Feed aggregator

WATCH:

{Matzav.com}

LISTEN:

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

LISTEN:

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer declared Wednesday that his party intends to use its newly won congressional majority to bring President Donald Trump’s war with Iran to an end, raising the possibility of restricting military funding as Democrats prepare to assume control of both chambers of Congress.

Speaking at a Washington news conference following Tuesday’s sweeping Democratic victories, Schumer accused Trump of failing to provide Americans with a consistent explanation for the military campaign and said the incoming Congress would take a far more aggressive approach toward the administration’s foreign policy.

“The American people don’t know what the heck we’re fighting for in Iran,” Schumer said. “He’s never made it clear. He changes his mind day-to-day and minute-to-minute. This war must end. It must end.

Democrats have secured at least 54 Senate seats, including two independents who caucus with the party, with outstanding contests potentially increasing that number to 55 or 56. The results represent a dramatic reversal of Republican fortunes and will give Democrats control over congressional spending decisions beginning in January.

Asked whether Democrats would consider withholding defense funding to compel the administration to halt military operations, Schumer indicated that Congress’s constitutional authority over federal expenditures could become a central tool in the effort.

“Look, we are going to end the war,” he declared.

Schumer pointed to earlier congressional votes in which several Republicans joined Democrats in opposing the conflict. He argued that lawmakers could now use their expanded influence over federal spending to impose limits on a military campaign that began without explicit congressional authorization.

The Senate previously considered war powers legislation aimed at restricting the administration’s ability to continue hostilities. Republican Senators Rand Paul, Susan Collins, Bill Cassidy and Lisa Murkowski were among those who supported efforts to constrain the president’s military authority, while Democratic Senator John Fetterman opposed the measure.

With Democrats also capturing the House, party leaders will have considerably greater leverage over Pentagon appropriations and other legislation affecting the war. However, any attempt to terminate funding could trigger a confrontation with the White House, including a possible presidential veto.

Schumer also outlined a broader agenda for the incoming Democratic majority, promising to confront the administration over rising household expenses, government accountability and its handling of domestic and international affairs.

He blamed Trump’s policies for increased gasoline, diesel and electricity prices, as well as higher healthcare costs, and said Democrats would prioritize measures intended to ease the financial burden on American families.

The New York senator further pledged that Democrats would use congressional investigations, legal challenges and legislative action to challenge administration decisions they consider improper or unlawful.

His comments followed an unusually pointed statement from Vice President JD Vance, who publicly attributed the Republican Party’s election losses to the Iran conflict.

“The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night,” Vance wrote on social media Wednesday.

Vance’s assessment reflected growing concern among Republicans that the military campaign, particularly its effect on energy prices and inflation, had become a decisive political liability.

President Trump subsequently indicated that he agreed with the vice president’s assessment of the war’s political consequences, although he remained adamant that the decision to confront Iran militarily had been necessary.

“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,” Trump stated.

The president continued to defend the operation as essential to preventing Tehran from developing nuclear weapons, rejecting suggestions that the election results should cause him to reconsider the original decision.

“If I had it to do again, I’d have to do it again, because long term it’s the only answer. You can’t let Iran have a nuclear weapon.”

Schumer’s pledge sets up a major confrontation when the new Congress convenes in January, with Democrats seeking to use their control of federal spending to curtail the war while Trump maintains that the military campaign is necessary for American national security.

{Matzav.com}

The Trump administration has been working for months on a plan to eliminate nearly $4 billion in annual American military assistance to Israel, potentially beginning in October 2027, as Washington prepares to fundamentally restructure its defense relationship with the Jewish state, the NY Post reports.

Although President Donald Trump publicly announced the proposed withdrawal of aid on Tuesday, just hours before Republicans suffered major losses in the midterm elections, an American official told the New York Post that the discussions had been underway well before Election Day.

The negotiations center on replacing the existing U.S.-Israel military assistance arrangement with a broader strategic partnership that would place less emphasis on direct American financial support.

The current agreement, signed in 2016, commits Washington to providing Israel with $38 billion in military assistance over ten years. That includes $33 billion through the Foreign Military Financing program and another $5 billion for missile defense, amounting to approximately $3.8 billion annually.

The agreement remains in effect through fiscal year 2028, but administration officials are now considering a much faster timetable for ending the assistance.

A U.S. official said negotiations over a replacement memorandum of understanding had “been ongoing for months.”

“POTUS accelerated those plans,” the official noted. “But for months we’ve been planning on reducing direct aid and reframing the MOU more as a strategic partnership.”

According to the official, Israel itself raised the possibility of gradually reducing American financial assistance. Depending on the outcome of negotiations, the funding could be eliminated as early as October 1, 2027, when the next U.S. fiscal year begins.

The official indicated that the accelerated timetable would depend on whether the “Israelis are OK with a steeper cliff.”

Any changes to the funding arrangement would also require congressional approval, meaning the administration cannot unilaterally terminate the assistance already authorized by Congress.

Trump publicly addressed the issue during a Tuesday appearance on Fox & Friends, arguing that Israel has reached a point where it no longer requires the same level of American financial support.

“They don’t need it,” Trump said, explaining that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had previously discussed the possibility of ending the assistance.

“We give them more than anybody else, and they no longer need it. We’ve been doing it for years,” Trump added. “He [Netanyahu] said, ‘I think it would be appropriate if we do not receive aid,’ because he understands that this is one of their points of contention.”

The proposed change comes amid considerable political upheaval in both countries. Republicans lost control of Congress in Tuesday’s midterm elections, while Netanyahu is confronting the aftermath of Israel’s recent election, in which his Likud party lost its parliamentary majority.

Israeli opposition leaders sharply criticized the handling of the American aid discussions, warning that the proposed changes could weaken Israel’s security and raise questions about the management of relations with Washington.

Gadi Eisenkot, Netanyahu’s principal political rival in the recent election, accused the prime minister of mishandling a major development in the U.S.-Israel relationship.

“The fact that Israel’s defense establishment is learning of a shift in our strategic relationship through the media, at the same time as the Israeli public, shows just how dangerous Benjamin Netanyahu’s conduct is,” Eisenkot said in a statement to the Associated Press.

Another opposition figure, Yair Golan, warned that the withdrawal of American military assistance would represent a “severe blow to Israel’s security.”

The announcement also coincides with growing debate inside the Trump administration over the war with Iran, which both the president and Vice President JD Vance have acknowledged contributed to Republican losses in the midterms.

Trump conceded in an interview with The Wall Street Journal that the conflict had played a role in the election results.

“Iran was a piece of it,” Trump said.

Nevertheless, the president defended the military campaign, arguing that preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons remained essential regardless of the domestic political consequences.

“At the same time, if I had to do it again, I’d have to do it again because long-term, it’s the only answer. You can’t let Iran have a nuclear weapon,” he told reporters Wednesday.

Trump had indicated a day earlier that he was not preparing an immediate large-scale attack on Iran, leaving uncertainty about the administration’s next military or diplomatic steps.

Vance, meanwhile, suggested in a Wednesday post on X that Republicans must reconsider aspects of American foreign policy to regain voters who supported the Trump-Vance ticket in 2024.

Among the changes he identified was the need to “[c]hange our relationship to Israel.”

The proposed restructuring would not necessarily end American military cooperation with Israel. Trump has indicated that Israel would continue purchasing American weapons, while discussions have included expanding cooperation in defense technology, weapons manufacturing and research.

Legislation under consideration in Congress would also broaden joint American-Israeli work on advanced military technologies, including artificial intelligence, cybersecurity and missile defense.

However, significant questions remain about the timetable. Trump has suggested that direct assistance could end before 2027, while officials involved in the negotiations have discussed October 2027 as a possible starting point for the cutoff. The existing agreement extends through September 2028.

Israel’s military procurement plans could also be affected. Much of the annual American assistance is currently used to purchase U.S.-manufactured defense equipment, and Israeli budget planners have reportedly already incorporated the expected funding into future spending projections.

With Democrats preparing to take control of Congress, the administration would also face a new political landscape in attempting to secure approval for the proposed changes.

Israel’s Police Internal Investigations Department (Machash) has begun collecting testimony from chareidi protesters who allege they were assaulted by police officers during last Thursday’s turbulent demonstration near Bnei Brak, following the filing of 24 complaints over the conduct of security forces at the protest.

The development marks a significant escalation in the controversy surrounding the police response to the demonstration at Geha Junction, where thousands gathered to protest the arrests of yeshiva bochurim in connection with the military draft controversy.

According to a report by Emess, investigators have summoned complainants to the department’s Tel Aviv offices, where testimony began being collected Wednesday morning. The relatively swift response came after a series of complaints alleging excessive force by officers during the dispersal of demonstrators.

The protest, organized by the faction led by Hagaon Rav Tzvi Friedman, took place near Highway 4 at the entrance to Bnei Brak and quickly developed into a confrontation between demonstrators and police.

After a police commander declared the gathering unlawful, officers began dispersing the crowd using various crowd-control measures, including stun grenades, batons, and a water cannon.

The confrontations resulted in major traffic disruptions throughout the area. Highway 4 was closed in both directions between the Aluf Sadeh and Em HaMoshavot interchanges, while significant congestion was also reported along Jabotinsky Street in Bnei Brak.

The disturbances later spread toward the light rail tracks in nearby Petach Tikvah.

Dozens of chareidi demonstrators reportedly sustained injuries during the clashes, with protesters accusing police officers of employing unnecessary and excessive force.

Footage circulated following the demonstration appeared to show officers using force against protesters, prompting widespread criticism of the police response and demands for an investigation into the conduct of the officers involved.

In the days following the demonstration, individuals who reported being injured began organizing to submit formal complaints to Machash, the Justice Ministry department responsible for investigating suspected criminal misconduct by police officers.

The complaints were prepared with legal guidance and assistance from the Fund for Fighting the Draft Decree, an organization involved in opposing the arrests of yeshiva bochurim over military enlistment.

A total of 24 complainants have reportedly come forward, alleging that they suffered injuries as a result of police actions during the demonstration.

According to the report, Machash responded quickly to the initial complaint, contacting the alleged victims and arranging interviews as early as the day after the first complaint was submitted.

The first round of testimony began Wednesday at the department’s Tel Aviv offices, with investigators seeking accounts of the incidents and the circumstances surrounding the alleged assaults.

The opening of the examination does not establish wrongdoing by the officers involved, but it represents a formal step toward determining whether police conduct during the demonstration warrants further investigation or criminal proceedings.

The allegations have generated particular concern because of the methods used to disperse the demonstrators, including the deployment of stun grenades and the use of batons and water cannons in a densely populated area.

Critics of the police operation have questioned whether the force employed was proportionate to the circumstances and whether individual officers exceeded their authority while confronting the protesters.

The controversy has also become entangled in a broader dispute over police leadership and the handling of chareidi demonstrations.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir recently submitted a petition to the High Court of Justice containing serious allegations against Israel’s police commissioner.

In the petition, Ben Gvir alleged that the commissioner had instructed police commanders to deliberately use violence against chareidi protesters, including an alleged statement that he “wants to see blood.”

Those allegations were presented as claims in the legal petition and have not been established as factual findings.

The petition has added another dimension to the growing controversy surrounding police tactics at demonstrations connected to the military draft issue.

The arrests of yeshiva bochurim have sparked repeated protests in chareidi communities, with demonstrators arguing that the enforcement measures threaten the ability of young men to continue their Torah studies.

The Geha Junction demonstration was among the more turbulent recent protests, drawing attention both because of the extensive road closures and because of the allegations of police violence that emerged afterward.

The Fund for Fighting the Draft Decree welcomed the decision to begin taking testimony and said it intends to pursue accountability for officers accused of misconduct.

“We will take every possible action to ensure that the officers who acted violently are held accountable, and we hope that the swift response will continue until the law is fully enforced,” the organization said in a statement.

The organization indicated that it would continue assisting those who reported injuries and supporting efforts to investigate the conduct of officers at the scene.

It remains unclear how long the examination will take or whether the complaints will ultimately result in disciplinary measures or criminal charges.

For now, the summoning of protesters to provide testimony represents the first concrete investigative response to the allegations arising from last Thursday’s confrontation.

The investigation is expected to draw close attention from the chareidi community, particularly as tensions over the arrests of yeshiva students and the broader draft controversy continue.

The outcome could also have wider implications for the scrutiny of police tactics at future demonstrations, as the authorities face mounting pressure to ensure that crowd-control operations are conducted lawfully and that allegations of excessive force receive a thorough examination.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump made his first public appearance Wednesday following one of the Republican Party’s most devastating midterm election defeats in decades, but rather than dwell on the political catastrophe that handed Democrats control of both chambers of Congress, the president invited reporters to tour his massive White House ballroom construction project, enthusiastically discussing marble floors, towering columns, chandeliers and a newly constructed helicopter landing pad.

The unusual appearance came less than 24 hours after Democrats swept Republicans out of power on Capitol Hill, capturing the House and Senate while scoring major victories in traditionally Republican states, including Texas and South Carolina. The results represented a dramatic reversal for Trump, whose party had entered the elections hoping to preserve its congressional majorities.

Yet the president appeared largely untroubled by the results as he walked through the unfinished ballroom, surrounded by construction workers wearing hard hats. He spoke at length about the building’s architectural features, the quality of its materials and his ambitious plans to transform the White House grounds.

“Now, envision chandeliers all over,” Trump told reporters as he surveyed the enormous construction site. “Envision marble floors. Oh, it’s going to be good.”

Trump described the ballroom as an extraordinary architectural achievement, pointing to its massive steel framework, limestone columns, high ceilings and reinforced security features. The project, which has become one of the president’s signature construction initiatives, is intended to provide the White House with a large venue for official receptions and other major gatherings.

“This is a special structure,” Trump declared. “It’s going to be not only one of the biggest, but it’ll be the most beautiful ballroom I think anywhere in the world.”

The president also drew attention to the new White House helipad, another project he has championed as part of his effort to renovate and beautify the presidential complex. The landing area, featuring a granite presidential seal, is designed to accommodate newer presidential helicopters.

During the ceremony, workers prepared to lift what Trump described as the ballroom’s final steel beam into position. The president signed the beam alongside construction workers who had contributed to the project, adding the word “Love!” above his signature.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who attended the event, praised Trump’s construction efforts, calling him “our builder-in-chief, the greatest builder that has ever been president of the United States.”

“Today, of course, is a day of celebration and a day of gratitude,” Burgum said.

The celebratory atmosphere contrasted sharply with the mood among Republicans following Tuesday’s elections. Democratic victories in states long considered reliably Republican have left party leaders confronting difficult questions about Trump’s political standing, the administration’s war with Iran and the rising cost of living.

Asked why he continued devoting so much attention to construction projects while facing serious political challenges, Trump defended his priorities, explaining that he enjoys overseeing improvements to the White House and other Washington landmarks.

“I like it,” he said. “For me, it’s relaxing.”

Trump also maintained that his renovation efforts were appropriate because of the White House’s importance as a national symbol. His administration has pursued numerous other projects around Washington, including improvements to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, a proposed monumental arch near the Potomac River and renovations to public recreational facilities.

When reporters eventually pressed Trump about the election results, he rejected suggestions that voters had personally repudiated him, arguing that Republican candidates had failed to generate the enthusiasm that he attracts.

“Look, if I were on the ballot we would’ve won,” Trump insisted.

The president also addressed Vice President JD Vance’s contention that the administration’s war with Iran had contributed heavily to Republican losses. Trump acknowledged that the conflict had damaged the party politically by driving up gasoline prices, describing that assessment as “largely true,” but defended his decision to launch military operations against Tehran.

Trump maintained that the campaign had been necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, despite the political consequences at home.

The election results will dramatically change the president’s position in Washington when the new Congress takes office in January. With Democrats controlling both chambers, Trump faces the prospect of intensified congressional investigations, legislative resistance and potential impeachment proceedings.

Asked about dealing with the incoming Democratic majorities, Trump suggested that cooperation remained possible while emphasizing his ability to block legislation he opposes.

“Look, I’ll get along probably with the Democrats, unless they want to be destructive, but I have the power of the veto,” he said.

{Matzav.com}

Shas chairman Aryeh Deri announced Wednesday evening that he will remain at the helm of the party, accepting without reservation a directive from the Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah that rejected his request to resign following the party’s disappointing performance in Israel’s Knesset elections.

In a statement issued hours after the Moetzet instructed him to continue serving as chairman, Deri emphasized his lifelong commitment to Daas Torah and declared that he would immediately begin working to strengthen the party and address the challenges facing the chareidi community.

“All my life, I was raised and educated to obey Daas Torah, and that is how I have acted throughout all my years of public service. We have also educated entire generations in this path,” Deri said.

“Therefore, when I received today the unequivocal instruction of the Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah, I accept it without hesitation and without question,” he continued.

Deri also expressed his appreciation to the rabbonim for their continued confidence in his leadership.

“I thank the rabbonim of the Moetzet for the trust and support they have given me throughout the years,” he said.

The announcement brings an apparent end to speculation about Deri’s immediate political future following Shas’s electoral setback, which saw the party fall to six Knesset seats.

Earlier Wednesday, the Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah convened to address Deri’s request to step down from the party leadership and withdraw from political life.

The rabbonim expressed sorrow over his request and determined that, given the serious challenges confronting the chareidi community, particularly the unresolved status of yeshiva bochurim and kollel yungeleit, Deri’s continued leadership was essential.

In their decision, the members of the Moetzet described the current political circumstances as requiring an experienced leader capable of navigating the difficult negotiations ahead.

“The most experienced general is needed to lead the campaign,” the rabbonim wrote, instructing Deri not to relinquish his position.

Their directive reflected the importance they placed on maintaining experienced political leadership as Israel enters a period of uncertainty over the formation of its next government and the future of legislation concerning Torah learners.

Deri’s response made clear that he would not challenge the decision and would instead resume his responsibilities immediately.

As his first step, he announced plans to convene a special meeting Thursday with Shas Knesset members and senior party representatives serving in local government.

“Tomorrow, with Hashem’s help, I will convene a faction meeting with the party’s Knesset members and our senior representatives in local authorities, so that we can roll up our sleeves, learn lessons, and move the movement forward,” Deri said.

The planned meeting is expected to focus on evaluating the party’s election performance and determining how Shas can strengthen its political standing while continuing to advance the priorities established by the Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah.

Deri’s decision comes as Shas faces significant political challenges following the election, including the need to rebuild voter confidence and secure legislation addressing the status of yeshiva students.

Despite its electoral losses, Shas has maintained its support for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, formally recommending him to President Isaac Herzog on Wednesday to receive the mandate to form the next government.

The party’s position contrasts with that of the main factions of United Torah Judaism, which have announced that they will refrain from recommending any candidate at this stage.

For Shas, the immediate priority now appears to be restoring stability within its leadership and preparing for the political battles ahead.

With Deri’s resignation request rejected and his commitment to remain in office publicly reaffirmed, the party is moving forward under the same leadership that has guided it for much of its political history.

The Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah’s intervention, and Deri’s unequivocal acceptance of its decision, have reinforced the central role of the party’s rabbinic leadership in determining its political direction.

{Matzav.com}

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich described Tuesday’s midterm elections as a historic Republican disaster, acknowledging that the party’s loss of both chambers of Congress was substantially worse than he had anticipated and warning that President Donald Trump now faces a dramatically altered political landscape.

In a video posted Wednesday on X, Gingrich said the scale of the Democratic victories had caught him off guard, particularly the collapse of Republican support in several states where GOP candidates had been expected to remain competitive.

“The election night was, frankly, much worse than I thought it would be,” Gingrich said. “I have to confess that I never thought it would be as bad as it was.”

Gingrich explained that although he had expected Democrats to make gains in the House of Representatives, he believed Republicans would retain a narrow Senate majority and limit their House losses to a relatively modest number of seats.

“I thought we would keep the Senate by a narrow margin, I thought we’d lose 10 to 15 seats in the House,” he said. “It was a bloodbath. I mean, this was a genuine tidal wave and is a historic election and has to be seen as a historic election.”

The Democratic victories included at least seven Republican-held Senate seats and more than two dozen GOP-held House districts, giving the opposition party control of Congress for the remaining two years of Trump’s presidency.

Among the most striking results was the Senate contest in Texas, where Democrat James Talarico defeated Republican Ken Paxton, ending a decades-long Republican winning streak in statewide Senate elections.

Democrats also scored major victories in Kansas, where Adam Hamilton defeated Republican Senator Roger Marshall, and South Carolina, where Annie Andrews prevailed over Republican Senator Darline Graham.

Additional Republican Senate defeats were reported in Maine, Ohio, Iowa and North Carolina. In North Carolina, Democrat Roy Cooper, the state’s former governor, defeated Republican Michael Whatley in the contest for an open Senate seat.

The Republican losses extended to competitive House districts in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Iowa, where Democratic candidates benefited from widespread voter frustration over economic conditions, energy costs, tariffs and the administration’s military campaign against Iran.

With Democrats preparing to assume leadership of both chambers in January, Trump’s ability to advance legislation and secure approval for administration nominees will face substantial new obstacles. Democratic control of congressional committees will also open the door to investigations of the White House and federal agencies.

Gingrich delivered his assessment from Bern, Switzerland, where he said his wife, Callista, had awakened him so he could listen to Trump’s election-night telephone interview with Fox News anchor Bret Baier.

“In the middle of all this, because we’re in Bern, which is six hours ahead, Callista got me awake when President Trump went and talked to Fox News, as he did by telephone, and it was fascinating listening to him because he’s trying to find a new balance,” Gingrich said.

The former speaker suggested that Trump had been personally shaken by the results after investing considerable time and political capital in an effort to preserve Republican control of Congress.

“I think he was deeply, deeply disappointed,” Gingrich said. “He’d done all of these town meetings, these rallies, all this telephone marketing. He’d reached hundreds of thousands of people, he had worked endlessly, and it failed.”

Gingrich said the president’s comments revealed the difficult choice now confronting the White House: whether to engage in a prolonged confrontation with Democratic congressional leaders or attempt to negotiate agreements on selected issues.

“To listen to him — because he was wavering back and forth, you could hear it in the conversation that he had with Bret Baier — on the one hand he emphasized, correctly, that he has a veto path, that the Democrats aren’t going to get anything done if it’s a direct confrontation with the president because he’ll veto it, and they’re not going to be able to override his veto,” said Gingrich.

Trump’s veto authority would allow him to block legislation passed by the Democratic majorities unless Congress could assemble the two-thirds support required in both chambers to override his objections.

At the same time, Gingrich observed that Trump had expressed a willingness to acknowledge the Democrats’ campaign success and potentially cooperate with them.

“On the other hand, he says, ‘You know, I want to congratulate the Democrats, they ran a great campaign, et cetera, and I’m sure we can work together,'” Gingrich said of Trump.

The defeat comes amid evidence of a nationwide shift away from Republicans. An analysis of election returns found that the party’s share of the vote declined in approximately 99% of the roughly 2,200 counties examined compared with Trump’s performance in 2024, with an average drop of eight percentage points.

The losses were particularly pronounced in several traditionally Republican states, where Democratic candidates overcame longstanding electoral disadvantages. In Kansas, the party won a Senate seat for the first time in more than nine decades, while its Texas victory ended a Republican winning streak stretching back to the late 1980s.

For Gingrich, who led Republicans to their historic House takeover in 1994, the magnitude of Tuesday’s reversal was especially striking. His remarks reflected the growing recognition among Republican leaders that the party had suffered a far more consequential defeat than even its pessimistic pre-election projections had anticipated.

{Matzav.com}

Motti Leitner, chairman of the newly established Hatzibur Hachareidi party, has publicly acknowledged the devastating failure of his party in Israel’s recent Knesset elections, revealing that even members of his own shul overwhelmingly declined to vote for him.

In his first interview since the election, conducted by Yishai Cohen of Kikar HaShabbat, Leitner admitted that his party’s performance fell far short of expectations, attracting only approximately 10,000 votes despite a campaign that reportedly cost 13 million shekels.

“Yes, I failed here. I thought we would exceed 20,000 votes, and in that respect, we failed completely,” Leitner acknowledged.

The party, which sought to represent working chareidim who feel inadequately represented by the established chareidi political parties, had entered the election with considerable publicity and expectations of a stronger showing.

Instead, its vote total left it nowhere near the electoral threshold required to enter the Knesset.

Leitner attributed the disappointing outcome primarily to voters’ fears that supporting his party would weaken the right-wing bloc and potentially help bring about a change in government.

“Eighty to ninety percent of our target audience was afraid of wasting their vote and preferred to vote for Religious Zionism, Otzma Yehudit, and Likud, or to return home to the chareidi parties,” he explained.

Perhaps the most striking admission concerned his own community in Beit Shemesh.

Leitner revealed that even among the families who know him personally and daven alongside him, support for his political venture was almost nonexistent.

“In my shul, out of 60 families, fewer than five families voted for me!” he said.

According to Leitner, many members of his community expressed personal admiration for him but ultimately decided that the political stakes were too high to support a party that appeared unlikely to cross the electoral threshold.

“People told me, ‘We love you, but the right-wing bloc is in danger,’” he recalled.

The party chairman also addressed criticism of his campaign’s messaging, which initially emphasized the need for greater political representation for working chareidim but later included increasingly pointed attacks on the established chareidi political leadership.

Leitner conceded that some of the campaign’s rhetoric had been unnecessarily confrontational.

“Most of the campaign was positive, but if there was a discordant note in the music that could have been avoided, the answer is yes, we made mistakes and erred. However, that was not the essence,” he said.

One of the most controversial aspects of the campaign was its enormous expenditure relative to the number of votes it ultimately received.

During the interview, Cohen confronted Leitner with the calculation that the party had spent approximately 1,300 shekels for every vote it received, based on campaign expenditures of 13 million shekels and a final tally of roughly 10,000 votes.

Leitner rejected the suggestion that the money had been wasted, arguing that the campaign had accomplished important objectives beyond winning seats in the Knesset.

He also drew a sharp distinction between his party’s privately funded campaign and the public funds used to support established political parties and their elected representatives.

“The 18 elected representatives of Shas and United Torah Judaism cost 350 million shekels of our tax money during the last term, and that money went down the drain,” Leitner charged.

“We, by contrast, spent 13 million shekels exclusively from private donations, and we do not have a single shekel of debt,” he said.

Leitner claimed that the donors who supported his campaign remained enthusiastic despite the disappointing election results.

“The donors are excited and tell me, ‘You accomplished in three months what others did not accomplish in 13 years.’ We brought the voice of working chareidim to a volume that cannot be ignored,” he said.

Although his party failed to win a Knesset seat, Leitner insisted that the campaign had already succeeded in changing the conversation within the chareidi community about political representation and the concerns of working chareidim.

He pointed to recent developments involving Hagaon Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch, including discussions concerning the concerns of working chareidim and meetings involving heads of chareidi high schools.

“For the first time in history, we see Maran Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch asking to hear the voices of working chareidim, and heads of chareidi high schools entering the inner sanctum,” Leitner said.

“The conversation has changed, and the establishment can no longer ignore us.”

Leitner maintained that these developments demonstrate that his movement has already exerted influence despite failing to achieve electoral representation.

He also made clear that the party has no intention of disappearing from the political scene.

On the municipal level, Leitner announced plans to field candidates in every chareidi city, seeking to build a broader political infrastructure ahead of future elections.

In Beit Shemesh, where his movement already has a local political presence, he predicted that the faction could increase its representation to three seats in the municipal council.

At the national level, Leitner indicated that the party would reconsider its approach if Israel heads toward another Knesset election.

Rather than immediately launching another independent campaign, he said the preferred strategy would be to seek representation from within the established chareidi parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism.

If those efforts are unsuccessful, the movement would consider pursuing political representation through other right-wing parties.

The comments suggest that Leitner is prepared to pursue a different electoral strategy while continuing to press the issues that prompted the formation of his party.

The election results were a particularly painful setback for Hatzibur Hachareidi, which had positioned itself as an alternative for chareidi voters dissatisfied with the traditional political establishment.

The party’s inability to attract even a substantial portion of its intended constituency raised questions about whether working chareidim are prepared to support a separate political framework or prefer to advance their interests through existing parties.

Leitner, however, argued that the poor showing should not be interpreted as evidence that the concerns of his supporters have disappeared.

“By the measure of getting a Knesset member elected, I failed,” he concluded. “But the problems still exist, and we are here for the long term.”

Despite the crushing defeat, Leitner’s message was that the election represented the beginning of a longer political effort rather than the end of his movement.

Whether that effort will ultimately translate into electoral success remains uncertain, but Leitner has made clear that he intends to continue seeking a political voice for working chareidim, even after an election in which the overwhelming majority of his intended supporters chose to vote elsewhere.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he has no concerns about facing another impeachment effort after Democrats captured control of both chambers of Congress, warning that any attempt to remove him from office would prove politically disastrous for the Democratic Party.

Speaking with reporters at the White House, Trump also rejected suggestions that he should have approached the midterm campaign differently or reconsidered his decision to launch military operations against Iran, despite acknowledging that the war contributed to Republicans’ sweeping election losses.

Asked whether the prospect of impeachment worried him, Trump replied that he was “not even a little bit” concerned.

“I think it would destroy the Democrat Party if they did that. Impeachment for no reason. What? For having a successful country? Our country is more successful now than any time in its history,” Trump said.

The president made the remarks during an unscheduled appearance at the construction site of the new White House ballroom, where he escorted reporters through the project and answered questions about Tuesday’s election results, the Iran conflict and the political challenges awaiting his administration.

Although Trump had no public events listed on his Wednesday schedule, he spent time discussing the ballroom’s construction before addressing the Republican Party’s defeat.

Democrats won control of both the House and Senate in Tuesday’s elections, giving them the ability to launch congressional investigations, issue subpoenas and potentially pursue impeachment proceedings when the new Congress convenes in January.

Trump, who was impeached twice during his first term and acquitted by the Senate both times, maintained that another impeachment effort would lack legitimate grounds and could damage Democrats politically.

The president also disputed the suggestion that his extensive campaigning on behalf of Republican candidates had failed, arguing that the enthusiasm generated by his appearances simply did not translate into votes for other members of his party.

“No, look, if I were on the ballot, we would’ve won. You saw the people, they were packed. Thousands and thousands of people at every rally,” he said.

“There was such love at those rallies, it was incredible. We weren’t able to transfer the love to candidates.”

Trump campaigned heavily for Republican candidates in the closing weeks of the election, including appearances in states that ultimately delivered major Democratic victories. Nevertheless, he insisted that the outcome would have been different had his own name appeared on the ballot.

On the Iran war, Trump acknowledged that rising gasoline prices associated with the conflict had contributed to voter dissatisfaction, but insisted that preventing Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons justified the military campaign.

He said he would have “done nothing different” in his approach to the war, despite its political consequences.

Vice President JD Vance offered a more critical assessment earlier Wednesday, arguing that the Iran conflict was the central reason Republicans lost control of Congress.

“The reason we lost is the war,” Vance said.

In a lengthy social media statement, Vance maintained that many Americans who supported the Republican ticket in 2024 had voted for Democrats this year because of frustration over the war, rising living expenses and the administration’s foreign policy.

Trump subsequently said Vance’s assessment was largely accurate, acknowledging that the conflict had temporarily driven up energy prices while defending the military action as necessary for national security.

The president also indicated that he was prepared to work with Democrats on legislation where possible, while reminding them that he retained the authority to veto measures he opposed.

Trump disclosed that several Democratic lawmakers had contacted him after Tuesday night’s results established that their party would control Congress. He declined to identify those individuals but said impeachment had not been mentioned during the conversations.

Shas formally recommended Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to President Isaac Herzog on Wednesday evening to form Israel’s next government, honoring its pre-election commitment despite a disappointing election performance and growing uncertainty over the future of the country’s governing coalition.

During the consultations at the President’s Residence, senior Shas representatives delivered a forceful defense of the chareidi community and yeshiva bochurim, accusing political opponents of conducting a campaign of incitement and misrepresenting the community’s position on military conscription.

The Shas delegation consisted of MKs Michael Malkieli, Yinon Azulai, Yoav Ben Tzur, Chaim Biton, and Dror Amos.

Speaking before President Herzog, Malkieli emphasized that Shas was fulfilling the promise it made to voters during the election campaign.

“Shas is a party that keeps its promises. We promised that we would recommend Bibi, and that is exactly what we are doing,” Malkieli declared.

He acknowledged the party’s electoral losses while accusing its political opponents of targeting Shas with a particularly harsh campaign.

“We experienced a decline in seats, and we endured very severe incitement specifically directed against Shas. We did not fight back against the false incitement in real time,” he said.

The Shas representatives also addressed the controversy surrounding legislation to regulate the military service status of yeshiva students, an issue that has dominated Israeli political discussions and created significant tensions between the chareidi parties and other political factions.

MK Yinon Azulai, who was assigned responsibility for the draft legislation by the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah, described the hostility he encountered while working on the issue.

“The Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah entrusted me with the issue of the draft law, and I was subjected to severe violence,” Azulai said.

He accused opponents of deliberately distorting the chareidi community’s position and creating a misleading public narrative about its attitude toward military service.

“There was manipulation of public consciousness regarding the entire issue of the chareidi community. They thought we were saying, ‘We will die rather than enlist.’ That is absolutely not our approach. But first and foremost, the value of Toras Yisroel must be recognized,” Azulai said.

The remarks reflected the frustration within Shas over the public debate surrounding the draft law, which party leaders have argued has frequently portrayed Torah learners unfairly and failed to recognize the central importance of limud haTorah to the Jewish people.

The party’s endorsement of Netanyahu comes at a politically sensitive moment, with the prime minister attempting to secure sufficient recommendations to receive the presidential mandate to form a government.

While Shas has maintained its support for Netanyahu, the main factions of United Torah Judaism have announced that they will not recommend any candidate at this stage, following instructions from their rabbinic leadership.

That decision has complicated Netanyahu’s efforts to consolidate the support of the chareidi parties and has highlighted differences in their approaches to the post-election negotiations.

Earlier Wednesday, representatives of the Religious Zionism party also recommended Netanyahu during their consultations with Herzog.

That meeting included a sharp exchange between Herzog and Minister Orit Strock over the legitimacy of Arab political parties as potential coalition partners.

Religious Zionism representatives argued that Arab nationalist parties should not be considered legitimate partners in the process of forming a government, citing their political positions and descriptions of Israel’s establishment as the “Nakba.”

Herzog challenged Strock over the distinction between rejecting political cooperation with Arab parties and discriminating against Arab citizens.

“How do you distinguish between racism and what you are saying about not sitting with Arabs?” Herzog asked.

Strock responded, “I think reality has made the distinction.”

Herzog pushed back against the broad characterization of Arab political participation, pointing to Yoav Segalovitz, the second-ranking candidate on the Ra’am list, who previously held a senior position in the Israel Police and served in a combat role.

“We need to understand that we live with Arab citizens in Israel. This generalization bothers me very much,” Herzog said.

The exchange illustrated the deep divisions among Israel’s political parties as they seek to influence the formation of the next government.

Under Israel’s Basic Law: The Government, the president is required to assign the task of forming a government within seven days of the publication of the official election results.

The president generally selects the Knesset member considered most likely to assemble a governing coalition, taking into account the recommendations submitted by the various factions and the prospects for securing a parliamentary majority.

Although the number of recommendations is an important consideration, the candidate receiving the most endorsements is not automatically guaranteed the mandate.

Consultations with additional Knesset factions are expected to continue, after which Herzog will determine which candidate should receive the first opportunity to form a government.

For Shas, Wednesday’s recommendation represented a reaffirmation of its political commitment to Netanyahu, even as the party confronts the consequences of its election losses and continues to press for legislation addressing the status of yeshiva bochurim.

The party’s representatives made clear that their support for Netanyahu does not diminish their determination to defend the dignity of Torah learners and challenge what they described as a campaign of hostility and misinformation directed against the chareidi community.

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani scored a significant legal victory Wednesday when a state appeals court overturned a ruling that had threatened to derail his administration’s controversial tax on luxury second homes, allowing the city to continue implementing the surcharge despite ongoing challenges to its constitutionality.

The unanimous decision by a four-judge panel of the Appellate Division in Brooklyn reversed a September ruling by Staten Island Supreme Court Justice Wayne Ozzi, who had ordered the city to redo its rollout after homeowners complained that thousands of residents were improperly threatened with tax bills.

The tax, known as the pied-à-terre surcharge, targets expensive residential properties that are not used as their owners’ primary residences. It applies to qualifying one-, two-, and three-family homes valued at $5 million or more, as well as certain condominiums and cooperative apartments valued at $1 million or more.

Mamdani welcomed the ruling, saying he was “heartened” by the outcome and promising to continue defending the measure against additional lawsuits.

“From day one, those with the most have attempted to use every legal avenue available to shield their wealth and avoid contributing more to our city,” Mamdani said. “We will implement the pied-a-terre surcharge fairly and efficiently, ensuring that those most able to contribute do their part to build a city that works for everyone.”

The lawsuit was brought last summer by seven New York City homeowners represented by prominent attorney Randy Mastro, a frequent legal adversary of City Hall. The plaintiffs accused the administration of a “botched” implementation process that improperly placed the responsibility on property owners to establish whether they were subject to the new tax.

The controversy erupted after the city’s Department of Finance distributed approximately 17,000 notices to homeowners who potentially owed the surcharge and published a supplemental property tax list containing information about roughly 900,000 properties.

The plaintiffs maintained that city officials should have conducted a more thorough examination of residency records before issuing the notices, rather than requiring homeowners to demonstrate that their properties were their primary residences.

They described the administration’s handling of the process as “arbitrary and capricious,” arguing that people who did not owe the tax were nevertheless forced to navigate a confusing exemption system.

Justice Ozzi initially agreed with the homeowners, determining that recipients of the notices had been “substantially harmed and penalized needlessly.” His September ruling directed the city to restart the notification process.

Wednesday’s appellate decision rejected that conclusion, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the concrete harm necessary to pursue their lawsuit.

“All taxpayers incur time, effort, and costs in determining and complying with their various tax obligations,” the judges wrote, addressing the homeowners’ complaints about the burden of seeking exemptions.

The court also observed that the plaintiffs “have not documented and quantified any actual costs incurred.”

According to the appellate panel, receiving a preliminary tax notification did not, by itself, establish grounds for a lawsuit.

“The mere receipt of the initial determination notices … does not qualify as an injury,” the judges concluded, explaining that the correspondence served “an informational purpose.”

The court also dismissed complaints about the publication of the property information, noting that much of the material was already available through existing public assessment records. The homeowners’ reported “confusion” about the tax was likewise insufficient to establish a legally recognizable injury.

Five of the seven plaintiffs had received notices and were subsequently granted exemptions, while the other two had not alleged receiving notices at all.

The decision did not determine whether the city had followed every administrative requirement correctly. Instead, the judges concluded that the homeowners lacked legal standing to pursue their claims.

Mastro sharply criticized the outcome, accusing the appellate court of avoiding the central allegations about the city’s handling of the tax.

“It’s a shame that, after the City admittedly botched the rollout of this surcharge, the court today took the procedural offramp of standing to avoid addressing the merits of this case,” Mastro said Wednesday.

“What the City has done here is unconscionable — trying to ensnare thousands of people who don’t owe this surcharge into having to prove they live in their own homes or else have to pay it.”

The ruling removes an immediate obstacle as city officials prepare to issue tax bills, with a November 15 mailing deadline approaching.

The administration has already granted more than 8,900 exemption requests, illustrating the scale of the effort to determine which properties actually qualify for the surcharge.

Mamdani has projected that the tax could generate approximately $500 million annually, although City Comptroller Mark Levine previously estimated that collections could reach up to $380 million from roughly 11,200 properties.

The mayor’s victory does not settle the larger legal dispute. Two separate lawsuits continue to challenge the tax itself, including claims that it improperly discriminates against out-of-state property owners and violates constitutional restrictions on property taxation.

Among those involved in the constitutional challenges are billionaire casino developer Steve Wynn and former U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. Arguments in those cases are scheduled for December 1 on Long Island.

Mastro said the “ultimate day of reckoning” for the surcharge would come when the courts consider those constitutional arguments.

“We remain confident we will prevail and put an end to this unconstitutional surcharge altogether,” he said.

In a dramatic development that could significantly weaken Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s chances of forming Israel’s next government, the leadership of United Torah Judaism has decided not to recommend Netanyahu, or any other candidate, to President Isaac Herzog during the presidential consultations, marking a major departure from the party’s longstanding political alignment with the Likud leader.

The decision, announced Wednesday by Degel HaTorah and Agudas Yisroel, follows instructions from the Gedolei Yisroel that the party’s overriding priority must be securing the status of yeshiva bochurim and kollel yungeleit, rather than maintaining an automatic commitment to any political bloc.

The move comes despite an intensive effort by Netanyahu over the past 24 hours to persuade the chareidi lawmakers to support his candidacy, as Gadi Eisenkot, chairman of the Yashar party, continues to accumulate recommendations from parties seeking to replace the prime minister.

Degel HaTorah announced that its representatives would refrain from recommending any candidate, citing explicit instructions from the party’s rabbinic leadership.

“At the instruction of Maran Rosh HaYeshiva Rabbeinu Hagaon Rav Dovid Landau shlit”a and Maran Rosh HaYeshiva Hagaon Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch shlit”a, the representatives of the faction will not recommend any of the candidates to the president for the formation of the government,” the party declared.

Agudas Yisroel issued a similar announcement through its chairman, MK Yitzchok Goldknopf, explaining that the party’s support would depend on which political leader is prepared to resolve the crisis surrounding the status of Torah learners.

“Gedolei Yisroel shlit”a have instructed Agudas Yisroel chairman MK Rabbi Yitzchok Goldknopf not to recommend any candidate for prime minister,” the statement said.

“As we committed during the elections, the primary mission is to regulate the status of Torah learners, and the candidate who brings a solution to the issue and legislation will receive the party’s support.”

The announcement represents a significant change in the political calculations surrounding the formation of the next government. For decades, United Torah Judaism has generally supported Netanyahu during presidential consultations, making the decision to withhold its recommendation particularly consequential.

According to a report by Channel 12 political correspondent Dafna Liel, Netanyahu made extensive efforts to secure the chareidi party’s support, personally speaking with several United Torah Judaism lawmakers, including Yaakov Asher, Meir Porush, and Elyakim Stark.

Additional efforts reportedly involved contacts with the household of Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch in an attempt to secure the support of MKs Yitzchok Pindrus and Moshe Weisfish.

Despite those efforts, the rabbinic leadership declined to provide Netanyahu with the automatic endorsement he had sought.

The decision follows repeated statements by Rav Dovid Landau that United Torah Judaism does not belong to any particular political bloc but is committed exclusively to what he has described as the “bloc of the Torah world.”

Rav Landau has emphasized that the overriding responsibility of the chareidi representatives is to protect the ability of yeshiva bochurim and kollel yungeleit to continue learning Torah, regardless of which political arrangement ultimately emerges.

During a recent dinner at the Pillar Hotel in London, Rav Landau delivered a forceful address concerning the challenges facing yeshiva students and kollel yungeleit in Eretz Yisroel, reinforcing the importance of resolving their legal status.

Goldknopf similarly declared that the chareidi parties are not automatically aligned with any political camp.

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

However, the position within United Torah Judaism is not entirely uniform.

According to the report, five lawmakers affiliated with Degel HaTorah and Agudas Yisroel will refrain from recommending Netanyahu, while two lawmakers representing the separate Chomas Toras Yisroel faction, Meir Porush and Elyakim Stark, have not yet reached a final decision.

Channel 14 political correspondent Motti Kastel reported that several Admorim serving on the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah of Agudas Yisroel are inclined to instruct Porush and Stark to recommend Netanyahu, potentially preventing a complete withdrawal of chareidi support from the right-wing bloc.

The possibility of a divided recommendation within the broader United Torah Judaism framework adds another complication to the presidential consultations.

Meanwhile, Shas has taken a different approach, formally recommending Netanyahu to President Herzog after receiving commitments concerning legislation to address the status of Torah learners.

A Shas delegation arrived at the President’s Residence Wednesday evening and presented Netanyahu as the party’s preferred candidate to form the next government.

The delegation included MKs Michael Malkieli, Yinon Azulai, Yoav Ben Tzur, Chaim Biton, and Dror Amos.

Speaking at the President’s Residence, Malkieli explained that Shas was honoring its 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 experienced a decline in seats, and we endured very harsh incitement specifically directed against Shas,” he said.

Azulai addressed the controversy surrounding the military draft and the chareidi community.

“The Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah assigned me the issue of the draft law, and I suffered severe violence. There was manipulation of public consciousness regarding the entire issue of the chareidi community. They thought we were saying, ‘We will die rather than enlist.’ That is absolutely not our approach. But first and foremost, the value of Toras Yisroel must be recognized,” he said.

The developments come amid considerable turmoil within Shas following its disappointing election performance, which saw the party fall to just six Knesset seats.

Reports that Shas chairman Aryeh Deri was considering resigning from the party leadership prompted an emergency intervention by the Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah.

The council convened Wednesday by telephone after a planned in-person meeting was canceled at the last moment, reportedly because of disagreements surrounding the arrangements.

The decision to convene the rabbinic leadership followed discussions between senior Moetzet member Rav Moshe Maya and Rav Yitzchok Yosef.

During the conference call, council members spoke with Deri, who expressed his desire to step down from the party leadership and withdraw from public life.

The rabbonim instructed him to remain in his position.

Deri subsequently issued a statement declaring that he would comply fully with their directive.

“All my life, I was raised and educated to obey Daas Torah, and that is how I have acted throughout all my years of public service. We have also educated entire generations in this path. Therefore, when I received today the unequivocal instruction of the Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah, I accept it without hesitation and without question,” Deri said.

He announced that he would convene a special faction meeting Thursday with Shas lawmakers and the party’s representatives in local government to review the election results and determine the movement’s next steps.

Deri said the meeting would focus on learning lessons from the election and strengthening the party for the future.

The contrasting positions of United Torah Judaism and Shas illustrate the changing political environment facing Israel’s chareidi parties following the elections.

While Shas has chosen to maintain its commitment to Netanyahu, the main factions within United Torah Judaism have decided to withhold their recommendation until there is greater clarity regarding the prospects for legislation protecting Torah learners.

For Netanyahu, the loss of an automatic endorsement from United Torah Judaism represents another obstacle as he attempts to secure sufficient recommendations to receive the mandate to form a government.

For Eisenkot, the decision could strengthen his relative position by denying Netanyahu support he had previously been able to count on, although United Torah Judaism has not indicated that it intends to recommend Eisenkot instead.

The presidential consultations are expected to continue over the coming days, with Herzog ultimately tasked with selecting the Knesset member he believes has the best chance of forming a government.

As negotiations intensify, the chareidi parties have made clear that the question of yeshiva students’ status and the passage of an acceptable draft law will remain central to their decisions.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump is reportedly consulting advisers about whether to replace Secretary of War Pete Hegseth following Tuesday’s devastating Republican election losses, with some White House insiders blaming the Pentagon chief for his prominent role in the unpopular war with Iran.

Hegseth, who helped champion and has overseen the military campaign, is emerging as a potential casualty of the election results as Republicans confront the loss of both chambers of Congress. The political fallout has intensified questions about his future, particularly with Democrats preparing to take control of the Senate in January.

The Pentagon, however, insisted Wednesday that Hegseth has no intention of stepping aside, including to accept a possible appointment to the U.S. Senate from Tennessee.

“We will continue to drive [Trump’s] agenda at the Department of War — despite threats of sham witch hunts from Democrats — and Secretary Hegseth is 100% committed to leading the Department until the end of President Trump’s term in office,” Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said.

According to individuals familiar with discussions inside the administration, senior White House officials have begun considering whether Hegseth should be held accountable for the political damage associated with the Iran conflict.

“Knives are definitely out for him among senior West Wing staff,” one source close to the White House said, while adding, “I don’t know if it’s a foregone conclusion that he’s gone.”

Another person familiar with the president’s thinking said Trump has been seeking opinions from allies about how to handle the situation.

The war has become a major political liability for Republicans, with higher energy costs and inflation contributing to voter dissatisfaction. Both Trump and Vice President JD Vance have acknowledged that the conflict played an important role in the party’s election setbacks.

One individual close to the administration argued that the scale of the Republican defeat would inevitably create pressure for someone to accept responsibility.

“somebody has to own this,” the source said.

“When the word ‘war’ is in your title then you might be the person in the crosshairs,” the individual added.

Despite the growing speculation, Trump publicly defended Hegseth on Wednesday, telling reporters that the secretary was “doing a very good job” and indicating that he had no immediate plans to dismiss him.

The president also suggested that Hegseth could be a strong candidate for a Senate appointment, saying “he’d be very popular” if he pursued that opportunity.

The possibility involves Tennessee, where Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn won Tuesday’s gubernatorial election. Her departure from the Senate would create a vacancy that could be filled through an appointment supported by the incoming governor.

Some Trump allies believe the opening could provide Hegseth with an opportunity to leave the Pentagon without an outright dismissal. One person close to the president said he would strongly encourage Hegseth to seek Blackburn’s backing for the seat.

Hegseth’s representatives have rejected that possibility, insisting that he intends to remain in his current position.

The timing of any potential personnel change could prove especially important. Once Democrats assume control of the Senate, Trump would face a considerably more difficult confirmation process for a replacement defense secretary.

Hegseth also faces the possibility of impeachment proceedings over the administration’s decision to conduct military operations against Iran without congressional authorization.

Rep. Thomas Massie has introduced an impeachment resolution challenging Hegseth’s conduct of the war. With Democrats taking control of the House, the proposal could receive renewed attention, while a Democratic-controlled Senate could conduct a public trial if the House approved articles of impeachment.

The prospect of prolonged congressional proceedings has added to the concerns surrounding Hegseth’s continued service.

The criticism has also extended to former administration officials, including John Ullyot, who served in national security positions during both Trump administrations.

“Hegseth has been a human wrecking ball swinging through one of our oldest and proudest institutions, and it will take years to undo the damage,” Ullyot said.

“He’s well past his sell-by date, and it’s time to give him the heave-ho,” added Ullyot, who recently authored a book titled The President Deserves Better.

“Any self-respecting leader with his record, in the military or the corporate world, would leave on his own before being shown the door.”

Other administration figures have expressed similar concerns. Fox News reported that one former White House official believes Hegseth is facing possible dismissal, while another suggested that any decision could come during the remaining weeks of Republican control of Congress.

The pressure has increased as Vice President Vance has publicly identified the Iran war as a principal reason for the Republican defeat.

“The reason we lost is the war,” Vance wrote Wednesday, adding that the administration must acknowledge the political consequences of the conflict even if officials believe the military campaign was justified.

Trump has also acknowledged the war’s impact on voters, particularly through higher gasoline prices, although he continues to defend the decision to confront Iran militarily.

Hegseth’s troubles extend beyond the war itself. His leadership has drawn criticism over the removal of senior military officers, internal Pentagon disputes, and the handling of sensitive military information.

Democrats have indicated that those controversies, along with the Iran campaign, could become subjects of congressional investigations once they assume control in January.

There is a historical parallel to the current situation. In November 2006, President George W. Bush announced Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s departure one day after Republicans suffered major congressional losses amid mounting public opposition to the Iraq War.

Tuesday’s election produced similarly damaging consequences for Republicans, who lost at least seven Senate seats and 29 House seats, with additional contests still being decided.

The results have also prompted questions about other Trump advisers, including James Blair, the former White House deputy chief of staff who helped direct the Republican Party’s nationwide redistricting strategy before moving to the pro-Trump super PAC MAGA Inc.

Before the election, some Republican insiders had suggested Blair could face criticism if the redistricting effort failed to deliver the anticipated gains.

An internal analysis by the National Republican Redistricting Trust, however, concluded that the revised congressional maps actually helped Republicans avoid even greater losses, potentially preserving additional seats in Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas.

For Hegseth, the more immediate concern is whether Trump’s public expressions of confidence will translate into continued support behind closed doors. The president previously praised Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem before removing them from their positions earlier this year.

Trump has not announced any decision to replace Hegseth, and Pentagon officials insist he intends to remain in office. But with Republicans preparing to surrender control of Congress and Democratic investigations looming, the defense secretary faces mounting pressure from both inside and outside the administration.

A moving and intimate gathering was held Tuesday to mark the publication of a new sefer containing the handwritten Torah commentary of Hagaon Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt”l, bringing to light another portion of the extraordinary Torah legacy he left behind.

The new sefer, titled Medrash Avraham Im Biur Ohel Avraham, is a collection of Midrashei Chazal relating to the life of Avraham Avinu, beginning with his birth and continuing through his petirah. The work includes a special commentary written by Rav Chaim himself, offering explanations and insights into the various Midrashim.

The publication was celebrated at a small gathering attended by several of Rav Chaim’s closest talmidim and associates, together with the benefactor who sponsored the first edition.

The project was undertaken by Rav Chaim’s son, Rav Avrohom Yeshayahu Kanievsky, rosh kollel of Orchos Yosher, who has devoted considerable effort to preparing and publishing his father’s Torah writings.

Rav Avrohom Yeshayahu had previously overseen the publication of several of his father’s works on the Megillos and various Midrashei Chazal, including volumes that were released during Rav Chaim’s lifetime.

The newly published sefer represents the culmination of a project that began in 5777 (2017), when Rav Chaim wrote his commentary on a collection of Midrashim that had been assembled according to his specific instructions and guidance.

The work is the latest in a series of seforim devoted to Midrashic teachings, including Medrash Noach, Sefer HaBahir, and other volumes.

The publication of Medrash Avraham required approximately two years of painstaking work to organize and prepare Rav Chaim’s writings for publication.

At Tuesday’s gathering, Rav Avrohom Yeshayahu spoke about the significance of completing the project and the special joy his father had always experienced whenever another sefer of Torah was brought to print.

He expressed his conviction that Rav Chaim was rejoicing in Gan Eden over the publication of the new work, just as he had rejoiced during his lifetime whenever another of his seforim was published.

“Father is rejoicing and happy in Gan Eden,” he said, describing the completion of the sefer as a continuation of his father’s lifelong dedication to Torah learning and the dissemination of Torah.

Among those participating in the gathering were Rav Yeshayahu Epstein and Rav Yitzchok Ohev Tzion.

Also in attendance was Rav Avrohom Moyal, rov of the Eish Hachaim community in New York, a close associate of Rav Chaim who sponsored the first edition of the new sefer.

Rav Moyal and Rav Ohev Tzion addressed the gathering, sharing personal recollections of Rav Chaim and describing his extraordinary dedication to writing and publishing Torah works.

Their remarks recalled Rav Chaim’s lifelong commitment to preserving, explaining, and making accessible the teachings of Chazal, an undertaking that occupied a central place in his daily avodas hakodesh.

Rav Chaim, whose extraordinary mastery of Torah earned him the title Sar HaTorah, authored numerous seforim covering a vast range of Torah subjects. His writings continue to be studied throughout the Torah world, and the publication of previously unpublished material has remained an important undertaking for his family and talmidim since his petirah.

The new volume offers readers an opportunity to study Rav Chaim’s explanations of the Midrashim concerning Avraham Avinu, prepared from the commentary he wrote in his own handwriting.

{Matzav.com}

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul had barely secured a decisive re-election victory Tuesday night before the Democratic Socialists of America and other progressive organizations began demanding that she embrace higher taxes on wealthy residents, setting up a potentially contentious battle over the direction of state government during her second full term.

Hochul defeated Republican Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman by approximately 20 percentage points, a dramatic improvement over her narrow six-point victory against Lee Zeldin in 2022. But the landslide immediately emboldened the Democratic Party’s socialist wing, which is demanding tax increases, expanded government-funded childcare, higher minimum wages, and additional social programs.

The New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, which elected a record number of members to the state Legislature, is preparing to press Hochul to adopt its economic agenda when lawmakers return to Albany.

“I’m hopeful that Hochul has seen the energy, the excitement that can come from the masses of people who want and deserve a better government, and she takes those lessons and brings them to Albany, and is braver than she has been in past years in terms of standing up for working class New Yorkers,” NYC-DSA co-chair Grace Mauser told The City Reporter on Wednesday.

The Working Families Party, which supported Hochul’s candidacy, is also demanding substantial changes to state tax policy. Jasmine Gripper, the organization’s co-executive director, indicated that the group intends to make higher taxes on wealthy New Yorkers a central demand during the upcoming budget negotiations.

“We will only accept a budget that is equitable and taxes the ultra-rich so that working families can thrive and children have what they need,” Gripper said.

Although Hochul appeared on the Working Families Party ballot line, the NYC-DSA refused to endorse her, accusing the governor of maintaining close relationships with wealthy donors while resisting progressive tax proposals. The organization also criticized New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, after he endorsed Hochul in February.

The DSA accused Hochul of siding “with her billionaire donors while offering working class New Yorkers crumbs.”

Mamdani nevertheless campaigned alongside Hochul during the closing weeks of the election, urging his supporters to back her and praising the governor for becoming more receptive to progressive policies.

At the Democrats’ election-night gathering, Mamdani declared that Hochul “has embraced new ideas,” portraying their partnership as evidence that progressive priorities were gaining influence in Albany.

At a separate DSA celebration in Astoria, Queens, activists reportedly began chanting “tax the rich” after Hochul’s victory was announced.

Among those addressing the gathering was newly elected State Senator Aber Kawas, a Mamdani-backed DSA member who became the first Palestinian-American Muslim woman elected to the New York State Legislature.

Kawas told supporters, “we have always understood that people deserve universal healthcare, fast and free buses, and free education.”

“We have always been able to imagine that world. And this year, folks, is the year where we get to get into the fore and build that world together,” she said.

NYC-DSA co-chair Gustavo Gordillo also urged activists to capitalize on Democratic victories nationwide, declaring, “what comes next, it’s up to us, it’s up to all of you … 2028 is ours for the taking.”

Political analysts, however, cautioned against interpreting Hochul’s overwhelming victory as an endorsement of the socialist agenda. Several argued that her success resulted primarily from widespread dissatisfaction with President Donald Trump and Blakeman’s close association with the president.

“Voters turned against the Republican Party,” said pollster Bradley Honan, who noted that Blakeman struggled with limited statewide recognition and was closely identified with Trump among voters who became familiar with him.

“Kathy Hochul benefited from the backlash.”

Political strategist O’Brien “O.B.” Murray similarly attributed the outcome to national political sentiment rather than an ideological shift toward socialism, saying Democrats “showed up like President Trump was on the ballot.”

“Unfortunately for Republicans, local issues were overshadowed by national issues, an affordability message that Democrats delivered to voters, and a President’s second term midterm,” Murray said.

Hochul’s victory was especially significant because she carried Nassau County, Blakeman’s home territory, while also posting substantial gains in New York City and other parts of the state. Democrats also expanded their legislative majorities, strengthening their ability to advance legislation in Albany.

The Working Families Party gained additional political leverage through New York’s fusion voting system, which allows candidates to appear on multiple party ballot lines. Unofficial returns showed more than 364,000 votes for Hochul on the Working Families Party line statewide, nearly 40% more than the approximately 261,000 votes the party received for her in 2022.

Lawrence Levy, dean of Hofstra University’s National Center for Suburban Studies, described the election as a major personal and political achievement for Hochul.

“This was a personal and political triumph for Governor Hochul, who established herself not only as the ultimate power broker in New York, but a force to be reckoned with even nationally,” Levy said.

Nevertheless, political observers expect the strengthened socialist faction to challenge Hochul aggressively over taxes and spending, potentially creating serious divisions within the Democratic Party.

“New York Socialists smell blood in the water. The state is going to have real activism,” said Ryan Adams, managing director at the consulting firm Actum. “With this kind of victory secured, expect a much more pronounced civil war among Dems.”

Hochul has previously resisted demands for broad tax increases, maintaining that her administration can fund its priorities without imposing additional burdens on taxpayers. During the final days of the campaign, she declined to commit to the tax hikes sought by Mamdani and his allies.

In a campaign appearance Saturday, Hochul said, “I can fund the programs that we want for healthcare and childcare and healthcare and continue the investments in infrastructure with the current budget that we have. I don’t believe in raising taxes just for the sake of raising taxes.”

Blakeman had repeatedly warned that Hochul would eventually yield to Mamdani’s demands, accusing her of concealing plans to increase taxes until after the election.

At a press conference Wednesday, Mamdani urged progressive activists to intensify their efforts following the Democratic victories.

“Foot on the gas. This is the moment where we are seeing people across this country vote for a politics that will mean something,” Mamdani said. “I think it’s a time for delivery.”

Asked whether he would now directly pressure Hochul to raise taxes on wealthy New Yorkers, the mayor avoided making an explicit commitment.

“I think what it does is show that the constituency that is fighting for working people is only growing, and we’re excited to grow that coalition every single day,” Mamdani said.

The immediate test will come during the next state budget negotiations, when Hochul must decide whether to accommodate the demands of the increasingly influential progressive faction or maintain her longstanding resistance to higher taxes.

{Matzav.com}

The Torah community of Or Akiva, Eretz Yisroel, is mourning the petirah of Rav Yitzchok Malul zt”l, one of the pioneering builders of Torah life in the city and a beloved marbitz Torah and baal chessed who devoted decades to bringing Yidden closer to Torah and mitzvos. He was 87 years old.

Rav Malul, who was niftar suddenly, was widely known and revered throughout Or Akiva, Chadera, and Zichron Yaakov for his exceptional dedication to harbotzas haTorah, chinuch, and chessed. Over the course of his life, he established Torah learning programs, brought hundreds of children closer to Yiddishkeit, delivered countless shiurim, and served as one of the region’s most experienced mohalim, performing brisos for thousands of Jewish children.

His petirah marks the loss of a remarkable talmid chochom whose life’s work helped transform the spiritual landscape of Or Akiva and its surrounding communities.

Rav Malul was born in Morocco, where he began his Torah education and developed the deep commitment to limud haTorah that would characterize his entire life. As a young bochur, he learned in a yeshiva in Marrakesh under Rav Eliezer Lopian zt”l.

While still a bochur, he made the journey to Eretz Yisroel on his own, leaving behind his family and familiar surroundings to continue his growth in Torah.

Upon arriving in Eretz Yisroel, he entered the renowned Lomza Yeshiva in Petach Tikvah, where he immersed himself in learning with extraordinary hasmadah.

Following his marriage, his uncle, Rav Menashe Malul zt”l, who was then the rov of Or Akiva, encouraged him to settle in the city and help strengthen Torah observance among its residents.

At the time, Or Akiva was still developing, and its Torah infrastructure was limited. Rav Malul accepted the challenge, dedicating himself to building a stronger foundation of Torah and yiras Shomayim in the community.

Rather than waiting for families to approach him, Rav Malul personally went from house to house, speaking with parents and encouraging them to provide their children with a Torah education.

His efforts were driven by a deep concern for the spiritual future of every Jewish child. He invested enormous time and energy in reaching families who had little exposure to Torah learning, patiently explaining the importance of chinuch and helping parents recognize the opportunities available to their children.

He subsequently established a special Torah educational program for children and teenagers, where he personally delivered shiurim and introduced young people to the beauty of Torah and mitzvos.

Through this undertaking, hundreds of children were brought closer to Torah observance, and Rav Malul became a central figure in the development of religious life in the city.

One particularly moving account, recalled by longtime residents of Or Akiva, illustrates the extraordinary mesirus nefesh with which he pursued his mission.

Approximately 45 years ago, the educational program operated in close cooperation with Rav Chaim Greineman zt”l, author of Chiddushim U’Biurim.

On one occasion, Rav Greineman arrived at the facility accompanied by a prominent donor, intending to show him the Torah learning taking place there.

When they reached the building, however, they discovered that the entrance was completely dark. Believing that nobody was inside, they were about to leave.

At the last moment, they decided to enter and investigate.

What they discovered left them astonished.

Inside the darkened building, rows of children were seated at their places, each with an open sefer before him and a small candle illuminating the pages.

It emerged that the facility’s electricity had been disconnected because of a lack of funds. But Rav Malul had refused to allow the financial setback to interrupt the children’s Torah learning.

Instead, he arranged for the children to continue their studies by candlelight.

The incident became an enduring illustration of Rav Malul’s determination to ensure that Torah learning would continue regardless of the obstacles.

Alongside his extensive work in chinuch and kiruv, Rav Malul maintained a demanding schedule of shiurim throughout Or Akiva.

He delivered Torah classes in local shuls every day and continued teaching on Shabbos, becoming a familiar and cherished presence among residents of the city.

His influence extended well beyond the formal classroom. Generations of families came to regard him as a spiritual guide, a source of encouragement, and a person to whom they could turn for assistance and advice.

Rav Malul was also renowned for his work as a mohel. Regarded as the senior mohel in Or Akiva and the surrounding region, he performed brisos for thousands of Jewish children over the decades, approaching the mitzvah with tremendous dedication.

He also trained numerous avreichim in the practice of bris milah, ensuring that others would be equipped to continue this important mitzvah.

Throughout his life, Rav Malul was known for his humility and willingness to undertake difficult work without concern for personal honor. Whether visiting homes to encourage Torah education, teaching children under challenging conditions, or traveling to perform a bris, his focus remained on serving Klal Yisroel.

In his later years, he endured severe suffering, which he accepted with remarkable emunah, love, and quiet fortitude.

Rav Malul leaves behind a distinguished family of children, sons-in-law, and grandchildren who continue his legacy of Torah and avodas Hashem.

His sons are Rav Dovid Yosef Malul, one of the roshei yeshiva of Yeshivas Ohel Yosef in Modiin Illit; Rav Eliyahu Malul, a senior official in the administration of Israel’s Chief Rabbinate; and Rav Shimon Malul, a senior figure in the Yerushalayim kashrus system.

His sons-in-law include Rav Shaul Buskila, a community rov in Modiin Illit; Rav Shimon Monsonego, a prominent lecturer involved in kiruv; Rav Shimon Cohen, a ram at Yeshivas Halevi in Yerushalayim; Rav Yosef Shitrit, a respected avreich in Brachfeld; and Rav Nehorai Peretz, a respected avreich in Beit Shemesh.

His levayah took place Tuesday at the cemetery in Or Akiva, where a large crowd of local residents, talmidim, and others whose lives he had touched gathered to accompany him to his final resting place.

The outpouring of grief reflected the profound impact he had made on the community over many decades, particularly among families whose connection to Torah and mitzvos had been strengthened through his personal efforts.

The family is sitting shivah at the home of the niftar, 125 Rashi Street, Or Akiva.

Yehi zichro boruch.

{Matzav.com}

Israel’s Arab Joint List is expected to recommend Gadi Eisenkot, chairman of the Yashar party, to President Isaac Herzog on Thursday as its preferred candidate to form the next government, while simultaneously presenting a series of demands in exchange for supporting efforts to replace Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana.

According to a report Wednesday evening by Kan 11 News, the Joint List is preparing to endorse Eisenkot without attaching any preliminary conditions to its recommendation for prime minister. However, the party intends to demand significant parliamentary positions and policy commitments before agreeing to support the anti-Netanyahu bloc’s effort to install a new Knesset speaker.

The expected endorsement comes after the Ra’am party announced its support for Eisenkot, strengthening his position in the competition to secure the largest number of recommendations during President Herzog’s consultations with the newly elected Knesset factions.

Joint List representatives are scheduled to meet with Herzog on Thursday at 4:45 p.m. Israeli time. The party is expected to hold a final internal meeting Thursday morning before formally announcing its decision.

While the Joint List is reportedly prepared to recommend Eisenkot without conditions, its support for replacing Ohana would come at a substantial political price.

Among its central demands is the chairmanship of one of three influential Knesset committees: the Finance Committee, the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, or the Education Committee.

The Joint List is also seeking three seats on the Knesset Finance Committee, which plays a central role in overseeing government spending, budget legislation, and financial policy.

In addition, the party wants the establishment of a special parliamentary committee dedicated to advancing the interests of Israel’s Arab population, with the committee to be chaired by a representative of the Joint List.

The party’s demands extend beyond parliamentary appointments to several major policy initiatives.

According to the report, the Joint List is seeking approval of a new five-year government development plan for Arab communities, including a comprehensive program to address crime and violence.

The party is also demanding temporary legislation that would freeze the demolition of buildings, an issue that has long generated disputes between Arab political representatives and Israeli authorities over construction enforcement and unauthorized building.

The demands could complicate efforts by the anti-Netanyahu bloc to coordinate its parliamentary strategy, particularly as its leaders are already struggling to agree on who should replace Ohana as speaker.

The Joint List’s potential role in the effort became more apparent Tuesday, when Democrats chairman Yair Golan met with senior Joint List figures Yousef Jabareen and Ahmad Tibi.

The meeting was considered unusual because it marked the first reported direct meeting between a senior representative of the anti-Netanyahu bloc and leaders of the Arab faction during the current post-election negotiations.

During the discussions, Joint List representatives reportedly signaled their willingness to support the effort to replace Ohana, provided their demands are addressed.

Golan has emerged as the principal channel of communication between the anti-Netanyahu parties and the Arab factions, as the bloc attempts to coordinate parliamentary moves without creating additional internal disagreements.

The arrangement is particularly sensitive because leaders of the anti-Netanyahu bloc have agreed, at least for now, to avoid direct negotiations with Balad, one of the three parties comprising the Joint List.

Balad is expected to hold three seats in the next Knesset, making its participation an important factor in the broader political calculations.

The decision to maintain indirect contacts reflects the political difficulties facing the bloc as it seeks support from Arab lawmakers while attempting to preserve unity among parties with differing positions on cooperation with those factions.

The struggle over the Knesset speakership has become one of the first major tests of the emerging parliamentary balance following last week’s election.

Although leaders of the anti-Netanyahu bloc have agreed on the need to replace Ohana, disagreements remain over the identity of his successor, with Yair Lapid, Eisenkot, and Naftali Bennett’s party all figuring in the discussions.

The Joint List’s willingness to support the move could strengthen the bloc’s ability to replace Ohana, but its demands introduce another layer of negotiations involving parliamentary influence, government funding, and policy commitments.

For Eisenkot, the expected recommendation from the Joint List would represent another step toward securing the support needed to receive the presidential mandate to form a government.

However, a recommendation to the president does not necessarily translate into support for a governing coalition, and the Joint List’s reported demands concern a separate parliamentary effort to replace the Knesset speaker.

The United Nations General Assembly and Security Council elected five judges Wednesday to serve on the International Court of Justice in The Hague, prompting sharp criticism from Israel over the backgrounds of several of the incoming and returning jurists, including individuals who previously participated in legal proceedings against the Jewish state.

The five judges were elected to terms beginning in 2027 and continuing through 2036. Their appointments come at a particularly sensitive time for Israel, as the court continues to consider South Africa’s case accusing Israel of violating the Genocide Convention during its war against Hamas in Gaza.

Israeli officials expressed concern that several of the judges have previously taken legal or political positions critical of Israel, raising questions about their ability to approach pending cases with impartiality.

Among the most controversial selections is Mahmoud Daifallah Hmoud of Jordan, who has served on the court since May 2025 and was elected to a new term.

Hmoud previously served as Jordan’s ambassador to the United Nations and as legal adviser to the Jordanian Foreign Ministry. During his diplomatic and legal career, he played a prominent role in Jordan’s participation in international proceedings concerning Israel.

He was involved in the 2004 proceedings before the International Court of Justice concerning Israel’s security barrier and in the legal proceedings that culminated in the court’s 2024 advisory opinion addressing Israel’s presence in Yehuda and Shomron and eastern Yerushalayim.

Hmoud also attracted criticism in Israel for remarks he made at the United Nations Security Council in late October 2023, just weeks after Hamas terrorists carried out the October 7 massacre.

During those discussions, he accused Israel of committing “war crimes” and “ethnic cleansing,” statements that Israeli officials now cite as evidence of his previously expressed positions concerning the Jewish state.

Two other judges elected Wednesday have also participated in international legal proceedings involving Israel.

Professor Dapo Akande of the United Kingdom, a prominent international law scholar at Oxford University, previously provided legal advice to Japan in connection with proceedings concerning the legal consequences of Israel’s policies in Yehuda and Shomron.

Professor Phoebe N. Okowa of Kenya, a professor at Queen Mary University of London who has served on the International Court of Justice since November 2025, advised Namibia in proceedings related to the same 2024 advisory opinion.

Both Akande and Okowa have extensive backgrounds in international law and have served on the United Nations International Law Commission, an expert body responsible for promoting the development and codification of international law.

Their previous involvement in legal proceedings concerning Israel has nevertheless generated concern among Israeli officials, who question whether those roles could create difficulties when the court considers future cases involving the Jewish state.

The remaining two judges elected Wednesday are François Alabrune of France and Rena Lee of Singapore.

Alabrune is a French diplomat and international legal expert with experience in major cases involving allegations of genocide, including proceedings brought by Ukraine against Russia and by The Gambia against Myanmar.

Lee is a Singaporean legal expert specializing in international negotiations and the law of the sea. She has held senior positions within Singapore’s legal and diplomatic establishment and has extensive experience in international legal matters.

Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, strongly criticized the election results, arguing that the professional backgrounds of some of the judges raise serious questions about judicial independence.

Danon said their previous activities were “troubling and raise questions,” particularly given the sensitive nature of the proceedings currently pending before the court.

He questioned how Israel could expect an impartial hearing from a judge who accused the country of grave international crimes only weeks after the October 7 massacre, or from a judge who had previously served as a legal adviser in proceedings challenging Israeli policies.

“The decision made today in the General Assembly,” Danon said, “is simply another example of the UN’s inherent bias against the State of Israel.”

The International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, consists of 15 judges elected by the General Assembly and Security Council. Judges serve nine-year terms, with elections held periodically to fill positions on the bench.

The court hears legal disputes between countries and issues advisory opinions on questions of international law referred to it by authorized United Nations bodies.

Unlike the International Criminal Court, which prosecutes individuals accused of international crimes, the International Court of Justice considers disputes involving states.

The composition of the court has become especially consequential for Israel because of the ongoing proceedings initiated by South Africa in December 2023.

South Africa alleges that Israel violated the Genocide Convention through its military operations in Gaza following the October 7 attacks. Israel has rejected the allegations, maintaining that its military campaign was directed against Hamas terrorists and that it has acted in accordance with international law.

The court has issued provisional measures in the case, but it has not delivered a final ruling on South Africa’s central allegations.

The selection of the five judges comes as the proceedings remain unresolved, with the court’s future composition potentially influencing how the case and other matters involving Israel are considered.

Israeli officials are particularly concerned that judges who previously participated in legal efforts challenging Israeli policies may now be called upon to consider related questions from the bench.

Although the judges are required to act independently and impartially, Danon’s criticism reflects broader Israeli concerns about the treatment of the Jewish state within United Nations institutions and international legal bodies.

{Matzav.com}