Feed aggregator

Former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot appears positioned to receive the mandate to form Israel’s next government after securing recommendations from 67 Knesset members, including 18 representatives of Arab parties whose positions on Hamas have drawn sharp criticism.

The latest development came Thursday evening when Eisenkot’s Yashar! party formally recommended him during consultations at President Isaac Herzog’s residence, bringing the total number of lawmakers backing his candidacy to 67.

The recommendations place Eisenkot in a strong position to receive the first opportunity to assemble a governing coalition, although questions remain about whether he can translate that support into a stable parliamentary majority.

The participation of the Arab parties has become a central point of controversy. According to the report, the 18 Arab lawmakers supporting Eisenkot have refused to explicitly designate Hamas as a terrorist organization, raising concerns among critics about the political foundations of a potential Eisenkot-led government.

Representing Yashar! at the presidential consultations was Yoram Cohen, the former director of the Shin Bet, who described Israel as facing an urgent national crisis requiring an immediate change in leadership.

“We are in a critical emergency because of the results of the elections in the United States and Israel’s international standing. Some of the war’s objectives have not been achieved, security threats still exist, and unfortunately, there are efforts to dismantle democracy in Israel, delegitimize the election results, and wage battles between the branches of government,” Cohen said.

Cohen urged the president to move quickly toward establishing a new administration, arguing that Israel cannot afford prolonged political uncertainty.

“We must establish a national emergency government quickly in order to return Israel to safe shores and stability,” he declared.

He emphasized that the recommendations for Eisenkot represented a broad rejection of the outgoing government and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

“Israel is at a crossroads. A new, stable, and responsible government is an existential necessity. Sixty-seven Knesset members are expressing their lack of confidence in the outgoing government and Binyamin Netanyahu and are demanding new leadership for Israel,” Cohen said.

Cohen also outlined the immediate parliamentary objectives of the emerging political bloc, indicating that replacing the current Knesset speaker would be among its first priorities.

“We want to take steps to replace the Knesset speaker and pass several laws,” he explained.

According to Cohen, Eisenkot intends to begin coalition negotiations with parties that already share his political positions, seeking to establish an agreed framework before approaching additional potential partners.

“We will be able to reach common ground with them very quickly, and that will also serve as the basis for anyone joining us from any party that wants to move forward with us,” Cohen said.

He added that participation in the proposed government would depend on acceptance of a common set of governing principles.

The coalition would be established “on the principles we have set and the basic guidelines that all four parties will formulate together,” Cohen said.

The final tally following the presidential consultations showed 67 MKs recommending Eisenkot, compared with 46 supporting Netanyahu. The seven members of United Torah Judaism declined to recommend either candidate, amid continuing disagreements over legislation protecting yeshiva students from military conscription.

Six parties ultimately backed Eisenkot: Yashar!, Beyachad, Yisrael Beiteinu, the Democrats, Ra’am, and the Joint Arab List. Netanyahu received recommendations from Likud, Shas, Religious Zionism, Otzma Yehudit, and Zehut.

The Arab parties’ support does not necessarily mean they will participate in an Eisenkot government. Mansour Abbas, the leader of Ra’am, has called for the rapid establishment of a new administration while indicating that his party does not seek control over its security policies. Representatives of the Joint Arab List have likewise acknowledged substantial disagreements with Eisenkot, describing their recommendation primarily as an effort to prevent Netanyahu from returning to power.

Herzog must now determine which candidate has the best prospect of assembling a government capable of securing the confidence of at least 61 Knesset members. The president’s decision will mark the beginning of coalition negotiations that could prove considerably more difficult than obtaining the initial recommendations.

Two elevator technicians were injured early Friday morning in a workplace accident at a high-rise building on Masada Street in Bnei Brak, after one worker fell into an elevator shaft and his colleague was hurt while attempting to prevent the fall.

The more seriously injured worker, approximately 30 years old, sustained injuries to his head, neck, and legs and was listed in moderate condition. His 23-year-old coworker suffered light injuries. Both were transported to Beilinson Hospital in Petach Tikvah.

According to initial reports, the two technicians were carrying out repairs while standing on a ladder inside the elevator shaft. At some point, one of the workers lost his balance and fell. His colleague attempted to grab him but was unable to stop the fall and was injured during the incident.

Emergency responders from Hatzalah, Magen David Adom, and United Hatzalah were dispatched to the building to assist the injured workers.

Hatzalah operations officer Menachem Indig, together with EMTs Eli Bitton and Moishy Indig, reported that the 30-year-old technician had suffered multiple injuries after elevator cables fell on him from a considerable height.

“When we arrived at the scene, we found an elevator technician, a man approximately 30 years old, suffering from injuries to his head, neck, and lower extremities after being struck by elevator cables that fell on him from a great height. Together with Hatzalah and MDA EMTs and paramedics, we provided initial medical treatment, including immobilization and bandaging. He was evacuated in moderate condition in an MDA intensive care ambulance staffed by Hatzalah volunteers for further treatment in the trauma room at Beilinson Hospital in Petach Tikvah,” the responders said.

United Hatzalah EMTs Yaakov Yisroel Malka, Aharon Lehrer, and Moishy Kreutzer also treated the victims at the scene.

“We were told that the worker was repairing an elevator when he slipped from a ladder into the shaft, suffering moderate injuries to his head and limbs. A United Hatzalah ambulance crew provided medical treatment and transported another worker, a 23-year-old man who sustained light injuries, to Beilinson Hospital in Petach Tikvah. United Hatzalah’s resilience teams also operated at the scene due to the nature of the incident,” they said.

The accident prompted an additional response from United Hatzalah’s psychological support personnel, who assisted at the scene following the frightening incident.

The circumstances surrounding the fall have not yet been fully established. Initial accounts indicate that the worker lost his footing while performing repairs inside the shaft, while Hatzalah responders also reported that falling elevator cables struck him.

A separate local emergency report described the second injured worker as 29 years old, rather than 23. Both accounts agreed that one technician sustained moderate injuries and the other was lightly injured.

The incident follows other serious workplace accidents involving elevator equipment in Israel. In May, an elevator technician was killed in nearby Givat Shmuel after becoming trapped beneath a freight elevator during maintenance work at a commercial center.

Israel’s occupational safety authorities have repeatedly emphasized the importance of protective equipment, secure working platforms, and strict safety procedures when technicians perform repairs at heights or inside elevator shafts.

Israel is facing growing uncertainty over the future of its relationship with the United States following the Democratic takeover of Congress and President Donald Trump’s announcement that American military assistance to Israel will end by the close of 2026. The developments have raised serious concerns in Yerushalayim about the durability of American support, particularly as Israel confronts ongoing conflicts involving Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza.

A Wall Street Journal analysis describes a potentially historic turning point in relations between Washington and Yerushalayim, with growing criticism of Israel among Democrats now accompanied by increasing frustration within Republican circles, including among figures close to Trump.

The diplomatic uncertainty comes at a particularly difficult moment for Israel. Last month’s elections failed to produce a decisive parliamentary majority, leaving Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot competing to assemble the country’s next governing coalition.

Netanyahu had emphasized his close relationship with Trump throughout the election campaign, portraying his access to the American president as a major diplomatic advantage. But the political upheaval in Washington has complicated that argument, raising questions about whether even Netanyahu’s longstanding personal ties to Trump can protect Israel from a broader shift in American policy.

Josh Krasna, a former Israeli diplomat and senior researcher at the Moshe Dayan Center, described the atmosphere in Israel as one of extraordinary alarm.

“There is unimaginable panic in Israel,” Krasna said. “Israelis were raised to believe that the Americans would always be our friends, and in a sense, this was a wake-up call.”

Although Israel continues to enjoy substantial support on Capitol Hill, the Democratic victories have increased the number of lawmakers likely to demand restrictions on military assistance, impose conditions on weapons transfers, or challenge Israeli military operations.

Danny Citrinowicz, a senior researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies, warned that future American assistance packages could face significantly tougher congressional scrutiny.

“Future financial assistance could face strict limitations, and Congress will demand much closer oversight of the use of American weapons, particularly regarding Israeli policy toward the Palestinians,” Citrinowicz said.

Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, Citrinowicz suggested that the consequences could extend well beyond financial assistance. Future American administrations, he warned, might become less willing to veto resolutions critical of Israel at the United Nations and could draw a sharper distinction between defending Israel against attacks and supporting Israeli-initiated military campaigns.

The changing political atmosphere was also evident in a public exchange involving Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid, who proposed traveling to the United States to rebuild support for Israel.

Brad Lander, the newly elected Democratic congressman from New York, responded sharply to the suggestion.

“We are not thirsty for campaign tours and performances. We are hungry to see respect for international law and human rights.”

The growing divide reflects years of deteriorating relations between Netanyahu and significant portions of the Democratic Party. Critics of the prime minister have long argued that his close identification with Republican leaders came at the expense of Israel’s traditionally bipartisan standing in Washington.

Democratic opposition to Israeli policies intensified during the Gaza war, but the latest developments suggest that Israel’s difficulties are no longer confined to one political party.

On Election Day, Trump reportedly surprised Israeli officials by announcing during a Fox News interview that American military assistance to Israel would be discontinued “by the end of this year.”

The president presented the decision as an effort to neutralize a central campaign issue used by Democratic candidates who had called for ending American assistance to Israel.

Among those candidates was Abdul El-Sayed, who won Michigan’s Senate race after campaigning on a platform that included opposition to continued military aid.

Following the Republican defeats, Vice President JD Vance reportedly pointed to voter dissatisfaction with the Iran war and American relations with Israel as contributing factors in the election results.

Dan Shapiro, who previously served in senior American diplomatic and national security positions, offered a particularly stark assessment of Netanyahu’s political standing in Washington.

“Netanyahu has become toxic to almost every Democrat and also to many Republicans who associate the war with their defeat. This is an emergency for Israel. If it wants to preserve this relationship, it cannot happen with Netanyahu.”

The tensions have prompted comparisons with the 1956 Suez Crisis, when President Dwight Eisenhower’s administration threatened sanctions against Israel following its military operation in the Sinai Peninsula.

Iranian officials have also invoked the historical comparison, with a spokesman for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps drawing parallels between the current American position in the Strait of Hormuz and the diplomatic difficulties faced by Britain and France during the Suez confrontation.

Despite the severity of that earlier crisis, Israel and the United States eventually rebuilt their relationship, which subsequently developed into one of America’s most significant strategic partnerships.

The immediate focus in Israel is now shifting to President Isaac Herzog, who must decide whether to give Netanyahu or Eisenkot the first opportunity to form a government. Neither political camp emerged from the election with a clear majority, and both face difficult coalition negotiations.

Eisenkot has pledged to make repairing Israel’s relationship with Washington a central priority if he becomes prime minister.

“Under my leadership, we will renew and deepen the partnership, strengthen its bipartisan foundations, and work toward a Middle East defined not only by the absence of conflict, but by opportunities and cooperation,” Eisenkot said.

The uncertainty surrounding Trump’s announcement is particularly significant because the existing American-Israeli security assistance agreement provides approximately $3.8 billion annually through 2028. The president has not explained how the proposed termination at the end of 2026 would affect those commitments or outstanding weapons purchases.

Trump has nevertheless emphasized that Israel would remain free to purchase American military equipment even after direct assistance ends. He has also said that Netanyahu himself raised the possibility of eliminating the aid, arguing that Israel has developed sufficient economic strength to finance more of its defense requirements independently.

The financial complications extend beyond the current assistance agreement. A State Department document reviewed by the Wall Street Journal indicated that Israel had approximately $10 billion in outstanding American weapons orders, as of April, that would require financing beyond 2028.

Avner Golov, a former senior Israeli National Security Council official, suggested that the present crisis should force Israeli policymakers to reconsider longstanding assumptions about the country’s closest ally.

“On October 7, we learned a hard lesson that we need to listen to our enemies. Now we have learned that we need to do exactly the same thing with our friends.”

The Palestinian delegation to the United Nations is preparing a series of resolutions condemning Israel’s presence and construction activities in Yehuda and Shomron, eastern Yerushalayim, and the Golan Heights, with votes expected in the UN General Assembly before the end of November.

The diplomatic initiative comes as Israel’s political leadership is occupied with efforts to form a new government following the recent elections. Palestinian officials are seeking to take advantage of the political transition to increase international pressure on Israel and secure broader opposition to its policies.

According to a report published Friday morning, the proposed resolutions address several issues, including assistance for Palestinian refugees, protection of their property, and condemnation of Israeli construction in areas claimed by the Palestinians.

Particular attention is being directed toward the E1 area near Maale Adumim, where Israeli plans to advance construction tenders have generated international opposition. Palestinian officials are pressing for language explicitly criticizing development in the strategically sensitive area.

One of the most consequential proposals would call on the United Nations to formally declare that it does not recognize Israel’s presence in Yehuda and Shomron.

The Palestinians are also seeking international endorsement of policies that distinguish between Israeli territory within the pre-1967 lines and communities and activities in Yehuda and Shomron. The objective is to strengthen the diplomatic framework for treating the two areas differently in international agreements and government policies.

Intensive negotiations over the wording of the proposed resolutions have been taking place in recent days, with Palestinian representatives focusing particularly on securing support from European Union member states.

However, consultations among the EU’s 27 members this week exposed significant disagreements over the proposals. European representatives have reportedly been unable to reach a unified position on any of the resolutions under discussion.

Despite the lack of European consensus, diplomatic officials believe the Palestinian delegation intends to proceed with the General Assembly votes rather than delay the initiative in hopes of securing unanimous European backing.

Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, is meanwhile leading a diplomatic effort to counter the Palestinian campaign.

Israeli representatives have been holding discussions with foreign delegations in an attempt to soften the language of the resolutions, persuade countries to oppose them, and prevent the Palestinians from securing the broad international support they are seeking.

The Palestinian initiative comes amid an already tense international dispute over construction in E1. In October, the European Union publicly urged Israel to reverse settlement expansion in the area and warned businesses against participating in construction projects there.

European governments have repeatedly expressed support for a Palestinian state alongside Israel and opposition to Israeli construction beyond the pre-1967 lines. Nevertheless, those shared positions have not translated into agreement among all 27 EU members over the specific wording of the latest Palestinian resolutions.

The proposed measures would be voted on by the General Assembly, where resolutions generally carry political and diplomatic weight rather than the binding enforcement authority associated with certain Security Council decisions.

Congressional Democrats are preparing to challenge President Donald Trump’s proposed $1.5 trillion military budget when they take control of the House and Senate in January, setting up a major confrontation over defense spending, the administration’s military campaign in Iran, and the leadership of War Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Following their victories in Tuesday’s midterm elections, Democratic lawmakers are signaling that they intend to use their new congressional majorities to block additional military expenditures, investigate Pentagon operations, and demand greater accountability from senior defense officials.

Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the leading Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, outlined the party’s priorities in remarks reported Thursday by The Center Square, arguing that the administration’s military spending plans are excessive and would come at the expense of domestic programs.

“We must push for the development of a more realistic and sustainable approach to our national security, one that does not require a defense budget in excess of $1 trillion or one paid for with draconian cuts to critical domestic programs,” Smith said in a statement.

Smith also indicated that Democrats would pursue extensive oversight of Pentagon finances, including examinations of how military funding is allocated and whether existing resources are being managed efficiently.

The White House and Hegseth have defended the administration’s request, maintaining that a substantial increase in military spending is necessary to restore American military capabilities, rebuild depleted weapons inventories, and strengthen the country’s ability to deter hostile nations.

During a July 21 hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Hegseth warned lawmakers that approving anything less than the full amount would jeopardize the nation’s security.

“Not funding this department at 1.5 trillion, I believe, is the greatest threat that our nation faces,” Hegseth told lawmakers.

The war secretary argued that years of insufficient investment had weakened military readiness and that the proposed funding would help prepare American forces for future threats.

“We know the best way to create peace is to prepare for war, to deter it,” he told the committee.

Trump previously promoted the proposal in a January 7 Truth Social message, saying the increased funding would allow the United States to develop a “Dream Military” capable of keeping Americans “SAFE and SECURE, regardless of foe.”

Administration officials say the additional resources would support expanded weapons manufacturing, improvements in military technology, greater operational readiness, and the replacement of munitions consumed during the conflict with Iran.

The Pentagon’s financial management is also expected to receive increased attention. Although the department accounts for approximately 17% of annual federal spending, it has never successfully completed a comprehensive financial audit, according to The Center Square.

Congress has not yet completed work on the fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act, which sets military policy and authorizes expenditures, or the separate appropriations legislation that provides the actual funding.

The House and Senate versions of the authorization legislation each provide approximately $1.15 trillion, while the defense appropriations proposal would allocate roughly $1.07 trillion.

Republican leaders had intended to satisfy an additional $350 billion requested by the administration through budget reconciliation, a procedure that can allow qualifying legislation to pass the Senate without overcoming the usual 60-vote filibuster threshold.

But the Republican-controlled Congress has only about eight weeks remaining before Democrats assume power, leaving limited time to finalize the legislation during the lame-duck session.

If lawmakers instead approve a temporary extension of existing spending levels and postpone the major funding decisions until January, the incoming Democratic majorities could prevent the administration from securing the additional $350 billion.

Democrats would face greater legal and political obstacles in attempting to stop Trump’s military operations in Iran directly. Legislation ordering the president to end the campaign could be vetoed, and overriding that veto would require two-thirds support in both chambers.

Congressional Democrats could nevertheless exert considerable influence by refusing to approve new funding for the conflict, although previously appropriated military resources could remain available for continued operations.

Trump could respond by vetoing broader defense spending legislation containing restrictions on Iran, potentially creating a confrontation over the Pentagon’s budget.

Smith has identified the military campaign as one of his foremost oversight priorities.

“The list of potential oversight topics is long, but the illegal war against Iran is top of mind for me and the American people,” Smith said, according to The Center Square.

He also intends to increase demands for public testimony from senior Pentagon officials, arguing that Congress needs more information about military operations, spending decisions, and the administration’s national security strategy.

The Pentagon’s budget dispute is unfolding as Hegseth faces mounting political pressure following Republican losses in the midterms. Questions about his leadership and the administration’s handling of the Iran war have fueled speculation about his future in the Cabinet.

Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, introduced eight articles of impeachment against Hegseth in September and is preparing to renew his effort when the House returns next week. The allegations include violations of congressional war powers and improper conduct involving American military operations overseas.

Hegseth has rejected demands that he resign and has vowed to continue defending the administration’s military policies.

“Just like the president, we don’t back down. And that especially applies now,” Hegseth said in a video message outside the Pentagon.

Trump, meanwhile, defended Hegseth during an interview with ABC News on Thursday, saying he has “every intention” of retaining him as war secretary.

“I get these calls, you know, about him. I don’t understand why,” Trump said, referring to complaints about Hegseth.

Smith has also indicated that his committee’s investigations could extend to military contracts, alleged favoritism in Pentagon spending, American strikes in the Caribbean and Latin America, and the deployment of military personnel to American cities.

He has proposed restoring a dedicated oversight and investigations subcommittee to examine those issues and said he intends to hold public hearings on the Iran war, regardless of whether the conflict is still underway when Democrats assume control of Congress.

President Donald Trump blamed Democrats’ sweeping midterm election victories for Thursday’s sharp stock market selloff, accusing the party of triggering massive losses on Wall Street just two days after winning control of both chambers of Congress.

The president argued that the election results had shaken investor confidence and damaged retirement accounts, even as he predicted that the American economy would eventually recover and reach new heights.

“The Stock Market suffered one of the Worst Days in History based on the results of the Election,” Trump wrote Thursday in a post on Truth Social. “Such a sad thing to watch! It took so much work to get us to a level that no one has ever seen before, and then this.

“Your 401(k)s have, therefore, dropped. Remember, it wasn’t Republicans, it was Dumocrats,” Trump added. “Do not fear, however, we will soon, one way or the other, be BIGGER AND STRONGER THAN EVER BEFORE. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Wall Street suffered substantial losses during Thursday’s session, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbling 1,833.06 points. The technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite plunged 5.52%, pushing it more than 10% below its record high from the previous month, while the S&P 500 declined 4.36%.

Technology companies, particularly those tied to artificial intelligence, semiconductor manufacturing, and data center construction, were among the hardest hit as investors reassessed the potential consequences of the Democratic takeover of Congress.

According to CNBC, market participants have grown concerned that Democratic lawmakers could introduce policies that slow the expansion of AI infrastructure, an industry that has helped drive economic growth and stock market gains in recent years.

Semiconductor giants Broadcom and Nvidia suffered especially severe declines, with their shares falling approximately 10% and 9%, respectively. Qualcomm and Oracle also recorded significant losses as the technology sector endured a second consecutive day of selling.

Tim Holland, chief investment officer at Orion, said investors appeared reluctant to maintain their exposure to AI-related companies until the implications of the election became clearer.

Investors are “stepping away until they get a better sense of the implications of the midterms around the AI capex cycle in particular, which is the biggest economic tailwind we’ve had going for us for the last, call it, three years,” Holland told CNBC.

“It’s about tone and tenor from the party that did really well, incredibly well, at the federal level and at the state level,” Holland added.

The sharp decline followed a very different market reaction Wednesday, when stocks surged in the first trading session after the midterm elections. The Dow gained more than 1,500 points that day, recording its strongest performance since April 2025, when Trump announced a temporary suspension of reciprocal tariffs.

The S&P 500 and Nasdaq also finished Wednesday higher, although their gains were considerably smaller than the Dow’s.

Tuesday’s elections delivered major victories for Democrats, who recaptured both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The party flipped at least 39 House seats and at least seven Senate seats, giving it control of the legislative branch for the final two years of Trump’s presidency.

Additional market reporting showed that Thursday’s selloff wiped out roughly $5.4 trillion in combined market value from companies in the S&P 500 and Nasdaq, while the Nasdaq recorded its worst single-day performance in approximately 18 months.

The selloff was particularly severe among companies involved in building artificial intelligence infrastructure. Investors were weighing the possibility that newly elected Democratic officials could impose restrictions on data center construction, including in states where the industry has been expanding rapidly.

The downturn also reflected broader concerns about the enormous sums being invested in artificial intelligence and whether those expenditures would produce sufficient returns. Losses spread beyond technology stocks as the trading session progressed.

Despite Thursday’s steep decline, the major indexes remained higher for the year, with the S&P 500 up approximately 7.4%, the Dow up 7.2%, and the Nasdaq up 4.6% since the beginning of 2026.

Democrats are preparing an aggressive legislative and investigative campaign against President Donald Trump when they assume control of both chambers of Congress in January, with plans to challenge his healthcare policies, tariffs, and military operations in Iran during their first 100 hours in power. But despite their midterm election victories, the party faces a major obstacle: Trump retains the authority to veto legislation, and Democrats do not have the votes to override him without significant Republican support.

The incoming Democratic majorities are developing a rapid-fire legislative agenda intended to demonstrate their priorities immediately after taking office. Their proposals could encounter resistance not only from the White House but also from Senate procedural rules that generally require 60 votes to advance legislation over a filibuster.

Overturning a presidential veto requires approval from two-thirds of both the House and Senate, a threshold Democrats cannot reach independently. Consequently, even legislation approved by both chambers could be rejected by Trump unless enough Republicans break with the president.

Trump has already warned Democrats that winning congressional majorities does not give them unrestricted power to implement their agenda.

“They are in control, but they’re really not in control,” Trump told Fox News following Tuesday’s elections. “They can send over 50 different, great bills that they’re all excited about, and I send them back with a nice stamp veto.”

According to a Thursday report in the New York Post, Democratic leaders intend to move quickly when the new Congress convenes, potentially bringing major proposals directly to the House floor rather than allowing them to spend weeks or months moving through the traditional committee process.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, who is positioned to become speaker, has identified healthcare affordability and Trump’s trade policies as central targets of the initial legislative push.

Among the proposals being considered are reinstating enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies, reversing nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid spending reductions, and rolling back tariffs imposed by the Trump administration.

Jeffries has pledged “bold, dramatic change” following the elections, portraying the Democratic victories as a mandate to confront the administration’s policies.

“Fighting for an affordable America, that’s what unites Democrats all across the country,” Jeffries said while describing the party’s agenda ahead of the election.

Democratic leaders are hoping that swift congressional action will put pressure on Trump to either negotiate or publicly reject legislation addressing issues such as healthcare costs and consumer prices.

However, the party’s own ideological divisions could complicate those efforts. Progressive lawmakers are advocating broader changes than some moderate Democrats are prepared to support, creating potential disagreements over which proposals should receive priority.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and other progressive figures are promoting measures that would lower the Medicare eligibility age to 55, broaden federal benefits, and establish stronger restrictions on artificial intelligence development.

While Democrats may struggle to enact legislation over Trump’s objections, their control of Congress will provide substantial authority in areas that do not require the president’s signature.

Congressional committees will be able to conduct investigations, issue subpoenas, and summon administration officials for hearings. A Democratic Senate could also delay or reject Trump’s judicial nominees, potentially complicating his efforts to fill vacancies on the federal bench.

Among the subjects expected to attract scrutiny are financial dealings involving Trump family businesses, federal immigration enforcement practices, and the administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

Rep. Robert Garcia of California, who is expected to lead the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, signaled the confrontational approach Democrats may adopt with a brief warning on election night.

“Lawyer up.”

The party could also initiate impeachment proceedings against Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, whose handling of military operations has drawn criticism from Democrats and some Republicans. Even if the House voted to impeach him, however, conviction and removal would require a two-thirds majority in the Senate.

Democrats are also considering congressional war powers measures intended to restrict Trump’s military campaign against Iran. Such legislation could face a presidential veto, requiring substantial bipartisan backing to become law.

Despite the anticipated confrontation, Jeffries has indicated that Democrats would remain open to negotiating with the White House on issues where common ground can be found.

Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont has also urged his colleagues to avoid allowing investigations and political disputes to consume the party’s agenda at the expense of the economic issues that helped propel Democrats to victory.

“We can’t turn this into just a vengeance tour,” Welch said.

Democratic leaders have also spent months preparing for the transition. Jeffries established five policy working groups addressing healthcare, housing, groceries and consumer goods, energy and utility costs, and caregiving. Each group pairs moderate and progressive lawmakers in an effort to develop proposals capable of winning support across the Democratic caucus.

The planned investigations are expected to extend beyond the issues already identified. Democratic lawmakers are examining possible inquiries into cryptocurrency ventures associated with Trump’s family, federal contracting decisions, government spending, and the activities of the Department of Government Efficiency.

Republicans and White House officials have rejected allegations of wrongdoing and warned that Democratic investigations could become politically motivated efforts to undermine the administration.

The incoming majority will also have to settle internal disagreements over how aggressively to pursue impeachment and other confrontational measures. Some Democrats favor an expansive oversight campaign, while others are urging the party to concentrate on healthcare, inflation, and other economic concerns that dominated the election.

For now, Democratic leaders are preparing legislation and committee investigations simultaneously, setting up an immediate confrontation with the White House when Congress reconvenes in January.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump’s ambitious plans for a presidential library that could raise nearly $1 billion are drawing growing scrutiny from Democrats preparing to take control of Congress, with lawmakers threatening investigations into corporate contributions, lawsuit settlements, and potential conflicts of interest involving the project.

According to a CBS News report published Thursday, the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library Foundation anticipates collecting $950 million by the end of 2027, including approximately $600 million during that year alone. The projections were contained in an October 2025 application to the Internal Revenue Service obtained by the network.

The foundation is overseen by Trump’s son Eric Trump and his son-in-law Michael Boulos, and its fundraising efforts are expected to intensify as the president enters the final two years of his administration.

“He undoubtedly recognizes that the library development season opens now, and he will go for it,” a senior administration official told CBS News.

Democrats, who won control of both the House and Senate in Tuesday’s midterm elections, are signaling that the foundation’s financial arrangements could become a major target of congressional oversight when the new Congress convenes in January.

“The donors bankrolling his personal vanity project will have to answer to a new majority in Congress,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., told CBS News.

A significant portion of the money associated with the foundation has come from settlements reached with major corporations that previously faced lawsuits brought by Trump.

ABC News agreed to pay $15 million following a defamation dispute, while Meta committed $22 million to the library as part of a settlement concerning the suspension of Trump’s social media accounts.

Paramount reached a $16 million settlement involving Trump’s lawsuit over CBS’s editing of a “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris. Elon Musk’s social media platform X also agreed to resolve separate litigation for $10 million.

Trump’s financial disclosure filed in June reported $56.5 million in payments to the foundation from ABC, Meta, and Paramount. Another $8 million from X was disclosed as having been paid directly to the president.

Questions have nevertheless emerged about the status of some of those contributions. In responses to congressional inquiries, ABC indicated that its payment remained in escrow, while Meta confirmed that its settlement money had been earmarked for the library without clarifying whether the funds had actually been transferred.

The foundation also received a $50 million contribution in January from Japanese investment conglomerate SoftBank, intended to finance an exhibition examining relations between the United States and Japan.

The donation has attracted attention because the Department of Energy subsequently announced plans to lease federal property in Ohio to a company affiliated with SB Energy, a SoftBank subsidiary, for construction of a major artificial intelligence data center.

Administration officials have maintained that the project was already being developed before SoftBank made its contribution. The federal lease agreement was finalized approximately one month after the donation.

Another issue involves PublicSquare, a company whose board includes Donald Trump Jr. The foundation has used a donation-processing platform operated by the company, although a representative said Trump Jr. played no role in establishing or managing the fundraising page.

The proposed presidential library itself has also generated controversy, particularly over its design, location, and possible commercial uses.

In March, Trump presented architectural renderings of a 47-story tower in downtown Miami, complete with gold-colored escalators, an Air Force One aircraft, and a statue commemorating his response to the July 2024 assassination attempt.

The president later indicated that the development would “most likely” function as a hotel rather than a conventional presidential library, raising additional questions about the project’s ultimate purpose.

Those questions have become part of a federal lawsuit challenging Florida’s decision to donate a 2.63-acre parcel in Miami valued at more than $67 million for the development.

The plaintiffs argue that transferring such valuable property for a project associated with a sitting president could violate constitutional prohibitions against certain financial benefits provided by states to federal officeholders.

The Justice Department has sought dismissal of the case on the grounds that Trump is immune from the lawsuit. A federal judge has temporarily suspended discovery while considering the government’s arguments.

Another unresolved question concerns a Boeing 747 aircraft donated by Qatar. Trump had previously discussed eventually transferring the plane to his presidential library, although Eric Trump has since indicated that the aircraft’s inclusion is no longer an immediate priority.

White House spokesman Davis Ingle rejected criticism of the development, predicting that the completed library would be “one of the most magnificent buildings in the world” and would serve as a lasting tribute to Trump’s presidency.

A onetime Trump adviser, however, suggested that the library’s fundraising operation reflects the president’s longstanding business approach.

“The library is one of the last few places he can squeeze people for money,” the adviser told CBS News. “That’s what a businessman does. He just creates opportunities.”

Additional reporting indicates that the incoming Democratic majority is preparing a wider examination of Trump’s financial dealings, extending beyond the library to businesses, donors, and government contractors with ties to his administration.

Representative Robert Garcia of California, the leading Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, issued a blunt warning following the election results: “Lawyer up.”

The foundation is expected to file financial disclosures covering 2025 by November 15. Its earlier IRS application projected that compensation expenses for foundation personnel would rise from $400,000 in 2025 to $1.2 million in 2027, although the organization’s bylaws prohibit paying trustees for serving in that capacity.

The library’s fundraising operation is led by Meredith O’Rourke, a longtime Trump fundraiser. Meanwhile, the foundation’s use of PublicSquare’s donation platform has attracted additional attention because securities filings show that Donald Trump Jr. began receiving $42,000 per month in consulting fees from the company in August 2024. His spokesperson said he had no involvement with the library’s fundraising page.

The Miami property dispute remains before U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz II, who has halted evidence-gathering while considering the administration’s request to dismiss the lawsuit. Lawyers challenging the land transfer have indicated that they would likely appeal if the case is thrown out.

{Matzav.com}

United Torah Judaism MK Yitzchok Pindrus insisted Thursday that his party’s refusal to recommend Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to form Israel’s next government does not mean it is abandoning its longstanding relationship with the religious right. However, he emphasized that UTJ is not committed to any candidate and will base its political decisions primarily on securing a solution to the military draft crisis facing yeshiva bochurim.

Speaking with Arutz Sheva-Israel National News at the President’s Residence, Pindrus sought to clarify UTJ’s position following its decision to withhold an endorsement during consultations over the formation of the next coalition. He explained that the party remains deeply committed to Israel’s religious community, regardless of which political leader ultimately receives its support.

“We will not abandon them for a moment. The leaders of the Torah world are deeply concerned about the religious community in the State of Israel and our partnership with them,” he said. “Right now, we are not recommending anyone, but if we enter negotiations with anyone, there is no doubt that the religious community in Israel will remain an integral part of our agenda.”

When questioned about the possibility that UTJ’s refusal to back Netanyahu could help topple the prime minister’s political bloc, Pindrus rejected the premise of the question.

“How did you get to Netanyahu? How did you get to the right? How did you get to that?” he responded.

The MK also addressed reports that opposition figures Avigdor Lieberman and Gadi Eisenkot have been attempting to persuade the chareidi parties to consider joining an alternative governing coalition.

“Netanyahu is courting us too. It’s all fine. We’re not aligning ourselves with anyone just yet.”

Pindrus made clear that the overriding consideration for UTJ is finding an acceptable arrangement that would protect yeshiva bochurim from military conscription and the enforcement measures currently being pursued against them.

“We are committed to finding a solution, as I said, including on matters concerning the religious community, but right now, above all, on the issue of yeshiva students who are being persecuted,” he said.

Asked whether UTJ would oppose an effort to remove Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana, a move that could become part of the political maneuvering surrounding the next government, Pindrus declined to announce a position of his own.

“We will receive instructions, and that is what we will do.”

The interview also touched on the possibility of cooperation with Lieberman, whose previous statements and policies targeting the chareidi community have made him a particularly controversial figure among chareidi voters.

Pindrus suggested that past political hostility should not automatically rule out future cooperation, pointing to criticism his own party has received since declining to endorse Netanyahu.

“I was told that there are media outlets now speaking against us because we didn’t recommend Netanyahu, including some very serious things. So what, should we not forgive them? It’s all fine,” he replied.

During Thursday’s consultations with President Isaac Herzog, UTJ representatives reinforced that position, insisting that the next government must address the treatment of lomdei Torah. Pindrus argued that the longstanding principle of Toraso umnaso must remain the foundation of any arrangement governing military service for yeshiva bochurim.

The delegation, which included Pindrus, Yitzchok Goldknopf and Moshe Rosenthal, was questioned by Herzog about whether the party would accept a framework requiring chareidi men who are not studying to enlist. Pindrus maintained that UTJ’s traditional position applies to those whose Torah study is their full-time occupation.

Goldknopf went further in distancing the party from automatic allegiance to Netanyahu, declaring that UTJ was not obligated to any political bloc.

The decision has significantly complicated Netanyahu’s efforts to remain prime minister. Following the completion of presidential consultations, Gadi Eisenkot emerged with recommendations from 67 Knesset members, compared with 46 for Netanyahu, although neither candidate has secured a governing majority.

Herzog is expected to announce Sunday which candidate will receive the first opportunity to form a government. That candidate will initially have 28 days to assemble a coalition, with the possibility of a 14-day extension.

For UTJ, the central question remains whether either prospective prime minister can deliver an acceptable arrangement for yeshiva bochurim, with Pindrus making clear that the party is prepared to negotiate but will not commit itself politically before receiving guidance from the Gedolei HaTorah.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has firmly denied reports that he is preparing to leave President Donald Trump’s administration following the Republican Party’s midterm election defeat, declaring that he intends to remain in his position until the president completes his term in office.

Speaking to The New York Times on Thursday, Rubio dismissed speculation that he was considering stepping down to position himself for a possible presidential campaign in 2028. Remaining in the administration until the end of Trump’s presidency had “always been my plan,” he said.

“I don’t know where these things come from, to be honest with you,” Rubio said when questioned about reports that his departure could be imminent.

“I love the work I’m doing,” he continued. “And plus I always laugh when they say he’s going to leave his job. I go, ‘Which one?’”

Rubio, who serves as both secretary of state and White House national security adviser, was responding to a report in Britain’s The Independent suggesting that he might resign in the aftermath of Tuesday’s elections to begin preparing for a potential bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

The British newspaper, citing senior Republican figures in Washington and government officials in London, reported that Rubio’s departure was becoming increasingly likely following the Democratic Party’s capture of both chambers of Congress.

Rubio, however, rejected attempts to draw him into a discussion about his political ambitions beyond the Trump administration.

“I literally will not talk about 2028 anymore,” he told The New York Times during an interview conducted in his White House office. “I just won’t do it.”

The secretary of state was also pressed about Vice President JD Vance’s explanation for the Republican Party’s disappointing election performance, particularly his contention that the administration’s war with Iran had contributed significantly to the losses.

In a lengthy social media statement Wednesday, Vance argued that dissatisfaction over the Iran conflict, economic concerns, and the administration’s relationship with Israel had influenced voters who previously supported Trump but backed Democrats in the midterms.

Asked whether he agreed with the vice president’s assessment, Rubio initially declined to weigh in on the political fallout, explaining that he was not “really involved in domestic politics.”

He nevertheless offered a strong defense of Trump’s leadership, saying the president “deserves a tremendous amount of credit” for making difficult decisions that he believes serve the country’s interests, even when those decisions carry political risks.

“Ultimately, that is the price of leadership – is the willingness to do things that may not be politically popular or expedient but are necessary for your country and its long-term future,” Rubio said.

The resignation rumors prompted unusually forceful denials from administration officials. The State Department rejected the reports as fabricated, while the White House insisted that Trump’s senior advisers remained united behind his agenda.

Bloomberg also reported Thursday that Rubio and his advisers had discussed his political future following the elections, citing people familiar with those conversations. According to the report, Rubio had not reached a decision about leaving and no departure timetable had been established.

Rubio is widely regarded as a possible contender for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination, alongside Vice President Vance. He has previously indicated that he would support Vance if the vice president decided to seek the nomination.

Rubio’s prominence in the administration has been enhanced by his unusual combination of responsibilities as secretary of state and national security adviser, giving him considerable influence over American foreign policy. He also joined Trump at a campaign rally in Kansas on Sunday, just two days before the elections.

The secretary of state is scheduled to address the Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention next week, providing another opportunity for public remarks as speculation about his political future continues.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is refusing to back down in the face of mounting impeachment threats following the Republican Party’s midterm election losses, accusing his opponents of attempting to destroy him politically as President Donald Trump publicly defended his leadership of the Pentagon.

In a defiant video posted Thursday on social media, Hegseth lashed out at Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who has threatened to pursue impeachment proceedings unless the secretary voluntarily leaves office.

Hegseth charged that “a disgruntled, defeated congressman, along with all his Democrat allies, has also dropped sham articles of impeachment against yours truly.”

“Just like they tried against President Trump twice. You see, their policies don’t work, so their obsession with political theater disguised as power drives them to try to destroy their opponents. It’s all about the politics of personal destruction. Didn’t work against President Trump, and it won’t work with me. You can rest assured of that,” he added.

Massie has made clear that he intends to continue his effort to remove Hegseth. According to CNN, the Kentucky Republican is preparing to force a congressional vote on impeachment, leaving open only one possibility that would persuade him to abandon the initiative.

In a Wednesday social media post, Massie declared that “there is one contingency in which I won’t reintroduce the articles of impeachment: Hegseth resigns.”

The congressman followed up Thursday with a warning that his own impeachment proposal could prove relatively mild compared with the investigations Hegseth might face under Democratic control of Congress.

“My Hegseth impeachment resolution is a much gentler version of what’s coming when Dem’s control Congress. They’ll have hearings & trials.”

Democrats emerged from Tuesday’s elections with majorities in both the House and Senate, placing the Trump administration on course for considerably more aggressive congressional oversight when the new Congress convenes.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, who is expected to become the next House speaker, added his voice to the demands for Hegseth’s departure.

“Why is Pete Hegseth still around?” Jeffries wrote Thursday on X.

President Trump, however, showed no indication that he was preparing to dismiss his defense chief. Asked in the Oval Office about possible changes in Pentagon leadership, Trump offered an unequivocal endorsement.

“Pete Hegseth has done a fantastic job,” the president told reporters, according to The Hill.

The growing political pressure on Hegseth comes amid criticism of the administration’s handling of the war with Iran, which has emerged as a major issue in the aftermath of the Republican election defeat. Reports have identified public dissatisfaction with the conflict as an important factor in the party’s losses.

Vice President JD Vance acknowledged the political consequences Wednesday, writing on social media, “The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night,”

Vance pointed to polling of voters who backed Trump in 2024 but supported Democrats in the midterms. According to his assessment, those voters placed particular importance on ending the Iran conflict, controlling inflation, prioritizing American interests, and reconsidering Washington’s relationship with Israel.

Trump subsequently agreed that the war had carried a political cost, while maintaining that the military operation had achieved an essential national security objective.

“I thought it was good. I knew that when I went in. We stopped them from having a nuclear weapon, and they’ll never have a nuclear weapon,” the president said.

Massie’s impeachment effort could reach the House floor as soon as next week, before Democrats formally assume control of Congress in January. He plans to use a privileged resolution, a parliamentary procedure that can force lawmakers to address the measure within two legislative days, although Republican leaders could attempt to table it or send it to a committee.

Several Republican lawmakers have privately indicated that they believe the impeachment resolution could attract enough support to pass, according to Fox News. The allegations include Hegseth’s handling of the Iran conflict without congressional authorization and other disputed military operations. Impeachment by the House would not automatically remove Hegseth; a Senate conviction would still be required.

The pressure is also coming from within Republican ranks outside the House. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina has questioned whether Hegseth remains the right person to lead the Pentagon, warning that the secretary faces “a reckoning” following the election.

Despite Trump’s public expressions of confidence, reports indicate that the president has privately asked advisers whether Hegseth should remain in his position. Pentagon officials have dismissed suggestions that the secretary intends to step aside, insisting that he remains committed to serving through the remainder of Trump’s presidency.

Democratic socialist Nithya Raman has defeated Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass in a stunning political upset, becoming the city’s next mayor and immediately drawing concern from Jewish organizations over her positions on Israel, the anti-Israel boycott movement, and rising antisemitism.

The Associated Press projected Raman’s victory Thursday, with the Los Angeles City Council member receiving 429,450 votes, or 52.1%, compared with 394,796 votes, or 47.9%, for Bass. With approximately 76% of ballots counted, Bass conceded the election, ending her bid for another term.

Raman, 45, has drawn comparisons to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani because of their shared democratic socialist politics and controversial positions concerning Israel. Both have received support from the Democratic Socialists of America, reflecting the growing influence of the party’s progressive wing in major American cities.

The mayor-elect faced criticism from Jewish community leaders during the campaign, particularly following a September 29 mayoral forum at the Skirball Cultural Center. At that event, Raman defended the movement to boycott Israel, describing it as a “legitimate form of peaceful protest”. She also defended accusing Israel of “genocide” and her appearance on a program hosted by streamer Hasan Piker, who has been accused of antisemitism.

Bass took a different position at the forum, rejecting the allegation that Israel had committed “genocide” and expressing opposition to the boycott movement.

Following Raman’s election, Jewish Federation Los Angeles joined 35 Jewish organizations and congregations in congratulating the incoming mayor while pressing her to address the concerns that emerged during the campaign.

The organizations “called on her to rebuild trust with Jewish Angelenos that was strained during the campaign, starting with proactive steps against antisemitism.”

Their statement pointed specifically to Raman’s use of the term “genocide” in reference to Israel and her “ambiguous position on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement,” saying those positions “call into question how she will prioritize the Jewish community’s most pressing concerns.”

Rabbi Noah Farkas, president and CEO of Jewish Federation Los Angeles, said Raman must take concrete steps to reassure Jewish residents that their safety and concerns will receive serious attention.

“Our community cannot accept continued rhetoric that harms Jews,” Farkas stated, according to JNS. “As mayor-elect, she has both an opportunity and a responsibility to address these issues through meaningful engagement and clear commitments.”

“Mayor-elect Raman will take office at a moment when our community is experiencing an unprecedented level of antisemitism,” he continued. “At the Jewish Los Angeles Mayoral Forum in September, she said every Angeleno deserves to feel safe, including Jewish and Israeli-Americans. We call on her to fulfill that commitment.”

Rabbi Pini Dunner, senior rabbi of Young Israel of North Beverly Hills, was considerably more critical, calling Raman “an antisemite.”

“She may not admit to it, but she is someone who has no consideration for the feelings of Jews when it comes to Israel,” Rabbi Dunner told JNS.

“She’s joined the very extreme elements of the progressive movement in its way of dealing with the issues of Oct. 7 and the war in Gaza, the war in Iran,” he said. “Everything is about pleasing her crowd, not about dealing with the real issues at hand.”

Rabbi Dunner predicted that Raman would do a “dreadful job” as mayor, adding, “It’s going to be to the detriment of all of us and of California.”

Not everyone in the Jewish community viewed the election with the same level of alarm. Mitchell Schwartz, a longtime Democratic campaign operative and founder of the Jewish Solar Challenge nonprofit, said he was less concerned about Raman’s victory, despite her statements concerning Israel.

“She did say ‘genocide,’ but I imagine she’ll stick to local issues. I can’t imagine her getting involved in Israel or things like that,” Schwartz said. “I certainly hope not.”

Schwartz also questioned the comparison between Raman and Mamdani, who has advocated arresting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“She’s not Mamdani.”

“I don’t believe she’s anti-Israel, but I do think she mouths some of the more silly things coming out of the Democratic Socialists of America.”

Raman’s victory was also a major rejection of Los Angeles’ Democratic establishment. Bass entered the race with support from Governor Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, and other prominent Democratic figures, but faced mounting dissatisfaction over homelessness, housing costs, and her administration’s handling of the devastating January 2025 wildfires.

Raman campaigned on promises to accelerate housing construction, reduce street homelessness by half before the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, and overhaul aspects of city government. Her victory makes her the first challenger in more than two decades to defeat a sitting Los Angeles mayor.

In another indication of the divisions surrounding her Israel positions, the Democratic Socialists of America’s national leadership considered withdrawing its endorsement of Raman because she had not explicitly embraced a boycott of Israel. Just one day before the election, the organization’s national political committee voted 14-13 against rescinding its support.

Raman, who has previously condemned the October 7 Hamas attacks and affirmed Israel’s right to exist, has maintained that her political independence will take precedence over the demands of the socialist organization. She has also pledged to protect Jewish and Israeli-American residents of Los Angeles.

The mayor-elect is expected to take office next month, succeeding Bass as the leader of America’s second-largest city.

{Matzav.com}

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has halted its operations in Florida after a federal judge declined to suspend the state’s designation of the organization as a domestic terrorist group, allowing the controversial classification to take effect while a legal challenge proceeds.

Chief U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor ruled Wednesday that CAIR had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for an emergency order preventing Florida from enforcing the designation. The ruling followed a decision by Governor Ron DeSantis and the Florida Cabinet to classify CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood as domestic terrorist organizations.

“We have suspended our operations in Florida because of Gov. DeSantis and other state officials’ baseless and unconstitutional enforcement of the state’s unprecedented new ‘domestic terrorist organization’ laws against us,” CAIR-Florida announced on its website.

The November 4 ruling did provide CAIR with a narrower form of temporary protection. Winsor prohibited state authorities from prosecuting the organization, its employees, or third parties furnishing legal services under Florida’s material-support statute, subject to CAIR posting a $1,000 bond.

The judge made clear that he was not determining whether CAIR actually qualifies as a terrorist organization. His decision concerned whether the organization had satisfied the legal requirements for temporarily blocking the state’s action while the lawsuit moves forward.

DeSantis praised the outcome, declaring, “Florida is holding CAIR accountable.”

Florida’s designation originated with a September 29 vote by DeSantis and members of his Cabinet. The state also classified the Muslim Brotherhood as a domestic terrorist organization and placed more than 90 additional organizations on its list of foreign terrorist groups. Florida authorities alleged that CAIR had maintained connections to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

The classifications appeared in the Florida Administrative Register on October 6, beginning a 30-day period before they became legally effective.

Under the state’s newly enacted legislation, designated organizations can be barred from receiving government funding or entering into public contracts. Government institutions are restricted from providing resources that support or promote designated groups, and individuals who knowingly furnish prohibited material assistance may face criminal charges. The law also establishes a mechanism through which designated organizations could potentially be dissolved.

The legislation, signed by DeSantis earlier this year, expanded Florida’s authority to identify and impose sanctions on organizations the state considers involved in terrorism.

The governor had previously sought to designate CAIR through an executive order issued in December 2025. A federal judge blocked that effort in March, finding that DeSantis could not unilaterally impose the classification and its associated penalties without the necessary legal authority.

Florida’s actions parallel an initiative undertaken by Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who designated CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood as foreign terrorist organizations and transnational criminal organizations. The Texas measure included restrictions on land acquisition by the organizations and their affiliates, along with additional enforcement provisions.

The dispute also comes amid broader federal scrutiny of the Muslim Brotherhood. President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to examine whether certain branches of the movement should be classified as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially Designated Global Terrorists.

In January, the United States formally imposed terrorism-related designations on the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Lebanese branches of the Muslim Brotherhood, citing their alleged support for Hamas.

The court’s 36-page decision also revealed that CAIR had an opportunity to challenge the designation in Florida state court during the 30-day period before it took effect but chose not to pursue that option. Winsor cited the availability of that appeal process as an important reason for rejecting the organization’s claim that it had been denied adequate procedural protections.

CAIR’s shutdown extended to its Tampa headquarters, where a notice announcing the suspension was posted on the building’s entrance Thursday. The organization said its Florida activities and funding had been suspended indefinitely, although its federal lawsuit remains active.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier also celebrated the ruling, describing it as a “great win by our solicitor general’s office and for the people of Florida!”

The judge directed both sides to submit a proposed schedule for the continuing litigation by November 18, leaving the broader constitutional challenge unresolved even as the state designation remains in force.

{Matzav.com}

WATCH:

LISTEN:

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

LISTEN:

Likud MK Moshe Saada declared Thursday that the draft legislation being demanded by United Torah Judaism chairman Yitzchok Goldknopf would not become law in its current form, while insisting that the chareidi parties remain natural partners of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and predicting that a broad coalition would ultimately emerge under his leadership.

Speaking with Avi Mimran on Kol Chai Radio’s central news program, Saada addressed the political uncertainty following Israel’s elections, the growing controversy surrounding efforts to recruit chareidi parties into an alternative government, and recent developments in Netanyahu’s ongoing criminal trial.

Saada strongly criticized opposition leaders Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Lieberman, accusing them of reversing years of hostility toward the chareidi community in an effort to secure political support for a government that would replace Netanyahu.

“Opposition leaders such as Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Lieberman have engaged in fierce incitement against the Torah world for years,” Saada said. “Now, suddenly, they are displaying hypocrisy and trying to sell illusions. In reality, they have neither the intention nor the ability to pass a draft law that would survive the High Court of Justice.”

His remarks came amid reports that figures in the emerging anti-Netanyahu bloc were exploring arrangements with United Torah Judaism that could include an agreement on military conscription and protections for yeshiva students.

Saada maintained that the opposition’s sudden willingness to discuss concessions on the draft issue should not be taken seriously, arguing that the same politicians who previously demanded tougher enlistment requirements would be unable to deliver the legislation sought by the chareidi parties.

At the same time, he acknowledged that the version of the draft law being advanced by Goldknopf would not be enacted, indicating that any eventual agreement would require a different legislative approach.

Despite the disagreements surrounding the draft, Saada emphasized that the chareidi community belongs within the broader religious and traditional political alliance that has supported Netanyahu.

“The chareidim are our brothers, and the Jewish faith-based bloc won the elections,” he said. “Netanyahu took a risk and advanced a Basic Law on Torah Study out of a moral and principled obligation, despite the attacks. All the attempts to portray Torah learners negatively come from hypocritical fringe elements. Most of the public appreciates Torah learners and the Jewish identity of the state.”

Saada also dismissed reports suggesting that chareidi parties might cooperate with Arab factions or help establish a government supported by the political left.

He described such suggestions as “nonsense and political spin,” insisting that fundamental ideological differences made those arrangements unrealistic.

“We have no place alongside parties such as Ra’am and the Joint List that call for the release of terrorists,” Saada declared. “This discussion is a chillul Hashem and has no practical possibility of materializing.”

Turning to Netanyahu’s criminal trial, Saada claimed that recent courtroom proceedings, including testimony involving former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, had exposed serious irregularities in the investigations against the prime minister.

Saada, a former senior official in the Justice Ministry’s Police Internal Investigations Department, argued that the judges were increasingly aware of the potential consequences of allowing the proceedings to continue.

“This is an unprecedented event in which the judges understand that continuing the case will lead to its collapse and enormous embarrassment,” Saada said. “The judges are not trying to protect Netanyahu, but rather the system itself, so that they will not be forced to write a verdict that would require opening a criminal investigation against Mandelblit and Shai Nitzan.”

He went further, alleging that the investigations involved serious misconduct, including unauthorized surveillance and improper investigative practices.

“Beneath the judges’ sanitized language lie serious criminal offenses — wiretapping, spyware, extortion through threats, unauthorized actions, and obstruction of an investigation,” Saada claimed. “Mandelblit was questioned while frightened and contradicted the prosecution. As I said in real time when I was inside the system, unacceptable acts were committed here, and plots were devised to bring down a prime minister.”

The allegations reflect Saada’s interpretation of the proceedings and have not been established as judicial findings.

Saada concluded by expressing confidence that Netanyahu would eventually overcome the current coalition difficulties and assemble a government with the participation of his traditional political partners.

“Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to resolve the draft issue from a genuine and sincere place,” Saada said. “My assessment is that ultimately a broad and stable government will be established under Netanyahu, including all the natural partners, and the judicial system will also understand that the establishment of a strong government requires respect for the laws passed by the Knesset.”

{Matzav.com}

Israeli journalist and commentator Yedidya Meir has sharply criticized what he describes as a sudden reversal by Israel’s political left on the issue of drafting chareidi yeshiva students, accusing opponents of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of abandoning years of fierce opposition to draft exemptions in an effort to secure chareidi support for a new government headed by Gadi Eisenkot.

In a pointed column published Thursday, Meir argued that politicians and media figures who spent years condemning proposed legislation protecting yeshiva students are now discussing compromise arrangements and a more lenient draft law, just days after Israel’s elections created the possibility of a government without Netanyahu.

Meir said he was not surprised by what he characterized as the hypocrisy of the left, but was astonished by the speed with which its public messaging had changed.

Within hours of the election, he wrote, leaders of the anti-Netanyahu bloc and their supporters in the media began suggesting that the draft controversy could be set aside, describing it as a complicated issue that did not require an immediate solution.

“The hypocrisy of the left doesn’t amaze me. Only the speed does,” Meir wrote. “Within just a few hours, they know how to replace a campaign, engineer public opinion, change the conversation and invent an entirely new one.”

As evidence, Meir pointed to recent comments by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak during an interview with Radio 103FM, in which Barak suggested that the IDF would be unable to absorb all chareidi men into its ranks even if they were required to enlist.

“The IDF is incapable of absorbing all the chareidim anyway,” Barak said, according to Meir, adding that the principal issue was not the additional military units that could be created through chareidi enlistment.

Instead, Barak suggested that those who do not enter the military could perform a limited period of national service.

“The real main issue is that they participate in the burden, meaning that they serve. For example, anyone who chooses not to enlist should perform nine months of national service, or however long it might be, and then go on with his life,” Barak said.

Meir expressed astonishment at the proposal, arguing that a requirement of just nine months of national service was considerably more lenient than the demands previously advanced by opponents of chareidi draft exemptions.

He suggested sarcastically that even chareidi negotiators would not have dared propose such an arrangement themselves.

Meir also cited journalist Ben Caspit, who recently suggested that political leaders would need to find a way to “somehow round off the draft law,” a remark Meir interpreted as another indication that the political establishment was suddenly willing to compromise.

Particularly striking, Meir argued, was a report on Channel 12 referring to the possibility of a “soft draft law.”

For the past three years, he wrote, opponents of the chareidi parties had repeatedly described proposed draft legislation as a “draft evasion law,” portraying protections for yeshiva students as an unacceptable injustice toward those serving in the military.

Meir accused that campaign of contributing to hostility toward bnei yeshiva, including verbal harassment and incidents in which yeshiva students were insulted or spat upon in public.

He estimated that tens of thousands of yeshiva students had been subjected to abuse during the controversy, although he did not provide independent figures supporting that estimate.

Now, he observed, the same political and media circles were speaking approvingly about a more accommodating arrangement.

“Suddenly, a ‘soft draft law,'” Meir wrote, comparing the new terminology to the marketing of a gentle shampoo.

The columnist recalled that nearly two years earlier, writing in the newspaper B’Sheva, he had predicted that the political left would eventually seek to redefine its proposed alliance of military-serving Israelis in order to accommodate new coalition partners while excluding religious and right-wing voters.

At the time, he suggested that an alliance originally presented as a coalition of those sharing the burden of military service could eventually be rebranded as an alliance of service and reconciliation.

Such an arrangement, he predicted, might include Arab parties while excluding supporters of Religious Zionist politicians Bezalel Smotrich, Orit Strock and Itamar Ben Gvir.

Meir said that although he had anticipated such a political development, even he had not expected the terminology of a “soft draft law.”

Beyond his criticism of the draft debate, Meir issued a direct appeal to chareidi elected officials not to abandon their alliance with Israel’s religious and traditional right.

He warned that cooperation with the emerging anti-Netanyahu bloc could fracture a political and cultural partnership that he believes extends far beyond the question of who serves as prime minister.

Meir described the alliance as a “bloc of believers,” arguing that its foundation is a shared attachment to Jewish tradition and religious identity rather than simply loyalty to Netanyahu.

He acknowledged that many right-wing commentators, including those associated with Channel 14, view the bloc primarily as the political vehicle necessary to keep Netanyahu and the right in power.

Meir said he agreed with that objective but considered the alliance far more important than any individual political leader.

“There is a genuine connection here that rises above every political interest, however important it may be,” he wrote. “There is a shared identity. There is a deep bond that must continue long after Bibi’s 130th birthday.”

He added that the partnership should endure until the arrival of Moshiach and beyond.

To support his argument, Meir invoked the teachings of Maran Rav Elazar Menachem Man Shach zt”l, the longtime leader of the Lithuanian Torah community, who had articulated a distinction between the religious attitudes of Israel’s political right and left decades earlier.

Rav Shach described Likud supporters as people possessing “simple faith,” Meir recalled, explaining that although many on the political right were not personally observant, they nevertheless maintained respect for religious tradition.

By contrast, Rav Shach had criticized the ideological secularism he associated with the political left.

Meir also quoted the late MK Rabbi Avrohom Ravitz, a leading figure in Degel HaTorah, who argued that chareidi political decisions should take into account the broader cultural character of Israel’s competing political camps.

Ravitz maintained that the right generally represented traditional Jews who respected authentic Jewish values, retained connections to Jewish heritage and did not seek to replace longstanding Jewish culture with modern secular ideology.

Meir argued that these distinctions, articulated during the 1980s and 1990s, have become even more pronounced in recent decades.

In his assessment, the Israeli left has moved further toward progressive secularism, while the political right has become increasingly connected to Torah, emunah and Jewish tradition.

He warned that dismantling the right-wing alliance at the present moment, particularly following the widespread expressions of Jewish identity and religious awakening during the war, would be a historic mistake.

Meir pointed to the enormous crowds of traditional and religious Jews who gathered at the Kosel during the recent season of Selichos, describing them as evidence of the deep spiritual connection shared by millions of Israelis.

He estimated that approximately two million people had visited the Kosel during that period and argued that severing political ties with such a population would create an unnecessary and painful division among Jews who share fundamental religious values.

Concluding his column, Meir expressed confidence that the chareidi parties would ultimately resist efforts to draw them away from the traditional right-wing alliance.

He ended with a prayer that the political maneuvering would not succeed in dividing the religious and traditional public, insisting that such a rupture must not be allowed to occur.

In a dramatic development that could reshape Israel’s post-election coalition negotiations, Maran Rav Dov Landau, rosh yeshiva of Slabodka, has reportedly refused to authorize United Torah Judaism to recommend Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for another term, declaring that the prime minister had betrayed the trust of the chareidi leadership.

According to sources, UTJ chairman MK Yaakov Asher personally approached Rav Landau after coming under sustained pressure from Netanyahu and his associates to reverse the party’s decision not to endorse any candidate during consultations with President Isaac Herzog.

Netanyahu reportedly spoke with Asher several times in an effort to persuade him to change the party’s position. Asher eventually agreed to bring the matter before Rav Landau, visiting the rosh yeshiva at his home and requesting permission to recommend Netanyahu.

During the meeting, Asher reportedly argued that the recommendation would carry little practical significance and would not prevent UTJ from simultaneously conducting negotiations with Gadi Eisenkot, who is attempting to assemble an alternative governing coalition.

Rav Landau, however, rejected the request.

“I don’t believe him. He lied to us, so how can we recommend him?” the rosh yeshiva reportedly told Asher, instructing him not to endorse Netanyahu.

The refusal represents a significant setback for Netanyahu, whose longstanding political alliance with the chareidi parties has been severely strained by the failure to resolve the status of yeshiva students facing military conscription.

A senior Degel HaTorah official told Kikar HaShabbat that the party’s position should not have come as a surprise, explaining that Rav Landau had explicitly warned before the elections that the movement was no longer committed to any political bloc.

“On the eve of the elections, the rosh yeshiva, Rav Dov Landau, made it absolutely clear that we are not part of any bloc,” the official said. “Unfortunately, the political establishment, and particularly Likud, did not take us seriously. Now they are seeing those statements translated into action.”

The official emphasized that Degel HaTorah’s political decisions would be determined exclusively by the needs of the olam hayeshivos, rather than loyalty to Netanyahu or his opponents.

“We are not part of the Netanyahu bloc, but it is important to clarify that we are also not part of the change bloc. We belong to only one bloc: the bloc of Torah learners, and our only mission is to secure the status of yeshiva students.”

Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the party’s emerging position is its willingness to consider cooperation with Eisenkot, even if doing so would help establish a government outside the traditional right-wing and chareidi alliance.

The senior Degel HaTorah official said the party would not automatically reject an arrangement with Eisenkot if he could secure agreement among his coalition partners on legislation protecting yeshiva students from conscription.

“If Eisenkot can bring his entire bloc to support a law acceptable to the gedolei Yisroel, we certainly would not rule out such cooperation,” the official said.

“We are not blindly following Netanyahu, and we have not entered into any unbreakable marriage with him. We are looking for a real, substantive solution for Torah learners. Now the only question remaining is whether Gadi can bring his bloc to support such a law.”

According to the report, senior figures in the anti-Netanyahu camp are exploring a political arrangement under which UTJ would provide Eisenkot with a parliamentary safety net, potentially allowing him to establish a government without formally joining the coalition.

Under one scenario being discussed, UTJ’s cooperation would reduce Netanyahu’s effective parliamentary bloc to 46 seats while increasing Eisenkot’s support to 55 seats. The chareidi party would demand an agreed-upon draft law and formal protections for yeshiva students in exchange for abstaining during the government’s inauguration vote.

The possibility of such an arrangement has generated considerable interest because Eisenkot’s prospective coalition includes parties that have previously demanded stricter military enlistment requirements for chareidi men.

Earlier this week, Asher met in Bnei Brak with Agudas Yisroel representatives MK Yitzchok Goldknopf and MK Meir Porush in an effort to coordinate UTJ’s position ahead of the presidential consultations.

Among the options discussed was declining to recommend any candidate for prime minister.

Porush appeared skeptical of the possibility of cooperation with Eisenkot, remarking as he entered the meeting, “Gadi Eisenkot will not call us.”

Goldknopf, meanwhile, emphasized that UTJ was not committed to either political camp.

“We are not in anyone’s bloc; we demand a draft law without sanctions,” he told Kikar HaShabbat.

Avi Greenzeig, a spokesman for Rav Landau’s household, cautioned that the party’s final position had not yet been determined.

“I can say only one thing: Whatever the rabbonim decide, when it becomes relevant, that is what will happen,” he said.

While UTJ has withheld its endorsement, Shas has taken a different approach, formally recommending Netanyahu to President Herzog.

During the consultations at the President’s Residence, Shas MK Michael Malkieli explained that his party was honoring its pre-election commitment.

“Shas is a party that keeps its promises. We promised that we would recommend Bibi, and that is what we are doing. We suffered a decline in seats and faced very harsh incitement specifically directed against Shas,” Malkieli said.

Fellow Shas MK Yinon Azulai also spoke about the political atmosphere surrounding the draft controversy.

“I experienced severe violence over the draft law issue. There was an effort to manipulate public perception regarding the entire chareidi community,” he said.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, released his first recorded statement since the elections, attacking the possibility that Eisenkot could establish a minority government dependent on support from Arab parties.

“A government dependent on parties that support terrorism will not be able to confront the challenge of radical Islam threatening us from within and without,” Netanyahu declared.

He argued that Israel requires a broad national government under Likud leadership rather than a coalition dependent on outside parliamentary support.

“Only a broad national government headed by Likud and under my leadership, including all components of the national bloc and all Zionist parties that wish to join, will be able to confront this challenge,” Netanyahu said.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli MK Gilad Kariv of the Democrats party said Thursday that he does not believe United Torah Judaism will join a prospective government headed by Gadi Eisenkot, warning that any effort to bring the chareidi party into the emerging coalition would have to address the contentious issue of military conscription.

Speaking in an interview with Radio A-Shams, Kariv expressed skepticism about the possibility of securing UTJ’s participation in a government seeking to replace Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, even as political leaders explore possible coalition arrangements following Israel’s recent elections.

Kariv made clear that while he was not categorically ruling out cooperation with UTJ, the parties negotiating a new government could not simply abandon their positions on the draft issue in order to secure chareidi support.

“I think United Torah Judaism will ultimately not join our government, and I think we cannot completely cast aside the issue of military conscription,” Kariv said.

His remarks come amid efforts to assemble a coalition under Eisenkot, with the potential participation of UTJ emerging as one of the questions facing the parties seeking to establish an alternative government.

The possibility of bringing UTJ into the coalition presents a significant political challenge, particularly because several of the parties involved have taken positions on the draft of chareidi yeshiva students that are sharply at odds with those of the chareidi parties.

Kariv was specifically asked about the possibility that Yisrael Beytenu chairman Avigdor Lieberman and Beyachad chairman Naftali Bennett could persuade UTJ to join the coalition by reaching an acceptable compromise on the draft.

Although doubtful that such an arrangement could be achieved, Kariv indicated that he would not automatically oppose an agreement that adequately addressed the issue.

“If Lieberman and Bennett know how to bring United Torah Judaism and also bring some reasonable and appropriate solution to the conscription issue, then please, go ahead,” he said.

Kariv’s comments highlight the competing pressures facing the parties seeking to form the next government. While support from chareidi lawmakers could help Eisenkot assemble a parliamentary majority, the military draft issue remains a major obstacle to cooperation between UTJ and several of the prospective coalition partners.

For UTJ, preserving the ability of yeshiva students to continue learning without being drafted into the military remains a central political priority. Other parties involved in the coalition discussions, however, have made changes to the existing draft arrangements a major component of their political platforms.

Kariv’s remarks suggest that even if Bennett and Lieberman attempt to negotiate a compromise with UTJ, they may face resistance from within the emerging coalition unless the agreement includes measures addressing military conscription.