Feed aggregator

An Israeli police officer has been suspended from operational duty after footage surfaced appearing to show him kicking a protester during demonstrations on Route 4 near Bnei Brak, an incident that sparked widespread outrage and prompted a formal review by police leadership.

The controversy erupted after videos from the protest circulated widely on social media, showing heated confrontations between police officers and demonstrators. In response, police announced that the officer seen in the footage was immediately removed from operational responsibilities pending a full investigation into the circumstances surrounding the incident.

The suspension was ordered by Tel Aviv District Commander Chaim Sargarof following the publication of videos from the protest organized by members of the Peleg Yerushalmi movement against the arrest of yeshiva students.

Police Commissioner Danny Levy also addressed the incident, stating that all available footage and evidence would be thoroughly reviewed.

“If, after reviewing the videos from the protest at the Bnei Brak junction, we determine that commanders or officers acted contrary to police procedures, we will not hesitate to deal with it severely and suspend them from operational activity,” the commissioner said.

Levy added that senior police commanders were present at the scene and emphasized that he expects them to maintain control of such situations.

“There were senior commanders at the protest, and my expectation is that they control the event,” he said.

The demonstration took place Wednesday morning on Route 4 near the entrance to Bnei Brak, where hundreds of protesters blocked traffic to protest the detention of yeshiva students. Large numbers of police officers were deployed to clear the roadway and restore the flow of traffic.

During the operation, several confrontations broke out between officers and demonstrators, producing scenes that quickly became the focus of intense public criticism.

Videos circulated throughout the day showed police using force against protesters. In one of the most widely shared clips, an officer appeared to kick a demonstrator who was lying on the ground.

Senior Israeli officials are sharply criticizing the agreement being finalized between the United States and Iran, arguing that it weakens the leverage that had been built against Tehran and removes the military threat that had forced the regime to the negotiating table.

According to a report broadcast Wednesday evening by Kan News, Israeli sources described the proposed accord as a deeply flawed arrangement that “releases the pressure too early and removes the military threat that had until now remained on the table.”

The officials also expressed concern over provisions linking developments in Iran with the situation in Lebanon, contending that those clauses run counter to Israeli interests and may not even serve Lebanon’s interests.

According to the sources, “they are contrary not only to what Israel wants, but also to what Lebanon is interested in.”

Israeli officials further raised alarms about President Donald Trump’s proposal to address restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program through a broader regional framework involving Gulf states. Officials in Yerushalayim fear that such an approach would fail to impose meaningful limits on the missile arsenal that poses a direct threat to Israel.

Earlier in the evening, Trump addressed the developing agreement during a press conference, expressing confidence that the negotiations had achieved Washington’s primary objectives.

“We reached an agreement that achieves everything we wanted to achieve,” Trump said. “It will open the Strait of Hormuz and prevent Iran from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

Asked about Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, Trump suggested that completely eliminating the country’s missile program was unrealistic.

Referring to the issue, he said Iran should be allowed to have “some missiles,” explaining, “Others have them too. There are those who say they shouldn’t have missiles at all. That’s not how it works.”

The president also defended his decision to halt military operations and pursue a negotiated settlement with Tehran, rejecting criticism from those who favored continued military action.

“There is not a single country that asked us to continue bombing Iran. Only fools say that,” Trump added.

The reported disagreements underscore growing tensions between Washington and Yerushalayim as details of the proposed agreement emerge, with Israeli officials warning that key provisions may leave Iran with significant military capabilities while reducing international pressure on the regime.

{Matzav.com}

U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee forcefully rejected Iranian demands that Israel pull its forces out of Lebanon and halt military operations against Hezbollah, proposing instead that members of Hezbollah and Hamas be expelled to Iran if Tehran truly wants peace in the region.

Responding Wednesday on the social platform X, Huckabee mocked Iran’s position and suggested a dramatic solution to eliminate the threat posed by its proxy groups.

“Iran demands @Israel cease defense of border against Hezbollah,” Huckabee wrote on the social platform X. “Gaza peace plan depends on Hamas disarming. Idea: EVERY member of Hezbollah & Hamas DEPORT to ‘Mothership’ in Iran. Result? Lebanon & Israel free from Iran terror proxies. Give PEACE a chance!”

Huckabee has previously argued that Hezbollah is not covered by the 14-point memorandum of understanding intended to formalize the end of the conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran. While the agreement makes no direct mention of the Iranian-backed terrorist organization, it does contain language that “declare[s] the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.”

Iranian officials, however, have interpreted the agreement as directly applying to the situation in Lebanon.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the ceasefire arrangement carries “particular emphasis on Lebanon.”

“Any continued occupation of Lebanese territory will be regarded by us as a violation of the memorandum of understanding,” Araghchi told diplomats in remarks played on Iranian state media Tuesday, according to CBS News.

Tehran’s military establishment echoed that warning. The Khatam Al-Anbiya Central Headquarters, which serves as the operational command center of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, cautioned Israel against continuing military activities in Lebanon.

The command warned Israel to stop “repeated ceasefire violations in Lebanon or face a harsh response from Iran’s Armed Forces,” according to a report published Tuesday by the state-run Fars News Agency.

Huckabee has consistently maintained that Israel retains the right to defend itself regardless of Iranian objections, previously stating that Israel “does not need Iran permission to defend itself.”

President Trump also expressed confidence this week that the broader agreement would remain intact despite ongoing Israeli military actions in Lebanon. Speaking Tuesday, he dismissed Hezbollah as “that little pinprick out there that constantly rears its head.”

At the same time, Trump suggested that the conflict with Hezbollah has dragged on too long and criticized tactics that have resulted in significant civilian casualties.

“Israel is fighting Hezbollah too long, and too many people are being killed,” the president added while at the Group of Seven (G7) summit in Évian-les-Bains, France. “And you don‘t have to knock down an apartment house every time you‘re looking for somebody, because there are a lot of people in those apartment houses, and they‘re not all Hezbollah, that I can tell you.”

Israeli leaders have made clear they do not intend to comply with demands for a withdrawal from territory captured during recent fighting. Officials stated Monday that Israeli forces will remain in strategic areas of Lebanon.

Defense Minister Yisroel Katz said Israeli troops will continue operating in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza until all remaining “terrorist infrastructure” has been eliminated.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir also rejected any suggestion that Israel is obligated to follow terms negotiated by Washington.

“Trump’s agreement does not bind us,” Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir wrote Monday on the social platform X in a post translated from Hebrew. “Israel is not subject to the United States, and we are an independent and sovereign nation!”

{Matzav.com}

[Video below.] Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) sharply criticized President Trump’s newly announced agreement with Iran on Wednesday, arguing that the proposed deal could leave Tehran in a stronger position and provide the regime with additional resources to expand its military capabilities.

During an appearance on MS NOW’s “Money, Power, Politics,” Kelly expressed concern that the agreement may ultimately benefit Iran rather than constrain it.

“Well, I think it emboldens the Iranians and makes them more powerful, it gives them resources to build more ballistic missiles and may leave them with the ability to develop a nuclear weapon,” Kelly told Stephanie Ruhle.

The criticism comes just days after Trump revealed that Washington and Tehran had reached an accord aimed at ending a conflict that had dragged on for three months. The fighting caused extensive destruction throughout the region, rattled global financial markets, and contributed to rising energy prices worldwide.

Kelly suggested that the framework being discussed bears little resemblance to the type of agreement critics of previous administrations would have accepted.

“What I’m hearing and seeing so far in this plan, this is like total capitulation. Imagine if Joe Biden or Barack Obama signed this deal, what Donald Trump would say about it, and so if this is his plan, I think at least if Congress gets a say, this thing’s a nonstarter,” Kelly said.

Trump has maintained that the final details of the agreement will remain private until U.S. and Iranian representatives formally sign the document later this week. Nevertheless, several media organizations have reported obtaining what they describe as a 14-point memorandum of understanding outlining the proposed terms.

The White House disputed those reports Wednesday. Communications Director Steve Cheung said the document circulating publicly was inaccurate and insisted that the reported version “does not reflect the language of the actual MOU.”

According to reports about the alleged framework, the agreement would require an end to military operations on “all fronts,” including in Lebanon, where Israel has been engaged in efforts to dismantle Hezbollah’s military infrastructure.

The reported terms also call for the restoration of commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, with both sides committing to return maritime traffic to prewar levels within 30 days after the agreement is signed.

As debate over the proposal intensifies, critics and supporters alike are awaiting the release of the final text to determine whether the agreement represents a diplomatic breakthrough or a concession that could reshape the balance of power in the Middle East.

WATCH:

{Matzav.com}

President Trump said Wednesday that the 60-day negotiation period outlined in the newly signed memorandum of understanding with Iran should not be viewed as a strict deadline, suggesting the talks could continue beyond that timeframe if progress is being made and Iran complies with its commitments.

Speaking to reporters in Paris, Trump dismissed the notion that the two-month window represented a final cutoff point for reaching a comprehensive agreement with Tehran.

“No, I don’t. [It] could take longer,” Trump said in Paris when asked if 60 days marked a final deadline.

The president indicated that the pace of negotiations was less important to him than Iran’s conduct during the process.

“I don’t view it as hard,” he continued. “Just as long as they’re behaving, I really don’t care that much.”

Trump’s remarks came shortly after senior administration officials released the full text of the memorandum to the press. According to the agreement, Washington and Tehran pledged “to negotiating and achieving the final deal in a maximum 60 days extended with mutual consent.”

Despite the breakthrough, Trump emphasized earlier in the day that the memorandum is merely a preliminary framework and should not be mistaken for a completed agreement.

“No, it’s not final. It’s a memorandum of understanding, and if I don’t like it, we’ll go back to shooting at them, dropping bombs on their head,” he said.

The president also warned that military action remains an option if Iran fails to meet expectations during the negotiation period.

“If they don’t behave, we’ll go back to dropping bombs right smack in the middle of their head,” he continued, adding “they’ve misbehaved for 47 years.”

Under the framework agreement, Iran would pledge never to develop a nuclear weapon, a commitment similar to provisions included in the Obama-era nuclear accord that Trump later withdrew from. However, the memorandum leaves unresolved several major issues involving Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure, including the fate of its stockpile of enriched uranium.

Trump suggested Wednesday that securing control over Iran’s enriched nuclear material was not his primary concern, arguing that preventing the creation of a nuclear weapon was the more important objective.

“Because it’s very hard to get it. I don’t think anybody could get at. We could get at it with great work and a lot of time,” he said.

His comments underscored the administration’s position that the ultimate measure of success will be ensuring Iran remains unable to build a nuclear bomb, even as negotiators continue to work through the unresolved details of a final agreement.

{Matzav.com}

A growing number of Republican lawmakers are sounding the alarm over President Trump’s newly unveiled agreement with Iran, arguing that the deal grants sweeping concessions to Tehran while offering too little in return. Leading the criticism on Wednesday was Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who warned that the president is being poorly advised and is pursuing a dangerous course.

“History teaches that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is not a good idea. I think the president is receiving some very poor advice on this deal,” Cruz told The Hill.

His criticism came shortly after the administration released the complete text of the memorandum of understanding designed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and end hostilities between Washington and Tehran. Under the proposal, sanctions on Iranian oil exports would be removed, and Iran would gain access to a reconstruction fund valued at approximately $300 billion.

According to the document, the United States would be required to “terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, I.A.E.A. Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral U.S. sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed-upon schedule as part of the final deal.”

The agreement also includes a declaration from Iran reaffirming its longstanding claim that it does not seek to acquire or manufacture nuclear weapons.

In addition, the two countries agreed to address Iran’s existing stockpile of enriched nuclear material. The memorandum specifies that Iran would be required to “down-blend” or dilute any weapons-grade nuclear material currently in its possession.

Cruz is not alone in his objections. Several prominent Republicans have sharply criticized the proposal, arguing that it rewards Tehran after years of confrontation and pressure.

Among the most vocal critics is Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who denounced the agreement on Wednesday as the “worst foreign policy blunder in decades.”

“Reagan is rolling over in his grave. Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future. Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal,” Cassidy posted on the social platform X.

The backlash highlights a widening divide within Republican circles as lawmakers debate whether the agreement represents a diplomatic breakthrough or a costly concession that could strengthen Iran economically and strategically for years to come.

{Matzav.com}

President Trump warned Wednesday that oil supplies could have been exhausted within a matter of weeks if the Strait of Hormuz had remained closed, arguing that the newly reached agreement with Iran prevented what could have become a global energy catastrophe.

Speaking in France during the Group of Seven summit, Trump emphasized the importance of restoring maritime traffic through the strategically vital waterway, saying the world was facing a looming shortage of available oil.

“We run out of reserves at about four weeks,” Trump said while discussing the memorandum of understanding reached with Iran. “You know, there are reserves all over the world, and we would really run out, and there’ll be a time when you wouldn’t be able to get it.”

Trump painted a dire picture of what could have happened had oil supplies continued to tighten, warning that widespread disruption would have followed.

He said it would be “bedlam” if the oil ran out.

Defending the agreement with Tehran, Trump argued that reopening the shipping lane was essential to stabilizing energy markets and ensuring the continued flow of crude oil around the globe.

“What this does is it allows the ships to go,” he said of the Iran deal. “If we keep bombing, those ships won’t be going.”

It was not immediately clear whether the president’s remarks referred specifically to American petroleum reserves or to worldwide oil stockpiles. White House officials declined to provide additional clarification, directing inquiries back to Trump’s public comments.

Concerns about shrinking inventories have been growing in recent weeks. The International Energy Agency, which represents many of the world’s major oil-consuming nations, has repeatedly cautioned that reserves have been declining as the conflict disrupted supplies.

Last month, IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said emergency reserve releases had helped maintain market stability, while warning that those stockpiles could not support demand indefinitely.

At the time, Birol suggested that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the ongoing conflict had reduced available commercial inventories to only a few weeks’ worth of supply.

The agency also issued projections in May indicating that global oil consumption was expected to outpace production during the current year.

When the war began, the United States joined other IEA member nations in announcing coordinated releases from strategic petroleum reserves in an effort to offset supply disruptions. Combined, those measures added roughly 400 million barrels of oil to global markets.

As part of that effort, the Trump administration committed to releasing 172 million barrels from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve over a period of 120 days.

At the time of the announcement, America’s reserve contained approximately 415 million barrels. A release of 172 million barrels would ultimately reduce that total to roughly 243 million barrels, barring any additional purchases or withdrawals.

New figures released this week show the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has fallen to approximately 340 million barrels, its lowest level since 1983.

Before the conflict erupted, nearly 20 percent of the world’s oil consumption passed through the Strait of Hormuz. Its closure triggered sharp increases in oil prices over recent months, a surge that also translated into higher gasoline costs for consumers around the world.

{Matzav.com}

A new Rasmussen Reports survey indicates that American voters are increasingly skeptical of the U.S. military campaign against Iran, with more respondents viewing the war as unsuccessful than successful. The poll also found that nearly half of voters want military operations halted immediately, while only about one-third support continuing the conflict until Iran’s ruling regime is overthrown.

The findings come as the war appears to be approaching a diplomatic conclusion. President Donald Trump and Iranian officials have been advancing toward a memorandum of understanding that was electronically signed on Sunday and is scheduled to be formally signed in person Friday in Switzerland.

The survey, conducted among 1,032 likely voters on June 11, 14, and 15, showed that 44% of respondents regarded the conflict, which began in February, as successful. Of those, 19% described it as very successful.

At the same time, 48% said the military effort had failed to achieve its objectives, including 27% who characterized it as not successful at all.

When voters were asked whether the United States should stop military action now or continue fighting “until the Islamic regime in Iran is completely destroyed,” nearly half opted for ending the war immediately. Thirty-five percent favored continuing the campaign until regime change was achieved, while 16% remained undecided.

The latest numbers reflect a significant change in public opinion compared to earlier this year.

A Rasmussen survey conducted in mid-March found considerably stronger support for the conflict. At that time, 61% said the war had been successful, including 35% who called it very successful. Only 29% viewed the campaign as unsuccessful, while 12% said it was not successful at all.

The movement from 61% approval of the war’s success to just 44% represents a 17-point decline in support over roughly three months. The percentage of voters who viewed the campaign as very successful also dropped dramatically during that period.

Polling began after Trump terminated a previous ceasefire arrangement and authorized renewed military action against Iran, arguing that the country had “taken too long to negotiate a deal.” The survey was conducted before Trump, Vice President JD Vance, and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf formally completed the electronic signing of the MOU on Sunday.

Public opinion was closely divided regarding Trump’s decision to resume military operations. Forty-five percent approved of ending the ceasefire and restarting strikes, including 29% who strongly approved.

Meanwhile, 46% opposed the decision, with 33% expressing strong disapproval. Although overall support and opposition were nearly identical, stronger feelings were concentrated among those who opposed the move.

Political affiliation revealed much sharper differences than the overall results suggested.

Among Republican voters, three-quarters supported the renewed strikes. Support fell to 39% among independents and just 24% among Democrats. More than half of Democratic respondents, 53%, said they strongly disapproved of the decision.

Views on regime change followed a similar partisan pattern. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans favored continuing military action until the government in Tehran was eliminated. That position was supported by only 18% of Democrats and 31% of independent voters.

The survey also found a significant gap between supporters of the two major 2024 presidential candidates. Seventy-one percent of Trump voters considered the war successful, compared with only 20% of voters who backed Kamala Harris.

Differences also emerged across demographic categories.

Male voters were more likely than female voters to view the military campaign positively, with 49% of men calling it successful compared with 38% of women.

Voters age 65 and older produced one of the survey’s more unusual findings, as they were both the group most supportive of continuing the fight to achieve regime change and the group most likely to say the war had been unsuccessful.

Racial and ethnic responses showed somewhat narrower differences. Support for ending military operations immediately ranged from 47% among white voters to 58% among voters in other minority groups. Black voters registered 51% support for withdrawal, while 48% of Hispanic voters favored ending the conflict. Hispanic respondents were also the demographic group most likely to describe the war as successful.

The survey reported a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for individual demographic and political subgroups was higher.

{Matzav.com}