Feed aggregator

[Video below.] The United States Secret Service is deploying sophisticated artificial intelligence-powered technology to protect President Donald Trump and other senior government officials from a growing threat posed by hostile drones, including a remarkable flying interceptor capable of tracking an approaching aircraft, trapping it in a net, and bringing it to the ground.

Secret Service Director Sean Curran offered a rare demonstration of the agency’s advanced defensive capabilities during an interview with CBS News correspondent Norah O’Donnell that aired Sunday on 60 Minutes. The demonstration highlighted the agency’s efforts to prepare for a form of aerial attack that has become increasingly common on battlefields overseas and could eventually pose a serious danger at political rallies and other large public gatherings.

During the segment, O’Donnell accompanied Curran and other Secret Service personnel to an outdoor testing location in the Washington, D.C., area, where officials demonstrated several counter-drone systems intended to detect and neutralize potentially dangerous unmanned aircraft.

Among the devices on display was an unusual-looking interceptor known as a drone hunter. Resembling a large mechanical spider in flight, the aircraft uses radar and artificial intelligence to identify, pursue, and intercept other drones without requiring an operator to manually guide every movement.

Curran and Secret Service Deputy Director Matthew Quinn explained the system as O’Donnell watched a simulated aerial threat unfold above the testing field.

For the exercise, officials launched a drone representing a hostile aircraft. The interceptor located its target, maneuvered toward it, and established a tracking lock before firing a net designed to entangle the opposing drone.

The net successfully captured the simulated threat and pulled it out of the sky, bringing the aircraft down to the ground. CBS cameras also recorded footage from the perspective of the targeted drone, showing the moment it was intercepted and dragged downward.

Although the demonstration involved an unarmed aircraft, officials emphasized that the danger posed by similar drones in an actual attack could be devastating, particularly in crowded locations where security personnel must protect thousands of people simultaneously.

“The concern is that a small, rudimentary drone like this one could be weaponized with explosives and do serious damage to a large concert, sporting event, or campaign rally,” O’Donnell explained.

The Secret Service has been paying particularly close attention to developments in the war between Russia and Ukraine, where inexpensive drones have become widely used weapons capable of striking personnel, vehicles, and other targets. Officials believe the tactics and technology emerging from that conflict could eventually be employed by attackers inside the United States.

“We know that technology is going to hit the homeland at some point, so we’re using lessons learned there to build our program and make sure we’re ahead of it before it gets here,” Quinn said.

O’Donnell pressed Curran on whether the agency genuinely anticipates the possibility of drone attacks taking place on American soil.

“You mean you think drone attacks will happen here in the United States?” O’Donnell followed up.

“We have to plan for it. We have to assume that it’s possible. The second we’re not, we’re going to get caught flat-footed,” Curran said.

The demonstration was part of a broader, multimillion-dollar Secret Service initiative overseen by Quinn to develop both defensive and offensive drone capabilities. The agency is also testing fixed-wing aircraft that can remain airborne for extended periods and provide security teams with real-time surveillance of surrounding areas.

Quinn revealed that Secret Service personnel recently returned from Ukraine after observing drone warfare firsthand, gathering information intended to help American security officials prepare for similar threats.

The agency has already confronted unauthorized drone activity at major events attended by the president. According to CBS, Secret Service personnel used electronic jamming equipment to bring down a drone during the Army-Navy football game in Baltimore last December, when Trump and members of Congress were present.

Despite the advances in counter-drone technology, officials acknowledged that one particularly dangerous scenario remains unresolved: a coordinated attack involving numerous drones approaching simultaneously.

“Swarms are a huge problem and a big threat,” Quinn acknowledged during the interview. “I’d love to tell you the swarm problem is solved. It’s not. I will tell you that at the White House, White House is the safest place on Earth.”

The new defensive systems are being developed amid a dramatic escalation in threats against people under Secret Service protection. Curran disclosed that the agency has investigated approximately 10,000 threats so far in 2026, with threats involving full-time protectees increasing by more than 40 percent compared with the previous year.

The agency has also been implementing substantial security changes following the July 2024 assassination attempt against Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, where Curran was among the agents assigned to protect him. Those changes include expanded training, additional protective equipment, and new emergency medical capabilities accompanying the presidential motorcade.

Officials said the ultimate objective is to strengthen protection against increasingly sophisticated threats while allowing the president to continue appearing at public events without turning every location into an overtly militarized security zone.
WATCH:

{Matzav.com}

Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie launched a blistering attack on fellow Republicans Sunday, accusing party leaders of engaging in “political malpractice” as they attempt to preserve their congressional majorities in the November midterm elections, and charging that loyalty to President Donald Trump has taken precedence over sound political judgment.

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” Christie singled out House Republican leader Tom Emmer, arguing that the party’s messaging in the final weeks before Election Day has become increasingly difficult to defend.

Christie said Republicans were undermining their own electoral prospects by defending controversial positions involving Russia, the economy and the federal government’s use of capital punishment, rather than concentrating on issues that could help them retain control of the House and Senate.

The former governor, who has frequently criticized Trump despite having supported him in the past, said he was astonished by the arguments Emmer had presented during his appearance on the program.

Christie said, “Look, as a Republican, I sat here shaking my head at the political malpractice that was committed on this air with you by Tom Emmer. Here is the Republican argument for the last three weeks. It’s OK to sell, or to buy oil from a thug, KGB dictator in Russia that will use it to kill free Ukrainians. The American people don’t get the fact that the economy is great and so when they have to pay all they have to pay at the grocery store and at the gas station, they just don’t get it. And, by the way, it’s OK to livestream a murder by the United States government executing on the death penalty. Those are our three closing arguments to try to maintain our majorities in the House and Senate. This is malpractice.”

Christie’s criticism focused in part on what he portrayed as a disconnect between the administration’s positive characterization of the economy and the financial pressures Americans continue to experience when purchasing groceries and gasoline.

He argued that Republicans risk alienating voters by insisting that economic conditions are strong while many households remain concerned about everyday expenses.

Christie also objected to the party’s positions regarding Russian oil transactions, contending that such purchases provide financial support to Russian President Vladimir Putin during the war in Ukraine.

His third criticism concerned the prospect of the federal government publicly livestreaming an execution, which Christie cited as another example of an issue he believes Republicans should not be defending as part of their closing election message.

Beyond those individual controversies, Christie suggested that a broader problem within Republican leadership was preventing officials from expressing independent positions when they disagreed with Trump.

He argued that Emmer was sufficiently experienced to recognize the political risks involved but was nevertheless unwilling to challenge the president publicly.

Christie went on to accuse Republican congressional leaders of placing their positions within the party leadership above their responsibility to speak candidly about the administration’s policies.

He added, “And the fact, Tom is smarter than that, he knows better than that, but what you heard throughout it is this absolute requirement that you must stand by everything Donald Trump says and does if you want to remain in leadership in the House or the Senate. And it is malpractice to good Republicans all across this country who care about the issues we care about and then we have guys like Tom, who know better, on the air, on his knee in front of Donald Trump as he is saying things like he said in the lead-in here that he can say the stupidest things in the world and people will believe him. It’s not true anymore.”

Christie’s remarks followed an interview in which Emmer defended Trump’s decision to permit purchases of Russian diesel in an effort to ease fuel prices. Emmer described the move as an example of the president pursuing unconventional solutions to economic problems.

During the same appearance, Emmer acknowledged that gasoline prices around $4 per gallon and diesel prices around $6 were unacceptable, while defending the administration’s broader approach to the economy and national security.

Emmer also defended Trump’s handling of the war with Iran, arguing that the president had taken necessary action against Tehran’s military capabilities and expressing confidence that the conflict would eventually be resolved.

{Matzav.com}

The cost of everyday groceries in Israel has surged by as much as 20% over the past four years, with some basic products experiencing dramatically steeper increases, including a popular chocolate bar whose price has skyrocketed nearly 78%, according to a new Tel Aviv University study released Sunday.

The research, conducted by Professor Itai Ater and doctoral student Ad Omer of Tel Aviv University’s Faculty of Management, found that grocery price increases have accelerated sharply compared with the preceding four-year period. The rate of inflation in the basket of products examined was nearly five times higher than during the previous period.

The findings underscore the growing financial pressure on Israeli households, which are paying substantially more for many of the same products they purchased just a few years ago.

Researchers tracked a fixed basket of approximately 80 consumer products across roughly 700 stores belonging to Israel’s major supermarket chains. They compared prices during two consecutive four-year periods: September 2018 through August 2022, and September 2022 through August 2026.

The study examined average monthly prices after discounts, providing a comparison of what shoppers actually paid rather than relying solely on listed retail prices.

The products surveyed covered a broad range of household necessities, including dry groceries, dairy products, coffee, chocolate, baby food, fruits and vegetables, beverages and cleaning supplies.

The sharpest overall increases by shopping format were recorded at neighborhood grocery stores, where the cost of the basket rose 19.6% over the four-year period.

Online grocery shopping was nearly as expensive in terms of inflation, with prices climbing 19%, while discount supermarket chains recorded a more moderate, though still substantial, increase of 14.5%.

A breakdown by individual supermarket chain revealed significant differences in the extent of the price increases.

Shufersal Deal recorded the largest increase among the chains examined, with the cost of the surveyed basket rising 22.7%.

Shufersal Sheli and Freshmarket followed with increases of 19.6%, while Victory registered a 16% rise.

Rami Levy, widely associated with discount grocery shopping, recorded an increase of 10.3%, while Yochananof had the smallest increase among the chains listed, at 8.5%.

The differences indicate that consumers experienced considerably different levels of grocery inflation depending on where they shopped, even when purchasing the same basket of products.

Some individual items experienced increases far exceeding the overall average, with chocolate emerging as one of the most striking examples.

A 100-gram bar of Elite milk chocolate, popularly known in Israel as Parah chocolate, rose from an average of 5.21 shekels to 9.26 shekels in neighborhood stores.

That represents an increase of 77.9% in just four years.

Even at discount supermarkets, where prices generally remained lower, the same chocolate bar became 57.6% more expensive, climbing from 4.93 shekels to 7.77 shekels.

Other familiar grocery items also recorded significant increases.

A package of Maadanot cheese bourekas rose 30.9% in neighborhood stores, from 19.15 shekels to 25.07 shekels.

A 200-gram jar of Taster’s Choice coffee increased 26.1%, with its average price climbing from 31.40 shekels to 39.60 shekels.

Sug at jasmine rice, sold in one-kilogram packages, became 17.7% more expensive at discount supermarkets, rising from 9.72 shekels to 11.44 shekels.

That increase was particularly notable because the price of the same rice product had actually fallen 10.5% during the preceding four-year period.

The researchers identified several economic factors that may have contributed to the widespread price increases, including higher value-added tax, rising municipal property taxes and increased electricity and water costs.

These expenses can affect food manufacturers, distributors and retailers, potentially contributing to higher prices for consumers.

At the same time, the researchers pointed to the strengthening of the Israeli shekel as a factor that could help moderate price increases, particularly for imported products and raw materials purchased abroad.

Beyond the broader economic pressures, the study’s authors suggested that food companies have taken advantage of the limited attention being devoted to the cost-of-living crisis by the government and the public.

According to their assessment, the lack of sustained political and public scrutiny has created an environment in which manufacturers and retailers have been able to increase prices with relatively little resistance.

The findings also raise questions about the effectiveness of competition in Israel’s grocery market, given the substantial differences in price increases among supermarket chains.

For consumers, the cumulative effect is considerable. A shopping basket that cost 500 shekels four years ago would now cost approximately 600 shekels if its price increased by 20%, even though the shopper would be purchasing the same products.

For families making several substantial grocery purchases each month, those increases can translate into hundreds of additional shekels in household expenses.

{Matzav.com}

The political campaign against the chareidi community over the military draft is losing its effectiveness as Israeli voters increasingly shift their attention toward national security and economic concerns, according to political analyst Matti Tuchfeld, who also believes that chareidi parties have few realistic alternatives to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu despite their reluctance to commit publicly to supporting him.

Speaking with Avi Mimran on Kol Chai’s main news program, Tuchfeld, a political commentator for Channel 14, argued that the political atmosphere has changed significantly in recent weeks, leaving parties that continue to make chareidi military enlistment the centerpiece of their campaigns increasingly disconnected from the issues driving voters.

Tuchfeld also discussed Netanyahu’s recent warnings about the electoral balance between the right and left, explaining that the prime minister is particularly concerned about votes going to smaller right-wing parties that may fail to cross the electoral threshold, as well as relatively low voter turnout in traditional Likud strongholds.

Addressing the relationship between Netanyahu and the chareidi parties, Tuchfeld acknowledged that MK Yaakov Asher and other United Torah Judaism representatives have carefully avoided making firm commitments to the prime minister ahead of the elections. Nevertheless, he argued that the political realities leave them with limited room to maneuver.

He recalled that chareidi parties had previously participated in governments headed by Labor and other parties outside the right-wing bloc, including administrations led by Yitzchak Rabin, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert.

According to Tuchfeld, however, the Israeli left has undergone a fundamental ideological transformation that makes such partnerships considerably more difficult today.

“Today’s left is a left that is entirely progressive, anti-Jewish, anti-traditional,” he said, characterizing what he views as the movement’s departure from the positions held by previous generations of left-wing leaders.

Tuchfeld maintained that the political preferences of chareidi voters have also changed, with many now identifying more strongly with the right-wing bloc and favoring Netanyahu over other candidates for prime minister.

“They, too, expect the right, and they, too, prefer Netanyahu over all the other candidates,” he said.

As a result, Tuchfeld argued, chareidi elected officials have considerably less freedom to explore alternative political alliances than they once did, although he did not rule out the possibility entirely.

The discussion then turned to the ongoing controversy surrounding the drafting of yeshiva bochurim, an issue that has dominated Israeli political debate and become a central campaign theme for several opposition figures.

Mimran pointed to an apparent contradiction between the prominence of the draft issue in political advertising and its relative importance to voters. According to the polling trends he cited, the matter ranks only fourth or fifth among voters’ concerns, well behind security and the economy.

Tuchfeld explained that the campaign targeting the chareidi community had initially proved highly effective, particularly among certain segments of the right-wing and religious Zionist electorate.

“What we are seeing now is actually the final days of the anti-chareidi campaign, which was very, very successful,” he said.

He suggested that the messaging had been especially influential among right-leaning voters in communities such as Ra’anana and Elkana, where military service and the demand for equal participation in the national defense burden had become particularly important political issues.

According to Tuchfeld, former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett had also adopted this approach as part of his efforts to appeal to those voters.

The political analyst argued, however, that the issues dominating the national conversation have since changed substantially.

Security developments, including the attempted takeover of a Flydubai passenger aircraft that narrowly avoided disaster, have redirected public attention toward questions of national defense and leadership.

Tuchfeld also credited Netanyahu with working to shape the political agenda around security concerns rather than allowing the opposition to dictate the terms of the election campaign.

Another factor, he said, is polling that suggests parties opposed to Netanyahu would struggle to establish a governing coalition without the participation or support of Arab parties.

Together, these developments are, in Tuchfeld’s assessment, weakening the effectiveness of a campaign centered primarily on opposition to exemptions from military service for chareidi yeshiva students.

He argued that the number of voters choosing a party principally because of its promise to draft chareidim is declining.

“Those who are still trying to continue along this line are simply not up to date,” he said.

“They are relying on polls and a political agenda from two or three months ago. They do not understand that the public mood has changed completely.”

The interview also examined Netanyahu’s recent remarks at a Likud conference, where he warned party activists that the election could produce an evenly divided political map, with 60 Knesset seats on each side.

That warning appeared to contrast with polling presented by political strategist Shlomo Filber, whose surveys have suggested a more favorable position for the right-wing bloc.

Tuchfeld explained that Netanyahu’s comments were intended primarily to mobilize party activists and impress upon them the importance of maximizing every available vote.

According to his analysis, Filber’s polling does not show Yaron Zelekha and Ofer Winter crossing the electoral threshold. If those parties are instead assumed to enter the Knesset, the resulting distribution of seats becomes more similar to other surveys, in which neither bloc possesses a clear governing majority.

Tuchfeld said Netanyahu’s warning was therefore aimed partly at preventing right-wing votes from being lost to smaller parties that might ultimately fail to win Knesset representation.

“There are three seats there that we have to bring in. Three seats with Zelekha and Winter,” he said, explaining the message Netanyahu was seeking to convey to Likud candidates.

A second major concern, according to Tuchfeld, is voter participation in areas traditionally associated with the political right.

He noted that turnout in some right-wing strongholds has historically been lower than the national average, creating a potential obstacle for Netanyahu even when public opinion appears favorable to his bloc.

In that context, Tuchfeld pointed to the joint campaign operation established by Likud and Religious Zionism to encourage their supporters to vote.

“There is a very big difference, really, between defeat and victory, if sixty percent of the right-wing districts come out or seventy percent of the right-wing districts come out,” he said.

“That is something that can tip the scales, and that is what Netanyahu now wants to do.”

Tuchfeld identified a third message Netanyahu is attempting to emphasize in the closing stages of the campaign: the possibility that a government opposed to him could depend on Arab parties for parliamentary support.

According to Tuchfeld, internal examinations conducted by Likud suggested that some voters regard such an arrangement as undesirable but do not necessarily consider it a decisive reason to oppose the alternative coalition.

He said Netanyahu wants Likud representatives to place greater emphasis on that possibility during television appearances and through social media.

The prime minister’s message, as described by Tuchfeld, includes warnings about the political concessions and financial commitments that Arab parties might demand in exchange for joining or supporting such a government.

Among the concerns Netanyahu wants highlighted are the possibility of “massive budget transfers” as a condition for Arab-party participation in a coalition arrangement.

Tuchfeld said the prime minister is seeking to ensure that Likud candidates deliver a consistent message on these issues during the remaining weeks of the election campaign.

“These are the things he is asking for this evening, in order to align the campaign during the two weeks and a bit that remain,” Tuchfeld concluded.

MK Yaakov Asher, the newly appointed chairman of United Torah Judaism, has spoken publicly for the first time about replacing longtime party leader MK Moshe Gafni, emphasizing his deep respect for his predecessor, his commitment to following the decisions of the Gedolei Yisroel, and his determination to preserve unity within Degel HaTorah despite the controversy surrounding the leadership transition.

In an interview with Kikar HaShabbat, Asher addressed the sensitive circumstances surrounding Gafni’s departure from the leadership position, declining to engage in disputes over how the veteran politician was informed of the change and insisting that Gafni remains an important figure whose experience and guidance will continue to benefit the party.

The leadership change has generated considerable discussion within the chareidi community, particularly given Gafni’s decades of political leadership and his prominent role in representing the interests of the Torah community in the Knesset.

Asked how frequently he now meets with Gafni, Asher stressed that their relationship continues and that he expects them to remain in regular contact.

“We see each other at various events, we meet in the office, and at election events, and we will continue meeting. His office was next to mine, the same office where he sat. As far as we are concerned, he is the chairman of the Degel HaTorah movement. He is a symbol, an example, someone we learned from, someone who brought us into politics,” Asher said.

The interview also touched on one of the most controversial aspects of the transition: reports concerning letters allegedly sent through the mail in connection with Gafni’s removal from the leadership position.

Rather than address the accuracy of those accounts or discuss the internal circumstances surrounding the decision, Asher made clear that he had no intention of becoming involved in the dispute.

“I am not getting into those matters. I ask you not to bring me into these things. There are issues here that I do not want to get into. Whether they are true or not true, I am not entering that argument,” he said.

Asher instead emphasized that the leadership change was determined by the Gedolei Yisroel, whose decisions guide the political representatives of Degel HaTorah.

He said that the party’s longstanding approach, which Gafni himself had taught its representatives, requires elected officials to wait for the direction of the Gedolei Torah rather than regard themselves as candidates for leadership before receiving their approval.

“I will say one thing, and this is something Rav Gafni taught us: Until the Gedolei Torah announce who the candidate is, we are not candidates at that stage. On the day they decide, and they make their decision based on their own considerations, which they explained in the best possible way, there is no blemish whatsoever,” Asher said.

The incoming chairman’s remarks appeared intended to address concerns that the transition could create divisions within Degel HaTorah, particularly among supporters who have long identified Gafni with the party’s political leadership.

Throughout the interview, Asher avoided criticizing his predecessor and repeatedly highlighted Gafni’s contributions, portraying the veteran lawmaker as a source of experience and guidance rather than someone whose role in the movement had ended.

Asher concluded with an explicit message of reconciliation, promising to continue consulting Gafni and expressing hope that the party’s members would ultimately celebrate together.

“We have only what to learn from Rav Gafni, only to continue consulting with him and benefiting from his assistance, and with Hashem’s help, that is what we will do. With Hashem’s help, at the victory celebration, we will all dance together, a genuine dance,” he said.

{Matzav.com}

Passengers aboard the Flydubai flight that was nearly hijacked en route to Israel during Chol Hamoed Sukkos are organizing a major international legal effort, with potential compensation claims reaching hundreds of millions of dollars against the airline, the State of Israel and other parties that may bear responsibility for the incident.

According to a report by Calcalist, approximately 100 of the 174 passengers aboard the flight have already signed powers of attorney authorizing a newly established committee to represent their interests as preparations for possible litigation move forward.

The committee is headed by Tzvika Mans, CEO of the underwriting firm Barak Leumi, who was among the passengers who helped overpower the copilot during the attempted takeover of the aircraft.

Other members include attorney Tal Eisenberg, who resides in Singapore, and passengers Daniel Schlichter, Itai Perlman and Shir Maor.

The group has begun consulting with Israeli law firms and plans to meet with international legal firms before selecting the attorneys who will represent the passengers in what could become a complex, multinational legal battle.

The potential claims are expected to examine the circumstances that allowed the attempted hijacking to occur, the airline’s responsibility for the actions of its crew member, and whether government agencies or aviation authorities failed to meet their legal obligations.

According to the report, the passengers are considering claims not only against Flydubai and Israel but also against aviation and transportation authorities in the United Arab Emirates and potentially other countries.

The possibility of pursuing legal action in additional jurisdictions is being examined partly because some of the passengers hold foreign citizenship, potentially creating additional avenues for compensation claims.

Attorneys are also expected to examine whether the aviation agreements governing flights between Israel and the United Arab Emirates were properly observed.

At this stage, however, the matter remains under preliminary legal review, and no determination has been made that any aviation agreement was violated.

The passengers’ organized effort began shortly after the aircraft returned to Israel, when a WhatsApp group was established to connect those who had experienced the terrifying ordeal.

As discussions developed, approximately 70 passengers approached Mans and asked him to coordinate the legal response on their behalf.

A formal committee was subsequently established, and participation has continued to grow, with roughly 100 passengers now granting authorization for the committee to act in their interests.

The remaining passengers are still considering whether to join the coordinated effort or pursue separate legal action.

Once consultations with attorneys in Israel and abroad are completed, the committee intends to present its recommendations to the passengers, who will then determine how to proceed.

The legal preparations follow the dramatic attempted hijacking aboard a Flydubai flight that departed Dubai for Tel Aviv during Chol Hamoed Sukkos.

According to accounts of the incident, passenger Tali Mans heard screams coming from the cockpit and alerted other passengers to the emergency.

When passengers rushed to investigate, they discovered that the copilot was attacking the captain with a knife.

Several passengers intervened and managed to subdue the attacker, preventing him from maintaining control of the cockpit.

Among those involved in the emergency response was passenger Yaniv Chayon, who helped stabilize the aircraft during the crisis.

Another pilot who happened to be traveling aboard the flight subsequently assisted in bringing the aircraft safely down in Saudi Arabia.

The passengers later returned to Israel following the emergency landing.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli police arrested a prominent mayor in central Israel and his wife Monday morning as part of a sweeping corruption investigation involving allegations of cash bribes, manipulated municipal tenders, money laundering and possible connections to organized crime. A total of 24 suspects were arrested or detained in coordinated raids following a secret investigation lasting more than a year.

Among those taken into custody were the head of a large municipality in central Israel, his wife and the CEO of the municipality’s economic development corporation. Police suspect that municipal officials accepted substantial cash payments in exchange for steering lucrative public contracts to favored businesses and individuals.

The investigation is being conducted by the National Fraud Investigations Unit, known by its Hebrew acronym YACHA, within Lahav 433, Israel’s national police unit responsible for investigating major corruption and organized crime.

Investigators moved into the public phase of the operation early Monday, carrying out simultaneous raids at the homes of suspects, municipal offices and various business establishments.

According to police, 17 individuals were arrested and seven others were detained for questioning. Officers also seized cash, assets and other property that could potentially be confiscated as part of future legal proceedings.

The arrests followed more than 12 months of undercover investigative work, during which police reportedly employed sophisticated technological surveillance, intelligence gathering and other investigative methods to establish the basis for the suspected criminal activity.

Authorities are investigating possible offenses including bribery, fraud, breach of trust, money laundering and tax violations.

At the center of the investigation is an alleged arrangement in which the mayor and the head of the municipal economic corporation used their positions to benefit certain contractors and business interests in exchange for illegal payments.

Investigators believe the mayor’s wife also played a significant role in the suspected bribery operation, with police describing her alleged involvement as particularly prominent.

Under the suspected arrangement, individuals seeking municipal contracts allegedly provided cash bribes, frequently delivered in envelopes, in return for preferential treatment in the bidding process.

Police believe the payments helped secure the awarding of valuable municipal tenders across several areas of activity under the local authority’s jurisdiction.

The investigation has also uncovered suspicions that known criminal figures operating in central Israel participated in the alleged scheme.

According to police, individuals associated with organized crime may have been involved, directly or indirectly, in arranging or facilitating the transfer of bribe money over an extended period.

Investigators are examining whether these criminal elements helped influence the awarding of municipal contracts and whether their involvement extended beyond financial misconduct.

Authorities are also investigating allegations that acts of violence were committed in connection with the affair, potentially adding another serious dimension to the corruption case.

The suspected involvement of organized crime figures has raised additional concerns about the possible penetration of criminal networks into municipal decision-making and the distribution of public contracts.

The investigation is being supervised by the Economic Department of the State Attorney’s Office, which is overseeing the legal aspects of the case as police continue gathering evidence.

All 24 suspects were taken for questioning at the National Fraud Investigations Unit’s offices at Lahav 433 headquarters.

Police are expected to ask the Rishon Lezion Magistrate’s Court later Monday to extend the detention of the principal suspects while investigators continue examining the evidence and their alleged roles in the scheme.

The identity of the mayor and the municipality involved have not yet been disclosed.

{Matzav.com}

The president of the International Committee of the Red Cross has acknowledged that more aggressive efforts to secure an agreement for the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas could have saved additional lives, an admission that comes after years of criticism over the humanitarian organization’s failure to obtain access to the captives.

Mirjana Spoljaric, who heads the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), made the comments in an interview with The New York Times published Saturday, reflecting on the prolonged negotiations that followed Hamas’s October 7, 2023, massacre and abduction of Israelis into Gaza.

Looking back at the diplomatic efforts to arrange a ceasefire and secure the hostages’ freedom, Spoljaric said she believed that “pressure should have come earlier in the negotiations”, adding, “We could have saved more lives.”

Her acknowledgment comes against the backdrop of repeated complaints from former hostages and their families, who have accused the Red Cross of failing to provide meaningful assistance to Israelis held in Hamas captivity, many of whom endured starvation, physical abuse and prolonged confinement in underground tunnels.

Spoljaric explained that securing freedom for abducted individuals becomes progressively more challenging as their captivity continues, making the timing of negotiations particularly important.

Referring to hostage crises generally, including the abductions carried out during the October 7 attacks, she observed that “the longer it takes, the more complicated it becomes,” she explained.

The Red Cross president was also questioned about the organization’s inability to visit the Israeli hostages while they were being held in Gaza, an issue that became a major source of anger among the families of those abducted.

In her response, Spoljaric argued that arranging humanitarian visits to people held hostage presents different obstacles from negotiating their eventual release.

She responded that “visiting hostages is much more complicated than bringing them back.”

Spoljaric stressed that Hamas should never have made the hostages’ freedom dependent upon negotiations or political concessions, maintaining that their release should have occurred immediately and without conditions.

According to her, the hostages “should have come back unconditionally as of Day 1. But that’s not the reality in which we operate, and so we have to work with the tools that we have.”

She also pointed to situations in which Red Cross employees themselves have been abducted, saying those experiences have reinforced the organization’s understanding of the urgency involved in resolving hostage crises.

“We know that also because our own colleagues find themselves more often than they should in such situations, and we know how important it is to negotiate them out as quickly as possible. So the objective always has to be to bring the hostages back.”

During the war, Spoljaric personally participated in sensitive diplomatic contacts aimed at facilitating an agreement, including separate meetings with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, who was subsequently eliminated by Israel.

Her discussions with Haniyeh were held in Qatar, which played a central role in mediation efforts involving Israel and Hamas.

Although she declined to disclose the substance of those conversations, Spoljaric maintained that Red Cross officials had spoken forcefully behind closed doors.

“These were tough discussions, and trust me, we are very frank in these meetings. This is why these meetings have to always remain confidential,” she told The Times.

The interview revisits a controversy that dogged the Red Cross throughout the Gaza war, as the organization repeatedly failed to secure direct access to the Israelis held by Hamas.

In December 2023, Spoljaric visited the Gaza Strip amid expectations that she would seek permission for Red Cross representatives to examine the condition of the hostages and facilitate humanitarian assistance.

Following the visit, however, she released a video lasting nearly two minutes that concentrated overwhelmingly on the humanitarian crisis affecting Gaza’s civilian population. The Israeli hostages received only a brief mention toward the end of the recording, prompting additional criticism of the organization’s priorities.

The controversy intensified in January 2024, when the Red Cross announced that it would not participate in delivering medications that had been brought into Gaza for Israeli hostages and would not verify whether the medicine ultimately reached those for whom it was intended.

The announcement raised further concerns among relatives of the captives, many of whom had serious medical conditions or required ongoing treatment, with families unable to determine whether their loved ones were receiving essential medications.

As additional hostages were released, firsthand accounts of their experiences brought renewed scrutiny to the Red Cross and other international humanitarian organizations.

Several survivors publicly questioned why they had received no visits or assistance from Red Cross personnel throughout their captivity, despite the organization’s internationally recognized role in providing humanitarian protection during armed conflicts.

Among the most outspoken critics was former hostage Eli Sharabi, who addressed the United Nations Security Council in March 2025 after surviving 491 days in Hamas captivity.

Sharabi described the brutal conditions in which he had been held and challenged the international community over its failure to intervene on behalf of the hostages.

“Where was the Red Cross when we needed them? Where was the United Nations? 491 days of torment. 491 days of starvation, of being chained underground. The civilians saw us suffering, and they cheered our kidnappers. They were definitely involved.”

Sharabi also reminded the Security Council that dozens of Israelis were still being held in Gaza at the time of his testimony, emphasizing that his own release did not bring an end to the crisis.

“I am here today because I survived. But survival is not enough. Not when 59 are still held captive in Hamas tunnels in Gaza. I was freed less than six weeks ago and I come here to the UN with a simple message. Bring them all home.”

Another former hostage, Ohad Ben Ami, delivered similarly forceful criticism during an address to the German Parliament that same month.

Ben Ami, who had also spent 491 days in captivity, said he had never encountered a Red Cross representative while being held by Hamas and questioned why the organization had still not obtained access to those who remained in Gaza.

“During the 491 days of my captivity, we didn’t see anyone [from the Red Cross]. Now, 536 days have passed, and no one from the Red Cross has seen them either! This is an international organization, and someone from it should see the 59 hostages still held in Gaza and report their condition to the world.”

Ben Ami also described the emotional torment caused by the complete absence of reliable information about the hostages’ physical condition, medical needs and chances of survival.

He recalled the psychological abuse inflicted by Hamas terrorists, who sought to convince their captives that Israel had abandoned them and that their lives depended entirely on the decisions of their captors.

“Are they alive? Are they dead? Do they need medicine? Are they being cared for? You’re down there [in the tunnels], and they subject you to psychological terror: ‘Your government doesn’t want you,’ ‘You’re nothing,’ ‘When we decide, you’ll die,’ ‘Your Israeli army wants you dead so they don’t have to pay the price of a deal.’ And in that situation, you have to maintain your mental health.”

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump announced Sunday that Katie Zacharia, his newly selected White House press secretary, officially begins her duties today, October 12, and will make her first appearance before reporters at a White House news conference Tuesday morning.

Zacharia, an attorney and communications professional who has worked for the Trump administration, the president’s political campaigns and Trump Media & Technology Group, succeeds Karoline Leavitt, who left the position at the end of August to devote more time to her family.

Trump confirmed the schedule in a social media announcement Sunday, specifying that Zacharia’s introductory briefing will take place in the White House Press Briefing Room at 9:30 a.m. Tuesday.

“I am pleased to announce that Katie Zacharia will be beginning her term as Press Secretary tomorrow, Columbus Day, and will be doing an introductory News Conference on Tuesday at 9:30 A.M. from the Press Briefing Room in the White House,” Trump wrote.

The president also expressed confidence in Zacharia’s ability to represent his administration and communicate its policies to the American public.

He added, “Katie has been with me, in spirit, from the very beginning, and will do a fantastic job!”

Sunday’s announcement followed Trump’s formal selection of Zacharia on Friday, when he revealed that she would be taking over one of the administration’s most visible communications positions.

In introducing his new press secretary, Trump emphasized her legal training, government communications experience, television appearances and participation in his presidential campaigns. He also praised her longstanding loyalty to his political agenda.

“It is my Great Honor to have just appointed, as Press Secretary, Katie Zacharia. Katie currently serves as Senior Communications Advisor to Truth Social (Trump Media & Technology Group), where she has been outstanding! A native of California, Katie previously served as Spokesperson and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security. Katie is a distinguished Graduate of Pepperdine University, and the Pepperdine Caruso School of Law, an attorney, and a frequent Commentator on outlets, including Fox News and Newsmax. She was previously involved in my Campaigns, assisting in key Swing States, where we won 7 out of 7. She has an unblemished record of support, and has been a loyal and brilliant supporter, right from the beginning. She is, likewise, a devoted fan and member of MAGA! I am confident that Katie will deliver strong results for our Country as the next White House Press Secretary, as she has the respect of, and will work fantastically with, the Media, the American People, and my Administration. Katie is replacing the fabulous Karoline Leavitt, who did a fantastic job as Press Secretary. Good luck Katie!”

Before accepting the White House position, Zacharia served as a senior communications adviser to Truth Social, the social media platform owned by Trump Media & Technology Group. Her responsibilities placed her within the communications operation of a company closely associated with the president.

Originally from California, Zacharia earned degrees from Pepperdine University and its Caruso School of Law and is a practicing attorney. She has also established a public profile through appearances as a political analyst and commentator on Fox News and Newsmax.

Her previous government experience includes serving as a spokesperson and deputy assistant secretary for public affairs at the Department of Homeland Security. She departed that agency in March before subsequently taking on her communications role with Trump Media.

Zacharia also worked on Trump’s presidential election efforts, including activities in politically competitive battleground states. Trump credited her with contributing to campaign operations in the seven swing states that he carried.

Her appointment marks another transition in the White House communications office following Leavitt’s departure, which Trump first disclosed in August.

At the time, Trump announced that Leavitt would be leaving her position at the end of that month, explaining that she wanted to spend additional time with her children and family.

The president spoke warmly of his departing spokeswoman, describing her as “one of my most trusted aides”, and saying she “will be departing her role at the end of the month so she can spend more time with her beautiful young children and family, a decision I totally understand and respect!”

Leavitt is now expected to move into television commentary, with plans to begin appearing as an on-air contributor for Fox News Channel on November 1.

{Matzav.com}

Iran has declared that Washington’s response to its seven conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz falls short of its demands, raising fresh doubts about prospects for a diplomatic breakthrough as President Donald Trump considers the possibility of renewed military action against Tehran.

Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, said Sunday that the United States had agreed to certain Iranian demands but had failed to provide satisfactory answers on others. His comments, carried by Iranian state media, came as Qatar continued facilitating indirect communications between the two countries.

The disagreement centers on a proposal Tehran presented during the United Nations General Assembly in September. Under that proposal, Iran offered to restore normal maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz within seven days, provided Washington agreed to seven conditions established by the Iranian government.

The United States subsequently communicated its position through Qatari intermediaries, but Iranian officials say the response left several important questions unresolved.

Rezaei insisted that Iran would maintain its restrictions on American access to the strategically important waterway until its requirements were fulfilled.

“We presented seven conditions to the Americans and clearly stated that the Strait of Hormuz would not be opened to them, and no negotiations would take place, until these conditions are met.”

According to Rezaei, the next diplomatic move must come from Washington, with Tehran awaiting clarification rather than preparing another round of proposals.

Iran is “no longer in the process of responding to the Americans”, Rezaei said.

“In their response, they have accepted some of our conditions, while others remain unclear,” he added.

The White House did not immediately provide a comment when contacted by Reuters regarding the Iranian official’s statements.

The latest developments follow Tehran’s disclosure in late September that it had received an American reply concerning efforts to restore the Gulf ceasefire that had previously collapsed.

That acknowledgment came only days after Trump publicly announced that he had turned down Iran’s proposed arrangement, underscoring the substantial differences that continue to separate the two governments.

Qatar, working alongside other regional mediators, has remained involved in transmitting proposals and responses between Washington and Tehran. Those diplomatic efforts are intended to establish a framework for ending the conflict and restoring shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital passage for international energy shipments.

Despite the ongoing exchanges, neither government has announced an agreement, and the dispute over Iran’s conditions remains unresolved.

At the same time, the Trump administration is weighing its military options while continuing to leave room for a negotiated resolution.

On Thursday, Trump announced that American forces would refrain from launching additional attacks against Iran ahead of the November 3 congressional midterm elections, providing a temporary period for diplomatic efforts to continue.

“We are having productive discussions with the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

The president nevertheless portrayed the Iranian government as being under considerable economic and military strain, making clear that the United States would maintain pressure on Tehran as negotiations continued.

Trump returned to the subject during an appearance at the White House on Friday, expressing confidence that the conflict would conclude in the near future.

He suggested that Washington possessed the means to bring the confrontation to an end either through a diplomatic agreement or through additional military action.

He added, “We can do it either way, but it’s very simple – one way or another it’s gonna be over soon.”

The president’s decision to hold off on further strikes until after the midterm elections has not prevented American defense officials from preparing for the possibility that negotiations will fail.

According to a report published Thursday by The New York Times, Pentagon planners have developed military options for another major offensive targeting Iranian military capabilities and infrastructure.

The potential targets reportedly include missile facilities, drone installations, energy infrastructure and other strategically significant sites connected to Iran’s military operations.

Individuals familiar with the planning said the proposals contemplate a concentrated offensive extending over approximately three days.

The reported preparations indicate that Washington is preserving the option of a substantial military response even as regional intermediaries continue their efforts to resolve the confrontation through negotiations.

A historic chapter in the Skverer community of New Square is drawing to a close, as the chassidus has formally sold its old main beis medrash in a special halachic ceremony ahead of its demolition, clearing the way for a massive new building project made possible by a $7.2 million pledge from prominent Lakewood philanthropist Mr. Nachum Rokeach.

The unusual sale took place on Friday at the home of Rav Yosef Yisrael Eisenberger, a dayan of the Skverer community, following extensive consultations among the community’s rabbonim and dayanim regarding the proper halachic procedure for demolishing a building that had served as a makom tefillah for generations.

The decision comes approximately two months after a portion of the old beis medrash collapsed, prompting an extensive structural investigation that ultimately determined that the aging building could no longer be safely occupied and would have to be demolished.

The building, which stood for decades at the heart of New Square, had been one of the most significant centers of Skverer communal life, hosting countless tefillos, simchos, and gatherings throughout the years.

The community had already completed its enormous new main beis medrash, which now accommodates the central tefillos and major events of the chassidus. The older structure, situated alongside the new building, continued to serve smaller minyanim, shtieblach, and brissim even after the primary activities were transferred to the newer facility.

However, the future of the historic building changed dramatically in early August, when a large section of its ceiling suddenly gave way. The collapse occurred in an area associated with the older ezras nashim and minyanim rooms, sending debris crashing onto the benches below.

B’chasdei Hashem, despite the seriousness of the collapse, nobody was injured. Hatzolah volunteers responded to the scene and conducted searches to ensure that no one had been trapped or hurt.

The building was immediately closed, and access was prohibited pending a thorough assessment of its structural condition.

Several weeks later, on August 24, architects, engineers, and structural specialists completed an extensive inspection and concluded that the building suffered from serious stability problems. Their findings left the community with no practical alternative to demolishing the entire structure.

Before the collapse, community leaders had contemplated converting the old beis medrash into a dedicated heichal hatishen, where the Skverer Rebbe would conduct his weekly tishen and other major gatherings. The structural findings forced those plans to be abandoned.

The project has since taken on a new direction, with plans for a large, purpose-built heichal hashulchanos designed to accommodate the thousands of chassidim who gather in New Square for Shabbos, Yom Tov, and major occasions in the Rebbe’s court.

A major breakthrough came on Simchas Torah, when Mr. Nachum Rokeach of Lakewood stunned the assembled chassidim by pledging $7.2 million toward construction of the new facility.

The extraordinary commitment was announced publicly in the packed Skverer beis medrash after Rokeach was called to the Torah for Chassan Maftir.

Following his aliyah, the gabbai, R’ Dovid Berger, recited a Mi Shebeirach and announced the enormous donation in the presence of the Skverer Rebbe and thousands of chassidim.

Earlier that Yom Tov, before hakafos, Rokeach had entered the Rebbe’s private room together with members of his family and R’ Shalom Ber Fishl, one of the leading communal askanim, to inform the Rebbe of his intention to undertake the extraordinary commitment.

The Rebbe warmly blessed the philanthropist and expressed his appreciation for the tremendous undertaking, which will enable the community to proceed with a project that had been under consideration as part of its long-term expansion plans.

Rokeach has been a major supporter of Skverer institutions and projects in communities around the world. Earlier this year, a new Skverer beis medrash building bearing his name was inaugurated in Beit Shemesh, with the participation of Rav Aharon Mendel Twersky, the eldest son of the Skverer Rebbe.

With funding for the New Square project now secured, attention turned to the complex halachic questions surrounding the removal of the existing building.

Unlike an ordinary structure, a beis medrash possesses a special kedushah under halacha, and its demolition requires careful consideration of the relevant provisions of Shulchan Aruch and the rulings of the poskim.

The Skverer Beis Din Tzedek therefore issued a special halachic letter explaining the need to arrange a formal sale of the building and its contents to an outside purchaser, as part of the process of removing its sanctified status before demolition.

The sale was arranged for Erev Shabbos Parshas Bereishis and was to be conducted in the presence of seven respected members of the community, along with residents who wished to witness the proceedings.

In preparation for the ceremony, Rav Eisenberger reviewed the matter with the community’s other rabbonim and dayanim to ensure that every aspect of the transaction would be carried out in accordance with halacha.

On Friday, the sale was formally conducted at Rav Eisenberger’s home, completing a significant halachic step toward the planned demolition.

The transaction was intended to address the special status of the building as a place designated for Torah and tefillah. The halachic requirements governing the sale and subsequent treatment of a beis medrash differ from those applicable to ordinary communal property, making the involvement of the community’s beis din particularly important.

Although the old structure is slated for removal, one historically significant portion of the site is expected to be preserved. Community askanim previously indicated that the private tefillah room used by the previous Skverer Rebbe, which has stood at the location for more than six decades, would not be affected by the demolition.

That room holds particular historical and spiritual importance for the chassidus, connecting the present generation with the earlier years of the Skverer community’s development in America.

The planned heichal hashulchanos is expected to provide substantially expanded accommodations for the Rebbe’s tishen, major communal gatherings, and simchos, reflecting the enormous growth of the chassidus and the increasing number of visitors who travel to New Square to spend Shabbosos and Yomim Tovim in the Rebbe’s presence.

According to the initial reports, construction of the new facility is expected to be completed within approximately one year, although the precise demolition and construction schedule has not yet been publicly confirmed.

For the thousands of Skverer chassidim who spent years davening and participating in gatherings within the old building, its impending demolition marks the end of a familiar landmark in the center of their community. The special sale ceremony now brings the community one step closer to replacing the aging structure with a new facility intended to serve the expanding chassidus for generations to come.

{Matzav.com}

LISTEN:

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

LISTEN:

New York City’s controversial tax on luxury second homes is facing mounting legal and financial challenges after more than half of the 10,000 property owners who have applied for exemptions received approval, raising serious questions about whether Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration can collect the more than $500 million in annual revenue it originally projected.

Figures provided by the city’s Department of Finance show that, as of Friday morning, approximately 5,700 exemption applications had been approved. The number represents 57% of the applications submitted, although it does not establish that every remaining application has been denied, since some may still be awaiting a decision.

The development comes as property owners continue to challenge the new surcharge in court and submit applications to have their properties excluded from the tax.

When Mamdani and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul unveiled the measure, they presented it as a significant new source of revenue for the city. The tax targets luxury properties that are not used as their owners’ primary residences, including qualifying co-op apartments valued at more than $1 million and houses worth over $5 million.

City officials estimated that the measure would produce upwards of $500 million annually, money the administration has said would help finance municipal services and public priorities.

However, attorneys representing property owners argue that the city’s initial calculations may have substantially overstated the number of residences actually subject to the tax.

“I think the bigger fiscal question is whether the city’s $500 million revenue estimate was realistic in the first place,” said Ben Williams, an attorney with Rosenberg & Ellis who represents plaintiffs challenging the surcharge.

“Once primary residences are removed and overstated market values are challenged, we may find that the amount actually collectible is significantly less than projected,” he said.

The exemption figures are particularly significant because the tax is intended to apply to second homes rather than primary residences. Property owners who can establish that their homes qualify for an exemption may be able to avoid the surcharge altogether.

The administration is also confronting a series of lawsuits challenging the way the tax was introduced and questioning whether certain property owners are being treated unfairly.

One of the most consequential cases was brought on Staten Island by Randy Mastro, an attorney who previously served as first deputy mayor under Eric Adams.

The lawsuit challenged the city’s procedures for implementing the tax, including the notices sent to thousands of homeowners informing them that their properties could be subject to the new assessment.

A little more than a week ago, state Supreme Court Justice Wayne Ozzi ruled in Mastro’s favor, determining that the city would have to restart the implementation process.

The decision represented a potentially significant setback for the administration, which had already begun notifying property owners and processing applications under the new system.

According to the ruling, the city had prematurely mailed notices to approximately 17,000 homeowners who were initially identified as potentially subject to the surcharge.

City officials have since revised that estimate downward, indicating that the number of affected property owners is now believed to be between approximately 10,000 and 13,000.

The reduction has added to questions about the reliability of the administration’s original revenue projections, although the number of properties ultimately subject to the tax and the amount owed by each owner remain to be determined.

City Hall immediately appealed Ozzi’s ruling and obtained a stay of the order, allowing the administration to continue implementing and collecting the surcharge while the appeal proceeds.

As a result, the tax remains in effect for now, despite the lower court’s ruling against the city’s rollout procedures.

The legal challenges extend beyond the Staten Island case. Two additional lawsuits pending in Long Island courts argue that the surcharge unfairly discriminates against property owners who maintain their primary residences outside New York City.

Among the prominent property owners challenging the measure are casino billionaire Steve Wynn and former U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who have joined litigation questioning the constitutionality of the tax.

Another group of plaintiffs includes property owners who contend that the surcharge reaches beyond the extraordinarily wealthy individuals whom city officials originally identified as its intended targets.

Some homeowners have complained that they face substantial additional tax bills despite owning apartments that they purchased years ago or use only part of the year.

One plaintiff, Scott Golden, was reportedly assessed an additional $48,949 when selling his Upper West Side condominium. Another, Kent Barwick, faces more than $83,000 in additional taxes on a cooperative apartment he retains for part-time use.

The lawsuits also challenge the retroactive application of the surcharge to January 2026, even though the legislation authorizing the tax was enacted in May.

Real estate attorney Joshua Wurtzel, a partner at Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP, warned that the litigation could have consequences far beyond the exemption applications currently being processed.

“If the court’s decision ends up being upheld on appeal, which I think there’s probably at least a decent chance [of] that, then all of this kind of goes out the window,” Wurtzel said.

The financial uncertainty surrounding the tax was evident even before the latest wave of exemption approvals.

An April analysis by New York City Comptroller Mark Levine’s office concluded that the surcharge could potentially generate as much as $510 million annually. However, the report also cautioned that uncertainties involving the design and implementation of the tax could reduce collections to between $340 million and $380 million.

Those estimates preceded the latest exemption figures and legal developments, which have intensified questions about the amount the city can ultimately collect.

Despite the mounting challenges, the Mamdani administration has continued to defend both the surcharge and its original revenue expectations.

“We continue to be confident in that assessment of what the annual revenue will look like,” an administration representative told reporters at an unrelated August press conference.

The Finance Department has also maintained that the tax is intended to ensure that owners of expensive secondary residences help pay for essential city services.

A department representative said the surcharge requires such owners to “contribute their fair share toward schools, safer streets, and the services New Yorkers rely on. “

Officials have repeatedly extended the deadline for property owners to seek exemptions as litigation and questions about the program’s implementation have continued.

The deadline, previously set for October 6, has now been moved to October 13, marking the third extension.

“These meritless lawsuits have created a lot of unnecessary confusion,” a Finance Department representative said. “Nevertheless, the Administration remains fully committed to ensuring that New Yorkers have the time and information they need to apply, so we are extending the deadline for exemption applications to October 13.

“While this legal process moves forward, we will continue administering the surcharge fairly, efficiently and in full compliance with the law, as we have done from day one,” the representative said.

{Matzav.com}

A ZAKA representative in Ukraine has issued a detailed clarification concerning the mysterious death of R’ Yitzchok Elmakias z”l in Uman, stressing that he never determined the deceased was murdered and has no authoritative information establishing the cause of death.

Nachman Dickstein, ZAKA’s representative in Ukraine, released the statement following widespread discussion of a halachic ruling issued by Rav Chaim Yosef Dovid Weiss concerning whether the burial could be delayed to allow the circumstances surrounding Elmakias’ death to be investigated.

The case has generated considerable attention in Uman and beyond, particularly after reports suggested that the death was being treated as a possible murder and that rabbinic guidance had been sought to permit delaying the burial for a criminal investigation.

Dickstein said those reports had created a misleading impression of both his involvement and the nature of the halachic question presented to Rav Weiss.

According to Dickstein, the family had received information raising concerns that Elmakias might not have died of natural causes. Seeking to establish what had happened, the family retained an attorney and requested that the circumstances of the death be examined.

“Following information brought to the attention of the deceased’s family indicating concern that the death may not have been natural, the family requested clarification of the circumstances and retained the services of an attorney,” Dickstein explained.

He emphasized that the possibility of an unnatural death does not, by itself, establish that a murder occurred.

“An unnatural death does not necessarily indicate murder, and there are various possibilities about which no conclusions should be drawn before the professional examination is completed,” he said.

The clarification follows the publication of a halachic correspondence involving Rav Weiss, which prompted discussion about the permissibility of postponing burial when questions remain about the circumstances of a person’s death.

Under ordinary circumstances, halacha places great importance on bringing a deceased person to burial without unnecessary delay. However, unusual situations involving the need to establish the cause of death can raise complex questions requiring the guidance of a qualified halachic authority.

Dickstein explained that the question submitted to Rav Weiss concerned the halachic permissibility of delaying the burial at the family’s request so that the circumstances could be clarified.

It was not submitted on the assumption that a crime had definitely occurred, nor was it based on any established identification of a perpetrator.

“The honorable Rav’s response was given within the framework of the halachic discussion, and this clarification is in no way intended to change his words or challenge his ruling,” Dickstein stated.

He expressed regret that some of the coverage had presented the matter as though murder had already been established or suggested that he personally was conducting a criminal investigation.

Dickstein stressed that neither characterization was accurate.

With the family having obtained legal representation, he explained, responsibility for determining the circumstances of the death now rests exclusively with the appropriate authorities and the attorneys acting on the family’s behalf.

“I am not an investigative, medical, or legal authority, and I am not involved in managing the investigation. Our role is limited to assisting in preserving the dignity of the deceased and helping his family,” he said.

The case dates back to Rosh Hashanah, when ZAKA volunteers responded to a wooded area in Uman where a Jewish man had been found lifeless. The discovery prompted concern within the community, particularly given the large number of Jewish visitors who travel to Uman for Rosh Hashanah.

As questions surrounding the death emerged, the family sought to determine whether further examination was necessary before burial could proceed.

The subsequent halachic ruling attracted attention because of the sensitive balance between the obligation to arrange a timely Jewish burial and the family’s desire to obtain reliable answers about the circumstances of the death.

Dickstein made clear that ZAKA’s role remains focused on assisting the deceased and his relatives, rather than determining criminal responsibility or drawing medical conclusions.

He said that once the required procedures are completed and the body is legally released, ZAKA personnel and other volunteers will be available to help the family arrange burial in accordance with halacha, wherever the family chooses.

The ZAKA representative concluded by appealing to news organizations and the public to exercise restraint when discussing the case, particularly while the circumstances remain unresolved.

He urged the media not to present suspicions as established facts or attribute conclusions to individuals who have not made them.

Dickstein also emphasized the importance of preserving the dignity of R’ Yitzchok Elmakias z”l and respecting his family’s right to receive clear, authoritative answers regarding his passing.

{Matzav.com}

A remarkable statement attributed to the Chazon Ish zt”l, that the tremendous ameilus baTorah of Rav Boruch Ber Leibowitz zt”l and Rav Shimon Shkop zt”l prevented Hitler, yemach shemo, from conquering Lithuania during their lifetimes, was shared by Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein during a wedding in which descendants of Rav Boruch Ber were celebrating a simcha.

Rav Zilberstein, rov of the Ramat Elchanan neighborhood of Bnei Brak and a member of the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, related the extraordinary account during the chuppah of the daughter of Rav Yisroel Meir Druck, rosh yeshiva of the Tiferes Yisroel yeshivos.

The wedding, held Thursday, celebrated the marriage of Rav Druck’s daughter to the chosson, Rav Yehoshua Malin, a grandson of Rav Isser Yehuda Malin, rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Zichron Meir.

The chosson is also a brother of Rav Chaim Malin, a grandson and close confidant of Rav Zilberstein.

During his remarks beneath the chuppah, Rav Zilberstein focused on the family’s distinguished lineage, noting that the chosson and his family are descendants of Rav Boruch Ber Leibowitz, the legendary rosh yeshiva of Kamenitz and author of the Birkas Shmuel.

Rav Zilberstein then shared a statement he said he had heard directly from his brother-in-law, Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt”l, who had received it from the Chazon Ish.

“I want to tell everyone here something very, very important,” Rav Zilberstein began. “My brother-in-law, the Sar HaTorah, Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt”l, told me something, and I ask everyone to listen carefully to what I am about to relate.”

He then revealed the extraordinary statement.

“The Chazon Ish told him that as long as Rav Boruch Ber and Rav Shimon Shkop were alive, Hitler, yemach shemo, was unable to conquer Lithuania because of their ameilus baTorah.”

The account attributed to the Chazon Ish highlights the extraordinary spiritual power ascribed to the Torah learning of these two giants, whose dedication to Torah was considered a source of protection for the Jewish people.

Rav Boruch Ber Leibowitz, one of the most prominent roshei yeshiva of prewar Europe, was renowned for his extraordinary depth in learning and his lifelong dedication to developing generations of talmidei chachomim. Rav Shimon Shkop, the famed rosh yeshiva of Grodno and author of Shaarei Yosher, was likewise among the towering Torah personalities of his generation.

Both passed away in 1939, before Nazi Germany invaded Lithuania in 1941.

Rav Zilberstein continued by connecting the statement of the Chazon Ish to the simcha taking place beneath the chuppah.

“This is something astonishing,” he declared. “Why? Because according to the tradition accepted by everyone, grandparents come to the weddings of their grandchildren.”

He explained that, according to this understanding, the presence of Rav Boruch Ber was particularly significant at the wedding of his descendants.

“If so, according to what is accepted, Rav Boruch Ber is here with us right now. The very same Rav Boruch Ber whose ameilus baTorah prevented Hitler from conquering Lithuania during his lifetime.”

Rav Zilberstein urged those gathered to appreciate the exceptional opportunity presented by the occasion and to draw spiritual strength from the presence of such a towering Torah personality.

“I want to tell everyone that we can receive something from him! All of us can receive something right now, and we can do something with it. He is here, and we can ask that HaKadosh Boruch Hu help us, that the tzaddikim who are here protect us, that no one should be able to conquer us, and that the kallah and chosson should have happy lives. Ve’nomar amen!”

{Matzav.com}

United Torah Judaism chairman MK Yaakov Asher has issued an unequivocal ultimatum to Israel’s political leadership, declaring that his party will neither join nor support any future government unless legislation formally regulating the status of yeshiva bochurim is actually passed into law.

In his first interview since assuming the chairmanship of United Torah Judaism, Asher told Kikar Hashabbat that the party will no longer accept coalition promises or political commitments concerning the draft law. Instead, he insisted that the legislation must be enacted before UTJ agrees to participate in or support a government.

“We, United Torah Judaism, will not enter a government that does not actually pass the law regulating the status of yeshiva students, known as the draft law. Period!” Asher declared during the interview.

He emphasized that the condition applies equally to joining a coalition and supporting one from outside, leaving no room for an arrangement in which UTJ provides parliamentary backing in exchange for promises of future legislation.

“There is no other way to interpret this: We will neither join nor support a government that does not first pass the draft law,” he stated.

The declaration comes amid the continuing political and legal controversy surrounding the status of yeshiva bochurim and the efforts to establish a legislative framework that would enable those dedicated to full-time Torah learning to continue their studies without being subject to military conscription.

Asher’s remarks represent a firm position by UTJ that the passage of legislation protecting yeshiva students must be a prerequisite for the party’s participation in any future government, rather than an obligation to be fulfilled at some later stage of a coalition’s term.

The UTJ chairman also addressed the substance of the proposed legislation, making clear that the party’s demands extend beyond simply passing a law bearing the title of a draft arrangement.

According to Asher, any acceptable legislation must protect those whose lives are dedicated to Torah learning and must not impose penalties on bochurim and avreichim who remain in yeshiva or kollel.

“The correct law is one that addresses someone who sits and learns, whose Torah is his profession. Someone who sits and learns should not face sanctions. That is our position!” Asher declared.

His comments directly address one of the central disputes surrounding the draft legislation: whether financial or other sanctions should be imposed on yeshiva students who do not enlist.

Asher made clear that UTJ’s position is that those engaged in full-time Torah study should not be subjected to such penalties.

The ultimatum places the draft law at the center of any future coalition negotiations and signals that UTJ intends to make the protection of the yeshiva world a nonnegotiable condition for its political support.

Asher’s full interview with Kikar Hashabbat is scheduled to be released Monday.

{Matzav.com}

All are asked to be mispallel for the refuah sheleimah of Rav Mordechai Wolmark, rosh yeshiva of Yeshiva Shaarei Torah in Monsey, New York, who has been admitted to the hospital.

News of the rosh yeshiva‘s hospitalization has prompted a call for tefillos on his behalf, with talmidim, alumni, and members of the wider community being urged to have him in mind during davening and the recitation of Tehillim.

All are asked to daven for Rav Mordechai Gimpel ben Chaya Avigail.

{Matzav.com}

Naftali Bennett sparked an uproar among Israel’s anti-Netanyahu political parties on Sunday after suggesting that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu could serve as a minister in a future government led by Bennett, prompting furious objections from opposition leaders and forcing Bennett to clarify that he would not join Netanyahu under any circumstances.

Bennett, chairman of the Beyachad party, made the controversial remarks during an election conference hosted by the newspaper Hador, where he was asked about the possibility of Netanyahu participating in a government under his leadership.

Rather than categorically ruling out such an arrangement, Bennett initially suggested that Netanyahu could be offered a ministerial position if he agreed to the fundamental principles of Bennett’s proposed government.

“As long as we agree on the fundamental principles, I have no problem with Netanyahu being a minister in our government,” Bennett said.

He went on to praise Netanyahu’s previous performance as finance minister, recalling his tenure in the position more than two decades ago.

“In 2003, Netanyahu, and I say this to his credit, was one of the best finance ministers the State of Israel has ever had. I don’t know whether a Jew approaching 80 still has the energy for this, but if he accepts all our central principles, which include an immediate state commission of inquiry, universal military service, and a constitution for Israel, let him pick up the phone,” Bennett said.

The comments immediately generated controversy among parties opposed to Netanyahu, whose leaders have repeatedly insisted that they would refuse to participate in any government that includes the prime minister.

Gadi Eisenkot, chairman of the Yashar party and a former IDF chief of staff, was among the first to reject Bennett’s suggestion.

“I do not accept this. Anyone who held a position on October 7 is unfit to serve in positions of command and leadership, including as finance minister,” Eisenkot declared.

Yisrael Beytenu chairman Avigdor Lieberman went further, publicly demanding that Bennett retract his remarks and calling on the parties in the anti-Netanyahu camp to reaffirm their commitment to excluding the prime minister from any future coalition.

“I call on my colleagues in the Zionist bloc to make it absolutely clear: The world can turn upside down, but we will not sit with Netanyahu. In the next government, Netanyahu will not be able to serve even as minister for regional cooperation,” Lieberman said.

Yair Golan, chairman of the Democrats party, also issued an emphatic rejection, declaring that his party would never agree to Netanyahu holding any position in a government it supports.

“Netanyahu will not sit in any government as long as it depends on the Democrats. Not as finance minister, not as water minister, and not as a minister without portfolio,” Golan said.

Golan accused Netanyahu of bearing responsibility for the failures surrounding the October 7 massacre and criticized his government’s policies concerning military service and judicial reform.

“The man responsible for the October 7 failure, who led a government that promoted mass draft evasion during wartime and the judicial overhaul, will receive no approval from us to return to power. We will not sit with Netanyahu and his partners. Period,” Golan declared.

The swift and unusually forceful reactions highlighted the divisions within the political camp seeking to replace Netanyahu, particularly over whether any circumstances could justify cooperation with the current prime minister.

Bennett, who has sought to position himself as a central figure in efforts to form an alternative government, soon moved to contain the controversy.

Following the backlash, he published a statement on social media insisting that his original comments had been misunderstood and that he had no intention of serving alongside Netanyahu in any coalition arrangement.

“I suggest everyone calm down. I have said a thousand times that Netanyahu bears direct and personal responsibility for the October 7 massacre and therefore must go home. We will not sit with him under any circumstances,” Bennett wrote.

He maintained that his earlier remarks were intended to demonstrate the impossibility of Netanyahu accepting the conditions he had outlined, rather than to suggest a genuine willingness to offer him a ministerial position.

“Anyone who saw my remarks today understood that they were intended to illustrate the absurdity, since Netanyahu opposes universal military service, opposes a state commission of inquiry, and opposes a constitution for Israel,” Bennett explained.

An Israeli district court has rejected Sara Netanyahu’s attempt to have a multimillion-shekel defamation lawsuit filed against her by opposition politician Yair Golan dismissed, ruling that the prime minister’s wife cannot avoid potential responsibility for statements she made during a televised interview simply because a television station broadcast them.

The lawsuit, filed by Golan, chairman of Israel’s Democrats party and a retired IDF major general, seeks 2.55 million shekels, approximately $800,000, in damages over remarks Netanyahu made during an interview with Channel 14 concerning the October 7 Hamas massacre.

In its decision, the court rejected Netanyahu’s arguments for dismissing the case at the preliminary stage and ordered her to pay Golan 2,000 shekels in legal expenses.

The ruling allows the lawsuit to proceed but does not determine whether Netanyahu’s statements were defamatory or whether Golan is entitled to compensation.

At the center of the dispute are comments Netanyahu made during a Channel 14 interview that Golan alleges insinuated he had advance knowledge of the October 7 attack.

During the interview, Netanyahu stated, “Yair Golan was dressed and ready on the morning of October 7 when the prime minister did not know.”

Golan maintains that the remark suggested he possessed information about the impending Hamas assault before Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu or other Israeli officials were aware of what was unfolding.

His attorneys argue that the insinuation was false and seriously damaging to his reputation, particularly given the sensitivity surrounding the events of October 7.

The lawsuit was filed through attorneys Giora Erdinast, Almog Gil-Or, and Yarden Shochat of the EBN law firm after Netanyahu allegedly refused to apologize for her statements or retract them.

In seeking dismissal, Netanyahu argued that she had merely participated in an interview and that legal responsibility for publishing and distributing her remarks rested with third parties, including Channel 14, which aired the interview.

Her attorneys sought to distinguish between the individual who makes a statement during an interview and the media organization responsible for transmitting that statement to the public.

The district court rejected that distinction.

The judge determined that Netanyahu had agreed to be interviewed with the knowledge and understanding that her statements would be broadcast to a broad audience. Under those circumstances, the court found no basis for treating the interviewee’s participation and the broadcaster’s transmission as entirely separate acts for purposes of dismissing the lawsuit.

“There is no justification for an artificial separation between the aspect of ‘publication’ by the interviewee and the ‘publication’ by the interviewing and broadcasting body. These are two sides of the same coin and constitute a single publication,” the judge wrote in the decision.

The ruling addresses an important legal question concerning responsibility for statements made in media interviews. It establishes, at this preliminary stage, that an interviewee cannot obtain dismissal of a defamation claim solely by arguing that the broadcaster, rather than the speaker, was responsible for making the remarks public.

However, the court did not decide whether the specific statements attributed to Netanyahu meet the legal definition of defamation. That issue, along with the question of any damages, remains to be examined as the proceedings continue.

The lawsuit also extends beyond the allegations of defamation.

Golan is seeking civil compensation based on an additional claim involving an alleged violation of the criminal-law provision dealing with incitement to violence.

His legal team argues that Netanyahu’s statements should be examined in the context of their potential consequences and the public atmosphere surrounding the accusations.

The lawsuit further alleges that one of Netanyahu’s advisers viewed the Channel 14 interview before it was broadcast. Golan’s attorneys intend to rely on that allegation as part of their arguments concerning the circumstances in which the remarks were published.

Those assertions remain allegations presented by the plaintiffs. The court has not established that Netanyahu committed defamation or incitement, nor has it made findings concerning the alleged advance review of the interview.

Following the decision, Golan issued a sharply worded statement welcoming the rejection of Netanyahu’s dismissal request.

“Once again, it has been proven that the poison machine will stop at nothing — neither lies about the heroes of October 7 nor attempts to undermine public confidence in the judicial system. Today’s ruling is further proof that truth will triumph over lies. Those who incite violence and spread false accusations will not succeed in escaping responsibility. We will continue until justice is fully pursued in court, and we will defend the fighters for Israeli democracy with our own bodies,” Golan said.