Feed aggregator

Tucker Carlson has ignited a fierce controversy after questioning why Britain fought Nazi Germany in World War II, arguing that London had no reason to enter the conflict over Poland and repeating elements of Adolf Hitler’s justification for the 1939 invasion — remarks that prompted former British cabinet minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg to tell Carlson that he was “verging on defending Hitler.”

The extraordinary exchange came during a lengthy interview between Carlson and Rees-Mogg that was initially centered on Britain’s military preparedness, Russia and the war in Ukraine. Their discussion eventually turned to civilian casualties in wartime and then to the Second World War itself.

“I think it’s very difficult to have fought the Second World War without innocent people being killed,” Rees-Mogg said.

Carlson responded by questioning the premise of Britain’s involvement altogether.

“I’ve never understood why fight the Second World War in the first place?” Carlson said.

Rees-Mogg appeared taken aback.

“Well,” he replied, “that’s a very fundamental question.”

Carlson then turned to Hitler’s invasion of Poland, which began on September 1, 1939 and led Britain and France to declare war on Germany two days later. Britain had given Poland a security guarantee earlier that year as Hitler’s expansion across Europe accelerated.

Rees-Mogg argued that Hitler had already demonstrated an appetite for continued territorial expansion, telling Carlson, “Hitler would’ve taken as much as he could’ve done, as he was showing.”

Carlson pushed back by invoking Germany’s territorial losses after World War I.

“Well, Hitler said that 15% was once Germany and it was given to Poland at the Treaty of Versailles. That was German territory with Germans in it. That was his case. And by the way, that was true.”

Carlson insisted that he was not defending Hitler, but said the Nazi invasion should not be portrayed as an inexplicable act of aggression divorced from Germany’s territorial grievances after World War I.

“I’m certainly not here defending Hitler. I’m just saying the idea that Hitler just randomly rolled into Poland is a lie and everyone believes it because they know nothing about the actual facts. But the truth is, Germany had big pieces of it carved off, including part of Prussia and it was given to this other country. It infuriated the Germans. Maybe it shouldn’t have, but it did. And that was the justification for it.”

He then argued that none of those disputes justified Britain entering the war.

“The U.K. had nothing to do with it at all,” Carlson said.

Rees-Mogg countered that Britain had commitments to its allies, but Carlson maintained that entering the war had ultimately devastated Britain.

“They destroyed their empire and their country fighting this war that they still pretend was a good idea, but it wasn’t,” Carlson said.

Rees-Mogg strongly rejected that assessment.

“It was fundamental. It was the classic good-versus-evil,” he said.

Carlson asked whether Britain had actually benefited from defeating Nazi Germany.

“Has the U.K. benefitted from it?” he asked.

“We did the right thing,” Rees-Mogg replied.

“Is it a better country than it was?” Carlson asked.

“To have defeated Hitler? Yes,” Rees-Mogg answered.

Carlson pressed him again: “So, the U.K. is a better country now? It’s a healthier country now?”

Rees-Mogg responded with a familiar argument about what Nazi victory might have meant for Britain.

“Otherwise, we’d all be speaking German.”

“Who cares?” Carlson shot back.

“I do,” Rees-Mogg replied.

Carlson continued, “There are a lot of people in Britain who can’t speak English. So, it would be nice to have like, at least a European language spoken in your country.”

“No, I see no advantage speaking German over any other language. We want to speak English, thank you so much,” Rees-Mogg responded.

The debate later became even sharper when Carlson argued that Hitler had repeatedly indicated that he did not want a war with Britain. Rees-Mogg cautioned Carlson against taking Hitler’s declarations at face value, noting the Nazi dictator’s record of making assurances and then violating them.

“You seem to be putting more trust in Hitler than I would,” Rees-Mogg told him. “He said all sorts of things.”

Rees-Mogg then directly confronted Carlson over the direction of his argument.

“I’m very surprised you’re verging on defending Hitler. I think this is not really what you want to be doing,” he said.

Carlson answered sarcastically before explicitly rejecting the accusation.

“Yeah, I guess I’m just a secret Nazi,” he said. “I’m actually not a secret Nazi. And hardly a public Nazi. I’m just someone who tries to think clearly about cause and effect.”

“I’m reassured,” Rees-Mogg replied.

Rees-Mogg maintained that Nazi Germany eventually would have turned against Britain regardless of whether London initially stayed out of the conflict.

“Germany would have invaded us,” he said.

Historically, Carlson’s argument touches on genuine German resentment over the territorial settlement imposed after World War I, but Hitler’s attack on Poland went far beyond an effort to recover German-populated territory. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had secretly agreed in August 1939 to divide spheres of influence in Eastern Europe, and after Germany invaded Poland from the west on September 1, Soviet forces invaded from the east on September 17.

Nazi rule in occupied Poland subsequently involved mass executions, deportations and persecution, culminating in the systematic murder of Polish Jewry and millions of other victims.

Britain’s decision to declare war also followed years of German expansion. Hitler had remilitarized the Rhineland, annexed Austria in 1938 and, after the Munich Agreement transferred the Sudetenland to Germany, occupied the remaining Czech lands in March 1939. Britain subsequently guaranteed Poland against German aggression.

The Carlson-Rees-Mogg clash therefore centered on a broader historical question: whether Britain could or should have remained outside the European conflict as Nazi Germany continued expanding across the continent.

Carlson repeatedly framed the issue through what the war ultimately cost Britain, arguing that victory over Germany came alongside the collapse of the British Empire, enormous loss of life, economic devastation and a diminished international position. Rees-Mogg countered that those costs did not make the decision to resist Hitler wrong.

The remarks quickly generated criticism from prominent conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic. Among the sharpest responses came from U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee.

“When it seemed impossible for Toxic Tucker to descend deeper into the sewer here he goes opining that UK should have let Nazis take over. Forget that Hitler murdered 11 million people? I thought Tucker was against killing? He needs help. Serious help.”

Sen. Ted Cruz also rejected Carlson’s argument.

“Yes, Tucker, the UK is better off for winning WWII. America is better off for winning WWII. And the world would be much worse off if the Nazis had won WWII. This is not complicated.”

The controversy is not Carlson’s first involving revisionist arguments about World War II. In 2024, he hosted Darryl Cooper for an interview in which Cooper described Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II, triggering widespread criticism from historians and political figures. Carlson defended the decision to host Cooper as part of a willingness to challenge accepted historical narratives.

The latest discussion arose as Carlson challenged Rees-Mogg’s support for Britain maintaining a strong defense posture and continuing to support Ukraine against Russia. Carlson repeatedly questioned whether Britain was risking another catastrophic conflict by confronting Moscow, while Rees-Mogg argued that military preparedness and Western support for Ukraine are intended to deter aggression rather than provoke a war.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu has delivered a blistering assessment of Britain’s deteriorating relationship with Israel, saying he still considers the United Kingdom an ally but accusing its government of “appeasing” Islamist forces, attacking the country that is helping protect Britain from terrorism and risking turning itself into a “rogue state.”

In an extensive interview with the Daily Mail, Netanyahu drew a sharp distinction between Britain itself and the policies of its current government, arguing that the longstanding alliance between the two countries remains important even as relations between Yerushalayim and London have deteriorated dramatically.

“It’s not very good, is it? I mean, when they appease our common enemies and attack us, it doesn’t say much,” Netanyahu said when asked about the state of the relationship.

Netanyahu argued that domestic political pressures inside Britain are increasingly influencing the government’s approach toward Israel and Islamist movements.

“There is a pressure from inside Britain to appease these various Islamist forces in Britain,” Netanyahu said. “And once you start appeasing, you don’t stop. That’s what we learn. Churchill called it the slumber of democracies. And by that, he meant the democracy sort of slumbers while their enemies begin to attack them… until they hear the jarring gong of danger.”

His comments came amid one of the most strained periods in Israeli-British relations in years. Britain has moved sharply against Israeli policies in recent months, including banning trade in goods from Israeli communities in Yehuda and Shomron and imposing additional sanctions connected to Israeli activity there.

Netanyahu portrayed the dispute as part of a much larger ideological struggle, saying Israel’s wars against Hamas, Iran and other Islamist forces are being fought on behalf of the broader West as well.

He described the conflict as one of “Western civilization against these barbarians. And there’s so much deception. There’s so much propaganda. I mean, trying to glorify Hamas, trying to glorify the Islamists that have killed Britons. It killed Americans; it killed Israelis. It killed nationals of dozens and dozens of countries.”

Netanyahu rejected what he described as the demonization of Israel in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, arguing that Israel is simultaneously defending itself and helping protect other countries in the region from Iran and its proxies.

“And Israel is painted as this great devil. We’re not the devil. We’re a tiny country fighting here in the heart of the Middle East, not only to protect ourselves but also to protect the modern Arab states against the Iranian domination and these murderous proxies.”

The prime minister then pointed to intelligence cooperation between Israel and Britain, claiming Israeli intelligence has repeatedly supplied information that helped British authorities prevent terrorist attacks.

That issue has become particularly prominent following the recently uncovered suspected plot targeting RAF Fairford, the British air base that has hosted American bombers involved in operations against Iran. British authorities have said there are strong indications of Iranian involvement in the suspected plot.

Netanyahu has asserted that Israeli intelligence warned Britain about the threat before British authorities moved against the suspects.

“It was stopped. It was prevented,” Netanyahu said. Without Israel’s intelligence assistance, he added, “it would probably have gone through, and we don’t know how many British lives would have been lost.”

Netanyahu had made the same allegation days earlier during an interview with Fox News, saying that Israel had provided Britain with information about the suspected Iranian-backed operation shortly before London took additional punitive measures against Israel.

“We gave the Brits the intel that there was going to be an attack and that it’s an Iranian-sponsored attack, and pretty much the next day they slapped sanctions on us. It’s wild.”

The RAF Fairford case has taken on added significance after British police arrested several suspects in connection with the alleged plot. The U.S. Air Force subsequently withdrew its bombers stationed at the base, returning B-1 and B-52 aircraft to bases in the United States.

The suspected Iranian connection has sharpened Netanyahu’s criticism of London. He argued that Britain is benefiting from Israeli intelligence while simultaneously adopting policies hostile to Israel, even as Israel fights the same forces threatening British security.

“It’s mind-blowing hypocrisy; I don’t know how many lives we have saved by giving Britain information about impending attacks,” Netanyahu said, adding that British authorities are “appeasing; they’re attacking Israel, [the country] that is fighting the terrorists in the terrorist regime that is attacking them. They appease their enemies, and they attack their protectors.”

Asked whether Israel would continue providing Britain with intelligence despite the worsening political relationship, Netanyahu declined to commit publicly to what future cooperation would look like.

He said he “wouldn’t get into that,” while emphasizing that until now, “Israeli intelligence has repeatedly helped protect Britain from attacks.”

Netanyahu went further in his criticism of the British government, accusing it of allowing electoral considerations and pressure from anti-Israel and Islamist constituencies to shape foreign policy.

“In order to ingratiate itself with its political base, [the British government] has gone rogue. Like a rogue state,” Netanyahu said, arguing that Britain’s political establishment should recognize the “Islamist Leftist alliance as natural adversaries.”

Netanyahu argued that there is a fundamental contradiction between the values professed by Britain’s political left and those of the Islamist movements with which he says elements of the left have aligned themselves.

“What do these people do? ….they deprive women of any rights. They murder their own people in Gaza, or Lebanon, or Iran. Executing all their enemies. They are the opposite of democracies,” he said.

“And what does the government in Britain do? It turns on the one democracy that is fighting these monstrous regimes in this terrible state, the worst terrorist state on the planet. That’s what Britain is doing,” Netanyahu claimed.

The criticism follows another diplomatic clash between Netanyahu and London this summer, when the Israeli prime minister referred to the country as the “Islamic Republic of Britain.” The British government called that characterization “completely unacceptable” and raised the matter directly with Israeli officials.

Netanyahu has framed Britain’s changing politics as part of a broader challenge facing Western Europe, arguing that governments unwilling to confront radical Islam and uncontrolled migration could eventually find their national character fundamentally altered.

In his latest interview, he warned that Britain risks reaching precisely that point if it does not regain control of its borders.

Netanyahu said that if “the British didn’t regain control of its borders, then they would lose Britain.”

Despite the extraordinary severity of his criticism, Netanyahu stopped short of declaring the historic relationship between the two countries broken. He said he continues to regard Britain as an Israeli ally and expressed hope that the current trajectory can still be reversed.

“There’s still time for Britain to recover, to regain its senses. I hope that it does, because we’ve had an extraordinary relationship with Britain over the decades, and I’m the first one to regret that it’s… that it’s gone where it’s going,” Netanyahu concluded.

{Matzav.com}

A bitter dispute over responsibility for screening foreign airline crews has erupted in Israel following the attempted Flydubai attack, with the Israeli Transportation Ministry insisting that it does not conduct intelligence background checks on foreign pilots even as government documents reportedly show that the ministry was assigned responsibility for overseeing the security of foreign flights — and had been warned for years that the system was dangerously inadequate.

The questions have become especially urgent after it emerged that the United Arab Emirates transmitted information about the passengers and crew of Flydubai Flight FZ1073 to Israel before the aircraft departed Dubai. The list included the name and nationality of co-pilot Hamam al-Hammami, the 29-year-old Omani accused of attacking Captain Smit Machchhar and attempting to seize control of the Tel Aviv-bound aircraft.

The Israel Tax Authority, which operates the National Center for Passenger Assessment, has confirmed that the passenger and crew information was received from Flydubai. However, the Transportation Ministry says that its own Security Division never received the crew list and does not have access to such lists.

That has left Israeli authorities confronting the central question of how al-Hammami — an Omani national who reportedly had already been flagged over extremist activity during his earlier aviation career — was permitted to repeatedly fly into Israel without being stopped.

The Transportation Ministry has strongly rejected claims that it was supposed to independently investigate the intelligence background of every foreign pilot entering Israeli airspace.

“We are not an intelligence body that checks the intelligence background of foreigners,” a representative of the ministry’s Security Division said. “We have no forces abroad. We have no staff that checks every person there.”

Transportation Minister Miri Regev has similarly argued that intelligence assessments regarding threats are the responsibility of Israel’s security agencies.

“Those who are supposed to say what the threat level is, and whether you can travel to a given destination, are security officials,” Regev said.

The ministry says its system instead requires foreign airlines to screen their own personnel and comply with Israeli restrictions governing who may serve aboard flights entering the country. Flydubai, according to the ministry, had explicitly committed to carrying out the necessary background checks on its crews.

“Flydubai received explicit instructions, committed to carrying out the required background checks on its crews and announced in writing that it had implemented the national restrictions on flights to Israel in the crew assignment system,” the ministry said.

“The list of crew members for flight FZ1073 was not received by the Transportation Ministry, and the Security Division does not have access to the flight lists,” it added.

The ministry said the incident remains under investigation and that any violation of the security requirements will be addressed.

“The incident is under investigation by security officials,” the ministry said. “To the extent that a deviation from the instructions is found, it will be handled accordingly.”

The explanation, however, has intensified rather than quieted the controversy because internal government documents reportedly show that senior Israeli officials had spent years debating precisely this problem: who was responsible for ensuring that foreign airlines and their personnel did not pose a security threat to Israel.

A 2021 cabinet decision shifted responsibilities away from the Shin Bet and placed responsibility for overseeing certain aspects of foreign-flight security with the Transportation Ministry and the Civil Aviation Authority. The Civil Aviation Authority was tasked with ensuring that security arrangements in foreign countries not classified at the highest risk level complied with international requirements.

By 2023, concerns were already being raised about the ability of the existing system to identify dangerous foreign crew members. A meeting involving the National Security Council, Shin Bet and Mossad reportedly examined the vulnerabilities associated with foreign airline personnel flying into Israel.

The problem was not theoretical. Pilots and crew members holding citizenship from countries without diplomatic relations with Israel — including Iran, Lebanon and Pakistan — had reportedly reached Ben Gurion Airport on foreign carriers in previous years. Omani nationals also entered Israel as airline crew members on numerous occasions.

A confidential State Comptroller report in 2024 reportedly found deficiencies in the government’s handling of foreign-flight security. That same year, the cabinet instructed the National Security Council to establish an interagency team involving the Transportation Ministry, Civil Aviation Authority, Shin Bet, Mossad and Finance Ministry to examine the security structure governing international commercial flights into Israel.

Those discussions exposed a fundamental problem: the Transportation Ministry was being asked to assume responsibility for an area requiring intelligence capabilities that ministry officials said they did not possess.

The Shin Bet reportedly maintained that it lacked the personnel and budget necessary to resume responsibility for screening foreign flights. The National Security Council, meanwhile, concluded that the Transportation Ministry should fulfill its responsibility but acknowledged that the Civil Aviation Authority would require additional manpower and funding to do so effectively.

Inside the Transportation Ministry itself, there was significant opposition. Security officials reportedly warned that the ministry simply lacked the tools necessary to determine whether a seemingly ordinary foreign crew member had a dangerous background in another country.

According to one official familiar with the discussions, “The entire professional team at the Transportation Ministry strongly opposed the transfer of authorities, except for the head of the Civil Aviation Authority, Shmuel Zakai.”

“They all stood up and told Minister Miri Regev that it would be a grave mistake to take on such a huge responsibility.”

Despite those objections, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ultimately determined in 2025 that responsibility for the security framework surrounding foreign flights would remain with the Transportation Ministry.

Even before that final decision, the National Security Council reportedly issued a written warning in March 2025 stating that the Transportation Ministry was not adequately carrying out its role in overseeing the security arrangements for foreign flights.

Particularly troubling is the claim that despite acknowledging that it lacked the intelligence capabilities necessary to independently vet foreigners, the Transportation Ministry did not request assistance from the Shin Bet or Mossad to investigate individual passengers or crew members.

Critics say the intelligence agencies themselves were aware of the gap but did not step in to fill it.

“The Shin Bet and Mossad knew full well that the Transportation Ministry was in pieces, that it had no people, no positions, and no capabilities,” one source familiar with the process said. “How did they just shrug off responsibility like that and dump everything on the Transportation Ministry? The responsibility lies with the Transportation Ministry — but the Shin Bet and Mossad also enabled this failure, and the writing was on the wall.”

The Transportation Ministry has rejected that account as “completely false,” arguing that responsibility for aspects of foreign-flight security has existed within the ministry for decades and was not suddenly transferred to it in recent years.

The ministry has also pointed to two previous committees headed by the National Security Council that recommended establishing a dedicated national aviation-security authority responsible for all flights. The Transportation Ministry says it supported that proposal, but the recommendations were never implemented.

The immediate security question is complicated further by what Israel apparently knew before Flight FZ1073 departed. UAE authorities provided Israel with the flight’s passenger and crew information, but no Israeli authority raised a warning that prevented al-Hammami from taking his seat in the cockpit.

The ministry maintains that it did not receive that information directly. It also says Flydubai itself had assured Israeli authorities that its system incorporated Israel’s nationality restrictions for flight crews.

Those restrictions have become central to the investigation because al-Hammami is reported to be an Omani citizen. Oman does not maintain diplomatic relations with Israel, and his presence aboard repeated flights to Tel Aviv has raised questions about whether existing nationality restrictions were enforced at all.

The case becomes still more serious in light of reports about al-Hammami’s history. He reportedly trained with Oman Air before concerns arose over extremist material and his ideological views. He was removed from flying duties and reassigned to an administrative position before eventually leaving the airline and later joining Flydubai.

Investigators are now examining whether Flydubai adequately checked his previous employment and whether information held in Oman about his alleged radicalization was ever communicated to the airline or to Israeli authorities.

Al-Hammami reportedly flew to Israel numerous times during his months with Flydubai, meaning the September 30 flight was not his first entry into Israeli airspace. Investigators are also examining allegations that he deliberately sought employment with an airline serving Tel Aviv because he had already conceived a terrorist attack against Israel.

The Transportation Ministry acknowledged another uncomfortable reality during a briefing following the attack: it cannot guarantee that the current system will prevent a similar case from occurring again.

“Nothing is 100% when it comes to security,” a ministry representative said.

Ministry officials reportedly argued that the only way to guarantee that no dangerous foreign pilot ever flies into Israel would be to prevent foreign airlines from serving the country altogether — something that would effectively leave international service largely dependent on Israeli carriers.

The ministry’s Security Division has also been operating with limited staffing. Reports indicate that a relatively small number of permanent government employees oversee a broad range of aviation-security responsibilities, with much of the work performed by contractors. Officials have argued that the division was never equipped to function as an intelligence-screening agency for thousands of foreign aviation personnel.

The Shin Bet had itself previously identified vulnerabilities in the arrangement and reportedly recommended transferring broader oversight to a dedicated aviation-security framework. Yet years of committees, cabinet discussions, warnings and disagreements failed to produce such a body before the Flydubai incident.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has now ordered National Security Council Director Shmuel Ben Ezra to appoint an inspector to conduct a comprehensive review of the security arrangements governing foreign civilian flights to Israel. The inquiry is expected to examine the division of responsibility between the Transportation Ministry, Civil Aviation Authority, Shin Bet, Mossad and other agencies, as well as the flow of passenger and crew information before foreign aircraft depart for Israel.

The government has also tightened rules governing foreign crews following the attack, including restrictions intended to prevent citizens or dual citizens of countries without diplomatic relations with Israel from serving aboard Israel-bound flights.

The investigation is therefore no longer focused solely on how one allegedly radicalized pilot reached the cockpit of a Flydubai aircraft. It is examining a security structure in which an airline says it performed the required checks, the Transportation Ministry says it is not an intelligence agency, the intelligence services had previously identified vulnerabilities, government bodies debated responsibility for years, and Israel nevertheless received information about the flight before takeoff without al-Hammami being stopped.

For Israeli investigators, the question is now not simply how al-Hammami slipped through. It is which agency was supposed to make sure that he could not.

{Matzav.com}

Israel’s Supreme Court has overturned the Central Elections Committee’s decision to bar the country’s two major Arab electoral lists and MK Ofer Cassif from participating in the October 27 Knesset election, while Balad chairman Sami Abu Shehadeh withdrew from the race after a majority of the justices signaled that they were prepared to uphold his individual disqualification.

Sitting as the High Court of Justice in an expanded nine-member panel, the court unanimously ruled that both Ra’am, led by MK Mansour Abbas, and the Joint List could remain on the ballot. The Joint List brings together Hadash, Ta’al and Balad.

The rulings reversed decisions handed down by the Central Elections Committee on September 23, when the committee voted to exclude Ra’am and the Joint List and separately disqualified Cassif and Abu Shehadeh. The various petitions against the parties and candidates alleged, among other things, support for armed struggle against Israel or rejection of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

The Supreme Court determined that the evidence against the two electoral lists did not satisfy the exceptionally high legal threshold required under Section 7A of Basic Law: The Knesset. Israeli jurisprudence has generally interpreted the provision narrowly, reserving disqualification for extreme cases supported by substantial evidence.

The court was divided, however, over Cassif, a Jewish lawmaker from Hadash who has repeatedly drawn controversy over statements and actions sharply critical of Israel and the IDF. By a 7-2 vote, the justices declined to approve the Central Elections Committee’s decision to disqualify him, allowing him to run in the upcoming election.

Justices David Mintz and Alex Stein dissented, concluding that Cassif should be barred under Section 7A on the grounds that the evidence demonstrated support for armed struggle against the State of Israel. The seven other justices found that the evidence did not meet the stringent standard necessary to remove a candidate from the ballot.

The outcome was markedly different for Abu Shehadeh, whose candidacy became the most contentious of the four cases. During Thursday’s hearing, Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit indicated that a majority of the nine-member panel was prepared to uphold his disqualification, although the justices were divided over the precise legal conclusion.

The judges gave Abu Shehadeh an opportunity to withdraw his candidacy before a formal ruling was issued. He subsequently announced that he was leaving the race, making a final court determination on his eligibility unnecessary and leading the proceedings concerning him to be dismissed.

The controversy surrounding Abu Shehadeh centered heavily on an Arabic-language article he published on October 8, 2023, one day after the Hamas-led massacre in southern Israel.

In that article, Abu Shehadeh described the October 7 assault as “an important historic event militarily, politically and strategically,” while also writing about what could be learned from Hamas’s success in surprising Israel.

Abu Shehadeh has maintained that the article did not constitute support for the massacre or for terrorism, insisting that he opposes armed struggle and political violence. His attorneys argued that the material presented against him did not reach the legal standard necessary to prevent a candidate from running for the Knesset.

The Supreme Court justices nevertheless reacted harshly to his remarks. During the hearing, Amit indicated that the panel regarded Abu Shehadeh’s statements as “painful, outrageous and repugnant,” even though the justices disagreed over whether the legal requirements for disqualification had ultimately been established.

The original effort to disqualify Abu Shehadeh was advanced by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit party. On September 23, the Central Elections Committee voted to prevent him from running, accepting arguments that his statements demonstrated support for armed struggle against Israel and rejection of the country’s character as a Jewish and democratic state.

Abu Shehadeh and his attorneys rejected those allegations, arguing that the proceedings were politically motivated and aimed at suppressing Arab political representation. His legal team also warned that a formal Supreme Court ruling approving his disqualification could establish a precedent affecting Arab candidates in future elections.

That concern played a role in his decision to withdraw. Rather than allow the court to issue what appeared likely to be the first final Supreme Court ruling removing an Arab political leader from a Knesset race under the existing disqualification law, Abu Shehadeh pulled his name from the ballot.

The Supreme Court’s decisions mean that the Joint List and Ra’am will now compete in the October 27 election, while Cassif will remain a candidate on the Joint List. Abu Shehadeh, despite Balad itself remaining part of the permitted Joint List, will not be on the ballot.

The ruling could also have significant implications for the political arithmetic following the election, particularly if neither the coalition nor the principal opposition parties secure the 61 Knesset seats required for a governing majority.

President Trump’s senior national security officials quietly gathered at Camp David for an hours-long meeting Friday to consider the administration’s next moves against Iran and whether the United States should become more directly involved in the rapidly escalating war against the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen.

The previously undisclosed meeting brought together some of the most powerful figures in the administration as Trump weighs whether diplomacy with Tehran has reached a dead end and whether major U.S. military operations against Iran could soon resume.

Vice President JD Vance chaired the Camp David session, according to three U.S. officials familiar with the discussions. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, War Secretary Pete Hegseth, White House special envoy Steve Witkoff, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine were among those participating.

The meeting lasted several hours and was not announced publicly by the White House.

“Things were decided or at least deeply discussed,” one official said, referring to the deliberations over the worsening Middle East crisis.

The timing was particularly notable. The Camp David gathering was reportedly the first secret meeting of this kind involving Trump’s top national security team since June 2025, shortly before Israel launched its 12-day war against Iran.

This time, the officials met with two interconnected military crises on the table: the future of the U.S. confrontation with Iran and a major Saudi-backed offensive against the Houthis in Yemen.

Trump has been publicly signaling that his patience with Tehran is running out following the failure of the latest diplomatic effort to end the war. U.S.-Iran negotiations have stalled after Trump rejected Tehran’s most recent peace proposal, which included an offer concerning the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran had proposed reopening the strategic waterway in exchange for a package that included sanctions relief, the release of billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets and broader ceasefire arrangements. The Trump administration has insisted that any agreement must also address Iran’s nuclear program and other unresolved issues rather than dealing with the Strait of Hormuz in isolation.

Trump has indicated that a return to large-scale U.S. military action remains very much on the table.

“They’ll either sign a very fair deal, or they won’t exist any longer,” Trump said Thursday while traveling to Oklahoma.

Trump has also said that renewed U.S. bombing of Iran after the November midterm elections is “possible,” while leaving open the possibility that military action could occur sooner.

In another appearance Thursday, Trump said Iran “is ready to fold up” and predicted that the conflict could be brought to an end rapidly.

“I’m ensuring that Iran will be very quickly ended,” Trump said.

The president has argued that months of American and Israeli military action have severely damaged Iran’s military capabilities, including its air defenses, navy and nuclear infrastructure, while economic pressure has further weakened Tehran.

At the same time, Iranian officials have publicly warned that the country is preparing for another major round of fighting if diplomacy fails, raising fears that renewed American strikes could trigger an even broader regional confrontation.

Asked Friday afternoon what he intended to do next regarding Iran, Trump declined to reveal whether a decision had already been made.

“If I told you, you would have a major story,” Trump told reporters.

The second major issue before the officials at Camp David was Yemen, where the conflict has dramatically escalated after the Houthis seized territory giving them control over the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints.

The narrow passage connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and ultimately the Indian Ocean. A substantial share of global maritime trade passes through the route, making control of the strait strategically important to Saudi Arabia, the United States and other nations dependent on Red Sea shipping.

Houthi advances along Yemen’s Red Sea coast have given the Iran-backed group new leverage over international shipping and Saudi oil exports. The Houthis have also stepped up missile and drone attacks against Saudi Arabia, including attacks targeting energy infrastructure.

Saudi Arabia and forces aligned with Yemen’s internationally recognized government have been preparing a large counteroffensive intended to push the Houthis away from the Red Sea coast and regain control of the Bab al-Mandeb area.

Saudi leaders approved plans for the operation after weeks of preparation. The offensive calls for Yemeni government-aligned ground forces to advance under Saudi air cover.

The Saudis have repeatedly asked Washington to join the operation by launching direct American airstrikes against Houthi positions.

The Trump administration has rejected those requests twice in recent weeks, although U.S. officials have stressed that the decision could change if the Saudi-led operation runs into serious trouble.

Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman personally spoke with Hegseth to brief him on the planned campaign and again request U.S. air support.

For now, the United States has stopped short of direct combat in Yemen. American forces have nevertheless been providing substantial intelligence and targeting assistance to the Saudis, with U.S. officials saying Washington supplied information on more than 200 Houthi targets during the past two weeks.

Trump reportedly came close to authorizing strikes against the Houthis following an earlier request from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman but ultimately decided against immediate U.S. military intervention.

American military commanders have also expressed reservations about opening another front. U.S. Central Command officials reportedly view Iran as the military’s primary regional focus and have questioned whether a renewed American air campaign in Yemen could divert resources and attention from that confrontation.

The situation on the ground has now moved rapidly beyond the planning stage. Yemen’s internationally recognized government announced Sunday that it had launched a major military operation against the Houthis, with Saudi support, aimed at retaking territory seized by the Iranian-backed group.

Rashad al-Alimi, chairman of Yemen’s Presidential Leadership Council, said the campaign would seek to reclaim Houthi-held areas and called on the rebels to surrender.

Saudi-backed Yemeni forces are focusing heavily on the strategically critical Red Sea corridor and the territory surrounding Bab al-Mandeb. Fighting has also intensified around Taiz, where recent Houthi advances have threatened government-controlled territory and raised fears that the city could again face siege conditions.

Saudi forces have resumed airstrikes as the fighting intensifies, effectively ending a prolonged period in which the Saudi-Houthi front had been comparatively quiet.

The renewed Yemen war and the unresolved confrontation with Iran are closely linked in Washington’s calculations because Tehran has long armed and supported the Houthis, while the group’s control of strategic waterways gives Iran and its allies additional leverage over international trade and energy supplies.

The Camp David meeting therefore confronted the Trump administration with a broader strategic question: whether to concentrate American military power directly against Iran while allowing Saudi Arabia and its Yemeni allies to handle the Houthi front, or to become more deeply involved in both theaters simultaneously.

Trump has so far resisted the Saudi request for direct American strikes in Yemen, but officials familiar with the deliberations say that option has not been removed from consideration.

Meanwhile, diplomatic contacts with Iran have not completely ended. Tehran has continued signaling through intermediaries that it is prepared to negotiate, while Iranian officials insist that Washington must offer acceptable terms rather than demand what they characterize as surrender.

Trump, however, has made clear that he considers Iran’s latest offer insufficient and has repeatedly warned that the alternative to an agreement will be renewed military pressure.

With the Camp David discussions concluded, the administration has not disclosed what decisions, if any, were reached. But the presence of Vance, Rubio, Hegseth, Witkoff, Ratcliffe and Caine at an unannounced hours-long session underscored the seriousness of the decisions now confronting the White House as fighting expands across the region.

Two Iranian nationals have been charged in Britain with allegedly preparing a terrorist bombing against Manchester’s Jewish community, with prosecutors accusing them of obtaining bomb-making instructions and materials, scouting Jewish sites and communicating with a third person believed to be operating from Iran.

Rahman Salehi, 35, and Salam Ahmadyan, 36, were charged with preparing to commit an act of terrorism or assisting another person in committing an act of terrorism on or before September 20. Both men were arrested by British counterterrorism police last month and are now being held in custody pending further court proceedings.

Prosecutors allege that the men were planning to use a homemade explosive device against Jewish targets in Manchester. The locations allegedly researched included the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue and the Manchester Jewish Museum in nearby Cheetham Hill.

The case has taken on added significance because prosecutors told Westminster Magistrates’ Court that Salehi and Ahmadyan were allegedly communicating with a third individual believed to be an Iranian national operating from inside Iran. That person is accused of directing and coordinating elements of the plot and providing the defendants with instructions for constructing a homemade bomb.

The alleged instructions included a document detailing how to create an explosive device using powdered chlorine and automotive brake fluid. Prosecutors say the suspects also obtained video material explaining how to manufacture or assemble an improvised explosive device.

The men are further accused of acquiring liquids, components and other equipment that could be used to construct the device, as well as using encrypted messaging applications while making preparations for the alleged attack.

British prosecutors say the preparations extended beyond obtaining bomb-making information. Salehi and Ahmadyan allegedly researched possible targets online, obtained photographs, maps and plans of locations under consideration and physically conducted what prosecutors described as hostile reconnaissance in Manchester’s Jewish community.

Among the sites allegedly surveilled was Heaton Park Synagogue, the same shul that was the scene of a deadly terrorist attack on Yom Kippur last year. In that attack, terrorist Jihad al-Shamie rammed a vehicle into the synagogue gates and launched a stabbing attack while wearing what appeared to be a suicide belt. Two members of the congregation, Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, were killed, and three other people were seriously wounded.

The latest alleged plot was uncovered as Manchester’s Jewish community approached the anniversary of that attack, further heightening concern among local Jews already living with increased security around shuls and other Jewish institutions.

Both defendants entered Britain illegally aboard small boats crossing the English Channel, according to information presented in court. Salehi arrived in Britain in 2020 after previously spending approximately five years in Germany, where he had also sought asylum.

Salehi was subsequently granted asylum in Britain in 2023. Ahmadyan arrived by small boat in 2023 and still has an outstanding asylum application.

The details of their immigration histories have fueled a broader debate in Britain over illegal migration and security screening, particularly because the charges allege that two individuals who entered the country illegally later became involved in preparations for a terrorist attack against British Jews.

British Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood addressed that issue while responding to the charges.

“This news will be deeply distressing for our Jewish communities, coming so soon after Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. I know this will be especially true in Manchester, as we mark one year since the terrorist attack at Heaton Park Synagogue.”

Referring to the fact that both suspects entered Britain by small boat, Mahmood said it “is a reminder of the importance of our relentless work to tackle illegal migration into this country. While numbers are down, I know there is more we must do.”

Police carried out searches at addresses in Liverpool and Salford as part of the investigation. Counterterrorism investigators are continuing to examine the defendants’ alleged communications, the materials recovered during the investigation and their suspected relationship with the individual believed to be in Iran.

At their appearance before Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Salehi spoke through a Kurdish interpreter and Ahmadyan through a Farsi interpreter. Neither man entered a plea. District Judge Nina Tempia ordered both held in custody until their next scheduled appearance at the Old Bailey on October 23.

The Crown Prosecution Service emphasized that the charges remain allegations and that the defendants are entitled to a fair trial.

British counterterrorism officials say the alleged plot has been disrupted and that they do not currently believe there is an ongoing danger to the public connected to the case.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Vicki Evans said authorities are treating the allegations with the utmost seriousness and stressed that the Manchester case is separate from the investigation into suspicious activity near RAF Fairford, the British air base used by U.S. bombers.

“While this incident and the investigation into the RAF Fairford incident are not connected in any way, I want to reassure the public that CTP [counter-terrorism police] working with our national security partners, are using the full range of our capabilities to protect the U.K. from any hostile acts,” her statement continued.

The RAF Fairford investigation began after five men were arrested near the installation amid suspicions of another possible attack. The two cases are not believed to be connected, despite both unfolding amid heightened British concern over terrorism and possible hostile activity linked to Iran.

{Matzav.com}

On this Motzoei Yom Tov, as we bid farewell to the beautiful chag that ended tonight (in chutz la’aretz, and the night before that for those in Eretz Hakodesh), we’d like to wish all of our readers ah gutten vinter.

As you take down your sukkahs and resume your regular routine, try to hold on to the warmth and inspiration of the Zeman Simchaseinu and Simchas Torah as you head into the long days of winter. The winter is representative of the lengthy golus in which we find ourselves, and just as we try to hold on to the warmth of summer as we endure the dark days of winter, we likewise try to hold on to the uplifting moments of our lives to help us get through this long and bitter exile.

We pray that all of Klal Yisroel merit only bracha and yeshuos during this season, and may we be zoche to greet Moshiach, bimeheirah beyomeinu, speedily, in our day.

Ah gutten vinter.

{Matzav.com Newscenter}

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has revealed that he seriously considered retiring at the conclusion of the Court’s last term before ultimately deciding to remain on the bench, saying at age 76 he believes he can still make a meaningful contribution to the Supreme Court and the country.

Alito, one of the Court’s most influential conservative justices, said in a rare interview with CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford that retirement is now something he expects to reconsider at the end of every Supreme Court term.

His comments address months of speculation over whether he might step aside while President Trump is in the White House and Republicans control the Senate, giving Trump an opportunity to nominate a substantially younger conservative to Alito’s seat.

“I thought about it,” Alito told Crawford when asked whether he had considered retiring.

“Well, it’s something I think that somebody at my age has to think about every term,” he explained. “But I thought that I could still make a valuable contribution, which is why I became a justice and a judge in the first place. So that was basically it.”

Asked whether that means he intends to reconsider retirement each year, Alito answered, “Yeah, I think I have to.”

Alito’s decision means that, at least for the new Supreme Court term, the nine-member Court will retain its current composition and its 6-3 conservative majority.

The retirement question carries enormous political consequences because Supreme Court justices serve lifetime appointments. If Alito were to retire while Trump remains president and Republicans retain sufficient control of the Senate to confirm a nominee, Trump would have an opportunity to select Alito’s successor.

Trump has already appointed three members of the current Court — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. An Alito vacancy would therefore give him an opportunity to appoint a fourth justice.

Trump said earlier this year that he was prepared for the possibility of Supreme Court vacancies and specifically praised Alito as “one of the greatest of all time,” while expressing interest in finding a younger jurist with a similar judicial philosophy.

Alito, however, said the political identity of a possible successor was not what ultimately governed his decision to remain.

“I think it’s too hard to predict,” he said. “It’s too hard to predict how for anybody, and particularly when you reach a certain age, what your situation will be a year from now, two years from now and so forth.”

“And it’s too hard to predict what the political situation will be and what any president might do with respect to a replacement,” he added.

The issue has drawn comparisons to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who resisted calls from some liberals to retire while President Barack Obama was in office. Ginsburg remained on the Court until her death in September 2020 at age 87, allowing Trump to nominate Barrett to replace her shortly before that year’s presidential election.

Asked whether remaining on the bench could create a similar risk from the perspective of those who want Alito’s judicial philosophy preserved on the Court, Alito rejected the idea that anyone could reliably plan years ahead for the political and personal circumstances surrounding a future vacancy.

Alito said his primary consideration was instead whether he still had something worthwhile to contribute to the institution he joined two decades ago.

“I think I can still make a contribution,” he said. “And it’s hard to give up the opportunity to do something that I think will be good for the Constitution and good for the country as long as I’m able to do it.”

Alito was nominated to the Supreme Court by President George W. Bush in 2005 and confirmed by the Senate in January 2006, succeeding Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Before joining the nation’s highest court, he served for approximately 15 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Now 76, Alito is the Court’s second-oldest justice. Justice Clarence Thomas, 78, is the oldest and longest-serving current member of the Court, having joined it in 1991.

Together, Thomas and Alito have become central figures in the Court’s conservative majority, though their approaches and areas of emphasis sometimes differ. Alito has been particularly influential in cases involving religious liberty, abortion, voting law and constitutional interpretation.

His most consequential majority opinion came in 2022 in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the recognition of a federal constitutional right to abortion, returning authority over abortion law primarily to elected lawmakers at the state and federal levels.

In his new CBS interview, Alito also reflected more broadly on what he believes the Court has accomplished during his tenure.

“We have stood up for freedom of speech, which is endangered. We have done a lot to protect religious liberty,” Alito said.

“We have vindicated the principle that the laws should be applied equally to everybody, regardless of race or ethnic background,” he continued. “We have tried to restore the original structure of the government as it was set out in the Constitution — but that’s an ongoing project.”

Alito’s description reflects his own view of the Court’s work. Critics of the conservative majority strongly dispute that assessment and argue that a series of its decisions have weakened protections involving abortion, voting rights and other areas. Alito has consistently defended his approach as an effort to apply the Constitution according to its original meaning rather than reach preferred political outcomes.

“I have a theory about how the Constitution should be interpreted. I believe it has a fixed meaning. And it still means today what it was understood to mean when it was adopted. And I will not depart from that,” Alito said. “But it is not necessary in every case to go as far as one might want to go if you were just writing the opinion for yourself.”

Alito’s retirement deliberations come four years after Justice Stephen Breyer became the most recent member of the Supreme Court to leave the bench. Breyer retired on June 30, 2022, after nearly 28 years as a justice.

Breyer had faced sustained calls from liberal activists and Democratic lawmakers to retire while President Joe Biden was in office and Democrats controlled the Senate, allowing them to ensure that his seat would be filled by a liberal successor.

Biden nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson, who had previously clerked for Breyer, to fill the vacancy. The Senate confirmed her, and Breyer himself administered her judicial oath on the day his retirement took effect.

Despite sitting on opposite sides of many of the Court’s most significant cases, Alito revealed in the CBS interview that he and Breyer developed a close friendship during their years together on the bench.

“He is a brilliant man and very erudite. But he wears his erudition lightly, and doesn’t take himself too seriously. I do miss him. He lit up lunch time, every time we had lunch,” Alito said. “And he would pop in here to talk about all kinds of things. He would pop in here to talk about cases. But he would also come in to talk about whatever he happened to be interested in at the time, literature or music or things that were going on in the world. And it was delightful.”

Breyer, in turn, described Alito as “a good friend” and said that despite their frequent disagreements over cases, he was “always interested in what he thinks.”

“Our relationship is a good example of a simple fact that I have noticed here at the Court over the years,” Breyer said. “We can be personal friends without always agreeing about legal results.”

Alito said Breyer’s willingness to maintain those relationships across ideological lines provided an example that other justices could follow.

“Steve reached out to everybody. He was very outgoing and charming and gregarious,” Alito said. “His personality is a lot different from mine. But I should probably do more along the lines of what he did. And probably we all can take more of a lesson from him.”

The latest retirement discussion follows an unusual episode at the end of the Court’s previous term, when NPR mistakenly reported on June 30 that Alito had announced his retirement.

The report briefly appeared publicly before NPR withdrew it and acknowledged that no such announcement had been made. Veteran NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg subsequently called the erroneous report “the worst professional mistake of my more than 50 years in journalism” and sent Alito a personal apology.

Alito then addressed the continuing speculation more directly in an August interview with The Wall Street Journal.

“Obviously I’m here for another term,” he said at the time.

The new CBS interview provides the fuller explanation: Alito had, in fact, considered leaving. He simply decided that this was not yet the time.

The justice is also stepping further into public view with the release of his first book, “So Ordered: An Originalist’s View of the Constitution, the Court and Our Country,” a collection of speeches and reflections outlining his approach to constitutional interpretation and his concerns about the country’s legal and civic institutions.

In discussing his background, Alito described the influence of his Italian immigrant family and the values with which he was raised. His father’s birth record from Italy, presented to him by the Italian Embassy after his Supreme Court confirmation, remains one of his most treasured possessions.

“It’s very moving for me,” Alito said. “Neither of these two people who walked to town could read or write … so the official had to do it. So it’s (a) meaningful document for me.”

Alito said his parents and grandparents deeply believed in the possibilities offered by the United States.

“They really did believe in the American dream, and they believed in the fundamental values that underlie our country … the view that’s expressed in the Declaration of Independence that all people are created equal and that they’re endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights,” Alito said. “That’s how I was raised.

“But it’s not just how I was raised,” he continued. “It’s what I believe, and what I believed after a lifetime of education and experience. I still believe in all of that.”

Looking at the arc from his immigrant family’s beginnings to his own seat on the nation’s highest court, Alito described it simply.

“It is the American dream,” Alito said. “And it’s been a dream that’s been realized by generation after generation.”

{Matzav.com}

IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir declared Sunday that Israel’s military doctrine is being reshaped around the possibility of another surprise war, warning that the IDF will no longer wait for an enemy threat to materialize before acting and will instead launch preemptive strikes against dangerous capabilities as they emerge.

Zamir delivered the warning at a major gathering of the IDF’s senior command at the Glilot base, where the military formally concluded its investigations into the failures surrounding the October 7 massacre and presented a series of changes intended to prevent such a catastrophe from happening again.

“We are building the IDF’s strategy with readiness for a surprise war, including the preemptive thwarting of severe threats as they develop, as our reference scenario – this is our operational compass,” Zamir declared.

“We removed threats; we are operating in all arenas, defending forward, and continuing to pursue our enemies everywhere. Our message is clear: Whoever threatens to harm us and builds the capabilities to do so – we will act in advance and strike them with a decisive blow.”

The new approach represents one of the central lessons the IDF says it has drawn from October 7. Rather than relying heavily on assessments of an enemy’s intentions, the military plans to increasingly base its readiness on what an adversary is actually capable of doing — including preparing for a multi-front surprise attack even if Israel’s deterrence and early-warning systems both fail.

Among the changes being implemented are significantly larger forces on standby and in reserve, stronger defenses around border communities, increased firepower and intelligence capabilities along Israel’s borders, greater independence for commanders in the field and changes in the way the Military Intelligence Directorate analyzes and issues warnings.

The IDF has already more than doubled the number of forces assigned to readiness and reserve duties across the various sectors. Forces and equipment are also being redistributed so that the military can respond more rapidly if a major attack develops unexpectedly in any theater.

The military plans to continually reassess potential threat scenarios rather than allow longstanding assumptions to become entrenched. Operational scenarios, defense plans, readiness levels and reserve deployments are to be updated as enemy capabilities change, with formal reviews every six months.

The IDF will also conduct additional surprise exercises and simulations of extreme scenarios designed to test how quickly forces can transition from routine operations to full-scale war, particularly when commanders have incomplete intelligence and are operating under conditions of severe uncertainty.

The conference brought together officers holding the rank of brigadier general and above from the IDF’s commands, branches and directorates. It opened with a moment of silence for those murdered and killed on October 7, after which senior officers reviewed the findings of the investigations, the corrective measures already underway and the mechanisms being established to ensure that the lessons are actually implemented.

“I chose to convene the IDF senior commanders forum today, on the eve of the national memorial day for the events of October 7th, as a message,” Zamir said.

“We are examining the status of implementing the lessons from the October 7th investigations, with recognition of the magnitude of the failure alongside the understanding that we must not sink into them, but rather learn, draw lessons, improve, and move forward. The events of October 7th continue to accompany us, and our duty is to ensure that they do not happen again.”

The completion of the October 7 investigations does not mark the end of the IDF’s internal examination of the war. Zamir announced that 2027 will be devoted to investigating the broader conflict and drawing lessons from the IDF’s operations in the different theaters over the past several years.

The next stage will include investigations into individual campaigns and fronts, including Operation Roaring Lion, followed by a broader military assessment intended to consolidate the lessons of the entire war.

Those lessons are being organized into four principal areas: strategic preparedness, operational readiness, force buildup and intelligence. Among the central goals is ensuring that the military can withstand and respond to a simultaneous surprise attack on several fronts without depending upon advance warning.

Zamir said one of the most important conclusions is that Israel must compensate militarily for its lack of geographic depth by maintaining a larger and more capable IDF.

“One of our greatest lessons is the need to expand our margin of security. The State of Israel is a geographically small country without territorial depth, and it faces multi-front threats,” he said.

“We must build the IDF’s force structure in light of all challenges and threats. The size of the IDF is our strategic depth. Therefore, we must expand the IDF and adapt it to its growing missions.”

A particularly significant moment at the conference came when Zamir presented a certificate of appreciation to Chief Warrant Officer V. of the IDF’s Unit 8200, whose warnings about Hamas preparations for a massive surprise attack before October 7 were dismissed by senior intelligence officials.

Before the massacre, V. had warned that Hamas possessed a concrete plan for a large-scale invasion. In an email sent to IDF officers in the days before the attack, she warned that “the sword is coming” and urged that the public be alerted while there was still time.

Her warning followed a Unit 8200 intelligence document produced on September 19, 2023, less than three weeks before the massacre, which reported that Hamas was training for a large-scale invasion of Israel. Her assessment was rejected by senior intelligence officers in the Gaza Division.

Zamir used the episode to stress that the IDF must fundamentally change a culture in which assumptions can become accepted doctrine and contrary assessments can be pushed aside.

“In our organizational culture, we must not allow people-pleasing discourse, intellectual tyranny, or the suppression of critical thinking,” he stated.

The military’s intelligence reforms will place renewed emphasis on the Intelligence Directorate’s fundamental responsibility to establish an accurate picture of reality and provide warnings. Commanders are also being instructed to distinguish more carefully between long-term strategic assessments and immediate tactical intelligence, while dissenting opinions and challenges to accepted assumptions are to receive greater consideration.

The changes are intended to address one of the most painful findings arising from October 7: critical pieces of information existed before the Hamas assault, but were interpreted through assumptions that ultimately proved catastrophically wrong.

Zamir acknowledged the magnitude of the IDF’s failure on the morning of the massacre while contrasting it with the military’s subsequent performance across the different fronts of the war.

“On October 7th, the IDF failed severely, but the IDF got back on its feet and proved itself to have a determined spirit, bringing about a historic and unprecedented multi-front victory,” he said.

Even as the military formally closes the chapter on its October 7 investigations, Zamir stressed that the current security environment leaves no room for complacency and that commanders throughout the IDF must remain prepared for another unexpected escalation.

“The entire IDF is in constant readiness. We are all on guard. It is our duty to prevent surprise and to prepare for surprise,” he said.

“We are in a period of tension and alertness, and each person in their own sector must be alert and prepared.”

{Matzav.com}

The United Arab Emirates is expected to seek the death penalty for Hamam al-Hammami, the 29-year-old Flydubai co-pilot accused of attempting to seize control of a Tel Aviv-bound passenger jet, as Mossad personnel and Israeli aviation experts join an international investigation into evidence that he planned a September 11-style attack against Israel.

A senior Emirati official said authorities intend to pursue the harshest punishment available once their investigation is complete, despite the fact that Captain Smit Machchhar, passengers and crew members succeeded in thwarting the alleged plot without any fatalities.

“There will be no leniency here,” the senior Emirati official said, adding that al-Hammami would not receive a pardon.

The investigation is being overseen by UAE Attorney General Hamad Saif Al Shamsi and has brought together intelligence and security officials from several countries. Mossad representatives and Israeli aviation specialists are participating alongside senior Saudi and Omani intelligence officials and at least two representatives of U.S. intelligence agencies.

According to the senior Emirati official, Israeli representatives are also expected to participate directly in al-Hammami’s interrogation as investigators attempt to determine how long he had been planning the attack, whether anyone assisted him and what target he ultimately intended to strike.

One of the most alarming possibilities under investigation is that al-Hammami intended to turn the Boeing 737 MAX into a weapon and deliberately crash it into a high-rise building in Israel, in an attack modeled after the September 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.

The Azrieli Towers in Tel Aviv were reportedly among the targets he considered. Separate information emerging from his interrogation indicates that Ben Gurion Airport itself may have been his primary objective, with investigators examining whether the plan evolved or included several possible targets.

Al-Hammami has reportedly told interrogators that he deliberately sought employment with an airline that flew to Israel because he had already conceived the attack before being hired by Flydubai.

“I searched and checked which airlines fly to Tel Aviv and therefore I chose Flydubai. I tried to be hired by all the companies. I planned the attack before I was hired,” he reportedly told investigators.

Investigators are examining whether al-Hammami intended to incapacitate or kill Machchhar without alerting anyone outside the cockpit, maintain the aircraft’s normal course toward Israel and then divert the plane into his chosen target only when it was too late for Israeli authorities to intercept it.

During the eight months al-Hammami worked for Flydubai, he reportedly flew to Israel dozens of times, including just days before the September 30 attack. Those previous flights are now being examined to determine whether he used them to study Israeli airspace, Ben Gurion Airport and possible targets.

The investigation has also raised serious questions about how al-Hammami was hired in the first place. According to the Emirati source, “incriminating materials” had been discovered in his possession while he was training in Oman, leading authorities there to remove him from flying duties and bar him from the cockpit.

Reports indicate that al-Hammami had been undergoing pilot training with Oman Air when concerns arose over extremist material and his ideological views. He was reassigned to an administrative position before ultimately leaving the airline.

After his time in Oman, al-Hammami reportedly moved to Morocco and also traveled to Syria before eventually securing employment with Flydubai. He is also reported to have trained with Royal Air Maroc, although the Moroccan carrier ultimately did not employ him as a pilot.

His international background is receiving growing scrutiny. Australian counterterrorism authorities are investigating al-Hammami’s years in Australia, where he studied approximately a decade ago. Reports have alleged that during that period he visited radical mosques and accessed extremist material online.

Despite those apparent warning signs, al-Hammami eventually entered a Flydubai cockpit and was repeatedly assigned to flights serving Israel, even though he is an Omani national and Oman does not maintain diplomatic relations with Israel.

The September 30 attack unfolded aboard Flydubai Flight FZ1073 as it traveled from Dubai toward Tel Aviv carrying more than 170 passengers and crew members. Al-Hammami allegedly attacked Machchhar with an emergency crash axe stored inside the cockpit and attempted to take control of the aircraft.

During the struggle, the aircraft plunged more than 16,000 feet in barely half a minute. Machchhar, despite suffering serious injuries, managed to unlock the cockpit door, allowing passengers and crew members to enter and overpower al-Hammami.

Reserve pilots traveling aboard the aircraft subsequently helped regain control and diverted the plane to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, where it landed safely. Al-Hammami was taken into custody and was later transferred to the UAE for interrogation.

Emirati prosecutors have formally characterized the incident as an attempted terrorist attack, while investigators continue examining digital evidence, al-Hammami’s communications, his previous travels and employment, and any possible relationships with extremist organizations or foreign actors.

The investigation is also examining evidence that al-Hammami may have planned an attack well before September 30. Israeli reports indicate that he researched airlines serving Tel Aviv before applying for employment and deliberately pursued Flydubai because its route network gave him access to Israel.

Authorities are additionally examining reports that he had contemplated carrying out an attack on an earlier flight but did not proceed. That possibility, combined with his repeated trips to Israel, has raised the prospect that the September 30 incident was the culmination of months of preparation rather than a sudden decision made aboard the aircraft.

At the same time, Israeli investigators have initially assessed that al-Hammami most likely acted as a lone wolf. That assessment remains preliminary, and the international team is continuing to investigate whether he had contacts with terrorist organizations, Iran or other outside parties.

The case has also triggered a major security controversy in Israel, where officials are investigating how an Omani national with reported radicalization concerns was permitted to repeatedly serve aboard flights to Ben Gurion Airport. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered a comprehensive review of the system used to screen foreign airlines and their crews.

For Emirati authorities, however, the criminal case against al-Hammami is moving forward separately from the broader investigation into the security failures surrounding him. According to the senior official, the fact that the alleged attack was thwarted before anyone aboard the aircraft was killed will not lead the UAE to seek a lesser punishment.

“There will be no leniency here,” he said, making clear that Emirati authorities intend to pursue the maximum penalty once the investigation is concluded.

{Matzav.com}

The Flydubai co-pilot accused of trying to seize control of Flight FZ1073 had allegedly been planning a mass-casualty terrorist attack against Israel even before he joined the airline, with investigators now saying his intended targets included Ben Gurion Airport and possibly the Azrieli Towers in Tel Aviv.

New details emerging from the interrogation of 29-year-old Omani national Hamam al-Hammami indicate that his alleged objective was far more elaborate than simply bringing down the aircraft. Israeli officials say he intended to kill or incapacitate Captain Smit Machchhar, continue flying toward Israel as though nothing had happened, receive normal clearance to approach Ben Gurion Airport and then, at the last possible moment, deliberately crash the jet into the airport terminal or another target.

Investigators believe that explains why al-Hammami waited until the aircraft was over Jordan before launching his attack. By remaining on the normal flight path toward Israel, he apparently hoped to avoid setting off alarms that could have resulted in Israeli fighter jets intercepting the aircraft before it reached its target.

Under the alleged plan, the plane would have continued its descent toward Ben Gurion as though it were making an ordinary landing. Only during the final moments of the approach, when authorities would have had virtually no time to react, would al-Hammami have diverted the aircraft toward the terminal or another structure at the airport.

Additional reports indicate that al-Hammami had deliberately sought employment with an airline serving Israel and had begun planning the attack before Flydubai hired him.

“I searched and checked which airlines fly to Tel Aviv and therefore I chose Flydubai. I tried to be hired by all the companies. I planned the attack before I was hired,” he reportedly told his interrogators.

Other accounts of the interrogation quoted al-Hammami as telling investigators, “The dream was to crash into Ben-Gurion Airport.”

Investigators are also examining evidence that al-Hammami had previously used his employment with Flydubai to gather information about Ben Gurion Airport. He reportedly flew into Israel on earlier occasions, including a visit in June during which authorities now suspect he may have conducted surveillance and studied the airport as part of his preparations.

According to Israeli media reports, al-Hammami may even have come close to carrying out his plan months before the September 30 attack. He allegedly operated another flight to Israel in July with the intention of crashing it, but abandoned the plan because of a personal attachment he had developed to one of the crew members.

A separate line of the investigation suggests that Ben Gurion Airport was not the only potential target. A senior Emirati official reportedly said investigators are examining evidence that al-Hammami also considered carrying out a September 11-style attack against the Azrieli Towers in Tel Aviv.

Under that scenario, he allegedly intended to take complete control of the Boeing 737 MAX and fly it into one of the high-rise towers in the heart of Tel Aviv, close to the Kirya military headquarters. Investigators are examining whether the Azrieli Towers were an alternative target or part of an evolving attack plan.

The emerging evidence has added another dimension to earlier reports that Israeli investigators currently believe al-Hammami most likely acted as a lone wolf. While authorities continue examining whether he had assistance or connections to an outside terrorist organization or foreign government, the latest information suggests that the attack itself may have been planned over a lengthy period rather than being a spontaneous act aboard the aircraft.

The plot was ultimately thwarted because Machchhar, despite being seriously wounded, managed to unlock the cockpit door. Passengers and crew members were then able to enter the cockpit and overpower al-Hammami before he could regain control.

Emirati investigators have determined that al-Hammami attacked Machchhar with the emergency crash axe kept inside the cockpit. The aircraft plunged more than 16,000 feet during the struggle before reserve pilots traveling aboard the flight were able to stabilize it and divert to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.

The investigation into the alleged plot has become an international effort. Mossad personnel and Israeli aviation experts are reportedly participating in the investigation in Abu Dhabi alongside Emirati authorities, with Saudi and Omani intelligence officials and at least two representatives of U.S. intelligence agencies also involved.

Investigators are now attempting to reconstruct al-Hammami’s movements, communications and preparations before the attack, including his previous employment and the circumstances under which he was allowed to become a Flydubai pilot despite earlier concerns about his extremist views.

Al-Hammami previously entered pilot training with Oman Air but was removed from flying duties after authorities reportedly discovered evidence of extremist activity and radical material. He was transferred to an administrative position and later left the airline.

After his time with Oman Air, al-Hammami reportedly spent time in Morocco and Syria before eventually moving to Dubai and joining Flydubai. Other reports indicate that he had previously trained with Royal Air Maroc but was not ultimately hired as a pilot by the Moroccan carrier.

His background has also drawn the attention of Australian counterterrorism authorities because al-Hammami studied in Melbourne approximately a decade ago. Investigators there are examining reports that he visited radical mosques and accessed extremist material online during his years in Australia.

The alleged terrorist’s history has become a central issue in the investigation because multiple warning signs appear to have existed before he ever entered a Flydubai cockpit. Oman Air had reportedly removed him from flying because of radicalization concerns, yet he was subsequently able to secure a flying position with Flydubai without the airline obtaining his full background from Omani authorities.

Questions have also intensified over how al-Hammami, an Omani national, was permitted to repeatedly serve aboard flights to Israel when Oman does not maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. The controversy has already prompted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to order a comprehensive investigation into Israel’s procedures for screening foreign airlines and their crews.

The new interrogation details indicate that this apparent security failure may have been precisely what al-Hammami intended to exploit. Rather than finding himself assigned by chance to a Tel Aviv route, he allegedly sought out Flydubai because it could provide him with access to Israel and then used his position as a commercial pilot to prepare for an attack from inside the cockpit.

What began over Jordan on September 30, according to investigators, was therefore allegedly the final stage of a plan that had been developing long before Flight FZ1073 left Dubai — one intended to allow an apparently routine passenger jet to approach Ben Gurion Airport normally before being turned into a weapon in the final seconds of its flight.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli investigators currently believe that the Flydubai co-pilot who allegedly tried to crash Flight FZ1073 while it was en route from Dubai to Tel Aviv most likely acted alone, although the investigation remains ongoing and authorities have not ruled out the possibility that he had connections to a terrorist organization, foreign government or other outside actors.

The preliminary Israeli assessment represents an important development in the investigation, particularly after President Trump raised the possibility of Iranian involvement and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said authorities were examining whether the attacker had been sent by someone else. Investigators stressed that the lone-wolf assessment is preliminary and that all avenues remain under examination.

The attack occurred Wednesday aboard Flight FZ1073 as the Boeing 737 MAX traveled from Dubai toward Tel Aviv with 172 people aboard. According to Israeli and Emirati officials, the co-pilot attacked Captain Smit Machchhar inside the cockpit and attempted to send the aircraft crashing toward the ground.

Emirati authorities have since disclosed that the weapon was not a knife, as initially reported, but the emergency crash axe kept inside the cockpit. The UAE attorney general has formally described what occurred aboard the aircraft as an attempted terrorist act.

Despite being wounded in the attack, Machchhar managed to fight off the co-pilot long enough to unlock the cockpit door. Israeli passengers and Flydubai crew members then rushed in and subdued the attacker, while two off-duty pilots traveling aboard the flight helped regain control of the aircraft and divert it to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, for an emergency landing.

Machchhar has since described the moment the attack began, saying that the co-pilot had been praying shortly beforehand. “While he was praying, out of respect, I was just looking at the front and not at the back. And suddenly there was a big blow to the back of my head. My first thought was that there was a catastrophic damage to the aircraft. After that, the blows kept coming, one after another. And that’s when I realized that it’s not the aircraft, it’s the other guy who was in the cockpit with me.”

The suspect was taken into custody after the emergency landing and initially questioned by Saudi authorities. He was subsequently transferred to the United Arab Emirates, where he is undergoing additional interrogation. Israeli representatives have traveled to the UAE to participate in the investigation.

President Trump on Thursday publicly raised the possibility that the attacker had ties to Iran, while making clear that the investigation had not been completed.

“We’re working on it right now,” Trump said. “They’re being very open with us. I would say the answer, based on what I’m hearing, is yes. But we’re working on it right now.”

Netanyahu, however, was more cautious when initially discussing the attack with CBS News, saying that investigators had not yet determined precisely what motivated the co-pilot.

“I don’t think it was a hijacking,” Netanyahu told CBS Evening News anchor Tony Dokoupil, adding, “I think it looks like a suicide attempt.”

Netanyahu subsequently said that information gathered during the investigation indicated that the attacker had undergone Islamist radicalization and was suicidal. According to Netanyahu and witnesses aboard the aircraft, after the co-pilot was restrained, he repeatedly demanded that those around him kill him.

Israeli dentist Dr. Shota Musaev, who treated Machchhar after the cockpit was opened, said the subdued co-pilot repeatedly asked to be killed. “After two minutes he – he said to me, kill me. Kill me. And said to Yanif (ph), kill – kill me, sometimes. That’s – that’s it.” Asked whether the attacker had said it repeatedly, Musaev replied, “Yes. Yes, yes.”

Although authorities have not formally released the co-pilot’s identity, multiple sources familiar with the investigation have identified him as Hamam al Hamami, an Omani national believed to be 29 years old.

Investigators have uncovered a series of apparent warning signs in al Hamami’s background. He previously entered pilot training with Oman Air, but Omani government surveillance reportedly found that he had been visiting extremist websites. Oman Air subsequently removed him from flying duties and transferred him to an office position.

One source familiar with his employment history said al Hamami later resigned from Oman Air after being placed on desk duty and left the airline around 2024. Reports that initially said he had been fired have subsequently been corrected to indicate that he resigned.

Sources also said that al Hamami at one point posted a video showing El Al aircraft at an airport in Dubai. The video reportedly concluded with an image of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Al Qaeda leader who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2022.

After leaving Oman Air, al Hamami moved to Dubai and was hired by Flydubai. Sources familiar with the investigation said Flydubai did not contact the Omani government to vet his background before employing him.

Questions about his background have now spread well beyond Oman and the UAE. Australian counterterrorism authorities are investigating al Hamami’s connections to Australia, where he reportedly studied at RMIT University in Melbourne approximately a decade ago. Australian federal and state police, along with intelligence officials, are participating in that investigation.

Reports have alleged that while living in Australia, al Hamami visited radical mosques and accessed extremist material online. Investigators are examining whether his radicalization began years before he joined Flydubai and whether he developed any connections during his time abroad.

Sources describe al Hamami as an Omani citizen who was born outside Oman and spent much of his life in other countries. His father is reportedly Omani and his mother Syrian. The Omani government has not publicly confirmed his citizenship.

Investigators have also raised the possibility that al Hamami holds dual citizenship. That question has become particularly significant because Oman does not have diplomatic relations with Israel, raising questions about how an Omani citizen was cleared to serve as a crew member on repeated flights to Tel Aviv.

The incident has triggered a much broader investigation inside Israel into how foreign flight crews are vetted. Netanyahu on Sunday ordered a comprehensive review of security procedures governing foreign civilian flights arriving in Israel after revelations that Israeli authorities had received a list of the Flydubai flight’s crew members, reportedly including al Hamami’s name and nationality, before the aircraft departed Dubai.

The revelation has intensified questions over why al Hamami was not flagged despite his Omani nationality and his reported history of extremist activity. Israeli government agencies have traded claims over which body bore responsibility for examining foreign crews and whether the relevant intelligence was available to those responsible for aviation security.

For now, however, Israeli investigators reportedly believe the attack was most likely carried out by al Hamami on his own. That assessment has not closed the investigation into possible outside ties, and authorities in Israel, the UAE and other countries continue examining his communications, movements, employment history and years of alleged radical activity to determine whether anyone helped him prepare for the attempted attack.

{Matzav.com}

Former Knesset member Yehuda Glick has been barred by police from entering Har Habayis for six months after he recited a Mi Shebeirach there for Neria Leiter, the Israeli reservist who was critically wounded in the terrorist ramming attack at the Maccabim checkpoint on Route 443.

The order was signed by Yerushalayim District Police Commander Avshalom Peled and prohibits Glick from entering Har Habayis or its approaches from September 24, 2026, through March 24, 2027.

Police said the order was issued under Peled’s authority because it was necessary to “prevent severe harm to life or property.”

The incident that prompted the order occurred when Glick went onto Har Habayis and audibly recited a Mi Shebeirach for Neria Dov ben Chana, the son of Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter. Leiter was critically wounded when a terrorist drove a vehicle into personnel at the Maccabim checkpoint.

It should be noted that the Gedolei Yisroel and leading poskim throughout the generations have ruled that it is assur for Jews to ascend Har Habayis because of the severe halachic issues involved, including the possibility of entering areas forbidden due to tumah. Glick has for decades advocated Jewish ascension to and prayer on Har Habayis, a position rejected by the leading poskim of the chareidi world.

According to reports in the Israeli media, police determined that Glick had violated the regulations governing conduct at the site by reciting the prayer aloud. He was subsequently summoned for a hearing, after which Peled signed the six-month exclusion order.

Glick responded furiously to the decision, insisting that he has adhered to police requirements during his decades of visits to the site.

“I’ve been ascending the Temple Mount for 40 years. I always follow the guidelines. The Temple Mount police are persecuting me with evil, with malice, for no wrong done to me,” he wrote.

Glick said the latest decision marks the third consecutive year that police have barred him from Har Habayis shortly before Sukkos, a period during which he has traditionally led groups and tours at the site.

He also directed criticism at National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, saying that despite Ben-Gvir’s own strong advocacy for expanded Jewish access to Har Habayis, the repeated restrictions against Glick have continued while Ben-Gvir has been responsible for the police.

The latest confrontation is part of a lengthy history between Glick and police over his activities on Har Habayis. He has repeatedly faced restrictions and exclusion orders over the years in connection with prayer and other activity at the site.

In one earlier case, a Yerushalayim Magistrate’s Court found that Glick had been wrongfully barred from Har Habayis between 2011 and 2013 after footage showed him praying there. The court initially awarded him substantial damages, although subsequent appeals reversed the compensation award.

Glick also survived an assassination attempt in Yerushalayim in October 2014, when he was shot multiple times at close range after attending a conference devoted to Jewish prayer rights on Har Habayis. He was critically wounded but ultimately recovered.

Referring to that assassination attempt while describing his anger over the latest police action, Glick wrote, “These people hurt me many times more than the man who tried to assassinate me hurt me. Really, how much evil can I take?”

Despite the six-month ban, Glick said he has no intention of allowing the decision to end his activism.

“And after all this, I lift my hands to the higher G-d and commit that they won’t manage to break me. I hope I can hold on.”

Israeli Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu has ordered a comprehensive review of Israel’s security system for foreign civilian flights after the attempted attack aboard Flydubai Flight FZ1073 exposed what reports describe as years of ignored warnings, unclear lines of responsibility, intelligence gaps and inadequate screening of foreign air crews.

Netanyahu instructed National Security Council Director Shmuel Ben Ezra to appoint an examiner to investigate the entire foreign-aviation security framework, including how an Omani co-pilot who had previously raised extremism concerns abroad was able to repeatedly fly the Dubai-Tel Aviv route before allegedly trying to crash a plane carrying more than 170 passengers and crew.

The growing controversy extends far beyond the events aboard the aircraft. Reports published since the attack describe a security structure in which government ministries and intelligence agencies had warned one another for years about weaknesses in the system, yet key decisions remained unimplemented and responsibility for screening foreign crews was never clearly resolved.

The alleged attacker, identified in multiple reports as Omani national Hammam al-Hammami, had reportedly been prohibited from flying in Oman because of concerns about radicalization. He nevertheless later joined Flydubai and was assigned to flights serving Israel, despite Oman having no diplomatic relations with the Jewish state. Israeli authorities were reportedly unaware of his earlier history.

The questions surrounding his background have widened further. Australian counterterrorism authorities are now examining al-Hammami’s ties to Australia, where he studied roughly a decade ago. Australian intelligence services had reportedly maintained a file on him, and he had allegedly visited radical mosques and accessed extremist websites while living there.

He also trained with Royal Air Maroc before the Moroccan carrier declined to employ him. The combination of warnings and concerns emerging from several countries has intensified scrutiny of how he passed through Flydubai’s hiring and vetting process and, separately, how Israeli authorities failed to identify him as a potential threat before he flew repeatedly to Ben Gurion Airport.

An internal National Security Council document reported by Galei Tzahal showed that concerns over foreign-flight security long predated the Flydubai incident. According to the report, responsibility had been placed on the Transportation Ministry even though professionals inside the ministry warned that they did not possess the capabilities, authority or resources needed to perform the task properly.

The NSC itself reportedly warned in March 2025 that the Transportation Ministry was not carrying out the responsibilities assigned to it under an earlier government decision. Despite those warnings, the underlying arrangement remained in place.

A central part of the controversy concerns Israel’s National Passenger Data Analysis Center, which receives information about passengers and crews arriving aboard foreign airlines. The system can help authorities identify individuals whose citizenship, background or other information may require additional examination.

According to reports, the Transportation Ministry was entitled to make use of information from the system as part of its aviation-security responsibilities but never put such access into operation. The ministry, however, disputes the suggestion that it is responsible for conducting intelligence checks on individual foreign pilots.

The timing of crew information has also come under scrutiny. Channel 13 reported that airlines sometimes transmit crew details only shortly before departure and, in some instances, as late as 15 minutes after takeoff. That could leave Israeli security bodies learning about a potentially problematic crew member only after the aircraft is already airborne and heading toward Israel.

A government source said the timing is consistent with common international aviation practices and noted that no Israeli government agency had previously demanded a different procedure. Those practices are now being reconsidered in the wake of the Flydubai attack.

Recordings of a discussion between senior Transportation and Interior Ministry officials, aired by Channel 12, further illustrated the confusion. A Transportation Ministry representative reportedly asked how Israel would know that a crew member traveling on an Emirati passport also held Omani citizenship. An Interior Ministry official responded that crews were not screened to that degree and acknowledged that passenger and crew information could arrive only after a flight had taken off.

The Interior Ministry official later said that the information it received was passed along to the appropriate security agencies, including the Shin Bet and Mossad.

Adding another layer to the dispute, regional officials have said that the UAE had in fact provided Israel with the Flydubai crew and passenger details, including names and nationalities, before the flight. The Transportation Ministry maintains that the crew list was not given directly to it, while reports indicate that other Israeli government and security bodies had access to the information.

The case has therefore become as much a dispute over responsibility as one over missing information: who received the crew data, which agencies were expected to examine it, who was supposed to flag a problematic nationality or background, and whether anyone had access to the intelligence necessary to recognize the threat.

Al-Hammami may not have been the first foreign crew member from a country without diplomatic relations with Israel to reach Ben Gurion Airport. Reports indicate that pilots or air crew holding Iranian, Lebanese, Pakistani, Syrian and other citizenships have arrived in Israel in previous years, despite regulations intended to restrict such cases.

Channel 13 reported official figures showing that 10 Omani citizens entered Israel in 2022, 29 in 2023, nine in 2024 and 11 in 2025, with additional entries recorded during 2026. Oman is not formally classified by Israel as an enemy state, but the countries do not maintain diplomatic relations, and authorities believe that at least some of those entries may have involved airline personnel.

Israel has now tightened its rules. Under new instructions issued to foreign carriers, crew members who hold citizenship or dual citizenship in countries that do not maintain diplomatic relations with Israel are barred from serving aboard Israel-bound flights. The new directive reportedly covers citizens of 27 countries.

The unanswered questions reach back several years. In June 2023, the NSC convened a meeting with representatives of the Shin Bet and Mossad to discuss how intelligence should be transferred to civilian bodies responsible for aviation security.

Transportation Ministry representatives reportedly said at the meeting that although the ministry bore responsibility for securing foreign flights, it was not receiving sufficient intelligence to carry out that mission effectively. The meeting concluded with a decision that Mossad would increase the intelligence information passed to the ministry.

According to the reports, that decision was never implemented.

The Shin Bet had separately warned over the years about weaknesses in the tracking of foreign flight crews and the verification of passenger identities. Sources cited in Israeli media said the agency had recommended transferring responsibility for oversight of foreign flights and crew lists to the Israel Airports Authority.

The emerging picture is therefore one of warnings coming from multiple directions without producing a lasting solution. Transportation Ministry professionals complained that they lacked intelligence. Security agencies identified weaknesses in the screening system. Senior government officials were aware that responsibility remained disputed. Yet the structural problems were allowed to remain unresolved.

Questions have also emerged over the staffing of the Transportation Ministry’s Aviation Security, Emergency and Cyber Division, whose broad portfolio includes security responsibilities for multiple forms of transportation.

According to figures reported by Ynet, eight employees left the division between 2022 and 2025. The number of official positions reportedly declined from 21 to 19, six of them designated as part-time positions for students and senior citizens, while at least two senior positions remained vacant without budget allocations.

Despite responsibility for security and emergency systems involving air, maritime and land transportation, the unit reportedly operates with only about 10 permanent full-time employees.

Former ministry officials have said that efforts were made for years to strengthen the aviation-security operations center or transfer some of its responsibilities to the Shin Bet or Mossad. Those initiatives were never carried through.

Dani Shneer, a former senior director of the Security Division and former Transportation Ministry chief security officer, has said that the division was assigned responsibility for examining foreign flight crews under a government decision dating to 2003. Airlines were required to provide crew information in connection with permission to land in Israel.

Shneer has argued that the system functioned effectively in earlier years but that its responsibilities have since become too extensive for a relatively small government unit. He believes the function should be transferred to a national security organization.

The employment arrangements of officials involved in the system have also drawn attention. Channel 12 reported that Dvir Rubinstein, identified as the manager of the Transportation Ministry’s aviation-security operations center, works through an outsourced arrangement rather than as a government employee and also holds other jobs.

The Transportation Ministry confirmed that arrangement, saying Rubinstein’s additional employment had received legal approval and was conducted outside his government working hours.

Channel 12 later reported that Rubinstein had also performed paid private consulting and training work for foreign airlines, including Flydubai and Emirates, adding another issue now drawing scrutiny as officials examine the security structure surrounding foreign carriers.

Haaretz separately reported that Aviation Security Division chief Avi Cohen also works as a standby security officer in an overseas aviation-security system and receives separate compensation for that position. The Transportation Ministry said the outside role had been authorized when Cohen assumed his post in 2018.

The dispute over who should be responsible for foreign-flight security has been continuing for years. A cabinet decision in July 2021 addressed the allocation of responsibilities, and the matter subsequently appeared in a confidential State Comptroller report in May 2024.

A working group was later formed with representatives of the National Security Council, Transportation Ministry, Israel Airports Authority, Shin Bet, Mossad and Finance Ministry in an effort to resolve the matter.

According to Galei Tzahal, professional officials in the Transportation Ministry’s Security Division resisted assuming the responsibility because they believed they lacked the necessary tools. Nevertheless, Netanyahu decided in mid-2025 that the responsibility would remain with the Transportation Ministry.

The report said that even after that decision, the ministry’s Security Division did not approach the Shin Bet or Mossad to request assistance in carrying out security screening or the vetting of foreign passengers and crew members.

The Transportation Ministry has pushed back strongly against much of the criticism, arguing that some of the reports blur important distinctions between regularly scheduled foreign flights and charter operations.

The ministry also rejects the premise that assigning it responsibility for aviation security makes it responsible for intelligence investigations of every foreign pilot or crew member.

“The Transportation Ministry is not an intelligence body, and it does not have the tools to conduct intelligence background checks for crew members and passengers,” the ministry said.

According to the ministry, its procedures were approved by the NSC and Israel’s security organizations and are built around security measures undertaken in the country from which the flight originates, commitments made by the airline itself, and inspections performed by the ministry’s security division.

In the case of Flydubai, the ministry said the airline had been given explicit instructions requiring background checks on its personnel and had provided written confirmation that nationality restrictions were incorporated into its crew-assignment system. The ministry maintains that it never received the specific crew list for Flight FZ1073.

Those claims are now being tested against evidence from other agencies and foreign governments as investigators reconstruct what information existed, when Israel received it and who was responsible for acting on it.

The attack itself demonstrated the potential cost of those failures. During the September 30 flight from Dubai to Tel Aviv, al-Hammami allegedly attacked Captain Smit Machchhar with an emergency crash axe and attempted to seize control of the aircraft. The Boeing 737 MAX plunged more than 16,000 feet in just over 30 seconds during its most severe descent.

Despite being seriously wounded, Machchhar managed to open the cockpit door, allowing passengers and crew to overpower the co-pilot. A reserve Flydubai pilot traveling aboard the plane then helped regain control, and the aircraft eventually landed safely in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.

UAE prosecutors have officially characterized the incident as a terrorist attack. Al-Hammami remains under investigation in the UAE, while authorities seek to determine his motive, whether he acted alone and whether anyone else helped plan or direct the attack.

The National Security Council examiner appointed under Netanyahu’s directive will now be expected to trace the failures across the entire chain: old warnings, unimplemented decisions, intelligence-sharing shortcomings, delayed crew information, manpower deficiencies and the longstanding argument over which agency was ultimately supposed to protect foreign flights entering Israel.

At the center of the review will be one overriding question: how a co-pilot who had reportedly already drawn the attention of authorities overseas, had been barred from flying over extremism concerns and was a citizen of a country without diplomatic relations with Israel was able to repeatedly enter the cockpit of aircraft bound for Tel Aviv — until one of those flights nearly ended in catastrophe.

The U.S. Air Force has withdrawn all of its B-1 bombers from RAF Fairford in England and returned them to the United States as British authorities investigate a suspected terrorist plot targeting the strategically important base, including possible links to Iran.

The Pentagon confirmed Sunday that the aircraft previously deployed to RAF Fairford, which has served as a major staging point for American bomber operations against Iran, had left the installation and returned to their home stations in the United States. Approximately a dozen B-1B Lancer bombers had recently been stationed there.

“US Air Force bombers routinely operate around the world to support global force readiness and operational requirements,” a department official told Fox News Digital.

The official said the Pentagon had been unable to discuss the aircraft movements while they were underway because of operational security concerns, but could now confirm that the bombers had been redeployed to the United States.

“The Airmen that operate America’s bomber force, including B-1s, B-2s, and B-52s, remain ready to deliver precision global strike capabilities – including through operations that launch and recover from the continental United States – anywhere, anytime,” the official added. Another U.S. official confirmed that approximately 12 B-1 bombers had been withdrawn.

The withdrawal came amid a widening British counterterrorism investigation into suspicious activity near RAF Fairford, a Gloucestershire base roughly 90 miles west of London that has played an important role in U.S. military operations during the war with Iran.

According to The Wall Street Journal, U.S. military commanders had received new warnings concerning a suspected Iran-backed plot against the installation before the bombers were removed. American officials reportedly believe investigators are examining whether an Iran-linked element of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps recruited British nationals to carry out an attack. Iran has denied involvement.

The investigation began after police were called to the area near RAF Fairford shortly after midnight on September 27 following reports of suspicious vehicles and masked men. Five British men in their early 20s were arrested near the base, initially on suspicion of explosives offenses and subsequently on suspicion of preparing a terrorist act.

Police searched three white vans associated with the suspects. No explosives were discovered, but authorities said a quantity of gasoline was recovered from the vehicles. Nearby homes were evacuated as bomb-disposal specialists examined the scene.

The five suspects were later released on bail under strict conditions while the counterterrorism investigation continued. Authorities have emphasized that their release does not mean the investigation has ended.

The case took a further turn days later when British counterterrorism officers arrested a sixth suspect, a 25-year-old dual British-Iranian national, in central London on suspicion of preparing terrorist acts. He was subsequently released on bail as investigators continued examining the possibility of foreign-state involvement.

British authorities have said there are indications that Iran may have played a role in the alleged plot, while investigators continue analyzing electronic devices and other evidence in an effort to determine whether the suspects were acting independently or had been recruited or directed by a foreign power.

Tehran has strongly denied any connection to the incident. Iran has, however, previously warned that military installations used to launch attacks against Iranian territory could be regarded as legitimate targets.

RAF Fairford has assumed particular strategic importance during the current conflict because American long-range bombers have operated from the installation during U.S. strikes against Iran. The base has also been used by the United States during previous military operations in the Middle East.

The withdrawal does not mean the U.S. bomber force has lost the ability to conduct long-range missions in the region. American B-1, B-2 and B-52 bombers are capable of launching missions directly from bases in the continental United States, including extremely long-range strike operations supported by aerial refueling.

The bomber redeployment also comes as Washington continues to maintain a substantial military presence in the Middle East. Additional U.S. naval forces are heading toward the region, including the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier group, as tensions with Iran remain high and President Trump weighs the possibility of further military action.

The Pentagon has not publicly said whether the bombers will eventually return to RAF Fairford or whether their removal is expected to remain in effect for the duration of the terrorism investigation.

Today, through Tomchei Taharah, it can belong to you. 

By choosing a donation amount that works for you, you become part of something far greater than any one person could accomplish alone.

Build a Mikvah Every Month.

Hundreds of ordinary monthly partners join together to build 12 new mikvahs every year, bringing taharah to communities across the world.

The Chofetz Chaim teaches that when people join together to give, each person is credited in Shamayim as if they gave it all. 

Click HERE to start your monthly partnership!

The Omani co-pilot accused of stabbing the captain of Flydubai Flight FZ1073 and attempting to send the Israel-bound aircraft crashing to the ground had previously been grounded by Oman Air after being identified as a potential security risk, according to new reports that are raising serious questions about how he was later cleared to fly for Flydubai.

According to officials cited in the new reporting, the man was working as a co-pilot trainee for Oman Air in 2024 when extremist material was allegedly discovered in his possession. He was subsequently barred from flying for a year, although he was permitted to remain with the airline in an administrative capacity. Investigators are now examining how he later obtained a position with Flydubai and was ultimately assigned to a flight bound for Israel.

The Wall Street Journal separately reported, citing people familiar with the matter, that Omani authorities had concerns about the co-pilot’s ideological radicalization before Wednesday’s attack. It remains unclear whether those concerns were ever communicated to Flydubai, the United Arab Emirates or other countries and airlines. The precise nature of the earlier radicalization concerns has also not been publicly established.

The revelation is particularly significant because Israeli and Emirati authorities are investigating whether Wednesday’s attack was an act of terrorism and whether the co-pilot acted alone or received assistance or direction from another party. The UAE has established an investigative team to examine the circumstances and motive behind the incident, including whether it involved terrorist intent or advance planning.

A UAE spokesperson declined to discuss the co-pilot’s previous history in Oman, saying it was necessary “to avoid prejudging the outcome of the investigation or interfering with its course.” Flydubai and the Omani government did not respond to requests for comment on the reported earlier concerns.

The incident unfolded Wednesday aboard Flight FZ1073 as the aircraft traveled from Dubai to Tel Aviv with more than 170 people aboard. The co-pilot allegedly attacked Captain Smit Machchhar with a sharp weapon inside the cockpit as the plane suddenly plunged thousands of feet over Saudi Arabia.

Despite suffering serious stab wounds, Machchhar managed to unlock the cockpit, allowing passengers and other crew members to enter and overpower the attacker. Passengers used improvised restraints to subdue him, while reserve pilots who were aboard the aircraft took control and eventually landed safely in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.

Machchhar, an Indian national with 17 years of flying experience and 11 years as a captain, has since described his determination to save the passengers despite his injuries. The dramatic intervention by the captain, passengers and reserve pilots prevented what officials say could have become a catastrophic aviation disaster.

The co-pilot and Machchhar were subsequently transferred from Saudi Arabia to the UAE after receiving medical treatment. Authorities from several countries are involved in the investigation, with particular attention now focused on the co-pilot’s background, his previous employment and the security screening that allowed him into the cockpit of an Israel-bound aircraft.

Another question under investigation is how an Omani national came to be assigned to the Tel Aviv route. According to reporting on the investigation, security arrangements between Israel and the UAE generally prohibit crew members from countries without diplomatic relations with Israel from serving aboard flights to Israel. Oman does not maintain diplomatic relations with Israel.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Friday that investigators increasingly believe the co-pilot had undergone Islamist radicalization and intended to bring down the aircraft, while stressing that authorities were still trying to determine whether anyone had directed him.

“As time passes, the picture becomes clearer. Yaniv and his brave friends averted another 9/11,” Netanyahu said. “The attacker underwent Islamist radicalization; he came to crash the plane with everyone inside. We are investigating whether he was sent, and whoever sent him will pay a very heavy price.”

Netanyahu’s latest comments represented a firmer assessment than he had given immediately after the attack, when he said it was still too early to determine the motive and suggested that the co-pilot’s actions initially appeared consistent with an attempt to crash the aircraft rather than a conventional hijacking. Israeli security officials have said their initial assessment is that the co-pilot may have acted alone, although that question remains under investigation.

President Trump has separately said that information reaching him had raised the possibility of Iranian involvement. Israeli officials, however, have said they have not found evidence establishing an Iranian connection, while emphasizing that the investigation remains ongoing.

Flydubai has meanwhile suspended all flights to and from Israel until further notice at the request of authorities while the investigation proceeds. CEO Ghaith Al Ghaith said the airline is assisting affected passengers and remains in coordination with government and aviation authorities.

{Matzav.com}

Captain Smit Machchhar, the Indian Flydubai pilot whose actions helped save the passengers aboard the Tel Aviv-bound flight attacked by its co-pilot, has spoken publicly from his hospital bed for the first time, breaking down in tears as he described the moment he realized that despite his severe wounds, he had to force open the cockpit door or everyone aboard could die.

Machchhar spoke Friday by video from a hospital in Abu Dhabi with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, giving a firsthand account of the extraordinary battle inside the cockpit of Flydubai Flight FZ1073 and the split-second decision that allowed passengers and crew members to rush in and overpower the attacker.

The captain had initially been treated in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, where he underwent emergency surgery after the aircraft made an emergency landing following Wednesday’s attack. He was subsequently transferred to the United Arab Emirates for continued treatment.

During the conversation, Machchhar described being badly wounded and knocked to the cockpit floor as the aircraft began plunging from its cruising altitude. Drawing on more than 17 years of flying experience, he said he could sense what was happening to the aircraft even without being able to see the instruments.

“I had so many injuries, but I told myself I have to get up and act. At the time, I told myself that I have been flying for 17 years. Even with my eyes closed, I can tell what is happening with the aircraft.”

Machchhar said that while lying wounded on the floor, he realized the aircraft was descending and understood that his only chance was to reach the cockpit door and get help from the cabin.

“I had suffered so many injuries that I had collapsed. At that time, I could feel that the aircraft was going down. I knew this was the last push, that the door was right there,” he recalled.

Even as the attack continued, Machchhar managed to reach and open the cockpit door.

“I was being hit even then, but I just opened the door and everyone came in.”

That decision proved critical. Once the cockpit door opened, passengers and crew members rushed forward and helped overpower the co-pilot, while qualified pilots traveling aboard the aircraft took control of the jet and ultimately brought it safely to the ground in Tabuk.

The Boeing 737 MAX 8 had gone into a terrifying dive during the struggle, losing thousands of feet as those aboard fought to regain control of the aircraft.

Machchhar became visibly emotional while recounting the ordeal to Modi, at one point telling the Indian leader how meaningful the personal call was to him.

“You are my biggest idol. I never thought I would speak to you,” Machchhar told Modi.

The captain also revealed that during the struggle he repeatedly recited the Hanuman Chalisa, a Hindu prayer that he said gave him strength as he fought through his injuries.

“Whenever I am in pain, I recite the Hanuman Chalisa. At that time too, I only kept reciting the Hanuman Chalisa,” he said.

“I know God himself saved me,” Machchhar said as he became emotional.

He told Modi that the prayer is part of the religious and cultural tradition he is trying to pass on to his two-year-old son as well.

Modi praised the captain for putting the lives of the passengers ahead of his own while he himself was fighting to survive.

“You had such a big wound on your body, you yourself were fighting for life and death. At that time, you did not care for your life, you cared for the lives of all the travellers,” Modi told him.

The Indian prime minister told Machchhar that his actions had become a source of enormous pride across India and said people throughout the country were praying for his recovery.

“You took decisions in a fraction of a second and saved the lives of so many people,” Modi told the injured captain. “When you yourself were fighting between life and death, you did not worry about your own life, but about the lives of all the passengers. Today the entire country can proudly say that we Indians are not people who take lives, but people who save lives. You have raised the pride of 1.4 billion citizens of the country.”

Modi told Machchhar that prayers were being held for him at religious sites across India and said the captain’s actions had resonated well beyond the country’s borders.

“You have shown through your life what non-violence means. You have done such a great deed that every citizen of this country, and people around the world, are eager to see you and speak with you.”

Modi also told the captain that he had spoken with members of his family and had been struck by their strength throughout the ordeal. He thanked Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for the medical care provided to Machchhar following the attack.

Before ending the call, Modi offered the wounded pilot a personal assurance: “Smit, whenever you need anything, I am just one phone call away.”

The recognition for Machchhar is now extending beyond the prime minister’s office. The government of Gujarat has announced that the captain will receive an award honoring his extraordinary courage during the crisis.

Machchhar’s actions have also drawn praise in Israel and the UAE, with officials crediting his decision to open the cockpit door with giving passengers and other crew members the opportunity to intervene before the aircraft could be brought down.

The accused co-pilot, an Omani national whose name has not been publicly released, was also transferred from Saudi Arabia to the UAE, where authorities are investigating his motive and whether the attack involved advance planning, terrorist direction or outside assistance.

Israeli officials are hoping their close relationship with Abu Dhabi will allow Israeli observers to participate in or closely follow the investigation after Saudi Arabia reportedly declined an earlier Israeli request for such involvement.

Despite statements from President Donald Trump about the possibility of Iranian involvement, Israeli authorities have not established a connection between the attacker and Iran. Investigators are examining the co-pilot’s background and social-media activity as they seek to determine whether he acted independently or had ties to others.

Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has said the co-pilot underwent “Islamist radical indoctrination,” while investigators are now focusing on whether the attack was independently conceived or involved advance planning or direction from others.

For Machchhar, however, the decisions inside the cockpit came down to something far more immediate. Badly wounded on the floor and sensing from nearly two decades of flying experience that the aircraft was going down, he understood that the cockpit door was only feet away — and that opening it could be the difference between life and death for everyone aboard.

“I was being hit even then, but I just opened the door and everyone came in.”

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump turned up the pressure on Senate Republicans Friday to permanently end the twice-a-year changing of the clocks, singling out Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas as the lawmaker standing in the way of legislation that has already won overwhelming bipartisan approval in the House.

The Sunshine Protection Act, which would make daylight saving time permanent in most of the country, sailed through the House on July 14 by a 308-117 vote. The legislation was sent to the Senate the following day and referred to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, where it has yet to advance.

Trump, who has taken to calling the proposal the “No More Changing of Clocks Act,” urged Republicans to get the measure across the finish line and portrayed the issue as a rare opportunity for lawmakers in both parties to deliver a broadly popular change.

“A ridiculous Clock changing process that takes place twice a year, costs our Country a fortune, is bad for Crime, stress on people, Sports, and just about everything else you can imagine,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post early Friday.

“People don’t want to go around changing their Clocks anymore and, besides, far and away, most people like having an hour of extra sunlight in the evening, rather than in the morning,” he added.

Trump then directly blamed Cotton for the bill’s lack of progress in the Senate, despite having previously backed the Arkansas Republican’s reelection campaign.

“Unfortunately, it’s being held up by Senator Tom Cotton, of Arkansas, for reasons unknown,” Trump wrote.

Cotton’s reasons, however, have been laid out publicly. The Arkansas senator has argued that permanent daylight saving time would create dangerously dark winter mornings, particularly affecting schoolchildren, farmers, construction workers and millions of other Americans who begin their days early.

The disagreement centers on an important distinction that can sometimes get lost in the debate: both sides want to eliminate the ritual of changing clocks twice each year. The fight is over which time should become permanent — daylight saving time, with more evening light, or standard time, with earlier morning sunlight.

Under the House-passed legislation, clocks would remain one hour ahead of standard time throughout the winter. That would move both sunrise and sunset an hour later according to the clock, producing brighter evenings but significantly darker mornings during the shortest days of the year.

Cotton has warned that some communities in Arkansas would not see sunrise until after 8 a.m. during parts of the winter. In states farther north and west within their time zones, sunrise could come considerably later.

“If permanent daylight saving time becomes the law of the land, it will again make winter a dark and dismal time for millions of Americans,” Cotton said in an October 2025 Senate speech.

Trump sees the tradeoff very differently. In his lengthy Friday post, the president argued that keeping daylight saving time year-round would provide Americans with more usable sunlight after work and school while benefiting sports, restaurants, retailers, tourism and other industries.

He also cited potential benefits involving crime, traffic accidents and health, arguing that additional evening daylight would make streets safer and give families more opportunities for outdoor activities. Trump even invoked professional golf, saying PGA Commissioner Brian Rolapp supports the change because winter tournaments can run out of daylight before play is completed.

Trump also challenged one of the arguments historically made against permanent daylight saving time — that farmers need additional morning light — asserting that many farmers would actually prefer having more daylight later in the day to harvest crops.

The president’s intervention comes at an awkward moment for supporters hoping for quick Senate action. Senators have left Washington ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections, with the chamber’s next scheduled vote not until Nov. 9.

That calendar makes it virtually certain that Americans will still turn their clocks back one hour on Sunday, Nov. 1, unless Congress takes extraordinary action before then.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota has also raised doubts about whether supporters can assemble the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster. While the proposal has bipartisan backing, Republican senators themselves remain divided over whether permanent daylight saving time is preferable to permanent standard time.

The country has tried permanent daylight saving time before — and the experience remains central to Cotton’s argument. Congress imposed year-round daylight saving time in January 1974 amid the energy crisis, hoping that additional evening daylight would reduce energy consumption.

The experiment quickly became unpopular in parts of the country as millions of children headed to school before sunrise during the winter. Congress reversed course later that year, and the United States ultimately returned to seasonal clock changes.

Congress came close to changing the system again decades later. In March 2022, the Senate unanimously approved an earlier version of the Sunshine Protection Act, but the House never brought that measure to a final vote before the congressional session ended.

This time, the situation is reversed. The House has already acted, with 308 members voting for the measure and 117 opposing it, leaving the Senate as the remaining congressional obstacle.

Federal law currently sets daylight saving time from the second Sunday in March through the first Sunday in November. Individual states may opt out and remain on standard time throughout the year, as Hawaii and most of Arizona currently do, but states cannot independently choose permanent daylight saving time without congressional authorization.

Medical experts are also divided from Trump over which permanent system would be preferable. The American Academy of Sleep Medicine supports ending the twice-yearly clock changes but favors permanent standard time rather than permanent daylight saving time, arguing that standard time corresponds more closely with the body’s natural circadian rhythms.

Trump, meanwhile, is framing permanent daylight saving time as both a quality-of-life issue and an economic one, arguing that Americans overwhelmingly want to stop changing their clocks and would prefer the additional hour of evening sunlight.

With the House already having approved the measure by a wide bipartisan margin, Trump’s Friday broadside has now placed the spotlight squarely on Cotton and other skeptical Senate Republicans as the debate over America’s twice-yearly clock change returns to Washington.

{Matzav.com}

Great emotion swept through the Gerrer community on Friday morning when the Gerrer Rebbe emerged to participate in the special tefillos of Hoshana Rabbah, after several days of weakness during Chol Hamoed during which the Rebbe did not come out for the regular public tefillos.

Thousands of Gerrer chassidim who had been concerned over the Rebbe’s condition were deeply moved to see him appear for the Hoshana Rabbah proceedings, marking his return to the public tefillos on one of the most significant mornings of the year.

The Rebbe participated in the davening and the special avodah of Hoshana Rabbah, including the seven hakafos traditionally conducted on the final day of Sukkos.

A special bimah was prepared for the occasion, around which the Rebbe performed the hakafos. Images from the Gerrer bais medrash showed the Rebbe holding the arba minim as he took part in the lengthy Hoshana Rabbah tefillos.

The Rebbe was also seen performing chibut aravah, the ancient minhag nevi’im observed on Hoshana Rabbah, in which the special bundle of aravos is struck following the completion of the Hoshanos.

{Matzav.com}