comparison suggests that fuel surcharges have increasingly become a significant component of carrier revenue rather than simply a mechanism for recovering fluctuations in fuel expenses.

At the October 19 national diesel average of $6.28 per gallon, the published surcharge schedules of the two largest private parcel carriers indicate that UPS imposes a fuel surcharge of 29.5%, while FedEx charges 29%.

Those percentages are generally added to the applicable transportation charges, meaning the final delivery expense can be substantially higher than the advertised base rate.

UPS defended its overall pricing structure, maintaining that its rates reflect the quality of its premium delivery services and the substantial investments the company has made in transportation infrastructure and network capabilities.

FedEx did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the latest surcharge increases.

Both companies are scheduled to release quarterly financial results this week, and investors will be watching closely for indications that customers are resisting the higher charges or shifting shipments to competing delivery providers.

For major retailers, the timing is particularly difficult. The final quarter of the year represents the most important selling period for many businesses, and shipping costs can have a significant effect on profitability during the holiday shopping rush.

Jess Dankert, vice president of supply chain at the Retail Industry Leaders Association, described the holiday season as the retail industry’s “Super ⁠Bowl”, emphasizing the extensive preparation companies undertake throughout the year to manage the surge in consumer demand.

Dankert explained that fuel surcharges are among the issues retailers negotiate with shipping companies when establishing transportation contracts.

Businesses are also pursuing alternative strategies to reduce their delivery expenses, including encouraging customers to return online purchases at physical stores rather than shipping unwanted merchandise back through parcel networks.

Retailers have increasingly sought additional delivery partners as well, hoping that a more diversified transportation network will provide greater flexibility and reduce dependence on UPS and FedEx.

A growing group of regional and specialized delivery companies has expanded its operations in recent years, creating additional options for merchants seeking lower-cost alternatives.

Among the emerging competitors are OnTrac, GoFo, UniUni, Jitsu, and Veho, companies that collectively provide delivery coverage to approximately 70% of the American population.

Satish Jindel, president of ShipMatrix, a company specializing in parcel tracking and delivery management, said these alternative carriers have increased their capacity to accommodate higher shipment volumes during the approaching holiday season.

“They are getting adoption from many shippers looking to lower their transportation spend,” Jindel said.

Nevertheless, the smaller delivery companies are not necessarily immune from the same pricing pressures affecting the industry leaders.

OnTrac, for example, listed a fuel surcharge of 29.5% for West Coast shipments during the week ending October 25, matching the percentage charged by UPS under its published schedule.

That suggests retailers switching to regional carriers may still encounter substantial fuel-related fees, even if other elements of the delivery price are more competitive.

Another potential alternative is the United States Postal Service, which has historically operated under a different pricing structure from private package delivery companies.

The Postal Service introduced its first fuel surcharge in April, adding an 8% charge to most package shipments. Although the fee represented a departure from its previous pricing practices, it remained considerably below the fuel surcharges imposed by UPS and FedEx.

Amazon has also entered the picture as a potential alternative for businesses seeking to reduce fulfillment and delivery costs.

In April, the e-commerce giant introduced a 3.5% fuel and logistics surcharge on fulfillment fees charged to sellers using its distribution services.

Those comparatively lower percentages could make the Postal Service and Amazon attractive options for certain retailers, particularly businesses shipping large numbers of relatively small packages.

However, transportation analysts caution that changing delivery providers is considerably more complicated than simply selecting the company advertising the lowest surcharge.

Major retailers often negotiate discounts based on the total number of packages they ship through a particular carrier. Diverting too much business to competing companies can reduce shipment volume with an existing provider and jeopardize the discounts that made the original contract attractive.

In some circumstances, the loss of volume-based savings could offset or even exceed the benefits of switching to a carrier with lower fuel charges.

There are also practical difficulties associated with changing shipping arrangements during the holiday season. Retailers typically establish their delivery strategies months in advance, coordinating warehouse operations, staffing, inventory distribution, and customer delivery commitments.

Introducing new transportation partners late in the year can create operational disruptions and increase the risk of missed delivery deadlines during the busiest weeks of the shopping calendar.

Despite the growing number of competitors, analysts at JPMorgan believe UPS and FedEx are unlikely to lose their dominant positions in the parcel delivery market to Amazon or smaller regional carriers in the immediate future.

Additional carrier pricing information shows that fuel surcharges have risen substantially in recent months. FedEx’s published schedule lists a 29% surcharge for ground and home deliveries during the week beginning October 26, compared with 26% during the week beginning August 17. Its domestic express package surcharge for the current week is even higher, at 32.5%.

UPS has followed a similar pattern. Its published surcharge history shows that ground delivery fees reached 30.25% during the week beginning September 28, up from 25% in early July, before easing somewhat in October.

Both companies adjust their fuel surcharges weekly using government fuel-price benchmarks, although their formulas and thresholds differ. For ground shipments, the calculations generally follow the national average price of highway diesel, while air delivery surcharges are tied to jet fuel prices.

The carriers also reserve the ability to revise their surcharge tables, meaning that the percentage charged at a particular fuel price can change independently of the underlying cost of diesel. That flexibility has become a central concern for shipping customers seeking predictable transportation expenses.

UPS has also announced another adjustment to its domestic fuel surcharge structure effective November 2, just as the holiday shopping season moves into its busiest period. The company said the changes would apply to ground and domestic air shipments, with updated percentages reflected in its published schedules.

For retailers, the concern extends beyond the immediate increase in shipping bills. Fuel surcharges can affect decisions about minimum purchase requirements for free shipping, delivery promotions, and the profitability of smaller online orders.

Businesses offering free shipping must still pay the carrier, leaving them to absorb the additional expense through narrower profit margins, higher merchandise prices, or changes to their promotional policies.

Consumers may therefore encounter the effects of the increases in several ways, even when a retailer does not explicitly add a separate fuel charge at checkout.

{Matzav.com}

Israelis are turning out in unusually large numbers for Tuesday’s Knesset elections, with voter participation reaching 44.9% by 2 p.m., the highest turnout recorded during the first seven hours of voting in more than half a century, according to the Central Elections Committee.

The remarkable pace of voting comes as more than 7.3 million eligible Israelis decide the composition of the country’s 26th Knesset, with the outcome expected to determine whether Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu remains in power or a rival political coalition succeeds in forming the next government.

Central Elections Committee interim director Dean Livne announced that nearly 2.4 million Israelis had cast ballots by 2 p.m. Tuesday. According to the committee, the turnout rate for that stage of Election Day was the highest since 1969, suggesting particularly strong public engagement in an election widely regarded as consequential for Israel’s political future.

Military voting figures also indicated substantial participation. By 1 p.m., approximately 48% of IDF personnel had already voted, according to figures released from polling locations serving soldiers.

The heavy turnout has produced lengthy queues at numerous polling stations across the country. Election officials stressed that voters who are already waiting in line when the polls officially close at 10 p.m. will still be permitted to cast their ballots.

Prime Minister Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, arrived at a polling station in Yerushalayim around midday to participate in the election.

Speaking after casting his ballot, Netanyahu urged Israelis to recognize the significance of the decision before them.

“This is a fateful moment; we know what is at stake. Vote for the future of the State of Israel,” Netanyahu stated.

The election is being conducted under heightened security arrangements, with Israeli authorities monitoring polling stations and responding to potential attempts to interfere with voting.

Shin Bet director David Zini visited the Central Elections Committee’s election command center at the Knesset, where he expressed confidence in the procedures established to safeguard the voting process.

“The elections in Israel are safe, orderly, and supervised in an inspiring manner. There are challenges, and there are those who are trying to disrupt them, but under the leadership of Justice Sohlberg and the Israel Police, we are succeeding.”

Central Elections Committee chairman Justice Noam Sohlberg also addressed the unusually long waiting times reported at polling locations, describing the willingness of voters to remain in line as an encouraging indication of civic participation.

“We are receiving reports of long lines at polling stations. Standing in line for 15 to 20 minutes is not pleasant, but on the other hand, looking at the bigger picture, a great many people are not giving up their right to vote. This is a very important right that is being exercised, even in the face of external challenges. That is the recipe for resilience in Israeli society.”

The committee has published participation figures for numerous cities, providing an early indication of voting patterns in different parts of the country.

Among the reported municipal figures, turnout stood at 27.1% in Yerushalayim, 28.8% in Tel Aviv, 27.3% in Haifa, 29% in Rishon LeZion, and 27.4% in Be’er Sheva.

In other major population centers, the reported rates included 23.8% in Netanya, 27.9% in Holon, 28.4% in Bnei Brak, 23.9% in Kiryat Shmona, and 27.6% in Tiberias.

Nazareth recorded 24.9%, while Kiryat Ata reached 31.4%, Nahariya 30.3%, and Hadera 27.9%.

Modi’in-Maccabim-Re’ut registered a comparatively high participation rate of 36.7%, while Ariel stood at 31.8%, Modi’in Illit at 33.2%, and Ma’ale Adumim at 31.9%.

In southern communities, Ashkelon reported 29%, Ashdod 30.4%, Sderot 30.3%, and Dimona 28.8%. Eilat recorded 22.2%.

The municipal figures were released separately from the nationwide 2 p.m. update and should not be interpreted as representing the same reporting time.

Particularly high participation was also reported in several Bedouin communities in the Negev. By noon, turnout among members of the Atawneh tribe had reached 64.1%, compared with 47.9% in Qasr al-Sir and 47.8% in Al-Qabu’a.

In total, 7,331,981 citizens are eligible to vote in the election, with 12,018 polling stations established nationwide. Voters are choosing among 36 party lists competing for representation in the 120-member Knesset.

The election is Israel’s first national vote since the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023, and the subsequent wars in Gaza and elsewhere in the region. Netanyahu’s leadership during that period has become a central campaign issue, with his supporters emphasizing Israel’s military achievements and his opponents demanding accountability for the failures preceding the attacks.

The future of military conscription has also emerged as a major election issue, particularly for Shas and United Torah Judaism. The chareidi parties have made the protection of yeshiva bochurim a central priority, while several opposition parties are campaigning for broader enlistment requirements.

Among Netanyahu’s principal challengers is former IDF chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot, whose political bloc is seeking to assemble a governing majority. Recent polling has suggested a closely contested election, with neither the Netanyahu-aligned parties nor their opponents assured of the 61 Knesset seats required to form a government.

Voting began at 7 a.m. Tuesday and is scheduled to continue until 10 p.m. at most locations. Polling stations in smaller communities, hospitals, correctional facilities, and nursing homes have earlier closing times of 8 p.m.

Television networks are expected to release their election-night projections when voting concludes, offering the first indication of how the 120 Knesset seats may be divided. However, officials have cautioned that exceptionally long lines could affect the usual timetable for releasing exit polls.

The final outcome may remain uncertain well beyond Tuesday night, especially if the competing political blocs finish within a few seats of one another.

Particular attention will be focused on ballots submitted through Israel’s double-envelope voting system, which accommodates eligible voters unable to cast ballots at their assigned polling stations, including military personnel and certain other groups.

Those ballots are counted separately and can become especially important when the election is close. Their inclusion could alter the number of seats awarded to individual parties and, potentially, determine which political leader has a realistic path to forming a coalition.

Authorities have introduced transportation arrangements intended to make voting more accessible. Intercity bus routes exceeding 15 kilometers are operating free of charge on Election Day, while Israel Railways is also providing free travel through the conclusion of the day’s public transportation service.

The arrangements are designed to help voters reach their assigned polling stations, particularly those traveling considerable distances from their current locations.

Weather conditions have presented an additional complication, with forecasts calling for intermittent rainfall, thunderstorms, strong wind gusts, and possible hail across portions of the country.

Southern Israel faces a particular concern because of the possibility of flash flooding in desert waterways and low-lying areas. The affected regions include the central and southern Negev, the Arava, the Judean Desert, and areas surrounding the Dead Sea.

Authorities have urged residents and travelers to exercise caution, especially those planning recreational outings during the Election Day holiday. Flooding in desert streams can develop rapidly, even when rainfall occurs some distance away.

The election has also been accompanied by complaints involving possible voting irregularities. Parties have raised allegations concerning ballot slips and polling-station activity, although election officials have indicated that they have not identified evidence of widespread, coordinated interference.

The Central Elections Committee has urged the public to rely on verified information rather than unconfirmed reports circulating on social media.

As voting continues, the unusually strong participation figures have become one of the day’s most notable developments. Earlier in the morning, turnout reached approximately 16.7% by 10 a.m., compared with 15.9% at the same point in the 2022 election.

By noon, participation had climbed to 31.5%, compared with 28.4% four years earlier, providing further evidence of the increased pace of voting.

The subsequent 2 p.m. figure of 44.9%, reported by Israel National News, would represent an exceptionally high level of participation for that stage of an Israeli national election.

Nevertheless, high turnout alone does not establish which political bloc is benefiting. Increased participation among different demographic groups could produce sharply different electoral outcomes, and the actual distribution of votes will remain unknown until ballots are counted.

The immediate question is whether the strong early participation will continue into the evening and how it will affect the balance between Netanyahu’s political allies and the parties seeking to replace his government.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump announced Monday that individuals who report election fraud resulting in arrests and criminal convictions will receive a $1 million reward, unveiling the extraordinary incentive just eight days before Americans head to the polls for the November 3 midterm elections. The offer applies to allegations involving both previous elections and the upcoming congressional contests, although the administration has not yet explained how the payments would be funded or administered.

Trump disclosed the proposal in a message posted to his Truth Social account, encouraging Americans to come forward with information about suspected election wrongdoing and promising substantial financial compensation if their reports ultimately result in successful criminal prosecutions.

“Anybody reporting Voter Fraud in the past Elections, or the upcoming 2026 Midterm Election, will be paid $1,000,000 upon the arrest and conviction of those that created the Fraud! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP,” he wrote on Truth Social.

The announcement immediately raised questions about how such a program would operate. Trump did not identify which federal department would oversee the rewards, whether Congress would need to authorize funding, or what procedures individuals would be required to follow when submitting allegations.

It also remains unclear what standards of evidence would be necessary for a person to qualify for the payment, how officials would resolve situations involving multiple informants reporting the same alleged offense, or whether convictions obtained in state courts would qualify alongside federal prosecutions.

The president’s proposal comes shortly after his administration introduced a separate financial incentive program designed to encourage whistleblowers to expose fraud involving federal funds and taxpayer-supported government services.

Last week, Trump and Vice President JD Vance announced an initiative under which individuals providing credible information about certain types of government-program fraud could receive financial rewards. The effort is part of the administration’s broader campaign to identify improper expenditures and pursue criminal cases against individuals accused of exploiting federal assistance programs.

On October 20, the Justice Department formally introduced its Fraud Whistleblower Incentive Program, which offers payments ranging from $10,000 to $30,000 to individuals whose information contributes to criminal charges in eligible investigations.

Unlike traditional whistleblower arrangements that can require participants to wait until criminal proceedings and related financial recovery efforts have concluded, the new program allows qualifying rewards to be issued after charges are filed, subject to approval by Justice Department officials.

The Treasury Department has allocated $25 million to support the initiative, providing a dedicated source of funding for payments to individuals who help federal investigators identify and prosecute fraud involving government resources.

The arrangement also permits participants to pursue additional compensation under other federal whistleblower programs, potentially allowing individuals whose information produces substantial recoveries to receive separate awards through existing legal mechanisms.

The initiative focuses particularly on fraud affecting federally funded healthcare services and government benefit programs. Officials have identified hospice care, home healthcare, daycare operations, and specialized assistance services as areas warranting heightened scrutiny because of concerns about fraudulent billing and misuse of public money.

Vance, who heads the administration’s Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, has been assigned a leading role in coordinating efforts to identify waste, abuse, and criminal misconduct across federal benefit programs.

During the White House announcement last week, Trump also discussed the possibility of compensating whistleblowers with a commission amounting to 1% of the fraud uncovered through their information.

Monday’s proposed election-fraud reward, however, appears to differ significantly from that arrangement. The president’s statement did not indicate whether the $1 million payment would be incorporated into the recently established whistleblower initiative or whether the administration intends to create an entirely separate mechanism for election-related complaints.

The timing of Trump’s announcement coincides with increased Justice Department enforcement activity targeting allegations of unlawful voting and fraudulent voter registration.

On October 19, federal prosecutors announced election-related charges against 28 foreign nationals in California, including allegations that individuals who were not American citizens had unlawfully participated in federal elections or falsely represented their citizenship status on official documents.

The cases included accusations of illegal voting, fraudulent registration activity, and false statements submitted during immigration naturalization proceedings.

As part of a coordinated enforcement operation known as Operation Protect the Vote, federal authorities arrested 11 individuals in California on the day the charges were announced. The effort involved all four United States attorney’s offices in the state, reflecting a coordinated approach to investigating suspected violations of federal election laws.

The defendants face different potential penalties depending on the charges filed against them. Certain felony offenses carry maximum prison terms of five years, while misdemeanor violations involving unlawful voting by noncitizens can result in sentences of up to one year in federal prison.

All defendants are presumed innocent unless prosecutors establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Federal law generally prohibits individuals who are not United States citizens from participating in elections for president or members of Congress. The restriction applies to foreign nationals residing in the country unlawfully as well as lawful permanent residents who have not completed the naturalization process.

The administration’s election-enforcement initiatives have also generated debate over the prevalence of illegal voting and the reliability of allegations involving voter fraud.

Research compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice, a voting-rights organization affiliated with New York University School of Law, has found that documented instances of noncitizen voting and other forms of election fraud are relatively uncommon compared with the enormous number of ballots cast in American elections.

The organization has argued that some allegations initially presented as evidence of deliberate election misconduct ultimately turn out to involve clerical mistakes, misunderstandings about voter eligibility, or errors made by election administrators.

Voting-rights advocates have also warned that unsupported allegations of widespread fraud can undermine public confidence in election results and create additional barriers for eligible voters.

Additional reporting indicates that Trump personally repeated the $1 million offer while speaking with journalists Monday before boarding Air Force One for a campaign rally in Corinth, Mississippi.

“I’m also going to be issuing a $1m bonus or reward, or whatever you want to call it, for anybody that reports voter fraud, leading to the arrest and conviction of somebody,” Trump told reporters.

The White House was subsequently asked to clarify the financial and administrative details of the proposal but provided no additional explanation beyond the president’s public statement. As of Monday evening, there was no publicly identified agency responsible for reviewing claims or distributing the promised payments.

The announcement also drew attention to Trump’s comments during the previous week’s introduction of the broader fraud-reporting initiative. At that event, the president suggested that he would personally resolve disputes concerning who deserved compensation when multiple individuals claimed responsibility for exposing the same fraudulent activity.

“I will be the arbitrator of all of these decisions,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “In other words, I’ll determine whether or not the person is deserving, and I’ll determine, and I will be very generous.”

It remains uncertain whether the president intends to exercise similar authority over the new election-fraud rewards, which are substantially larger than the payments currently authorized under the Justice Department’s existing whistleblower program.

The administration’s latest initiative also follows congressional efforts to strengthen voter-identification and citizenship-verification requirements. Trump has supported the SAVE America Act, legislation that would impose additional federal requirements for establishing citizenship when registering to vote and require identification at the polls. The measure passed the House earlier this year but has repeatedly encountered opposition in the Senate.

The proposed reward system has a precedent at the state level. Following the 2020 presidential election, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick offered financial rewards for information leading to voter-fraud convictions. One of the individuals who ultimately received a payment was Eric Frank, a Democratic election worker in Pennsylvania who reported a Republican voter accused of casting two ballots, including one in his son’s name.

That earlier program offered considerably smaller payments, with Patrick initially announcing rewards of at least $25,000 for qualifying information.

The Justice Department’s latest election prosecutions have also expanded beyond California. On Monday, federal authorities announced charges involving 48 noncitizens in Pennsylvania, California, Florida, New York, and Nevada, covering allegations of illegal voting, fraudulent voter registration, and false statements connected to citizenship applications.

Those cases involve alleged misconduct across several election cycles and do not establish the existence of a coordinated national fraud operation. Nevertheless, they have provided the administration with additional examples of election-law violations that federal prosecutors are pursuing.

{Matzav.com}

Millions of Israelis are heading to the polls Tuesday in a closely watched election for the 26th Knesset, with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu seeking another term in office and former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot emerging as one of his principal challengers. The election, the first since the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre and the subsequent war, is taking place amid intense political divisions, uncertainty over the composition of the next government, and particular attention to voter turnout in the chareidi community following the prolonged controversy over the drafting of yeshiva bochurim.

Polling stations opened at 7 a.m. across Israel, allowing 7,331,981 eligible voters to participate in an election featuring 36 political lists competing for the Knesset’s 120 seats. A total of 12,018 polling stations have been established throughout the country, with election officials preparing for a full day of voting before the first exit polls are released Tuesday evening.

The number of eligible voters has increased by 543,177 since the previous Knesset election in November 2022, reflecting substantial growth in Israel’s electorate over the past four years. In that election, turnout reached 70.63%, with approximately 4.8 million Israelis casting ballots.

One of the central questions facing political analysts Tuesday is whether participation will exceed the previous election’s level and how differences in turnout among Israel’s various communities will influence the final distribution of Knesset seats.

The contest centers on the struggle to assemble a governing coalition capable of commanding the support of at least 61 Knesset members. Netanyahu is leading the Likud party, while Eisenkot heads the Yashar party. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett is also competing through the Beyachad electoral alliance formed with Yair Lapid.

Other major participants include Shas, headed by Aryeh Deri; United Torah Judaism; Yisrael Beiteinu, led by Avigdor Lieberman; the Democrats, headed by Yair Golan; Otzma Yehudit, led by Itamar Ben-Gvir; and Religious Zionism, which is running together with the Zehut party.

The United Arab List, known as Ra’am, and the Joint List are also participating after Israel’s Supreme Court overturned decisions that would have prevented them from appearing on the ballot.

Although 38 electoral lists initially received approval to participate, two subsequently withdrew from the contest. They were Blue and White, headed by Benny Gantz, and the Achi movement, leaving 36 lists competing for parliamentary representation.

The electoral threshold remains 3.25% of valid ballots, meaning that parties failing to obtain that share of the vote will receive no Knesset seats. The threshold could prove especially consequential for smaller parties, where relatively modest differences in voter support may determine whether an entire list enters the Knesset or is excluded.

Votes cast for parties that fail to cross the threshold will not translate into parliamentary representation, potentially altering the balance between political blocs and affecting which party leaders can assemble a coalition.

For the chareidi community, Tuesday’s election carries particular significance following years of controversy over the status of yeshiva students and the government’s efforts to address military conscription.

According to figures from Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, approximately 684,000 eligible voters living in Israel are chareidim, representing roughly 10.5% of the country’s resident voting population.

In the 2022 election, Shas secured 11 Knesset seats, while United Torah Judaism won seven. Both parties are now seeking to preserve their parliamentary strength amid dissatisfaction in parts of the chareidi community over the draft controversy and questions about the effectiveness of chareidi representation in the outgoing government.

Party officials are expected to devote considerable attention to turnout throughout the day, particularly in major chareidi population centers such as Bnei Brak, Yerushalayim, Beit Shemesh, Modiin Illit, and Elad.

Election headquarters will monitor participation figures in these communities and work to encourage eligible voters to cast their ballots before polling stations close.

Within United Torah Judaism, attention is also focused on whether the party can increase its representation from seven to eight seats. That possibility is being discussed against the backdrop of internal political tensions and public debate over the party’s accomplishments during the previous Knesset term.

The controversy surrounding the draft of yeshiva bochurim has become one of the most consequential issues affecting chareidi political participation. The dispute has generated criticism of government policy, tensions between coalition partners, and questions about how voters will respond to the positions taken by their elected representatives.

The election will therefore serve as an important measure of political participation within the chareidi community, with party leaders closely examining turnout figures as they become available.

Throughout the day, senior political figures are expected to visit polling stations and campaign headquarters as their parties conduct final efforts to mobilize supporters.

Netanyahu is scheduled to cast his ballot in Yerushalayim at approximately 11 a.m. Eisenkot is expected to begin his day with visits to Ofakim and Nir Oz, two communities closely associated with the events of October 7.

United Torah Judaism chairman Yaakov Asher is expected to vote in Bnei Brak before accompanying leading Gedolei Yisroel to polling stations as part of the party’s Election Day activities.

Beyond the regular civilian voting locations, special arrangements have been made to accommodate soldiers, hospitalized patients, and other eligible voters who cannot easily reach conventional polling stations.

The IDF has prepared approximately 850 polling stations for military personnel, and some soldiers have already participated through early voting procedures.

Nearly 100,000 workers are expected to take part in administering the election, including polling-station personnel, election officials, security staff, and others responsible for maintaining the voting and counting process.

Most polling stations will remain open until 10 p.m., although voting in smaller communities and at certain special polling locations is scheduled to conclude at 8 p.m.

Israel’s Central Elections Committee is expected to release periodic turnout updates throughout the day, allowing observers to compare participation with previous elections and identify differences among population groups.

At 10 p.m., when the final polling stations close, Israel’s major television networks are scheduled to release their initial exit polls, offering the first estimates of how the 120 Knesset seats may be distributed.

The official counting process will begin as voting concludes, with preliminary results expected to emerge during the overnight hours.

However, the final outcome may remain uncertain until the counting of special ballots is completed. These include the double-envelope ballots used by soldiers and other voters casting their ballots outside their regular polling districts.

The Central Elections Committee has up to eight days to publish the official results, setting November 4 as the deadline for completing the process.

Election officials have also introduced additional arrangements for the 2026 vote, including expanded accessibility measures, security monitoring, and procedures intended to protect the integrity of the ballot.

The Central Elections Committee has prepared approximately 450 million ballot slips and deployed some 15,000 cameras as part of its election oversight system. Of the 12,018 polling stations, 6,209 have accessibility provisions, including 3,621 specially adapted stations for voters with mobility difficulties.

Another change this year concerns the publication of turnout information. The Central Elections Committee plans to release participation figures for individual regular polling stations at least four times during Election Day, in addition to nationwide statistics. These figures will provide a more detailed picture of voting patterns as the day progresses, although they will not indicate which parties voters are supporting.

Election officials have also imposed restrictions on the transfer of voter-participation information to political parties. Polling-station representatives are prohibited from removing information identifying who has voted or transmitting such details to campaign organizations, a departure from practices permitted during earlier elections.

For voters traveling to their assigned polling stations, special transportation arrangements are in effect. Intercity bus routes exceeding 15 kilometers and Israel Railways services are available without charge during the designated Election Day period. Train passengers must obtain a free ticket, while ordinary urban bus routes and light rail services remain subject to their usual fares.

Voters are generally required to cast their ballots at their assigned polling stations and present an accepted form of identification, such as an Israeli identity card, valid passport, or driver’s license. Those who have not received a voter notification can still participate, provided they are registered and report to the correct location.

Special voting provisions are also available for residents evacuated from their homes, patients in medical institutions, prisoners, and individuals with mobility limitations. Voters who arrive at a polling station before its official closing time are entitled to cast their ballots even if they must wait until after the scheduled closing hour.

Once the counting is completed, the process of forming a government will begin. President Isaac Herzog will consult with representatives of the elected parties before assigning the task of forming a coalition to the Knesset member he determines has the best prospect of securing parliamentary support.

That individual will generally have up to 42 days to establish a government. If the effort fails, additional procedures allow another candidate to attempt to assemble a coalition, potentially extending the period of political uncertainty beyond Election Day.

The official results are expected to be published by November 4, although the initial distribution of seats should become clearer as ballots are counted over the coming days.

For Israel’s chareidi community, particular attention will remain focused on the performance of Shas and United Torah Judaism and the eventual composition of the next coalition. The unresolved questions surrounding the draft of yeshiva bochurim, the status of Torah learners, and the relationship between the government and the chareidi parties will remain central issues once the election results are known.

As Israelis cast their ballots, the immediate question is how the electorate will divide the Knesset’s 120 seats. The longer political process will determine which parties can reach an agreement on forming a government and how the disputes that dominated the outgoing Knesset will be addressed in the next one.

{Matzav.com}

He lost his father before turning 3. His widowed mother raised him and his siblings alone.

Now, as he prepares for his wedding, his mother cannot afford even the basic necessities!

PLEASE HELP THIS YESOM GET MARRIED WITH DIGNITY! CLICK HERE TO DONATE.

A federal appeals court on Monday rejected an emergency request by President Donald Trump’s administration to prevent California from counting mail-in ballots submitted by individuals appearing on a federal list of more than 20,000 registered voters suspected of being noncitizens. The ruling represents a significant setback for the administration’s efforts to tighten election safeguards just days before the November 3 midterm elections.

The decision by the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit allows California to continue processing and counting ballots under its existing election procedures, despite concerns raised by federal officials that thousands of people on the state’s voter rolls may not be legally eligible to participate in federal elections.

The dispute comes as Republicans and Democrats prepare for a closely watched congressional election that will determine control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. President Trump has made election integrity a major priority of his administration, particularly regarding allegations that noncitizens have been improperly registered or permitted to vote.

The California litigation represents an unusually direct attempt by the federal government to intervene in the administration of a state election. According to Reuters, it was the first instance in which the Trump administration sought a court order preventing a state from counting ballots associated with individuals identified through federal citizenship screening.

The Justice Department did not specify how many people appearing on its list of more than 20,000 potentially ineligible voters had actually returned mail-in ballots. That uncertainty became an important consideration in the dispute over whether the courts should intervene before Election Day.

Federal prosecutors had previously announced, on October 19, that 28 individuals identified in connection with election-related investigations were facing criminal charges. The alleged offenses included unlawful voting by noncitizens, submitting fraudulent voter-registration documents, and providing false information during naturalization proceedings.

California, which has the largest population of any American state, is also one of the Democratic Party’s strongest electoral bases. Its 52 seats in the House of Representatives make it particularly important in the national struggle for congressional control.

Democrats are attempting to regain the House majority from Republicans, making California’s congressional contests a central component of their electoral strategy. The administration’s challenge to the state’s mail-ballot procedures therefore comes at a politically sensitive moment.

Since returning to the White House, Trump has repeatedly criticized California’s immigration and law-enforcement policies, particularly its designation as a sanctuary state. The president has argued that restrictions on cooperation between state authorities and federal immigration agencies have weakened enforcement efforts and created opportunities for abuse.

Trump has also repeatedly alleged that California’s immigration policies have contributed to election irregularities, including the possibility that individuals without American citizenship have been able to register and cast ballots.

Studies and investigations examining noncitizen voting have generally found relatively few documented cases compared with the number of ballots cast nationwide. A Reuters investigation published in July identified 129 instances in which federal authorities had charged noncitizens with illegal voting. The investigation found that a number of those cases appeared to involve misunderstandings about eligibility or administrative mistakes rather than deliberate attempts to commit election fraud.

The latest legal battle began on October 15, when the Justice Department filed a lawsuit in federal court in Los Angeles seeking emergency intervention in California’s ballot-counting procedures.

Federal attorneys asked the court to require state election officials to identify and separate ballots received from individuals on the administration’s list. Under the proposed arrangement, those ballots would remain excluded from the official count until authorities independently confirmed that the voters were American citizens.

The administration argued that such precautions were necessary to prevent potentially unlawful ballots from being included in the election results. California officials, however, maintained that the federal government had not established a sufficient factual basis for imposing extraordinary restrictions on the state’s voting procedures.

After seeking relief in the district court, the Justice Department turned to the Ninth Circuit with an emergency request for expedited consideration, hoping to obtain a ruling before the election.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber’s office strongly opposed the federal intervention, arguing that the state already maintains extensive procedures designed to prevent ineligible individuals from registering or voting.

State attorneys also challenged the reliability of the information used by federal investigators to identify suspected noncitizens, contending that the administration’s allegations were based on “suspect data.”

“At best, this litigation is a reckless political stunt,” lawyers for California Secretary of State Shirley Weber said in an Oct. 20 court filing. “At worst, it threatens to disenfranchise thousands of Californians this election.”

Voting-rights organizations have similarly warned that federal efforts to identify noncitizens through comparisons of government databases could mistakenly classify naturalized American citizens as ineligible voters.

Such errors, critics argue, could result in legitimate voters being removed from registration lists or having their ballots subjected to additional scrutiny, particularly when election officials have limited time to verify citizenship information.

The Justice Department has defended its broader election-enforcement campaign as necessary to ensure compliance with federal laws prohibiting noncitizens from participating in elections for president and Congress.

Federal officials have warned election administrators in all 50 states that knowingly permitting ineligible noncitizens to remain registered or participate in federal elections could expose them to criminal liability.

The administration has also pursued a separate series of lawsuits seeking access to detailed voter-registration records from states and the District of Columbia. Those requests have included sensitive personal information that state officials argue should not be broadly disclosed to federal authorities.

According to the reported figures, the Justice Department has sued 30 states and Washington, D.C., over refusals to provide complete voter-registration information, with courts ruling against the administration in 26 of those cases.

Additional details from Monday’s ruling show that the appeals court’s decision rested primarily on procedural grounds rather than a final determination of whether the individuals identified by the federal government were eligible to vote.

In a 2-1 decision, the three-judge panel concluded that the Justice Department had attempted to obtain appellate intervention before the district court had been given a reasonable opportunity to consider its emergency application.

Judges Mark Bennett, appointed by Trump, and Gabriel Sanchez, appointed by President Joe Biden, formed the majority. They concluded that the administration had moved too quickly to the appellate court despite the lower court having scheduled a hearing on the matter.

The majority also questioned the urgency of the administration’s request, pointing out that federal authorities had been investigating the suspected registration irregularities for months before filing suit shortly before Election Day.

The judges characterized the administration’s claimed emergency as partly a “self-constructed one,” citing delays in bringing the litigation and the practical difficulties of changing ballot-processing procedures after voting had already begun.

Judge Patrick Bumatay, another Trump appointee, dissented. He argued that the federal government had a legitimate and substantial interest in preventing ballots cast by ineligible noncitizens from influencing federal elections.

“The question — does the federal government have the power to stop this potential attack on the integrity of our elections? Under both federal law and the Constitution, the answer must be ‘yes,’” Bumatay wrote. “Simply, the federal government has a sovereign interest in safeguarding federal elections and ensuring that the votes of noncitizens do not undermine our electoral results.”

Court documents also provided new information about how the administration assembled its list. Federal immigration authorities initially examined more than 175,000 California voter-registration records before narrowing the results to approximately 20,000 individuals whom investigators considered highly likely to be noncitizens.

The screening involved U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and Homeland Security Investigations, which compared voter information against immigration records and other databases.

California officials challenged the accuracy of that process. According to a preliminary review conducted by Los Angeles County election authorities, many individuals flagged by federal investigators appeared to have been born in the United States, while others had inactive or canceled registrations.

The review raised questions about whether the federal screening system had incorrectly identified eligible American voters or included individuals whose registration status had already changed.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta welcomed Monday’s decision, portraying it as a victory for state election officials and voters who might otherwise have faced additional obstacles to having their ballots counted.

The legal confrontation is not over. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday in Los Angeles on the Justice Department’s underlying request for an order requiring California to separate the disputed ballots.

That hearing could determine whether the administration obtains any immediate relief before Election Day, although the appellate ruling leaves California’s existing procedures in place for the time being.

The outcome could also have implications beyond California, as the Trump administration continues its nationwide effort to obtain voter-registration records and identify individuals suspected of participating unlawfully in federal elections.

{Matzav.com}

The Justice Department announced Monday that federal prosecutors have brought election-related charges against 48 noncitizens across five states, accusing the defendants of offenses ranging from illegally casting ballots in federal elections to submitting fraudulent voter registrations and falsely representing themselves as American citizens. The cases involve alleged violations connected to multiple election cycles, including the 2020, 2022, and 2024 elections.

The prosecutions, announced less than two weeks before the November 3 midterm elections, involve individuals in Pennsylvania, California, Florida, New York, and Nevada. Federal authorities said the defendants face a variety of charges, with some accused of voting despite lacking American citizenship and others alleged to have made false statements on official documents to obtain voting privileges or immigration benefits.

According to the Justice Department, the investigations uncovered several categories of alleged misconduct, including unlawful participation in federal elections, false declarations of citizenship on voter-registration forms, and misrepresentations made during the naturalization process.

The cases do not all involve the same conduct or election. Some concern ballots allegedly cast in presidential or congressional contests, while others involve voter-registration applications or statements submitted to federal immigration authorities. The charges represent allegations that prosecutors must establish in court, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

In Pennsylvania, federal prosecutors charged several foreign nationals with allegedly participating in federal elections despite being ineligible to vote. Among those identified was Alfredo Santiesteban, a 73-year-old Cuban national whom the Justice Department described as being unlawfully present in the United States.

Other Pennsylvania defendants were identified as lawful permanent residents who allegedly cast ballots in the 2022 or 2024 elections. Although green-card holders are legally permitted to reside and work in the United States, they generally remain ineligible to vote in federal elections until obtaining American citizenship.

California authorities announced cases involving both alleged election violations and false statements during immigration proceedings. Some defendants face felony charges stemming from accusations that they misrepresented their voting history or citizenship status on applications for naturalization.

One defendant, Omar Alexander Munoz, a 72-year-old citizen of Belize, was accused of registering to vote while falsely identifying himself as an American citizen. Prosecutors further alleged that he participated in multiple elections before subsequently providing inaccurate information under oath during the naturalization process.

The allegations against Munoz illustrate how an individual’s voting history can become relevant to immigration proceedings. Federal naturalization applications require applicants to disclose certain information about previous voting activity and claims of American citizenship, and knowingly providing false information can result in criminal prosecution.

In Florida, the Justice Department announced charges against six individuals in the Middle District of the state. The defendants include nationals of Cuba, Ecuador, Canada, and Brazil who allegedly voted in federal elections held in 2022 or 2024 or falsely claimed American citizenship in connection with voter registration.

The Florida prosecutions involve allegations that individuals who lacked the legal right to participate in federal elections nevertheless submitted registration documents or cast ballots in contests reserved for American citizens.

New York was also among the states where federal prosecutors brought charges. The cases there include allegations that noncitizens filed fraudulent voter-registration applications and subsequently participated in federal elections.

In Nevada, prosecutors charged a Filipino national with allegedly casting a ballot in an election that included races for president, the United States Senate, and the House of Representatives. Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in elections for those offices, regardless of whether they are legally residing in the country.

Across the five states, the allegations vary considerably. Certain defendants are accused specifically of voting as noncitizens, while others face charges involving false citizenship declarations, fraudulent registration activity, or inaccurate statements made to federal immigration officials.

The announcement brings together prosecutions involving conduct over several years rather than a single election or coordinated operation. The Justice Department did not establish in the information summarized in its announcement that the defendants were acting together or participating in an organized election-fraud scheme.

The Justice Department’s detailed announcement identified nine defendants in Pennsylvania, 28 in California, six in Florida, four in New York, and one in Nevada. California accounted for the largest share of the prosecutions, with cases filed across four federal judicial districts.

Among the Pennsylvania defendants was Yehuda Peer, a 30-year-old Israeli national and lawful permanent resident accused of voting in the 2024 general election. Prosecutors also charged Polish national Artur Kopacz, 50, with allegedly voting in both the 2022 and 2024 general elections.

In California, the allegations extended to voting activity as recently as 2026. Prosecutors accused Camino Giles Jiménez, a 51-year-old Mexican national and lawful permanent resident, of participating in three American elections, including the June 2026 primary.

Another California defendant, Maricela Nazarín González, 43, was accused of registering to vote in 2020 while identifying herself as an American citizen and subsequently casting ballots in elections held in 2022, 2024, and 2025.

The department also identified several individuals accused of registering and voting on the same day. Giezell Viduya Adawag, a 41-year-old Filipino national, allegedly registered on Election Day in November 2024, falsely certified that she was an American citizen, and cast a ballot. Indian national Kamlesh Navnitlal Shah, 67, was similarly accused of registering and voting that day.

In New York, prosecutors alleged that three lawful permanent residents in the Eastern District had submitted fraudulent registration applications and voted in the 2024 federal election. The defendants were identified as Irish national Eoin Cranney, 35, Guyanese national Ronald Sheldon Baird, 47, and Jamaican national Karlene Daniels Samuels, 55.

According to the Justice Department, Cranney and Baird acknowledged during voluntary interviews with federal investigators that they were not American citizens when they voted. The announcement also described an admission concerning Samuels, although the department’s account contained an apparent error in identifying the individual who made that statement.

A separate prosecution in the Northern District of New York involved Marva Cook, a 66-year-old German national and lawful permanent resident accused of voting in an election that included congressional races.

In Nevada, federal authorities charged Jullie Ann Sumalinog Moore, a 44-year-old Filipino national and lawful permanent resident, with allegedly voting in an election featuring presidential and congressional contests.

The charges carry different potential penalties depending on the alleged offense. In California’s Eastern District, for example, prosecutors specified that voting by a noncitizen in a federal election is a misdemeanor carrying a maximum sentence of one year in federal prison. Other defendants face felony allegations involving false statements or unlawful attempts to obtain naturalization.

The announcement also follows additional election-related prosecutions publicized by the Justice Department earlier this month. On October 19, federal authorities announced charges against 28 foreign nationals in California in cases involving election offenses and false statements. That same day, New Jersey prosecutors announced that a Jamaican national who was unlawfully present in the United States had admitted to voting illegally in a federal election.

On October 16, the department separately announced charges involving 16 noncitizens in North Carolina, New York, and Idaho, including allegations of illegal voting and false claims of American citizenship.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump delivered a forceful defense of the United States’ military campaign against Iran during a campaign rally in Mississippi on Monday, declaring that Washington had no alternative but to confront Tehran’s growing military capabilities and nuclear ambitions. The president warned that Iranian missiles could eventually threaten major American cities, insisted that Iran had initiated the decades-long confrontation with the United States, and maintained that military action was necessary regardless of the potential economic consequences.

Speaking to supporters, Trump described Iran as a technologically capable adversary whose advances in missile development had become increasingly alarming to American officials. At the same time, he praised the effectiveness of the U.S. military campaign, saying American forces had inflicted devastating damage on Tehran’s military infrastructure.

“Iranians make great weapons. They are very smart people, but we beat the s–t out of them,” the President stated, adding, “Iranians now have a missile that essentially reached Europe. They weren’t supposed to. We said, ‘Where …. did they get that?'”

Trump on Iran:

We did a little ceasefire, which I never liked very much. I considered it a waste of time.

The ceasefire was just a waste of time. pic.twitter.com/qNbi30xKv3

— Clash Report (@clashreport) October 26, 2026

Trump suggested that Iran’s missile program had progressed beyond what American officials previously anticipated, raising concerns that weapons capable of reaching European targets could eventually be developed to strike the United States itself.

“And they’d hit our cities. They’d hit San Diego. They’d hit Los Angeles. They’d hit our cities too. So somebody had to do it. It had to be done,” Trump stated.

The president rejected the suggestion that Washington bore responsibility for initiating the conflict, arguing that the Islamic Republic’s longstanding hostility toward the United States had made confrontation unavoidable.

“We didn’t start the war with Iran. Iran started the war with us,” he added.

Trump also expressed frustration with an earlier ceasefire agreement, describing the temporary halt in hostilities as an unsuccessful diplomatic effort that had merely postponed the confrontation. He said he had been skeptical of the arrangement from the beginning but had allowed diplomatic advisers an opportunity to pursue it.

“We did a little ceasefire, which I never liked very much. I considered it a waste of time. The ceasefire was just a waste of time, but you like to listen to professionals. We wanted to be nice, but it was just a waste of time as far as I’m concerned,” he continued.

According to Trump, preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons remained the overriding consideration behind his administration’s military decisions. He argued that the dangers associated with allowing Tehran to develop a nuclear arsenal outweighed the financial and geopolitical costs of continued military operations.

The president acknowledged that he had expected the confrontation to produce a potentially dramatic increase in global oil prices, but said he had been prepared to accept those consequences rather than allow Iran’s nuclear program to advance unchecked.

He said “we really had no choice” and acknowledged that he had anticipated a potentially significant increase in oil prices as a consequence of the conflict.

“I thought the price of oil was going to go much, much higher, and I was fully prepared to do it…it should’ve been a long time ago.”

Trump also placed the current confrontation within the broader history of Iranian-American relations, pointing to the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and the decades of hostility that followed. He accused the Iranian regime of supporting violence against American personnel and contributing to the deaths of U.S. citizens over many years.

“They were killing our people for years,” Trump said.

His remarks came as the administration continued weighing the possibility of another round of military operations against Iranian targets, even as diplomatic contacts raised the prospect of a negotiated arrangement.

Over the weekend, Trump repeatedly declined to reveal whether he intended to authorize additional strikes, arguing that publicly disclosing operational decisions in advance would be irresponsible.

Asked Saturday about the possibility of renewed attacks, the president confirmed that military action remained an option but emphasized that negotiations could also produce an agreement acceptable to Washington.

“Let me tell you, while we’re thinking about doing it, and maybe tomorrow, do you really think I’m going to tell you? If I’m going to do it, and there’s a possibility I will, there’s also a possibility we’ll have a nice, big, beautiful agreement. They want to make a deal. But the problem is, will they hold the deal?”

Trump’s comments reflected the administration’s dual approach of maintaining military pressure while leaving open the possibility of a diplomatic settlement. The president has repeatedly questioned whether Tehran would comply with any agreement, citing his longstanding concerns about the Iranian government’s reliability.

On Sunday, however, Trump provided a more definite answer when reporters asked whether American forces would strike Iran that day. Speaking before departing for a campaign appearance in Michigan, he ruled out an immediate attack.

“The answer is no. There will not be a strike today,” he stated.

Later, in an interview with FOX2 Detroit, Trump made clear that he was unwilling to prioritize a quick conclusion to the conflict over securing what he considers a lasting solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The president warned that allowing the Islamic Republic to acquire nuclear weapons would create dangers far greater than the economic disruption already associated with the conflict, including the possibility of catastrophic attacks.

“You want to see problems? You want to see not only energy problems but death problems? Let them have a nuclear weapon because they will use it,” Trump said. “And, I have to do that first.”

Trump also indicated that he was prepared to pursue negotiations without imposing an artificial deadline, arguing that the objective should be a durable agreement rather than a temporary political accomplishment.

“I’m going to make a great deal. I’m a longterm person; I’m not a short term person,” the President said.

The latest developments suggest that Washington is approaching another critical decision over Iran, with military preparations continuing even as regional governments attempt to prevent a renewed outbreak of large-scale fighting.

Iranian officials said Sunday that indirect negotiations with the United States were continuing, but insisted that Tehran would not abandon its negotiating positions simply because Washington threatened additional strikes. The statements reflected the continuing gulf between the two governments over the terms of a possible agreement.

Diplomatic activity has also intensified across the Middle East. Senior representatives from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan traveled to Tehran on Monday for discussions intended to reduce tensions and prevent another military confrontation involving Iran, the United States, and Israel.

The delegation included Saudi Defense Minister Khalid bin Salman, Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir, and Turkish intelligence chief Ibrahim Kalin. Their visit followed other regional diplomatic efforts aimed at finding a way to end the conflict and restore stability to vital shipping routes.

A major obstacle remains the Strait of Hormuz, where competing American and Iranian restrictions have disrupted international maritime commerce and energy shipments. The strategic waterway has become a central issue in negotiations, with Tehran seeking relief from American economic pressure while Washington demands guarantees concerning maritime access and Iranian military activity.

{Matzav.com}

The BBC has agreed to pay £400,000 to an award-winning Jewish documentary filmmaker who accused colleagues of antisemitic conduct and claimed she was driven out of her position after speaking out about hostility toward Jews and Israel following the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre. The settlement, reached without an admission of wrongdoing, has renewed scrutiny of the British broadcaster’s internal culture and its treatment of Jewish employees.

Lucie Kon, 57, a veteran documentary producer whose work has received major international recognition, including Oscar and Emmy honors, alleged that her workplace became increasingly hostile after the Hamas attacks in southern Israel. Kon, who has relatives living in Israel, said that her Jewish identity and support for Israel suddenly became points of contention among coworkers.

According to Kon, colleagues openly condemned people who identified as Zionists, including herself, as “evil” and disputed her description of Hamas as a terrorist organization, despite the group’s responsibility for the October 7 atrocities.

She recalled being confronted with the assertion that “if you want to call Hamas terrorists then you have to call Israel terrorists, too” and being encouraged to “think about what drove Hamas to do what they did”.

Kon maintained that the situation deteriorated further after she raised concerns through the BBC’s internal complaint procedures. Rather than receiving the protection and support she had sought, she alleged, she was kept away from the workplace for an extended period, prevented from carrying out her professional responsibilities, and eventually lost her position during an organizational restructuring.

The dispute culminated in legal proceedings over her dismissal, which the broadcaster resolved by agreeing to pay her £400,000, approximately $535,000. The BBC did not acknowledge liability as part of the agreement, and some of the settlement money will ultimately come from funds collected through the television licence fee paid by British households.

Despite agreeing to the substantial payment, the corporation has not issued an apology to Kon or accepted her allegations that she experienced antisemitism while employed there.

Kon told The Telegraph that she had spent more than two decades at the BBC without encountering significant problems connected to her religion or background. That experience, she said, changed abruptly after the terrorist attacks in Israel, which transformed the atmosphere in her workplace.

“It was like having Jew stamped on my forehead,” she recalled.

One of the most troubling disputes, according to Kon, involved discussions about coverage of the October 7 massacre at the Nova music festival, where Hamas terrorists and other attackers murdered hundreds of people and committed other atrocities against civilians.

Kon alleged that colleagues wanted a proposed documentary about the massacre to “contextualize” the killings by examining the circumstances surrounding the attackers and presenting their motivations in a sympathetic light.

She also described hearing a coworker characterize as “disgusting” a visit by then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to a Jewish school, where he had gone to demonstrate solidarity with Britain’s Jewish community and reassure students and families amid growing fears of antisemitism.

When Kon suggested producing a documentary examining the October 7 attacks, she said she was told that she could not oversee the production because, as a Jewish woman, she was considered “too partial” to handle the subject objectively.

“They tried to stop me doing my job because I’m a Jew,” she said.

Kon subsequently consulted a senior BBC manager and filed an official grievance describing the incidents and her concerns about antisemitism within the organization. The broadcaster conducted an internal investigation but ultimately dismissed her complaint. Her attempt to challenge that determination through an appeal was also rejected.

Her employment situation later became more precarious when the BBC reorganized the department in which she worked and abolished her position. Although she applied for another job that was substantially similar to her previous role, she was not selected.

Kon believes that her willingness to challenge the attitudes she encountered, identify herself publicly as a Zionist, and demand action against antisemitism contributed directly to the loss of her career at the broadcaster.

“I think I became a problem. I think I made too much noise about being a Jew inside the BBC. I stood up for my community. I was open about being a Zionist. The BBC says, bring your authentic self to work. And I did. And I lost my job as a result.”

The case is believed to represent the first settlement involving a former BBC employee who alleged antisemitic behavior by colleagues, potentially making it a significant development in the growing debate over how the broadcaster addresses complaints of anti-Jewish discrimination.

Kon has also expressed concern that her experience was not isolated. She maintains that other Jewish staff members have departed the organization after encountering similar difficulties and that the underlying problems have not been adequately addressed.

In response to questions about the settlement and Kon’s allegations, the BBC declined to discuss the specifics of her employment dispute but insisted that it maintains strict standards prohibiting discrimination and antisemitic conduct.

“While we do not comment on individual staffing matters, anti-Semitism in any form is not tolerated at the BBC.

“If allegations or concerns are raised, they are taken seriously and investigated in accordance with our policies. We have robust procedures in place to deal with any behaviour that is contrary to our values.”

The financial settlement comes against the backdrop of sustained criticism directed at the BBC over its reporting on Israel, Hamas, and the Gaza conflict. Critics have accused the publicly funded broadcaster of applying inconsistent standards to Israeli and Palestinian claims, failing to adequately scrutinize information originating from terrorist organizations, and producing coverage that they contend reflects an anti-Israel bias.

One controversy erupted in November 2023, when the BBC incorrectly reported that Israeli soldiers were targeting medical personnel during military operations near Gaza’s Shifa Hospital. The broadcaster subsequently acknowledged the error and apologized for its reporting.

Another major dispute concerned the BBC’s coverage of the October 2023 explosion at Al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza. Initial reporting and commentary suggested Israeli responsibility, but subsequent evidence presented by the Israel Defense Forces indicated that the blast had resulted from a failed rocket launch by Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The BBC later conceded that “it was false to speculate” about the cause of the explosion before sufficient evidence was available.

More recently, the broadcaster faced another wave of criticism over its documentary “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone,” after it emerged that the child narrator featured in the production was the son of a senior Hamas official.

The revelation raised questions about the documentary’s editorial oversight, the information provided to viewers, and whether the production team had adequately investigated the backgrounds of those involved in the program.

Following an examination of the controversy, the BBC acknowledged that the documentary contained “serious flaws” and accepted that its editorial procedures had fallen short of the standards expected of the broadcaster.

Further reporting has revealed additional details about Kon’s professional accomplishments and the circumstances surrounding her departure. She served as an executive producer of “We Will Dance Again,” the documentary examining the Nova festival massacre that received an Emmy Award in 2025. She was also involved in “Mr Nobody Against Putin,” which won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature in 2026.

Kon’s employment at the BBC ended in April 2026, shortly after the Oscar victory. She has alleged that the corporation subsequently diminished the prominence of her name in the film’s credits, although the settlement reportedly includes provisions intended to give her contribution greater recognition.

The producer also helped establish a support group for Jewish BBC employees following October 7 and participated in discussions with then-director-general Tim Davie about concerns within the organization. Among the issues raised was the broadcaster’s reluctance to explicitly characterize the October 7 massacre as a terrorist attack.

According to additional accounts of her experience, Kon’s formal complaint was submitted in January 2024. By March of that year, she had been instructed to stop attending the office following a breakdown in her working relationship with a colleague involved in the dispute.

Kon said the prolonged conflict took a serious toll on her physical and emotional health. She subsequently required medical treatment and took time away from work as the disagreement with her employer continued.

The BBC has maintained that her position was eliminated as part of a broader restructuring of its Storyville documentary operation. The changes included a planned reduction in documentary commissions and the creation of a new staffing structure, for which Kon unsuccessfully applied.

In a more detailed response to the controversy, the broadcaster emphasized that its internal procedures had not substantiated Kon’s allegations of antisemitism. It nevertheless acknowledged deficiencies in the way her case had been handled and recognized the impact on her.

“We are grateful that Ms Kon acknowledges that the BBC is not institutionally antisemitic. The BBC processes did not uphold any of Ms Kon’s allegations of antisemitism. However, the outcome acknowledged shortcomings and the personal impact on Ms Kon. We would like to acknowledge that Ms Kon was a valued member of staff with many years of dedicated service to the BBC.”

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump unleashed a blistering response to Barack Obama on Monday after the 44th president ridiculed his White House renovations by comparing the executive mansion to a Cheesecake Factory operated by Saddam Hussein. Trump accused Obama of neglecting the historic building during his presidency and said the criticism demonstrated his predecessor’s poor judgment.

The exchange erupted as both men were making appearances in the final stretch of the midterm election campaign, with Obama campaigning for Democratic candidates and Trump traveling to Mississippi to rally Republican voters.

Speaking with reporters at Joint Base Andrews before departing Washington, Trump took direct aim at Obama’s remarks, rejecting the suggestion that his extensive changes to the White House had diminished the appearance of the presidential residence.

“For you to say it’s a Cheesecake Factory — that just shows why you were a lousy president,” Trump declared.

He then expanded his criticism beyond the building itself, questioning Obama’s intelligence and his record in office.

“We have to explain that to Obama because he doesn’t understand it because he’s not a smart guy,” the president continued. “He’s not smart at all because of the way he ran the country. Only a stupid person would run the country like that.”

Trump’s response followed Obama’s appearance at a Democratic campaign rally in Ohio on Saturday, where the former president used humor to attack Trump’s ambitious remodeling efforts.

Obama joked that Trump “should be on HGTV,” a reference to the television network known for home renovation and real estate programs.

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

The remark combined a reference to the late Iraqi dictator with a comparison to the restaurant chain known for its elaborate decor and unusually extensive menu. It was aimed at Trump’s preference for gold ornamentation and other decorative changes throughout the presidential complex.

Trump, however, argued that his renovations were necessary to preserve and improve one of the country’s most recognizable landmarks.

He claimed that Obama had failed to pay sufficient attention to the building’s physical condition during his eight years in the White House, allowing maintenance problems to accumulate.

“He doesn’t notice dirt and filth that hadn’t been cleaned, where the walls hadn’t been cleaned for years. He doesn’t notice areas that haven’t been painted,” Trump said.

The president continued his attack by suggesting that Obama had overlooked visible deterioration that should have been addressed.

“Guys like Obama don’t see it. You don’t see dirt. He doesn’t see filth. He doesn’t see broken ornaments on a building.”

Trump’s renovations have attracted considerable attention because of their scale and their departure from the appearance of several familiar White House spaces.

Among the most significant projects has been the demolition of the East Wing to make room for a large ballroom, an undertaking that has generated controversy over the preservation of the historic complex.

Other changes have included repairs and repainting of the columns along the North Portico, alterations to the Rose Garden that replaced much of its lawn with a paved surface, and an extensive redesign of the Oval Office featuring gold-colored fixtures and decorative elements.

Trump has consistently defended the improvements as necessary investments in the White House, maintaining that the building should reflect the prestige of the American presidency while remaining properly maintained.

“I’ve taken care of the White House. I fixed it with the finest artisans in the world,” he said. “We have to explain to Obama that the White House is a symbol of America, and it has to be maintained properly.”

The White House joined the dispute on social media, turning the restaurant comparison into an opportunity to promote the administration’s record.

“Since we’re talking about The Cheesecake Factory … The only thing bigger than the menu is the list of President Trump’s accomplishments,” the official White House account posted.

The message was accompanied by an image designed to resemble a restaurant menu, with various administration initiatives presented as selections. Among the accomplishments highlighted were the creation of more than one million private-sector jobs and tax changes affecting tips and overtime earnings.

The reference to the restaurant’s menu was deliberate. The Cheesecake Factory is famous for offering an enormous selection of dishes, with its menu typically running approximately 20 pages and featuring roughly 250 items.

The restaurant chain unexpectedly became a subject of national political debate after Obama’s remarks, with some conservatives accusing him of looking down on an establishment popular with ordinary Americans. Others defended the joke as criticism of Trump’s decorative tastes rather than of the restaurant’s customers.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent took the exchange a step further Monday by visiting a Cheesecake Factory restaurant in Washington, D.C., for lunch.

Speaking with reporters outside the restaurant, Bessent turned the architectural criticism back on Obama, taking aim at the design of the Obama Presidential Center under construction on Chicago’s South Side.

“This is the man who built the museum who looks like Darth Vader’s tomb,” Bessent said. “I had a great meal. I always have a great meal. I would tell the Martha’s Vineyard set to give it a try.”

Bessent’s reference to Martha’s Vineyard was directed at the upscale Massachusetts island where Obama and his wife maintain a residence. The island does not have a Cheesecake Factory location.

The Treasury secretary also disclosed that he had ordered his usual meal, a French Dip Cheeseburger. He later continued the exchange on social media by recommending the chain’s Cheeseburger Spring Rolls to Obama.

The Obama Presidential Center itself has attracted criticism over its unusual architectural design. The large, angular concrete-and-stone structure has been compared by some observers to the Death Star from the Star Wars films, while critics have nicknamed it the “Obamalisk.”

The dispute also drew attention to the political messaging behind Obama’s original remarks. During his Ohio appearance, the 44th president had criticized Trump for devoting attention to construction projects while Americans continued to express concerns about the cost of living.

Obama was campaigning in Cleveland for Democratic Senate candidate Sherrod Brown and gubernatorial candidate Amy Acton when he made the remarks. His comments about the White House were part of a broader speech attacking the Trump administration’s economic record and urging voters to consider those issues in the November midterm elections.

The exchange was not the first time Obama had mocked Trump’s preference for extravagant interiors. At the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Obama made jokes about Trump’s decorative tastes while Trump was still a businessman and television personality.

Trump, meanwhile, expanded on his defense of the White House renovations during a Monday evening campaign rally in Corinth, Mississippi, where he spent several minutes discussing the building’s condition and the improvements he had undertaken.

The president described repairs involving damaged plaster, cracked columns, missing architectural ornamentation and broken tiles. He also discussed plans for a new ballroom and other changes to the White House grounds, arguing that the work was necessary to preserve the appearance and condition of the presidential complex.

Trump maintained that overseeing the renovations had not distracted him from his responsibilities as president, describing the work as something he enjoyed and found relaxing.

The controversy came as public opinion remained divided over Trump’s construction projects. A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll found that 59% of respondents believed the president was spending too much time on the renovations, compared with 27% who considered the amount of attention appropriate and 11% who believed he should devote more time to them.

For Trump, however, the criticism appeared to have reinforced his determination to defend the changes. He insisted that maintaining the White House was a responsibility attached to the presidency and that the improvements would benefit the building long after his administration.

The clash also reflected the increasingly personal tone of the midterm campaign, with Obama using Trump’s renovation projects as a symbol of what he considered misplaced priorities and Trump responding with attacks on Obama’s presidential record and judgment.

By Monday evening, a joke about a restaurant chain had escalated into a dispute involving the president, his predecessor, the Treasury secretary, the White House’s official social media operation and the architectural legacy of both administrations.

President Donald Trump on Monday dismissed reports that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had asked the White House for an additional endorsement ahead of Tuesday’s Israeli election, insisting that no such conversation had taken place while offering strong praise for Netanyahu’s leadership and his handling of Israel’s security challenges.

The president addressed the matter after being questioned about a report published Sunday by Axios, which claimed that Netanyahu’s office had been lobbying the Trump administration to publicly reaffirm its backing of the prime minister as Israelis prepared to head to the polls.

“No, I never spoke to him about it,” Trump responded.

“I think he has done a very good job as prime minister under very trying conditions,” the President added.

Trump on Netanyahu:

Netanyahu has done a very good job as prime minister under very trying conditions. pic.twitter.com/gpgdwg7gIM

— Clash Report (@clashreport) October 26, 2026

Trump’s remarks followed his decision on Sunday to again throw his political weight behind Netanyahu, reposting an endorsement he had issued the previous week and making another direct appeal to Israeli voters to return the prime minister to office.

In his latest message, Trump portrayed Netanyahu as a vital American ally and pointed to the two leaders’ cooperation in confronting Iran, particularly the military campaigns that he credited with severely weakening Tehran’s armed forces, political leadership, and economy.

“To the people of Israel, to those who haven’t seen it, I am attaching the Endorsement I gave one week ago to your Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu. As everyone is aware, including the enemy, Bibi and I have had a great relationship in winning together. I did the Venezuelan attack, one of the most successful Military Operations in History but, before that, we did Operation Midnight Hammer, stopping the World’s Number One State Sponsor of Terror from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon. Then we did Operation Epic Fury, and Iran now has No Navy, No Air Force, and both their Military and Economy are in shambles, including the fact that Iran’s Inflation is at 301%. The Naval Blockade has precluded them from getting Oil, and two levels of leadership, both Military and otherwise, are gone.”

Trump followed that assessment with an explicit election appeal, describing Netanyahu as an exceptional leader during wartime and arguing that Israel and the United States must continue working together to complete their campaign against the Iranian threat.

“When you go to the Polls please remember that Bibi has been an outstanding Warrior Prime Minister! Israel was called The Little Satan, with the United States being called The Big Satan, by some very evil people. There can no longer be the chant heard around the World of ‘Death to America, Death to Israel,’ and there won’t be. Vote for Bibi Netanyahu for Prime Minister, we have to finish the job that we started!”

The president’s initial endorsement, released the previous Sunday, had similarly emphasized Netanyahu’s importance to Washington’s regional strategy, particularly the administration’s determination to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and rebuilding its military capabilities.

Trump also suggested that a change in Israeli leadership could disrupt the partnership between the two countries and leave the United States facing a greater burden in dealing with Tehran.

“If Israel has the wrong Leader, which would be anyone other than Bibi, America will have to do this work ourselves, and I am not inclined to do so,” Trump warned.

Netanyahu subsequently released a video expressing appreciation for the president’s endorsement and reaffirming their common objective of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The exchange has placed the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu squarely in the spotlight during the final hours of Israel’s election campaign, with the American president making clear that he regards the prime minister as an essential partner in the two countries’ continuing confrontation with Iran.

Additional reporting has provided a more detailed picture of the dispute. According to The Jerusalem Post, American officials maintained that Netanyahu and individuals close to Trump had been making an intensive effort to obtain another presidential endorsement after the initial statement failed to generate a substantial improvement in Netanyahu’s standing in election surveys.

Axios reported that Trump and Netanyahu had spoken twice over a three-day period and that Netanyahu had personally proposed language for further statements of support. The report also claimed that the Israeli leader had suggested arranging interviews between Trump and Israeli journalists to reinforce the president’s endorsement before Election Day.

The Likud party rejected the allegations that Netanyahu had sought another endorsement, while Trump’s Monday comments appeared to support the Israeli prime minister’s position. Speaking to reporters before traveling to a campaign rally in Mississippi, Trump also emphasized that he had personally issued both statements of support.

The controversy comes as Netanyahu faces a closely contested election in which surveys have suggested that his existing coalition could fall short of the 61 Knesset seats necessary to form a government. Opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot has emerged as a major challenger, although polling has also raised questions about whether the opposition could assemble a governing majority.

Trump’s intervention represents an unusual degree of direct involvement by an American president in an Israeli election. His original endorsement on October 18 was particularly significant because he had declined for months to publicly back Netanyahu despite repeated questions about his preferences.

The president previously explained that he had deliberately waited until closer to the election to announce his support, telling Axios, “I was always going to do that. I just didn’t want to do it too soon.”

Asked at the time whether he could work with another Israeli prime minister, Trump left the question open, responding, “Maybe I will, maybe I won’t. Who wants to take the chance?”

Netanyahu has made his relationship with Trump a central theme of his reelection campaign, presenting their cooperation against Iran as evidence that his continued leadership is essential to Israel’s national security. During a televised appearance Sunday night, Netanyahu described the relationship as exceptionally close and suggested that additional military action against Iran could follow if he remains prime minister.

“US President Donald Trump has come with a friendship that has never existed before between an Israeli prime minister and an American president. And it is doubtful we will ever have such a friendly president again,” Netanyahu said. “He has another two years, and he says he is calling on you to vote for me.”

Netanyahu also indicated that Trump was prepared to pursue further measures against Tehran, describing the possibility of action “that would finally, finally, remove the Iranian threat”.

Despite their public expressions of solidarity, reports have indicated that some senior Trump administration officials have grown frustrated with Netanyahu over differences concerning Iran and other regional issues. Axios reported that certain presidential advisers believe Washington could potentially advance its Middle East objectives more effectively under a different Israeli government.

Nevertheless, Trump has chosen to make an unmistakable public commitment to Netanyahu during the closing days of the campaign, tying his endorsement to the two leaders’ record of military cooperation and their shared position on Iran.

With Israeli voters heading to the polls Tuesday, the president’s denial of Netanyahu’s reported lobbying efforts has added another dimension to an already contentious campaign. Whatever discussions may have occurred privately, Trump has made clear that he wants Netanyahu to remain in office and regards their partnership as central to his administration’s Middle East strategy.

{Matzav.com}