Feed aggregator

Vice President JD Vance launched a blistering attack Tuesday against Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, branding him a “psychopath” and accusing him of promoting anti-white racism, misrepresenting his background and embracing policies that could devastate Michigan’s automobile industry. The unusually sharp criticism came as Vance traveled to the battleground state to campaign for Republican Senate nominee Mike Rogers, who is locked in a closely contested race ahead of the November 3 election.

With recent polling suggesting that El-Sayed holds a narrow advantage, Vance sought to portray the Democrat as an extremist whose political positions and associations make him unfit to represent Michigan in Washington. The vice president delivered his criticism both before departing for the state and during a campaign appearance in Howell, outside Detroit, where several hundred Republican supporters gathered to hear him and Rogers.

“Abdul El-Sayed is a little bit of a psychopath, and we’re going to just try to make the argument as well as we can and help Mike out a little bit,” Vance said before boarding Air Force Two en route to the campaign event.

The vice president made racial politics a central element of his criticism, alleging that El-Sayed has promoted hostility toward white Americans. He claimed that the Democratic candidate has “engaged in the kind of explicitly anti-white racial hatred” perhaps “more than any Democrat running in the nation,” describing him as “a guy who seems to love to traffic in racial hatred.”

Vance did not identify specific statements by El-Sayed to substantiate the allegation during his initial remarks. Republican critics have previously targeted the Democrat’s support for diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, particularly proposals involving healthcare access, government contracting and assistance to businesses owned by minorities.

Those policies have become a major source of disagreement between Republicans and Democrats, with opponents arguing that race-conscious government programs can result in discriminatory treatment, while supporters maintain that such initiatives are intended to address longstanding disparities.

Upon arriving in Michigan, Vance intensified his criticism before an enthusiastic audience, accusing El-Sayed of holding radical political views and suggesting that he would sympathize with violent demonstrations.

Referring to recent unrest in France, Vance claimed that if similar disturbances erupted in Detroit, El-Sayed would be “right there and cheering them on.”

The vice president also challenged El-Sayed’s past descriptions of his nationality and family background, accusing the Democrat of presenting himself as an immigrant despite having been born in Michigan.

“Abdul El-Sayed was born just north of Detroit in a town called Rochester Hills. Yet he is claiming to be, and I quote, ‘an immigrant from North Africa.’ For decades, he’s gone even further than that. He told people he is an Egyptian citizen,” the VP said.

Vance argued that the statements raised questions about El-Sayed’s honesty and his identification with the state he is seeking to represent.

“Why? Why would you tell people that you were not from the community that you’re actually from? It’s an insane claim to make… [He is] a man who would lie, who is so ashamed of this state that he would lie about being an immigrant from another continent.”

The controversy centers in part on remarks attributed to El-Sayed during a 2017 Michigan Democratic convention speech, when he reportedly described himself as an immigrant from North Africa. El-Sayed was born in Rochester Hills, Michigan, and is of Egyptian descent. Vance seized on the discrepancy to accuse the candidate of falsely presenting his personal history.

The Republican vice president then shifted to economic issues, warning that El-Sayed’s environmental agenda could seriously damage Michigan’s automotive manufacturing sector, which remains a cornerstone of the state’s economy.

Vance charged that El-Sayed “says that he wants to pass the green new scam and kill the auto industry of this state,” invoking Republican opposition to aggressive federal climate policies and mandates affecting vehicle production.

The dispute reflects a broader political battle over the future of American automobile manufacturing. Republicans have argued that Democratic environmental regulations and electric-vehicle policies threaten traditional manufacturing jobs, while Democrats have generally maintained that investments in cleaner technologies can create new employment opportunities and strengthen domestic production.

Vance also attacked El-Sayed over his association with political commentator and online personality Hasan Piker, whose past remarks about the September 11 terrorist attacks have generated widespread controversy.

The vice president accused El-Sayed of having “campaigned with his best friend Hassan Piker, a man who said that we deserved 9/11.”

Piker has faced criticism for a past statement asserting that America deserved the September 11 attacks, a remark he subsequently addressed amid public backlash. Republicans have repeatedly pointed to his comments when criticizing Democratic politicians who have appeared alongside him or maintained political relationships with him.

The vice president’s attacks came at a particularly sensitive moment in the Michigan Senate contest. According to the RealClearPolitics average of recent surveys cited Tuesday, El-Sayed was leading Rogers by approximately 2.5 percentage points, indicating a competitive race in which relatively small shifts in voter support could determine the outcome.

El-Sayed has received support from prominent figures on the Democratic Party’s progressive wing, including Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who joined him on the campaign trail Monday. The appearance reinforced the candidate’s ties to the party’s left flank, an association Republicans have sought to use against him in a politically divided state.

Rogers, meanwhile, is a former congressman who chaired the House Intelligence Committee and has long been identified with a strong national security posture. His foreign policy positions have occasionally placed him at odds with influential figures on the political right who oppose extensive American involvement overseas.

One such critic is Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host, who has strongly opposed Rogers. Asked about Carlson’s objections, Vance defended the Republican nominee and emphasized his character and experience.

Vance described Rogers as “fundamentally a decent guy and the kind of public servant that you want in Washington, D.C.”

The endorsement reflected the Trump administration’s determination to unite Republican voters behind Rogers despite disagreements within the conservative movement over foreign policy and national security.

The vice president was also asked about President Trump’s recent characterization of El-Sayed as a “jihadist,” a description the president used while attacking the Democratic candidate and former President Barack Obama over Obama’s support for him.

Vance declined to repeat Trump’s characterization, instead emphasizing his concerns about the people with whom El-Sayed associates.

“I don’t know what’s in the guy’s heart. I just know he has a lot of weird friends.”

The distinction between the president’s rhetoric and Vance’s response illustrated differing approaches to criticizing El-Sayed. While Trump used an explicitly ideological label, Vance concentrated on the candidate’s political associations, statements and policy positions, although his own remarks included unusually personal accusations.

Michigan’s Senate contest has attracted intense national attention because of its potential importance in determining control of the chamber. Both parties have invested heavily in the race, recognizing that the state’s politically diverse electorate could play a decisive role in the national balance of power.

For Republicans, the closing days of the campaign present an opportunity to focus attention on El-Sayed’s progressive positions, his relationships with controversial public figures and his approach to Michigan’s industrial economy. Democrats, meanwhile, are seeking to maintain their advantage by emphasizing economic concerns and mobilizing their supporters.

With Election Day only a week away, Vance’s visit demonstrated the administration’s willingness to deploy its most prominent officials in support of Rogers. His attacks also signaled that Republicans intend to make El-Sayed’s ideology and personal history central issues as Michigan voters prepare to cast their ballots.

Tuesday’s event was part of a broader Republican campaign effort in Michigan, with Vance also promoting gubernatorial nominee John James, Congressman Tom Barrett and other candidates appearing on the November ballot. The vice president described Michigan as one of the most consequential battlegrounds in the country, urging Republicans to turn out in large numbers rather than assume the election had already been decided.

The campaign rally took place at CHI Aviation in Howell, where Vance praised Rogers’ background as a former FBI agent and his experience dealing with national security issues. He also sought to counter criticism that Rogers would simply follow the White House’s instructions, arguing that the Republican nominee has demonstrated a willingness to take independent positions.

Rogers reinforced the attacks on El-Sayed during his own remarks, questioning the Democrat’s judgment and suitability for national office. He also accused his opponent of failing to adequately condemn terrorism, continuing a line of criticism that has become increasingly prominent in the closing stages of the campaign.

The Republican campaign’s focus on El-Sayed’s associations has included renewed scrutiny of his relationship with Piker, who participated in campaign activities with the Democrat during the primary election. El-Sayed has previously criticized Piker’s September 11 remarks, calling them “dumb,” although Republicans have continued to argue that the association raises questions about the candidate’s political judgment.

The political battle has also intensified following appearances by other nationally prominent figures. President Trump campaigned in Port Huron on Sunday, while Barack Obama appeared at a Democratic rally in Detroit on Saturday, highlighting the importance both parties attach to Michigan’s closely contested races.

Democrats responded sharply to Vance’s appearance, accusing the administration of attempting to divert attention from economic difficulties facing Michigan families. State Democratic Party Chairman Curtis Hertel criticized Republican policies on tariffs, healthcare and the economy, arguing that voters have become increasingly frustrated with rising costs.

The attacks and counterattacks reflect the increasingly contentious atmosphere surrounding the Senate race, where questions about economic policy, immigration, national security and political extremism have become central to both campaigns.

As the November 3 election approaches, Michigan voters will decide between two candidates offering sharply different political agendas, with the outcome potentially affecting the balance of power in Washington. Vance’s appearance Tuesday made clear that Republicans intend to keep El-Sayed’s record, associations and ideology at the forefront of the campaign through its final days.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman is warning that New York’s controversial congestion pricing program could eventually spread far beyond Manhattan if Gov. Kathy Hochul wins another term, accusing the Democratic incumbent of preparing to impose additional financial burdens on residents already struggling with the state’s high cost of living.

Speaking Tuesday on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan, the Nassau County executive pledged to eliminate the existing congestion toll if he defeats Hochul in the November 3 gubernatorial election. He argued that the current Manhattan tolling system could serve as a model for similar charges in neighborhoods and communities throughout New York State.

Blakeman said the possibility of expanded congestion charges should concern motorists regardless of where they live, pointing to major cities across the state as well as heavily traveled roads in the outer boroughs of New York City.

“Doesn’t matter whether it’s New York City, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, Binghamton or any town in between,” Blakeman claimed while speaking on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan Tuesday.

“If you live in Brooklyn, Flatbush Avenue. If you live in Queens, Queens Boulevard, Northern Boulevard. If you live in the Bronx, Tremont Avenue. Staten Island, the Staten Island Expressway — congestion pricing will come to you if Kathy Hochul is reelected,” he told The Post. “I will stop that as governor.

His remarks amounted to a campaign warning rather than evidence of an announced Hochul administration proposal to establish congestion pricing in those additional locations. Nevertheless, Blakeman maintained that the governor’s approach to transportation funding and taxation made further tolling initiatives a legitimate concern for voters.

Blakeman also directed criticism at New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, arguing that Democratic leaders have increasingly turned to new charges and taxes rather than controlling government expenditures.

“That’s a way for them to raise more money because they don’t know how to run a large organization,” he said of Hochul and city Mayor Zohran Mamdani while calling congestion pricing “nothing more than a tax on the middle class.”

The Republican candidate tied his opposition to congestion pricing to a broader argument about New York’s spending levels, contrasting the state’s budget with Florida’s despite Florida having a substantially larger population.

“Our budget in the state of New York is twice the size of the State of Florida and there’s 4 million more people in Florida,” Blakeman said, echoing a September Citizens Budget Commission report that found New Yorkers paid the highest tax burden per-person in the entire country.

“We don’t have a revenue problem in New York state, we’ve got a spending problem,” he said.

The September findings added another dimension to the campaign debate over affordability, with New York’s comparatively heavy tax burden and substantial public expenditures becoming central issues in the contest between Blakeman and Hochul.

Blakeman delivered his remarks near the intersection of Fifth Avenue and East 62nd Street, where congestion pricing enforcement equipment monitors vehicles entering Manhattan’s designated tolling zone. The location provided a backdrop for his criticism, with vehicles filling the surrounding streets during his appearance.

The program, which began operating in January 2025, generally charges passenger vehicles $9 during peak periods to enter Manhattan’s central business district south of 60th Street. The toll varies according to vehicle category, time of day and applicable discounts or credits.

Pointing to the traffic around him, Blakeman questioned whether the program had delivered on its central promise of reducing congestion.

“You can look here. I don’t think it’s reduced traffic at all,” he said. “I think that what you’re seeing here is traffic congestion.”

Although the candidate cited the crowded streets as evidence against the program, conditions at a single intersection do not necessarily establish whether congestion pricing has reduced traffic across the entire tolling district. Supporters of the initiative have argued that its effectiveness should be evaluated through broader traffic measurements rather than individual observations.

Opposition to the toll has become a defining feature of Blakeman’s gubernatorial campaign, alongside his criticism of Hochul’s handling of affordability, taxation and public transportation. He has repeatedly portrayed congestion pricing as an additional expense imposed on working families and commuters who already face substantial transportation costs.

The program’s political history has also become an issue in the race. Hochul unexpectedly suspended its planned implementation in June 2024, ahead of that year’s elections, amid concerns that the toll could provoke a backlash against Democratic candidates.

Following the election, Hochul announced that the initiative would move forward at a reduced initial rate. The tolling system subsequently took effect in January 2025, establishing the country’s first congestion pricing zone of its kind.

President Trump later sought to terminate the program through his administration, challenging the federal approval that had allowed the tolling system to proceed. The effort became the subject of litigation, with a federal judge ruling against the administration’s attempt to withdraw the authorization unilaterally.

Blakeman’s election could potentially change the political dynamics surrounding the program. As governor, he would control the state’s executive branch and could pursue negotiations with the federal government over its future, particularly with Trump remaining in the White House.

However, terminating congestion pricing would involve legal and administrative considerations beyond a simple gubernatorial directive, including the program’s federal approvals and the obligations associated with its financing.

Blakeman insisted that removing the toll would not mean abandoning efforts to address Manhattan’s traffic problems. Instead, he proposed encouraging more commuters to use mass transit by improving safety, cleanliness and staffing throughout the transportation system.

He also pointed to fare evasion as a major financial problem for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. A watchdog analysis estimated that fare and toll evasion cost the transit agency more than $1 billion in 2024, a loss Blakeman suggested could be addressed through stronger enforcement.

“The way to reduce traffic congestion is to make cleaner and safer train stations and subway stations, cleaner buses,” Blakeman said. “Put more conductors on our trains and subways. Put more police officers and our subway stations. That will get riders back.”

His proposed approach reflects his argument that public transportation would attract additional riders if commuters felt more secure and comfortable using it, reducing reliance on private vehicles without imposing new tolls on motorists.

Hochul’s campaign rejected Blakeman’s criticism and defended the governor’s transportation policies, accusing the Republican of aligning himself with Trump rather than supporting investments in New York’s transit infrastructure.

“In Bruce Blakeman and Donald Trump’s version of New York, it’s more expensive and impossible to get anywhere, gas prices are at record highs, and the LIRR gets defunded when you try to get around Blakeman’s own county,” a Hochul spokesperson said.

“While Governor Hochul is making our subways safer, investing billions into public safety, and funding public transit that helps New Yorkers get to work, get their kids to school, and get home, Bruce Blakeman is once again taking Trump’s side instead of standing up for New York.”

The competing arguments highlight a fundamental disagreement over how New York should finance and improve its transportation network. Blakeman wants to eliminate congestion tolls while focusing on transit security and government spending, whereas Hochul has defended the existing program as part of a broader strategy to support public transportation and address traffic congestion.

Additional reporting Tuesday indicated that Blakeman has discussed several possible approaches to dismantling the tolling system, including pursuing legislation, issuing an executive order or directing the MTA to discontinue collections. He has argued that a governor should be able to exercise sufficient authority over the transit agency to bring the program to an end, although the legality and practicality of those options remain open questions.

A particularly significant obstacle involves the MTA’s financing arrangements. Congestion pricing revenue is intended to support approximately $15 billion in transit capital improvements, and abruptly ending collections could jeopardize bonds backed by the anticipated toll income. That raises the possibility of additional financial and legal complications if a future administration attempts to shut down the program.

The Trump administration’s legal challenge also remains relevant. In March, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman ruled that the federal government had acted unlawfully in attempting to withdraw approval for congestion pricing. The administration appealed that decision in May, leaving the broader dispute over federal authority unresolved.

Meanwhile, state transportation officials have reported that congestion pricing has produced measurable reductions in vehicle traffic entering Manhattan. According to figures released earlier this year, approximately 27 million fewer vehicles entered the designated zone during the program’s first year, while toll collections generated more than $550 million. Those figures stand in contrast to Blakeman’s assessment of the traffic he observed Tuesday.

In a separate development Tuesday, Blakeman’s campaign also released an advertisement warning that Hochul and Mamdani could pursue billions of dollars in additional taxes after the election. Hochul has disputed the Republican’s broader claims about her tax agenda and stated during an October 14 debate that she would not raise state income taxes.

Israel’s two major chareidi political parties appear headed for a significant setback in Tuesday’s Knesset election, with all five major exit polls projecting that Shas and United Torah Judaism will emerge with fewer seats than they held in the outgoing Knesset.

The projections indicate that the two parties, which together won 18 seats in the 2022 election, will receive between 12 and 16 seats in the 120-member Knesset. The losses are expected to fall most heavily on Shas, while United Torah Judaism faces uncertainty over whether it will retain its seventh seat.

The exit polls, released Tuesday night following the closing of polling stations at 10 p.m., present varying estimates of the parties’ electoral performance. Nevertheless, every major network projects a reduction in their combined parliamentary representation, following a particularly contentious election campaign marked by the military draft controversy, the arrests of yeshiva bochurim, internal political disagreements, and the emergence of alternative chareidi parties.

The most favorable projection for the chareidi parties came from Channel 14, whose poll, conducted by Shlomo Filber, gave Shas nine seats and United Torah Judaism seven, for a combined total of 16.

The i24NEWS exit poll projected eight seats for Shas and seven for UTJ, giving the two parties 15 seats.

Channel 12 also projected eight seats for Shas, but gave United Torah Judaism only six, bringing their combined representation to 14.

The outlook was considerably worse in the projections released by Channel 13 and Kan 11.

Channel 13 predicted that Shas would receive six seats and United Torah Judaism seven, leaving the two parties with a combined 13 mandates.

Kan 11 presented the weakest result for the chareidi parties, projecting just six seats each for Shas and UTJ, for a combined total of 12.

The figures represent a potentially substantial decline from the 2022 election, when Shas, led by Aryeh Deri, won 11 seats and United Torah Judaism secured seven.

Under the current projections, Shas stands to lose between two and five seats, while UTJ could either maintain its existing seven-seat representation or lose one mandate.

The disparity between the two parties’ projected performances is particularly notable given that Shas entered the election as the larger of the two chareidi factions, with a broad electoral base that traditionally included both chareidi and non-chareidi Sephardic voters.

In previous elections, Shas successfully attracted substantial support from traditional and religiously observant Israelis outside the core chareidi community, allowing it to expand its parliamentary strength beyond the population represented by its yeshiva-centered constituency.

The latest projections suggest that the party may have struggled to maintain that broader coalition of voters, although the actual results will be necessary to determine the extent of any losses.

For United Torah Judaism, the principal question is whether the party has received enough votes to secure its seventh seat.

Two of the five major exit polls project that UTJ will fall to six mandates, while three predict that it will retain all seven.

The difference could have important consequences for the party’s internal balance of power, its parliamentary representation, and its negotiating position in any future coalition talks.

The projected decline comes after one of the most difficult election campaigns in recent years for the established chareidi parties.

The ongoing controversy over military conscription for yeshiva bochurim dominated much of the campaign, with widespread anger over the arrests of bnei yeshiva and mounting criticism of the government’s handling of the draft issue.

The controversy created an especially challenging political environment for Shas and United Torah Judaism, whose representatives faced questions about their ability to protect the interests of the yeshiva world while participating in the governing coalition.

Throughout the campaign, critics argued that the chareidi parties had failed to secure adequate protections for yeshiva bochurim, while party leaders maintained that their continued political representation was essential to defending the Torah community against further government measures.

The debate was accompanied by growing concern that disillusioned voters might either remain home on Election Day or cast their ballots for alternative political lists.

In the weeks leading up to the election, both Shas and UTJ intensified efforts to mobilize their traditional supporters, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a strong chareidi presence in the Knesset.

Leading rabbonim issued repeated appeals urging voters to participate in the election and support the established chareidi parties, warning that a reduction in their parliamentary strength could have serious consequences for the Torah world.

United Torah Judaism also faced internal tensions between its various factions, complicating efforts to present a united political front and coordinate the election campaign.

Those disagreements added another challenge to a party already confronting the possibility of diminished voter enthusiasm and competition from smaller political movements.

Shas, meanwhile, concentrated on preserving its support among both chareidi and traditional Sephardic voters, seeking to maintain the broad electoral appeal that had helped it secure 11 seats in the previous election.

Another factor in the campaign was the emergence of protest parties seeking to attract voters dissatisfied with the established chareidi political leadership.

Among the most prominent was the Hatzibur Hachareidi party, headed by Moti Leitner, which entered the election amid criticism of the handling of the draft controversy and the conduct of chareidi political representatives.

The party sought to present itself as an alternative for voters who believed the established parties had failed to adequately represent their concerns.

Another alternative list, Tzeva Shachor, also competed for support within the chareidi electorate.

According to the initial exit polls, neither of the alternative chareidi lists is expected to cross Israel’s 3.25% electoral threshold, meaning that neither would receive representation in the Knesset.

However, the number of votes received by those parties could still prove significant.

Under Israel’s electoral system, votes cast for parties that fail to cross the threshold do not contribute to the allocation of Knesset seats.

Consequently, even if the protest parties fail to enter the Knesset, votes they attract from former Shas or UTJ supporters could reduce the parliamentary strength of the established chareidi parties.

At this stage, it remains unclear how many voters supported the alternative lists or whether their participation was responsible for any significant portion of the projected decline.

The official count will provide a clearer picture of their electoral performance and the extent to which they may have drawn support away from the larger parties.

The chareidi parties also confronted the effects of unusually high nationwide voter turnout, which raised the number of votes necessary to secure parliamentary representation.

Throughout Election Day, party officials expressed concern over reports of heavy participation in Arab communities and opposition strongholds, while turnout in several major chareidi communities appeared to be comparatively weaker.

The concern prompted urgent appeals from political leaders and rabbonim, who called upon voters to make their way to polling stations before voting ended.

The exceptionally high participation rate added to fears that even a relatively modest decline in the chareidi vote could translate into the loss of one or more Knesset seats.

Beyond the electoral performance of Shas and UTJ, the exit polls also carry major implications for the composition of Israel’s next government.

The five major networks presented sharply different projections for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s right-wing and chareidi bloc.

Channel 14, which gave the chareidi parties their strongest combined showing of 16 seats, projected that Netanyahu’s bloc would receive 60 mandates, just one short of the 61 needed for a parliamentary majority.

The i24NEWS exit poll projected 55 seats for Netanyahu’s bloc.

Kan 11, Channel 12, and Channel 13 each projected only 50 seats for the bloc, suggesting a considerably more difficult path for Netanyahu to assemble another government.

Despite those substantial differences, none of the five exit polls gave Netanyahu’s bloc an outright parliamentary majority.

The political implications for Shas and United Torah Judaism could therefore extend beyond the number of seats they ultimately receive.

A reduction in their combined parliamentary strength could diminish their influence in coalition negotiations, particularly regarding the military draft, funding for yeshivos, educational institutions, and other issues central to the chareidi community.

At the same time, a fragmented Knesset in which neither major political bloc holds a clear majority could make the chareidi parties important participants in efforts to form a governing coalition.

Much will depend on the final distribution of seats and the willingness of the various political factions to negotiate with one another.

For now, the exit polls present a consistent picture of diminished support for the two established chareidi parties, even as they disagree over the extent of the decline.

Shas appears headed for the more substantial losses, while United Torah Judaism’s final representation may hinge on a relatively narrow margin separating its sixth and seventh seats.

The actual results will also determine whether the protest parties attracted enough votes to materially affect the established chareidi factions and whether the exceptionally high turnout altered the parliamentary balance.

As the Central Elections Committee continues counting ballots, Shas and UTJ officials will be watching closely to determine whether the initial projections accurately reflect the electorate’s decision.

What is already clear from the exit polls is that the chareidi parties are facing the prospect of entering the next Knesset with fewer representatives than they had in 2022, following an election campaign in which the draft crisis, internal divisions, and dissatisfaction among portions of the electorate became central political issues.

The final results will determine not only the number of chareidi representatives in the 26th Knesset, but also the extent of their influence over the political negotiations and legislative battles that lie ahead.

{Matzav.com}

Israel’s election for the 26th Knesset ended Tuesday night with sharply conflicting exit polls, leaving Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s political future uncertain, United Torah Judaism’s seventh seat hanging in the balance, and the country facing the possibility of prolonged coalition negotiations or another election.

The most dramatic projection came from Channel 14, which gave Netanyahu’s right-wing and chareidi bloc 60 seats, just one short of the 61 required for a Knesset majority. In contrast, Kan 11, Channel 12, and Channel 13 each projected only 50 seats for Netanyahu’s bloc, while i24NEWS placed it at 55 and Channel 16 at 53.

The enormous gap between the television networks means that Israel could be heading toward very different political outcomes, depending on which projections prove closest to the actual vote count.

For the chareidi community, one of the most closely watched questions is whether United Torah Judaism will retain its seventh Knesset seat. Kan 11 and Channel 12 projected six seats for UTJ, while Channel 13, Channel 14, and i24NEWS gave the party seven.

Shas, meanwhile, is projected to suffer a substantial decline from the 11 seats it won in 2022. Kan 11 and Channel 13 projected six seats for Aryeh Deri’s party, Channel 12 and i24NEWS gave it eight, and Channel 14 projected nine.

Taken together, the two established chareidi parties are projected to win between 12 and 16 seats, compared with the combined 18 seats they received in the previous election.

The exit polls were released at 10 p.m. Israel time, following a day of extraordinarily high voter participation that saw political parties scrambling to mobilize supporters amid warnings that turnout patterns could dramatically affect the composition of the next Knesset.

According to the Central Elections Committee, voter turnout had reached 74.3% by 8 p.m., already surpassing the final turnout recorded in the 2022 election. By the time polling stations closed, turnout was reported at approximately 77.7%, reflecting one of the highest participation rates in decades.

The unusually large number of voters raised particular concerns among chareidi party officials, who warned throughout the day that heavy turnout in Arab communities and opposition strongholds, coupled with comparatively weaker participation in some chareidi areas, could cost their parties valuable seats.

The exit polls indicate that those concerns may have been justified.

Kan 11 projected Likud winning 25 seats, making it the largest individual party in the Knesset. Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar party was projected to receive 21 seats, while former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s B’Yachad party was given 14.

The Joint Arab List was projected to receive 10 seats and Ra’am seven, giving the Arab parties a combined 17 seats. Yair Golan’s Democrats were projected to win 10 seats, Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beytenu eight, and Itamar Ben Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit seven.

Under the Kan 11 projection, United Torah Judaism, Shas, and the Religious Zionism–Zehut alliance would each receive six seats.

The resulting parliamentary distribution would give Netanyahu’s bloc 50 seats, the principal opposition parties 53, and the Arab parties 17.

Channel 12 presented a somewhat different distribution but reached essentially the same conclusion regarding Netanyahu’s parliamentary strength.

According to Channel 12, Likud would win 24 seats, Eisenkot’s Yashar party 22, and Bennett’s B’Yachad party 12.

The Joint Arab List would receive 11 seats, while Ra’am would win seven, giving the Arab parties a combined 18 mandates.

Yisrael Beytenu and the Democrats were each projected to receive nine seats, while Shas was given eight. United Torah Judaism, Religious Zionism–Zehut, and Otzma Yehudit were each projected to receive six.

Under that scenario, Netanyahu’s bloc would control 50 seats, the principal opposition parties 52, and the Arab parties 18.

Channel 13 also projected 50 seats for Netanyahu’s bloc, but its results were somewhat more favorable to United Torah Judaism.

The network gave Likud 25 seats, Eisenkot’s Yashar party 23, and Bennett’s B’Yachad party 14.

The Joint Arab List was projected to win 10 seats and Ra’am seven. The Democrats received nine seats, while Yisrael Beytenu and United Torah Judaism were each projected to win seven.

Otzma Yehudit, Religious Zionism–Zehut, and Shas were each projected to receive six seats.

Under the Channel 13 projection, the principal opposition bloc would receive 53 seats, Netanyahu’s bloc 50, and the Arab parties 17.

Channel 14, however, presented a dramatically different picture, one that placed Netanyahu on the verge of securing another term as prime minister.

Its exit poll projected Likud winning 30 seats, substantially more than any of the other major networks predicted.

Eisenkot’s Yashar party was projected to receive 19 seats, while Bennett’s B’Yachad party would win 11.

Shas was projected to receive nine seats, with United Torah Judaism, Otzma Yehudit, and Religious Zionism–Zehut each winning seven.

The Democrats were given nine seats, while Yisrael Beytenu was projected to receive four.

The Joint Arab List was projected to win 10 seats and Ra’am seven.

Channel 14 reported an overall distribution of 60 seats for Netanyahu’s bloc, 43 for the principal opposition, and 17 for the Arab parties, although its published individual party figures did not fully reconcile with those bloc totals.

The projection nevertheless represented a striking departure from the results presented by the other three major television networks.

Two additional broadcasters, i24NEWS and Channel 16, produced projections that fell between those competing scenarios.

i24NEWS projected 55 seats for Netanyahu’s bloc, 49 for the principal opposition, and 16 for the Arab parties.

Its individual party projections included 27 seats for Likud, 20 for Eisenkot’s Yashar, 15 for Bennett’s B’Yachad, eight for Shas, and seven for United Torah Judaism.

Channel 16 projected 53 seats for Netanyahu’s bloc, 51 for the principal opposition, and 16 for the Arab parties.

The different projections have created considerable uncertainty over the political consequences of Tuesday’s election.

Although Likud emerged as the largest individual party in every major exit poll, that distinction does not automatically guarantee Netanyahu the ability to form a government.

Under Israel’s parliamentary system, a prime minister must assemble sufficient support in the 120-member Knesset to establish a governing coalition.

A majority requires 61 seats, meaning that even Channel 14’s most favorable projection would leave Netanyahu one seat short.

The other major networks suggest that he would face a considerably more difficult path to forming a coalition.

The opposition faces its own challenges.

Eisenkot’s Yashar party is projected to emerge as the second-largest faction, with between 19 and 23 seats, while Bennett’s B’Yachad is projected to receive between 11 and 15.

Together with Lieberman’s Yisrael Beytenu and Golan’s Democrats, the principal opposition parties are projected to hold between 43 and 53 seats, depending on the network.

The Arab parties are projected to control between 16 and 18 seats, potentially giving them considerable influence over the parliamentary balance.

However, the ideological and political differences among the opposition factions, particularly regarding cooperation with Arab parties, could complicate efforts to form an alternative government.

For United Torah Judaism, the immediate concern remains the fate of its seventh seat.

The party entered Election Day amid warnings that an exceptionally high national turnout could increase the number of votes needed to secure each mandate.

Party officials also expressed concern over the emergence of alternative chareidi political lists, which sought to attract voters dissatisfied with the established parties, particularly over the military draft controversy and the treatment of yeshiva bochurim.

Although those smaller chareidi lists are not projected to cross the electoral threshold, votes cast for them could still affect UTJ’s final representation by reducing the number of votes available to the established chareidi party.

Throughout Tuesday, leading rabbonim issued repeated appeals urging eligible voters to participate in the election and support United Torah Judaism.

As the day progressed, the campaign intensified amid reports of particularly heavy turnout in communities associated with the political opposition.

The concern was especially pronounced because the seventh UTJ seat had already been viewed as vulnerable before Election Day.

With Kan 11 and Channel 12 projecting six mandates, and Channel 13, Channel 14, and i24NEWS projecting seven, the final outcome may depend on relatively small differences in the actual vote totals and the allocation of surplus votes.

Shas faces a similarly important count, although its projected losses are substantially larger.

The party’s projected representation of six to nine seats would mark a decline from the 11 mandates it received in 2022.

The combined results could leave the chareidi parties with fewer representatives in the next Knesset at a time when the military draft issue, funding for yeshivos, and other matters affecting the chareidi community remain central political questions.

Another important factor is the performance of smaller parties near the electoral threshold.

Israel requires parties to receive at least 3.25% of the national vote to enter the Knesset. Parties that fall short receive no seats, and their votes are excluded from the allocation of parliamentary mandates.

Exit polls indicated that several smaller parties, including lists associated with Ofer Winter and Yoaz Hendel, were unlikely to cross that threshold.

Their failure to enter the Knesset could influence the distribution of seats among the larger parties, particularly if their supporters are concentrated within one political camp.

The official vote count began after polling stations closed, with the Central Elections Committee expected to release updated figures as ballots are processed.

Votes cast by soldiers, diplomats, hospital patients, prisoners, and others using special double envelopes will be counted separately, meaning that some close seat allocations may remain unresolved even after most regular ballots have been tallied.

The Central Elections Committee has indicated that it expects to complete the count by Thursday, October 29, although the legal deadline for publication of the official results is November 4.

Once the results are finalized, President Isaac Herzog will consult with the elected parties before selecting the Knesset member he believes has the best prospect of forming a government.

That individual will then begin the process of negotiating a coalition, a task that could prove particularly difficult if the final results resemble the projections showing neither major bloc close to a majority.

Israel has previously experienced prolonged periods of political deadlock, including the years between 2019 and 2022, when repeated elections failed to produce a stable governing majority.

Tuesday’s results have raised the possibility of another extended period of political uncertainty.

For now, the exit polls agree on several important points: Likud remains Israel’s largest individual party, Eisenkot has emerged as Netanyahu’s principal challenger, the Arab parties are projected to achieve substantial representation, and the established chareidi parties face the possibility of losing seats.

But the most consequential questions remain unanswered.

Whether Netanyahu can secure a parliamentary majority, whether Eisenkot can assemble an alternative coalition, and whether United Torah Judaism retains its seventh seat will ultimately be determined by the official count rather than the television projections.

Until those results become clear, Israel faces an election-night picture marked by unusually high turnout, conflicting projections, and considerable uncertainty over the composition of its next government.

{Matzav.com}

As millions of Israelis headed to the polls on Tuesday to elect the 26th Knesset, one of the most prominent gedolei hador urging the chareidi public to vote was unable to cast a ballot himself.

Maran Hagaon Harav Moshe Hillel Hirsch, rosh yeshiva of Slabodka, did not participate in Tuesday’s Knesset election for a simple reason: He is an American citizen and does not hold Israeli citizenship.

Although Rav Moshe Hillel has lived in Eretz Yisroel for decades and serves as one of the foremost leaders of the Israeli Torah world, his American citizenship means that he is not eligible to vote in national Israeli elections.

The unusual circumstance was noted today, as Rav Moshe Hillel had urged bochurim following Shacharis to head to the polling stations and work on behalf of United Torah Judaism.

It was noted that the rosh yeshiva himself would not be voting because of his American citizenship, and he participates only in municipal elections.

Under Israeli election law, voting in Knesset elections is restricted to Israeli citizens aged 18 and older who meet the registration requirements. Permanent residents who do not hold Israeli citizenship are permitted to vote in municipal elections, provided they meet the applicable eligibility requirements, but cannot vote for the Knesset.

The distinction explains how Rav Moshe Hillel can participate in local elections in Bnei Brak while being ineligible to vote in the national elections that determine the composition of Israel’s government.

His inability to cast a ballot did not diminish his involvement in the election campaign.

In the days leading up to Tuesday’s vote, Rav Moshe Hillel issued repeated appeals urging the chareidi public to support United Torah Judaism, particularly amid concerns that smaller breakaway chareidi parties could divert votes from the established party and jeopardize its Knesset representation.

On Monday, the eve of the election, Rav Moshe Hillel addressed a gathering in Modiin Illit, calling upon those who had established alternative chareidi political lists to reconsider their actions and encourage their supporters to vote for UTJ.

He also appealed to individuals who had previously refrained from voting for religious reasons, declaring that the circumstances of the current election required their participation.

In a separate English-language message released ahead of Election Day, Rav Moshe Hillel directly addressed English-speaking chareidim living in Eretz Yisroel, urging those eligible to vote to support United Torah Judaism.

As Election Day progressed and reports emerged of exceptionally high turnout in Arab communities and areas associated with the political opposition, the rosh yeshiva issued another urgent appeal warning of the consequences if chareidi voters failed to participate.

His public involvement came as UTJ officials expressed mounting concern that unusually high nationwide turnout, coupled with weaker participation in certain chareidi strongholds, could threaten the party’s seventh Knesset seat.

Rav Moshe Hillel’s American citizenship has also figured in previous election-related activity. During the 2024 United States presidential election, he was among the rabbonim who encouraged eligible American citizens residing in Eretz Yisroel to participate in the American electoral process.

{Matzav.com}

Israel’s Central Elections Committee announced Tuesday evening that ballot slips containing certain defects or irregularities must still be counted if election officials can clearly determine the voter’s intended choice, issuing the clarification as the country tallies the votes in the election for the 26th Knesset.

The decision establishes that an imperfection on a ballot does not, by itself, justify excluding it from the final election results. Instead, election workers must examine whether the ballot sufficiently identifies the political party selected by the voter, even when the slip is damaged or otherwise defective.

The committee issued the guidance to prevent legitimate votes from being discarded over technical issues that do not interfere with identifying the voter’s preference. The clarification places particular emphasis on preserving the intent of the voter rather than automatically invalidating ballots because of minor irregularities.

Explaining the standard that election officials must apply, the committee stated: “The general rule is to allow the voter’s ballot to be included in the results, and only if it cannot be deemed valid should it be disqualified.”

Under the directive, the discovery of a defect requires election officials to assess the ballot’s validity rather than immediately reject it. If the party chosen by the voter remains unmistakable, the defect alone is not sufficient reason to disqualify the vote.

The clarification comes amid reports of ballot irregularities at polling stations around Israel, including allegations that voting slips belonging to certain political parties had been damaged, removed, or deliberately altered.

Several parties, including those led by Gadi Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett, Ofer Winter, Avigdor Lieberman, and Yoaz Hendel, submitted complaints concerning missing or defaced ballot slips. Some reported that small tears had been made along the edges of their parties’ voting slips, raising concerns that ballots cast using those papers might be rejected during the count.

The Central Elections Committee responded that it had found no evidence of a coordinated nationwide effort to tamper with ballots. Officials said individual complaints were being investigated as they arose and cautioned against accepting unverified claims circulating on social media.

In additional guidance issued Tuesday, the committee explained that voters should use officially approved ballot slips without adding writing, drawings, signatures, markings, or other identifying features. A mark capable of revealing a voter’s identity can invalidate a ballot even when the selected party is identifiable.

The committee also clarified the rules governing envelopes containing multiple slips. When two or three identical ballots for the same party are discovered in one envelope, the vote remains valid but is counted only once. However, an envelope containing four or more slips, or slips representing different parties, is disqualified.

Voters who discover that their preferred party’s printed ballots are unavailable may request a blank white slip from election officials. To cast a valid vote using that slip, they must write the party’s approved electoral letters in blue ink, either alone or together with the party’s official name. A completely blank slip, or one bearing only a party name without its electoral letters, is invalid.

Another clarification concerns ballot slips displaying the correct electoral letters alongside an incorrect party designation. In such circumstances, the committee said the vote may still be accepted on the basis of the approved letters identifying the intended party.

Election officials further advised voters who encounter torn, marked, dirty, or otherwise damaged slips inside polling booths to request replacements rather than risk using questionable ballots.

The distinction between a ballot that is merely damaged and one that is legally invalid is particularly important because Israel’s election rules are designed both to preserve the secrecy of voting and to ensure that ballots accurately reflect voters’ choices.

The committee emphasized that disputed ballots are evaluated during the official counting process under the applicable election laws and regulations. Decisions to invalidate votes must be documented, rather than based on sweeping assumptions about particular types of damage.

The issue carries added significance in an election in which relatively small differences in vote totals could affect the allocation of Knesset seats. Israel’s proportional representation system distributes the 120 parliamentary seats among qualifying parties, making the number of valid ballots an important factor in determining the final results.

During the previous Knesset election in November 2022, 29,851 ballots were disqualified, representing approximately 0.63% of all votes cast. Although that was a relatively small share of the electorate, the number was substantial enough to illustrate the potential consequences of invalid ballots in a closely contested election.

The committee’s latest announcement seeks to ensure that technical irregularities do not unnecessarily deprive voters of representation while maintaining safeguards against improper ballots and violations of election procedures.

As polling stations prepare to complete their work and begin counting ballots, election officials will be required to distinguish between imperfections that do not compromise a vote and defects that render it invalid under Israeli election law.

The committee’s central message is that a questionable ballot should not automatically be discarded. Its validity must be determined through the established legal process, with the voter’s clearly expressed choice preserved whenever the law permits.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu issued an urgent warning to Israel’s chareidi community Tuesday evening, declaring that a change of government could unleash unprecedented persecution of chareidi Jews and pose a serious threat to the Torah world.

In a special video message directed to readers of the Israeli chareidi news outlet B’Chadrei Chareidim, Netanyahu warned that an opposition-led government supported by Mansour Abbas and his Ra’am party could dramatically alter the relationship between the Israeli government and the chareidi community.

The prime minister delivered the message just hours before polling stations were scheduled to close at 10 p.m., amid unusually high nationwide voter turnout and growing concern within the right-wing and chareidi parties over participation rates in Arab communities and traditional opposition strongholds.

Netanyahu framed the election as a decisive moment for the future of the country’s Jewish character and its yeshivos, warning that the consequences of a change in government could extend far beyond ordinary political disagreements.

“I have a message for all the readers of B’Chadrei Chareidim: Go vote now for your parties. Don’t stay home,” Netanyahu said at the beginning of his remarks.

The prime minister pointed to reports of heavy voter participation in Arab communities as evidence of the urgency facing the right-wing bloc.

“Have you seen the enormous lines at the Arab parties?” he asked.

Netanyahu then warned of what he described as the consequences of an opposition victory, specifically invoking the possibility of a government dependent on Mansour Abbas and Ra’am, the Arab political party that previously participated in Israel’s governing coalition.

“If we wake up tomorrow morning to a left-wing government, Mansour Abbas and the Muslim Brotherhood, this is what will happen,” Netanyahu said.

He followed that warning with one of his strongest statements of the campaign regarding the future of the chareidi community.

“You cannot imagine what will happen here. There will be persecution of chareidim the likes of which has never been seen before,” Netanyahu declared.

The prime minister did not identify specific legislation or government measures that would constitute such persecution, instead presenting his warning as a broader assessment of the policies that could emerge under an opposition-led coalition.

Netanyahu contrasted that scenario with the continuation of a government led by himself and his existing political partners, arguing that such an administration would be able to address outstanding problems while preserving Israel’s Jewish identity.

His comments came amid an election campaign in which the status of yeshiva bochurim, the military draft controversy, and the relationship between the government and the chareidi community have featured prominently.

For many chareidi voters, the draft issue has become a central political concern, particularly following the ongoing disputes over exemptions for full-time yeshiva students and the government’s handling of the legal challenges surrounding their status.

Netanyahu’s message sought to place those concerns within the broader context of the election, arguing that the composition of the next government would have profound implications for the future of Torah institutions and the chareidi way of life.

The prime minister also addressed voters who might be staying home because of frustration or disappointment with the political leadership, challenging them to reconsider their decision before the polls closed.

“What are you waiting for? Why are you staying home? Why are you sitting on the couch?” Netanyahu asked.

Toward the conclusion of his message, Netanyahu specifically criticized Mansour Abbas, Yair Golan, and Avigdor Lieberman, portraying their potential influence in a future government as a threat to the chareidi community.

“The fate of the Jewish state is in your hands, and you can save, save the Torah world,” Netanyahu declared.

The special appeal was part of a broader series of videos, interviews, and public statements issued by Netanyahu throughout Election Day as he sought to address concerns over turnout among traditional supporters of his political bloc.

In a separate interview Tuesday with Kol Barama radio, Netanyahu described the situation as an emergency and said he feared for the future of both Israel’s Jewish identity and the Torah world. He also criticized support for smaller parties that might fail to cross the electoral threshold, arguing that votes cast for such lists could be excluded from the allocation of Knesset seats.

The prime minister’s latest warnings also follow his comments last week concerning the arrests of chareidi draft-age men. In an October 20 interview, Netanyahu described those arrests as unacceptable and reiterated his commitment to pursuing legislation addressing the military service status of yeshiva students. At the same time, he maintained that chareidi men who are not engaged in Torah study should serve in the military.

The draft controversy has remained a major source of tension between Netanyahu and his chareidi coalition partners, with disagreements over proposed legislation, enforcement measures, and the future status of full-time yeshiva students.

Tuesday’s election has added another dimension to those disputes, as chareidi political leaders confront questions about voter participation and the potential impact of competing political lists.

Netanyahu’s decision to address B’Chadrei Chareidim readers directly reflected the importance he placed on chareidi voter participation in the closing hours of the campaign.

His warning of unprecedented persecution was a political prediction rather than an announced policy of any prospective opposition government. Nevertheless, the message illustrated the central role that concerns about the future of the yeshiva world have assumed in the final stages of the election.

With the polls scheduled to close at 10 p.m., Netanyahu’s remarks represented one of his most explicit appeals to the chareidi community, casting the election as a consequential decision for the future relationship between the Israeli government and the Torah world.

Israeli police detained a knife-carrying man near opposition politician Yair Golan during an election-day appearance in Tel Aviv on Tuesday, triggering accusations of an attempted political assassination before police clarified that no attack had taken place.

The incident occurred at Tel Aviv’s Railway Park, where Golan, chairman of the Democrats party, was making a public appearance as Israelis headed to the polls in a closely contested Knesset election.

According to police, officers stationed in the area noticed a suspicious object concealed beneath the clothing of a man who was near the political gathering.

The officers approached the individual, stopped him and discovered that he was carrying a large knife.

The suspect was immediately detained and taken for questioning.

Golan’s party initially described the incident as an attempted stabbing, claiming that security personnel had prevented an attack against the opposition leader.

The allegation quickly attracted attention amid the heightened political tensions surrounding the election.

However, Israel Police subsequently issued a clarification disputing the party’s characterization of what had occurred.

According to police, the suspect had not attempted to stab Golan or anyone else, and there was no evidence at that stage that an attack had been initiated.

Officers said the man was detained after they noticed the suspicious object under his clothing, rather than in response to an attempted assault.

The suspect was identified as a Jerusalem resident in his twenties who was reportedly known to authorities from previous incidents involving weapons.

Police did not immediately disclose why he was carrying the knife or whether he had any intention of approaching Golan.

Investigators were examining the circumstances surrounding his presence at the location and whether there was any connection between the weapon and the political event.

The incident occurred during a particularly sensitive election, with political leaders from across Israel making appearances at polling stations and campaign gatherings throughout the day.

Security arrangements have been heightened around prominent political figures amid concerns about possible violence and the increasingly confrontational atmosphere surrounding the campaign.

Golan, a former IDF deputy chief of staff, has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government.

As chairman of the Democrats party, Golan has campaigned against the current governing coalition and called for a change in Israel’s political leadership.

The reported knife incident came as parties across the political spectrum intensified their efforts to mobilize voters before polling stations closed.

The Democrats party’s initial description of the incident as an assassination attempt was not supported by the police account, which emphasized that no stabbing had occurred.

Authorities also did not announce evidence establishing that the suspect had intended to harm Golan.

The distinction is significant because the discovery of a weapon near a political figure does not, by itself, establish an attempted assassination.

Police are continuing to investigate the suspect’s intentions and the circumstances surrounding his detention.

No injuries were reported, and Golan was not harmed.

Flávio Bolsonaro, the Brazilian senator who narrowly lost Sunday’s presidential election to incumbent President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has left Brazil for the United States despite a Supreme Court order prohibiting him from traveling abroad, setting off a major political and legal confrontation just two days after the election.

Bolsonaro’s departure was confirmed Tuesday by a close political ally and a U.S. government source, according to Reuters, following hours of uncertainty over his whereabouts and reports that he had failed to comply with a court-imposed deadline to surrender his passports to Brazilian federal authorities.

The 45-year-old senator, the eldest son of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, reportedly traveled to the United States after losing Sunday’s presidential runoff by approximately 4.4 million votes. His departure comes as he faces multiple criminal investigations involving allegations of money laundering, corruption, and financial misconduct, all of which he has denied.

Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered Bolsonaro to surrender his regular and diplomatic passports within 24 hours and prohibited him from leaving the country. The order was issued in connection with an investigation into alleged money laundering involving online gambling operations.

The deadline expired Tuesday without Bolsonaro surrendering the documents, according to Brazilian media reports. Authorities subsequently invalidated his Brazilian travel documents, while questions mounted about how he had managed to leave the country despite the travel restriction.

A senior Brazilian Federal Police official told Reuters that Bolsonaro had not departed through a regular immigration checkpoint, raising additional questions about the circumstances surrounding his exit.

CNN reported that a U.S. official confirmed Bolsonaro was traveling to Florida. Brazilian media outlets, citing individuals close to the Bolsonaro family, reported that he was expected to seek political asylum in the United States.

However, no official confirmation had emerged that Bolsonaro had submitted an asylum application or that the Trump administration had agreed to grant him asylum.

The developments were particularly striking because Bolsonaro had publicly denied any intention of leaving Brazil just one day earlier.

In a video released Monday after receiving the Supreme Court order, Bolsonaro insisted that he intended to remain in the country and organize political opposition to Lula’s incoming administration.

“My place is alongside the Brazilian people, facing the country’s challenges,” Bolsonaro declared.

He also pledged to comply with the judicial directive while challenging the allegations against him.

“I will hand over my passports and defend myself against this farce, which is a clear attempt to intimidate me,” he said.

By Tuesday, however, Bolsonaro could not be located by Brazilian journalists, and his legal representatives had not provided an explanation for his whereabouts.

Reports initially suggested that he had traveled to neighboring Argentina before continuing to the United States. Argentine authorities subsequently stated that they had no record of Bolsonaro entering the country.

Officials in Argentina also investigated reports involving a private aircraft at Puerto Iguazú International Airport, near the country’s border with Brazil and Paraguay.

Following an inspection of the aircraft and its crew, Argentine authorities said the documentation was in order and that no flight plan involving members of the Bolsonaro family had been submitted.

The mystery surrounding his movements deepened as Brazilian media reported that even some of his political associates had been unable to contact him.

Later Tuesday, however, individuals close to Bolsonaro confirmed to several news organizations that he had departed for the United States.

The departure has prompted demands for stronger action from lawmakers belonging to Lula’s Workers’ Party. According to Brazilian media reports, party legislators asked the Supreme Court to order Bolsonaro’s arrest and sought an international Interpol Red Notice.

Bolsonaro’s legal troubles extend beyond the immediate controversy over his departure.

One Supreme Court investigation concerns allegations that financial transactions connected to online betting companies were used to launder money. The inquiry also involves attorney Willer Tomaz, an associate of Bolsonaro.

Both men have denied wrongdoing.

A separate investigation concerns allegations involving millions of dollars allegedly obtained from a banker and potentially connected to efforts to finance political activities and a film about Jair Bolsonaro.

Bolsonaro has rejected the accusations, portraying the investigations as politically motivated.

The legal confrontation intensified immediately after Sunday’s presidential election, in which Lula secured reelection following a closely contested runoff.

According to the election results, Lula received more than 64 million votes, while Bolsonaro received fewer than 60 million, giving the incumbent a victory margin of approximately four percentage points.

Bolsonaro had finished ahead in the first round of voting on October 4, making his subsequent defeat particularly surprising to his supporters.

Following Sunday’s result, Bolsonaro declined to formally concede defeat and alleged irregularities in the voting process.

He initially indicated that he would seek to have the election results annulled, citing alleged problems at polling locations and a decision by election authorities to extend voting hours in certain areas.

He subsequently called for the electoral authorities to investigate alleged misconduct and consider disqualifying Lula and Vice President Geraldo Alckmin.

Brazil’s electoral authorities have not established that the alleged irregularities affected the outcome, and Bolsonaro has not presented publicly verified evidence sufficient to overturn the result.

His Liberal Party, meanwhile, acknowledged Lula’s victory on Monday, creating a distinction between the party’s official position and Bolsonaro’s continued refusal to formally concede.

The unfolding controversy has drawn comparisons to the events surrounding the defeat of Bolsonaro’s father, Jair Bolsonaro, in the 2022 presidential election.

After losing that election to Lula, Jair Bolsonaro also traveled to the United States, declining to acknowledge the result before eventually returning to Brazil.

He was subsequently convicted in connection with an attempted coup following his election defeat and sentenced to 27 years in prison.

The elder Bolsonaro is currently under house arrest in Brasília.

Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who ordered Flávio Bolsonaro to surrender his passports, also played a central role in the judicial proceedings involving his father.

The Bolsonaro family has repeatedly accused Moraes and other Brazilian judicial authorities of politically motivated actions, while Brazilian courts have maintained that their proceedings are based on criminal investigations and the enforcement of the country’s laws.

The controversy also threatens to complicate relations between Brazil and the United States.

President Donald Trump’s administration has previously criticized the treatment of Jair Bolsonaro, portraying aspects of the judicial proceedings against him as political persecution.

Individuals close to Flávio Bolsonaro told Brazilian media that the Trump administration had been informed of his departure and that arrangements were being made for his arrival in the United States.

Those claims had not been independently confirmed by the White House or the State Department as of Tuesday afternoon.

The U.S. Embassy in Brazil also did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The question of whether Bolsonaro will seek political asylum could become particularly consequential if Brazilian authorities pursue criminal proceedings related to his departure or request his return.

An asylum application would require consideration under U.S. immigration law, and any attempt to extradite him would raise separate legal questions.

Bolsonaro’s brother Eduardo, who resides in the United States, had publicly suggested before the election that Flávio should leave Brazil if he lost the presidency.

“If my brother does not win, I’m in favor that he would leave the country,” Eduardo said during an interview earlier this month.

Justice Moraes cited concerns about the possibility of Bolsonaro leaving Brazil when issuing the passport order.

The senator’s political future is also uncertain. His eight-year term in Brazil’s Senate is scheduled to expire on January 31, 2027, potentially affecting the special judicial jurisdiction applicable to his legal cases.

For now, the immediate questions concern how Bolsonaro managed to leave Brazil despite a judicial prohibition, whether he intends to remain in the United States, and how Brazilian authorities will respond.

His departure has transformed the aftermath of Sunday’s presidential election into a widening international controversy, with Brazil’s defeated presidential candidate reportedly heading to the United States while facing criminal investigations and a direct confrontation with his country’s highest court.

Israel’s Shin Bet security agency has reportedly ordered heightened protection for all government ministers amid growing concerns over a possible escalation with Iran, introducing additional security precautions on Tuesday as Israelis went to the polls in a closely contested national election.

The directive, reported by Israel’s Channel 12, comes against the backdrop of heightened tensions between Israel and Iran and continuing uncertainty over the possibility of renewed military action in the region.

According to the report, the Shin Bet instructed that security arrangements surrounding government ministers be strengthened in light of the current threat environment.

The precise nature of the additional protective measures was not disclosed, and officials did not publicly identify a specific plot targeting any individual minister.

The move is nevertheless significant because of the timing, with senior Israeli political figures making public appearances throughout election day, including visits to polling stations, campaign headquarters and other locations where large crowds have gathered.

The Shin Bet is responsible for protecting Israel’s senior political leadership and regularly adjusts security arrangements based on intelligence assessments and changing threats.

The latest directive suggests that Israeli security officials are taking additional precautions as regional tensions remain elevated.

The security decision follows several days of reports concerning possible military action involving Iran, including accounts of disagreements within Israel’s political and military leadership over the risks of operations that could provoke a broader confrontation.

Channel 12 previously reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir had disagreed over an undisclosed operation related to Iran. According to that report, Zamir sought a detailed discussion and formal authorization before proceeding with instructions that military officials feared could lead to escalation.

Netanyahu rejected the suggestion that there was a confrontation with the military leadership, while Defense Minister Israel Katz denied that Israel intended to initiate an attack against Iran before the election.

The dispute nevertheless highlighted the sensitivity of the current security situation, with Israel’s military establishment weighing the possibility that a limited operation could develop into a larger conflict.

Israel has previously increased protection for senior officials during periods of confrontation with Iran, amid concerns about Iranian retaliation and possible assassination attempts.

In March, following military operations against Iran, Israeli authorities strengthened security around senior government figures and introduced additional precautions concerning their movements and communications.

The latest instruction appears to represent another adjustment to those protective arrangements in response to the current threat assessment.

Separately, Israeli security officials have been preparing for potential attempts by hostile actors to interfere with the election. Earlier this month, the heads of the IDF, Israel Police and Shin Bet held a joint security assessment focused on ensuring that voting could proceed safely.

Shin Bet Director David Zini has also previously warned of Iranian efforts to interfere in Israel’s political process, although no connection has been established between those concerns and Tuesday’s decision to increase protection for ministers.

The latest report did not indicate that an Iranian attack was imminent or that intelligence agencies had uncovered a specific assassination plot.

Nor did it establish that Israel had decided to launch a new military operation against Iran.

For now, the directive reflects a heightened level of caution among Israeli security officials as the country navigates a sensitive election and continuing regional tensions.

With the next government’s composition still uncertain and the possibility of renewed confrontation with Iran remaining a major security concern, Israeli authorities are maintaining increased vigilance around the country’s senior political leadership.

Israel’s election-night exit polls have produced sharply conflicting projections for the next Knesset, with Channel 14 placing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s right-wing and chareidi bloc at 60 seats, just one short of a parliamentary majority, while Kan 11, Channel 12, and Channel 13 each project only 50 seats for the bloc.

The disagreement has particular significance for United Torah Judaism, whose seventh Knesset seat remains uncertain. Kan 11 and Channel 12 project six seats for UTJ, while Channel 13 and Channel 14 give the party seven, leaving its final representation dependent on the official count.

The differences among the television networks extend well beyond UTJ. Channel 14 projects Likud winning 30 seats, compared with 24 or 25 on the three other major networks. Meanwhile, Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar party is projected to receive between 19 and 23 seats, and Naftali Bennett’s B’Yachad party between 11 and 14.

The latest available exit-poll comparisons show the following projected parliamentary distribution:

Party Kan 11 Ch. 12 Ch. 13 Ch. 14 Likud 25 24 25 30 Yashar 21 22 23 19 B’Yachad 14 12 14 11 United Torah Judaism 6 6 7 7 Shas 6 8 6 9 Otzma Yehudit 7 6 6 7 Religious Zionism–Zehut 6 6 6 7 Democrats 10 9 9 9 Yisrael Beytenu 8 9 7 — Joint Arab List 10 11 10 10 Ra’am 7 7 7 7 Netanyahu bloc 50 50 50 60

Channel 14’s reported individual party figures contain an inconsistency involving Yisrael Beytenu. Its published bloc totals are 60 for Netanyahu, 43 for the principal opposition, and 17 for the Arab parties, but one published party breakdown does not reconcile with those totals. The discrepancy has not been resolved, and no figure for Yisrael Beytenu is included in that column.

Two additional networks released exit polls. i24NEWS projected 55 seats for Netanyahu’s bloc, while Channel 16 projected 53. Both placed the Arab parties at a combined 16 seats. These results fall between Channel 14’s substantially more favorable projection for Netanyahu and the 50-seat estimates issued by the three other major networks.

For the chareidi parties, the exit polls point to a potentially significant reduction in parliamentary representation. United Torah Judaism and Shas entered the election holding a combined 18 seats, but their projected totals range from 12 seats on Kan 11 to 16 on Channel 14.

The projected decline is particularly pronounced for Shas, which won 11 seats in 2022. Kan 11 and Channel 13 each project six seats for Aryeh Deri’s party, while Channel 12 gives it eight and Channel 14 nine.

United Torah Judaism’s situation is somewhat different. The party is projected to lose either one seat or none, depending on which exit poll proves closest to the final result.

UTJ officials had spent Election Day expressing concern over unusually high voter turnout across the country, particularly in Arab communities and traditional opposition strongholds. They also faced competition from smaller chareidi political lists that sought support from voters dissatisfied with the established chareidi parties.

Those smaller lists are not projected to cross the electoral threshold in the major exit polls, although votes cast for parties that fail to qualify for the Knesset could still influence the allocation of seats among the successful parties.

The election was marked by exceptionally high participation. By 8 p.m., 74.3% of eligible Israelis had voted, surpassing the final turnout recorded in the previous Knesset election.

The high turnout also increased the number of votes needed to cross the 3.25% electoral threshold, creating additional uncertainty for smaller parties and affecting calculations of how many votes established parties would need to maintain their representation.

For Netanyahu, the gap between the television projections is substantial. Channel 14’s 60-seat estimate places his bloc within one seat of a parliamentary majority, while the other major networks show it considerably further away.

The opposition parties led by Eisenkot, Bennett, Lieberman, and Yair Golan also fall short of a majority in the projections. The Arab parties, which are expected to control between 16 and 18 seats, could become an important factor in the subsequent coalition discussions, although the political disagreements among the parties complicate any potential governing arrangement.

The official vote count will now determine which of the competing projections more closely reflects the electorate’s decision.

Israel’s Central Elections Committee has begun the process of tabulating ballots, but its publicly accessible results page was still indicating that the count was pending when checked for this update. The exit polls therefore remain the principal available indication of the election’s outcome.

Additional ballots, including those cast by soldiers and other voters using special double envelopes, will be counted separately, and the final allocation of Knesset seats may change as those votes are included.

For United Torah Judaism, the immediate question remains whether it has secured enough votes to retain its seventh seat. With two major networks projecting six mandates and two others projecting seven, that issue remains unresolved.

The broader picture is equally uncertain. The exit polls agree that Likud remains Israel’s largest individual party, but they differ sharply over Netanyahu’s overall parliamentary strength and the size of the chareidi factions.

Until the actual ballots are counted, neither the fate of UTJ’s seventh seat nor the composition of Israel’s next governing coalition can be established.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli police arrested three suspects in the Negev on Tuesday in connection with an alleged election bribery operation, seizing tens of thousands of shekels in cash amid suspicions that the money was intended to purchase votes for the Arab Ra’am party in Israel’s Knesset election.

The arrests followed an investigation by the Southern District Police’s central investigative unit into suspected attempts to influence voters through illegal cash payments.

According to police, the suspects, residents of Bedouin communities in southern Israel, were apprehended during an operation carried out overnight Monday into Tuesday, as voting began across the country.

Investigators searched locations associated with the suspects and discovered envelopes containing substantial amounts of cash, along with materials believed to be connected to election activity.

Police said the money was suspected of being earmarked for distribution to voters in exchange for their support at the ballot box.

The suspects were taken into custody for questioning, with investigators examining the source of the funds, the intended recipients and whether additional individuals were involved in the alleged scheme.

The investigation focused on communities in the vicinity of Segev Shalom and Arara in the Negev, where police suspected efforts were underway to influence voting through financial inducements.

The arrests came as Israeli authorities maintained heightened vigilance over potential election offenses, including bribery, intimidation and attempts to interfere with the voting process.

The investigation was being handled by the Southern District Fraud Unit, which was expected to bring the three suspects before a judge Tuesday and request extensions of their detention.

Police said the operation was part of a broader effort to safeguard the integrity of the election and prevent individuals or organized groups from illegally influencing voters.

The case quickly became a political controversy after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly addressed the arrests, describing the discovery of cash and Ra’am voting materials as a serious election-day incident.

Netanyahu called for a thorough investigation and urged authorities to ensure that the election was conducted fairly.

Ra’am, headed by Mansour Abbas, rejected the implications of the police operation and filed a formal complaint with the Central Elections Committee.

The party claimed that its activists had been singled out for enforcement action without sufficient justification and accused political opponents of attempting to damage its electoral prospects.

Ra’am also reported separate incidents involving missing or damaged party voting slips in Arab communities, including Nazareth and Shefa-Amr.

Party representatives alleged that the arrests and voting-slip complaints were part of an effort to suppress support for Ra’am, which was seeking to strengthen its representation in the next Knesset.

Those allegations have not been independently substantiated, and police have not announced evidence linking the suspected bribery operation to Ra’am’s national leadership.

The controversy comes amid unusually high voter turnout across Israel, including significant participation in Arab communities, where political parties have intensified their efforts to bring supporters to polling stations.

Ra’am is considered a potentially important player in post-election coalition negotiations, particularly if neither the right-wing bloc nor the opposition secures a clear parliamentary majority.

Israeli election law prohibits offering money, gifts or other benefits in exchange for votes, with such conduct treated as a criminal offense because of its potential to compromise the independence of the electoral process.

Investigators are now seeking to determine whether the seized cash was actually intended for vote-buying, whether any money had already been distributed and whether other individuals were involved.

As of Tuesday afternoon, the three suspects remained under investigation. No convictions had been reported, and authorities had not established that voters had actually received payments or changed their votes.

The arrests nevertheless added another controversy to an already contentious election day, with police pledging to pursue suspected electoral offenses regardless of the political affiliation of those involved.

Israel’s first election exit polls Tuesday night projected that United Torah Judaism would retain seven seats in the 26th Knesset, while Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s right-wing and chareidi bloc would fall short of the 61 seats required to form a government.

The initial Channel 13 exit poll, released following the closing of polling stations at 10 p.m., gave United Torah Judaism seven mandates, matching its representation in the outgoing Knesset. The projection came after a tense Election Day during which party officials repeatedly warned that record voter turnout and competition from alternative chareidi lists could threaten the faction’s seventh seat.

The same exit poll projected 50 seats for Netanyahu’s bloc, compared with 53 for the opposition parties associated with Gadi Eisenkot. The two Arab parties were projected to win a combined 17 seats, leaving neither of the principal political blocs with an outright parliamentary majority.

According to Channel 13’s initial projection, Likud emerged as the largest individual party with 25 seats, followed closely by Eisenkot’s Yashar party with 23.

The complete Channel 13 exit poll projected the following distribution of the Knesset’s 120 seats:

Political party Projected seats Likud — Binyamin Netanyahu 25 Yashar — Gadi Eisenkot 23 B’Yachad — Naftali Bennett 14 Joint Arab List 10 Democrats — Yair Golan 9 United Torah Judaism 7 Shas — Aryeh Deri 6 Ra’am — Mansour Abbas 7 Yisrael Beytenu — Avigdor Lieberman 7 Otzma Yehudit — Itamar Ben Gvir 6 Religious Zionism–Zehut — Bezalel Smotrich 6 Total 120

The projections would leave Netanyahu’s bloc with 50 seats, including Likud, Shas, United Torah Judaism, Otzma Yehudit, and Religious Zionism–Zehut. The four principal opposition parties would collectively hold 53 seats, with the Arab parties accounting for the remaining 17.

For United Torah Judaism, the projection represents an important development following concerns throughout the day that unusually high participation elsewhere in the country could increase the number of votes needed to maintain its existing parliamentary strength.

In the 2022 election, UTJ received 280,194 votes and secured seven seats. Political estimates circulating Tuesday suggested that the party might require approximately 314,000 votes to retain that representation if nationwide turnout reached unusually high levels.

The Channel 13 exit poll indicates that UTJ may have retained its seventh mandate despite those concerns. However, the projection remains preliminary, and the final allocation will depend on the official count, including special double-envelope ballots.

Shas, meanwhile, was projected to receive six seats in the Channel 13 poll, compared with the 11 seats it won in the 2022 election. Such a result, if confirmed, would represent a substantial reduction in the party’s parliamentary representation.

The Channel 13 projection also showed that the smaller parties Amcha Yisrael and the Reservists–Economic Party had failed to cross the 3.25% electoral threshold. Their exclusion would affect the distribution of Knesset seats among the parties that qualified for representation.

The projections also illustrate how the record voter turnout has affected the political landscape. By 8 p.m., 74.3% of eligible Israelis had already voted, surpassing the final participation rate in the 2022 election.

The high turnout prompted intense concern among chareidi political leaders throughout the day, with activists from Shas and United Torah Judaism conducting extensive last-minute voter mobilization efforts.

Prime Minister Netanyahu also issued a special appeal to chareidi voters Tuesday evening, warning that a government supported by Mansour Abbas and Ra’am could have serious consequences for the yeshiva world.

The initial exit poll does not resolve the question of who will form Israel’s next government. Although the opposition parties associated with Eisenkot are projected to hold more seats than Netanyahu’s bloc, neither grouping reaches the 61-seat majority required to govern independently.

The Arab parties, projected to control 17 seats, could therefore become an important factor in the political negotiations that follow the election.

The Channel 13 results also represent a significant change from the final pre-election surveys, particularly for Likud, which was projected to receive 19 seats in the network’s October 23 poll but 25 in Tuesday night’s exit poll.

For UTJ, the difference is smaller but politically significant. Channel 13’s final pre-election survey had projected eight seats for the party, while its election-night exit poll reduced that figure to seven.

Other television networks, including Channels 11, 12, and 14, also released exit polls Tuesday night. Their complete party-by-party election-night projections were not yet independently verified in the information available for this report, so the figures above reflect the confirmed Channel 13 projection rather than a composite of the networks.

The official vote count is now underway, with preliminary results expected to emerge throughout the night. Additional ballots, including those cast by soldiers and other voters using special double envelopes, will be counted separately.

The final allocation of seats could change as those votes are included, particularly for parties whose projected totals are close to the threshold for an additional mandate.

For United Torah Judaism, the immediate election-night projection is seven seats, but the party’s final representation will not be established until the Central Elections Committee completes the count.

Israel recorded its highest Election Day turnout in decades Tuesday, with more than 5.4 million voters casting ballots by 8 p.m., as political parties scrambled to mobilize remaining supporters and the Central Elections Committee rejected a request to extend voting hours beyond the scheduled 10 p.m. closing time.

According to figures released by the Central Elections Committee, 74.3% of eligible voters, representing 5,449,277 Israelis, had participated by 8 p.m. The figure was the highest recorded at that hour since 1988 and reflected an extraordinary level of voter participation in the election for Israel’s 26th Knesset.

The turnout represented an increase of 8.3 percentage points over the corresponding hour in the November 2022 election, when 66% of eligible voters had cast their ballots. It also exceeded the final turnout of 70.63% recorded in that election, even with two hours of voting still remaining.

Although the pace of voting slowed somewhat during the evening, the unusually high participation intensified concerns among political parties about the final distribution of Knesset seats, particularly as the number of votes required to cross the electoral threshold continued to rise.

The surge in turnout also prompted an unusual dispute over whether polling stations should remain open beyond their scheduled closing time.

Likud formally petitioned Central Elections Committee chairman Justice Noam Sohlberg to extend voting hours, arguing that lengthy lines at polling stations were preventing some Israelis from exercising their right to vote.

Shas and Otzma Yehudit joined the request, while the Yashar party, headed by Gadi Eisenkot, opposed the proposed extension.

After considering the matter, the leadership of the Central Elections Committee rejected the appeal, determining that high turnout and long lines did not justify a nationwide extension of voting hours.

The committee emphasized, however, that voters who were already waiting in line before the official 10 p.m. deadline would be permitted to cast their ballots even if the voting process continued beyond that hour.

An individual exception was granted in Chevron, where voting hours were extended until 10 p.m. following an electricity outage that disrupted operations at a polling station.

Meanwhile, chareidi political organizations intensified their efforts to bring supporters to the polls, with Shas and United Torah Judaism activists issuing increasingly urgent appeals throughout the evening.

Party leaders had expressed concern earlier in the day that voter complacency in traditional chareidi strongholds could result in lost parliamentary representation, particularly as turnout climbed in Arab communities and areas associated with Israel’s center-left parties.

Videos circulating Tuesday evening showed activists making dramatic appeals to residents, including cries of “Gevald” and the sounding of shofars in an effort to draw attention to the approaching voting deadline.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu also intervened personally, recording a special message for readers of the chareidi news outlet B’Chadrei Chareidim in which he warned that a change of government could have serious consequences for the chareidi community and the yeshiva world.

Netanyahu cautioned against the possibility of an opposition-led government supported by Mansour Abbas and his Ra’am party, arguing that such a coalition could fundamentally alter government policy toward the chareidi population.

“There will be persecution of chareidim the likes of which has never been seen before,” Netanyahu warned.

The prime minister’s remarks were part of a series of Election Day messages in which he expressed concern over voter participation in Arab communities and urged supporters of the right-wing bloc to take part in the election.

Netanyahu also criticized voters who were considering staying home because of dissatisfaction with the political situation, portraying the election as consequential for the future of the country’s Jewish character and the institutions of the Torah world.

Attention has also turned to the smaller political parties competing near Israel’s 3.25% electoral threshold. Because the threshold is calculated as a percentage of valid votes, the exceptionally high turnout increases the absolute number of ballots needed for a party to enter the Knesset.

Political pollster Shlomo Filber suggested Tuesday evening that the results could contain a surprise involving a party that had not previously been regarded as being in danger of failing to cross the threshold.

Filber did not identify the party or disclose figures from the exit poll, leaving political observers to await the first projections after voting concludes.

The increased participation could also affect the number of votes required for established parties to retain their current parliamentary representation. United Torah Judaism, in particular, has been monitoring the figures closely amid concerns about competing chareidi political lists and dissatisfaction among some traditional supporters.

The nationwide turnout has climbed steadily throughout the day. By 2 p.m., 44.9% of eligible Israelis had voted, rising to 55.7% at 4 p.m. and 66.7% at 6 p.m. By 8 p.m., the figure had reached 74.3%, surpassing the total participation recorded in the previous election.

The country has 7,331,981 eligible voters, with 36 political parties competing for seats in the 120-member Knesset. More than 12,000 regular polling stations were established across Israel, along with special voting arrangements for soldiers, hospital patients, prisoners, and other eligible voters unable to cast ballots at their usual polling locations.

The Central Elections Committee also issued new instructions Tuesday concerning damaged or irregular ballot slips, following complaints about missing, concealed, or defective voting papers at several polling stations.

Under the directive issued by the committee’s leadership, election workers were instructed not to automatically disqualify a ballot simply because it contained a defect. Instead, officials must determine whether the voter’s intended choice can still be clearly identified.

Minor holes, dirt, printing imperfections, and other technical defects do not necessarily invalidate a vote. However, ballots bearing marks that could identify the voter must be evaluated separately under the applicable election regulations.

The clarification was intended to prevent legitimate votes from being discarded over minor irregularities while preserving the legal requirements governing ballot secrecy and election integrity.

Separately, an alleged confrontation involving election activists was reported Tuesday evening in Bat Yam.

Deputy Mayor Kati Piasecki and activists affiliated with the Democrats party claimed they were assaulted while participating in election-related activities near a school in the city.

According to their account, a group of young people directed insults at them, and one individual attempted to physically attack Piasecki. A complaint was subsequently filed with police.

The allegations were reported as authorities continued monitoring election-related incidents across the country.

In southern Israel, severe weather created additional difficulties for some voters, as flooding and road closures disrupted travel in parts of the Arava region.

Closures along Highway 90 and other routes left some residents unable to return home, with several expressing concern that they would not reach their assigned polling stations before voting ended.

Residents of the Neot Hakikar area appealed for accommodations, arguing that circumstances beyond their control were preventing them from exercising their voting rights.

The weather-related disruptions added to the logistical challenges facing election officials during a day already marked by unusually heavy participation and lengthy lines at polling stations.

The first television exit polls were scheduled for release at 10 p.m., immediately after the closing of most polling stations. Israeli television networks were preparing to publish their initial projections of the next Knesset’s composition, although those figures would remain estimates rather than official results.

The actual counting of ballots was expected to begin immediately after voting concluded, with results transmitted to the Central Elections Committee throughout the night.

Election officials cautioned that the final distribution of Knesset seats could remain uncertain even after the first exit polls and preliminary results became available.

One major factor is the counting of special double-envelope ballots, which include votes cast by soldiers, reservists, and other eligible Israelis voting outside their regular polling stations.

An estimated 600,000 to 650,000 such ballots could require separate verification and counting, a process expected to continue over the following days.

Because those votes can affect both the electoral threshold and the distribution of parliamentary seats, closely contested races may remain unresolved until the additional ballots are included.

Election authorities indicated that the count could continue through Thursday and potentially into Friday morning, depending on the volume of ballots requiring verification.

The unusually high turnout has introduced additional uncertainty into an election already characterized by intense competition among the major political blocs and concerns about the fate of smaller parties.

For the chareidi parties, the immediate question is whether their final mobilization efforts will translate into sufficient votes to maintain their parliamentary strength. For the broader political system, attention is focused on how the record participation will affect the balance of power in the next Knesset.

With the voting deadline approaching and millions of ballots already cast, Israel is heading toward the first results of an election marked by exceptional voter participation, last-minute political appeals, and considerable uncertainty over the composition of the country’s next government.

Complaints about missing voting slips for independent chareidi parties surfaced at several Israeli polling stations on Tuesday, prompting accusations of election interference as the country’s closely contested Knesset election entered its final hours.

Supporters of two breakaway chareidi factions reported difficulties locating their parties’ ballot slips, with some alleging that the slips had been deliberately removed from voting booths to prevent supporters from casting their ballots.

The complaints centered on the Chareidi Public Party, headed by Moti Leitner, and Tzeva Shachor, another independent faction seeking to attract voters dissatisfied with the established chareidi parties.

Both parties have campaigned amid growing frustration over the military draft controversy, including the arrests of yeshiva bochurim and the failure of the outgoing government to enact legislation addressing the status of full-time Torah learners.

According to a report carried by Kan, voters in Bnei Brak complained that ballot slips for the Chareidi Public Party were missing from certain polling stations.

One voter described how his wife arrived at a polling station intending to support the party but was unable to find its voting slips among those displayed inside the booth.

She reportedly approached election officials, who subsequently located the missing slips and made them available.

The incident raised concerns among party supporters that voters unfamiliar with election procedures might simply leave without casting their intended ballot if they could not locate the appropriate slip.

Separately, Yaakov Chaim Miller, chairman of Tzeva Shachor, released a video alleging that voting slips bearing his party’s identifying letters, Ner, were disappearing from polling stations.

Miller claimed that the problem was occurring at multiple locations and urged supporters to remain vigilant when entering voting booths.

His allegations added to the already heated atmosphere surrounding the participation of independent chareidi parties in the election.

The allegations were not limited to the two chareidi factions.

Other political parties, including Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar party and the Reservists and Economic Party headed by Yoaz Hendel and Yaron Zelekha, also reported missing or damaged voting slips at polling stations across the country.

Some parties complained that their slips had been marked with pens or otherwise defaced, raising concerns that ballots could be disqualified during the counting process.

In one complaint, Hendel accused Likud of responsibility for efforts to interfere with his party’s vote, although no independent evidence establishing that accusation was presented.

Eisenkot’s party similarly demanded that election officials conduct frequent inspections of voting booths and immediately replace any missing or damaged slips.

The Chareidi Public Party subsequently reported a broader pattern of alleged interference. Civilian election monitors recorded 23 complaints involving 20 polling stations in Yerushalayim, Bnei Brak and Modi’in Illit between 7:56 a.m. and 2:07 p.m.

According to the monitors, entire bundles of the party’s voting slips, bearing the letters Zakh, were either removed or concealed beneath slips belonging to other parties. Some complaints concerned repeated incidents at the same polling station.

The party also alleged that campaign information stands had been vandalized outside polling stations in Bnei Brak, Beit Shemesh and Beitar Illit. Party representatives said complaints had been submitted to police and the Central Elections Committee.

Leitner accused unidentified activists of attempting to intimidate his supporters and interfere with their ability to vote.

The allegations of intimidation and deliberate interference have not been independently established.

Israel’s Central Elections Committee responded to the growing number of complaints by stating that it had found no indication of systematic ballot tampering.

“Contrary to claims circulating online, at this stage there are no indications of systematic damage to ballot slips,” the committee said.

Officials emphasized that individual complaints were being investigated and addressed as they arose, while urging voters to rely on official election information rather than unverified reports circulating on social media.

The committee also issued guidance concerning the validity of ballot slips, explaining that unusual markings can potentially invalidate a vote if they allow the voter to be identified.

However, officials clarified that not every damaged or marked slip is automatically disqualified, and that election authorities may consider the circumstances in determining whether a ballot remains valid.

Voters who discover that their preferred party’s slips are missing are instructed to notify polling-station officials and request replacements before casting their ballots.

The controversy comes amid an exceptionally tense election for Israel’s chareidi parties, with United Torah Judaism and Shas fighting to maintain their parliamentary strength while independent factions attempt to attract dissatisfied voters.

The military draft controversy has played a central role in the campaign, with arrests of yeshiva bochurim and the failure to enact draft legislation fueling criticism of the established political leadership.

Senior Gedolei Yisroel have repeatedly warned against supporting breakaway parties that are unlikely to cross the electoral threshold, arguing that such votes could weaken the Torah community’s representation in the Knesset.

The independent factions, meanwhile, have accused the established parties of attempting to silence opposition and prevent voters from expressing their dissatisfaction at the ballot box.

With turnout reaching unusually high levels nationwide, the complaints added another layer of controversy to an election already marked by intense political and communal divisions.

Election officials have stressed that all voters must be able to cast their ballots freely and that reports of missing or damaged slips should be brought immediately to polling-station personnel.

As voting continued Tuesday, authorities had not established that the reported incidents were part of a coordinated effort to manipulate the election. Nevertheless, the complaints prompted demands for increased oversight and heightened scrutiny of voting procedures in several chareidi population centers.

First Lady Melania Trump announced Tuesday that a ceasefire between Russian and Ukrainian forces had gone into effect earlier than originally planned, establishing a humanitarian corridor intended to protect civilians and permit urgently needed relief supplies to reach Oleshky, a Russian-occupied city in Ukraine’s Kherson region.

The temporary truce began at 4 a.m. Moscow time on October 27, two days ahead of its scheduled implementation, according to the first lady. The agreement also reportedly covers a broader geographic area than initially planned, allowing humanitarian convoys to travel through additional territory.

Melania Trump disclosed the development in a message posted on X, announcing that the arrangement had already taken effect.

“THE CEASEFIRE HAS COMMENCED,” she wrote.

She explained that the earlier start was intended to address urgent humanitarian concerns and reduce the danger facing residents in the affected region.

“The timing was accelerated two days ahead of schedule to protect the safety of civilians and to facilitate the delivery of critical humanitarian aid,” she stated.

The announcement represents a potentially significant humanitarian development in the continuing Russia-Ukraine war, particularly for civilians living in Russian-controlled territory where access to essential supplies and services has been severely disrupted by the fighting.

Oleshky, situated on the eastern bank of the Dnipro River across from the Ukrainian-controlled city of Kherson, has remained under Russian occupation since the early stages of the full-scale invasion in 2022. Its location near the front lines has complicated humanitarian operations and exposed residents to the continuing dangers of the conflict.

According to the first lady, the ceasefire arrangements have been extended beyond Oleshky itself, creating a wider area through which humanitarian vehicles can move. The expanded coverage is intended to reduce the risk to aid workers and civilians as relief deliveries are organized.

Melania Trump also said that General Valery Gerasimov, chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, had confirmed the ceasefire.

However, her announcement did not specify the precise boundaries of the expanded humanitarian zone, the procedures for monitoring compliance, or the arrangements governing the movement of relief convoys. It also did not establish whether Ukrainian authorities had formally confirmed the same terms.

The ceasefire follows an agreement announced by the White House on October 23, when the first lady revealed that she had helped secure a temporary suspension of hostilities after working directly with representatives of both governments. The original arrangement called for the cessation of military activity to begin October 29, with the humanitarian operation proceeding in stages.

The White House said the first lady had served as an intermediary between Moscow and Kyiv, helping coordinate the timing, operational procedures, and conditions necessary for humanitarian workers to enter the city and assist residents who wished to leave.

The scale of the humanitarian emergency is substantial. Before Russia’s invasion in 2022, Oleshky had approximately 24,000 residents. According to White House estimates, only 1,700 to 2,000 people remain, most of them elderly, along with approximately 50 children.

Many of those still living in the city have been unable to evacuate because of ongoing military operations, dangerous roads, landmines, and the threat of drone attacks. Residents have faced severe shortages of food, drinking water, medicine, electricity, and other essential supplies.

The destruction of the Kakhovka Dam in June 2023 compounded the city’s difficulties, flooding large portions of Oleshky and causing extensive damage to homes and infrastructure. The White House estimated that approximately 90% of the city’s territory was affected by flooding.

In announcing the original agreement last week, Melania Trump described the situation as a humanitarian emergency requiring immediate international intervention.

“The situation in Oleshky is dire. Oleshky is a front-line war city on the brink of disaster. Oleshky’s remaining population is comprised primarily of elderly residents who urgently need medical attention, medicine, food, and clean water,” she said.

The first lady explained that the operation would involve civilian representatives from Russia and Ukraine working together to assess the needs of residents and arrange transportation for those seeking evacuation. She also said an independent American media organization would accompany the teams to document the operation and help ensure that residents’ wishes were respected.

Ukrainian human rights commissioner Dmytro Lubinets confirmed Tuesday that the ceasefire had begun at 3 a.m. Kyiv time, corresponding to 4 a.m. in Moscow. Russia’s Defense Ministry separately announced that its forces had stopped shelling in the direction of Oleshky.

Ukrainian negotiator Davyd Arakhamia said the humanitarian ceasefire was scheduled to remain in effect until 10:59 p.m. on November 1, providing several days for relief deliveries and civilian evacuations.

The operation is expected to prioritize medical assistance, food, drinking water, and the evacuation of residents unable to remain safely in the city. Ukrainian officials have emphasized that the process will be complicated by damaged infrastructure, dangerous terrain, and the extensive preparations required to move civilians through an active conflict zone.

Questions also remain about evacuation routes and destinations. Reports indicate that some residents could initially be transported through Russian-controlled territory, including Crimea, before being given the opportunity to travel to Ukrainian-controlled areas. The arrangements have raised concerns about ensuring that civilians can freely choose their destinations.

The ceasefire is limited to Oleshky and surrounding portions of the Kherson region and does not represent a broader suspension of the war. Russian attacks continued elsewhere in Ukraine on Tuesday, including missile and drone strikes that caused civilian casualties and damaged infrastructure.

The humanitarian agreement comes as Washington continues diplomatic efforts aimed at ending the wider conflict. Additional negotiations involving American, Russian, and Ukrainian representatives are expected in Abu Dhabi in early November, although substantial differences remain between Moscow and Kyiv over the terms of any lasting settlement.

For Melania Trump, the Oleshky initiative represents an expansion of her involvement in humanitarian diplomacy related to the war. The first lady has previously participated in efforts to reunite Ukrainian children separated from their families, with the White House reporting six reunification operations involving 34 children.

The administration said the humanitarian crisis in Oleshky was brought to her attention during a private discussion at her Fostering the Future Together event in New York City during the United Nations General Assembly. She subsequently used existing contacts with Russian and Ukrainian officials to begin arranging the temporary ceasefire.

The immediate test of the agreement will be whether humanitarian organizations can safely reach residents and whether both militaries maintain the promised suspension of hostilities throughout the designated area.

Although the arrangement is geographically limited and temporary, its implementation marks an unusual instance of direct humanitarian coordination between Russia and Ukraine during a war that has continued for more than four years.

For the remaining residents of Oleshky, many of whom have endured years of isolation, shortages, and constant danger, the ceasefire offers an opportunity to receive desperately needed assistance or leave the devastated city.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul received the lowest score of any governor in the United States in a newly released assessment of government policies and individual liberty, placing 50th out of 50 governors in the Cato Institute’s 2026 Freedom in the 50 States report. The Democratic governor earned an F grade and a score of just 18.02%, while New York itself finished next to last in the organization’s nationwide ranking of economic and personal freedoms.

The findings, released as Hochul sought another term in office, placed her behind every other sitting governor in the study’s evaluation of how executive decisions and policies affected individual liberty. The results immediately drew attention in New York, where the governor was campaigning for reelection against Republican Bruce Blakeman.

The Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian research organization, evaluates state laws and government policies according to its own framework for measuring economic and personal freedom. Its rankings reflect the organization’s policy priorities and methodology rather than an official government assessment of gubernatorial performance.

The 2026 edition marked the first time the institute included a separate evaluation of individual governors, examining the extent to which their actions in office advanced or restricted the freedoms measured by the study.

Hochul’s 18.02% score placed her below the governors of Hawaii, California, Rhode Island and Massachusetts, all of whom also finished near the bottom of the gubernatorial rankings.

New York’s performance in the broader state rankings was similarly poor under Cato’s criteria. The Empire State received an overall freedom score of 31.9%, ranking 49th nationally and finishing ahead of only Hawaii, which received 29.24%.

The study examined a wide range of state policies, including taxation, government spending, housing regulations, occupational licensing, education, firearms laws, freedom of expression, medical regulations and other areas affecting economic activity and personal choices.

Each state was assessed according to how its laws and policies aligned with the institute’s definition of individual liberty, with results expressed as percentage scores.

The distinction between the two rankings was significant. The state rankings measured the cumulative effects of laws and regulations in each jurisdiction, while the gubernatorial rankings focused on decisions attributed to the governors themselves.

That approach allowed the researchers to evaluate an incumbent governor separately from the broader legal and regulatory environment inherited from previous administrations.

The study also revealed that political affiliation did not entirely determine the results, even though Republican governors generally occupied more of the leading positions and Democrats were more heavily represented near the bottom.

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte, a Republican, finished first among governors with a score of 62.31% and an A grade.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, a Democrat, placed second, demonstrating that the institute’s assessment was not simply a ranking of governors by party affiliation.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis secured third place with 52.61%, followed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in fourth with 50.67%.

The overall state rankings also produced some results that did not follow conventional partisan divisions.

Arizona, governed by Democrat Katie Hobbs despite having supported President Trump in the 2024 presidential election, ranked first in the nation for overall freedom under Cato’s methodology.

Montana finished second, Nevada placed third, and Florida came in fourth.

At the other end of the rankings, Alabama, South Carolina and Alaska were among the 10 lowest-scoring states, despite their generally Republican political orientation.

Two Republican governors also appeared among the lowest-ranked governors, further illustrating that the institute’s evaluations were based on its assessment of particular policies rather than party labels alone.

Nevertheless, the overall distribution showed Republican officeholders performing better in many of the categories emphasized by Cato, while Democratic governors were more frequently assigned lower scores.

The timing of the report added another dimension to its release. New Yorkers had already begun casting early ballots in the gubernatorial election, with Election Day scheduled for November 3.

Hochul was seeking reelection against Blakeman, the Nassau County executive and Republican gubernatorial nominee, in a contest that had featured disagreements over immigration enforcement, crime, taxation and the direction of state government.

A poll released the previous week showed Hochul receiving approximately 55% support compared with 41% for Blakeman, a lead of roughly 14 percentage points at that point in the campaign. Those figures represented a snapshot of voter preferences rather than the election’s final outcome.

The governor had also appeared alongside New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani at a campaign event at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn on Sunday, October 25, where the two Democrats criticized Trump and Blakeman.

Hochul’s office rejected the conclusions of the Cato study, arguing that the institute’s definition of freedom favored policies the administration believed would harm workers, families and public safety.

“Cato’s idea of freedom means lower wages for hard working Americans, carrying guns without permits, AI chatbots running unchecked and social media giants gaining unfettered access to our kids,” a spokesperson told the New York Post.

The administration also challenged the significance of the failing grade, maintaining that policies intended to protect consumers and promote economic fairness should not be characterized as restrictions on liberty.

“If standing up for economic fairness and commonsense safety earns New York an F, that says more about the grader than the Governor.”

The competing interpretations highlighted a fundamental disagreement over what government freedom should mean. Cato’s libertarian framework generally favors fewer restrictions on individual choices and economic activity, while Hochul’s administration defended regulatory protections that it considered necessary for public welfare.

Additional details from the institute’s published methodology showed that the 2026 report examined 97 public-policy measures divided among 10 categories. Four categories concerned economic freedom, accounting for 40% of the overall score, while six addressed personal freedom, accounting for the remaining 60%.

The researchers evaluated fiscal burdens, housing rules, occupational regulations, technology and consumer policies, education, speech, medical choices, firearms, policing and recreational activities.

For governors, the researchers went beyond the existing policies of each state by examining legislation signed or vetoed during their administrations. Governors received additional points for actions the institute considered supportive of freedom and deductions for decisions it classified as restrictive.

The methodology also accounted for the fact that governors inherit laws and regulations enacted before taking office. As a result, the gubernatorial scores were intended to measure changes attributable to each governor rather than simply assigning responsibility for every existing state policy.

The underlying data were generally current through August 1, 2026, although the institute acknowledged that some measures relied on different reporting periods.

The organization also cautioned that its list of freedoms was not exhaustive and said it planned to continue updating the index every two years.

The latest findings represented a change from the previous edition of the study, published in 2023, which used a different scoring system and included more than 230 policy variables. Because the methodology was substantially revised, direct comparisons between scores from the two editions require caution.

The institute’s own analysis also noted that no state achieved a raw score above 75% in either of the two broad categories of economic or personal freedom, suggesting that even the states receiving favorable grades did not satisfy every criterion used in the report.

For New York, the study delivered two separate findings: The state’s existing policy environment placed it 49th nationally, and Hochul’s individual record received the lowest gubernatorial score under the institute’s methodology.

The governor’s office, meanwhile, maintained that the policies criticized by Cato reflected deliberate choices to prioritize economic protections and public safety.

The report therefore added another issue to the final days of New York’s gubernatorial campaign, offering critics of the administration a new assessment of its record while prompting a forceful rebuttal from Hochul’s office over the meaning of individual freedom and the proper role of state government.

{Matzav.com}

A potentially significant development emerged within the Peleg Yerushalmi on Tuesday as HaPeles, the newspaper associated with the movement, published an election-day front page that appeared to signal a departure from its longstanding opposition to participation in Knesset elections.

Rather than prominently reiterating the traditional call to boycott the vote, the newspaper devoted considerable attention to the independent chareidi party Tzeva Shachor and what it described as a growing wave of protest voting against the established chareidi political parties.

The unusual presentation immediately drew attention in chareidi political circles, where the Peleg Yerushalmi has long been identified with opposition to the electoral system and fierce criticism of the established chareidi parties over their handling of the military draft issue.

For years, HaPeles has prominently featured the position of the late Rav Shmuel Auerbach, who opposed participation in Knesset elections. His position became a defining element of the movement’s political identity, with adherents generally refraining from voting rather than supporting the established chareidi parties.

Tuesday’s front page, however, departed from that familiar approach.

Instead of emphasizing the traditional boycott, the newspaper highlighted the activities of Tzeva Shachor, a breakaway chareidi faction campaigning against United Torah Judaism and Shas.

The coverage accused the established chareidi parties of attempting to suppress support for the independent faction and discourage dissatisfied voters from casting ballots for it.

The newspaper portrayed the emergence of protest voting as an expression of mounting frustration with the political establishment, particularly over the treatment of yeshiva bochurim facing military conscription.

The development comes amid an increasingly bitter dispute within the chareidi community over the effectiveness of its elected representatives in protecting the status of full-time Torah learners.

The newspaper’s coverage also referred to sharp warnings issued by senior rabbonim against supporting the independent factions. HaPeles portrayed those warnings as part of an effort by the established parties to prevent a protest vote.

The front page carried the prominent headline, “Aggressive Campaign by the Chareidi Parties in an Attempt to Prevent Mass Protest Voting.”

In its accompanying coverage, the newspaper specifically mentioned Tzeva Shachor, accusing the established parties of attempting to intimidate potential supporters through severe warnings and denunciations.

Perhaps even more striking than the material published was what the newspaper omitted.

In previous election campaigns, HaPeles had prominently displayed Rav Shmuel Auerbach’s letter opposing participation in Knesset elections. That familiar letter did not appear on Tuesday’s front page.

Instead, the newspaper placed the controversy surrounding a party actually competing in the election at the center of its coverage.

The shift has led activists associated with the established chareidi parties to suggest that Tzeva Shachor may have closer ties to elements within the Peleg Yerushalmi than previously acknowledged.

One activist told Emess that the newspaper’s coverage confirmed suspicions raised throughout the campaign that Tzeva Shachor was effectively serving as a political vehicle for elements of the movement.

Other activists pointed to the Peleg Yerushalmi’s previous participation in municipal elections through the Bnei Torah lists, arguing that supporting a separate Knesset faction would represent an extension of that political activity.

However, the implications of Tuesday’s front page remain uncertain.

HaPeles did not publish an explicit instruction directing its readers to vote for Tzeva Shachor, and the absence of Rav Auerbach’s traditional anti-voting letter does not necessarily establish that the movement’s rabbinic leadership has changed its position.

Indeed, Rav Tzvi Friedman, a prominent figure associated with one faction of the Peleg Yerushalmi, issued a letter Monday explicitly opposing participation in the election, despite speculation that some within the movement might support Tzeva Shachor.

The newspaper also highlighted statements attributed to Rav Moshe Tzadka opposing support for Shas and United Torah Judaism, but did not present those statements as an explicit endorsement of Tzeva Shachor.

The developments reflect the complex divisions within the Peleg Yerushalmi, whose various factions have differed over political strategy even while sharing strong opposition to military conscription of yeshiva bochurim.

The emergence of Tzeva Shachor has added another dimension to the already tense election campaign. The party has sought to attract voters dissatisfied with the established chareidi leadership, particularly over the arrests of yeshiva bochurim and the failure to secure legislation addressing the draft issue.

Senior Gedolei Yisroel associated with Degel HaTorah and other established chareidi institutions have issued unusually strong warnings against supporting breakaway factions, arguing that votes cast for parties unlikely to cross the electoral threshold could weaken the Torah community’s representation in the Knesset.

The question now is whether Tuesday’s HaPeles front page will translate into actual participation by voters who have traditionally remained outside the Knesset electoral process.

For the established chareidi parties, even a relatively modest shift could prove consequential in a closely contested election, particularly if votes are diverted to a faction that ultimately fails to secure representation.

Whether HaPeles was signaling a genuine change in the Peleg Yerushalmi’s political approach or merely expressing sympathy for a protest movement remains unresolved. The results from polling stations in communities associated with the Peleg Yerushalmi may offer the clearest indication of whether the newspaper’s unusual election-day message reflected a broader change among its readership.

A new report from the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee has accused district attorneys across New York City’s five boroughs of directing prosecutors to consider reducing criminal charges and structuring plea agreements in ways that could protect noncitizen defendants from deportation, including in cases involving firearms, domestic violence, and offenses against children.

The report, released Monday and obtained by the New York Post, cited internal training documents, prosecutorial guidelines, and correspondence from district attorneys’ offices that described efforts to avoid immigration consequences when negotiating criminal dispositions.

According to the committee, prosecutors in several boroughs received explicit instructions to pursue alternative charges, omit certain details from conviction records, or negotiate pleas to offenses that would not automatically trigger removal proceedings under federal immigration law.

The findings added to an escalating dispute between congressional Republicans and New York City officials over sanctuary policies, federal immigration enforcement, and the extent to which local prosecutors should consider a defendant’s immigration status when resolving criminal cases.

The committee argued that the practices went beyond the traditional exercise of prosecutorial discretion and could interfere with federal immigration enforcement. The district attorneys’ policies, however, have generally been presented as efforts to avoid immigration penalties that prosecutors consider disproportionate to the underlying offense while maintaining public safety.

Among the most controversial material cited in the report were training documents from Bronx District Attorney Darcel Clark’s office that discussed how prosecutors could structure pleas in cases involving children, firearms, and domestic violence.

A 2019 training presentation on immigration-conscious plea bargaining instructed prosecutors handling certain offenses involving children to “[o]ffer something that does not have the child’s age as an element of the crime.”

The committee interpreted that guidance as an effort to prevent convictions from triggering deportation consequences associated with particular offenses under federal immigration law.

In firearms cases, Bronx prosecutors were advised to “[k]eep the firearm out of the record of conviction” and “[o]ffer something that does not specify a firearm” when negotiating plea agreements.

Similar guidance appeared in materials addressing domestic violence cases, where prosecutors were instructed to “[k]eep the domestic relationship out of the record of conviction.”

For stalking cases, the training suggested considering charges that did not include “repeated instances or an intent to instill fear.”

Republican investigators contended that omitting such elements from formal conviction records could affect how federal immigration authorities evaluate a defendant’s criminal history.

The committee also obtained March 2023 training materials titled “Crimmigration,” a term referring to the intersection of criminal law and immigration law.

Those documents instructed prosecutors, “[a]s appropriate,” to “strive to ensure that a conviction for certain offenses does not lead to unintended and severe consequences such as deportation that can tear families apart and destabilize communities.”

Clark had previously described her office’s approach in broader terms, stating that since 2020, “[p]rosecutors in my office must thoughtfully consider employment, immigration, family unification, and the broad range of other potential collateral consequences when initiating a prosecution.”

The committee also highlighted training material suggesting that prosecutors consider pleas involving so-called legally impossible offenses, a category involving conduct that cannot legally constitute the charged crime under the applicable circumstances.

The presentation stated that “[l]egally impossible crimes cannot serve as the basis for [immigration] removal proceedings” when reviewed in federal court.

The report described examples involving defendants who would have to possess “two contradictory mental states … at the same time” for the offense to be legally possible.

Congressional Republicans questioned whether such plea arrangements reflected the underlying conduct and whether they could prevent immigration authorities from obtaining information relevant to removal proceedings.

The committee said similar practices were documented in Queens, where District Attorney Melinda Katz’s office employed an immigration specialist to advise prosecutors on the potential consequences of plea agreements.

According to a report produced by Katz’s office in 2025, the specialist helped assistant district attorneys “navigate through plea options and assist in framing dispositions that will prevent unwanted immigration consequences.”

The House investigation found that the specialist helped secure the reduction or dismissal of 21 convictions in 2020. In another six cases, Katz asked then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo to grant pardons to prevent deportation.

Training materials cited by the committee instructed Queens prosecutors to “exercise extreme caution” and “not get caught up in the label of [f]elonies, [m]isdemeanors” when considering the immigration implications of criminal charges.

Investigators also obtained a May 26 email in which an assistant district attorney told an NYPD detective that prosecutors had “basically made a [plea] deal which is ‘immigration safe,’” while explaining that the defendant had still pleaded guilty to multiple crimes and served time in jail.

The correspondence demonstrated how the office’s approach could be applied in actual prosecutions, rather than existing solely as written policy.

The report also examined Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez’s office, which has pursued what it describes as immigration-neutral dispositions since 2017.

Brooklyn prosecutors have been trained “to avoid disproportionate collateral consequence, such as deportation, while maintaining public safety.”

In some circumstances, the office’s guidance calls for “a plea for a lesser offense in light of the disproportionate immigration consequences a higher level offense may result in.”

The committee said similar considerations were present in Staten Island, where District Attorney Michael McMahon’s office maintained a unit that communicated with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to seek delays in deportation proceedings.

In Manhattan, District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office informed congressional investigators that an earlier policy concerning immigration consequences was “outdated,” although prosecutors continued to consider defendants’ immigration circumstances individually.

A 2022 memorandum from Bragg had instructed prosecutors to “seek dispositions that avoid immigration consequences for all misdemeanors, and all felonies for which non-carceral outcomes are the presumptive outcome.”

The committee also focused on New York City’s refusal to honor federal immigration detainers.

According to the report, the NYPD received nearly 10,000 requests from ICE during the preceding 12 months seeking custody of noncitizens charged with criminal offenses. None of those requests was honored.

Earlier in October, the Department of Homeland Security reported that authorities throughout New York State had declined to honor 16,070 immigration detainers.

An ICE detainer requests that a local law enforcement agency notify federal immigration authorities before releasing an individual and, in certain circumstances, maintain custody briefly to facilitate a transfer. New York City’s sanctuary laws restrict compliance with such requests.

The report cited the case of Reeaz Khan, a Guyanese immigrant convicted of murdering a 92-year-old Queens woman, as an example of the public safety concerns Republicans associate with sanctuary policies. Khan was subsequently sentenced to 22 years to life in prison.

The report’s broader conclusions drew criticism from supporters of sanctuary protections, who argue that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility and that local criminal justice decisions should not automatically produce immigration penalties beyond the sentences imposed by courts.

In a separate development on October 22, a federal judge dismissed a Justice Department lawsuit challenging New York City’s sanctuary laws. Immigrant-rights organizations welcomed the ruling, which concerned the legality of the city’s restrictions on cooperation with federal immigration authorities rather than the particular plea-bargaining practices examined in the congressional report.

Republican lawmakers and city officials critical of the district attorneys’ policies argued that immigration considerations should not influence decisions about criminal accountability.

“When did protecting a criminal’s immigration status become a part of a DA’s job description?” New York City Councilwoman Joann Ariola asked.

“Our DA’s are entrusted with upholding the law and protecting the public,” Ariola told the New York Post. “If that’s not their priority, then they’ve got it backwards.”

Ken Frydman, a Democratic political operative and police union representative, also questioned the use of immigration specialists to influence criminal dispositions.

“Immigration specialists typically help immigrants navigate the immigration process, not help get convictions reduced or thrown out in order to keep illegal immigrants in the US,” Frydman said.

The congressional investigation began in May, when the House Judiciary Committee requested information from the five district attorneys’ offices, the NYPD, and the city’s Department of Correction concerning sanctuary policies and their implementation.

According to the committee, Katz initially resisted the request, arguing that state criminal prosecutions fell outside Congress’s oversight authority.

Her office subsequently cooperated after Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio and Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement Subcommittee Chairman Tom McClintock of California sent another letter in August warning that a subpoena could follow.

The findings formed part of a broader Republican congressional investigation into sanctuary jurisdictions and the relationship between local criminal justice policies and federal immigration enforcement.

The committee has also issued reports examining similar practices in Philadelphia, Colorado, Illinois, and Fairfax County, Virginia.

{Matzav.com}

Israel’s Central Elections Committee chairman, Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, issued an emergency interim order on Tuesday directing United Torah Judaism and its polling-station representatives to stop transmitting real-time information about voter participation, following a petition alleging that the chareidi party was operating an unauthorized election-day reporting system.

The ruling came as voting continued across Israel in a closely contested election, with chareidi political leaders expressing growing concern over turnout in their traditional strongholds.

The petition was submitted by the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, which alleged that United Torah Judaism representatives stationed at polling locations had been instructed to monitor voter participation and relay information to a centralized system associated with Degel HaTorah, one of the two factions comprising United Torah Judaism.

According to the petition, representatives were directed to record information about the number of people who had voted and transmit those figures to party officials during the course of election day.

The petitioners alleged that the instructions included a procedure under which representatives would temporarily leave polling rooms to communicate the information by telephone, rather than using electronic devices inside the voting areas.

The Movement for Quality Government argued that the arrangement violated election regulations governing the conduct of party representatives and the collection and transmission of information from polling stations.

In response, Justice Sohlberg issued an interim order prohibiting the party and its representatives from continuing the disputed reporting activity while the matter was being examined.

United Torah Judaism was instructed to submit its response to the allegations by 2:15 p.m. Tuesday, Israel time.

The order was temporary and did not constitute a final judicial determination that United Torah Judaism had violated election law.

The dispute stems from an earlier legal battle over the use of election-day voter information by political parties. Israeli parties have traditionally relied on polling-station data and computerized systems to identify areas where participation is weak and direct campaign workers to encourage additional voters to cast their ballots.

The practice became the subject of legal challenges over concerns that information obtained by polling-station officials in the course of their official duties was being used for partisan political purposes.

Last Thursday, Israel’s Supreme Court ruled against the transfer of voter participation information to political parties. A clarification issued Sunday, October 25, established that the restriction applied to all methods of transmitting the information, not merely digital reporting systems.

The new petition alleged that United Torah Judaism had attempted to work around those restrictions by using handwritten records and telephone calls made outside polling rooms.

According to documents submitted with the petition, representatives were supplied with forms headed “Voter Turnout Tracking Form,” instructing them to mark each voter who arrived, record the time and transmit the cumulative number of voters to the Degel HaTorah reporting system.

The petitioners argued that leaving a polling room to make a telephone call did not change the legal status of information obtained inside the polling station.

Attorneys Jacqueline Bracha and Ido Orenstein, representing the Movement for Quality Government, welcomed the interim ruling, saying that election integrity required all parties to operate under the same rules.

“The integrity of elections requires equal rules for all parties. It is forbidden to violate the Supreme Court’s ruling and report the number of voters at polling stations,” the attorneys said.

They added that the interim order required United Torah Judaism and its representatives to stop the disputed reporting and pledged to continue monitoring compliance throughout election day.

The controversy comes at a particularly sensitive moment for United Torah Judaism, which is fighting to preserve its Knesset representation amid concerns that independent chareidi parties could draw away votes without crossing the electoral threshold.

Turnout figures released Tuesday afternoon showed participation of 28.4 percent in Bnei Brak and 28.3 percent in Beitar Illit, compared with 33.2 percent in Modi’in Illit and 32 percent in Elad.

The ability to monitor turnout at individual polling stations is considered an important tool for political parties seeking to mobilize supporters during the final hours of voting.

Reports from within United Torah Judaism indicated that different chareidi communities were employing separate election-day reporting arrangements. In some locations, booths were established outside polling stations where voters could voluntarily report that they had cast their ballots, a practice distinct from the disputed transmission of information by polling-station representatives.

The interim order specifically addresses information gathered and transmitted by the party’s representatives inside polling stations.

As of the latest verified reports, no final ruling on the petition had been announced, and the court had not determined that United Torah Judaism had actually violated the earlier Supreme Court decision.

Nevertheless, the intervention introduced a new legal complication for the party’s election-day operation as its representatives worked to maximize turnout before the polls closed Tuesday night.