Feed aggregator

Israel’s political landscape remains effectively frozen, according to a new Maariv poll released Friday, with Israeli Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu’s coalition still unable to break out of a 49-seat rut while the opposition continues to hold a narrow path to a 61-seat governing majority.

The survey found virtually no meaningful shifts in voter preferences, suggesting that the balance of power between the rival political camps has remained largely unchanged despite ongoing political developments.

Leading the field is Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar! party with 23 projected Knesset seats, narrowly ahead of Likud, which is forecast to secure 22 mandates.

Naftali Bennett’s Together party ranks third with an estimated 15 seats, while Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beytenu comes in fourth with 10.

Further down the standings, the Democrats are projected to win nine seats. Otzma Yehudit and United Torah Judaism are each expected to capture eight mandates, while Shas is forecast to receive seven. The Arab parties Hadash-Ta’al and Ra’am are each projected to finish with five seats.

The Religious Zionist Party and the Zionist Home party, led by Yoaz Hendel and Chili Tropper, are each expected to barely clear the electoral threshold with four seats apiece.

The poll indicates that Benny Gantz’s Blue and White party would not enter the next Knesset, nor would the Arab Balad party, as both fall below the minimum threshold required for representation.

When the results are grouped into political blocs, the opposition opposed to Netanyahu reaches the critical 61-seat majority needed to form a government, while the current coalition remains stuck at 49 seats. Another 10 seats would belong to the Arab parties, which have traditionally remained outside governing coalitions.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli prosecutors have filed criminal charges against an Israeli settler in connection with the 2025 killing of a well-known Palestinian activist in the West Bank, marking an unusually rare case in which Israeli authorities have pursued charges against a settler over the death of a Palestinian.

According to an indictment filed Thursday in district court, prosecutors charged Yinon Levi, a resident of the southern West Bank, with reckless manslaughter in the July 2025 death of Palestinian community leader Awdah Hathaleen. Under Israeli law, the offense carries a lighter penalty than a murder conviction. Levi also faces charges of armed trespassing and intentional property damage.

Cases of Israeli settlers being prosecuted for alleged violence against Palestinians are uncommon. The Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem said the indictment is the first since Oct. 7, 2023, in which an Israeli has been charged over the killing of a Palestinian in the West Bank. The group says that during that period, at least 1,100 Palestinians have been killed there by Israeli settlers and soldiers.

Levi’s attorney, Avichay Hajbi, did not confirm that the indictment had been issued but criticized the prosecution’s decision, telling The Associated Press that authorities had reached a “mistaken decision.” He said the defense would address the allegations during court proceedings.

Video recorded on the day of the incident shows Levi firing toward groups of Palestinians in the village of Umm al-Khair, where Hathaleen was killed. Witnesses said one of the bullets struck Hathaleen while he was standing just a short distance away.

One recording appears to show Levi firing two rounds. A separate video, which Hathaleen’s relatives say he recorded himself, shows Levi shooting in the direction of the person holding the camera. The footage abruptly ends, though the individual behind the camera can still be heard groaning in pain.

Hathaleen was widely known for documenting and opposing settler violence. He also participated in the 2025 Academy Award-winning documentary “No Other Land,” which follows Palestinian residents fighting to preserve their homes and communities. A teacher and father of three, he regularly welcomed international activists and visiting officials into his home.

Because of Hathaleen’s international profile, combined with the widely circulated videos of the shooting, pressure mounted around the world for Israeli authorities to prosecute Levi.

Levi was among a group of Israeli settlers sanctioned by the United States and several Western governments in 2024 over allegations of violence against Palestinians. After taking office the following year, President Donald Trump rescinded the U.S. sanctions.

{Matzav.com}

An unusual incident during bein hazemanim has led to an intriguing halachic discussion after a group of bochurim who rented a tzimmer in Tzfas discovered just 90 minutes before Shabbos that the property had already been rented to someone else.

The group had reserved the tzimmer for 1,000 shekels and arrived shortly before Shabbos, only to be informed by the owner that she had mistakenly rented it to another group. She offered them an alternative tzimmer in Rosh Pina for 800 shekels instead.

With little time remaining before Shabbos, uncertainty about whether public transportation was still available, and concern over traveling by bus so close to Shabbos, the bochurim hired a taxi for 150 shekels to take them from Tzfas to Rosh Pina.

The incident was subsequently presented as a shaylah to Rav Shlomo Yedidya Zafrani, who was asked whether the bochurim were entitled to deduct the taxi fare from the rental payment because of the owner’s last-minute change.

In his teshuvah, published in the Kesser Torah journal, Rav Zafrani analyzes the issue in detail based on the Shulchan Aruch, the Nesivos, the Erech Shai, and other poskim. He explains that a landlord assumes both a personal and financial obligation to provide the tenant with the agreed-upon rental property. If the landlord negligently rents the property to someone else, he is obligated to provide the tenant with an equivalent alternative or otherwise compensate him under the halachic principles of davar ha’aved and areivus. However, Rav Zafrani emphasizes that these obligations apply only if a binding kinyan for the rental had already taken effect.

Accordingly, the psak depends on how the reservation was made.

If the bochurim had paid a deposit that constituted a valid kinyan on the rental, they would have been entitled under halachah to insist that the second renters vacate the tzimmer or require the owner to provide them with a comparable property in Tzfas. By agreeing instead to relocate to Rosh Pina, they would have been acting lifnim mishuras hadin. In that case, because the owner remained obligated to provide an equivalent rental without causing them additional inconvenience, the bochurim would be entitled to recover the 150-shekel taxi fare.

On the other hand, if no deposit had been paid and there was no established local custom giving a reservation the status of a binding situmta, the agreement would be considered merely verbal. Rav Zeafrani notes that even the issue of mechusarei amanah may not apply if the bochurim themselves arrived later than expected. Under those circumstances, the owner would not be obligated to provide an alternative rental, and the Rosh Pina tzimmer would be regarded as a completely new rental arranged at the bochurim’s own responsibility. As a result, they would be required to pay the full 800 shekels for the replacement tzimmer and would have no right to deduct the cost of the taxi.

{Matzav.com}

According to sources, a Satmar businessman has offered to bankroll an expanded campaign against Israel’s yeshiva draft law, including a proposal to bring complaints against the State of Israel before the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

As reported earlier here on Matzav, Mr. Yoeli Landau met this week with the Gerrer Rebbe, Rav Yaakov Aryeh Alter, during a private meeting in which he presented a series of initiatives aimed at supporting the Chareidi community’s struggle against the draft of yeshiva bochurim.

According to a recording of the meeting, first publicized by Channel 13 reporter Yoeli Brim, Landau proposed establishing a broad legal campaign that would extend beyond Israel’s borders. Among the ideas he raised was filing complaints with the International Criminal Court in The Hague over the arrests of yeshiva bochurim who refuse to report to draft offices, what supporters describe as unequal enforcement of the draft law, alleged discrimination between Chareidim and Israeli Arabs, and the handling of Chareidi demonstrations.

Landau also proposed creating a legal defense fund to ensure that every yeshiva bochur arrested in connection with the draft issue would receive legal representation. He pledged that he and several associates would contribute $1 million toward financing the effort.

The Gerrer Rebbe, who leads Israel’s largest Chassidus and serves as the dominant figure on Agudas Yisroel’s Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, did not respond directly to Landau’s proposals during the meeting. According to those present, however, he also did not voice any objection.

The meeting is the latest indication of the longstanding relationship between Landau and the Gerrer court. In the past, the Satmar philanthropist made his private aircraft available to the Gerrer Rebbe for a fundraising trip to the United States on behalf of Gerrer mosdos after government sanctions reduced funding for many yeshivos.

During that earlier period, Landau also sent the Rebbe a letter urging the Chareidi community to sever its financial dependence on the Israeli government and instead rely entirely on privately funded charitable foundations supported by donations. That proposal, however, was ultimately not adopted.

{Matzav.com}

Chareidi combat soldiers who enlisted nearly two years ago in the IDF’s Tomer Company—a track established within the Givati Brigade specifically for Chareidi recruits—say the army has broken the commitments made to them at the time of their enlistment after dismantling the unit and transferring them into a regular combat company operating in Gaza. According to a report by Ynet, the soldiers say they are now serving under conditions that are incompatible with a Chareidi lifestyle.

The soldiers said they enlisted only after being assured that the Tomer framework was specifically designed to allow them to serve in combat while fully maintaining their Chareidi standards and way of life. They now claim those assurances have been abandoned following the closure of the unit.

One of the soldiers described the deep sense of betrayal felt by many of those who enlisted.

“We feel betrayed. You promised us something, we came, people burned the place they came from.”

He explained that many of the soldiers paid an enormous personal price simply for joining the IDF. Some became estranged from their families, while others fear that their military service could negatively affect their future shidduch prospects.

According to the soldiers, the guarantees they received during training no longer exist in their new assignment. They said that while serving in the Tomer Company, tefillah, learning, and an atmosphere appropriate for Chareidi soldiers were carefully maintained. Since being reassigned, however, they say those standards have disappeared, despite the commitments made to them before they enlisted.

Among their most serious complaints is that they are now required to serve alongside female soldiers. They say they are assigned to joint duties with women and, at times, operate together with female paramedics during combat missions.

“This isn’t how it’s supposed to work. During training they took care of everything, and then once we reached the battalion everything suddenly changed. Why does nobody care about it anymore?”

The soldiers also say the religious atmosphere has changed dramatically. According to their testimony, they no longer receive the same level of sensitivity to their religious needs that existed within the Chareidi framework. They cited music being played during the Three Weeks, the use of phones and other electronic devices on Shabbos, and activities that they say are inconsistent with a Chareidi environment.

They added that their frustration has only grown because repeated appeals to commanders and other military officials have failed to produce any meaningful changes. According to the soldiers, they have contacted the brigade rabbinate, the IDF’s Chareidi administration, and other officials, but none have provided a solution to their concerns.

The case is expected to further deepen the Chareidi public’s lack of trust in the IDF, including skepticism toward other military frameworks that are presented as being compatible with a Chareidi lifestyle.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump signed a new executive order Thursday aimed at curbing so-called “birth tourism,” seeking to prevent foreign nationals from traveling to the United States solely to give birth in order to secure American citizenship for their children. The move comes weeks after the Supreme Court rejected the administration’s effort to restrict birthright citizenship under the Constitution.

Speaking during the Oval Office signing ceremony, Trump said the new order is designed to stop wealthy foreigners from exploiting America’s immigration system.

“People are building businesses around it. Wealthy people are building businesses around birthright citizenship. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. It’s a disgrace. They’re buying their way in, and we’re not going to let it happen,” Trump noted.

Trump argued that the practice has turned birthright citizenship into a commercial enterprise.

“They’ve taken birthright citizenship and they’ve made a joke out of it,” he said during the signing ceremony in the Oval Office.

Under the executive order, children born to women who entered the United States solely to give birth would no longer qualify for citizenship under the policy targeted by the administration.

Stephen Miller, Trump’s top immigration adviser, called the practice an abuse of the nation’s immigration laws.

“Birth tourism is by definition a fraud on the American system, on the American taxpayer,” Miller said at the ceremony.

He explained that the administration is targeting individuals who obtain tourist visas under false pretenses.

He said the order targets those “pretending to be a tourist, pretending to be a visitor, saying they want to go to Disneyland or they want to go visit a monument or go to a national park, but the real reason they’re here is to have a child.”

Miller has led development of the order, along with another executive action denying automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to foreign diplomatic personnel serving other governments and to parents classified as alien enemies.

The order also calls for ending birthright citizenship in U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico, but only if Congress enacts legislation authorizing such a change. Although legislation has already been introduced, it currently faces uncertain prospects on Capitol Hill.

Questions remain about how the administration intends to enforce the policy, including how officials would distinguish between pregnant women entering the country as legitimate tourists and those whose primary purpose is to give birth on American soil.

White House Staff Secretary Will Scharf argued that organized networks have turned birth tourism into a sophisticated business.

“criminal rings are setting up a system whereby tens, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of people can come to this country in an organized fashion and give birth here purely for the sake of obtaining birthright citizenship.”

Scharf said the administration plans to respond with multiple enforcement measures.

He added that the order will contain a number of “different actions intended to combat those sorts of organized practices. We look very heavily at denying visas to people that we have reason to believe are coming here for that purpose, visas both for prospective parents but also for the people organizing these rings.”

The executive order follows a June Supreme Court ruling that rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to narrow constitutional birthright citizenship, leaving intact longstanding protections under the 14th Amendment.

Trump has repeatedly argued that the constitutional provision was never intended to apply to modern birth tourism, insisting its original purpose was to guarantee citizenship to the children of formerly enslaved Americans after the Civil War.

“This was meant for the babies of slaves. It was right after one week or two weeks after the Civil War ended,” he said Thursday. “This wasn’t for wealthy multi-millionaires, billionaires coming in and bringing 15, 20, 30 children along with them. It’s become a big business, and we’re ending that business.”

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

{Matzav.com}

In an and unprecedented meeting, Slabodka Rosh Yeshiva Rav Dov Landau paid a visit on Thursday to the Belzer Rebbe at his residence in Yerushalayim.

The meeting marked the first time the two gedolei Torah had ever visited one another.

The visit took place in a warm and dignified atmosphere, with only a handful of close associates in attendance, including MK Yisroel Eichler. Also present was Rav Elyakim Stark, chairman of Belz’s Machzikei HaDas faction and one of the leading figures in the Belzer court, who has served on several occasions as the Rebbe’s personal emissary to Rav Landau.

During the meeting, the two gedolim reminisced about the great Torah leaders of previous generations. The Belzer Rebbe asked Rav Landau whether he had merited learning together with the Chazon Ish.

Rav Landau responded by sharing cherished memories from his youth, recalling how he had the privilege of spending time in the presence of Rav Aharon of Belz when the Belzer Rebbe spent a Shabbos in Bnei Brak. He vividly described the enormous crowds of thousands of chassidim who flocked to witness the Rebbe’s presence during that memorable visit.

As the conversation continued, it took on a more emotional tone as the two discussed the difficult situation facing Eretz Yisroel and the gezeiros threatening the Torah world.

Expressing his deep anguish, Rav Landau said, “We have nothing left but for the Rebbe and me, together, to let out a deep sigh from the depths of our hearts before the Creator of all, pleading that He have mercy and compassion upon His poor and destitute people.”

At the conclusion of the uplifting visit, the two gedolei Torah parted warmly, exchanging heartfelt brachos before Rav Landau departed.

{Matzav.com}

After more than five-and-a-half years without granting an interview to a Chareidi news outlet, former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett sat down for an extensive interview with Kikar HaShabbos commentator Yishai Cohen, where he addressed a broad range of issues, including the draft law, the future of the Chareidi parties, Qatar, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the upcoming elections.

Far from striking a conciliatory tone toward the Chareidi world, Bennett laid out what he described as an uncompromising vision. He declared that, so long as the Chareidi parties continue advocating legislation to exempt bnei yeshiva from military service, he will not include them in any coalition he leads. He also ruled out appointing Shas chairman Aryeh Deri to his Cabinet, sharply criticizing Deri’s public remarks about his grandchildren learning Torah.

“I need to give an insurance certificate to the Chareidi mother that her son will return from the army still Chareidi?” Bennett asked during the interview. “I need to provide the conditions, but I cannot guarantee that.”

Bennett also reiterated his opposition to Prime Minister Netanyahu remaining in office, vowed not to serve alongside him in a future government, called for Qatar to be officially designated an enemy state, and said that while he does not wish to see Netanyahu imprisoned, he believes the prime minister should retire from public life.

Bennett was welcomed by interviewer Yishai Cohen.

“Shalom, welcome, Yishai,” Bennett replied.

Cohen noted that Bennett had not spoken to the Chareidi media for more than five years and asked what prompted him to break that silence.

“I’m actually happy to have the opportunity now to speak directly to the Chareidi public,” Bennett responded. “Because first of all, I want to say to the Chareidi public: we are brothers. We are brothers, we are one people. I care about you, and I am certainly not your enemy. There are disagreements, and there are things that I believe will ultimately do a tremendous amount of good for this community.”

Cohen responded that they would spend much of the interview discussing the Chareidi public, but first wanted to ask about Bennett’s recent comments regarding Qatar.

“In recent days,” Cohen said, “you announced what many viewed as a campaign promise—that one of your first decisions would be to declare Qatar an enemy state. Gadi Eisenkot responded by saying, ‘I don’t suggest this be done as the result of a political gimmick, especially not by people who served in positions of influence as defense minister or prime minister and had the ability to make those decisions,’ clearly referring to you.”

Bennett dismissed the criticism.

“Listen,” he said, “anyone who still doesn’t understand that Qatar is an enemy is stuck in the October 6 mindset. Qatar is a deadly enemy, an extremely dangerous one, perhaps the most poisonous of all. Unlike Iran, where everyone knows it is an enemy, Qatar pretends to be a peaceful country.”

“But let’s look at the facts. Qatar financed the October 7 massacre. We’ve now found material proving direct Qatari funding for the massacre, for the Nukhba terrorists, for the rapes, for the murders. Qatar also financed Jabhat al-Nusra, the Revolutionary Guards, and the most severe terrorist organizations that have murdered our people. They even financed Shiite groups, despite Qatar itself being Sunni. Qatar operates Al Jazeera, the most antisemitic network in the Arab world.”

Cohen noted that Eisenkot was not disputing those facts.

“He says this shouldn’t become a political gimmick,” Cohen observed. “He argues such a decision should come after consultation with the Mossad, the National Security Council, and the Shin Bet.”

Bennett insisted that leadership demands taking decisive action.

“True leadership…” Bennett began before continuing. “And let me add something. Qatar today is also the greatest engine driving antisemitism throughout the Western world. It’s causing tremendous damage to us internationally—with genocide accusations, The Hague, everything. Do you know where that came from? The chief prosecutor in The Hague, Karim Khan, received money from Qatar. They’re killing us, they’re killing our sons, and if you refuse to identify an enemy as an enemy, you have no chance of defeating him.”

Cohen then asked why Bennett had never taken such action while serving as prime minister or defense minister, pointing out that this was essentially Eisenkot’s criticism.

“Excellent question,” Bennett replied. “Something enormous happened in between—October 7. Before October 7, everyone was trapped in the same misconception regarding Qatar. But now it’s time to wake up. Today we know Qatar was the principal financier of the massacre. What more evidence do you need before calling them an enemy?”

“And more than that,” Bennett continued, “when I see that Netanyahu’s office was infiltrated by Qatari agents who were being paid by Qatar during the war and using their influence inside the State of Israel—it was effectively legal.”

“So how do I know there aren’t hundreds more? I don’t know… retired generals, consultants… maybe there are consultants working for them right now. That’s exactly why, if you don’t define Qatar as an enemy, you have no chance of defeating them. Qatar is defeating Israel.”

“So yes,” Bennett said, “I can understand Netanyahu’s position. But I expect every leader in Israel to clearly declare that Qatar is an enemy.”

Cohen asked Bennett what his reaction had been when he first heard Eisenkot’s criticism.

“I only heard about it just now,” Bennett answered. “I’m not judging him. I’m simply stating my position: Qatar is a cruel, deadly enemy, perhaps Israel’s most dangerous enemy. Anyone who wants to lead the State of Israel must declare Qatar an enemy.”

The conversation then turned to the upcoming elections.

“With less than three months remaining until Election Day,” Cohen said, “can you tell us today who will be the candidate of the opposition bloc for prime minister?”

Bennett avoided naming a candidate.

“I can tell you one thing,” he replied. “We have to win, and I’m committed to victory. I won’t allow anything to stand in the way of that goal. My mission right now is to speak to the Israeli public—to Klal Yisroel—and explain that this election is about fixing the deepest problems facing the State of Israel.”

The discussion then shifted to the political landscape and the upcoming elections, with interviewer Yishai Cohen pressing Naftali Bennett on who would lead the anti-Netanyahu bloc should it prevail at the polls.

Cohen noted that with fewer than 80 days remaining until Election Day, voters still did not know who would be the bloc’s candidate for prime minister.

Bennett declined to answer directly.

“Look,” he said, “I can tell you this much: we have to win, and I am committed to victory. I won’t let anything get in the way of that. My mission right now is to speak to the Israeli public, to Am Yisrael, and explain that, in my view, this election is about how we fix the most serious problems facing the State of Israel.”

Cohen pressed him further, asking whether he accepted that the leader of the largest party should become the bloc’s candidate for prime minister.

“Look,” Bennett replied, “I’ll manage with Gadi. After the elections we’ll work it out. First we need to bring in 63 seats. There won’t be any obstacle to achieving that victory. Right now we need to run around the country and bring in votes, and that’s exactly what I’m doing—from Beit She’an, where I was a few days ago, to Holon, Kiryat Shmona, Tel Aviv. Today I was at the induction center. The goal is to bring in the votes so that we win, because otherwise the State of Israel is headed in a very dangerous direction.”

Cohen then turned to Bennett’s alliance with Yair Lapid, observing that many political analysts viewed the merger between their parties as unsuccessful.

“When you look back,” Cohen asked, “at your union with Yair Lapid and the creation of the Beyachad Party, you don’t have to be a political commentator to see that the experiment hasn’t worked. Twelve seats after 13 weeks is a collapse. Looking back, do you say, ‘We made a mistake’?”

Bennett rejected that characterization.

“Look,” he answered, “I see the merger with Lapid as an act of leadership, as an example of personal responsibility. What do I mean? We keep saying that the country needs unity. Everyone talks about unity. So we created unity.”

“I joined together with someone I respect מאוד. Our views are certainly not identical—they’re definitely not identical—but he was an excellent foreign minister by all accounts. He initiated the Negev Summit, he has perhaps the most professional list in the Knesset, and together we created unity.”

“You create unity with people who don’t think exactly like you, but who share fundamental principles.”

Cohen asked whether that partnership would remain intact through Election Day.

“Absolutely,” Bennett replied. “I believe in it. I really believe in it. The party is called ‘Beyachad,’ and ‘Beyachad’ means being together with people who aren’t exactly like you.”

Cohen challenged Bennett’s repeated calls for unity, pointing out what he viewed as a contradiction.

“You talk about unity,” Cohen said. “You just described your partnership with Lapid as an example of unity that the public needs. But when I look at your statements about the day after the election—who you are willing to form a government with and who you refuse to sit with—you say no to Netanyahu, no to the Chareidim, no to Ben Gvir, no to Smotrich, and certainly no to the Arab parties. So what kind of unity is that if it’s only unity within your own political camp?”

Bennett argued that he was speaking about principles rather than personalities.

“I’m talking about principles,” he responded. “What do I want? In the next term we’re going to undertake historic changes that haven’t been made in 80 years.”

“And by far the biggest change—and we’ll certainly discuss it—is bringing the Chareidi public into the State of Israel and into the workforce. We’ll talk about that.”

“For that, you need a broad Zionist majority. The country has lost its way in recent years.”

Cohen questioned that formulation.

“Are Smotrich’s voters not Zionists? Netanyahu’s voters aren’t Zionists? Ben Gvir’s voters?”

Bennett answered, “I’m saying something very, very simple. Anyone who is Zionist, who supports military service for everyone, who supports a state commission of inquiry, and who supports a constitution for Israel—they’re welcome. Let them pick up the phone.”

“As of today,” he continued, “they oppose everything I just mentioned. They’re against universal military service…”

Cohen then raised the question that has repeatedly surfaced in Israeli political circles.

“Today, can you make a firm commitment that you will not sit in a government with Prime Minister Netanyahu—certainly not under his leadership? Because people hear commentators saying, ‘Bennett fooled us once. He promised one thing and then joined Lapid. The day after the election he’ll do it again and end up sitting with Netanyahu.'”

Bennett defended the decisions he made following the previous election.

“First of all,” he said, “what I did after the last election, when I became prime minister, saved the State of Israel from three years of chaos. There was no budget, there was a massive deficit, people were being murdered across the country, and we pulled Israel out of that hole.”

He then reiterated his position on Netanyahu.

“I’ll say it as clearly as possible: Netanyahu has to go home. Not because he’s a bad person—I’m not grading his character—but because he bears ultimate responsibility for the October 7 massacre.”

“He still refuses to take responsibility for it, and that is simply unacceptable.”

“He’s leading a government that is tearing the State of Israel apart. I’m not attacking him personally. I’m simply saying: enough. Thirty years. He’s a Jew who’s approaching 80 years old. It’s okay to pass the baton. The State of Israel is not a widower.”

Yishai Cohen then posed a scenario in which neither political bloc secures a governing majority after the election.

“If the day after the election ends in a deadlock between the blocs,” Cohen asked, “are you saying that under no circumstances would you sit with Netanyahu?”

Bennett answered without hesitation.

“I’ve been very clear: absolutely not. He has to go home because he is the person responsible for that horrific massacre.”

“Every person has accomplishments from the past, mistakes they’ve made, things they did better and things they did worse. Thank you very much. At age 80, it’s perfectly acceptable to pass the baton.”

“Unlike what he claims, that the State of Israel cannot exist without him—it existed very well before him.”

Cohen then asked whether Bennett would consider relying on Arab parties such as Ra’am or Balad to establish a coalition.

“Listen,” Bennett replied, “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: we will rely only on Zionist parties—parties that support universal military service, support a state commission of inquiry, and support a constitution based on the principles of Israel’s Declaration of Independence.”

The conversation then turned to the issue at the heart of the interview—the Chareidi public and the ongoing dispute over military service.

“We’re about to discuss the draft law and what the Chareidi public views as the decrees you’re threatening to impose,” Cohen said. “You insist they aren’t decrees, and we’ll get to that shortly. But first, where did the relationship between you and the Chareidi public break down?”

Bennett rejected the premise that his dispute is with the Chareidi community itself.

“First of all,” he said, “the break isn’t with the Chareidi public. It’s with the Chareidi politicians.”

“And the turning point came after October 7.”

He paused before continuing.

“I want to answer this not from a rational perspective, but from the heart.”

“I remember October 8 and October 9. All of Am Yisrael was heading south. People were fighting. Chareidim were setting up food stations—it was incredibly moving.”

“There was also a feeling in the air that now, finally, the Chareidi public was going to enlist. Now. Because we needed every single person. We were fighting for our existence.”

“But it didn’t happen.”

“It didn’t happen because Aryeh Deri went out and told the public, ‘Don’t be swept away by a moment of weakness that you’re feeling…'”

Cohen interjected that Deri had been speaking specifically about bnei yeshiva.

“You know very well,” Bennett responded, “that not a single Chareidi politician encouraged people who are not learning Torah to enlist.”

“That was a defining moment.”

“And to this very day, listen—there is an entire generation of young people, religious and secular alike, whose lives have been shattered by three years of hundreds of days of miluim each year.”

“They desperately needed someone to come…”

Cohen then asked Bennett what type of draft law he would enact if elected.

“So I’ll tell you,” Bennett replied. “This is something I truly studied in depth—with all my experience as prime minister, defense minister, education minister, economy minister, and as a high-tech entrepreneur.”

“I’m presenting my own plan because I don’t believe in any other plan, and I believe this one will actually work.”

“We don’t need police.”

“We don’t need tanks rolling into Bnei Brak.”

“We don’t need arrests.”

“We don’t need coercion.”

“What will happen is very simple: whoever doesn’t enlist won’t receive a single shekel from the state. Whoever doesn’t work won’t receive a single shekel from the state.”

“But here’s the most important point, the one nobody talks about, and one of the biggest conclusions I reached over the last two years: the education system.”

“Anyone who doesn’t attend the State Chareidi school system won’t receive a single shekel.”

Bennett acknowledged that his views on Chareidi education have changed.

“In the past I believed the state shouldn’t interfere at all in Chareidi education.”

“I changed my position.”

“We’ve become two separate countries because we no longer share a common story.”

“In the end, we all live in the State of Israel, which is both a Jewish and democratic state.”

“As far as I’m concerned, anyone who doesn’t teach the importance of military service, the importance of the State of Israel, and of course mathematics, English, and the importance of democracy, shouldn’t receive state funding.”

Cohen noted that Bennett’s current position appears to contradict statements he made while serving as education minister.

Bennett responded that he, too, had once accepted what he now believes was a mistaken assumption.

“The entire country lived under the same misconception,” he said. “That’s a misconception that I myself woke up from.”

“What was that misconception?”

“The misconception was that the Chareidi public could continue growing larger and larger without democratic values, without Zionism, without military service, without working, without mathematics, without English—and somehow everything would work out.”

“That misconception threatens the very existence of the State of Israel.”

“And it also threatens the Chareidi public itself.”

Yishai Cohen noted that when Bennett served as education minister, the Chareidi parties generally received what they requested, while representatives of the State Chareidi school system complained that Bennett would not even meet with them.

Bennett acknowledged that his thinking has changed dramatically.

“Because in that government,” he said, “all of us were living under the same misconception. It was based on Netanyahu’s coalition agreement with the Chareidim when Porush was deputy minister.”

“You’re right. I’m not arguing with you. In fact, I agree with you—we all woke up from that misconception, myself included.”

“Today I understand that when 15% of Israel’s citizens are Chareidim, and roughly one-third of Jewish first-grade students are Chareidim, if we don’t wake up now, this incredible miracle called the State of Israel will collapse.”

“I’ll go even further,” Bennett continued. “In my opinion, if we don’t solve this problem, the State of Israel has no future.”

He then turned directly to the Chareidi public.

“And through you I’d like to speak to the Chareidi community. I have tremendous love for the Chareidi public, but I also have to say something.”

Cohen responded that Bennett would likely have difficulty convincing Chareidi listeners.

“I’m not here to convince anyone,” Bennett answered. “I’m here to tell the truth.”

“And the truth is that the cruelest thing you can do to the Chareidi public is preserve the current situation.”

“The current situation is artificial. It’s manufactured.”

“It has no foundation in Judaism.”

“It has no precedent.”

“In Europe, in North Africa, in Iraq—everybody worked.”

Cohen then challenged Bennett on how he intended to implement such sweeping changes.

“For the sake of discussion,” Cohen said, “let’s assume we agree with everything you’ve just said—we don’t, but let’s assume we do. How do you actually carry it out? Through economic sanctions?”

Bennett objected to the characterization.

“So let me explain exactly,” he replied. “First of all, these aren’t sanctions. They’re the end of extraordinary benefits.”

“Take daycare subsidies, for example. Almost all of that funding went to the Chareidi community even when the father wasn’t working.”

Cohen pointed out that such subsidies no longer exist.

“At the moment they don’t,” Bennett acknowledged. “And that’s exactly why we’re already seeing higher enlistment numbers.”

“Because of the sanctions we’re beginning to see an increase in enlistment.”

“That’s simply what’s happening.”

He insisted he was not trying to force anyone into military service.

“I’m not cornering the Chareidi public, and I’m certainly not advocating prison or coercion.”

“I’m saying something very simple: in every available framework, if you don’t enlist, you don’t receive state funding.”

“But if you do enlist, we’ll find you a framework that fits your needs.”

“For example, one idea I strongly believe in—and I don’t understand why it hasn’t been adopted—is establishing Chareidi yeshivos hesder along the Jordan Valley and the Egyptian border.”

Bennett then emphasized what he viewed as the central principle behind his proposal.

“I want to explain this because it’s extremely important.”

“These are not decrees.”

“The Chareidi public will have legitimate options.”

“I’m certainly not asking anyone to remove his yarmulke or compromise his religious observance.”

“The same applies to education.”

“There will be State Chareidi schools where students learn Gemara, but they will also study mathematics, English, Zionism, and democracy.”

Cohen returned to the issue of the draft law itself.

“Gadi Eisenkot says that 30% of each draft class should be permitted to continue learning Torah. Avigdor Lieberman says zero exemptions should be granted and that it’s his first condition for joining any government. Where do you fall on that spectrum?”

“I’m on my own spectrum,” Bennett answered.

“I’ve already explained my principles.”

“There will be no exemptions.”

“Not because of percentages or quotas.”

He then criticized Eisenkot’s proposal.

“Gadi spoke about 30%, about drafting 4,500 from 12,000.”

“I think that’s a terrible mistake.”

“I’ll tell you why.”

“Gafni and Deri will simply fool the next politician just as they’ve fooled others before, and once again nothing will happen.”

“They’ve had four years in power.”

“They didn’t do anything.”

“They could have enlisted people.”

“I never heard a single Chareidi politician stand up and say, ‘Anyone who isn’t learning Torah should enlist.'”

The interviewer then cited comments made by Yair Golan, who argued that drafting the Chareidi public would necessarily be a gradual process because the army cannot absorb thousands of Chareidim overnight while maintaining separate religious accommodations.

“Perhaps,” Cohen suggested, “someone who served as deputy chief of staff understands this issue better than anyone else.”

Bennett rejected the argument outright.

“With all due respect to someone who served as deputy chief of staff,” he replied, “you’re speaking to someone who spent 25 years in the army.”

“You’re speaking to someone who served as defense minister, education minister, and prime minister.”

“Yishai, I have a little experience.”

“And my experience tells me that phrases like ‘it’s a process’ are simply another way of saying, ‘We’re not going to do anything.'”

Yishai Cohen pressed Bennett on whether the IDF is truly interested in drafting thousands of Chareidim each year, noting that Yair Golan had argued the military is not equipped to absorb such large numbers.

“The army wants thousands of Chareidim in every draft cycle?” Cohen asked. “Yair Golan says the answer is no.”

Bennett strongly disagreed.

“The army absolutely wants thousands of combat soldiers with Rifleman 05 qualifications,” he said. “Not people who are placed into all kinds of marginal roles. The Chashmonaim Brigade is a good example. Absolutely.”

“Of course it would be done according to the army’s needs,” he continued. “But right now the IDF doesn’t need 12,000 additional soldiers—it needs 20,000.”

“That’s why members of my own family who are in their 30s have their lives on hold. If they’re not risking their lives on the battlefield, they’re preparing to go back.”

Cohen then asked Bennett whether he would personally guarantee that Chareidi soldiers would be able to maintain their religious way of life during military service.

“As prime minister or defense minister,” Cohen said, “would you commit that if Chareidim enlist, they will remain Chareidi? That they enter as Chareidim and leave as Chareidim?”

Bennett responded that the government could provide an appropriate environment, but could not make such guarantees.

“I’ll say that we will create the conditions necessary for Chareidim to preserve their religious commitment.”

“But ultimately, responsibility for maintaining a person’s faith doesn’t rest with me. That’s the responsibility of parents…”

Cohen interrupted.

“But the army has to provide the proper environment.”

“That’s exactly why I spoke about yeshivos hesder in the Jordan Valley,” Bennett replied. “I was there just last week.”

“But to guarantee that every single person will leave the army still Chareidi? I can’t even guarantee that my own son will come home alive.”

“I can’t guarantee that my own son will come home alive, so how can I promise something like that?”

“What I can promise is that we’ll provide the proper conditions.”

At that point Bennett became visibly emotional.

“Wait a second,” he said. “You asked the question, and I’ll tell you why it angers me.”

“It angers me.”

“Over the past few years I’ve met people who lost arms, legs, suffered severe brain injuries—people whose entire lives have been changed forever.”

“And I’m supposed to give an insurance certificate to the Chareidi mother that her son…”

“In the end, parents also bear responsibility.”

“I’ll provide the conditions necessary for her son to remain Chareidi.”

“If that mother doesn’t know how to educate her son in Judaism, am I supposed to provide that guarantee?”

Cohen then turned to Bennett’s relationship with the Chareidi political leadership.

“When was the last time you spoke with Aryeh Deri, Moshe Gafni, Goldknopf, Friedman, Babchik—anyone from that group?”

“It’s been a long time,” Bennett answered.

“I want to say something about Deri.”

“Deri sits in the Security Cabinet.”

“He’s sitting in the cabinet that sends our sons—you know what? My own son, who’s currently in Lebanon—to the battlefield.”

“And then he goes out publicly and boasts that his grandchildren are draft evaders.”

“I’m asking you honestly: is that moral?”

Bennett said the events of the war had profoundly shaped his views.

“I want to tell you something.”

“Since October 7 I’ve paid more than 500 nichum aveilim visits throughout the country.”

“Five hundred families.”

“I attended funerals. I met families whose worlds were destroyed.”

“The fact that he can say something like that… you know what? I don’t care about all the explanations.”

“It’s simply not Jewish.”

“Where was the Jewish heart when he said those words?”

“To me, it demonstrates a complete disconnect.”

“He’s disconnected.”

“He’s not my partner.”

“The Chareidi public I love…”

Cohen then asked directly whether Deri would be disqualified from serving in any government Bennett heads.

“From your perspective,” he asked, “is Aryeh Deri barred from serving in any government that you lead or are a senior member of?”

“Absolutely,” Bennett answered.

“The man boasts that his grandchildren are draft evaders.”

“Obviously someone like that won’t sit in my Security Cabinet.”

Cohen followed up.

“So no Chareidim would serve in your Cabinet?”

Bennett clarified that his objection was directed at those who support exemptions.

“There won’t be anyone in my Cabinet who supports draft evasion.”

“Does it seem reasonable to you that someone who proudly says members of his own family are draft evaders should then send my sons into battle?”

“Does that sound normal to you?”

“It’s a disgrace.”

The interviewer then asked whether Bennett was effectively shutting the door on cooperation with the Chareidi parties.

“If Agudas Yisrael tells you they’re no longer committed to Netanyahu, or Degel HaTorah says it’s looking toward you and Gadi Eisenkot,” Cohen said, “are you telling them the door is closed because they support exemptions for bnei yeshiva?”

“Absolutely,” Bennett replied.

“You’re right.”

“So the door is closed?”

“The door is closed to anyone who supports draft evasion.”

“And I’ll explain why.”

“For anyone who supports draft evasion, the door is closed—and locked.”

Cohen clarified what Bennett meant by “draft evasion.”

“By draft evasion, you mean anyone who supports legislation regulating the status of bnei yeshiva and exempting them from military service?”

“Yes, yes, yes,” Bennett responded. “Exactly.”

“That’s precisely what the draft exemption law is.”

“In my opinion, the greatest threat facing the future of the Jewish state is that 15% of Israeli society already lives in a separate, disconnected Chareidi state.”

“So there’s no point in forming a government that won’t solve this existential Chareidi issue.”

“If we don’t deal with it now, we’ll never solve it.”

Cohen summarized Bennett’s position.

“So if Babchik, Goldknopf, Gafni and the other leaders of United Torah Judaism tell you they’re no longer committed to Netanyahu and are looking toward you as a candidate for prime minister, you’re telling them they have no partner because you insist on universal military service?”

Bennett answered unequivocally.

“I’m saying this as clearly as I possibly can.”

“All of these stories are just stories told by people who don’t want to draft anyone.”

“They had four years to enlist people.”

“They didn’t enlist anyone.”

“The only reason enlistment has increased now is because the High Court stopped the funding.”

“And now people are enlisting.”

“My answer is yes—the door is open to anyone who wants to be a partner in a State of Israel that has universal military service.”

The interview concluded with a question unrelated to the Chareidi community.

Cohen asked Bennett whether, if he were to win the election and Netanyahu retired from politics, he would support granting the prime minister a pardon.

“I absolutely do not want to see Benjamin Netanyahu wearing an orange prison uniform,” Bennett replied.

“For a great many Israelis, he long ago became more than just a prime minister.”

“He became a symbol.”

“And Heaven forbid that symbol should be crushed.”

“I have nothing against him personally.”

“I don’t want to see him in prison.”

“Let him go home, live his life, do whatever he wants, and that’s perfectly fine with me.”

{Matzav.com}

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) is warning that Democrats may have handed Republicans an opening in Michigan after Abdul El-Sayed narrowly captured the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate, telling Jewish Insider that the progressive candidate’s record and political alliances could ultimately cost Democrats a seat they had expected to hold.

Speaking with Jewish Insider just hours after Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) conceded the closely fought primary race, Fetterman predicted El-Sayed will face a far tougher challenge in the general election than he did among Democratic primary voters.

“He will quickly discover a primary is a much different situation in this state [than the general election], when you’re accountable for winning the other side. I can’t wait to see him campaign for the general. I have got my popcorn for that,” Fetterman told Jewish Insider. “Will he denounce Hasan Piker? Because Piker is already calling moderates ‘Islamophobic pieces of [garbage].’ Will he campaign with him? Will he denounce his views? I am daring him to continue to campaign with Hasan Piker now.”

Fetterman also told Jewish Insider that political commentator Hasan Piker has already become a liability for El-Sayed because of his inflammatory rhetoric.

“Think about how volatile a guy like Piker is,” Fetterman said. “He’s already gone off and exploded because El-Sayed was saying how now we have to mend fences.”

In his interview with Jewish Insider, Fetterman described El-Sayed as “a dream for a Republican candidate,” arguing that, if he were the GOP nominee, he would spend millions of dollars highlighting El-Sayed’s ties to Piker during the campaign.

Fetterman further argued to Jewish Insider that El-Sayed’s razor-thin primary victory hardly reflected overwhelming support from Democratic voters.

“I don’t know why El-Sayed described this as a big movement. He thinks that this was an incredible win and that’s just not the case,” he told Jewish Insider. “Just the opposite — he barely won by 14,000 votes.”

Continuing his criticism, Fetterman said, “He really ran the under-four mile politically, palling around with a dude that loves Hamas and thinks America deserved 9/11,” he added. “I mean, will that stick? We’ll see, but overall, this takes largely what had been a safe seat for Democrats and absolutely puts it in play now. Mike Rogers barely lost to [Sen.] Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) [in 2022].”

Although sharply critical of the Democratic nominee, Fetterman made clear to Jewish Insider that he is not backing Republican candidate Mike Rogers.

“I’m not making any endorsements in this race.”

Fetterman also questioned whether El-Sayed could attract support from Michigan’s Jewish and pro-Israel voters, pointing to El-Sayed’s response to the attack on Temple Israel earlier this year.

“Nothing justifies the heinous attack that we saw on Temple Israel,” Fetterman said.

According to Jewish Insider, Fetterman argued that El-Sayed has built much of his political identity around criticism of pro-Israel organizations and Israel itself.

“Every other word out of his mouth is AIPAC, AIPAC, AIPAC. Imagine what that must look like to a Jewish voter,” Fetterman said of El-Sayed. “Essentially he has defined his race by opposing Jewish money or saying Israel is the aggressor, and he aligns himself with some of the worst people.”

Fetterman went even further, telling Jewish Insider that he cannot understand how Jewish voters could support El-Sayed under those circumstances.

“I’m not a member of the Jewish community, but I can’t imagine how anyone could vote for him in good conscience,” he continued. “How could a Jewish voter in Michigan vote for a guy that refused to condemn a terrorist that crashed his car into a synagogue to kill 150 Jewish children? That’s disqualifying, and it’s appalling.”

Fetterman also linked El-Sayed’s positions to those of Piker and criticized what he characterized as sympathy toward Iran and anti-Israel groups.

“This is a guy that has similar views to Piker. We all know why Abdul El-Sayed was sad after we incinerated Iranian leadership. Remember what Hamas has done to defenseless Israeli and Jewish civilians on 10/7. Piker is the guy that cheers for that organization. I don’t know how you are able to reconcile that.”

In his conversation with Jewish Insider, Fetterman also criticized Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for backing El-Sayed in Michigan, as well as former Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner, whose endorsement Sanders later withdrew following allegations of sexual assault.

“Bernie Sanders is not flipping seats,” Fetterman said. “He is trying to put volatile and terrible candidates into otherwise more safe kinds of opportunities for Democrats.”

Fetterman concluded by saying he has no intention of endorsing El-Sayed, adding that the Democratic nominee likely would not welcome his support anyway.

“I can’t ever endorse him, not to think he’d even want mine, and not because he’s called me an asshole or because I’m an ogre that belongs on a pike,” Fetterman said, referring to comments El-Sayed made about him earlier this month. “It’s because he’d have to renounce people like Piker and some of those extreme community leaders that were very much involved with standing with Iran and engaged in rhetoric that describes America as evil. They’re just essentially anti-American people, ironically, while they are living in our country.”

{Matzav.com}

As the Torah world continues to face mounting public pressure over the status of bnei yeshiva and the ongoing debate surrounding military conscription, hundreds of bochurim have spent the days of bein hazmanim immersed in Torah, hashkafah, and spiritual growth at the annual Birchas Mordechai Camp, organized by the Bnei Torah movement.

The camp brought together hundreds of bochurim from leading yeshivos, alongside students from yeshivos tichoniyos across Eretz Yisroel, demonstrating that even during a turbulent period, the commitment to a life of Torah continues to grow stronger.

The camp was founded 65 years ago by Harav Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi zt”l, at the encouragement of his father-in-law, Harav Meir Chadash zt”l. Since its establishment, Birchas Mordechai has become a respected destination for bnei yeshiva seeking clarity in hashkafah and a deeper understanding of Daas Torah. From its earliest years, the camp enjoyed the support of leading gedolei Yisroel, including Harav Elazar Menachem Man Shach zt”l, who personally contributed to its fundraising efforts, and Harav Aharon Leib Steinman zt”l, who regularly visited the camp, encouraged its growth, and forged close relationships with bochurim who strengthened their commitment to Torah through the experience.

This year’s program took on added significance in light of the challenges currently confronting the Torah world. Organizers reported exceptionally high demand from outstanding bochurim eager to participate.

In addition to the bnei yeshiva, the camp welcomed hundreds of students from yeshivos tichoniyos, each of whom was paired with a ben yeshiva mentor throughout the program. Alongside the regular sedorim, participants took part in open discussion sessions exploring the meaning of a Torah life, the role of a ben Torah, contemporary challenges facing today’s generation, and the development of a strong Torah worldview. Naturally, the issue of military conscription became a central topic of discussion. Despite the strong emotions surrounding the subject, organizers said the conversations remained thoughtful and focused, addressing the Torah perspective on the army, the State of Israel, and the relationship between Torah study and employment. The personal dialogue between participants created a vibrant atmosphere of learning and spiritual growth, complemented by competitions, activities, and outings.

Harav Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi zt”l often emphasized that, contrary to popular perception, the camp was not intended solely to strengthen students from yeshivos tichoniyos. Rather, he explained that the bnei yeshiva themselves benefit tremendously, since teaching and explaining Torah principles to others compels them to sharpen and deepen their own understanding. In that way, they leave the camp not only as mentors, but as stronger bnei Torah themselves.

Among the distinguished visitors who addressed the participants were the camp’s president, Harav Ben Tzion Ezrachi shlit”a; Harav Yitzchak Yosef shlit”a; Harav Dovid Cohen shlit”a; Harav Shraga Steinman shlit”a; Harav Yehudah Amit shlit”a; and former Chief Rabbi Harav Dovid Lau shlit”a. Each delivered words of chizuk, emphasizing the unique privilege and responsibility of every ben Torah, particularly during the current challenges facing the Torah world.

One of the most memorable moments came on the camp’s final night, when hundreds of bochurim remained in the beis medrash until the early morning hours for a special mishmar, preparing chaburos on sugyos haShas as part of the “V’Hagisa” competition. The program followed the renowned learning methodology of Harav Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi zt”l, beginning with the Gemara, Rashi, and Tosafos before building layer upon layer toward a deeper understanding of the sugya. Organizers said the approach enabled participants to experience the sweetness of Torah not only as an eternal reward, but as a tangible joy in this world. A separate competition testing participants’ knowledge of the halachos of brachos was also held.

Following an emotional address by Harav Ben Tzion Ezrachi shlit”a, participants watched the famous recording of his father, Harav Baruch Mordechai Ezrachi zt”l, passionately crying out, “Yitzchak Elchanan smolah!” His stirring voice, filled with boundless love for Torah and a call to greatness, echoed throughout the beis medrash, reminding participants of the lifelong demand for total devotion to Torah. Organizers said the moment left a profound impression not only on the bnei Torah, but also on the guests, many of whom had grown up viewing Torah as one important value among many and were able to witness firsthand what it means to live a life centered entirely around Torah.

Organizers said Birchas Mordechai’s response to the challenges of the times was found not in slogans, but in the friendships formed around the shtender, the deeper hashkafah forged through learning and discussion, and the renewed sense of mission instilled in every participant to place Torah at the very center of life.

{Matzav.com}

As controversy continues over a recent decision by Central Elections Committee Chairman Justice Noam Sohlberg to restrict political party representatives from reporting voter turnout information from polling stations during Election Day, Likud MK Avichai Boaron has proposed an alternative system under which the Elections Committee itself would distribute the data to all parties in real time.

Boaron’s proposal comes ahead of a planned request for reconsideration that is expected to be filed by the Likud through attorney Ilan Bombach. The appeal challenges the committee’s decision barring party representatives from reporting which eligible voters have already cast ballots throughout the day.

Under Boaron’s proposal, Central Elections Committee personnel stationed at polling places would collect voter turnout information and distribute identical hourly updates to every political party. He argued that such a system would both protect voter privacy and ensure equal treatment of all parties participating in the election.

“If the Chairman of the Central Elections Committee opposes party representatives reporting voter turnout data to their respective parties, then the committee itself should provide a transparent, official, and equal alternative,” Boaron said.

According to Boaron, committee employees are already present at every polling station and have access to up-to-the-minute turnout information, making it simple to provide hourly reports to all parties simultaneously.

Boaron also criticized several recent actions taken by the Central Elections Committee, saying, “The interventions, appointments, and controversial decisions being made by the committee, which clearly affect the election process and the activities of right-wing parties, are deeply concerning.”

He added that the committee’s responsibility is to safeguard a fair, orderly, and transparent election—not to hinder the field operations of political parties. “We all want fair elections. Therefore, if there is a problem with party representatives reporting voter turnout data, the solution is straightforward: the Central Elections Committee should provide the information itself to all parties.”

Concluding his remarks, Boaron said, “We are in the year 2026, not 1956. There is no technological or democratic justification for denying political parties access to basic real-time voter turnout information. We will not give up our demand for fair and transparent elections.”

{Matzav.com}

Dr. Anthony Fauci was seen looking downcast outside his Washington, D.C., home on Thursday, just hours after a Senate committee voted to hold him in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. The former top health official was later driven away by his wife, who made an obscene gesture toward a photographer outside their residence.

Only hours after the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted to refer him to the Justice Department for possible prosecution, Fauci was photographed wheeling a recycling bin to the curb outside the $2.4 million home he shares with his wife, Georgetown University professor Christine Grady. Appearing solemn, Fauci completed the chore before getting into the passenger seat of a vehicle driven by Grady.

As they left the neighborhood, Grady, apparently upset by the presence of a photographer, made an obscene gesture toward the camera before driving away. Fauci was seen staring silently out the window as the incident unfolded.

Earlier in the day, the Republican-controlled Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted 8-5 along party lines to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress after he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination 111 times during testimony before the committee last week.

If ultimately convicted of misdemeanor contempt of Congress, Fauci could face a sentence of up to one year in prison and a fine of as much as $1,000.

Republican lawmakers argued that Fauci was not entitled to repeatedly invoke the Fifth Amendment because of the sweeping presidential pardon he received from then-President Joe Biden covering potential federal offenses committed between January 2014 and January 2025.

“The assertion of a Fifth Amendment privilege only adheres to those instances where the witness has a reasonable fear of future prosecution, and it must be tailored to any such fear,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) noted.

Fauci appeared before the committee after receiving a subpoena from Chairman Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has long accused the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of concealing the origins of COVID-19 and misleading the public during the pandemic.

In addition to the congressional investigation, Fauci is also facing scrutiny from the state level, with three state attorneys general reportedly issuing subpoenas as part of a joint investigation into the former White House COVID adviser.

{Matzav.com}

In a unique initiative organized by Mosdos Belz in the United States, more than 200 Belzer bochurim from across America arrived in Eretz Yisroel this week aboard a dedicated charter flight as they prepared to begin Elul zman in the major Belzer yeshivos throughout the country.

The specially arranged flight was coordinated by Mosdos Belz in cooperation with Belzer travel agents across the United States. Organizers sought to create an atmosphere befitting bochurim traveling to Eretz Yisroel to begin a new zman, ensuring that every aspect of the journey reflected the values of the Belzer kehilla.

To preserve the appropriate environment, the bochurim were given a separate section at the airport. Observers noted their exemplary conduct throughout the trip, with many spending the flight immersed in learning, reviewing their studies, and preparing themselves spiritually for the upcoming Elul zman.

The project was led in partnership with Mr. Feivish Michalowitz of BNM Travel in Boro Park and Mr. Moshe Weber of Main Street Travel in Monsey. The aircraft’s entire economy cabin was reserved exclusively for the Belzer bochurim, who were accompanied by special representatives from Mosdos Belz.

According to organizers, the bochurim created a tremendous kiddush Hashem from the moment they left their homes until they arrived safely at their respective yeshivos in Eretz Yisroel. Emotional scenes unfolded at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport as parents bid farewell to their sons, many with tears in their eyes. At the airport, yungeleit assisted the bochurim through the passport and baggage checkpoints, while on board they were served by frum El Al flight attendants and representatives.

{Matzav.com}

[Video below.] Vice President JD Vance acknowledged that bringing the conflict with Iran to a successful conclusion will not be a smooth process, saying the path ahead will be complicated but expressing confidence that the United States will ultimately emerge in a stronger position.

Speaking during an interview that aired on Fox News Channel’s “Ingraham Angle,” Vance said he is willing to take responsibility for the administration’s efforts to resolve the crisis.

“If people want to make me own the effort to try to bring this war to a successful conclusion, I’m happy to let them make me own it. I am absolutely trying to do that. But, to your point, that sometimes requires one step forward, two steps back, then three steps forward and one step back. I can certainly understand the American people are maybe looking at this, and they say, well, it seems like we’re making progress, and then it seems like we’re not. But the reality, Laura, is that, number one, the Iranians are extraordinarily difficult people. Number two, they have a fractured system. So, there are people within their system that want the war to be over. There are also people within their system who are crazy radicals who want the war to continue. Our job is to navigate through that and get the best outcome for the American people, but for the president of the United States as well.”

Vance predicted that, despite the setbacks and uncertainty, the administration’s strategy would ultimately produce favorable results for the United States.

“And I do think that where we will ultimately land — it’s going to be messy and it’s going to take some time to get there — where we will ultimately land is you see oil, I think, was $79 today, those oil prices are going to come down and stay down, Iran will never have a nuclear weapon, and the United States will be in a stronger position. But we’re kind of in the middle of the game. And I think people are trying to pre-judge exactly how this is going to go. I can tell you with confidence, it’s going to go in a place that is good for the United States of America. But we’re going to use all the tools that we have, military, economic, and diplomatic to make sure we bring this thing to the right resolution.”

WATCH:

{Matzav.com}

SpaceX employees and early investors are getting their first opportunity to publicly sell company stock after a lockup agreement expired Thursday, releasing up to 911.5 million shares worth an estimated $101 billion. The move is expected to increase selling pressure on Elon Musk’s aerospace company as insiders begin converting stock holdings into cash.

According to Quartz, the expiration raises the number of shares available for trading to as many as 1.55 billion, up from roughly 639 million at the time of the company’s initial public offering. However, another block of as many as 455.8 million shares remains subject to lockup restrictions because SpaceX shares are trading below their $135 IPO price, MarketWatch reported. The stock finished Wednesday’s session at $108.27.

The end of the lockup marks the first meaningful opportunity since December 2025 for current and former employees, as well as early investors, to sell their shares. “This is the first real opportunity to turn paper wealth into real, hard cash that they can actually spend,” said financial advisor Evan Mills, who works with current and former SpaceX employees.

Breitbart News previously reported that roughly 4,000 current and former SpaceX employees became millionaires through their stock holdings, which are now eligible to be sold as the restrictions are lifted.

The anticipated windfall is already being felt in California’s luxury housing market. Gerard Bisignano, a partner at Vista Sotheby’s, said he has recently been contacted by several longtime SpaceX employees—mostly in their mid-30s and early 40s—who are searching for upscale homes in Southern California’s South Bay communities. Those neighborhoods include Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Palos Verdes Estates, all located near SpaceX’s California headquarters.

“They seem to be in a state of disbelief themselves that they’re suddenly going to be able to, in some examples, buy a home for their parents. They’re going to have all this discretionary income that they can really do what they want,” Bisignano said.

Bisignano believes the local housing market could experience a surge similar to the one that followed Facebook’s 2012 IPO, when home prices near the company’s headquarters climbed 21 percent. He also expects increased demand for vacation properties in destinations such as Mammoth Lakes, Palm Springs, and Lake Tahoe.

The share release comes during a difficult stretch for SpaceX stock. Shares fell more than 10 percent Wednesday after the company’s first public earnings call failed to impress investors despite reporting quarterly revenue of $7.8 billion. Since reaching a high of $225.64 on June 16, the stock has lost more than half its value. According to Bloomberg, citing S3 Partners, short sellers have aggressively targeted the company, with about 35 percent of the available public float currently sold short.

“We’ve never seen anything like it, we’ve never seen anything of this scale, we’ve never seen a lock-up being phased in this way,” said Peter Singlehurst, head of the private companies team at Baillie Gifford. “We’re in uncharted waters.”

Rather than using the traditional single 180-day lockup period, SpaceX adopted a staggered release schedule consisting of nine separate stages, an approach intended to prevent a sudden flood of shares from hitting the market all at once. Barron’s reported that another 319 million shares are scheduled to become eligible for sale on August 12, with additional releases continuing through the end of the year. Bloomberg reported that by early December, when the full 180-day lockup expires, as many as 5.33 billion shares could be available for trading. A separate lockup covering CEO Elon Musk and certain other major shareholders remains in effect until June 2027.

The phased release schedule was triggered by SpaceX’s first earnings report, which was released after the market closed on August 4. Under the plan, the initial tranche—representing up to 20 percent of eligible insider shares—became available for sale on Thursday, the second full trading day after the earnings announcement.

How many insiders ultimately decide to sell remains uncertain. J.P. Morgan analyst Doug Anmuth wrote in a research note that investors had already been repositioning their portfolios ahead of Thursday’s expiration, a trend that could ease selling pressure now that the shares are freely tradable. Despite expectations of increased selling, SpaceX stock opened Thursday modestly higher at approximately $111 per share.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump on Thursday denied reports that he has privately told major donors they should rally behind Vice President JD Vance as the Republican Party’s 2028 presidential nominee, insisting it is far too early to make such a decision.

The denial came just hours after The Washington Post reported that Trump recently told donors during a private Oval Office meeting, “At the end of the day, we need to elect JD,” signaling that he was leaning toward backing Vance as his political successor. According to the report, Trump’s remarks represented his clearest private endorsement yet of the vice president, although advisers cautioned that the president often keeps his options open and has not made any final decision.

Asked about the report by reporters at the White House on Thursday, Trump quickly dismissed it.

“No, no!” Trump responded when asked whether he had told donors they should support Vance’s eventual presidential campaign.

Trump added that while he thinks highly of his vice president, any discussion about endorsing a 2028 candidate is premature because his administration remains focused on governing rather than politics.

“It’s way too early,” Trump said, emphasizing that he is concentrating on his current agenda rather than the next presidential election.

Speculation over Trump’s preferred successor has intensified in recent months, with both Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio frequently mentioned as potential Republican frontrunners. Trump has repeatedly praised both men publicly while declining to name a favorite, fueling ongoing debate within Republican circles over who will ultimately carry the America First banner after his presidency.

The Washington Post report cited unnamed sources who claimed Trump privately told donors, “At the end of the day, we need to elect JD,” suggesting he may be warming to a future endorsement of Vance. However, several advisers quoted in the report cautioned that Trump has a long history of telling different audiences different things and is unlikely to formally endorse anyone years before the next presidential election.

Vance has consistently downplayed talk of a 2028 campaign, saying his immediate focus remains serving as vice president and helping Republicans succeed in the 2026 midterm elections. He has previously indicated that any decision about seeking the presidency would come only after discussions with his family and President Trump.

Trump’s latest comments appear to contradict the report that he privately urged donors to back Vance, leaving open the question of whom he ultimately intends to support when the Republican nomination battle eventually begins. For now, the president is publicly maintaining that any conversation about 2028 is premature.

{Matzav.com}

A new analysis claims President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda would cost the average American taxpayer roughly $2,358 over the course of his second term, while the Trump administration argues the true financial burden comes from illegal immigration—not from removing those in the country unlawfully.

The estimate comes from a calculator released by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute (EPI), highlighted by Axios. According to the organization, the federal government is expected to spend approximately $268.9 billion on deportation efforts during President Trump’s second term, with funding coming through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, congressional appropriations, and other federal sources.

EPI contends that the same funds could instead be used to expand programs such as Medicaid, food assistance, or public housing.

“I don’t think people realize how much money is being spent on these mass deportations,” Gordon Lafer, an EPI research associate, told Axios. He said the money would be better spent on domestic programs.

The Department of Homeland Security rejected the report’s conclusions, arguing that it overlooks the substantial costs already imposed on taxpayers by illegal immigration and defending the administration’s enforcement policies.

A DHS spokesperson told Axios that the administration’s voluntary self-deportation initiative actually reduces government spending by providing illegal aliens with a free flight and a $2,600 payment if they choose to leave the country on their own.

According to DHS, the self-deportation program costs roughly $5,100 per participant, which the department says is more than $13,000 cheaper than carrying out a traditional deportation.

The department continues urging illegal aliens to use the CBP Home app to arrange their voluntary departure.

EPI’s calculator also projects that taxpayers in wealthier areas would bear a larger share of deportation costs because they contribute more in federal taxes. Under the group’s estimates, residents of Washington, D.C., would pay nearly $3,930 per taxpayer, while Connecticut residents would pay about $3,395. In West Virginia, the estimated cost would be approximately $1,297 per taxpayer.

The report adds another chapter to the ongoing debate over the economic consequences of President Trump’s immigration policies.

CNBC reported that the immigration advocacy organization America’s Voice recently labeled the administration’s deportation campaign an “ICE Tax,” arguing that it contributes to higher food prices, housing costs, and healthcare expenses in industries that depend heavily on immigrant labor.

The White House disputed that argument as well. Spokeswoman Lauren Bis told CNBC that the nation’s affordability problems began under President Joe Biden after “millions of illegals” entered the country, increasing pressure on housing, insurance, schools, and healthcare systems.

She said President Trump’s immigration policies are designed to reduce costs by prioritizing American citizens and restoring strong border enforcement.

Mass deportations have become one of the defining goals of President Trump’s second-term agenda, with the administration aiming to remove 1 million illegal aliens each year. Supporters argue the policy will strengthen border security, protect American jobs, and reduce long-term taxpayer costs, while opponents continue to question both its economic impact and its overall price tag.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump said Thursday that he would be open to the Justice Department pursuing criminal contempt charges against Dr. Anthony Fauci following a Senate committee’s vote to hold the former health official in contempt of Congress. Trump argued that Fauci’s conduct was more serious than that of two of his former advisers who were prosecuted and jailed for contempt during the Biden administration.

Speaking to reporters on Aug. 6, Trump was asked whether the Justice Department should prosecute Fauci. In response, he pointed to the cases of Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, both of whom were charged with contempt of Congress after refusing to comply with subpoenas issued by the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. Both were convicted and served four-month prison sentences.

“Merrick Garland prosecuted two very decent people and sent them to jail,” Trump said, referring to President Joe Biden’s attorney general.

“So when you see that happen, you sort of say, maybe he should,” Trump said of Fauci. “What he did was far more serious than a lot of crimes, frankly, but they prosecuted two people when nothing like that has ever taken place before.”

Earlier Thursday, the Republican-controlled Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted 8-7 along party lines to hold Fauci in contempt of Congress after he repeatedly declined to answer questions during last week’s hearing.

Fauci, who has faced continued scrutiny over his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination throughout the hearing. Committee Chairman Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) argued that Fauci’s reliance on the Fifth Amendment was invalid because President Joe Biden had already granted him a sweeping preemptive pardon.

Rather than forwarding the contempt resolution to the full Senate, as has traditionally been done in past contempt cases, Paul announced that he intends to personally deliver the committee’s criminal referral directly to the Justice Department.

Biden’s pardon, issued during his final full day in office, granted Fauci immunity from potential federal crimes committed between 2014 and 2025. Paul has maintained that because Fauci no longer faced federal criminal exposure for that period, he was required to answer the committee’s questions.

Fauci’s supporters have countered that testimony given in 2026 could still have exposed him to potential perjury allegations arising after the period covered by the pardon. They also note that Biden’s pardon offers no protection against possible state or local criminal charges.

David Schertler, one of Fauci’s attorneys, sharply criticized the committee’s action.

“It is a crude political stunt intended to punish Dr. Fauci for exercising his constitutional rights.”

“It is shameful and wrong that Senator Paul is abusing his power by trying to weaponize the Justice Department against an honorable public servant,” Schertler said.

During Trump’s second term, the Justice Department has brought criminal cases against several high-profile figures viewed as political adversaries of the administration, including former FBI Director James Comey, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Republicans have long accused Fauci of misleading the public and Congress regarding the origins of COVID-19 and other aspects of the federal pandemic response. Fauci served as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases during both the Trump and Biden administrations and played a leading role in shaping the federal government’s response to the pandemic.

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, objected to Paul’s decision to bypass the full Senate before referring the matter to the Justice Department. Peters argued that longstanding Senate practice requires the entire chamber—not an individual committee chairman—to authorize such a referral.

Paul rejected that argument, telling reporters that the committee has the authority to act independently because the referral falls “outside the ordinary bill making process.”

“I’ve made the decision that I don’t want to waste time over waiting a month and a half,” Paul told reporters.

Eric Trump says the aircraft expected to be displayed at the future Trump Presidential Library in Miami is a retired Air Force One—not the Boeing 747-8 donated by Qatar to President Donald Trump—marking a departure from the President’s earlier public comments.

In a text message to NBC News, Eric Trump said that displaying the Qatari-gifted aircraft in Miami “is not the plan at the moment for Miami.”

His remarks appear to differ from President Trump’s previous statements indicating that the Boeing 747-8 would become part of the presidential library after he leaves office.

Speaking with the Palm Beach Post last month, Eric Trump discussed plans for the library complex, saying, “Obviously, they’re retiring two Air Force ones now, the 2900 and the 29100z. The 2900 will be at the base of that building.”

He added, “There’s tremendous history between everything [my father] did first term and now second term, and all the state visits.”

Eric Trump also revealed that the presidential library is being designed with a large aircraft exhibit in mind. “I’m sure wings will have to come off in order to just sneak it in there, but we’ll make it happen, that’ll be fun.”

He pointed to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library’s display of a retired Boeing 707 as the inspiration for showcasing a presidential aircraft at the Trump library.

A White House official told The Hill on Thursday that no final determination has been made regarding which plane will ultimately be featured at the future library.

President Trump previously said that the Boeing 747-8, valued at approximately $400 million and donated by Qatar, would be transferred “directly to the library after I leave office,” with the Trump Presidential Library Foundation assuming ownership of the aircraft in 2029.

The proposed transfer has generated widespread debate since it was first announced.

Ethics experts and lawmakers from both political parties have questioned whether accepting such an expensive gift from a foreign government could create the appearance of improper foreign influence and potentially raise constitutional issues under the Foreign Emoluments Clause.

Others have expressed concern about whether the aircraft could be upgraded to satisfy the stringent communications, security, and defensive standards required of Air Force One.

The Trump administration has maintained that the arrangement complies with all applicable legal requirements and has emphasized that the aircraft would undergo extensive modifications before being used for presidential travel.

{Matzav.com}

An 18-month-old girl tragically lost her life on Thursday after drowning in the swimming pool of a private home in Ashkelon. Despite prolonged resuscitation efforts by emergency responders and hospital staff, doctors were unable to save her.

Emergency teams from Magen David Adom rushed to the scene and immediately began providing advanced medical treatment. The toddler was transported to Barzilai Medical Center while lifesaving measures continued, but physicians were ultimately forced to pronounce her dead.

According to MDA, the young girl was unconscious and showed no signs of life when paramedics arrived. She had no pulse and was not breathing. She was evacuated in critical condition as crews continued CPR en route to the hospital.

EMTs Roi Lasri and Gavriel Kucherenko described the emergency response: “When we arrived at the private home, an approximately one-and-a-half-year-old girl was brought to us unconscious, with no pulse and not breathing.”

They added, “We immediately began advanced resuscitation efforts, including chest compressions, assisted ventilation, and the administration of medication. While continuing CPR, we evacuated her to the hospital in critical condition as we fought to save her life.”

{Matzav.com}