Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu held a direct and strained conversation with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio over the makeup of the Gaza Executive Board, despite earlier indications that the issue would be handled through diplomatic channels by Israel’s foreign minister.
An announcement from the Prime Minister’s Office said Netanyahu had instructed Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar to convey Israel’s objections to Rubio following the disclosure of the board’s members. However, a report by Channel 12 said Netanyahu himself took the lead in speaking directly with Rubio, while Sa’ar was publicly presented as managing the dialogue because of the political and public sensitivity surrounding the matter.
According to the report, Netanyahu’s main concern during the discussion was not the specific individuals selected for the board, but the fact that the announcement was made publicly without prior coordination with Israel.
Sources familiar with the conversation told Channel 12 that Rubio made clear the decision would not be rolled back, and that Qatar and Turkey would be involved in post-war “day after” arrangements in Gaza through their participation on the executive board. Netanyahu was said to have voiced objections but also recognized that Israel’s ability to influence the process was limited once the plan had been formally unveiled.
The executive body, also described as an international executive council operating under the Board of Peace, is expected to be made up of senior international figures. The report said its members will be assigned specific areas of responsibility, including stabilizing Gaza, strengthening governance, managing regional ties, overseeing reconstruction efforts, promoting investment, arranging large-scale financing, and mobilizing capital.
In its statement, the Prime Minister’s Office said: “Prime Minister Netanyahu instructed Foreign Minister Sa’ar to address this matter with the US Secretary of State. At the same time, the Prime Minister held a conversation with the Secretary of State, with whom he maintains ongoing contact.”
{Matzav.com}
The criminal case against Chanukah Monsey stabber Grafton Thomas has been put on hold yet again after a Rockland County judge approved a fresh order keeping him in psychiatric custody, following a determination by the state Office of Mental Health that he remains unfit to stand trial.
Evaluators concluded that the 43-year-old still does not understand the nature of the charges against him and is unable to meaningfully participate in his legal defense.
Thomas is charged in both state and federal court in connection with the December 2019 attack in Monsey, where a man armed with a machete burst into a local rov‘s home during a mesibas Chanukah and stabbed five people. One of those injured later died as a result of the wounds he sustained.
Since the attack, Thomas has been held at the Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Center, where he continues to undergo treatment and periodic evaluations aimed at determining whether he can ever be restored to competency.
Under the most recent court order, the proceedings have been postponed until January 2028, extending the case by another four years. The delay leaves victims’ families and the broader Monsey community in continued uncertainty, as the court remains in a holding pattern, waiting to see whether Thomas will eventually be deemed capable of facing trial.
{Matzav.com}Several public health groups are suing to reverse a decision from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that narrows the list of vaccines recommended for children, arguing that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other leaders failed to consider how the new policy would endanger families and burden the health care system.
The plaintiffs, which consist of seven public health organizations led by the American Academy of Pediatrics, a physician, and two patients, accused Kennedy of “inappropriately” influencing a key vaccine advisory committee by packing it with unqualified experts who hold anti-vaccine views.
“Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of changing U.S. vaccine policy without consideration of the relevant factors or providing any reasoned explanation,” reads the complaint, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts.
Spokespeople for the CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The Health Department’s Jan. 5 decision means the CDC will no longer recommend every child be immunized for rotavirus, influenza, meningococcal disease and hepatitis A. Instead, the agency will recommend those vaccines only for smaller groups of high-risk children or if a doctor recommends them.
The Washington Post reported Monday that some pediatricians are ignoring the new guidelines, which have caused confusion and anxiety among American families.
In announcing the decision, Kennedy, a longtime vaccine skeptic, said the department is aligning U.S. vaccine schedules more closely with “international consensus,” specifically citing Denmark’s more limited set of recommendations. “This decision protects children, respects families, and rebuilds trust in public health,” Kennedy said in a statement at the time.
The lawsuit takes issue with recent appointments to a key vaccine advisory committee called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP. The Post has reported that the committee itself was not consulted before the decision being made public, and many federal vaccine scientists said they were blindsided.
The plaintiffs asked the court to disallow the committee from meeting any further, citing federal law requiring federal advisory committees to be “fairly balanced” and not “inappropriately influenced.” The lawsuit cites past statements from recently appointed committee members questioning the validity of vaccines, arguing that all but one of the recent appointees don’t have the necessary qualifications.
The complaint also stated, citing unspecified “information and belief,” that only Republicans and Independents were considered for inclusion in the committee. The plaintiffs said in their suit that 10 of its members have publicly stated views that align with secretary’s, and accused the group of spreading misinformation.
“The public meetings of this [advisory board] have served as a megaphone for spreading misinformation about immunization and infectious diseases that is directly harming the Plaintiffs and the American public,” the complaint reads.
(c) 2026, The Washington Post · Aaron Gregg
{Matzav.com}
Airlines could ultimately benefit financially from the growing use of weight-loss medications, as lighter passengers would reduce aircraft weight and cut fuel consumption, according to a new analysis by Jefferies Research Services.
As GLP-1 drugs designed for weight loss become more widely available across the United States, analysts expect a gradual reduction in average body weight. That shift, Jefferies says, could translate into meaningful fuel savings for airlines, where fuel remains one of the industry’s largest expenses.
The amount of fuel an aircraft burns is closely tied to how much it weighs, including the combined weight of passengers, their baggage, and onboard cargo. When total weight decreases, fuel requirements decline as well.
Carriers have long sought ways to minimize aircraft weight in order to save fuel, the report notes, citing efforts that range from food choices like serving pit-less olives to the use of thinner or lighter paper products onboard.
Airlines “have a long history of searching for unique methods to reduce the weight of the aircraft, in turn reducing fuel consumption and limiting an airline’s largest cost bucket,” analysts said in the report.
Despite those efforts, airlines have little control over how much their passengers weigh.
Jefferies examined a scenario in which weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic and Wegovy lead to a 10% reduction in average body weight across society. Under that assumption, total passenger weight on flights would fall by about 2%, resulting in roughly 1.5% fuel savings for airlines and an estimated 4% increase in earnings per share.
To illustrate the impact, the analysts modeled a typical Boeing 737 Max 8. The aircraft weighs about 99,000 pounds empty and can hold up to 46,000 pounds of fuel. With 178 passengers averaging 180 pounds each, plus roughly 4,000 pounds of additional cargo, the plane’s takeoff weight reaches approximately 181,200 pounds. If average passenger weight drops by 10% to 162 pounds, the total weight falls to about 177,996 pounds.
Based on that reduction, Jefferies estimates annual fuel savings of roughly $580 million for the four largest U.S. carriers — American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines, and United Airlines. Together, those airlines are projected to spend about $38.6 billion on jet fuel this year.
The research was conducted as pharmaceutical companies continue developing new weight-loss treatments, building on a Jefferies report released in 2023 that examined how reductions in passenger weight could affect fuel costs.
“With the drug now available in pill form and obesity rates falling, broader usage could have further implications for waist lines,” analysts said.
{Matzav.com}
LONDON – The president was fine with it a year ago. Now it’s “GREAT STUPIDITY.”
President Donald Trump told British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in February that he was on board with a deal the United Kingdom had reached with the island nation of Mauritius over ownership of the Chagos Archipelago, a remote string of atolls in the Indian Ocean, including Diego Garcia – home to a base for U.S. bomber aircraft.
“I have a feeling it is going to work out very well,” Trump said to cameras in an amicable Oval Office meeting with Starmer. Secretary of State Marco Rubio hailed the “historic” agreement.
On Tuesday, however, Trump seized on the deal to justify his effort to seize Greenland, describing the U.K. agreement as a disqualifying example of international idiocy.
Trump’s quest for Greenland, the vast Arctic territory long controlled by Denmark, a NATO ally, has become a bitter, high-stakes transatlantic contretemps, surging from fringe strategic fancy to a Category 5 geopolitical hurricane.
With Trump displaying aggressive territorial ambitions, he highlighted the Chagos Islands agreement – which grants the nation of Mauritius sovereignty over the contested archipelago but guarantees Britain and the United States a 99-year lock on a joint air base there – as a contemptible example of “total weakness.”
“Shockingly, our ‘brilliant’ NATO ally, the United Kingdom, is currently planning to give away the Island of Diego Garcia, the site of a vital U.S. Military Base, to Mauritius,” Trump posted on Truth Social Tuesday. “The UK giving away extremely important land is an act of GREAT STUPIDITY, and is another in a very long line of National Security reasons why Greenland has to be acquired.”
Trump’s sharp reversal and astonishing rebuke of the U.K., which is often described as America’s closest ally, managed to stupefy British officials who are mostly numbed to serial shocks from this White House.
Trump’s expansionist moves – from taking “control” of Venezuela to risking the transatlantic alliance in his grab for Greenland – contrast sharply with Britain’s recent history of unwinding imperial legacies from Hong Kong to Africa.
“The contrast could not be more stark between the United Kingdom negotiating a deal to implement international law and President Trump being unable to understand why any country would comply with the law at the global level when it goes against its immediate interest,” said Marc Weller, a law professor at Cambridge University and head of international law at Chatham House, a foreign policy think tank.
“The United Kingdom has done its very best to absorb the many upsets in the relationship between London and Washington,” Weller said. “Now we have arrived at a breaking point. With the Greenland episode, the British government is slowly realizing that it needs to stand up for principles.”
The whiplash criticism, delivered as Trump prepared to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, was all the more shocking given London’s assiduous work to preserve the “special relationship” through the tumultuous first year of Trump’s second presidency. This included inviting Trump for a historic second state visit with royal trappings.
“You can certainly say that no one saw this one coming,” said a person familiar with the deliberations in the Starmer government who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. “Keir spent a lot of time getting buy-in from the Trump team [on the Chagos Islands agreement] and felt it was fairly settled.”
The timing is particularly awkward for Starmer, the Labour Party prime minister, who has made cultivating Trump a centerpiece of his foreign policy despite their ideological differences.
Starmer traveled to meet the president at Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland in July, enduring criticism for not forcefully condemning what critics called Trump’s authoritarian tendencies. Since then, Starmer has carefully calibrated his language on contentious issues including tariffs and Venezuela.
The prime minister has been more forceful on Greenland. Starmer’s office also pushed back Tuesday on Trump’s Chagos Islands blast, but cautiously and emphasizing Trump’s U-turn on the issue. Officials pointed out that Britain said publicly it would execute the agreement only with U.S. approval.
“Our position hasn’t changed on Diego Garcia or on the treaty that’s been signed,” a spokesman told the BBC. “The U.S. supports the deal, and the president explicitly recognized its strength last year.”
Privately, British and European diplomats said they hoped this was another example of Trump’s ferocious rhetoric being more spleen venting or negotiation framing than a lasting policy shift. Starmer had no plans to travel to Davos, where heads of state will be lining up to meet Trump, but the two will talk soon, the person familiar with government deliberations said.
“They talk often,” this person said. “That has been invaluable in the last year.”
Trump’s criticism, however, could mark a widening gap between a president eager to change the map in his favor and a weakening onetime colonizer now doubling down on international law.
London’s return of Hong Kong to China in 1997 was in fulfillment of treaty terms between the two countries. Government lawyers advised the past two U.K. governments that they were at risk of losing access to the Chagos Islands entirely by defying a growing international consensus against British control.
The Chagos Islands dispute dates to the final years of Britain’s empire. In 1965, as its colony of Mauritius moved toward independence, the U.K. carved off the Chagos to form the British Indian Ocean Territory, a move later judged unlawful.
Britain forcibly removed more than 1,000 residents to clear the way for a joint U.K.-U.S. military base on the southernmost island, Diego Garcia, which became a key U.S. strategic hub during the Cold War and after.
Mauritius challenged British control for decades. In 2019, the International Court of Justice ruled that the U.K.’s continued administration was illegal, and the U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly backed Mauritius’s claim. The two countries reached an agreement in 2024 to transfer sovereignty to Mauritius while guaranteeing long-term U.K.-U.S. access to Diego Garcia under a lease extending into the next century.
Britain agreed to pay an average of a billion pounds a year for the lease (about $1.35 billion).
The negotiations were launched under then-Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, who later served briefly as a Conservative prime minister. But her Tory party, along with hard-liners in Washington, have criticized the deal for possibly giving a foothold in the region to China, a key trading partner of Mauritius.
Many analysts say those fears are overblown, given the remoteness of the islands and the continued presence of the British and American militaries.
“I think it was the most strategically clever agreement Britain could have made,” said Darshana Baruah, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Singapore. “It secures complete operational jurisdiction and continued operations in the same way things have been working for the next 99 years.”
Trump’s sudden fixation on big countries dominating weaker places, such as Greenland, where they have military facilities is a departure from international norms, Baruah said.
“There are many, many countries that have bases in other nations with just agreements in place,” she said. “This argument that you must have sovereignty to protect it is new.”
The immediate future of the Chagos deal remains uncertain. Starmer slowed final negotiations in January 2025 to await the Trump administration’s review, and the agreement still requires final parliamentary ratification. Supporters fear that Trump’s public opposition could provide cover for the British government to abandon the deal.
Doing so would probably expose Britain to international condemnation, undermine its claims to respect international law, and potentially intensify competing claims over other British territories, including with Argentina over the Falkland Islands and with Spain over Gibraltar. Buenos Aires has already cited Britain’s willingness to negotiate over Chagos as precedent for talks on the Falklands.
The Chagos episode also puts pressure on Britain to choose between alignment with the U.S. and closer integration with Europe – a choice Starmer has sought to avoid.
The prime minister has pursued a post-Brexit “reset” with the European Union while maintaining that the U.S. relationship remains paramount. But as Trump’s territorial ambitions grow and his attacks on European allies multiply, that balancing act is growing more precarious.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana), visiting London, sought to provide reassurance, telling GB News that the U.S.-U.K. special relationship is “critically important, not just for our countries, but, of course, for the entire world.”
But Johnson, along with the Congress he helps lead, may wield no influence over Trump’s territorial appetites.
(c) 2026, The Washington Post · Steve Hendrix
{Matzav.com}
Stocks took a beating Tuesday as renewed trade tensions spilled into global markets.
The sell-off accelerated as the day progressed, with the S&P 500 index down 1.9 percent as of midafternoon. The tech-heavy Nasdaq composite index had shed 2.1 percent, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average had tumbled 830 points, or 1.6 percent.
The trade-induced volatility, following months of relative calm, came after President Donald Trump threatened new tariffs on countries that oppose U.S. efforts to acquire Greenland. As global leaders met in Davos, Switzerland, Trump unleashed early-morning social media posts and threatened a steep tariff on French wine and champagne, adding to broader concerns about his demand for U.S. control of the Danish territory.
“The fear trade is absolutely on right now,” said D.C.-based investment analyst Michael Farr, calling the White House’s pressure on Greenland “unprecedented.”
The Cboe Volatility Index, known as Wall Street’s “fear gauge,” surged 26 percent. The dollar lost nearly 1 percent, and Treasury bond prices dropped – signs of decreased confidence in U.S. markets.
Meanwhile, investors sought refuge in gold, a safe-haven asset, which jumped 3.6 percent to roughly $4,760 per troy ounce. Meanwhile silver soared 8 percent to a record high, then retreated; as of midafternoon it was trading near $94, up 6.6 percent.
International markets suffered, too. European stocks sank, with indexes tied to Britain, Germany and France each falling between 1 and 2 percent before recovering somewhat.
The downturn in European stocks comes after Trump threatened over the weekend to impose 25 percent tariffs on eight European nations including Denmark, Norway, Germany and Britain unless they acquiesce to his demand that the U.S. acquire Greenland.
On Monday night, Trump sounded off on social media. He bashed Britain for handing over sovereignty of the island of Diego Garcia, the site of a U.S. military base and the largest of the Chagos Islands. Britain in 2024 said it would cede sovereignty over the archipelago to Mauritius, with the U.S. and Britain retaining operational control of the base.
On Monday evening, he also threatened France with 200 percent tariffs on wine and champagne after French President Emmanuel Macron declined to join Trump’s “Board of Peace” initiative concerning Israel and Gaza.
Although the timeline for these tariffs is unclear, several European winemakers sold off. LVMH, the Paris-based luxury goods conglomerate that owns Hennessy, Dom Pérignon and Moët & Chandon, sank more than 5 percent Tuesday. The liquor and wine purveyor Rémy Cointreau lost roughly 4 percent.
It remains to be seen how Europe will respond, and what that will mean for U.S. markets and the economy. Chief among investors’ fears is a European Union policy known as the Anti-Coercion Instrument – also called Europe’s “bazooka” – that would impose a 30 percent tariff on exports to the United States.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent brushed off those concerns in a television interview Tuesday.
“Well, having worked with the Europeans, my guess is their next move will be to form a working group. The dreaded European working group,” Bessent said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”
Markets were unsettled in Asia, too, as Japan’s Nikkei 225 sank 1.1 percent and bond prices dropped there.
China’s stocks largely held up as trade tensions focused on Europe; Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index, which tracks a number of companies on the Chinese mainland, had fallen by a meager 0.3 percent by midmorning Tuesday.
Analysts gave a mixed outlook for markets in 2026, with tariffs and geopolitical uncertainty competing with factors such as lower interest rates that could prop up stocks.
Comerica Wealth Management chief investment officer Eric Teal said he sees more storm clouds on the horizon for U.S. stocks, especially given how high stock valuations were at the end of 2025. Markets in 2026 have already been disrupted by geopolitical disturbances, once again calling into question where the effective tariff rate will fall, while the closely watched midterm elections could also bring uncertainty.
None of those factors “bode particularly well for robust market gains,” Teal said in a note to investors, as he recommended that investors diversify their holdings and “play defense.”
Still others believe that trade tensions could settle down. Trading volatility remains far lower than it was last April, when the Trump administration squared off in a trade dispute with China. And the Supreme Court is still considering whether the administration’s “reciprocal” tariffs are legal, a decision that could refund billions to U.S. companies depending on the outcome.
Some investors have grown accustomed to tariff-related uncertainty over the past year.
“Since April 2025, we have seen repeated tariff threats and counter-threats that ultimately have proven to be the opening bids in negotiations that have brought compromise,” said Paul Christopher, head of global investment strategy at Wells Fargo.
The tech sector, whose speculative investment timelines mean it tends to fare the worst in a sell-off, could also offset losses in other areas. Wedbush managing director Dan Ives, a longtime booster of tech stocks, said he believes last year’s artificial-intelligence-driven rally could continue to buoy markets, with Tuesday’s slump representing a buying opportunity.
“Our view is, just like over the last year, the bark will be worse than the bite on this issue and tariff threats as negotiations take place and tensions ultimately calm down between Trump and EU leaders,” Ives said in an email.
(c) 2026, The Washington Post
{Matzav.com}
A frightening antisemitic attack nearly ended in tragedy when a group of frum teenage boys in Melbourne were chased by a vehicle whose occupants attempted to ram them, screaming Nazi slurs and threats, in an incident that left the local Jewish community deeply shaken.
The episode unfolded yesterday in the St. Kilda East neighborhood, just a short distance—approximately 100 meters—from the Adas Yisroel shul, a landmark that itself was targeted in a Molotov cocktail arson attack more than a year ago.
Footage from nearby security cameras, later circulated by local media, shows the boys standing at a crosswalk when a white SUV pulled up close to them, drawing their attention.
Sensing danger, the boys immediately fled, sprinting across the street in an effort to get away. Moments later, the video shows the vehicle executing a sudden U-turn and accelerating toward them, narrowly missing one of the teens.
During the chaos, one of the boys succeeded in capturing the vehicle’s license plate. Members of the Jewish community later reported that the SUV had been stolen.
Chaim Klein, whose son was among the teens and who is part of the Adas Yisroel kehillah, recounted what his child told him after the ordeal. He said the attackers yelled “Heil Hitler,” made a Nazi salute, and issued stabbing threats as they pursued the boys for several minutes.
“They were forced to run and hide, while the passengers chased them in the car, searched for them and tried to drive towards them,” Klein told the local Herald Sun. “This was a deliberate and targeted act of intimidation and hatred that put young lives in immediate danger and left the community shaken.”
{Matzav.com}
