Feed aggregator

President Donald Trump is considering launching American military strikes against the Iran-backed Houthi terrorist organization following a devastating attack on Saudi Arabia’s main international airport that killed 12 people, including an American citizen, and wounded more than 300 others.

The president’s warning came as the Houthis threatened additional attacks on civilian aviation facilities, prompting growing concern that the escalating confrontation between Saudi Arabia and the Yemen-based terrorist group could draw the United States into a wider regional conflict.

Speaking with reporters, Trump indicated that Washington was weighing whether to participate in Saudi Arabia’s planned military retaliation following the attack on King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh.

“We may. We’re going to look at it,” Trump told reporters when asked about joining the attacks against the Houthis.

“We just found out about the recent attack, so we’ll make a decision. We move very quickly,” he said.

Trump separately condemned the airport attack and suggested that the administration was maintaining contact with the Houthis while considering its next steps.

“I think it’s terrible,” Trump added at another point. “The Saudis are good fighters, but I think the attack was a terrible thing. We have communication with the Houthis, and we’ll see what happens. But what they did was very bad.”

The attack was among the deadliest incidents in the latest escalation between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia, striking a major civilian transportation hub and causing extensive casualties.

Among the 12 people killed were nationals of the United States, the Palestinian territories, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Sudan and Bangladesh. More than 300 additional people were reported injured.

The airport attack has intensified fears about the vulnerability of civilian aviation facilities as the Houthis increasingly threaten targets beyond Yemen’s borders.

Rather than retreating following the international condemnation, a Houthi spokesman issued an additional warning over the weekend, declaring that airports had become “a theatre of operations for our forces” and urging “everyone to take our warnings seriously.”

The spokesman also accused Saudi Arabia of bearing “responsibility for any failed interceptions,” apparently seeking to blame Riyadh for casualties resulting from attempts to intercept incoming Houthi projectiles.

The threats have heightened concerns that additional airports and civilian facilities in Saudi Arabia could become targets if the fighting continues.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a forceful condemnation of the attack, emphasizing American support for Saudi Arabia and demanding that the Houthis cease their attacks.

“The United States strongly condemns the recent attacks on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia by the terrorist Houthis,” Rubio said.

“These reprehensible attacks demonstrate a blatant disregard for innocent civilian life. They must stop now,” Rubio added. “We stand with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its people and extend our condolences to the victims and their families.”

The possibility of American intervention would mark a significant change in Washington’s approach to the Houthis following a ceasefire arrangement reached in May.

Under that understanding, the Houthis agreed to stop attacking vessels in the Red Sea, and the Trump administration subsequently refrained from renewed military operations against the organization.

Trump had appeared reluctant to become entangled in another prolonged Middle Eastern confrontation, particularly as the region continued grappling with the consequences of the war involving Iran and its network of allied terrorist organizations.

The Houthis’ apparent adherence to the maritime ceasefire had been a major consideration in Washington’s decision to avoid direct involvement in the renewed Saudi-Houthi fighting.

However, the killing of an American citizen at Riyadh’s airport, together with the Houthis’ threats of further attacks against civilian targets, has increased pressure on the administration to reconsider that position.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has reportedly urged Trump to authorize American military action against the Houthis, seeking assistance similar to the strikes carried out by U.S. forces between March and May.

Saudi Arabia has already begun responding militarily to the airport attack.

According to the Houthis, Saudi aircraft conducted two strikes against Sanaa, Yemen’s capital, which has been under Houthi control for more than a decade.

The Houthi-controlled Health Ministry has also claimed that approximately 91 people have been killed and 168 wounded in Saudi-led coalition attacks over the preceding five weeks. Those figures have not been independently verified.

The repercussions have extended beyond the airport itself. Saudi authorities suspended operations at King Khalid International Airport following the strike, forcing airlines to cancel or divert flights and leaving travelers facing widespread disruption.

The closure was extended Sunday as officials assessed the damage and continued examining the security situation. Saudi aviation authorities reported damage to airport facilities, including passenger terminals and communications equipment.

In a further development Sunday, the Saudi-led coalition reported that another projectile struck a passenger terminal at the Riyadh airport, underscoring the continuing danger despite the suspension of regular flight operations.

The United States has also warned Americans about the deteriorating security situation. The State Department issued an updated travel advisory Saturday urging Americans to reconsider travel to Saudi Arabia because of missile and drone threats, armed conflict and terrorism.

The latest violence follows several weeks of escalating hostilities between the Houthis and Saudi-backed forces in Yemen. Saudi Arabia reportedly intercepted a Houthi drone near Mecca last month, an incident that further inflamed tensions.

The Houthis, who receive backing from Iran, seized control of Sanaa in 2014, forcing Yemen’s internationally recognized government from the capital.

Saudi Arabia intervened militarily the following year, leading a coalition intended to restore the Yemeni government. The conflict subsequently developed into a prolonged war, with periods of intense fighting interrupted by fragile ceasefires and negotiations.

Although a United Nations-brokered truce in 2022 reduced large-scale hostilities for a time, the underlying dispute remained unresolved.

The latest confrontation has intensified as the Houthis have expanded their presence along Yemen’s Red Sea coastline and around the strategically important Bab al-Mandab Strait, through which significant international shipping traffic passes.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has fired back at Sen. Elizabeth Warren with a sharply worded letter ridiculing her understanding of financial markets and concluding with a handwritten greeting referencing her past claims of Native American ancestry.

The response, sent yesterday and obtained by FOX Business, followed Warren’s latest demand for information about rising Treasury yields and borrowing costs. Bessent used the exchange to criticize the Massachusetts Democrat’s economic record, accuse her of political grandstanding, and suggest that she needed remedial instruction in finance.

At the bottom of the letter, Bessent added a handwritten message: “Happy Indigenous People’s Day in advance to you and your family,” an unmistakable reference to the controversy surrounding Warren’s previous identification as Native American.

The exchange marks another escalation in the increasingly personal dispute between the Treasury secretary and Warren, who has repeatedly questioned the Trump administration’s economic policies and demanded detailed explanations from the department.

According to the report, Warren has sent Treasury officials more than 100 letters seeking information over the past 21 months. Bessent portrayed the latest correspondence as part of a sustained campaign against the administration rather than a serious attempt to understand developments in the bond market.

“Rather than take my suggestion of studying introductory economics, you have continued your letter-writing crusade and participation in tabloid fodder about the Treasury Department,” he wrote.

The confrontation began with an October 7 letter in which Warren questioned the administration’s response to the rising yield on 10-year Treasury securities, a benchmark that influences borrowing costs throughout the American economy, including mortgage rates and other forms of credit.

Warren sought details about the steps Treasury officials were taking to make borrowing more affordable for ordinary Americans and requested written answers by October 21.

In her correspondence, the senator blamed the administration’s policies for contributing to higher interest rates and argued that the recent increase in government bond yields was the result of avoidable economic decisions.

“The surge in Treasury yields is self-inflicted and follows the Fed’s decision to raise the federal funds rate by a quarter of a percentage point, driven by concerns about inflation.”

Bessent disputed Warren’s account of the economic situation and questioned why she had not expressed similar concerns about government spending and inflation during President Joe Biden’s administration.

“It is difficult to treat your concern as sincere,” Bessent wrote, before accusing Warren of supporting policies that contributed to the inflation and interest-rate increases experienced during the previous administration.

“As the federal funds rate climbed from near zero to its highest level in 22 years, with inflation hitting a 40-year high, you were a cheerleader for the Biden Administration’s reckless spending.”

He further accused Warren of directing criticism toward the Federal Reserve when interest rates rose under Biden, rather than acknowledging what he described as the consequences of “your own irresponsible fiscal policies.”

The Treasury secretary also defended President Trump’s tax legislation, contrasting the administration’s approach with Warren’s support for higher taxes.

“While you voted for a $5 trillion tax hike on every day Americans, the Working Families Tax Cuts continue to deliver for families and workers across the country,” he wrote.

Warren, however, argued that the tax provisions in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill would substantially increase federal borrowing while disproportionately benefiting wealthy Americans and large corporations.

According to her letter, the legislation is projected to add $4.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, with benefits flowing primarily to the “ultra-wealthy and large corporations — while cutting health care and food assistance for families. Meanwhile, the Iran war has cost taxpayers an estimated $43.6 billion to date, according to the Pentagon.”

The competing claims reflect a broader disagreement over the effects of the administration’s tax and spending policies. Warren maintains that the legislation will deepen federal deficits and increase financial pressure on working families, while Bessent argues that its tax provisions are supporting workers and economic growth.

Bessent’s response became particularly pointed near its conclusion, when he offered to provide Warren with educational materials on subjects he suggested she had failed to master.

He proposed “a Foreign Exchange for Dummies tutorial,” followed by another lesson if the senator successfully completed the first.

“if you receive a passing grade to the Yale metric, not the Harvard curve, I would be happy to also include a Fixed Income for Dummies.”

The reference to the two Ivy League institutions carried an additional personal element. Warren previously taught law at Harvard University, while Bessent served as an instructor in economic history at Yale.

The Treasury secretary’s closing greeting about Indigenous Peoples’ Day revived a controversy that followed Warren for years, particularly during her presidential campaign.

Warren faced sustained criticism over her earlier claims of Native American heritage, which she said were based on stories passed down through her family. Before entering the Senate, she had identified herself as an “American Indian” or a minority in certain professional records.

President Trump repeatedly mocked those claims, referring to Warren as “Pocahontas,” a nickname that became a recurring feature of his political attacks against her.

In 2018, Warren released the results of a DNA test intended to demonstrate that she had distant Indigenous ancestry. The move prompted objections from tribal representatives, who emphasized that genetic testing does not establish membership in a Native American tribe or determine tribal identity.

Warren subsequently apologized to several tribes for taking the test and acknowledged their objections to her approach.

The dispute over Treasury yields comes amid growing concern about the cost of borrowing in the United States. The benchmark 10-year Treasury yield recently climbed above 5.2 percent, reaching levels not seen in more than two decades and contributing to higher financing costs for homeowners, businesses and the federal government.

Warren has also challenged the Treasury Department’s expanded bond-buyback operations, arguing that the administration’s purchases of older government securities have failed to prevent yields from rising. In her October 7 letter, she cited multibillion-dollar buybacks conducted in September and October and questioned whether additional intervention was being considered.

Bessent responded that the buyback program began in May 2024, during the Biden administration, and defended it as a mechanism for improving liquidity in the Treasury market rather than an effort to dictate interest rates. He maintained that the program had received a favorable response from market participants.

The secretary also highlighted tax benefits claimed by millions of Americans under the administration’s legislation, including provisions affecting overtime income, tips, senior citizens and families with children.

The latest confrontation follows earlier public exchanges between Bessent and Warren over the Treasury Department’s handling of foreign exchange markets and the broader direction of economic policy. In August, Bessent had already offered Warren a tutorial on currency markets, an invitation he revived in yesterday’s letter.

Warren has separately promoted a Trumpflation Tracker intended to measure the cumulative effect of rising prices on American households. Bessent challenged the methodology yesterday, accusing the senator of selectively presenting inflation and wage figures to portray the administration’s economic record unfavorably.

The two remain sharply divided over the causes of rising borrowing costs, the effectiveness of Treasury’s market operations and the impact of Trump’s tax policies. Warren has requested a formal response to her latest questions by October 21.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump announced Sunday that Russia and Ukraine have agreed to immediately halt attacks on each other’s energy infrastructure, marking a potentially significant development in the war just two days after his administration unveiled a controversial agreement to purchase large quantities of Russian diesel fuel.

The announcement follows mounting concern in Washington over soaring American diesel prices, which have become a major political issue ahead of the November 3 midterm elections, as well as criticism from Ukrainian officials and members of both American political parties over Trump’s decision to resume fuel purchases from Moscow.

“Effective immediately, there is an ENERGY CEASEFIRE in the War between Russia and Ukraine,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Both parties have agreed. Do not break it! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”

The president did not immediately provide details about the agreement’s duration, enforcement mechanisms or whether it would apply to all energy-related facilities in both countries. Independent confirmation of the terms from Moscow and Kyiv was not included in the initial announcement.

The reported agreement comes after months of increasingly destructive attacks against energy installations on both sides of the conflict.

Ukraine has repeatedly targeted Russian oil refineries and other petroleum facilities in an effort to weaken Moscow’s ability to finance and sustain its military operations. Those attacks have disrupted refining capacity and placed additional pressure on Russia’s energy industry.

Russia, meanwhile, has continued striking Ukraine’s electricity generation facilities, power distribution networks and other critical infrastructure, causing widespread damage and creating serious difficulties for Ukrainian civilians.

The Trump administration has argued that Ukrainian strikes against Russian refineries have contributed to tightening global diesel supplies, pushing prices higher even in countries that no longer purchase Russian petroleum products directly.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright has maintained that disruptions to Russia’s refining industry can affect international fuel markets and ultimately raise costs for American consumers, regardless of existing restrictions on Russian imports.

According to figures cited by the American Automobile Association, the national average price of diesel has climbed to approximately $6.28 per gallon, placing additional pressure on trucking companies, agricultural businesses and other industries that depend heavily on diesel fuel.

Higher transportation costs can also affect consumer prices because diesel-powered trucks are responsible for moving substantial quantities of food, merchandise and other goods throughout the United States.

With the midterm elections approaching, the administration has faced increasing pressure to demonstrate that it is taking action to address fuel costs and their broader economic consequences.

The ceasefire announcement also follows Trump’s agreement Friday with Russian President Vladimir Putin to resume large-scale diesel supplies to the American and international markets, a decision that drew immediate objections from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and criticism from lawmakers in both parties.

Following a telephone conversation with Putin, Trump said Russia would supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel immediately, followed by another 500,000 tons in November and an additional 1 million tons afterward. He also outlined plans for a further 3 million tons to be delivered subsequently, depending on the condition of Russia’s refining facilities.

The Treasury Department subsequently authorized a temporary relaxation of restrictions on Russian diesel transactions, allowing certain imports through April 2027.

The decision represented a significant change in American policy toward Russian energy exports, which have been subject to restrictions since Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Zelensky sharply condemned the arrangement, describing it as a “betrayal” and warning that increased Russian energy revenues could provide Moscow with additional resources to continue its military campaign.

The Ukrainian president has maintained that pressure on Russia’s energy industry is an important component of Kyiv’s strategy for weakening Moscow’s ability to sustain the war.

The agreement also provoked questions in Washington about its legality under the Ending Importation of Russian Oil Act of 2022, which prohibited imports of Russian petroleum products into the United States.

Critics have argued that the administration may lack the authority to resume purchases without congressional approval, while the Treasury Department has relied on temporary licensing arrangements to facilitate the transactions.

According to reporting on the negotiations, Trump had repeatedly urged Ukraine to suspend attacks on Russian refineries before reaching the diesel arrangement with Putin. A senior American official said Zelensky had disregarded several such requests, contributing to the administration’s decision to pursue an alternative approach.

The diplomatic dispute unfolded as American representatives continued discussions with Ukrainian and European officials in Miami about possible steps toward ending the war.

Trump’s envoys, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, have also been considering additional meetings in Moscow and Kyiv as part of the administration’s efforts to revive negotiations.

The president previously announced a mutual halt to attacks on energy infrastructure in September, but strikes continued afterward, highlighting the difficulty of translating diplomatic commitments into a lasting cessation of hostilities.

Sunday’s announcement therefore raises immediate questions about whether the latest agreement will succeed where earlier efforts failed.

The distinction between an energy ceasefire and a broader military truce is also significant. Trump’s statement addressed attacks on energy targets and did not announce an end to ground combat, missile strikes against other facilities or military operations along the front lines.

Fighting elsewhere in Ukraine continued over the weekend, including Russian attacks that struck residential areas and caused civilian casualties.

It was not immediately clear whether either side had issued new operational instructions to its military forces following Trump’s announcement, or how alleged violations of the arrangement would be investigated.

For the Trump administration, the agreement offers a potential means of reducing attacks on energy infrastructure while addressing the fuel-price pressures that have become increasingly prominent in American domestic politics.

Whether the ceasefire will hold, however, will depend on the actions of Moscow and Kyiv and on the details of an arrangement that neither government had publicly confirmed when Trump made his announcement.

{Matzav.com}

Former Vice President Mike Pence has sharply condemned President Donald Trump’s agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin to ease restrictions on Russian diesel exports, accusing Trump of betraying the legacy of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham and providing financial assistance to Moscow while its military continues its war against Ukraine.

In a lengthy statement posted on X, Pence urged Trump to cancel the arrangement immediately and restore tough economic measures against Russia, arguing that the administration’s decision undermines years of American efforts to pressure Putin into ending the conflict.

“President Trump’s decision to lift sanctions on Russian fuel amidst Putin’s ongoing and brutal attacks on civilian targets in Ukraine makes no sense and is a betrayal of the legacy and leadership of the late Senator Lindsey Graham,” Pence wrote in a lengthy X post.

Pence, 67, who served as vice president throughout Trump’s first administration, invoked Graham’s longstanding campaign for tougher sanctions on Moscow. The South Carolina Republican, who died in July, had been among the most outspoken congressional advocates of punishing Russia economically over its invasion of Ukraine.

“Instead of implementing the tough sanctions Lindsey Graham fought to his last breath to enact, President Trump has announced the United States is lifting sanctions on Russian energy, fueling the Putin’s war machine,” Pence added.

Graham had worked on legislation intended to impose sweeping penalties on countries purchasing Russian energy, seeking to deprive Moscow of revenue that could be used to sustain its military operations. His death came shortly after a visit to Ukraine, where he had continued advocating stronger American measures against Russia.

Pence also referred to his own recent trip to Ukraine, saying he had personally observed conditions that convinced him Moscow was failing to achieve its military objectives.

The former vice president said he “saw firsthand in Ukraine last month” that “Putin is losing this war.”

He argued that Washington should maintain economic pressure on Russia rather than allow additional fuel sales that could generate revenue for the Kremlin.

“America should not be throwing a lifeline to Putin’s war machine. Now is the time to stand strong against Russian aggression as we did during the first Trump administration,” he implored.

Pence further warned that Russian ambitions could eventually threaten NATO countries and potentially draw American forces into a direct confrontation with Moscow.

“Putin doesn’t want peace. Putin wants Ukraine. I have no doubt that if Putin overruns Ukraine, it will only be a matter of time until Russia’s military crosses a border that our troops will have to deal with him.”

Calling for a return to the Russia policies pursued during Trump’s first term, Pence said the United States should intensify sanctions on nations buying Russian energy while ensuring that Ukraine receives the weapons and assistance necessary to continue defending itself.

“America is the Leader of the Free World,” he continued. “For our National Security, for the security of our Allies in Europe including Ukraine, President Trump should rescind this deal immediately and return to the strong policies of our four years in the White House; impose harsh sanctions on any nation purchasing Russian energy and work with our allies to ensure Ukraine has the military support it needs to repel and defeat this Russian invasion once and for all.”

The criticism followed Trump’s announcement Friday that he had reached an agreement with Putin to release millions of tons of Russian diesel into international markets, a move intended to address soaring fuel prices in the United States and abroad.

Under the arrangement described by Trump, Russia is expected to make more than 300,000 metric tons of diesel available immediately, followed by another 500,000 tons in November and 1 million tons shortly afterward. The president also said Moscow had committed to providing an additional 3 million tons within a relatively short period, depending on the condition of Russian refineries.

The Treasury Department subsequently announced a temporary authorization allowing Russian diesel to enter international markets despite existing American sanctions. The measure is scheduled to remain in effect until April 2027.

The decision represents a significant change in Washington’s approach to Russian energy exports, which have been targeted by successive sanctions intended to reduce the Kremlin’s ability to finance its military campaign.

Trump has defended the agreement as a practical response to the steep increase in diesel prices, which has placed additional financial pressure on American trucking companies, agricultural operations and businesses dependent on transportation.

Diesel prices have climbed above $6 per gallon nationally, driven in part by disruptions to global energy supplies associated with the war involving Iran. The increase has become a growing political concern for Republicans ahead of the November 3 midterm elections.

The president has faced mounting pressure from members of his own party to bring fuel costs under control, particularly because diesel prices affect the cost of transporting food, merchandise and other essential goods throughout the country.

Trump has argued that increasing available supplies would help ease those pressures, although some energy analysts have questioned whether the Russian shipments would be large enough to produce a substantial reduction in American fuel prices.

The agreement has also provoked an angry response from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who warned that allowing Moscow to earn additional revenue from petroleum exports would strengthen Russia’s ability to continue its military campaign.

Zelensky argued that relaxing sanctions without obtaining meaningful concessions from Putin would weaken Western leverage and make a negotiated end to the war more difficult.

The controversy intensified Saturday as Russian attacks struck residential buildings in Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia region, killing at least 20 people, including three children, according to Ukrainian officials.

Trump, meanwhile, has criticized Zelensky’s handling of the conflict and suggested that Ukraine should consider new leadership capable of reaching an agreement with Moscow. The president has also blamed Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil infrastructure for contributing to disruptions in global diesel supplies.

Pence’s criticism adds to objections raised by lawmakers in both parties. Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal has also called for the arrangement to be withdrawn, arguing that it contradicts congressional efforts to restrict Russian energy revenues and dishonors Graham’s work on sanctions legislation.

{Matzav.com}

Israel is unlikely to launch a new offensive against Iran before the November 3 midterm elections in the United States, primarily because President Donald Trump wants to prevent another surge in oil prices ahead of the vote, according to a senior Israeli official.

The assessment, reported by Israel’s Channel 12, comes amid continuing consultations between Yerushalayim and Washington over Iran and the possibility of renewed military action against the Islamic Republic.

According to the senior official, despite ongoing discussions about potential operations, the prevailing assessment in Israel is that a preemptive strike will be postponed until after Americans head to the polls.

The central consideration is the position of the Trump administration. Israeli officials recognize that any major operation against Iran would require close coordination with Washington, particularly given the United States’ leading role in the confrontation with Tehran.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has previously emphasized that the United States is the senior partner in the campaign against Iran. As a result, American political and economic considerations are expected to play a significant role in determining the timing of any renewed military offensive.

Trump is reportedly reluctant to authorize another attack before the November 3 elections because of concerns that renewed fighting could drive up global oil prices, creating additional economic pressure on American consumers just as they prepare to vote.

The American elections are scheduled to take place approximately one week after Israel’s own elections, adding another political consideration to the timing of any potential escalation.

Despite the expectation that military action will be delayed, Israeli and American officials have substantially increased their communications and intelligence exchanges in recent weeks.

The intensified coordination reflects an assessment that Iran’s government is coming under mounting economic pressure and may struggle to withstand the current American strategy over an extended period.

A major component of that pressure is the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which Israeli officials reportedly regard as particularly effective in weakening Tehran’s economy.

According to the assessments cited in the report, restrictions affecting the strategic waterway are accelerating Iran’s economic deterioration and contributing to a sharp increase in the value of the U.S. dollar against the Iranian currency.

The resulting financial instability is placing additional strain on the Iranian government, which is already contending with the broader consequences of American economic and military pressure.

Israeli officials nevertheless caution that the absence of plans for an immediate offensive does not eliminate the possibility of renewed fighting before the American elections.

One scenario under consideration involves Iran initiating a provocation that could trigger an Israeli or American military response, potentially disrupting the current expectation of a temporary pause in offensive operations.

Another assessment suggests that Iranian leaders may themselves prefer to avoid an escalation before Israel’s elections, fearing that an attack during the campaign could strengthen Netanyahu politically.

Under that scenario, Tehran could choose to postpone provocative actions until after Israelis have cast their ballots, although officials acknowledge that Iranian decision-making remains difficult to predict.

Security officials stress that these scenarios are assessments rather than confirmed plans and that developments could change depending on actions taken by Iran or other regional actors.

For now, the prevailing assessment in Israel is that a coordinated American-Israeli offensive against Iran is unlikely in the immediate future, with the November elections serving as a significant factor in Washington’s calculations.

{Matzav.com}

The United States has recorded more than 4,000 measles infections in 2026, with Pennsylvania emerging as the center of the nation’s largest outbreak and accounting for more than one-quarter of all reported cases, according to the latest figures released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Federal health officials reported Friday that 4,080 cases have been identified across 47 states and Washington, D.C. Pennsylvania alone has registered 1,105 infections, giving it the highest total of any state and placing it well ahead of the rest of the country.

South Carolina ranks second with 670 cases, leaving Pennsylvania with 435 more infections than the next most affected state.

The Pennsylvania outbreak represents the state’s most severe measles resurgence in more than three decades. It has also become the subject of a contentious disagreement between Gov. Josh Shapiro and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., particularly over how deaths associated with the disease should be classified and reported.

Measles spreads readily through the air and is considered one of the most contagious infectious diseases. The CDC recommends two doses of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine as the most effective means of preventing infection. Pennsylvania health officials say the complete two-dose series provides approximately 97 percent protection against measles, with immunity generally lasting throughout a person’s lifetime.

Children and teenagers account for the largest share of infections nationwide. According to the CDC’s 2026 figures, 42 percent of reported patients are between the ages of 5 and 19, while children younger than 5 represent another 17 percent. Adults aged 20 and older account for approximately 40 percent of cases, with the percentages reflecting rounded figures.

The federal agency has identified 42 separate measles outbreaks this year. Approximately 96 percent of all confirmed infections have been connected to those outbreaks, indicating that the overwhelming majority of cases are associated with established chains of transmission.

The national figures have already exceeded the total for the entirety of 2025, when 2,289 measles infections were reported across 45 states and Washington, D.C. The 2026 count is now nearly 1,800 cases higher, even with more than two months remaining in the year.

One of the most disputed aspects of the current outbreak concerns the number of deaths attributed to measles in Pennsylvania.

State health authorities have reported five measles-associated fatalities, while the CDC’s latest national figures recognize only two deaths for 2026. The difference has fueled a public confrontation between Shapiro and Kennedy over the medical standards used to determine whether measles was responsible for a patient’s death.

The federal database does not identify the states or dates associated with its two reported fatalities. As a result, it remains uncertain whether those deaths correspond to any of the five cases documented by Pennsylvania officials. No other state has reported a measles-related death this year.

The CDC has acknowledged that its national fatality count could be revised as additional medical information is examined.

“This number is subject to change. CDC will update its reporting as additional information becomes available and relevant reviews are completed.”

The rise in infections has also prompted emergency action in New York, where Gov. Kathy Hochul declared a statewide disaster emergency on Monday in response to an ongoing measles outbreak.

New York has recorded 97 cases so far this year, compared with 26 throughout 2025, according to federal surveillance figures. The increase has heightened concerns among state health officials as measles continues to spread in multiple regions of the country.

For comparison, three measles deaths were reported nationwide during 2025, including two in Texas and one in New Mexico.

Additional federal data released October 9 show that measles cases increased by 193 in a single week, while 414 patients have been hospitalized nationwide this year, compared with 244 during all of 2025.

Pennsylvania health officials also reported that more than 53,000 MMR vaccine doses were administered across the state during September, more than twice the usual monthly volume, as authorities intensified efforts to contain the outbreak.

The CDC’s total of 4,080 includes 4,062 cases reported by U.S. jurisdictions and 18 infections identified among international visitors.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump said that he will personally decide whether the execution of convicted Fort Hood mass murderer Nidal Hasan should be broadcast live, as a proposal to televise the firing squad execution draws objections from lawmakers in both parties.

Speaking with reporters on the White House South Lawn, Trump said he was considering competing arguments over whether the public should be permitted to watch Hasan’s execution, which is scheduled for December 3.

“He’s a vicious killer, killed 13 people in cold blood, wounded over 20. Some of those people will never have their lives back in a true sense,” Trump told reporters. “He was vicious. He was violent.”

The president suggested that making the execution publicly viewable could discourage others from committing similar atrocities, although he acknowledged that there were strong opinions on both sides of the issue.

“There are two thoughts: don’t show it and show it, because you know by showing it, maybe other people won’t be doing what he did,” the president continued. “So I’ll make a decision ultimately. I know what the military would like to do, but we’ll make a decision.”

Trump’s latest comments followed remarks Friday in which he indicated that officials were still reviewing the possibility of broadcasting the execution, while making clear that the sentence itself would be carried out.

According to Trump, “they’re making a determination about” whether Hasan’s death should be livestreamed, “but he will be killed, it will be through firing squad.”

The president also expressed little concern over the particular circumstances of Hasan’s execution, emphasizing his belief that the death penalty was justified by the magnitude of the attack.

“So, I really don’t care how he goes, as long as he goes, and I think that the death penalty is a very worthy way of going for him,” Trump stated.

The White House confirmed earlier in the week that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had formally proposed executing Hasan by firing squad on December 3 and that Trump had authorized the recommendation.

Hasan, who served as an Army psychiatrist, carried out the November 2009 massacre at a military processing facility at Fort Hood, Texas. Armed with a handgun, he opened fire on soldiers and civilians, murdering 12 military personnel and one civilian and wounding 32 others.

The shooting became the deadliest mass shooting ever carried out at an American military installation, devastating military families and raising serious questions about security procedures and warning signs preceding the attack.

Hasan represented himself during his 2013 military trial and openly acknowledged responsibility for the killings. During his opening statement, he told the court that the “evidence will clearly show that I am the shooter,” while explaining that he had acted in response to American military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He was convicted and sentenced to death, although his execution has remained pending for more than a decade as the military justice process continued.

Vice President JD Vance addressed the proposed livestream Friday, distancing himself from the idea of watching the execution and expressing uncertainty about whether a broadcast would ultimately take place.

Vance told reporters that he would not watch the execution if it were televised and added, “I don’t know that that’s actually going to happen.”

The proposal has generated significant opposition on Capitol Hill, with Republicans joining Democrats in questioning whether a public broadcast of an execution would be appropriate for the United States military.

Critics have raised concerns about turning the implementation of a military death sentence into a public spectacle, even in a case involving one of the deadliest attacks against American service members.

Democratic lawmakers have also challenged Hegseth’s handling of the matter, with Sen. Mark Kelly among those calling for the defense secretary’s removal over the proposed public execution.

Should the December 3 execution proceed, it would mark the first time the U.S. military has carried out a death sentence in approximately 65 years. The last military execution took place in 1961, when Army Private John A. Bennett was hanged at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

Hegseth has defended the proposed broadcast as a means of demonstrating the consequences of attacks against American military personnel. During a television interview Thursday, he said the execution would be accessible to the public because “people need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things.”

Opposition has extended beyond Washington. Survivors of the Fort Hood massacre have voiced concerns about the proposed broadcast, including Alonzo Lunsford, who was shot seven times during the attack and has warned against turning the execution into a spectacle.

Religious leaders have also objected. Archbishop Paul Coakley, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, condemned the proposed broadcast and urged the administration to reconsider. Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s secretary of state, similarly criticized the idea of making an execution available for public viewing.

The debate has also raised questions about the precedent such a broadcast would establish. Although executions have historically been witnessed by designated officials, relatives and other authorized observers, the Pentagon’s proposal would make Hasan’s death available to a potentially worldwide audience.

The military has conducted no executions since Army Private John A. Bennett was hanged at Fort Leavenworth in April 1961. Its last known execution by firing squad occurred in November 1945.

For now, the December 3 execution remains scheduled, while the question of whether the public will be able to watch it awaits Trump’s final decision.

{Matzav.com}

Vice President JD Vance said that U.S. Ambassador to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle should face consequences if allegations that she sought $100,000 from a political donor in exchange for access to senior Trump administration officials are substantiated, while emphasizing that the accusations must be investigated before any judgment is reached.

Speaking to reporters in Ohio on Friday, Vance addressed the growing controversy surrounding Guilfoyle, a longtime Trump ally and former fiancée of Donald Trump Jr., after reports surfaced alleging that she asked Republican donor Eric Deters to help pay off a substantial American Express balance shortly before her Senate confirmation hearing in July 2025.

“Look, these are allegations, and what I always say is: we don’t try people in the court of public opinion. We try people in a court of law,” Vance said.

The vice president cautioned against treating the reported text messages as proof of wrongdoing, pointing out that the claims have yet to be established.

“You don’t take messages that people allegedly had between one person or another, or one person’s story, and say, ‘Oh, because of that, Kimberly Guilfoyle is, is guilty.’ I think that’s absurd,” Vance said. “Let’s actually see what the facts are. Let’s see what the truth is.”

He then made clear that proven misconduct would warrant accountability.

“And obviously, if there was something bad that happened, then people have to suffer consequences for it,” he added.

The controversy began after The Wall Street Journal reported that Guilfoyle had allegedly requested that Deters transfer $100,000 directly to American Express to settle her credit card debt. The communications, reportedly exchanged through the encrypted messaging service Signal, also allegedly involved offers to help Deters obtain access to influential figures in President Trump’s administration.

According to messages subsequently obtained by other news organizations, Guilfoyle pressed Deters to make the payment on July 3, 2025, just six days before her Senate confirmation hearing.

“Honey please I need you to get this done for me today,” one message attributed to Guilfoyle stated.

Other purported messages suggested that Guilfoyle wanted to avoid creating a written record of their financial dealings. In one exchange, she allegedly warned Deters that documenting their arrangement could jeopardize her diplomatic appointment.

“You’ll literally cost me my ambassadorship,” she reportedly wrote.

Deters, a longtime Trump supporter and former congressional candidate from Kentucky, has alleged that Guilfoyle offered to use her political connections to assist him with various matters if he provided the financial assistance. He told NBC News that he understood the proposed arrangement as an exchange of money for political favors.

“She was so desperate for that $100,000. It was a quid pro quo,” Deters said.

He further claimed that Guilfoyle had indicated she could help him obtain access to prominent administration figures and other influential individuals associated with President Trump.

Deters has said he ultimately declined to make the payment. The allegations remain disputed, and no finding of wrongdoing against Guilfoyle has been established.

An attorney representing Guilfoyle has challenged the authenticity of the messages without publicly specifying which portions were allegedly inaccurate. Another explanation offered by her legal team was that money was owed to Guilfoyle in connection with speaking engagements, an account Deters has disputed.

The controversy has also drawn the attention of federal investigators. NBC News reported Friday that the State Department’s Office of Inspector General is investigating Guilfoyle and the U.S. Embassy in Greece, citing two individuals familiar with the matter. The existence of an investigation does not establish that the allegations are true.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was visiting Greece as the controversy unfolded, pushed back against reporters seeking an immediate response to the allegations. Rubio argued that the administration should have an opportunity to review the information before reaching conclusions.

“We don’t conduct these things in a press conference on a tarmac in a foreign country because you wrote a story or somebody else wrote a story because some source gave it to you,” Rubio said.

“I don’t even know if what you’re reporting is true,” he added.

Rubio also expressed frustration with expectations that officials immediately address allegations circulated through news reports before the underlying material has been examined.

Vance, meanwhile, rejected the suggestion that the alleged arrangement reflected accepted practices within the administration. Asked whether the accusations represented how the Trump administration conducts business, he responded, “certainly not.”

The allegations have intensified scrutiny of Guilfoyle’s tenure as ambassador, particularly because of her longstanding personal and political connections to the Trump family. A former Fox News personality and prominent Trump campaign surrogate, Guilfoyle was nominated to represent the United States in Greece and subsequently confirmed by the Senate.

President Trump has also been asked about the controversy, describing the accusations as “too bad” without publicly clarifying whether Guilfoyle continues to enjoy his full support.

Vance made his latest remarks during a visit to Ohio, where he cast his ballot ahead of the November midterm elections and participated in Republican campaign events supporting Senator Jon Husted and gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy.

{Matzav.com}

A Palestinian museum with extensive connections to British government-funded institutions and cultural organizations is facing accusations of glorifying some of the most notorious terrorists responsible for murdering Israeli civilians, raising questions about Britain’s willingness to condemn Palestinian terrorism while imposing sanctions on Israelis over alleged violence in Yehudah and Shomron.

The Palestinian Museum, established in 2016 in Birzeit, operates both a physical museum and an extensive digital archive containing photographs, posters, historical documents, and educational materials. Among its holdings are materials honoring individuals responsible for deadly terrorist attacks, including the 1978 Coastal Road massacre, the murder of an Israeli family in Nahariya, and attacks that killed scores of Israeli civilians.

The controversy was highlighted by Susie Dym, a London-born spokesperson for the Israeli organization Mattot Arim, who accused British authorities of applying a double standard in their treatment of Israel and Palestinian institutions. Dym pointed to Britain’s sanctions against certain Israelis while maintaining cultural and institutional relationships with a museum whose collections include material celebrating convicted terrorists and perpetrators of mass-casualty attacks.

The museum’s online collection includes a poster featuring Dalal Mughrabi, who led the March 1978 Coastal Road terrorist attack in Israel. During the assault, terrorists seized a bus and murdered 38 people, including 13 children and an American photographer, Gail Rubin, according to commonly cited accounts of the massacre. The museum’s description of Mughrabi identifies her as a “Martyr of the Palestinian Revolution“.

Additional material in the museum’s digital archive includes photographs of a kindergarten and school named in Mughrabi’s honor, along with several other images of the terrorist. The continued commemoration of Mughrabi has long been a source of controversy because of the scale of the massacre she helped carry out.

The museum’s materials have also appeared on other websites promoting Palestinian nationalism. One article published by Islamicity.org reproduced a Mughrabi poster attributed to the museum and described her actions in celebratory terms.

The article stated: “Dalal’s group hijacked a bus … 39 Israelis were killed…. [Dalal] inspired thousands of young Palestinian and Lebanese women to follow in her footsteps…. This month, and every March, Palestinians commemorate a Palestinian heroine who sacrificed herself for her country.”

Another figure represented in the museum’s collection is Samir Kuntar, the Lebanese terrorist responsible for one of Israel’s most horrific attacks. Kuntar participated in a 1979 terrorist raid in Nahariya in which members of the Haran family were murdered.

The museum’s archive contains portraits of Kuntar during his imprisonment in Beersheba. Even the left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz described his actions as “one of the most traumatic terror attacks in Israeli history”.

Smadar Haran, whose husband Danny and four-year-old daughter Einat were murdered in the attack, previously recounted the brutality of the assault.

She described how the terrorists took her husband and daughter “down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat…. Then he smashed my little girl’s skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar.”

Kuntar was subsequently released in a 2008 prisoner exchange between Israel and Hezbollah, a decision that generated considerable controversy because of the murders for which he had been convicted.

The museum also maintains a collection dedicated to Marwan Barghouti, the imprisoned Palestinian leader convicted in Israel in connection with five murders committed during the Second Intifada.

In its description of the collection, the museum declares: “Marwan al-Barghouthi is a Palestinian freedom fighter… a symbol of the Palestinian Revolution and the Palestinian National Liberation Movement.”

The archive includes photographs showing Barghouti alongside other imprisoned Palestinian militants. His portrayal as a revolutionary figure stands in sharp contrast to his criminal convictions in Israel.

Other materials commemorate Yahya Ayyash, the Hamas bombmaker commonly known as the Engineer, who played a central role in organizing suicide bombings against Israeli civilians during the 1990s.

A poster produced by a Birzeit University student organization marks the 12th anniversary of what it calls Ayyash’s “murder” by Israel. Ayyash was responsible for developing explosives used in numerous terrorist attacks that killed approximately 100 Israelis and wounded hundreds more.

Another poster commemorates Khalil al-Wazir, better known as Abu Jihad, a senior PLO terrorist commander linked to attacks that killed large numbers of Israelis.

The poster identifies him as ‘The Heroic Shaheed, The Commander Abu Jihad, Martyr of the War for Independence’.

According to the museum, the item belongs to its “permanent collection” and is among the “documents that form an important part of the history of the Palestinian revolution”.

Abu Jihad was implicated in planning and directing attacks that killed at least 125 Israelis, including the 1978 Coastal Road massacre.

The archive also preserves a photograph of the grave of Ali Hassan Salameh, a senior Black September operative associated with the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre, in which 11 Israeli athletes and coaches were murdered.

The photograph identifies the burial location as “at the Cemetery of the Shaheeds”, using the Arabic term for martyrs.

Although museums routinely preserve controversial historical material for educational and documentary purposes, critics argue that the language used in several of these collections goes beyond neutral historical presentation and portrays perpetrators of terrorist atrocities as national heroes.

Particular concern has been raised about the museum’s educational activities and its relationships with Palestinian schools.

The institution operates a Teachers’ Programme intended to connect its exhibits and digital collections with classroom instruction. According to its published description, the initiative “is based on creating a link between teachers, schools, and the museum” through “school research projects that link the curriculum and the knowledge provided by the museum through its … digital spaces.”

Its broader Education Programme “encourages children… bringing the museum’s culture to the new generation”.

The museum also works with the Palestinian Ministry of Education and has reported receiving nearly 100 visits annually from government schools.

Dym argues that these educational partnerships make the museum’s presentation of convicted terrorists and individuals responsible for mass murder particularly troubling, given the potential for children to encounter such material in an institutional setting.

The controversy also extends to the museum’s connections with British organizations.

The Palestinian Museum is a major initiative of Taawon, also known as the Welfare Association, a Palestinian nonprofit organization involved in humanitarian, cultural, and development projects.

A British organization operating under the Taawon name is registered with the Charity Commission for England and Wales under charity number 1020238. Its charitable status provides access to tax benefits under applicable British law, although the existence of those benefits does not by itself establish that British taxpayers directly financed any particular museum exhibit.

The British Council, Britain’s international organization for cultural relations and educational opportunities, has also been identified by the museum among its supporters.

King Charles III serves as patron of the British Council, which operates under a royal charter and receives funding from the British government alongside income from its other activities.

The museum has additionally identified support from the British government’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, raising questions about the nature and extent of official British financial involvement.

British cultural institutions have participated in projects with the museum as well.

The British Library, the United Kingdom’s national library, collaborated with the Palestinian Museum on a project called “Conservation for Digitisation”, involving the preservation and digitization of historical material.

In 2022, the museum also established a textile conservation studio through cooperation with London’s Victoria and Albert Museum, another prominent institution that receives British government funding.

Officials involved in that initiative discussed Palestinian embroidery and the political symbolism of its colors, including “colour schemes of red, green, black and white – the colours of the Palestinian flag”, which they characterized as “an embroidered message of resistance”.

The museum’s first director general, Mahmoud Hawari, also had professional ties to Britain’s cultural establishment, having served as a lead curator at the British Museum.

Dym questioned whether officials involved in these British partnerships were familiar with the museum’s online holdings and the terminology used to describe terrorists responsible for murdering Israeli civilians.

The dispute comes against the backdrop of Britain’s increasingly restrictive policies toward certain Israeli individuals and organizations in Yehudah and Shomron.

British authorities have imposed sanctions on Israeli individuals and entities accused of involvement in violence against Palestinians, while also taking measures targeting certain settlement-related activities. Those actions have been defended by British officials as responses to alleged human rights violations and threats to regional stability.

Dym rejects the legal and political arguments underpinning those measures. She cites the writings of Professor Eugene Rostow, a former dean of Yale Law School, who argued that Jewish settlement rights in territories captured by Israel in 1967 were protected by the international legal framework, including Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.

That interpretation remains disputed, with much of the international community maintaining that Israeli settlements in the territories violate international law, a position Israel contests.

For Dym, however, the central issue is the contrast between Britain’s readiness to penalize Israelis accused of misconduct and its continued association with Palestinian cultural institutions whose archives contain material commemorating perpetrators of deadly terrorist attacks.

The museum’s defenders could argue that preserving posters, photographs, and political documents is part of the legitimate work of recording Palestinian history. The criticism, however, focuses particularly on descriptions that refer to convicted terrorists as martyrs, heroes, and freedom fighters, rather than merely documenting their historical activities.

The extent to which British financial assistance or institutional cooperation has directly supported the specific exhibits and digital materials identified by Dym remains an important distinction. The existence of a partnership does not necessarily mean that a British organization endorses every item in the museum’s collection.

Nevertheless, Dym maintains that British institutions should be held accountable for their relationships with organizations that present terrorists in celebratory terms, especially while London continues to pursue punitive measures against Israelis.

Her criticism ultimately raises a question for British authorities: whether the government will examine its institutional and financial relationships with the Palestinian Museum in light of the materials identified in its archive, or allow those partnerships to continue without further scrutiny.

Additional research confirmed a particularly significant detail: a British Council cultural preservation grant of approximately £152,000 funded a project involving the Palestinian Museum and British Library. The grant supported the preservation and digitization of roughly 3,000 historical documents. A separate $484,298 grant from the ALIPH Foundation supported the museum’s textile conservation partnership with the Victoria and Albert Museum. These documented funding arrangements establish the British institutional connections, although they do not establish that British funds paid for the specific terrorist-related archive entries.

{Matzav.com}

More than 37 years after her husband was murdered while protecting the community of Har Bracha in Shomron, Leah Ziv-Farag is demanding that the IDF remove a monument honoring the terrorist responsible for his death, saying the memorial’s presence near the scene of the attack has compounded her family’s suffering for decades.

Her husband, Yaakov Farag, was killed in December 1988 while guarding land belonging to Har Bracha. Following the murder, the terrorist seized Farag’s weapon and used it to open fire on IDF soldiers.

Farag left behind his wife, who was pregnant at the time, and their young children, who were forced to grow up without their father.

The terrorist, identified as Hamdan al-Najjar, is commemorated by a monument located a short distance from where Farag was murdered. The family is now calling on the military to dismantle the structure, arguing that honoring the perpetrator of a deadly terrorist attack at the very location where he committed the murder is an intolerable affront to the victims.

Ziv-Farag addressed her appeal to Maj. Gen. Avi Bluth, commander of the IDF’s Central Command, describing the anguish her family has endured since the murder and the additional pain of seeing her husband’s killer memorialized nearby.

“It is difficult to put into words the feelings of a family whose loved one was murdered in a particular place, only to find a short distance away a monument commemorating the person who took his life,” she wrote. “A monument is a symbol. It conveys a message to future generations. What message do we want to pass on to our children? Do we commemorate someone who took a life, or the man who was murdered while defending his home, his land and his family?”

The family maintains that the monument does more than commemorate an individual. By publicly honoring a terrorist who murdered a Jewish resident and subsequently attacked Israeli soldiers, they argue, it conveys a message that glorifies violence and disregards the suffering of the victims.

The appeal has also drawn support from Knesset Member Tzvi Sukkot, who has urged the military to act without delay.

Sukkot, who chairs the Knesset Education Committee and its subcommittee dealing with Yehuda and Shomron, pointed to recent IDF operations aimed at dismantling monuments honoring terrorists and their supporters throughout the region.

He argued that the same policy should be applied to the memorial honoring al-Najjar, particularly given its proximity to the location of Farag’s murder.

“There is no justification for commemorating the murderer of a Jew, certainly not at the site of the attack where he took the life of a man who simply wanted to protect his country’s land,” Sukkot said. “The fight against the commemoration of terrorism must be consistent and determined to the end.”

Additional reporting reveals that the terrorist also killed an IDF soldier, Cpl. Arthur (Alter) Herzig, and wounded two others during the 1988 attack.

The monument was previously targeted by MK Tzvi Sukkot in August, although its present condition remains unclear.

{Matzav.com}

Columbia University has apologized after a dining hall displayed signs reading “October 7th Blush Sauce” on the third anniversary of Hamas’s massacre in Israel, triggering widespread outrage and renewed criticism of the university’s handling of antisemitism. School officials say the wording was an inadvertent menu-template mistake, not an intentional reference to the terrorist attacks.

The signs appeared Wednesday at the pasta station in John Jay Dining Hall, where blush sauce was among the lunch offerings. Photographs spread rapidly across social media, with critics questioning how the date of the October 7, 2023, massacre, in which approximately 1,200 people were murdered and 251 were taken hostage, could appear beside a food item on the anniversary.

The university’s dining department said the sauce had been scheduled for that day and that a date included in the staff’s working menu was mistakenly carried over to the printed display. Vicki Dunn, assistant vice president of Columbia Dining, said the signs were removed promptly after the problem came to light.

“This was an unfortunate mistake and was not intended as a reference to the events of October 7,” Dunn said. “The blush sauce was scheduled to be served, and when that information was copied into the menu template, the date was accidentally left in. Our staff took the signs down as soon as the mistake was identified. We are sorry for the confusion and concern this caused.”

Dunn said the department would add a further check before menus are displayed in dining facilities.

“Moving forward, Columbia Dining will also have a team member review all menus before they are posted,” she added.

As criticism mounted online, Columbia released its own explanation, reiterating that the date was not meant to allude to the Hamas attack.

“This was a mistake, not a reference to the events of October 7. The date was accidentally left in when the day’s meal information was copied into the menu template. The signs were removed as soon as the error was caught, and we’re sorry for the concern and confusion this caused.”

The student newspaper, the Columbia Daily Spectator, reported that two signs at the John Jay pasta station carried the wording. It also reported that blush sauce was the only sauce labeled with a date, an unusual detail that contributed to the online reaction. A photograph posted by a New York correspondent for Haaretz drew more than one million views by late Wednesday evening, according to the student paper.

The episode unfolded on an already tense anniversary for Columbia, which has faced years of controversy over anti-Israel demonstrations and allegations that Jewish students have been subjected to harassment and intimidation on campus.

In February 2024, antisemitic flyers showing a skunk with an Israeli flag appeared at the university. That spring, anti-Israel activists erected a protest encampment, setting off a confrontation over campus safety, protest restrictions and the university’s response to antisemitism.

During the protests, demonstrators were recorded telling Jewish counterprotesters that the October 7 massacre would happen “every day” and “10,000” times. In another incident, a protester displayed a sign appearing to call on Hamas’s armed wing to target Jewish students.

A Jewish student wearing a kippah was punched near the university during an encounter with an anti-Israel protester in December 2024. In May 2025, masked demonstrators occupied Butler Library, and Columbia subsequently suspended or otherwise disciplined dozens of participants.

The Trump administration also took action against Columbia, accusing the university of failing to protect Jewish students and suspending $400 million in federal research funding. The university later reached a settlement with the administration over federal allegations involving antisemitism and other civil-rights concerns.

The third anniversary of the massacre brought another round of demonstrations outside Columbia. Roughly 100 anti-Israel protesters assembled near the campus gates Wednesday, with participants chanting “Globalize the intifada,” “No peace on stolen land,” and “Every fascist state will fall.” Others shouted “Palestine is Arab” in Arabic.

The protest took place outside the university gates on a public sidewalk. Columbia’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, which the school suspended in 2023, was among the groups associated with the anniversary demonstration.

The same day, Columbia/Barnard Hillel arranged an installation of approximately 1,200 white chairs to commemorate those murdered on October 7, and members of the university community gathered at Low Library for an evening memorial.

{Matzav.com}

LISTEN:

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

LISTEN:

President Donald Trump paid tribute today to the 18 American military personnel killed in the war against Iran, telling a campaign rally in Tennessee that their sacrifice helped prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons and declaring that the United States had achieved a critical national security objective despite the loss of American lives.

Speaking ahead of the November 3 midterm elections, Trump reflected on his meetings with the families of fallen servicemembers, describing those encounters as among the most painful duties he has faced as president.

“We lost 18 great people [in the Iran war]. I got to know their families. I met most of them, the families. And always the hardest thing that I have to do is go and meet the families of heroes. I call them heroes. But we lost 18. We have wounded, but we’ve stopped them from having a nuclear weapon,” Trump said.

Trump: We lost 18. We have wounded, but we've stopped them from having a nuclear weapon. You want to see people wounded and killed, let these lunatics have a nuclear weapon. You'll see. You'll see what would happen. We achieved something that was incredible. You can’t let a total… pic.twitter.com/LWfuFlJqaC

— Acyn (@Acyn) October 10, 2026

The president defended the military campaign by arguing that allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons would have exposed Americans and American allies to a far greater threat. He portrayed the operation as a necessary step to prevent a potentially devastating future confrontation.

“You want to see wounded? You want to see people wounded and killed? Let these lunatics have a nuclear weapon. You’ll see, you’ll see what would happen. What we did, we achieved something that was incredible.”

Trump acknowledged the human cost of the conflict while insisting that the deaths of the American servicemembers had not been meaningless. He expressed confidence that the campaign had permanently prevented Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed power, although the ultimate condition of Tehran’s nuclear capabilities remains a central issue in ongoing negotiations.

“Now, 18 is too many. I don’t want to lose any. But we have stopped them from having a nuclear weapon, I believe, for all time. And we lost 18. Those young people did not die in vain. That was a big thing, because you can’t let lunatics have nuclear weapons. You just can’t let a total lunatic or a group of lunatics have nuclear weapons,” Trump stated.

The president also warned that Tehran might take additional provocative steps as the American elections approach. He suggested that Iranian leaders could attempt to exploit the political calendar but maintained that Washington possessed the military capability to bring the confrontation to a swift conclusion.

He predicted that Iran will “probably do a little bit extra before the election thinking it’s going to hurt us, but we could end it really quick. They don’t know how nice I’ve been to them.”

The remarks came two days after Trump announced that the United States would refrain from launching additional attacks against Iran before the November 3 congressional elections, even as the administration continued diplomatic contacts aimed at ending the war.

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

The announcement represented a temporary restraint on further American military action rather than a broader agreement to end hostilities. Washington has continued to press Tehran over its nuclear program, while Iran has resisted American demands concerning uranium enrichment.

Trump has described Iran as suffering severe economic and military pressure from the conflict and has maintained that the United States is negotiating from a position of strength.

At a White House event Friday, the president predicted that the confrontation would be resolved in the near future, whether through diplomacy or additional military operations. He also linked a potential conclusion of the war to relief from elevated gasoline prices.

“We stopped Iran from having a nuclear weapon – and the [gas] prices will come tumbling [down] and it’s gonna be over soon, one way or the other,” Trump stated.

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

Meanwhile, reports of additional American military preparations have continued despite Trump’s announcement that no new strikes would take place before the elections.

Military planners have reportedly examined options for attacks against Iranian missile installations, drone production sites and other strategic facilities. Some proposals envision a concentrated offensive lasting approximately three days, although no final decision to launch such an operation has been announced.

Vice President JD Vance, in an interview with Reuters earlier this week, made clear that the administration would require substantial concessions on Iran’s nuclear program before accepting an agreement to end the conflict.

Vance specifically challenged Tehran’s continued production of uranium enriched to 60%, a level far beyond what is generally required for civilian nuclear power generation.

“If you don’t want a nuclear weapon, then why do you need 60% enriched fuel? And if you want to show commitment to not building a nuclear ⁠weapon, don’t build highly enriched fuel. That’s a very basic threshold issue,” Vance said.

“I think if they want to show a commitment to not building a nuclear weapon, they would do something meaningful on their enrichment capacity.”

The vice president emphasized that Washington would judge Iran’s intentions by verifiable changes to its nuclear activities rather than diplomatic assurances.

“We’re not going to trade words for actions,” Vance told Reuters.

{Matzav.com}

Agudath Israel of America applauds Governor Kathy Hochul for announcing on Friday afternoon that, after reviewing the new regulations, New York State will opt in to the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit.

This decision will, in the governor’s words, “bring millions of additional dollars to New York students and families without taking a single dollar from public schools or our state or local budgets.”

Governor Hochul’s announcement follows her promise to a group of Jewish leaders back in May that New York would participate in the tax credit if it benefited all students, including those attending public schools. Since that meeting, which took place in the office of Agudah chairman Sol Werdiger, Governor Hochul has only reiterated her view that she would not leave money on the table that can help New York students, despite political pressure from opponents.

“Opting in is good for all New Yorkers. We thank Governor Hochul for putting students before politics.” said Agudath Israel’s chairman of the board, Mr. Sol Werdiger. “We now urge the remaining governors to follow her lead.”

“Agudah was at the forefront of the successful advocacy effort that led to the passage of the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit and worked with allies in New York to make it a reality for families in our state.” said Rabbi Yeruchim Silber, Agudah’s Director of NY Government Relations. “Agudah extends its sincere appreciation to the NYS Catholic Conference, Teach NYS, Invest in Education, and the tens of thousands of parents and supporters who spoke out in support of this game-changing policy.

The Federal Scholarship Tax Credit (FSTC) allows taxpayers to contribute up to $1,700 ($3,400 for a married couple filing jointly) to a scholarship granting organization and receive a dollar-for-dollar federal tax credit. Scholarships can be used for tutoring, special needs services, and tuition, among many allowable uses. To learn more, go to agudah.org/FSTC.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, delivered a forceful response to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani today, declaring that federal immigration agents will continue operating throughout New York City and New York State regardless of the mayor’s demands to halt immigration enforcement following a controversial ICE shooting.

Homan’s remarks came after Mamdani called for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be removed from the city following Thursday’s shooting of a 28-year-old Dominican immigrant during a federal enforcement operation in the Marble Hill neighborhood, near the Bronx.

“He can scream and yell ALL HE WANTS. He’s NOT gonna stop us from doing this job,” Homan declared.

“I don’t know what color the SKY is in Mamdani’s world, but ICE ISN’T GOING ANYWHERE!” he continued.

“We’re gonna be in New York City, we’re gonna be in New York State, we’re gonna KEEP enforcing the law — that’s why President Trump is in the OVAL OFFICE.”

The response underscored the escalating confrontation between the Trump administration and Mamdani over the federal government’s immigration enforcement operations in New York, where the mayor has repeatedly condemned ICE tactics and demanded an end to the agency’s activities.

The latest dispute began Thursday afternoon when ICE agents attempted to apprehend a man in Marble Hill. During the confrontation, a federal agent opened fire on the man’s vehicle, striking him in the neck while his five-year-old son was seated inside.

NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch said at least one federal agent fired seven rounds during the encounter. The child was not physically injured and was subsequently placed in the care of a family member.

The wounded man was transported to NewYork-Presbyterian Allen Hospital for treatment before being taken back into federal custody.

Federal authorities identified the man as Oscar Belgal, a Dominican national with a criminal record who was wanted for immigration enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security alleged that he had ties to the Trinitarios gang, although that allegation has not been independently verified.

According to federal officials, Belgal attempted to escape arrest and struck two ICE vehicles during the encounter. The circumstances surrounding the shooting remain under investigation, including what prompted the agent to discharge his weapon.

Mamdani responded with an unusually sharp denunciation of federal immigration authorities, accusing ICE of endangering residents and demanding that its agents leave the city.

“This is an unconscionable and incredibly serious situation,” the mayor said in a statement issued Thursday.

“I have called the President; when we speak I will demand that he ends all ICE enforcement actions in our city. I will not stand by while ICE agents terrorize our communities.”

He concluded the statement with a series of demands:

“Get ICE out of our neighborhoods. Get ICE out of our hospitals. Get ICE off our streets. Get ICE away from our children.”

“Abolish ICE.”

At a subsequent news conference near the scene of the shooting, Mamdani intensified his criticism, describing the federal agency as fundamentally flawed.

“We know that ICE is rotten to its core,” the mayor declared.

Mamdani also questioned the tactics used by agents during the operation, including their reported use of masks, plainclothes and construction-style vests. He argued that such methods made it difficult for residents to identify the individuals approaching them as federal law enforcement officers.

The mayor said he had spoken directly with Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin in an effort to secure Belgal’s release from federal custody.

Those discussions were unsuccessful.

Mamdani subsequently told reporters that federal authorities had removed the wounded man from the hospital in an unmarked vehicle, despite his administration’s objections.

The Department of Homeland Security defended the operation and pointed to Belgal’s previous encounters with law enforcement.

Federal officials said he had been arrested by the NYPD in December 2023 and subsequently released. DHS cited the case in criticizing New York’s sanctuary policies, although its public statement did not establish that those policies had caused his release.

The agency acknowledged that an ICE officer fired his weapon and that Belgal was injured. It said officers provided medical assistance and that the FBI and Homeland Security Investigations were involved in examining the incident.

DHS did not initially provide a detailed public explanation of the precise circumstances that prompted the officer to fire.

The shooting also triggered protests in New York, with demonstrators demanding accountability from federal immigration authorities and an end to ICE operations in residential neighborhoods.

Several prominent Democratic officials, including Governor Kathy Hochul and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, criticized the federal operation.

The controversy has also intensified divisions within Mamdani’s political coalition, with socialist activists demanding that NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch take stronger action against federal immigration enforcement.

Some of those activists have called for Tisch’s removal, accusing the NYPD of assisting federal agents during the aftermath of the shooting. Tisch has said city police did not participate in the ICE operation and responded only after the gunfire.

Homan’s response made clear that the administration has no intention of allowing the mayor’s opposition to determine where federal immigration officers can operate.

While New York City’s sanctuary policies restrict certain forms of cooperation between local authorities and federal immigration officials, they do not give the mayor the authority to prohibit ICE from enforcing federal immigration law within city limits.

Homan said the administration would continue its enforcement activities in both New York City and the rest of the state, regardless of Mamdani’s objections.

Phil Gordon, who served as Vice President Kamala Harris’s national security adviser during the Biden administration, has accused Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of delaying a hostage-release agreement with Hamas by six months in 2024, alleging that the Israeli leader introduced new demands that prevented an earlier deal and left Israeli captives in Gaza, where several were subsequently murdered.

In a lengthy statement published today, Gordon claimed that Hamas had accepted the basic framework of an American-backed agreement in July 2024, only for Netanyahu to insist on additional conditions that made an agreement impossible until January 2025.

Gordon’s allegations follow explosive claims made earlier this week by Netanyahu’s former military secretary, Avi Gil, who accused the prime minister of passing up opportunities to secure the release of hostages because of political considerations.

The former American official argued that an agreement could have been reached months earlier if Netanyahu had accepted the framework being negotiated at the time, and suggested that the delay contributed to the deaths of Israeli hostages who might otherwise have returned home alive.

Gordon’s intervention also exposed disagreements among senior officials who served in the Biden administration over responsibility for the prolonged negotiations and whether Washington should have applied greater pressure on Israel to end the fighting.

The immediate trigger for Gordon’s comments was the publication of a new book by Brett McGurk, a senior Biden administration Middle East adviser who played a central role in negotiating the eventual hostage agreement.

Gordon accused Netanyahu’s supporters of selectively using McGurk’s account to defend the prime minister’s wartime decisions.

“Netanyahu supporters seem to be taking advantage of Brett McGurk’s book and interviews to claim vindication for Netanyahu’s conduct of the war in Gaza,” Gordon wrote on X.

“But while Brett’s front-row account is valuable, that doesn’t mean it is definitive or its perspectives widely shared — including among former members of the Biden administration,” he continued.

Gordon pointed specifically to a July 4, 2024, telephone conversation between President Joe Biden and Netanyahu, which he said represented a critical moment in the negotiations.

According to Gordon, Hamas had finally agreed to the central framework of a proposed exchange, abandoning its previous insistence that Israel commit to a permanent ceasefire before any hostages were released.

“Brett tells the story of the Biden phone call after [Israel’s accidental strike on a convoy for World Central Kitchen], but not the story of how Biden called Netanyahu on July 4, 2024, to press him to conclude the hostage deal after Hamas had finally accepted the basic framework, dropping its demand that Israel commit to a permanent ceasefire before any hostages were released,” Gordon wrote.

He alleged that Netanyahu responded by introducing additional Israeli conditions, despite objections from senior Israeli security officials.

“Netanyahu instead added so many of his own conditions — against the advice of his own security chiefs — that the deal became impossible for another six months, during which nearly 9,000 more Palestinians were killed and more Israeli hostages died, including the six that Hamas executed in August,” Gordon stated.

The six hostages Gordon referenced were Hersh Goldberg-Polin, Carmel Gat, Eden Yerushalmi, Almog Sarusi, Ori Danino and Alexander Lobanov, whose bodies were recovered from a tunnel in Rafah in late August 2024 after they were murdered by Hamas terrorists.

Gordon’s claim that an earlier agreement could have saved their lives is an assessment of what might have happened had negotiations succeeded in July, rather than an established finding about the outcome of a proposed agreement.

Gordon identified two specific Israeli demands that he said were responsible for preventing an agreement during the summer of 2024.

The first involved Netanyahu’s insistence that Israeli forces remain along the Philadelphi Corridor, the narrow strip of territory running along Gaza’s border with Egypt. Israel had taken control of the corridor during its military offensive in Rafah, after the original hostage agreement framework had been presented.

Netanyahu argued at the time that maintaining control of the corridor was essential to preventing Hamas from rebuilding its military capabilities through weapons smuggling from Egypt.

The second demand concerned the Netzarim Corridor, an Israeli-controlled route dividing northern and southern Gaza. Netanyahu wanted a mechanism to screen Palestinians returning to northern Gaza to prevent armed Hamas terrorists from moving back into areas cleared by the IDF.

Gordon maintained that both requirements complicated the negotiations and were eventually abandoned when Israel agreed to the January 2025 arrangement.

“The Israeli changes included a demand that Israel retain forces along Gaza’s entire border with Egypt, which the IDF had seized only after the original proposal, and a new enforcement mechanism to screen Gazans who were returning home to the north which would have required Israeli troops to remain in central Gaza. Both of those new conditions were dropped in the deal ultimately concluded in January 2025,” Gordon wrote.

His account differs in important respects from the version presented by McGurk, who has emphasized Hamas’s refusal to agree to key provisions during the negotiations.

In an October 4 interview with CBS News, McGurk described the fundamental disagreement between Israel and Hamas as one of the central obstacles to reaching a ceasefire.

He explained that Hamas wanted to retain control of Gaza and secure the release of Palestinian prisoners, while Israel insisted that the terrorist organization could no longer govern the territory following the October 7 massacre.

McGurk said Netanyahu believed sustained military pressure would ultimately force Hamas to accept an agreement favorable to Israel, while Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar calculated that prolonging the conflict would increase international pressure on Israel.

According to McGurk, negotiations continued to encounter major obstacles in December 2024, including Hamas’s refusal to provide an acceptable list of living hostages who would be released under the proposed agreement.

McGurk described a meeting with Netanyahu in December in which the prime minister agreed to a central provision of the deal, contingent on Hamas accepting the proposed list of 33 hostages.

Hamas subsequently indicated that only 12 of those hostages would be released alive, according to McGurk, creating another major obstacle.

The negotiations ultimately produced an agreement in January 2025, shortly before Trump returned to the White House. Representatives of both the outgoing Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration participated in the final diplomatic effort.

McGurk has credited the involvement of Trump’s incoming Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, with helping overcome remaining disagreements.

Gordon, however, argued that McGurk’s account should not be treated as the definitive interpretation of the negotiations or of the Biden administration’s handling of the war.

He said many former Biden administration officials believed Washington should have adopted a tougher approach toward Israel and pressed for an earlier conclusion to the fighting.

“I would say most of my former colleagues think that President Biden should have put more pressure on Israel to conduct the war differently and end it sooner,” Gordon wrote.

He added that few of his former colleagues believed Biden’s principal mistake had been publicly disagreeing with Netanyahu.

The accusations emerged just two days after Avi Gil, who served as Netanyahu’s military secretary from July 2021 until May 2024, made a series of allegations concerning the prime minister’s conduct before and after the October 7 massacre.

In an interview broadcast Thursday on Israel’s Channel 12, Gil alleged that Netanyahu had prioritized political considerations when making decisions about hostage negotiations.

Asked whether some hostages who died in captivity could have been brought home alive, and whether surviving hostages could have been released earlier, Gil responded, “We could have.”

Gil suggested that Netanyahu had been influenced by pressure from coalition partners who opposed ceasefire agreements and favored continuing the military campaign against Hamas.

His interview also included allegations concerning warnings Netanyahu received before October 7 and purported attempts by members of the Prime Minister’s Office to alter records relating to the morning of the attack.

Netanyahu’s Likud party strongly rejected Gil’s accusations, describing the interview as “part of the false and politically motivated propaganda campaign against Prime Minister Netanyahu and Likud.”

The prime minister has consistently maintained that Israel’s military operations were necessary to dismantle Hamas’s military and governing capabilities and to increase pressure on the terrorist organization to release the hostages.

He has also argued that agreements must prevent Hamas from rearming and returning to power, warning that concessions without adequate security guarantees could leave Israel vulnerable to another October 7-style attack.

Israel has sharply condemned the decision to award the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize to Navi Pillay, the South African jurist who headed a United Nations investigation accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza, with the Foreign Ministry denouncing the selection as a disgraceful misuse of the prestigious award and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu accusing the Nobel Committee of abandoning its moral principles.

The fierce Israeli reaction followed Friday’s announcement that Pillay, a former judge at the International Criminal Court and longtime United Nations human rights official, had been selected for the honor. Her role in advancing allegations of genocide against Israel immediately became the focus of criticism from Israeli officials, who accused the Norwegian Nobel Committee of rewarding an individual responsible for spreading false and inflammatory claims about the Jewish state.

In a blistering statement published on X, Israel’s Foreign Ministry accused Pillay of participating in a sustained campaign to vilify Israel and questioned how someone with her record could receive an award intended to recognize contributions to peace.

“If there were an award for lies, hatred, and blood libels, Navi Pillay wouldn’t just be a contender. She’d be a frontrunner,” the Israeli Foreign Ministry wrote.

“Her role in the relentless, politically motivated demonization of Israel and promotion of the genoLIE speaks volumes.”

The ministry maintained that the decision represented a fundamental betrayal of the purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize, arguing that the committee had used the award to lend legitimacy to accusations against Israel that the Israeli government categorically rejects.

“Awarding Pillay the Nobel Peace Prize isn’t a recognition of justice. It’s the grotesque weaponization of an award to legitimize anti-Israel hatred and prejudice,” the statement continued.

Israeli officials went even further in their condemnation, drawing a comparison to the propaganda machinery of Nazi Germany and invoking Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s propaganda minister.

“Now that the Nobel commission has rewarded the biggest lie of the 21st century, Joseph Goebbels is certainly applauding from hell.”

Netanyahu separately issued a strongly worded response, accusing the Nobel Committee of rewarding an individual whose work he said had been characterized by hostility toward Israel.

The committee “has lost its moral compass,” Netanyahu declared.

“It has awarded its highest honor to a bigot who built her career around inventing and propagating blood libels against the one and only Jewish state,” Netanyahu said on X.

Pillay served as chairwoman of the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel. In September 2025, the commission released findings accusing Israeli authorities and security forces of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.

Israel has consistently denied the genocide allegations, maintaining that its military campaign was launched in response to Hamas’s October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks and was directed at dismantling the terrorist organization’s military capabilities. Israeli officials have also accused the UN investigative commission of pursuing a politically motivated campaign against the Jewish state.

President Donald Trump joined the criticism on Friday, sharing a statement from attorney David Schoen’s law firm that sharply attacked the Nobel Committee’s selection.

“Today the Nobel Committee shamed itself beyond repair and demeaned the once great Nobel Peace Prize by giving it to the UN’s Navi Pillay,” the statement said.

The statement also highlighted Trump’s diplomatic record, including his role in negotiating the Abraham Accords and his administration’s efforts to resolve international conflicts.

The award came amid an intensifying confrontation between Washington and the International Criminal Court, where Pillay previously served as a judge. Just hours after the Nobel announcement, the Trump administration unveiled sweeping new sanctions against the Hague-based tribunal, targeting its financial operations and access to American services.

The administration has accused the ICC of overstepping its authority by pursuing cases involving American and Israeli officials, despite neither country being a party to the treaty establishing the court. The tribunal previously issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant over allegations connected to the war in Gaza, charges Israel has rejected.

The new American measures are designed to restrict the court’s ability to conduct transactions through the U.S. financial system, escalating earlier sanctions imposed against individual ICC officials.

ICC President Tomoko Akane welcomed the recognition of Pillay, describing the Nobel decision as an affirmation of the role of international legal institutions.

“This is an important recognition of the vital role that international justice plays as a cornerstone of lasting peace,” Akane told Politico.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee defended its selection by emphasizing Pillay’s decades of work in international criminal law and human rights. The 85-year-old South African jurist previously served as president of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Her legal career began under South Africa’s apartheid system, where she represented individuals facing racial discrimination and defended anti-apartheid activists. She later became involved in major international prosecutions concerning genocide and crimes against humanity.

In announcing the 2026 award, the Nobel Committee said Pillay had made significant contributions to strengthening international legal institutions and holding perpetrators of serious crimes accountable.

“Peace requires justice,” the committee said in its announcement.

The committee also warned that international law and the institutions responsible for enforcing it were facing mounting pressure, arguing that accountability for serious violations remained essential to lasting peace.

Pillay, who was attending an international legal conference in Nuremberg, Germany, when the award was announced, dedicated the recognition to victims of international crimes and those working to secure justice.

The Nobel Peace Prize carries a monetary award of approximately $1.2 million and is scheduled to be formally presented in Oslo on December 10.

{Matzav.com}

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is facing a growing rebellion from within his own socialist political coalition, with the Democratic Socialists of America and several elected officials demanding the removal of NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch following a federal immigration enforcement shooting in the Bronx.

The confrontation intensified Friday after the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, the organization Mamdani has described as his political home, issued an ultimatum demanding that Tisch end what it characterized as NYPD cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement or lose her job.

The demand marks a significant escalation in tensions between Mamdani and the left-wing activists who helped propel him into City Hall, many of whom have opposed his decision to retain Tisch, a Jewish police commissioner who has been regarded as a moderating influence on his administration.

The socialist organization declared that Tisch “must get ICE out of New York and end NYPD complicity with these terrorists.”

“If the Commissioner can’t put a stop to these injustices, she must be fired,” the organization said.

The ultimatum followed Thursday’s shooting of a 28-year-old Dominican man during an ICE enforcement operation in the Marble Hill section of the Bronx. An immigration agent fired seven shots at the man’s vehicle, wounding him while a five-year-old child was seated in the back.

The child escaped physical injury, while the wounded man was transported to a hospital. The incident triggered demonstrations against federal immigration authorities and renewed criticism of the NYPD’s handling of protests.

Tisch said the NYPD had not participated in the federal operation and was not present when the shooting occurred. City police officers responded afterward, provided assistance and transported the wounded man for medical treatment.

Nevertheless, socialist activists accused the NYPD of protecting federal agents from demonstrators and facilitating their departure from the scene.

Among those demanding Tisch’s resignation was Darializa Avila Chevalier, a Democratic socialist who won a congressional primary with Mamdani’s endorsement and is expected to represent parts of Upper Manhattan and the Bronx.

“The NYPD’s Strategic Response Group must be disbanded as quickly as possible, and Commissioner Tisch must step down,” Avila Chevalier declared.

The Strategic Response Group, commonly known as the SRG, is a specialized NYPD unit frequently deployed during large demonstrations and other major public safety operations. It has long been a target of criticism from left-wing activists who accuse it of using excessive force against protesters.

Avila Chevalier, who participated in demonstrations following the shooting, accused police of prioritizing the protection of federal immigration personnel over the safety of city residents.

She alleged that unmarked law enforcement vehicles struck protesters as NYPD officers cleared a path for them, an accusation that has not been independently established.

Another 17 democratic socialist elected officials and political nominees, including congressional nominee Claire Valdez, signed a letter demanding that Tisch halt police assistance to ICE operations and dismantle the Strategic Response Group.

The letter stated that Tisch “must end police assistance for ICE operations and disband NYPD’s Strategic Response Group — and if she won’t, she must be fired.”

Illapa Sairitupac, a Democratic socialist and State Assembly nominee who also received Mamdani’s endorsement, issued an even more direct demand.

“Abolish ICE. Disband the SRG. Fire Tisch,” Sairitupac wrote.

The calls place Mamdani in a politically difficult position because his decision to retain Tisch was among his most consequential moves following his election.

Tisch, who comes from a prominent New York Jewish family and has publicly identified herself as a Zionist, was originally appointed police commissioner under Mayor Eric Adams.

Mamdani’s decision to keep her in charge of the NYPD was welcomed by moderate political figures and Jewish communal organizations, including UJA-Federation of New York and the Jewish Community Relations Council.

Those organizations viewed the decision as an encouraging indication that Mamdani, who had previously made strongly critical statements about the NYPD, intended to maintain continuity in the leadership of the nation’s largest police department.

For more radical elements of his political coalition, however, the appointment represented an unacceptable compromise.

Some activists had already demanded Tisch’s removal before Mamdani took office, citing her positions on policing, demonstrations and the department’s response to anti-Israel protests.

The dispute deepened in June when the New York City DSA criticized Mamdani’s proposal to increase the NYPD’s headcount by approximately 580 officers, a move the organization said contradicted his earlier commitment to maintain existing staffing levels.

The socialist organization and several allied groups argued that the additional funding should instead be directed toward community-based public safety initiatives.

Friday’s demand to remove Tisch represents a further escalation, with the organization’s citywide leadership now directly challenging one of Mamdani’s most important personnel decisions.

The controversy comes just days after Mamdani faced another confrontation with anti-Israel activists over his participation in an October 7 memorial gathering.

On Wednesday, the third anniversary of the Hamas massacre in Israel, Mamdani attended a vigil in Union Square organized by Israelis for Peace NYC to remember Israelis and Palestinians killed during the conflict.

Hundreds of anti-Zionist demonstrators gathered nearby, denouncing the mayor for attending the event and accusing him of abandoning the positions that had helped attract support from pro-Palestinian activists.

“Traitor, traitor, come on out, you sold all your people out,” protesters chanted.

Others shouted, “Mayor Mamdani you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide.”

Some demonstrators displayed signs attacking Mamdani’s relationship with Tisch, while others criticized his administration’s approach to antisemitism and his failure to carry out certain campaign positions concerning Israel.

One protest sign portrayed Mamdani as the head of the NYPD’s Strategic Response Group and included a Star of David alongside a derogatory alteration of his name.

The demonstration included participants affiliated with organizations such as Within Our Lifetime and Pal-Awda, as well as student activists associated with the Young Democratic Socialists of America.

The protest also exposed divisions within the socialist movement itself.

Several campus DSA chapters subsequently accused the organization’s citywide leadership of pressuring youth activists to remove online advertisements promoting the demonstration.

Some protesters had demanded Tisch’s removal, linking their criticism of Mamdani’s policing decisions with their opposition to his attendance at the October 7 vigil.

However, other left-wing activists questioned whether the demonstrators genuinely represented Mamdani’s electoral supporters.

Abby Stein, a DSA member associated with Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, criticized aspects of the demonstration while acknowledging that concerns about Tisch’s continued leadership were shared by some members of the mayor’s political base.

“There are things that people are upset over that I think are legit — like keeping Jessica Tisch on, for example,” Stein said. “A lot of us were not very happy about it.”

The dispute over Tisch has also raised questions about what authority New York City officials actually possess over federal immigration operations.

Although the NYPD can establish policies governing its own officers’ participation in immigration enforcement, the city’s police commissioner does not have the legal authority to expel federal ICE agents from New York or prevent them from carrying out federal operations.

Mamdani himself strongly condemned Thursday’s shooting and demanded that federal immigration authorities cease their enforcement activities in the city.

“What happened today was an outrage,” the mayor said Thursday night.

“When ICE agents opened fire, a five-year-old child – a five-year-old child! – was in the back seat of that car. Thank God that child is physically unharmed.”

Mamdani also contacted President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin in an effort to secure the release of the wounded man from federal custody.

Those discussions did not immediately produce the release sought by the mayor.

The Department of Homeland Security defended its immigration enforcement operation, while federal officials criticized New York’s sanctuary policies and the political response to the shooting.

The Trump administration is offering migrant children as young as five years old $3,000 to voluntarily leave the United States, expanding a controversial immigration initiative that previously targeted unaccompanied teenagers and extending the financial incentives to younger children involved in deportation proceedings.

The new offers are being presented to minors appearing before immigration courts, according to immigration attorneys and advocacy organizations familiar with the practice. In some cases, lawyers representing Immigration and Customs Enforcement have raised the possibility of receiving the payment, while immigration judges have also informed children about the option.

The expanded initiative represents a significant change from a program introduced in October 2025, when the Department of Homeland Security began offering $2,500 payments to unaccompanied migrant children aged 14 and older who agreed to return to their home countries.

Under the latest arrangement, the amount has increased to $3,000, and the offers are reportedly being extended to children younger than 14, including some who are only five years old.

The development was reported by Bloomberg Law, which interviewed immigration attorneys and organizations working with migrant children. The report has raised questions about whether young children, particularly those appearing in court without legal representation, can fully understand the consequences of accepting money in exchange for abandoning their immigration cases.

The administration has made voluntary departure a central component of President Trump’s broader immigration enforcement strategy, arguing that encouraging people to leave on their own can reduce the substantial costs associated with arresting, detaining and deporting individuals who lack legal authorization to remain in the country.

Immigration advocates, however, contend that offering cash payments to children facing the possibility of deportation creates pressure on vulnerable minors who may have legitimate claims for asylum or other forms of legal protection.

Shaina Aber, executive director of the Acacia Center for Justice, said her organization had received reports over the past month from attorneys and court observers across the country describing offers made to children, including some who did not have lawyers.

“We’re seeing this as part of a larger pattern of really trying to coerce children, bully children, intensify pressure on children so that they abandon their cases,” Aber told Bloomberg Law. “And it’s part of this deport-at-all-costs policy that seems to be in particular targeting children.”

Aber said some immigration judges had presented the payment as a one-time opportunity, leaving children with little time to consider the consequences or consult with an attorney.

“They’re basically asking children to make a decision on the spot about something incredibly consequential, like waiving your right to seek asylum or to have other kinds of humanitarian relief in exchange for $3,000,” Aber said. “They might not understand what the longer term consequences are down the line.”

Michael Lukens, executive director of the Washington-based Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said his organization and other legal assistance groups had received emails from ICE attorneys offering the $3,000 payment to children who agreed to voluntary departure.

Lukens said one such offer was made this week to an 11-year-old child represented by his organization.

“I don’t think anybody should be comfortable with this situation where a child is being denied a fair day in court because they’re being told that they should take voluntary departure and that they should get paid for it,” Lukens said.

The Department of Homeland Security did not directly confirm that the payments were being offered to children as young as five. A department spokesperson instead emphasized the administration’s efforts to reunite unaccompanied migrant children with their families.

“Many of the children who came across the border unaccompanied were allowed to be placed with sponsors who were smugglers and sex traffickers,” the spokesperson said.

The Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the nation’s immigration courts, did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the reported offers.

The latest development follows a series of administration initiatives designed to encourage unauthorized immigrants to depart without undergoing the traditional deportation process.

In October 2025, federal officials introduced a one-time $2,500 resettlement payment for unaccompanied migrant teenagers aged 14 and older who agreed to voluntarily return to their countries of origin.

The earlier program was administered through the Department of Homeland Security in coordination with federal agencies responsible for the care of unaccompanied migrant children.

The administration subsequently expanded financial incentives for other unauthorized immigrants through its Project Homecoming initiative, which offers government-arranged transportation and cash assistance to eligible individuals who agree to leave the United States.

The program uses the CBP Home mobile application, through which migrants can register their intention to depart and receive assistance arranging their travel.

In December 2025, DHS temporarily increased its voluntary departure incentive to $3,000 for eligible migrants who registered and left the country before the end of the year.

The government has promoted the initiative as a less expensive alternative to traditional deportation. Federal officials have estimated that apprehending, detaining and removing an unauthorized immigrant can cost approximately $18,000, substantially more than arranging voluntary travel and providing a financial incentive.

According to internal government figures reported in July, approximately 132,000 immigrants had departed through Project Homecoming by the middle of that month, with roughly 70,000 additional individuals registered to leave.

Those figures were separate from broader administration claims concerning the total number of unauthorized immigrants who had departed the United States.

The new offers to young children are being reported as the administration accelerates immigration court proceedings involving unaccompanied minors.

More than 16,500 cases involving unaccompanied children remained pending in immigration courts as of July, according to Justice Department figures.

At the same time, immigration judges have been directed to limit certain postponements in cases involving children who entered the country without a parent or guardian. Bloomberg Law previously reported that supervisors had instructed judges to generally restrict those delays, known as continuances, to 21 days.

Such postponements can be important for children seeking legal representation, gathering evidence or preparing asylum applications.

The availability of legal assistance has also become an issue following the expiration of federal funding in July for organizations providing representation to unaccompanied minors, including groups working with the Acacia Center for Justice.

Immigration attorneys argue that the combination of accelerated proceedings, reduced access to lawyers and financial incentives to depart could affect children’s ability to pursue claims for humanitarian protection.

Under federal immigration law, voluntary departure can allow certain individuals to leave the United States without receiving a formal removal order. However, accepting that option can require abandoning pending applications for asylum or other immigration relief, and the consequences for future eligibility to return depend on the individual’s circumstances.

The administration has defended voluntary departure programs as a way to enforce immigration laws while reducing detention costs and facilitating the return of migrants to their home countries.

For the expanded offers involving children under 14, federal officials have not publicly disclosed how many minors have been approached, how many have accepted the payments, or whether additional safeguards are being applied when young children are asked to make decisions about leaving the United States.

{Matzav.com}