Feed aggregator

Nearly two years after New York City began charging motorists to enter Manhattan’s congestion pricing zone, drivers say they are still battling the same traffic jams while paying thousands of dollars annually in additional tolls, and newly examined commercial vehicle data raises questions about how much the controversial program has actually improved traffic conditions, the NY Post reports.

An analysis of more than 50,000 commercial vehicle trips found that driving speeds across much of Manhattan’s congestion zone remained largely unchanged during the program’s first year. Some sections experienced slower traffic than before the tolls were introduced, even as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority collected hundreds of millions of dollars from motorists.

The findings stand in contrast to the MTA’s repeated declarations that congestion pricing has substantially reduced traffic and improved travel times. The agency has characterized the program as an “unqualified success,” with MTA Chairman Janno Lieber maintaining that “all of the metrics” demonstrate that motorists are benefiting from shorter trips.

But for drivers who regularly enter Manhattan below 60th Street, the financial burden is considerably easier to measure than any improvement in their daily commutes.

The congestion charge, which began in January 2025, currently costs most passenger vehicles equipped with E-ZPass $9 to enter the designated zone during peak hours. Commercial trucks face considerably higher charges, with larger vehicles paying as much as $21.60 per entry.

For workers whose jobs require them to drive into Manhattan regularly, those charges have become another substantial expense in a city already known for its high cost of living.

“It’s just a money grab,” said Michael, a 55-year-old delivery worker from Queens who spoke to the New York Post while stopping at a Mobil gas station near West 36th Street and Tenth Avenue. “Working people can’t afford it.”

The courier said the program has imposed a considerable financial burden without producing the promised improvement in traffic.

“I’m paying up to four grand, and I’m not getting any benefit,” he said. “Traffic is not flowing.”

Other motorists offered similar accounts, describing commutes that remain lengthy and unpredictable despite the new fees.

Benadon Benmore, a 40-year-old ironworker who lives in Harlem and works in Hell’s Kitchen, said his daily trip home has not become any easier since the tolling system took effect.

“It still takes me two hours to get home,” Benmore said. “I’m gonna get me a real horse.”

Some drivers acknowledged that traffic initially improved after the congestion charge was introduced, but said those benefits have gradually disappeared.

Jhoffre Arevalo, a 40-year-old Uber driver from Flushing, recalled a noticeable reduction in congestion during the program’s early months.

“When congestion pricing started, you’d see the difference. Traffic went down a lot,” Arevalo said. “But now it comes back to normal. I think I see more traffic now.”

The conflicting assessments have become a central issue in the debate over whether congestion pricing is delivering on the promises made by Gov. Kathy Hochul and transportation officials.

The MTA has reported that the program reduced the number of vehicles entering the congestion zone by approximately 11% during 2025, a figure the agency has cited as evidence that the toll is successfully discouraging unnecessary driving into Manhattan.

However, vehicle counts collected by the Port Authority at the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, two major routes into the affected area, indicated a smaller reduction of approximately 4.5% in 2025 compared with 2024.

The two measurements cover different sets of vehicles and entry points, meaning they are not directly interchangeable. Nevertheless, the discrepancy has contributed to questions about the extent of the program’s impact on actual driving conditions.

A separate analysis by Geotab, a company that provides vehicle tracking and fleet management technology, examined commercial driving patterns before and after congestion pricing began.

Using GPS information from more than 50,000 truck and van trips within the tolling zone, researchers compared traffic speeds during the daytime hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. in 2024 and 2025.

The results indicated that traffic speeds improved along only 37% of the roadway mileage examined.

Another 46% showed no statistically significant change, while approximately 16% experienced slower vehicle speeds after the congestion charge was implemented.

The findings suggest that reductions in the number of vehicles entering Manhattan have not translated into faster travel across every part of the congestion zone.

The Geotab analysis focused on tracked commercial vehicles rather than all traffic, however, and does not by itself establish the program’s overall effect on every category of motorist.

Commercial vehicles may also respond differently to congestion pricing because of the way their tolls are assessed.

Unlike passenger cars, which generally pay the congestion charge only once per day, trucks are charged each time they enter the zone.

That distinction can create an incentive for commercial drivers to remain within the affected area rather than leave and return later for additional deliveries or assignments.

Geotab’s findings indicated that commercial vehicles were making more stops and spending more time idling after the tolling system began.

The company’s tracking software considers a trip completed when a vehicle’s engine is turned off or when it remains stationary for more than 3.3 minutes.

Using that definition, the data showed that tracked trucks and vans averaged approximately 4.6 trips or stops per day in 2025, compared with four in 2024.

Researchers concluded that the increase in vehicle activity contributed to higher emissions from the commercial fleet being monitored.

The findings raise additional questions about the environmental benefits of congestion pricing, another major argument advanced by supporters of the program.

Hochul has repeatedly credited the tolling system with producing “cleaner air” in Manhattan.

But an August report from the New York City Health Department found that measured air pollution within the congestion zone was not significantly different from the levels expected in the absence of the program.

That finding does not necessarily establish that congestion pricing has had no environmental effect. Changes in air quality can be influenced by weather, regional pollution and other factors, while benefits may take longer to become detectable in some measurements.

Nevertheless, the report has provided critics with additional grounds to challenge the administration’s claims about the program’s environmental accomplishments.

Meanwhile, the financial results have been substantial.

According to MTA board documents, congestion pricing generated more than $700 million in revenue during 2025, its first year of operation.

Through September 2026, the tolling program had collected an additional $548 million.

The money is intended to support the MTA’s capital improvement program, including investments in subway, bus and commuter rail infrastructure.

Transportation officials argue that the revenue is essential for modernizing the region’s public transit network and reducing the need for residents and commuters to rely on private vehicles.

The agency has also begun displaying signs at construction projects informing the public that improvements were “made possible by congestion pricing.”

For motorists already frustrated by the cost of entering Manhattan, those signs have become another reminder of the money they are required to pay.

The annual expense can be considerable even for drivers of ordinary passenger vehicles.

A motorist who enters the zone during peak hours five days a week and pays the standard $9 E-ZPass charge spends $45 weekly.

Over 50 working weeks, that amounts to approximately $2,250 annually in congestion charges alone, not including bridge and tunnel tolls, parking, fuel, insurance or vehicle maintenance.

The financial burden is substantially greater for commercial drivers.

A large truck paying $21.60 per entry would incur $108 in congestion charges over a five-day workweek, equivalent to approximately $5,400 over 50 weeks.

If that truck must enter the zone twice each workday, its annual congestion charges could reach $10,800.

For small businesses, independent contractors, delivery operators and tradespeople who depend on vehicles to transport equipment and merchandise, those expenses can be difficult to absorb.

Some companies may pass the additional costs along to customers, while others must account for the tolls as another operating expense.

The controversy is likely to intensify because the current $9 passenger vehicle charge is only the first stage of the program’s planned pricing schedule.

Under the existing timetable, the standard peak-hour toll is scheduled to increase to $12 in 2028 and $15 in 2031.

That would represent a 66.7% increase from the current rate by the beginning of the next decade.

A driver entering the zone five days a week at the eventual $15 rate would pay $75 weekly, or approximately $3,750 over 50 working weeks.

The planned increases have fueled opposition among motorists who believe they are being asked to shoulder an ever-growing financial burden without receiving corresponding improvements in road conditions.

The debate has also become a prominent political issue in New York, with opponents accusing Hochul of imposing an unfair additional cost on working families and commuters.

Supporters maintain that congestion pricing is designed to reduce vehicle traffic, improve public transportation and provide a reliable source of funding for long-delayed transit improvements.

They also point to the MTA’s reported reduction in vehicle entries as evidence that the program is influencing driving behavior, even if traffic conditions have not improved uniformly across Manhattan.

Critics counter that fewer vehicle entries do not necessarily mean that the remaining motorists are experiencing substantially faster trips, particularly when construction, commercial deliveries, double parking and other sources of congestion continue to affect traffic flow.

The Geotab findings have added a new dimension to that argument by showing that, at least among the commercial vehicles studied, large portions of the zone experienced little measurable improvement in travel speeds.

For drivers who must enter Manhattan regardless of the toll, the question is whether the additional expense is producing a meaningful benefit.

With toll collections continuing and further rate increases already scheduled, that question is becoming increasingly consequential for workers and businesses that depend on the city’s roads.

And for Michael, the Queens courier who says he is spending thousands of dollars on the program while continuing to struggle through Manhattan traffic, the conclusion is straightforward.

“The tolls are eating us alive,” Michael said.

{Matzav.com}

The United States has reportedly warned several Persian Gulf nations to prepare for the possibility of a brief but powerful military campaign against Iran following next week’s midterm elections, as President Donald Trump weighs another major offensive against Tehran’s nuclear facilities, missile infrastructure and military installations.

According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, American officials have communicated the warnings through diplomatic and military channels, signaling that Washington is seriously considering renewed hostilities after the November 3 elections. The preparations come amid mounting concerns that Iran is rebuilding military capabilities damaged during earlier American and Israeli strikes and that diplomatic efforts to reach a new agreement with Tehran have made little progress.

Trump has not authorized a new operation, according to people familiar with the administration’s deliberations, but is reportedly moving closer to approving a substantial military campaign if Iranian leaders refuse to make concessions. Such an operation could involve coordinated American and Israeli attacks designed to further weaken Iran’s military capabilities and increase pressure on the regime to negotiate.

The president himself raised the prospect of renewed military action during a rally last week, referring to the previous American-Israeli bombing campaign against Iran.

“We may do another little Epic Fury,” Trump said. “Or they’ll agree.”

The remarks reflected the administration’s strategy of combining military threats with economic pressure in an effort to force Tehran into an agreement addressing its nuclear program and other security concerns.

The Pentagon, meanwhile, has reportedly begun strengthening its military position across the Middle East in preparation for a possible escalation.

Among the measures under consideration or already underway is the deployment of an additional Patriot missile defense system from Texas to Israel, intended to reinforce defenses against potential Iranian missile attacks.

American forces have also been restoring ammunition stockpiles depleted during previous operations, while military planners prepare bomber and fighter aircraft for possible missions against Iranian targets.

The United States is additionally considering deploying another aircraft carrier strike group and a Marine expeditionary unit to the region next month, according to the Journal.

Those forces would supplement approximately 20 American warships already operating in Middle Eastern waters, potentially giving Washington additional capabilities for sustained air operations, missile defense and maritime security.

The buildup would also provide the United States with greater flexibility to respond if Iran attempts to retaliate against American bases, allied countries or commercial shipping routes.

The White House has declined to provide details about possible military plans, maintaining that the president has not ruled out any course of action.

“President Trump keeps all options on the table to ensure that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon,” the administration said.

Trump has publicly indicated that he does not intend to launch a new attack before the midterm elections, leaving open the possibility of military action afterward if negotiations remain unsuccessful.

The timing has drawn particular attention because the administration is attempting to manage an increasingly dangerous confrontation with Iran while Americans prepare to vote in congressional elections.

Although diplomatic intermediaries have continued efforts to reopen negotiations, those initiatives have reportedly failed to produce a breakthrough.

The administration has maintained extensive economic sanctions against Tehran, while a naval blockade has sharply curtailed Iranian oil exports and international trade.

Those restrictions have placed substantial pressure on Iran’s economy and reduced the financial resources available to its government.

American officials nevertheless remain concerned that economic pressure alone may not prevent Tehran from restoring its military capabilities.

Iran has reportedly been working to rebuild its ballistic missile arsenal and related infrastructure following extensive damage inflicted during earlier American and Israeli attacks.

That rebuilding effort is particularly significant for Israel and American forces stationed throughout the region because Iran’s missile systems represent one of Tehran’s principal means of threatening military bases, population centers and critical infrastructure.

A renewed offensive could therefore focus not only on nuclear facilities but also on missile production sites, launch systems, military command centers and other installations considered essential to Iran’s ability to conduct attacks.

Such operations would carry substantial risks, however, particularly if Iranian leaders conclude that the United States and Israel intend to inflict lasting damage on the regime’s military capabilities.

Tehran has warned that another American attack could provoke retaliation extending well beyond Iranian territory.

Iranian officials have threatened strikes against United States military installations and strategically important economic facilities throughout the Persian Gulf, raising concerns that neighboring countries could become targets even if they do not directly participate in an offensive.

American bases in Gulf Arab countries, as well as energy installations, ports and transportation infrastructure, could face heightened danger in the event of a broader regional confrontation.

The possibility of Iranian retaliation helps explain why Washington has reportedly begun warning Gulf governments to prepare for renewed hostilities.

Those countries have strong security relationships with the United States but also face considerable economic and security risks if fighting spreads across the region.

A military confrontation involving attacks on oil installations or shipping lanes could disrupt energy supplies and international commerce, potentially producing economic consequences far beyond the Middle East.

The Strait of Hormuz remains a particularly sensitive flashpoint because of its importance to international oil shipments and its proximity to Iranian military positions.

Any attempt by Tehran to interfere with shipping through the waterway could draw additional American military involvement and widen a conflict that Washington may initially intend to keep limited.

Concerns about escalation have grown further following reports that Iranian military officials are considering whether to strike first if they become convinced that another American or Israeli offensive is imminent.

Time magazine reported that Iranian commanders have discussed the possibility of preemptive attacks under such circumstances.

Such a decision would significantly increase the danger of a broader war, potentially forcing Washington and its regional allies to respond to Iranian strikes before any planned American operation begins.

The possibility of preemptive action also complicates the administration’s efforts to use military preparations as leverage in negotiations.

A buildup intended to convince Tehran that the United States is prepared to attack could instead persuade Iranian commanders that an attack is unavoidable, increasing the risk of miscalculation.

The latest developments follow months of confrontation between Washington and Tehran, during which military operations, sanctions and diplomatic initiatives have failed to produce a lasting settlement.

Trump has repeatedly insisted that Iran must never be permitted to acquire a nuclear weapon, describing that objective as a central requirement of American national security policy.

Israeli officials have likewise maintained that Iran’s nuclear ambitions and ballistic missile capabilities represent major threats to the Jewish state.

Previous American and Israeli military operations inflicted substantial damage on Iranian facilities, but reports of renewed missile production and efforts to restore damaged infrastructure have raised questions about whether those attacks achieved lasting results.

The administration now faces a decision over whether another military campaign would further weaken Iran’s capabilities and improve the prospects for an agreement or instead trigger an extended regional confrontation.

Some national security analysts have urged caution, arguing that the existing combination of sanctions and maritime restrictions already gives Washington significant leverage.

Behnam Ben Taleblu, senior director of the Iran program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, warned against abandoning that advantage without a compelling strategic reason.

“Otherwise, at the moment, the U.S. has a winning hand through maintaining sanctions and the blockade. It should stay the course,” he told the Journal.

That assessment reflects a broader debate over whether military action would strengthen America’s negotiating position or risk sacrificing the gains achieved through sustained economic pressure.

Supporters of a more aggressive approach argue that Iran’s efforts to rebuild its military infrastructure demonstrate that additional force may be necessary to prevent Tehran from restoring capabilities damaged during previous operations.

Others caution that even a relatively short campaign could provoke retaliation against American personnel and regional allies, potentially creating a conflict far more extensive than originally anticipated.

The administration has not disclosed what specific conditions would trigger a new offensive, which targets might be selected or how long an operation could last.

Nor has Washington publicly confirmed that a final military decision has been made.

For now, the warnings to Gulf governments and reported military preparations indicate that the possibility of renewed war is being taken seriously at the highest levels of the American government.

With the midterm elections approaching, regional governments are watching closely for indications of whether Trump will authorize another round of strikes or continue attempting to force Iranian concessions through sanctions, diplomatic pressure and the threat of military action.

The coming days could determine whether the current confrontation remains a campaign of economic coercion and military deterrence or develops into another major American-Israeli offensive against Iran.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump joked Tuesday that Sen. Ted Cruz could become the first Supreme Court nominee to receive unanimous support from the Senate, not because of his judicial qualifications, but because lawmakers in both parties would be delighted to see the Texas Republican leave Congress.

The president delivered the remarks during an appearance in Lubbock, Texas, reviving a running joke about Cruz’s sometimes strained relationships with his Senate colleagues and suggesting that those tensions could make him the easiest Supreme Court nominee in American history to confirm.

“I would pick Ted Cruz to be the next Supreme Court Justice,” Trump told the crowd. “The Democrats will 100% vote for it because they hate the guy and they want to get rid of him. And the Republicans would 100% vote for it because they can’t stand him.

“So I’d get 100% of the vote.”

The comments drew attention because Trump has repeatedly floated Cruz’s name in connection with a potential Supreme Court appointment, even as the senator has made clear that he has no interest in accepting such a position. Trump’s latest remarks turned what would ordinarily be a discussion about the qualifications of a possible nominee into a joke about the prospect of bipartisan agreement over Cruz’s departure from the Senate.

The president has made variations of the same observation on several occasions this year. During an earlier appearance, he suggested that Democrats and Republicans might find common ground on a Cruz nomination for the simple reason that neither side would object to removing him from Capitol Hill.

Trump revisited the idea in July at a White House event highlighting Trump Accounts, once again portraying Cruz as a potential judicial nominee whose confirmation could attract overwhelming support from lawmakers who otherwise disagree on nearly every major political issue.

Behind the humor is a history of actual conversations between Trump and Cruz about the Supreme Court. The Texas senator has acknowledged that the president previously raised the possibility of appointing him to the nation’s highest court and that the discussions were more than casual speculation.

Speaking at a Wall Street Journal event in April, Cruz disclosed that Trump had approached him about each of the three Supreme Court openings that arose during his first administration. According to Cruz, he declined the opportunity on all three occasions, choosing to remain in elected office rather than pursue a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary.

Cruz has explained that he prefers the legislative arena, where he can participate directly in political and policy disputes, to the more limited public role expected of a Supreme Court justice. Although a seat on the court would give him considerable influence over constitutional law for decades, the senator has indicated that he has little desire to exchange his political career for judicial service.

He was even more emphatic in September when the possibility arose during an appearance on Sean Hannity’s podcast. Asked whether he would consider joining the Supreme Court, Cruz said his response was “not just no, but …. no.”

Despite his repeated refusals, Cruz possesses the legal credentials ordinarily associated with serious candidates for the nation’s highest court. Before entering the Senate, he built a substantial career as a constitutional lawyer and appellate advocate, including service in several prominent legal positions.

A graduate of Harvard Law School, Cruz served as a law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, an experience that placed him at the center of the Supreme Court’s work early in his legal career. He subsequently served as solicitor general of Texas, representing the state in major appellate litigation and appearing before the Supreme Court in significant constitutional disputes.

Over the course of his legal career, Cruz argued nine cases before the Supreme Court, a level of experience that would distinguish him from many political figures whose names are occasionally mentioned for judicial appointments.

Trump’s previous Supreme Court selections have had a lasting effect on the federal judiciary. During his first administration, he nominated Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, all of whom were confirmed by the Senate and remain members of the court.

Those three appointments helped establish the Supreme Court’s current 6-3 conservative majority, giving Republican-appointed justices a commanding numerical advantage on a range of major constitutional questions.

Any future vacancy would present Trump with another opportunity to shape the court, although the political circumstances surrounding a nomination would depend on which seat became available and the composition of the Senate at the time.

For now, however, the speculation surrounding Cruz remains hypothetical. All nine Supreme Court seats are occupied, no justice has announced a departure, and the White House has made no formal announcement concerning a new nominee.

Trump’s comments therefore amounted to another public jab at a Republican senator with whom he has maintained a complicated political relationship, rather than an indication that a judicial appointment is imminent.

Cruz and Trump were bitter opponents during the 2016 Republican presidential primaries before eventually becoming political allies. Their relationship has since included both cooperation on major conservative priorities and occasional public teasing by the president.

The latest exchange illustrates Trump’s willingness to turn even the possibility of a Supreme Court appointment into an opportunity for political humor, particularly when the potential nominee is a longtime rival turned ally.

And while Cruz has repeatedly insisted that he intends to remain in the Senate, Trump appears unwilling to abandon the prospect of a Supreme Court confirmation vote in which, at least according to the president’s joke, Washington’s divided political parties would finally discover something they could agree upon.

{Matzav.com}

“Mommy, if I beat cancer once, why did it come back?”

Chaim Rubin is only 7 years old.

A year ago, after more than a year of difficult treatments, his parents finally heard the words they had been praying for: Chaim had beaten cancer.

He went back to school, back to his friends, and back to simply being a child.

But at the beginning of Av, everything changed again.  

The seizures returned, and then came the devastating news:

The medulloblastoma was back.

Chaim has already started treatment to help control the disease, but to give him the chance he desperately needs, his family must now get him to the United States for advanced treatment.

The hospital requires a significant deposit upfront, and after already using their savings and everything they had available, the family simply cannot do this alone.

They need our help now.

Every donation can bring Chaim one step closer to the treatment he needs and another chance to fight.

Please open your heart for Chaim ben Yael.

Donate today!

A dramatic decline in support for Shas across Israel’s chareidi communities has emerged as one of the most significant developments in Tuesday’s Knesset election, with new voting figures showing that the Sephardic chareidi party lost more than 20% of its support in major chareidi population centers, despite unusually strong voter participation.

In some outlying communities, Shas experienced an even steeper decline, approaching 40%, raising serious questions about where its traditional voters went and why the party failed to retain its previous level of support.

The findings are particularly striking because they undermine the explanation that the party’s losses were primarily the result of low turnout among chareidi voters. In fact, the four major chareidi cities of Bnei Brak, Modiin Illit, Beitar Illit and Elad recorded a combined turnout of 79.5%, substantially higher than the turnout reported in Israel’s largest cities.

The figures were presented Wednesday by Betzalel Kahn, a senior Kol Chai radio broadcaster and political commentator, during an interview with Ariel Berman on the station’s afternoon news program.

Kahn analyzed the election results after approximately 77.6% of the votes had been entered into the Central Elections Committee’s system, identifying a significant erosion of Shas support even in communities where chareidi voters turned out in large numbers.

According to the figures he presented, Shas was projected to receive seven Knesset seats, the same number as United Torah Judaism, marking a substantial change in the balance of political power between the two established chareidi parties.

The combined strength of Shas and UTJ stood at 14 seats, down four from their representation in the previous Knesset.

The results have prompted questions about the future of Shas and the ability of its leadership to maintain the broad electoral coalition that previously made it Israel’s largest chareidi party.

The scale of the losses becomes clearer when examining the voting figures from individual chareidi cities.

In Beitar Illit, where all 55 polling stations had been counted, Shas received 6,027 votes, compared with 7,303 in the 2022 election. That represents a decline of 17.5% in the party’s vote total, even as the city’s overall turnout reached 80.3%.

United Torah Judaism, meanwhile, increased its vote total in Beitar Illit from 14,081 to 18,033, a gain of 28.1%. Its share of the city’s vote rose to 64.3%, compared with 59.1% in the previous election.

The contrast was particularly pronounced because Shas’s share of the Beitar Illit vote fell from 30.6% to 21.5%, a decline of more than nine percentage points.

A similar pattern emerged in Modiin Illit, where UTJ received 25,242 votes, compared with 20,662 in 2022, an increase of 4,580 votes.

Shas, by contrast, received 4,746 votes in Modiin Illit, down from 5,277 in the previous election, a decline of approximately 10.1%.

The city’s voter turnout reached 83.82%, further demonstrating that Shas’s losses cannot simply be attributed to a lack of participation among chareidi residents.

In Elad, UTJ increased its vote total from 6,862 to 8,456, a gain of 23.2%. Shas declined from 9,743 to 8,920 votes, losing 823 votes, or approximately 8.4%.

Taken together, the results from Elad, Beitar Illit and Modiin Illit reveal a pronounced shift in the balance between the two parties.

UTJ gained 10,126 votes across those three cities compared with the previous election, while Shas lost 2,630 votes.

That means UTJ increased its combined vote total in the three cities by approximately 24.3%, while Shas experienced an overall decline of approximately 11.8%.

The figures do not establish that every voter who abandoned Shas switched directly to UTJ, but they demonstrate that the two parties experienced sharply different electoral trends in the same communities.

Kahn suggested that some former Shas voters did move to UTJ, while a smaller number may have supported Itamar Ben Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit party. Others may have voted for smaller parties or abstained altogether.

The losses were not confined to the established chareidi cities.

An analysis by Dr. Gilad Malach of the Israel Democracy Institute indicated that Shas had suffered declines of approximately 42% in peripheral communities and roughly 25% in chareidi population centers.

Among the most pronounced declines were Dimona, where Shas’s support fell by approximately 48.5%, Netivot, where it declined by 46.3%, Ofakim, where the decrease reached 45%, and Sderot, where support dropped by 42.1%.

Additional declines were reported in Ashkelon, at 39.9%; Netanya, at 39%; Ashdod, at 37.2%; and Cholon, at 29.6%.

The results are especially consequential for Shas because its political strength has historically depended on support extending beyond the established chareidi community into traditional Sephardic neighborhoods and development towns throughout Israel.

The party’s ability to attract voters from those communities helped distinguish it from UTJ, whose support is concentrated more heavily among Ashkenazic chareidi voters.

A contraction in both sectors would therefore present Shas with a broader electoral challenge than a decline limited to a handful of chareidi cities.

Kahn also pointed to the issue of natural population growth.

Even maintaining its previous number of votes would not necessarily have represented growth for Shas, given the expanding population of the communities from which it draws support.

Instead, the party has experienced an actual reduction in votes in numerous locations, despite the larger potential electorate.

The election results also revealed the presence of smaller chareidi political lists that challenged the established parties, although neither came close to crossing the electoral threshold.

According to the partial figures presented by Kahn, the Tzeva Shachor, or Black Color, protest list had received approximately 9,300 votes, surpassing the approximately 8,750 votes recorded for Moti Leitner’s Hatzibur Hachareidi party.

Kahn said he had previously estimated that Leitner’s party would fail to reach 10,000 votes, and the partial results appeared consistent with that assessment.

Although those lists attracted only a small share of the electorate, their participation added another dimension to the internal disagreements that characterized the chareidi election campaign.

Kahn also discussed the broader political picture emerging from the count.

At the stage he analyzed, Netanyahu’s bloc stood at 54 seats, the opposition parties at 49, and the Arab parties at 17.

Likud was allocated 27 seats in the interim calculation, while Shas, UTJ and Otzma Yehudit each stood at seven, and Religious Zionism at six.

Those figures were provisional and subject to change as additional ballots were counted and the final allocation of Knesset seats was calculated.

Kahn also cautioned against automatically counting UTJ as a guaranteed member of Netanyahu’s bloc.

He recalled that Rav Dov Landau had declared that there was no longer a right-wing bloc from the perspective of the chareidi parties, while UTJ’s Yaakov Asher had emphasized that the party regarded itself as part of a Torah bloc rather than a conventional political alliance.

“Rav Dov Landau said there is no longer a right-wing bloc, and Yaakov Asher said that we are the Torah bloc. Whoever wants us will have to pay the price we demand,” Kahn said, recalling those positions.

That distinction could become significant during coalition negotiations, particularly given the continuing dispute over the military draft and the status of yeshiva students.

For Shas, however, the more immediate issue is the substantial decline in support revealed by the election results.

The party entered the election with 11 Knesset seats, while UTJ held seven. The possibility that both parties could emerge with roughly equal representation would constitute a major change in their relative parliamentary strength.

The final seat allocation remains dependent on the completion of the count, including ballots that have not yet been processed.

Nevertheless, the municipal voting figures already available reveal a consistent pattern: UTJ increased its support in several major chareidi communities while Shas lost votes, despite strong overall participation.

The question confronting Shas is therefore considerably more complicated than whether its supporters failed to turn out on Election Day.

In communities where nearly eight out of every ten eligible residents voted, substantial numbers of people who previously supported Shas appear to have made a different electoral choice.

Determining why those voters changed their preferences, and whether the shift represents a temporary reaction to the latest election campaign or a more lasting realignment, will be a central question for Shas leaders as they assess the results of the 2026 election.

{Matzav.com}

[COMMUNICATED]

What should have been a teachable moment turned into a train wreck, when a campaign emphasizing the importance of boundaries crossed a line of its own, portraying a seemingly loving grandmother in what many saw as a predatory light.

A video released by the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre showed grandparents coming to visit, with one child welcoming a kiss while the other clearly does not. The video went viral, with many disturbed by what they saw as an attempt to undermine familial relationships, even as it addressed the important topic of consent. The controversy made international headlines, with Ireland’s justice minister describing it as “inappropriate and demeaning to grandparents,” and unfortunately, the campaign’s larger message has gotten lost in the shuffle.

“The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre had a real opportunity to educate families and promote healthy boundaries,” says Amudim Executive Director Andy Lauber. “Instead, they missed the mark. The goal isn’t to create distance between generations, but to raise children who feel safe, respected, heard, and deeply connected to the people who love them.”

Children need to learn about consent, but the concept goes far beyond a grandmother’s kiss. That moment when one brother wants to wrestle, but the other prefers not to, is a teachable one. Explaining to a child who declines hugs that her sister has the right to turn down her well-meaning embraces is yet another valuable lesson. Our children learn through those exchanges, gaining the skills to express their own boundaries, while respecting someone else’s.

Amudim’s parenting series, My Space. My Feelings. My Voice, addresses those conversations, with guidance from experts in the field on how these lessons develop, how to teach respect alongside boundaries, and what to say when feelings get hurt.

Shira Berkowitz, LCSW, Director of Darcheinu, explains that social and emotional learning doesn’t start by treating the people around a child as a threat. It starts with the child: noticing what they are feeling, paying attention when something feels uncomfortable, and understanding the difference between a healthy boundary and an unhealthy one. “This is my body, and my body should be respected at all times,” Berkowitz says. That is what allows a child to recognize when someone oversteps, whether a stranger, a relative, or a close family friend.

And knowing isn’t enough. “Every skill that we teach, we practice,” Berkowitz says. “Who are we telling? What are we saying? What do we do about this?” A child who has rehearsed those answers can say no with confidence.

A loving Bubby can help teach that lesson by accepting a child’s decision to turn down a kiss, giving them the confidence to know that they have been heard, are respected, and still loved. And parents can be confident that children will speak up when something doesn’t feel right, even if it involves someone they love.

It wasn’t just the Dublin campaign that fell short – the resulting backlash did too. The public outcry could have asked what lessons could have been learned here. Instead, that question has yet to be answered, even as the arguments continue.

An extraordinary political scenario is emerging in Israel following Tuesday’s inconclusive Knesset election, with growing discussion of a possible unity government that would bring Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu together with his rival Gadi Eisenkot, establish a rotation agreement for the premiership, and potentially culminate in Netanyahu becoming Israel’s next president.

The proposal, examined in a political analysis published Wednesday by i24NEWS, would offer a dramatic solution to the parliamentary deadlock that has left neither Netanyahu’s right-wing and religious bloc nor Eisenkot’s opposition alliance with the 61 Knesset seats needed to form a government.

Under one scenario, Netanyahu would remain prime minister for approximately two years before transferring the premiership to Eisenkot. Netanyahu could then become the governing coalition’s candidate to succeed President Isaac Herzog, whose seven-year term ends in July 2028.

The arrangement would represent one of the most extraordinary political compromises in Israeli history, potentially allowing Netanyahu to conclude his lengthy tenure as prime minister by moving into the presidency while enabling Eisenkot to assume leadership of a broad coalition.

However, the proposal remains speculative. No agreement has been reached, and Eisenkot has repeatedly rejected the possibility of serving in a government headed by Netanyahu.

Nevertheless, the deadlock emerging from the election has renewed discussion of arrangements that would have seemed politically impossible only days earlier.

The latest vote has produced a deeply divided Knesset, with Netanyahu’s Likud emerging as the largest individual party but neither major political bloc securing an outright majority.

The results have created a difficult situation for both leaders.

Netanyahu cannot form a government without finding additional parliamentary support beyond his traditional coalition partners. Eisenkot faces a similar problem, particularly because of divisions within the opposition over cooperation with Arab parties and the chareidi factions.

Those obstacles have raised the possibility that Israel could face prolonged coalition negotiations, a caretaker government, or another national election if no workable majority can be assembled.

Against that backdrop, a unity arrangement is attracting renewed attention among political observers and figures associated with the Trump administration.

The Washington Post reported earlier this week that Netanyahu’s allies have been promoting the possibility of a government bringing together Likud and Eisenkot’s Yashar party, with President Donald Trump receptive to the general idea of a stable Israeli government that could advance American regional priorities.

According to that report, Netanyahu has privately told American and European officials that a partnership with Eisenkot would enable him to establish a more moderate government without relying on some of his current right-wing coalition partners, particularly Otzma Yehudit chairman Itamar Ben Gvir.

Such an arrangement could dramatically reshape Israel’s political landscape.

It would potentially remove Ben Gvir and other right-wing figures from positions of influence while creating a coalition capable of pursuing diplomatic initiatives that have encountered resistance from Netanyahu’s existing partners.

Among the principal objectives being discussed is the expansion of the Abraham Accords, particularly a possible normalization agreement between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Trump has made regional diplomacy a central component of his Middle East policy, and some of his advisers believe a broad Israeli coalition would be better positioned to advance negotiations with Arab governments.

Netanyahu has also presented himself to American officials as a reliable partner for continued coordination against Iran, arguing that his experience and relationship with Trump would be valuable during a period of continuing regional instability.

The possibility of a unity government has therefore become intertwined with Washington’s strategic interests, although American officials have not publicly endorsed a specific coalition arrangement.

The proposed arrangement would also carry enormous consequences for Israel’s chareidi political parties.

In his analysis, i24NEWS political commentator Gil Hoffman suggested that a unity government could include Netanyahu’s Likud, Eisenkot’s Yashar party and other centrist and right-of-center factions, while leaving both the chareidi parties and Ben Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit outside the coalition.

Under one possible configuration, Eisenkot could initially serve as defense minister, with former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett becoming foreign minister.

Such an arrangement would represent a fundamental departure from the coalition Netanyahu has led, in which Shas and United Torah Judaism have played central roles.

It would also create an opening for legislation addressing military service that the chareidi parties have strongly opposed.

The draft issue has been one of the defining controversies of the election, with Shas and UTJ insisting that any government seeking their participation must protect the status of yeshiva students.

A coalition excluding those parties could pursue a more stringent draft law without depending on their parliamentary support.

Hoffman suggested that this possibility could help Eisenkot justify an otherwise politically difficult agreement with Netanyahu, allowing him to claim that the new government would pursue policies fundamentally different from those of the outgoing coalition.

The implications for the yeshiva world would be substantial.

The chareidi parties could find themselves outside the government despite retaining significant parliamentary representation, with little direct influence over legislation affecting yeshiva students and the funding of Torah institutions.

At the same time, their exclusion would remove one of the principal obstacles to cooperation between Netanyahu and centrist parties.

The scenario is particularly striking because Eisenkot campaigned on replacing Netanyahu and repeatedly promised that he would not serve under him.

In an interview with Israel’s 103FM radio before the election, Eisenkot categorically rejected a rotation arrangement.

“Absolutely not. I will not serve under Netanyahu, not even in a rotation agreement,” he declared. “If that happens, you’ll see it. I’ll resign an hour later.”

Reversing that position would expose Eisenkot to fierce criticism from supporters who voted for him specifically to end Netanyahu’s premiership.

Hoffman argued, however, that the election results could alter the political calculation.

Without a parliamentary majority, Eisenkot must either seek cooperation with parties he previously rejected, consider a unity agreement, or risk another election.

A rotation arrangement would offer him a path to the premiership without requiring another national vote.

For Netanyahu, the attraction would be equally significant.

He could remain in office during the first half of the government’s term, preserve his influence over national security policy, and potentially secure a path to the presidency.

The presidential element is among the most unusual aspects of the scenario.

Under Israeli law, the president is elected by the Knesset for a single seven-year term. Herzog’s term is scheduled to expire in July 2028.

A unity coalition could theoretically agree to support Netanyahu for the presidency when the position becomes vacant.

That would require a separate Knesset election for president, however, and Netanyahu’s candidacy would raise questions connected to his ongoing criminal trial.

The proposal should therefore be understood as a possible political arrangement rather than an established plan or an agreement that has already been negotiated.

Another complication is Netanyahu’s history with rotation agreements.

In 2020, Netanyahu formed a unity government with Benny Gantz under an arrangement that was supposed to see Gantz become prime minister in November 2021.

That transfer never occurred. The government collapsed following a budget dispute, and Israel returned to the polls.

The episode has contributed to deep skepticism among Netanyahu’s political opponents about whether he would honor another agreement to relinquish the premiership.

Eisenkot would therefore face pressure to secure unusually strong guarantees before accepting any similar arrangement.

Meanwhile, President Herzog could play an important role in determining whether a unity government becomes a realistic possibility.

Following an Israeli election, the president consults with parliamentary factions before assigning a candidate the task of forming a government.

Although Herzog cannot compel rival parties to govern together, he can encourage negotiations and use the consultation process to explore arrangements capable of commanding a Knesset majority.

Herzog has indicated that he wants a broad, stable government that would prevent Israel from being drawn into another election.

With neither political bloc holding a clear majority, his consultations could become especially consequential.

Trump’s involvement represents another important factor.

According to reports in both Israeli and American media, individuals close to the president have discussed a unity arrangement that would allow Netanyahu to remain in office while reducing the influence of his more controversial coalition partners.

Some American officials believe such a government would be better positioned to pursue regional diplomatic agreements and maintain close coordination with Washington.

Other administration figures reportedly remain skeptical of Netanyahu and question whether he would honor commitments made as part of a unity agreement.

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee has denied that Washington is attempting to dictate the composition of Israel’s next government.

Trump himself has not formally endorsed the proposed unity arrangement, despite publicly supporting Netanyahu during the election campaign.

The reported discussions have already provoked a sharp reaction from Ben Gvir.

The Otzma Yehudit chairman accused Netanyahu of considering a deal that would exclude him from the next government and allow the prime minister to secure an eventual pardon.

Ben Gvir has urged Netanyahu to establish another right-wing government rather than pursue an agreement with Eisenkot.

Netanyahu, for his part, used his post-election remarks to defend his current political partners and call for a right-wing nationalist coalition.

Eisenkot likewise declared that the public had voted to end Netanyahu’s leadership.

Neither leader has publicly embraced the unity proposal, and their statements remain difficult to reconcile with the arrangement being discussed.

There are also major obstacles involving the opposition parties.

Avigdor Liberman has ruled out joining a coalition dependent on Arab parties, while other opposition leaders have strongly opposed legislation protecting yeshiva students from military conscription.

Those divisions complicate Eisenkot’s efforts to assemble an alternative majority without Netanyahu.

The Arab parties, which performed strongly in the election, could become influential in parliamentary maneuvering even if they do not formally enter a governing coalition.

Hoffman suggested that a broad unity government could seek to address concerns in Arab communities through major initiatives targeting crime and poverty, potentially giving Arab lawmakers significant parliamentary committee responsibilities without including them in the coalition.

Such an arrangement would require extensive negotiations and agreement among parties with sharply different political priorities.

The alternative to compromise could be prolonged political paralysis.

If no candidate succeeds in forming a government, Israel could face another election, potentially as early as March 2027.

That possibility would leave Netanyahu in office as caretaker prime minister while extending the country’s political uncertainty during a period of regional conflict.

For Netanyahu, Eisenkot and the parties surrounding them, the question is whether the fear of another election will be sufficient to overcome years of political hostility and deeply entrenched campaign commitments.

The proposed Netanyahu-Eisenkot agreement remains an analysis of one possible outcome, not a confirmed negotiation or an announced agreement.

Nevertheless, the fact that a rotation government culminating in a Netanyahu presidency is being seriously examined by political commentators illustrates the extraordinary uncertainty created by Tuesday’s election.

With neither major bloc able to demonstrate a clear path to 61 seats, arrangements that once appeared inconceivable are entering the discussion.

Whether Netanyahu and Eisenkot could actually agree to share power remains highly doubtful. But unless one of them can assemble a majority through more conventional negotiations, the possibility of an unprecedented political compromise may become increasingly difficult to dismiss.

{Matzav.com}

After decades of consumers struggling to keep their breakfast cereal fresh by folding, rolling, clipping, and squeezing shut plastic bags, Cheerios has announced a major change to one of America’s most familiar household products: a resealable cereal bag built directly into the traditional cardboard box.

General Mills announced Tuesday that it has partnered with Ziploc to introduce Cheerios with Ziploc PantrySeal, a new packaging system designed to allow consumers to open a cereal bag, pour out the desired amount, and securely close it again without needing clips, rubber bands, or separate storage containers.

The innovation, which the companies describe as the first resealable bag inside a traditional cereal box, will initially be available for Original Cheerios and Honey Nut Cheerios, with additional retail distribution planned in the coming months.

The announcement follows years of complaints from consumers frustrated by cereal bags that tear unevenly, refuse to close properly, or leave their contents exposed to air after being opened.

According to General Mills, the company receives hundreds of thousands of requests, comments, and reactions annually concerning cereal packaging, with many customers specifically asking for a more convenient way to preserve freshness.

Research cited by the company found that approximately 90% of cereal consumers already take additional measures to keep their cereal fresh after opening a box. Those methods include folding or rolling the inner plastic bag, securing it with a clip, or transferring the cereal into an airtight container.

The new PantrySeal system is intended to eliminate those extra steps while retaining the familiar cardboard packaging that has been a staple of supermarket shelves for generations.

Unlike a conventional cereal bag, which typically must be torn open across the top, the new packaging incorporates Ziploc’s resealable closure along part of the bag’s upper edge. This creates a built-in pouring spout that allows cereal to flow directly into a bowl while helping prevent spills.

Once the desired amount has been poured, consumers can press the closure shut, leaving the remaining cereal sealed inside the original box.

The design also means that families will no longer have to struggle with bags that have been ripped too widely or attempt to fold down an increasingly awkward plastic liner as the cereal supply dwindles.

“General Mills has received letters, emails and DMs asking for an easier way to reseal a cereal box, and we decided it was time to partner with the ultimate freshness brand: Ziploc®,” said Emilie Knox, vice president and business unit director for Cheerios at General Mills.

“Cheerios with Ziploc PantrySeal takes a small, everyday cereal frustration and finally gives consumers the simple solution they’ve been asking for, making the whole routine easier and more enjoyable.”

The partnership combines two of the country’s most recognizable household brands. Cheerios, introduced in 1941, has become one of America’s best-selling breakfast cereals, while Ziploc has spent decades developing products intended to preserve food freshness.

Ziploc introduced its zipper technology in 1968, and the new collaboration represents an expansion of that technology into traditional cereal packaging.

“For generations, Ziploc® Brand has helped people keep the foods they love fresh through simple, trusted solutions,” a Ziploc spokesperson said.

“Cheerios with Ziploc PantrySeal is an exciting new expression of what Ziploc® Brand can do – bringing our resealable freshness expertise directly into the Cheerios package and Ziploc® Brand into the pantry in an entirely new way.”

Although the concept may appear relatively simple, implementing it on the enormous scale required by a major cereal manufacturer presented significant production challenges.

General Mills says nearly one box of Cheerios is produced every second, requiring packaging innovations to function reliably on high-speed manufacturing lines while maintaining the product’s familiar appearance and quality.

The new resealable packaging is being manufactured exclusively in Buffalo, New York, the same city where Cheerios was first produced 85 years ago.

The company emphasized that the cereal itself remains unchanged. Consumers purchasing the new packaging will receive the same Original Cheerios or Honey Nut Cheerios, with the difference confined to the redesigned inner bag.

The announcement comes as breakfast cereal manufacturers face changing consumer habits and growing competition from other convenient breakfast foods.

Industry analysts have pointed to declining cereal consumption over the past decade as shoppers increasingly turn to breakfast bars, yogurt, smoothies, and other portable options. Major cereal manufacturers have responded by introducing new flavors, adding protein, and experimenting with other product improvements.

General Mills’ latest initiative takes a different approach, addressing a longstanding packaging complaint rather than changing the food itself.

The company is also betting that a relatively modest improvement in everyday convenience could strengthen customer loyalty and help differentiate Cheerios from competing brands.

Cheerios with Ziploc PantrySeal became available Tuesday, October 27, exclusively through Walmart.com. General Mills said the redesigned packages will begin appearing at retailers nationwide over the coming months, although it did not announce a specific timetable for individual supermarket chains.

The company has not announced whether the resealable technology will eventually be extended to its other cereal brands or whether the new packaging will ultimately replace conventional cereal bags across the entire Cheerios lineup.

{Matzav.com}

The Los Angeles Unified School District has substantiated 11 allegations involving political advocacy by teachers at Canoga Park High School, concluding that classroom activities and instructional materials violated district requirements and civil rights protections, following complaints about anti-Israel messaging presented to students.

The findings, reported by Jewish Insider on October 26, represent a significant development in a dispute over the treatment of Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in American public schools. District officials ordered corrective measures addressing classroom materials, curriculum oversight and staff training after reviewing the complaints.

The investigation centered on allegations that educators had used their positions to promote political viewpoints concerning Israel rather than presenting the subject in a manner consistent with district educational policies.

The case has attracted attention from Jewish parents and advocacy organizations concerned that political activism surrounding the Gaza conflict has increasingly entered public school classrooms, sometimes creating environments in which Jewish and Israeli students feel singled out or unwelcome.

The district’s findings are particularly significant because they go beyond allegations made by outside organizations. School officials themselves determined that violations had occurred and directed the school to take corrective action.

At the same time, the substantiated findings should not be interpreted as establishing that every allegation raised against the educators was proven. The district’s conclusions concern the specific conduct and policies examined during its investigation.

The controversy arose at Canoga Park High School, a public high school in the San Fernando Valley serving students from a wide range of ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds.

Complaints concerning instruction about Israel and the Palestinian territories prompted district officials to examine whether teachers had crossed the boundary between legitimate educational discussion and political advocacy.

Public schools may teach about international conflicts, including contentious subjects such as the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. However, teachers are generally required to comply with district policies governing instructional materials, political activity and the treatment of students from different backgrounds.

The investigation examined whether those requirements had been followed.

The resulting findings led to instructions for corrective measures intended to prevent similar problems from recurring.

Among the incidents examined was a dance instructor’s use of classroom lessons and school performances to promote themes of Palestinian resistance.

According to the investigation, the teacher incorporated those themes into dance instruction and organized a recital dedicated to the children of Gaza. A subsequent graded assignment required students to review a YouTube playlist that included material describing people in Gaza as martyrs.

Investigators also found that the instructor summoned 49 students from their classes to attend a meeting of the school’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter and offered community-service credit for participation in a Gaza fundraising event.

The district found no evidence that the teacher had changed students’ grades or punished students who disagreed with her political views.

Other findings involved political posters displayed in classrooms, including one bearing the message “Israel kills! USA pays!!” Investigators reported that some materials were displayed again after being removed.

A third teacher was found to have repeatedly presented allegations of Israeli genocide during lessons and encouraged students to participate in Students for Justice in Palestine.

The investigation also examined a school library display depicting the Gaza conflict. According to the complaint, the exhibit portrayed Palestinians exclusively as victims and Israel exclusively as the aggressor.

Investigators determined that the teachers’ conduct, taken together, had created a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.

The district distinguished between political expression and discriminatory conduct, explaining that criticism of Israel or support for Palestinian causes does not, by itself, constitute a violation of federal civil rights law.

Rather, investigators concluded that the repeated use of classroom authority, instructional time and school-sponsored activities to advance one-sided political messaging had crossed the applicable legal and educational boundaries.

The district also examined the teachers’ wearing of keffiyehs during classroom activities, but its findings were based on the accompanying conduct and statements rather than the garments alone.

The complaint was submitted by the North American Values Institute, working with Jewish Teachers Los Angeles and Emet Legal.

The organizations argued that teachers had transformed classrooms and extracurricular activities into platforms for political advocacy, leaving Jewish students exposed to hostile messaging in settings where they were required to participate.

David Bernstein, founder and chief executive of the North American Values Institute, welcomed the district’s findings.

“This determination establishes a national precedent for holding public school educators accountable when political activism replaces objective instruction,” Bernstein said.

“LAUSD’s findings demonstrate that one-sided political advocacy in the classroom is not protected speech — it is a violation of civil rights law. School districts across North America now have a clear roadmap to keep political agendas out of public education.”

Ilana Cohen of Emet Legal similarly described the decision as an important acknowledgment of the limits on political advocacy by public school employees.

“LAUSD’s determination explicitly recognizes that when educators leverage their authority, instructional time, and classroom spaces to advance one sided partisan narratives, it ceases to be protected expression and becomes unlawful school-endorsed bias,” Cohen said.

“Administrative oversight can be mandated, and district neutrality policies can be enforced. Accountability in public school education is not optional.”

The Los Angeles Unified School District, the nation’s second-largest public school system, has ordered a series of corrective measures with specific deadlines.

Political flyers, posters and videos identified in the investigation must be removed from classrooms by October 29.

By November 18, faculty advisers to Students for Justice in Palestine must be restricted to nonparticipatory supervision, and the dance team’s YouTube channel must be placed under administrative oversight.

All faculty members and administrators must complete training on Title VI and antisemitism prevention by December 18.

The district has also directed that the three teachers be observed following the training to assess compliance with the corrective measures.

The investigation does not prohibit teachers from discussing genocide, international conflicts or current events. Such instruction may continue when it complies with California educational standards and district policies prohibiting employees from using classroom instruction for political advocacy.

It remains unclear whether the teachers involved will face additional disciplinary action.

The district has declined to disclose personnel details, citing confidentiality requirements governing employee and student records.

The findings come amid broader concerns about antisemitism in California public schools following the October 7 Hamas massacre and the subsequent war in Gaza.

In September, records obtained through a public information request revealed that several Canoga Park teachers had participated in organizing activities associated with the school’s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter.

The correspondence indicated that faculty members were involved in preparing organizational documents, setting meeting agendas and discussing student demonstrations.

One English teacher, Nicholas Flores, wrote in an email that “there are no multiple perspectives in a genocide, and to pretend there are makes us perpetrators of it.”

The correspondence prompted questions about whether teachers were merely supervising student activities or directing political activism themselves.

Jewish advocacy organizations have argued that educators must be permitted to discuss difficult political subjects while maintaining professional boundaries and ensuring that students are not pressured to adopt particular positions.

David Englin, senior regional director of the Anti-Defamation League’s Los Angeles office, said the district’s conclusions were consistent with concerns Jewish students and parents had raised for years.

“The apparent findings validate what students, parents and teachers have been reporting to ADL for years,” Englin said.

“Corrective measures including antisemitism training, curriculum changes and increased accountability are long overdue and necessary to protect Jewish students across Los Angeles.”

Scott Mandel, a veteran Los Angeles public school teacher and member of the United Teachers Los Angeles board, argued that the problem extended beyond Canoga Park High School.

He accused some educators of using their teaching positions to advance personal political views about Israel without presenting competing perspectives.

Mandel also criticized the teachers’ union, alleging that its internal culture had contributed to hostility toward Israel and Jewish educators.

Those broader allegations were not the subject of the Canoga Park investigation and have not been established by its findings.

The case also comes amid increased scrutiny of California’s response to antisemitism in schools.

Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed legislation establishing an Office of Civil Rights within the California Department of Education, including a position devoted to addressing antisemitism.

The office is intended to provide guidance to school districts, investigate discrimination complaints and strengthen enforcement of state education laws.

Jewish organizations have welcomed such measures while arguing that enforcement, rather than policy statements alone, will determine whether conditions improve.

For the North American Values Institute and its partners, the Los Angeles findings represent an example of a school district formally acknowledging that teacher-led political activism can violate students’ civil rights when it creates a discriminatory educational environment.

The organizations are urging other districts to examine their own practices and adopt clearer policies governing political advocacy during instructional time.

The investigation is also expected to draw attention from school administrators elsewhere in the country who are confronting disputes over instruction about Israel and the Middle East.

For Jewish parents and educators, the immediate question is whether the corrective measures will produce lasting changes at Canoga Park High School and prevent similar incidents elsewhere in the district.

With the first compliance deadline approaching Thursday and mandatory staff training scheduled for completion in December, Los Angeles education officials will now be responsible for ensuring that the violations identified in their investigation are addressed and that Jewish and Israeli students receive the protections required under federal and state law.

A Jewish civil rights organization is calling on the Trump administration to launch a federal investigation into allegations of widespread antisemitism in New York City’s public schools, accusing the nation’s largest school district of failing to adequately protect Jewish students and staff amid a sharp rise in anti-Jewish incidents since the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre in Israel.

The National Jewish Advocacy Center has asked the U.S. Department of Education to examine the New York City Department of Education’s handling of antisemitic harassment, intimidation and discrimination, arguing that the school system has allowed a hostile environment to develop for Jewish students and educators.

The demand comes as growing numbers of Jewish families are reconsidering public school enrollment and turning to Jewish day schools and yeshivas, citing concerns about antisemitism, school culture and their children’s safety.

The complaint, reported by the New York Post, cites hundreds of alleged antisemitic incidents in city schools since October 7, including reports involving anti-Jewish rhetoric, harassment of students and hostility toward educators who express support for Israel.

The organization argues that these incidents raise serious questions about whether the city has fulfilled its obligations under federal civil rights law.

At the center of the complaint is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs receiving federal financial assistance.

Federal authorities have interpreted Title VI to cover certain forms of antisemitic discrimination when they involve shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics.

Because New York City’s public schools receive federal funding, the district is subject to those requirements.

The advocacy group is asking federal officials to determine whether the Department of Education responded appropriately to complaints and whether additional enforcement action is necessary.

The request places renewed attention on a controversy that has troubled New York City’s education system for more than three years, particularly following the outbreak of the Gaza war.

Jewish parents, teachers and community advocates have repeatedly expressed concern that political demonstrations and discussions about Israel have, in some instances, crossed the line into hostility toward Jewish students.

They have also raised questions about whether school administrators have consistently distinguished between protected political expression and conduct that may constitute unlawful harassment or discrimination.

The new request was submitted Monday to Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Unlike the existing federal investigations, which focus on possible violations of Title VI, the National Jewish Advocacy Center is asking the Justice Department to exercise its authority under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act, which addresses discrimination and segregation in public education.

Mark Goldfeder, the organization’s chief executive officer and director, argued that Jewish families should not have to withdraw their children from public schools to escape hostility.

“When antisemitism drives Jewish children out of public schools, that is segregation by intimidation,” Goldfeder said.

“Jewish students have an equal right to safety, and to stay.”

The organization’s letter states that parents whose children currently attend New York City public schools, as well as families who have already withdrawn their children, are prepared to speak with federal investigators.

Jewish employees of the school system are also willing to provide information, according to the complaint.

The organization is seeking an examination of whether the alleged pattern of hostility has effectively denied Jewish children equal access to public education.

A central piece of evidence cited in the complaint is a report compiled by United Jewish Teachers, an advocacy organization representing Jewish educators.

The report documented at least 250 antisemitic or anti-Israel incidents in New York City public schools between October 2023 and July 2026.

According to the organization, nearly two-thirds of those incidents involved direct actions, including harassment, threats, vandalism and physical assaults.

The incidents documented in the report vary in their nature and circumstances, and the allegations have not all been independently adjudicated. Nevertheless, the advocacy groups contend that the accumulated complaints demonstrate a problem requiring federal intervention.

Moshe Spern, president of United Jewish Teachers, expressed support for the proposed investigation.

“We fully support the National Jewish Advocacy Center’s call for the Department of Justice to investigate the NYC Department of Education under Title IV,” Spern said.

“Jewish students have the same right as every other child to attend school without being driven out by hostility their own school system refuses to stop.”

The complaint also cites reports involving individual educators accused of promoting extremist rhetoric or expressing support for Hamas figures.

Among the cases attracting attention was that of a Brooklyn teacher accused of praising Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, one of the principal architects of the October 7 massacre.

Another educator was accused of promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories concerning the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Those allegations have intensified questions about the boundaries of political expression by public school employees and the responsibility of school administrators to ensure that classroom instruction does not become a vehicle for religious or ethnic hostility.

The issue has become particularly sensitive in classrooms where discussions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have generated complaints from Jewish students and parents.

Advocacy groups argue that school officials must distinguish between legitimate instruction about international affairs and rhetoric that portrays Jewish students as responsible for the actions of the Israeli government or subjects them to hostility because of their identity.

The complaint also points to changing enrollment patterns as possible evidence that Jewish families are losing confidence in the public school system.

During the 2025–2026 school year, Jewish day schools and yeshivas across New York State gained approximately 3,115 students, including 1,587 additional students in New York City.

The increase occurred even as overall nonpublic school enrollment declined.

Advocates say the contrast suggests that Jewish families are increasingly seeking educational environments in which their children feel protected from antisemitic harassment.

However, the enrollment figures do not establish how many families transferred specifically because of antisemitism, and other considerations, including religious education, tuition assistance and family preferences, may also influence enrollment decisions.

A separate survey of families who recently enrolled children in Jewish schools found that approximately 60 percent said they would not have made the switch had the war following October 7 not occurred.

That finding has added to concerns that developments in Israel and the accompanying rise in antisemitic incidents have substantially affected educational decisions among Jewish families.

The complaint comes as the New York City school system is already facing federal scrutiny.

In April, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights opened a Title VI investigation into allegations that New York City educators had organized instructional seminars promoting anti-Israel and antisemitic content.

Federal officials said the investigation would examine complaints concerning a group known as NYC Educators for Palestine, whose activities allegedly included teaching materials and seminars about Palestinian resistance and Zionism.

The allegations included claims that some instructional materials portrayed Zionists as white supremacists and promoted support for Hamas.

The Department of Education said at the time that it would investigate whether the activities created a hostile environment for Jewish students.

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey said schools have an obligation to protect students from discrimination.

“No child should be taught by his or her teachers to hate their peers,” Richey said when the investigation was announced.

The newly requested Justice Department investigation would be separate from that existing inquiry and could examine broader allegations concerning whether Jewish families have been effectively driven from public schools by discriminatory conditions.

The Justice Department has said it takes allegations of antisemitism seriously and is committed to enforcing federal civil rights protections.

New York City’s Department of Education, meanwhile, has maintained that it does not tolerate antisemitism or other forms of hatred and that complaints of discrimination are investigated.

The department has also said that it does not track students’ religious identities, limiting its ability to determine precisely how many Jewish children have transferred out of the public school system.

The controversy comes as Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration has sought to address concerns about antisemitism across the city.

In September, the administration announced a municipal strategy to combat antisemitism, including increased funding for hate-crime prevention, security assistance for religious institutions and expanded educational initiatives.

The plan included $6.4 million for community-based efforts to combat hatred and support victims, along with $1 million for security improvements at synagogues and other houses of worship.

City officials have also pledged to work with public schools to address complaints of discrimination against Jewish students.

Nevertheless, Jewish advocacy organizations maintain that broader policy announcements must be accompanied by effective enforcement and accountability within individual schools.

For the National Jewish Advocacy Center, the central question is whether Jewish children can attend New York City public schools without facing intimidation, harassment or discrimination because of their religion or identity.

The organization’s request asks federal authorities to examine not only individual incidents but also the school system’s overall response to complaints and the possibility that its handling of those incidents has contributed to families leaving the public school system.

It remains unclear whether the Justice Department will open the requested Title IV investigation.

United Torah Judaism leaders delivered a defiant message following Tuesday’s Knesset election, declaring that efforts to weaken the chareidi political establishment had failed and pledging to intensify their battle to protect the rights of bnei Torah, even as the party faced uncertainty over its final parliamentary strength and the composition of Israel’s next government.

Speaking at an election-night gathering of party activists in Bnei Brak, UTJ chairman MK Yaakov Asher described the results as a victory for the Torah community and its rabbinic leadership, saying the party had weathered an exceptionally difficult campaign marked by disputes over the military draft, criticism of chareidi institutions and challenges from competing political factions.

“The Torah won, Degel HaTorah won, and United Torah Judaism won,” Asher declared. “Everyone eulogized us. They tried to do a lot to us, but they couldn’t.”

His remarks came as preliminary election results pointed to United Torah Judaism securing seven Knesset seats, an improvement over some exit polls that had projected only six seats but still short of the party’s eight-seat showing in the previous election.

Asher emphasized that the party would not rush into negotiations over the formation of a new government while the official count remained incomplete.

“We will not discuss any political negotiations until the final official election results are published,” he said.

The declaration came amid growing speculation about the possibility of alternative coalition arrangements following an election that left neither Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing and religious bloc nor the opposition with a clear majority.

With hundreds of thousands of special ballots still awaiting tabulation, the final allocation of Knesset seats remained subject to change.

For United Torah Judaism, the election followed months of political turmoil surrounding the military conscription of yeshiva bochurim, government funding for Torah institutions and legal challenges affecting the chareidi educational system.

Senior Gedolei Yisroel had called upon the public to support the established chareidi parties, while independent factions sought to attract voters dissatisfied with the political leadership’s handling of the draft controversy.

Asher directly addressed those challenges, referring to campaigns encouraging voters to cast alternative ballots rather than support United Torah Judaism.

“What haven’t they done to us? They threatened us with white ballots, black ballots, yellow ballots,” he said.

“The leading Torah sages prevailed, and the public obeyed them despite attempts to undermine that bond. You wanted to tear us apart, but we will not break. We will fight for the rights of the haredi public as citizens with equal rights.”

The remarks were widely understood as a response both to outside criticism of the chareidi community and to the emergence of competing factions that had sought to challenge the established parties.

Among those factions were Tzeva Shachor and the Chareidi Public Party, both of which campaigned on concerns surrounding the draft issue but received only a small fraction of the votes required to enter the Knesset.

The two parties together received approximately 18,000 votes in Wednesday’s partial count, far below the electoral threshold.

Asher’s speech reflected the leadership’s position that the election demonstrated continued support among chareidi voters for the guidance of Gedolei Yisroel and the traditional political framework represented by Degel HaTorah and Agudas Yisroel.

At the same time, the party chairman acknowledged that election officials had imposed restrictions that complicated United Torah Judaism’s efforts to monitor voter participation throughout Election Day.

On Tuesday, Central Elections Committee chairman Justice Noam Sohlberg issued an interim order prohibiting United Torah Judaism and its representatives at polling stations from tracking and transmitting information about voter participation.

The order followed a petition by the Movement for Quality Government in Israel and reports that party representatives had been instructed to record which voters had already cast ballots.

The dispute arose against the backdrop of a previous High Court ruling restricting such activity.

Asher said the decision made it more difficult for party officials to assess turnout and estimate the party’s eventual vote total while polling stations remained open.

Nevertheless, he maintained that the information available to United Torah Judaism indicated that the party had attracted tens of thousands of additional votes compared with its previous performance.

That assessment was based on the party’s internal figures and had not yet been confirmed by the completed national count.

The gathering also featured remarks by veteran Degel HaTorah leader MK Moshe Gafni, who acknowledged that he had approached Election Day with considerable concern over the political atmosphere surrounding the chareidi community.

Gafni said the campaign had been conducted amid sustained criticism of those engaged in Torah study and the institutions serving the chareidi public.

“It was difficult to deal with everything that has happened here recently,” Gafni told the gathering.

“I was very concerned about the false incitement against Torah scholars and the actions of the Supreme Court, the Attorney General, and the media. I was afraid of what the results would be, but tonight my mind is at ease.”

Gafni’s comments reflected the deep frustration expressed by chareidi political leaders over judicial and government decisions affecting yeshiva students and the funding of Torah institutions.

The veteran lawmaker, who previously chaired Degel HaTorah, has been among the most outspoken figures in the Knesset on matters involving the draft issue and government policy toward the chareidi community.

His remarks also highlighted the importance party leaders attached to the election as a measure of public support for the Torah world during a period of considerable political pressure.

MK Meir Porush, a senior Agudas Yisroel representative and chairman of Shlomei Emunim, similarly described the campaign as unusually difficult.

“The campaign was very, very hard. They tried to harm us from every direction. Responsibility required us to go into the campaign united,” Porush said.

He maintained that the party’s election showing carried with it an obligation to address the difficulties facing the chareidi community.

Porush said the support received from voters required United Torah Judaism to act carefully and responsibly in its efforts to correct what he described as serious injustices inflicted upon bnei Torah and the broader chareidi public in recent years.

He also reported that figures collected by party activists indicated that United Torah Judaism had surpassed 300,000 votes.

That claim remained subject to confirmation through the official count.

The election-night gathering included newly elected MK Elyakim Stark, who thanked campaign workers for their efforts throughout the election.

Stark credited the dedication of party activists and polling-station representatives with helping United Torah Judaism maintain its political standing despite the difficulties surrounding the campaign.

The party’s leaders repeatedly emphasized that the result should be viewed in the context of the pressures facing chareidi institutions rather than simply as a comparison of parliamentary seats.

Although the party’s projected seven seats would represent a decline from its previous eight-seat representation, its leaders pointed to the limited success of competing chareidi lists and the continued participation of voters who followed the guidance of Gedolei Yisroel.

The outcome also has substantial implications for the ongoing battle over legislation governing the military service of yeshiva bochurim.

United Torah Judaism has made the protection of full-time Torah study a central political demand, and its representatives have repeatedly warned that legislation failing to adequately safeguard yeshiva students would be unacceptable.

The issue is expected to play a significant role in any negotiations over the formation of Israel’s next government.

However, the inconclusive election results have created uncertainty over which parties will ultimately be in a position to form a coalition.

Wednesday’s developing count placed Netanyahu’s bloc at 53 seats, the principal opposition bloc at 48 and the Arab parties at a combined 19.

Those numbers leave both major political camps short of the 61 seats necessary to establish a government.

The resulting political arithmetic has prompted speculation about possible coalition arrangements involving parties that campaigned on opposing sides of the election.

For United Torah Judaism, such discussions would necessarily involve questions about the draft law, the status of yeshiva students and the future of government support for Torah institutions.

Asher’s declaration that the party would not begin coalition negotiations before the publication of the final results indicated that its leadership intends to wait until the parliamentary picture becomes clearer before publicly addressing those possibilities.

The party also faces the task of reconciling its election-night celebrations with the reality that the chareidi parties’ combined parliamentary representation appears to have declined.

Shas and United Torah Judaism were each projected to win seven seats in Wednesday’s count, giving them a combined 14 seats compared with 18 in the previous Knesset.

That reduction could affect their bargaining position in coalition negotiations, particularly if neither major political bloc is able to establish a government without reaching agreements across existing political divisions.

Nevertheless, the atmosphere at the Bnei Brak gathering was one of determination, with party leaders portraying the results as evidence that the chareidi public had not abandoned its traditional political representatives.

The speeches also served as a warning that United Torah Judaism intends to continue confronting policies its leaders believe threaten the ability of bnei Torah to devote themselves to learning.

With the final election count still pending, the party’s precise parliamentary strength remains uncertain, as does its role in the formation of the next government.

But the message delivered by Asher, Gafni and Porush was unmistakable: Whatever coalition emerges from the election, United Torah Judaism intends to continue pressing its demands concerning the draft issue and the rights of the chareidi community, while presenting the election results as a rejection of efforts to weaken the authority of its rabbinic leadership.

WIN YOUR 2026 TOYOTA SIENNA!
OR $40,000 CASH!

WINNER CHOOSES THE PRIZE!

TICKETS AS LOW AS $1!

Spin for your ticket price — never more than $299!

Or skip the spin and buy a ticket for just $165!

EARLY BIRD BONUS! \
Enter before NOVEMBER 1ST for a chance to win a $500 VISA GIFT CARD!

BONUS: EVERY TICKET is automatically entered into a WEEKLY ONEG SHABBOS MEAT BOARD RAFFLE until Pesach!

ENTER NOW – CLICK HERE

[COMMUNICATED]

Three kedoshei elyon had one common concept when it came to learning Torah – they were the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh (Rabbi Chaim ibn Attar 1696-1743) when he came to Eretz Yisroel; the Ramchal (Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto 1707-1746) when he lived in Padua, Italy;  and Hagaon, Harav Chaim Volozhiner, (1749-1821) the famous talmid of the Gaon of Vilna.

They each had a yeshiva with ‘around-the-clock’ Torah learning, 24-hours a day, so that there would be no minute when the sound of Torah learning would not be heard in this world. The 24-hour period would be divided into shifts, and as one ended the next would begin.

Torah-24

A “Torah-24” Center has been opened in Yerushalayim and the Nasi is Maran Sar Hatorah, Harav Chaim Kanievsky, zt”l.

• The first “Torah-24” center is in Yerushalayim

• 11 Kollelim with 163 avreichim will be learning at “Torah-24” every day

• Nigleh, Nistar, Chumash and Halacha – All under ONE ROOF

• Talmud Bavli / Yerushalmi – Kabbalah & Zohar – Rambam, Shulchan Aruch & Poskim, Zeraim – Taharos 

• The following SIX kollelim – Kollel Hashkomas Haboker, Kollel Yerushalmi, Kollel Bavli, Kollel Choshen Mishpat/Even Haezer, Kollel Erev Shabbos, Kollel Kabbalah B’Chatzos (Tikun Chatzot, Etz Chaim, Zohar, Tehillim) – are fully operational

• 24 hour תורה learning cycle – 6:00 am to 6:00 am – is divided into different shifts

• Each kollel shift has its own program, Rosh Kollel and avreichim

• Detailed monthly and annual tests – written and oral – for all avreichim 

• Already there are 77 avreichim metzuyonim, and a large number of candidates are vying for the remaining slots in the kollelim. All the avreichim are required to take rigorous monthly tests.

In the words of Gedolei Torah:

“Torah-24 תורה” – where the voice of Torah is not absent from within the walls of the kollelim, not even for a minute…

“The idea … of day and night shifts of non-stop kollelim… the full range of subjects of the Torah… the derech of the Ramchal, the Ohr Hachaim Hakodosh and Hagaon Reb Chaim of Volozhin.”

– Nasi Maran Sar Hatorah, Hagaon Harav Chaim Kanievsky, zt”l

“All who donate to and support “Torah-24 תורה” will merit all the brochos of the Torah, including those for refuos, yeshuos, parnossa tova and nachas from all their descendants, Amen”

– Maran Rosh Yeshivas Ponevez, Hagaon Harav Gershon Edelstein, zt”l

At “Torah-24 תורה”, exceptional avreichim do not pause for a moment while studying all the areas of the holy Torah, with a shift of remarkable scholars studying the holy Zohar and the recitation of Tikun Chatzos at midnight. 

All who donate and support this holy endeavor of “Torah-24 תורה” should see brocha and success … children and grandchildren immersed in Torah and mitzvos… fulfillment of all the hopes of their hearts for good and with brocha. 

– Maran Hagaon Harav Moishe Sternbuch, shlit”a 

I join the esteemed Rabbanim and Gaonim, shlit”a, in endorsing the illustrious “Kollel Kabbalah b’Chatzos” designated for outstanding talmidei chachomim, masters of Torah and yiras Shomayim, who spend their nights in Beis Hashem, engaging deeply in the concealed dimensions of Torah during this auspicious time of Divine Favor…

I hereby call upon my generous brethren to support this endeavor with significant sums, for through this they will attain the great merit of the hidden Torah studied at night. May you all be blessed by Hashem with many blessings in accordance with the greatness of the endeavor that you are supporting!

– Maran Hagaon Hamekubal, Harav Yaakov Meir Shechter, shlit”a

“Support ‘Torah-24 תורה’ where the sound of Torah – nigleh and nistar – all hours of the day and night; and be blessed from shamayim that the Torah should never cease from your mouth; children bnei Torah; abundant parnassa and good health”

– Maran Hagaon Harav Shimon Badani, zt”l
Rosh Kollel Torah V’Chaim, Member Moetzet Chachmei Hatorah

“Torah-24 תורה” – groups of talmidei chachomim geonim in different shifts, delve in the subjects of Torah learning without interruption – Bavli, Yerushalmi, Dalet Chelkei Shulchan Aruch, Rambam, Kabbala, Midrash, Tana”ch and more.  “Torah-24 תורה” is in actuality a wonderful continuation of the heichalei hakodesh and battei midrash of our holy Rabbonim – the Ramchal, the Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh and the Nefesh Hachaim, zy”o. Who would not want to be part of this historical and amazing project “Torah-24 תורה”, and the greatness of its holy impact in both the supernal and lower realms?  “My brocha to all who support “Torah-24 תורה” – You should merit great abundance in both the spiritual and the material – supernal light, peace of mind, tranquility of the soul and bodily health. Only goodness and kindness should pursue you all the days of your lives, and you should dwell securely for your length of days.

– Maran Hamashpia Hagadol, ‘Reb Meilech’ Biderman, shlit”a

“Your kesher with ‘Torah-24 תורה’ will be a true ובהם נהגה יומם ולילה – and we will delve in them by day and by night”

– Maran Hagaon Harav Shraga Steinman, shlit”a – Orchos Torah

“Talmidei Chachomim of ‘Torah-24 תורה’ delve into all sectors of Torah – Bavli and Yerushalmi, Dalet Chelkei Shulchan Aruch, Rambam, Kabbalah – Nistar”

– Maran Hagaon Harav Shimon Gallai, shlit”a – Bnei Brak

Kollel Kabbalah b’Chatzos” is a precious link in the golden chain of the glorious Torah empire “Torah-24”… bringing tremendous delight to the Ribbono shel Olam. Fortunate are all those who take part in this great and holy endeavor.

– Maran HaMekubal Rav Abish Zehnwirth, shlit”a

For more “Torah-24” information click on: www.torah-24.com or call 718-766-5022

The leader of Israel’s Joint Arab List declared Wednesday that his party is prepared to help remove Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu from power, as senior Arab lawmakers confirmed that discussions are already underway with opposition parties about establishing an alternative government following Tuesday’s inconclusive Knesset election.

Yousef Jabareen, chairman of the Joint List, said his party is ready to cooperate with the political bloc seeking to replace Netanyahu, arguing that the election results have created an opportunity for a new government based on cooperation between Jewish and Arab parties.

“We are ready and prepared to pave the way for the removal of the Netanyahu government,” Jabareen declared.

“Against a government of bloodshed, against politics of supremacy, racism and exclusion, we offer a completely different alternative,” he said.

Jabareen emphasized that any meaningful political change must include Arab representation and equal participation in the country’s political leadership.

“Change comes through Jewish-Arab partnership, a genuine and equal partnership. Nothing less and nothing more,” he said.

His remarks came as the latest election results showed the Joint Arab List winning 12 seats and Ra’am securing another seven, giving the Arab parties a combined 19 seats in the 120-member Knesset.

With Netanyahu’s right-wing and religious bloc holding 53 seats and the principal opposition bloc standing at 48, the Arab parties could become central to any effort to establish a government without Netanyahu.

Neither political camp currently possesses the 61 seats required to form a government, and approximately 600,000 double-envelope ballots remain to be counted.

The emerging political arithmetic has prompted renewed discussion about whether opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot could establish a government with parliamentary support from Arab lawmakers, even if those parties do not formally join the coalition.

Joint List MK Ahmad Tibi confirmed Wednesday that contacts are already taking place between his party and members of the opposition bloc.

Speaking in an interview with Esti Perez Ben-Ami on Kan Reshet Bet radio, Tibi said the Joint List is actively seeking to help replace Netanyahu and is prepared to consider different political arrangements to achieve that objective.

“The Joint List wants to assist, help and replace this government and pave the way for an alternative government, and therefore we are extending a hand to the change bloc,” Tibi said.

“I hope the change bloc will have enough courage to take advantage of the clear numbers. They have a partner for this. We are brave enough. I hope they will be equally brave.”

Tibi made clear that the Joint List is not insisting on receiving ministerial positions or becoming a formal member of the next government.

“It is likely that we will not be an organic part of this government. There are various other arrangements. We are open to dialogue,” he said.

Such an arrangement could involve Arab lawmakers supporting an opposition-led government from outside the coalition, allowing it to obtain the parliamentary backing necessary to take office without formally including the Joint List in the cabinet.

Tibi said his party would seek commitments on issues affecting Arab communities, including violent crime, home demolitions, infrastructure and what he described as incitement against Arab citizens.

He also addressed the possibility of recommending an opposition candidate to President Isaac Herzog during the consultations that will follow the certification of the election results.

Tibi recalled that the Joint List had previously recommended Benny Gantz for prime minister, only to see Gantz subsequently enter a government with Netanyahu.

“But he went and joined Netanyahu,” Tibi said, referring to Gantz’s earlier decision.

Tibi also announced that Joint List lawmakers would vote for the opposition’s candidate for Knesset speaker in an effort to replace the current speaker.

The comments suggested that the Joint List is prepared to take concrete parliamentary steps against Netanyahu even before a new governing coalition is established.

However, Tibi’s interview also highlighted the substantial political and ideological obstacles facing any attempt to build a government dependent on Arab-party support.

During the interview, Tibi refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization, despite being directly asked whether the group should be designated as such and destroyed.

“I don’t want to answer those questions,” Tibi responded.

He criticized what he described as repeated demands that Arab lawmakers condemn Palestinian organizations, arguing that such questions were unfairly directed at Arab representatives.

Tibi maintained that he had already condemned the atrocities committed against Israeli communities near Gaza during the October 7 attacks.

“You want us to call all the Palestinian factions — Fatah, the Popular Front, the Democratic Front, the Communist Party and Hamas — terrorist organizations, so that the entire Palestinian people will be a terrorist organization,” he said.

His refusal to explicitly identify Hamas as a terrorist organization could complicate efforts to secure the cooperation of Jewish opposition parties, particularly those whose leaders have insisted that any future government must maintain a firm position against Hamas and other terrorist groups.

Meanwhile, Sami Abu Shehadeh, chairman of Balad, outlined additional conditions for cooperation with Eisenkot in an interview with the Qatari television network Al-Araby.

Abu Shehadeh, who withdrew from the Knesset race following developments in Supreme Court proceedings concerning his disqualification, said Eisenkot must first change his approach toward Arab political parties.

“First of all, he needs to stop the incitement against us and stop the incitement against the legitimacy of the Arab parties,” Abu Shehadeh said.

“We want a reasonable Israeli partner who conducts a discourse on human rights in an acceptable manner, who will not treat us in a condescending or unequal way.”

Abu Shehadeh accused Israeli political leaders of continuing to attack Arab parties even after the election results demonstrated their growing parliamentary strength.

“Since yesterday, all we have been hearing is incitement in various forms,” he said, describing the approach as “political stupidity.”

Nevertheless, he indicated that cooperation remained possible if Eisenkot and other opposition leaders were willing to accept his conditions.

“If there is a partner for peace, for fighting racism, for providing equality, freedom and justice for both peoples, he will discover that we are his political partner,” Abu Shehadeh said.

Abu Shehadeh argued that Netanyahu had effectively lost the election, pointing to the decline in the number of seats held by the prime minister’s political bloc.

Referring to an earlier stage of the vote count, he said Netanyahu’s camp had fallen from 68 seats to 54. Subsequent results placed the bloc at 53 seats.

“If we were in a normal, democratic, non-racist country, the campaign would have ended here,” Abu Shehadeh said.

He contended that Eisenkot already possesses the parliamentary numbers necessary to establish a government, provided he is willing to cooperate with Arab lawmakers.

According to Abu Shehadeh, what prevents Eisenkot from assembling such a coalition is “his racism.”

He also argued that the Joint Arab List had achieved the strongest electoral performance relative to its own voting population.

The statements from Jabareen, Tibi and Abu Shehadeh reflect a coordinated effort by senior Arab political figures to establish themselves as potential partners in the formation of Israel’s next government.

Their positions also expose the difficulties facing Eisenkot and other opposition leaders, who must decide whether they are prepared to rely on Arab lawmakers to obtain a parliamentary majority.

A government dependent on outside support from the Joint List would likely face significant pressure over security policy, the conflict with Hamas, military operations in Gaza and the broader Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

The issue is especially sensitive given Tibi’s refusal to label Hamas a terrorist organization and the demands being made by Arab political leaders for changes in the way Israel’s government approaches Arab political representation.

Netanyahu and his allies have repeatedly opposed the establishment of a government dependent on Arab parties, arguing that such an arrangement would undermine Israel’s security and produce an unstable governing coalition.

Opposition leaders, meanwhile, have not yet reached a common position on whether Arab-party support would be acceptable.

The situation is further complicated by the presence of parties within the opposition bloc that hold sharply different positions on security, economic policy, religion and the relationship between Israel’s Jewish and Arab populations.

The final election results could also alter the calculations. Although all regular polling stations have been counted, hundreds of thousands of special ballots remain outstanding, and their inclusion could change the distribution of Knesset seats.

The Joint List’s 12 seats and Ra’am’s seven seats currently give Arab lawmakers considerable potential influence, but that influence will depend on whether the opposition is willing and able to translate their parliamentary support into a governing arrangement.

President Herzog has already appealed to political leaders to approach coalition negotiations with an open mind and do everything possible to prevent Israel from returning to the polls.

The president will eventually consult with the elected parties before deciding which lawmaker should receive the mandate to attempt to form a government.

Those consultations could become particularly consequential if neither Netanyahu nor Eisenkot emerges with a clear majority.

For now, the Joint Arab List is signaling that it is prepared to participate in efforts to end Netanyahu’s tenure, whether through direct coalition participation, outside parliamentary support or cooperation on key Knesset votes.

But the statements by its senior representatives have also made clear that such cooperation would come with political conditions, while Tibi’s refusal to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization has introduced another potential obstacle to any agreement.

As Israel awaits the final election results, the question is no longer simply which political bloc won the most seats, but whether parties with fundamentally different positions can agree on a governing arrangement capable of commanding a Knesset majority.

The two breakaway chareidi parties that entered Israel’s national election promising to challenge the established chareidi political leadership suffered crushing defeats at the ballot box, receiving fewer than 18,100 votes combined in Wednesday’s partial count, despite months of campaigning and claims that they represented widespread dissatisfaction within the chareidi community.

According to election figures reported Wednesday afternoon, Moti Leitner’s Chareidi Public Party received just 8,748 votes, representing approximately 0.20 percent of the valid ballots counted, while the Tzeva Shachor party, which campaigned under the banner of protecting the Torah world, received 9,308 votes, or approximately 0.21 percent.

Together, the two parties attracted 18,056 votes, roughly half the number of votes ordinarily required to secure a single Knesset seat, and nowhere near the 3.25 percent electoral threshold required for parliamentary representation.

The figures, based on a partial count of approximately 77 percent of the vote, represent a major setback for the independent chareidi factions that sought to capitalize on frustration over the military draft controversy and dissatisfaction with the established chareidi parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism.

The results also emerged amid a broader electoral phenomenon in which more than 200,000 votes were cast for parties that appeared unlikely to enter the Knesset, potentially affecting the distribution of seats in an election that has left neither Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu’s bloc nor the opposition with a governing majority.

The campaign by the breakaway chareidi parties had attracted considerable attention in the weeks leading up to Tuesday’s election, particularly because of the continuing dispute over legislation governing the military service of yeshiva bochurim.

Leitner and his Chareidi Public Party presented themselves as an alternative to the established chareidi political establishment, seeking to appeal to voters who believed their representatives had failed to adequately address the draft crisis and other concerns.

Tzeva Shachor, whose full name translates as Black Color — Defender of the Torah World, likewise sought to attract voters dissatisfied with the response of the traditional chareidi parties to the threat of military conscription.

Both parties argued that they represented a constituency whose concerns were not being sufficiently addressed by the existing political leadership.

However, the campaigns faced strong opposition from leading Gedolei Yisroel, who called upon the chareidi public to support the established parties and warned against dividing the chareidi vote.

Senior rabbonim expressed deep concern over the decision to establish competing political lists at a time when the chareidi community was confronting major challenges involving the status of yeshiva students, government funding and the preservation of Torah institutions.

The election results suggest that the overwhelming majority of chareidi voters who participated in the election continued to support the established parties rather than the new alternatives.

The numbers were particularly disappointing for Leitner, whose party had sought to position itself as a significant political force capable of challenging the existing chareidi representation in the Knesset.

With only 8,748 votes in the afternoon tally, the Chareidi Public Party remained far below even the approximate number needed for a single parliamentary seat, let alone the threshold for entering the Knesset.

The party’s showing in Bnei Brak, one of Israel’s largest chareidi population centers, was also notably weak.

Earlier figures reported after most of the city’s polling stations had been counted showed Leitner’s party receiving just 509 votes in Bnei Brak.

Other parties outside the traditional chareidi political establishment, including Likud and Otzma Yehudit, attracted more support in the city than Leitner’s list.

The results illustrate the difficulty of translating dissatisfaction with political representatives into votes for a new party, particularly in a community where electoral participation is heavily influenced by the guidance of rabbinic leadership.

Tzeva Shachor fared only slightly better nationally, with 9,308 votes in the afternoon count.

Despite its limited electoral showing, the party issued a statement Wednesday claiming that its campaign had achieved a significant political impact.

Tzeva Shachor argued that the decline in support for the established chareidi parties demonstrated that large numbers of voters had chosen to stay home rather than vote for Shas or United Torah Judaism.

The party claimed that between three and four Knesset seats’ worth of potential chareidi voters had withheld their support from the established parties.

According to its statement, the success of its campaign should not be measured solely by the number of ballots cast for its own list, but also by its influence on public debate and voter behavior.

The party maintained that it had succeeded in placing the demand for a permanent resolution of the status of yeshiva bochurim at the center of the election campaign.

It also pledged to continue advocating for legislation protecting those engaged in full-time Torah study.

However, the claim that hundreds of thousands of voters abstained specifically because of Tzeva Shachor’s campaign has not been established by the election results. The actual number of votes received by the party remained a small fraction of the support enjoyed by the established chareidi factions.

The poor showing of the two breakaway parties came as Shas and United Torah Judaism themselves faced a difficult election.

According to Wednesday’s developing results, both established chareidi parties were projected to win seven Knesset seats apiece, giving them a combined 14 seats, down from the 18 they held following the previous election.

That decline has raised questions about the reasons for reduced support, including voter turnout, dissatisfaction over the draft issue and the broader political climate.

However, the results do not establish how many voters stayed home because of dissatisfaction with chareidi political leadership, nor do they demonstrate that those voters would otherwise have supported either breakaway party.

The election also produced substantial losses for smaller parties outside the chareidi sector.

According to the partial figures, the Reservists and Economic Party received 117,489 votes, or approximately 2.67 percent of the valid ballots counted.

Although the party attracted considerably more support than the breakaway chareidi lists, it remained below the 3.25 percent threshold required to enter the Knesset.

Amcha Yisrael, associated with former senior military officer Ofer Winter, received 71,647 votes, representing approximately 1.63 percent.

The Noam party, which also contested the election independently, received 6,426 votes.

The two larger unsuccessful lists, the Reservists and Economic Party and Amcha Yisrael, together attracted 189,136 votes in the reported count.

When the votes received by Tzeva Shachor, the Chareidi Public Party and Noam are added, the five parties accounted for 213,618 votes.

Those figures represented approximately 4.85 percent of the 4,401,898 valid votes included in the reported tally.

Using an illustrative calculation of approximately 36,682 votes per Knesset seat, the total amounted to the numerical equivalent of roughly 5.82 seats.

The comparison is striking in an election in which the difference between the major political blocs is relatively narrow.

However, the calculation does not mean that nearly six Knesset seats were literally removed from the parliament or that any particular bloc necessarily lost that number of seats.

Under Israel’s electoral system, parties must receive at least 3.25 percent of the valid national vote to qualify for Knesset representation.

Votes cast for parties that fail to reach that threshold do not contribute to the allocation of seats among qualifying parties.

Instead, the 120 Knesset seats are distributed among the parties that successfully cross the threshold, according to the applicable electoral allocation formula.

As a result, votes cast for unsuccessful parties can indirectly affect the number of seats won by qualifying parties, but the effect depends on the overall distribution of votes and cannot simply be assigned to one political bloc.

The reported total of 213,618 votes also did not include all the minor parties participating in the election.

Another 24 smaller lists, each attracting less than one percent of the vote, were not included in that particular calculation.

Consequently, the total number of votes ultimately cast for parties that fail to enter the Knesset could be higher.

The final figures will depend on the completion of the vote count, including the hundreds of thousands of special double-envelope ballots that remained outstanding Wednesday.

The results have particular significance for Netanyahu’s efforts to form a new government.

With his bloc projected to receive only 53 seats in Wednesday afternoon’s count, the prime minister faces a substantial challenge in assembling the 61-member majority required to govern.

The opposition bloc, projected at 48 seats, also lacks a majority, while the Arab parties hold a combined 19 seats.

In such a closely divided political environment, the performance of parties that failed to cross the electoral threshold could become a subject of intense debate over the strategic decisions made during the campaign.

For the chareidi community, however, the results carry an additional dimension.

The breakaway parties had sought to present themselves as alternatives to the political leadership traditionally supported by Gedolei Yisroel, arguing that the existing representatives were no longer adequately addressing the community’s concerns.

Yet their combined vote total was a small fraction of the hundreds of thousands of ballots cast for Shas and United Torah Judaism.

The results demonstrate that, at least among those who voted for a chareidi party, support for the established lists remained overwhelmingly dominant.

At the same time, the decline in the combined representation of Shas and United Torah Judaism indicates that the established parties will have to confront questions about their own electoral performance and the political challenges facing the chareidi community.

The election results remain provisional, and the final count could alter the vote totals and parliamentary seat allocations.

But one conclusion from the partial results is already clear: neither Leitner’s Chareidi Public Party nor Tzeva Shachor came remotely close to achieving the parliamentary breakthrough its supporters had sought.

Despite the publicity, political controversy and expectations surrounding their campaigns, the two parties together received fewer than 18,100 votes in the reported count, leaving them without representation in the Knesset and raising serious questions about the electoral appeal of their challenge to the established chareidi leadership.

{Matzav.com}

Israel’s political future remained deeply uncertain Wednesday afternoon after the completion of the count from all regular polling stations showed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing and religious bloc winning just 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, eight short of the majority needed to form a government, while the opposition bloc stood at 48 seats and the Arab parties secured a combined 19 seats.

The latest results, released at 2:23 p.m. Israel time, marked another shift in the electoral picture following Tuesday’s national election, with Netanyahu’s bloc losing ground compared with earlier projections and the Arab parties emerging with an unusually strong showing that could make them central to efforts to establish an alternative government.

Although all regular polling stations have been counted, approximately 600,000 votes cast through special double-envelope ballots remain outstanding, meaning the final distribution of Knesset seats could still change.

The outstanding ballots include votes cast by soldiers and other eligible voters whose ballots are processed separately from those at ordinary polling stations.

According to the latest figures, approximately 85.6 percent of all votes have been counted, with an additional 454,190 votes incorporated into the tally in the most recent update.

Netanyahu’s Likud remains the largest party in the Knesset, with 26 seats, a decline of one seat from the previous count.

The Yashar party, headed by former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot, stands at 21 seats, also down one seat from the previous update.

The Joint Arab List has risen to 12 seats, gaining one seat as the count progressed, while the Beyachad party also holds 12 seats.

The Democrats have eight seats, while Yisrael Beiteinu, Ra’am, United Torah Judaism, Otzma Yehudit and Shas each hold seven seats.

The Religious Zionism–Zehut alliance, led by Bezalel Smotrich, has six seats.

Ra’am gained an additional seat in the latest count, bringing the combined strength of the Joint Arab List and Ra’am to 19 seats, an exceptionally strong result for the Arab political parties.

The results present Netanyahu with a formidable challenge in his effort to remain prime minister. Even with the support of Likud, Shas, United Torah Judaism, Otzma Yehudit and Religious Zionism–Zehut, his bloc currently controls only 53 seats, far below the 61 required to establish a governing coalition.

The opposition bloc, meanwhile, has 48 seats, meaning it, too, cannot form a government without securing support from parties outside its existing alliance.

The combined 19 seats held by the Arab parties could therefore play a decisive role in determining whether Netanyahu remains in office or whether an alternative government can be established.

For the chareidi parties, the election appears to have produced a significant setback. Shas and United Torah Judaism currently hold seven seats apiece, giving them a combined 14 seats, compared with 18 in the previous Knesset.

The loss of four seats is particularly consequential given the ongoing battle over military conscription of yeshiva bochurim and the political influence required to secure legislation protecting full-time Torah learners.

Throughout the election campaign, senior Gedolei Yisroel urged voters to support the established chareidi parties, warning that weakened parliamentary representation could make it more difficult to defend the interests of the Torah community.

The election was also marked by the emergence of independent chareidi factions seeking to capitalize on frustration over the draft issue. However, those parties failed to attract sufficient support to approach the electoral threshold.

The Chareidi Public Party, which sought to challenge the established chareidi political leadership, received approximately 10,000 votes according to the latest count, leaving it far short of the 3.25 percent threshold required to enter the Knesset.

Other smaller parties also remained below the threshold. The Reservists and Economic Party stood at 2.63 percent, while Amcha Yisrael had received 1.61 percent.

The final count could still affect the distribution of seats, particularly because the remaining double-envelope ballots are drawn from a different voting population than the ordinary polling stations.

Israel’s Central Elections Committee estimated Wednesday that the number of double-envelope ballots could reach between 650,000 and 700,000, higher than its earlier estimate of approximately 600,000. The count is expected to continue into Thursday.

Historically, these ballots have sometimes shifted seats away from chareidi and Arab parties toward parties drawing stronger support among soldiers and other voters casting special ballots. That pattern does not guarantee the same outcome this year, but it means Wednesday’s seat allocations cannot yet be considered final.

Against the backdrop of the political deadlock, President Isaac Herzog appealed Wednesday for Israel’s political leaders to approach coalition negotiations with flexibility and make every effort to avoid another election.

“One thing must be understood, and I said this even before the elections: everything must be done, certainly after yesterday, to avoid returning to another election,” Herzog said.

“I therefore expect everyone who comes here to come with an open mind.”

Under Israel’s parliamentary system, the president consults with representatives of the parties elected to the Knesset before assigning the task of forming a government to the candidate he believes has the strongest prospect of assembling a coalition.

That candidate ordinarily receives 28 days to form a government, with the possibility of a 14-day extension. If those efforts fail, additional attempts may follow, potentially culminating in another election.

The president’s appeal came as leaders of the Joint Arab List signaled their willingness to help remove Netanyahu from office.

Joint List chairman Yousef Jabareen declared that his party was prepared to cooperate with opposition forces seeking to establish an alternative government.

“We are ready and prepared to pave the way for the removal of the Netanyahu government,” Jabareen said.

“Against a government of bloodshed, against politics of supremacy, racism and exclusion, we offer a completely different alternative.”

Jabareen added that meaningful political change would require cooperation between Jewish and Arab parties.

“Change comes through Jewish-Arab partnership, a genuine and equal partnership. Nothing less and nothing more.”

His remarks followed statements by Joint List MK Ahmad Tibi, who said the party was already engaged in discussions with parties belonging to the opposition bloc.

Tibi indicated that the Joint List could help facilitate the establishment of an alternative government even without formally joining the coalition.

Such an arrangement could involve Arab lawmakers supporting a government from outside the coalition, potentially allowing Eisenkot or another opposition figure to secure parliamentary backing without including Arab parties in the cabinet.

However, significant obstacles remain. Several opposition leaders have previously rejected reliance on Arab parties, while disagreements over security policy, the war in Gaza and the Palestinian issue could complicate any arrangement.

Balad chairman Sami Abu Shehadeh has also placed conditions on cooperation with Eisenkot, including an end to what he described as incitement against Arab political parties.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, has called for the formation of a right-wing government and has opposed establishing a coalition dependent on Arab parties.

The possibility of a national unity government has also entered the political discussion, although deep divisions between Netanyahu and his principal opponents remain a substantial obstacle.

Any negotiations involving the chareidi parties would almost certainly place the military draft issue near the center of discussions.

Shas and United Torah Judaism have repeatedly emphasized the need for legislation addressing the status of yeshiva bochurim, while several opposition parties have demanded expanded military service among the chareidi population.

Those conflicting positions could make coalition negotiations particularly difficult, even if party leaders prove willing to reconsider their previous political alliances.

The latest results also represent a striking development for the Arab parties, whose combined 19 seats would give them a larger parliamentary presence than either of the two established chareidi parties and potentially considerable influence over the formation of the next government.

Nevertheless, parliamentary strength does not automatically translate into coalition participation. The willingness of other parties to cooperate with the Joint List and Ra’am will be a central question in the coming weeks.

For Netanyahu, the challenge is to find eight additional lawmakers willing to support a government under his leadership, or to negotiate a broader political arrangement that would provide a stable majority.

For Eisenkot and the opposition, the challenge is different but equally difficult: converting opposition to Netanyahu into a workable governing coalition among parties with sharply divergent positions on security, religion and the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

If neither side succeeds, Israel could face another prolonged period of political uncertainty, with Netanyahu remaining in office as caretaker prime minister while negotiations continue.

The country experienced a similar cycle between 2019 and 2022, when repeated failures to establish stable governments resulted in five national elections in less than four years.

For now, the completion of the regular polling-station count has clarified the political arithmetic without resolving the fundamental question of who will govern Israel.

With Netanyahu’s bloc at 53 seats, the opposition at 48 and the Arab parties holding 19, neither side possesses a majority on its own. The remaining double-envelope ballots could change the distribution of seats, but the larger challenge of assembling a viable coalition will remain.

The final count is expected to provide a clearer picture by Thursday, after which attention will turn increasingly toward President Herzog and the negotiations that will determine whether Israel can establish a new government or face another election.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump claimed Wednesday that his endorsement of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu helped dramatically reverse the Israeli leader’s electoral fortunes, turning what had appeared to be a likely defeat into a closely contested race that could ultimately leave Netanyahu in power.

Speaking to reporters after returning from a campaign rally in Texas, Trump said Netanyahu had performed considerably better than expected in Tuesday’s Knesset election and suggested that his public support had played an important role in the turnaround.

“I heard the poll numbers were wrong… the exit polls; I heard he [Netanyahu] did very well. It was pretty close, but very well. When the endorsement went out, it helped him a lot,” Trump said.

The president acknowledged that the election results were not yet final but pointed to the unexpectedly strong showing by Netanyahu’s Likud party and its right-wing and religious allies.

“It’s a little bit early, but I’m hearing in Israel, top people say, ‘Wow! He did a lot better than people thought.’ It’s looking like maybe a stalemate or a win,” Trump said.

Trump also used his Truth Social account to amplify a statement by Irving C. Schwartz crediting the president’s endorsement with changing the direction of the election.

“When President Trump endorsed Bibi Netanyahu, the whole tide turned, and now, rather than a decisive defeat for a Great Prime Minister, it looks like a big come-from-behind stalemate, or even a WIN for Netanyahu,” the statement read.

“It all took place AFTER the Endorsement by President Trump, who only wants what is good for the Middle East, Israel, and the United States of America!”

The remarks came as official election results showed Netanyahu’s bloc performing substantially better than many preelection surveys had suggested, although neither of Israel’s two principal political camps had secured the parliamentary majority necessary to form a government.

By Wednesday morning, with approximately 66 percent of ballot boxes counted, preliminary results indicated that Netanyahu’s right-wing and religious bloc was on course to receive 56 seats in the 120-member Knesset, compared with 48 for the principal opposition bloc. The predominantly Arab parties were projected to hold another 16 seats.

The figures placed Netanyahu’s bloc five seats short of the 61 required for a governing majority, leaving the country facing potentially complicated coalition negotiations.

Netanyahu’s Likud emerged as the largest individual party, while the opposition alliance led by former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot struggled to establish a clear path to forming an alternative government.

The results represented a notable improvement for Netanyahu compared with several surveys conducted before the election, which had suggested that his coalition would suffer a significant setback.

Trump formally endorsed Netanyahu on October 18, nine days before Israelis went to the polls, describing him as an essential partner in confronting Iran and advancing American interests in the Middle East.

In his endorsement, Trump praised Netanyahu as a “Great Warrior Prime Minister” and warned that replacing him could complicate Washington’s efforts to confront Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

“If Israel has the wrong Leader, which would be anyone other than Bibi, America will have to do this work ourselves, and I am not inclined to do so,” Trump declared at the time.

The president subsequently renewed his endorsement as the election approached, urging Israeli voters to support Netanyahu and emphasizing the importance of maintaining the partnership between the two leaders.

“When you go to the Polls please remember that Bibi has been an outstanding Warrior Prime Minister!” Trump wrote in a subsequent message.

“Vote for Bibi Netanyahu for Prime Minister, we have to finish the job that we started!” he added.

Netanyahu enthusiastically embraced the endorsements, incorporating Trump’s support into his final campaign messaging and presenting his close relationship with the American president as a major asset for Israel.

The prime minister repeatedly argued that his partnership with Trump was essential to confronting Iran, expanding diplomatic relations with Arab countries and preserving Israel’s security.

In one campaign video, Netanyahu directly addressed the American president, saying that the two leaders still had unfinished business concerning Iran.

“Donald, we have a job to finish [in Iran]… and we’ll finish it together. We’ll finish it, and no one else will do it,” Netanyahu declared.

The issue of Iran figured prominently in the closing days of the election campaign, with Netanyahu portraying his relationship with Trump as particularly important amid speculation about possible renewed military action against Tehran.

The Israeli prime minister also emphasized the Abraham Accords and the prospect of additional normalization agreements with Arab countries as achievements that could be expanded through continued cooperation with Washington.

Trump’s intervention was unusually direct for an American president in the final stages of a foreign election campaign, particularly given the close contest between Netanyahu and his political opponents.

The endorsement also came after Trump had initially declined to commit himself publicly to Netanyahu’s reelection effort.

During an earlier interview, Trump said he had not made a decision about endorsing a candidate and expressed general skepticism about trusting politicians.

His subsequent decision to throw his support behind Netanyahu gave the Israeli prime minister an opportunity to emphasize the strength of his relationship with the White House at a time when polls suggested his political future was uncertain.

Whether the endorsement actually changed voters’ decisions remains unclear. The improvement in Netanyahu’s electoral performance coincided with Trump’s intervention, but the available election results do not establish how much of the shift, if any, was caused by the American president’s support.

The election itself was dominated by several major issues, including Israel’s security situation, the continuing confrontation with Iran, the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas attacks, the military draft controversy and widespread dissatisfaction with the country’s political leadership.

For Netanyahu, the results provided an opportunity to claim that his political opponents had failed to deliver the decisive defeat they had anticipated.

Addressing supporters at Likud headquarters in Yerushalayim early Wednesday, Netanyahu called for the establishment of a strong right-wing government and emphasized the importance of continuing Israel’s strategic cooperation with the United States.

“Israel faces a singular historical opportunity, together with our partner President Trump, to remove the existential threat of Iran once and for all. But ulterior motives must not divert us from this sacred mission,” Netanyahu said.

Eisenkot, meanwhile, maintained that the election reflected public opposition to Netanyahu’s continued leadership and called on the prime minister to leave political office.

Neither leader had secured an outright majority, and the final allocation of Knesset seats remained subject to the completion of the vote count, including ballots cast by soldiers and other voters whose ballots are counted separately.

The unusually high turnout, reported at 77.7 percent, added another element of uncertainty to the election, with the final distribution of seats potentially affected by parties hovering near the electoral threshold.

For Trump, however, the preliminary results were already sufficient to claim that his intervention had helped Netanyahu avoid a much more damaging outcome.

The president characterized the apparent deadlock as a significant political achievement for Netanyahu, arguing that even a tie could represent a favorable result under the circumstances.

“You know, it’s pretty close, which was very well. Because I think when the endorsement went out, it helped him a lot,” Trump said.

“It might be winning or tie. The tie is sort of considered a win in that case because it’s a big chess match.”

{Matzav.com}

Israel’s election has produced a political paradox that could determine the country’s future: A party can win more votes than any of its rivals, emerge with the largest delegation in the Knesset, and still find itself unable to form a government.

That is the challenge confronting Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu following Tuesday’s national election, as preliminary results indicate that Likud remains the largest individual party but Netanyahu’s traditional political allies have failed to secure the 61 seats necessary for a parliamentary majority.

His principal challenger, Gadi Eisenkot, faces a similar difficulty. Although the parties opposing Netanyahu collectively command substantial support, their ideological differences could prevent them from establishing a workable coalition.

The result is a political stalemate in which the question of who received the most votes may ultimately matter less than which candidate can persuade enough Knesset members to support a government.

Unlike the United States, where voters separately elect a president, Israel operates under a parliamentary system in which citizens vote for political parties rather than directly choosing a prime minister.

The country’s 120 Knesset seats are distributed among qualifying parties according to their share of the national vote.

No single party has ever won an outright majority of 61 seats in a Knesset election, meaning that Israeli governments have traditionally depended on coalitions involving multiple political factions.

The leader of the largest party is often in a strong position to form a government, but there is no automatic guarantee that he will become prime minister.

Instead, the decisive factor is whether a candidate can assemble the parliamentary support necessary to establish and sustain a governing coalition.

That distinction has become particularly important following Tuesday’s election.

Preliminary returns showed Likud winning approximately 27 seats, making it the largest individual faction in the next Knesset.

Eisenkot’s Yashar party was projected to receive approximately 22 seats, while Naftali Bennett’s Beyachad party was expected to secure around 12.

Other significant factions included the Democrats, Yisrael Beytenu, Otzma Yehudit, Shas, United Torah Judaism, and the Arab parties.

But the individual party totals tell only part of the story.

The central issue is how those parties divide into potential governing alliances.

Netanyahu’s traditional bloc includes Likud, Shas, United Torah Judaism, Otzma Yehudit, and Religious Zionism.

Those parties have generally supported his leadership and cooperated in previous coalition arrangements, although disagreements over military conscription and other issues have created considerable tensions.

Based on one partial count, the bloc was projected to receive approximately 54 seats, leaving it seven short of the parliamentary majority needed to form a government.

That shortfall means Netanyahu would have to persuade at least one additional party, or enough individual Knesset members, to support his government.

Finding those votes could prove exceptionally difficult.

Several parties outside Netanyahu’s traditional alliance campaigned explicitly on replacing him, and their leaders have repeatedly ruled out joining a government under his leadership.

Even parties that share some of Likud’s positions on security or economic policy may be unwilling to enter a coalition headed by Netanyahu.

Eisenkot faces a different version of the same problem.

The parties generally associated with the opposition include his own Yashar faction, Bennett’s Beyachad, Yair Golan’s Democrats, and Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beytenu.

Together, they represent a substantial parliamentary force, but they also differ sharply over religion and state, military conscription, security policy, and the role of the Chareidi parties.

The opposition’s difficulty becomes particularly apparent when the Arab parties are included in the calculation.

Preliminary results indicated that the Joint Arab List and Ra’am could together hold a significant number of seats, potentially making them indispensable to an alternative coalition.

Yet several parties opposed to Netanyahu have also expressed strong objections to relying on Arab factions to establish a government.

Bennett and Lieberman, in particular, have opposed coalition arrangements dependent on Arab political parties.

Consequently, even if the combined number of opposition and Arab-party seats exceeds 61, that does not necessarily mean Eisenkot can form a government.

A numerical majority on paper is not the same as a political agreement.

The problem is further complicated by the Chareidi parties.

Shas and United Torah Judaism have traditionally been among Netanyahu’s most reliable coalition partners, but the continuing controversy over the conscription of yeshiva bochurim has strained relations between the Chareidi leadership and Likud.

United Torah Judaism has indicated that it will demand legislation protecting full-time yeshiva students from military service before agreeing to ordinary coalition cooperation.

That demand could become a significant obstacle for any prospective prime minister, particularly one seeking to include parties that favor expanded Chareidi military recruitment.

Eisenkot, a former IDF chief of staff, has supported increasing military participation among the Chareidi population.

Bennett and Lieberman have also advocated policies aimed at changing existing conscription arrangements.

Any coalition involving those parties and United Torah Judaism would therefore have to overcome fundamental disagreements over one of the most contentious issues in Israeli politics.

Shas chairman Aryeh Deri could also find himself in an influential position if the final results leave both major blocs short of a majority.

Although Shas has been closely aligned with Netanyahu, the party’s parliamentary support could become important in negotiations involving alternative political arrangements.

There is, however, no established agreement indicating that Shas intends to abandon its traditional alliance.

The process of determining who will form the next government begins after the final election results are established.

President Isaac Herzog will consult with representatives of the parties elected to the Knesset and ask them to recommend a candidate for prime minister.

The president is not legally required to select the leader of the largest party or even the candidate receiving the greatest number of recommendations.

His responsibility is to choose the Knesset member he believes has the strongest prospect of successfully forming a government.

That decision can produce an outcome that differs from the apparent winner of the election.

A candidate whose party finished second could receive the mandate if he demonstrates a more realistic path to assembling a parliamentary majority.

Once the president assigns the task, the designated candidate ordinarily has 28 days to form a government.

The president may grant an extension of up to 14 additional days.

If the candidate fails, the president may turn to another Knesset member, setting off another round of negotiations.

If those efforts also fail, additional parliamentary procedures can follow, potentially leading to another election.

Israel has experienced this scenario repeatedly.

Between April 2019 and November 2022, the country held five national elections as competing political blocs struggled to establish stable governing majorities.

The period demonstrated that even a relatively strong electoral performance does not necessarily translate into the ability to govern.

In April 2019, Likud and Blue and White each won 35 seats, but Netanyahu was unable to assemble a coalition. Rather than allow another candidate an opportunity to form a government, the Knesset voted to dissolve itself, sending the country back to the polls.

A similar stalemate followed the September 2019 election, when neither Netanyahu nor Blue and White leader Benny Gantz could form a government.

The political deadlock eventually produced a unity government in 2020, but that arrangement collapsed, leading to another election.

In 2021, Netanyahu’s opponents succeeded in assembling a coalition led by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, even though Bennett’s Yamina party had won only seven seats.

Bennett became prime minister despite leading a faction considerably smaller than Likud, demonstrating that the ability to assemble a coalition can outweigh the number of seats won by an individual party.

The government brought together parties spanning much of Israel’s political spectrum, including right-wing, centrist, left-wing, and Arab factions.

Its formation illustrated the flexibility of Israel’s parliamentary system, but its eventual collapse also demonstrated the difficulty of maintaining a coalition among parties with sharply conflicting political priorities.

Those experiences provide important context for the current election.

Netanyahu may emerge with the largest party and still be unable to govern.

Eisenkot may command broad opposition support and still fail to persuade enough parties to cooperate.

A unity government could theoretically provide a solution, but such an arrangement would require political rivals to overcome major disagreements concerning leadership, government policy, and the distribution of authority.

A rotation agreement, under which two leaders serve as prime minister for designated periods, is another possible arrangement, although previous Israeli experiences have shown that such agreements can be difficult to maintain.

The final vote count could also change the calculations.

Hundreds of thousands of double-envelope ballots, including those cast by soldiers and other eligible voters outside their assigned polling stations, remained to be processed Wednesday.

Those ballots could affect the distribution of seats among qualifying parties and potentially alter the strength of the competing political blocs.

Parties close to the 3.25 percent electoral threshold were also awaiting the final results, since the entry of an additional party into the Knesset could change the allocation of mandates.

Until the count is completed, the precise parliamentary arithmetic remains uncertain.

Nevertheless, the central political challenge is already apparent.

Israel’s voters have elected a deeply divided Knesset in which the leading parties must negotiate with factions whose support cannot be taken for granted.

For Netanyahu, the challenge is finding a path beyond his traditional right-wing and Chareidi alliance.

For Eisenkot, it is assembling a coalition from parties that oppose Netanyahu but disagree among themselves about some of the country’s most important issues.

For the Chareidi parties, the question is whether their parliamentary representation can be used to secure meaningful protections for yeshiva bochurim and Torah institutions amid the continuing draft controversy.

And for President Herzog, the challenge will be identifying a candidate capable of transforming the election results into a functioning government.

The outcome may not be determined by which party finishes first, which bloc receives the largest combined vote, or which leader delivers the strongest election-night speech.

It will be determined by whether 61 members of the newly elected Knesset can agree to support the same government.

Until that happens, Israel may know who won the most votes without knowing who won the election.

The Israel Defense Forces announced Wednesday that it had eliminated three senior Hamas operatives in separate airstrikes across the Gaza Strip, including two commanders who personally participated in the October 7, 2023, terrorist invasion of southern Israel.

The three terrorists, all commanders in Hamas’s military wing, were killed in operations carried out Sunday and Monday in Khan Younis and Gaza City. According to the IDF, the men had continued directing terrorist activity throughout the war and were recently involved in efforts to rebuild Hamas’s military capabilities and prepare attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians.

Among those eliminated was Anas Akram Mohammed Hamaida, a commander in Hamas’s elite Nukhba force who participated in the October 7 assault on the IDF’s Sufa military outpost near the Gaza border.

Hamaida was killed Sunday in an Israeli airstrike in the Khan Younis area of southern Gaza.

The Sufa outpost was among the military installations targeted during Hamas’s coordinated invasion on Simchas Torah 5784, when thousands of terrorists breached Israel’s border defenses and attacked military positions and civilian communities throughout the Gaza envelope.

The attack on the outpost formed part of the larger Hamas operation that resulted in approximately 1,200 people being murdered and 251 people being abducted into Gaza.

Israeli soldiers stationed along the border fought intense battles as Hamas terrorists attempted to overrun military bases, seize weapons and capture soldiers.

The IDF identified Hamaida as one of the Nukhba commanders who took part in the assault on Sufa, linking him directly to the October 7 invasion.

A second terrorist eliminated Sunday was Ashraf Mahmoud Yousef Dahlan, a platoon commander in Hamas’s East Jabalia Battalion.

Dahlan was killed in an airstrike in the Gaza City area.

According to the military, Dahlan also participated in the October 7 invasion, crossing into Israeli territory during the Hamas attacks.

The East Jabalia Battalion was part of Hamas’s military infrastructure in northern Gaza, an area that has been the scene of extensive Israeli operations throughout the war.

Dahlan’s elimination marked the removal of another Hamas commander whom the IDF identified as having personally taken part in the massacre.

The third terrorist, Mahmoud Othman Abdullah Alwan, was killed Monday in an Israeli airstrike in the Gaza City area.

Alwan served as a Nukhba commander in Hamas’s West Jabalia Battalion.

Although the military did not identify Alwan as having personally crossed into Israel on October 7, it said he had remained involved in Hamas military operations and efforts to restore the terrorist organization’s fighting capabilities.

The IDF said all three men had been active throughout the war and had continued to participate in Hamas’s operational activities in recent weeks.

According to the military, their activities included advancing plans for attacks against Israeli forces and civilians, as well as helping rebuild Hamas’s military infrastructure following the extensive damage inflicted during Israeli operations in Gaza.

The army said these activities constituted repeated violations of the ceasefire arrangements currently governing the situation in the Gaza Strip.

Israeli officials have maintained that Hamas continues attempting to reorganize its military forces, recruit operatives, restore command structures and prepare additional attacks despite the ceasefire.

The military said the three commanders were targeted from the air in order to eliminate the threats they posed.

The announcement comes amid continuing tensions surrounding the implementation of the Gaza ceasefire, with Israel accusing Hamas of using periods of reduced fighting to rebuild its military capabilities.

Hamas’s Nukhba force, an elite component of the terrorist organization’s military wing, played a central role in planning and executing the October 7 attacks.

Nukhba operatives were among the terrorists who spearheaded the invasion, attacking IDF positions, entering Israeli communities, murdering civilians and soldiers, and abducting hostages into Gaza.

Since the outbreak of the war, Israeli security forces have made the identification and elimination of terrorists involved in the October 7 massacre a central objective of their operations.

The IDF and Shin Bet have conducted numerous operations targeting Hamas commanders, intelligence personnel and other operatives linked to the attacks.

The latest strikes reflect Israel’s continuing effort to target members of Hamas’s command structure who participated in the invasion or remain involved in preparations for further attacks.

The military did not provide additional operational details about the intelligence that led to the identification of the three commanders or the precise circumstances of the strikes.

It also did not report whether other Hamas operatives were killed in the operations.

In its statement Wednesday, the IDF emphasized that Israeli forces under the Southern Command remain deployed in accordance with the existing agreement and are continuing to monitor threats emanating from Gaza.

The army said it would continue taking action to remove threats against Israeli soldiers and civilians, including those arising from Hamas’s efforts to rebuild its military capabilities.

The elimination of Hamaida and Dahlan adds two more names to the list of Hamas terrorists identified by Israeli authorities as participants in the October 7 invasion who have subsequently been killed during the war.

More than three years after the Simchas Torah massacre, the IDF continues to pursue those involved in the attacks while seeking to prevent Hamas from restoring the military infrastructure used to carry them out.

{Matzav.com}

Shas chairman Aryeh Deri departed from the party’s customary election-night celebrations Tuesday without delivering a speech to supporters, as preliminary results pointed to a substantial decline in the Sephardic Chareidi party’s parliamentary strength and raised the possibility that United Torah Judaism could surpass Shas in the popular vote.

The absence of a traditional election-night address drew particular attention because Shas entered the election holding 11 Knesset seats, while the initial projections indicated that the party could emerge with only seven.

For a movement that has spent decades cultivating a powerful electoral organization and presenting itself as the political representative of Sephardic Chareidi Jewry, the results represented a significant setback.

Deri instead communicated through a written statement, thanking the party’s supporters and emphasizing its continued commitment to the principles and institutions it represents.

The subdued response stood in contrast to previous election nights, when Shas leaders celebrated strong performances with supporters, activists, and party officials.

The preliminary results also created an unusual political situation within the Chareidi community.

United Torah Judaism, which won seven seats in the 2022 election, appeared positioned to retain its parliamentary representation. Shas, meanwhile, faced the loss of approximately four seats, substantially narrowing the gap between the two parties.

By Wednesday morning, partial official returns indicated that United Torah Judaism had moved ahead of Shas in the number of votes received, potentially ending the Sephardic party’s longstanding advantage over its Ashkenazic counterpart.

At one stage of the count, UTJ had received 240,648 votes compared with 217,202 for Shas, a difference of 23,446 votes.

Although the remaining ballots could still change the final figures, the preliminary numbers pointed to a notable shift in the relative electoral strength of Israel’s two principal Chareidi parties.

The uncertainty began immediately after the polls closed at 10 p.m. Tuesday.

Israel’s three principal television exit polls offered sharply different assessments of Shas’s performance. Channel 12 projected eight seats for the party, while Channel 13 and Kan 11 each projected only six.

Even the most favorable of those projections represented a decline from the party’s 11-seat showing in 2022.

Rather than hold the planned gathering at the Shira Chadasha hall in the Givat Shaul neighborhood of Yerushalayim, Shas canceled the event. The doors remained closed, and the supporters who had expected an election-night address did not receive one.

At the party’s election headquarters, the scene was similarly unusual. The hall had been prepared for a celebration, complete with lighting and music, but the expected crowd and senior party representatives were absent.

Shortly after midnight, music associated with the Shas campaign could still be heard in the largely empty venue, creating a striking contrast between the preparations for an election-night celebration and the uncertainty surrounding the results.

Deri, who has led Shas through numerous election campaigns and served as one of the most influential figures in Israeli politics for decades, chose not to appear before supporters.

Instead, he released a statement thanking the party’s voters, rabbonim, elected representatives, and campaign activists.

“Thank G-d!” Deri began, before expressing appreciation to the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who had voted for Shas.

He thanked the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah for its efforts on behalf of the party, along with rabbonim from communities throughout the country and the thousands of activists who had worked during the campaign.

Deri also accused the party’s opponents of conducting what he described as an unprecedented campaign of hostility against the movement.

Addressing the conflicting exit polls, Deri urged supporters not to draw conclusions before the official count.

“The exit poll results show large discrepancies, and therefore we will have to wait for the actual results,” he said.

“According to the data in Shas’s possession, the party will achieve a very good result that will reflect the tremendous work done on the ground.”

He concluded with an appeal to party workers who had spent Election Day mobilizing voters.

“Dear activists, you worked hard, and there is a reward for your efforts. Go rest, and tomorrow morning we will wake up to the actual results.”

The decision to avoid a public address was particularly notable because Deri did not use the occasion to reaffirm an explicit commitment to supporting Netanyahu in the next government.

That omission attracted attention amid growing uncertainty over the composition of the next Knesset and the possibility that neither Netanyahu’s traditional right-wing and Chareidi alliance nor the principal opposition parties would command a majority.

There was no indication that Shas had decided to abandon Netanyahu, but the absence of a renewed public commitment left questions about the party’s negotiating position unanswered.

The contrast with United Torah Judaism was evident on election night.

Senior UTJ officials initially remained inside the party’s offices in Bnei Brak, where they reviewed the exit polls and considered the implications of the results.

After an extended period, the party’s leadership emerged to address several dozen supporters.

Yaakov Asher, who has assumed the senior leadership position in Degel HaTorah, appeared alongside veteran MK Moshe Gafni, holding his predecessor’s hand in a public display of continuity.

Although some UTJ activists were disappointed by the exit polls, which initially projected six seats for the party, Asher presented the result as a significant achievement.

“The Torah has won,” Asher told supporters.

“Everyone wrote us off, took bites out of us, and tried to do many things to us, but they did not succeed. This is a great victory for us.”

The subsequent partial count strengthened UTJ’s position, with projections indicating that the party could retain its seven seats.

For Shas, however, the emerging picture was considerably less encouraging.

The party had entered the election following a difficult period marked by the military draft controversy, political tensions within the right-wing bloc, and dissatisfaction among some voters over the handling of issues affecting the Chareidi community.

The conscription crisis, in particular, had placed substantial pressure on the Chareidi political leadership.

The absence of legislation protecting full-time yeshiva students from military service, together with enforcement measures and financial sanctions affecting the yeshiva world, became a central issue throughout the campaign.

Shas and United Torah Judaism both faced demands to demonstrate that their political participation could produce meaningful protections for Torah learners.

Yet the preliminary results suggested that the two parties had experienced markedly different electoral outcomes.

While UTJ appeared capable of maintaining its parliamentary strength, Shas was confronting the possibility of losing more than one-third of its Knesset representation.

That development carries implications beyond the symbolic question of which party receives more votes.

Shas has traditionally exercised considerable influence within Netanyahu’s political alliances, with Deri serving as a key negotiator and political intermediary.

A reduction in the party’s parliamentary strength could affect its bargaining position in coalition negotiations, particularly if Netanyahu cannot assemble a majority without obtaining support from parties outside his traditional camp.

At the same time, the uncertainty surrounding government formation could provide Shas with opportunities to influence the next coalition despite its diminished representation.

The party’s decisions will be shaped by the final election results, its longstanding political relationships, and the guidance of the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah.

The electoral setback also raises questions about the effectiveness of Shas’s campaign organization.

The party has historically maintained an extensive network of activists, local representatives, and communal institutions capable of mobilizing voters in Chareidi neighborhoods and traditional Sephardic communities.

Its success in the 2022 election, when it won 11 seats, demonstrated the strength of that organization.

The apparent decline in 2026 will likely prompt an examination of voter turnout, changes in political loyalties, and the broader circumstances that affected the party’s performance.

For Deri, who has been identified with Shas for much of its history, the election represents one of the more difficult moments in his political career.

The final results could still alter the party’s seat total, and hundreds of thousands of special ballots remained to be processed Wednesday.

Nevertheless, the decision to cancel the election-night celebration and communicate through a written statement reflected the uncertainty that had overtaken the party as the results emerged.

The scene at Shas headquarters provided a memorable image of the evening: a hall prepared for a celebration, campaign music playing, and the party’s chairman absent from the stage.

Whether the final count softens the setback or confirms a major decline, the election has left Shas confronting important questions about its electoral strength, political strategy, and role in Israel’s next government.

For now, Deri has chosen to wait for the final numbers before delivering his public assessment of what happened.

And in a political movement accustomed to election-night speeches, that silence has become one of the most revealing stories of the election.