Feed aggregator

President Donald Trump said Monday that the United States was closing in on victory in its war with Iran, declaring that his decision to confront Tehran prevented what he described as the potentially catastrophic consequences of a nuclear-armed Iranian regime.
​
Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump said he expected the conflict to be resolved quickly, even as U.S. and Iranian officials continued communicating separately with mediators in an effort to find a path toward ending the war.
​
“We’re going to win, as far as I’m concerned, it’s going to ‌be ⁠one way or the other,” Trump said, adding, “It’s going ⁠to go pretty quickly.”
​
Trump also predicted that energy prices, which have risen sharply amid the conflict and disruptions to shipping in the region, would fall significantly once the war ended, saying gasoline prices would “come tumbling down” following an American victory.
​
The president used his remarks Monday to again defend his decision to enter the war, arguing that the overriding objective was preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
​
“If you want to see turmoil, let them take out a city with a nuclear weapon. I’m not only talking about Israel and big parts of the Middle East. Let them hit us with a nuclear weapon, for all those stupid people that think it’s okay,” said Trump.

Trump described Iran’s leadership in particularly stark terms as he insisted that allowing Tehran to obtain nuclear weapons was never an acceptable option.
​
“They are crazy. There’s no question about it. They are very crazy people. I tell them all the time. I say, ‘You are crazy, man.’ But they cannot have a nuclear weapon.”
​
Trump said that concern was at the heart of his decision to commit the United States to military action against Iran.
​
“I went to war to stop what could be one of the worst things that could ever happen to the world – to us, but to the world,” Trump continued. “Israel would be wiped out right now. There would be no Israel, there’d be no Middle East, and then the rockets and the bombs would start coming our way and Europe’s way. And I stopped it.”
​
Trump’s comments came as diplomatic efforts continued behind the scenes despite a wide gap between Washington and Tehran over the terms of any agreement.
​
U.S. and Iranian officials held separate discussions with mediators Monday in the latest attempt to end the seven-month conflict. Qatar has played a central role in carrying messages between the two governments, with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi meeting with Qatari mediators in New York.
​
The discussions centered on an amended version of a seven-day proposal Iran presented during the United Nations General Assembly. Under Tehran’s proposal, the Strait of Hormuz would reopen and nuclear negotiations would resume within a week if Washington agreed to a series of Iranian demands.
​
Those demands included ending the U.S. naval blockade, easing restrictions on Iranian oil exports, unfreezing Iranian assets and restoring a ceasefire. Washington, however, has insisted that Iran’s nuclear program and uranium stockpile must be addressed as part of any broader agreement rather than left for later negotiations.
​
Trump rejected Iran’s initial proposal Saturday, with U.S. officials arguing that Tehran was seeking major concessions up front while offering only a commitment to negotiate afterward.
​
Iranian officials, meanwhile, sent mixed signals Monday about the status of the diplomatic effort. Iranian state media reported that Tehran’s delegation in New York had no plans for direct negotiations with the United States, while Araghchi continued discussions with Qatari intermediaries.
​
The disagreement over Iran’s nuclear program remains one of the principal obstacles to an agreement. Washington has sought guarantees preventing Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon and has pressed for inspections and restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities. Iranian leaders have maintained that the country is entitled to a civilian nuclear program and have resisted American demands they regard as infringing on that right.
​
Trump had delivered a similar assessment of the war Sunday, saying that the military and economic pressure being applied to Tehran had already dramatically weakened the regime.
​
“I think what’s going to happen is we’re going to win this war very soon,” he said, adding that stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon was “key to the whole thing.”
​
“We’ve already won it really from a military standpoint,” the President added, while making clear that U.S. military operations were not necessarily over.
​
In additional remarks Sunday, Trump said the United States was succeeding both militarily and economically against Iran, pointing to the severe deterioration of the Iranian economy and currency as evidence of the pressure facing Tehran.
​
At the same time, Trump refused to guarantee that the United States would refrain from carrying out additional military strikes before the November midterm elections.
​
“I don’t want to say that. I don’t want to say that. I mean, it’s possible, but I just don’t want to say that,” he said.
​
Iran, for its part, has publicly warned that it remains prepared for a prolonged confrontation if negotiations fail. Araghchi said over the weekend that Tehran was prepared for a “doomsday war,” even while maintaining that Iran remained open to a diplomatic resolution.
​
The current negotiations follow contacts last week in New York involving U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Araghchi, with Qatar serving as an intermediary. Those exchanges produced Iran’s proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and restart negotiations within seven days if its conditions were accepted.
​
The Strait of Hormuz has become a central focus of efforts to end the conflict because disruptions to shipping through the strategic waterway have sent shockwaves through global energy markets. The narrow passage is one of the world’s most important routes for oil and natural gas shipments, making the dispute a concern extending far beyond the United States, Iran and Israel.
​
Trump has repeatedly argued that the combination of American military pressure and Iran’s deteriorating economic position will ultimately force Tehran to accept terms that permanently prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
​
For the president, however, Monday’s message was that whatever diplomatic negotiations ultimately produce, the fundamental objective of the war remains unchanged: Iran cannot be permitted to possess a nuclear weapon, and Trump maintains that his decision to go to war prevented precisely that outcome.

United Torah Judaism chairman MK Yaakov Asher sought Monday to shut down speculation over the party’s willingness to help establish a government headed by Gadi Eisenkot, declaring that UTJ’s position will be determined by one overriding issue: securing the status of bnei yeshivos.
​
“United Torah Judaism has no desire to bring down or crown anyone, and we do not act out of revenge or other interests,” Asher said.
​
According to Asher, the party’s position is dictated by the instructions of the Gedolei Yisroel, rather than by loyalty to or opposition toward any particular candidate for prime minister.
​
“The only thing that guides us is the instruction of the Gedolei Yisrael, according to which United Torah Judaism, with all its components, will not support or enter any government without regulating the status of Torah learners,” Asher said.
​
The statement followed reports that senior figures in Ger believe Agudas Yisroel chairman Yitzchok Goldknopf could abstain rather than vote against a minority government headed by Eisenkot.
​
Those reports fueled intense political speculation that Agudas Yisroel could be preparing to break from the political alignment it has maintained with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu in recent years, particularly following the bitter dispute over the failure to pass legislation protecting bnei yeshivos from the draft.
​
Goldknopf responded to the reports by emphasizing that Agudas Yisroel would not assist any future government unless its demands on the draft issue are met.
​
“Agudat Yisrael will not support the establishment of a government and will not provide outside support to any government without resolving the status of yeshiva students and passing a draft law without sanctions and without quotas,” Goldknopf said.
​
The wording of the statement did not specifically rule out Eisenkot or any other candidate for prime minister. Instead, Goldknopf placed the focus squarely on the draft law and the status of bnei yeshivos.
​
That distinction has become particularly significant because Eisenkot has taken a sharply different position on the draft issue. He has repeatedly said that broadening military service will be a fundamental condition for a government he heads and has said that he would prefer another election rather than compromise on the issue.
​
The two positions therefore leave a substantial gap between Eisenkot and the chareidi parties even as reports continue to raise the possibility of new political alignments after the election.
​
The controversy erupted after reports attributed to senior figures in Ger suggested that Goldknopf would not necessarily vote against an Eisenkot minority government. According to those reports, he could instead abstain, potentially making it easier for such a government to receive the confidence of the Knesset.
​
An abstention would be politically significant because an incoming Israeli government does not necessarily require 61 affirmative votes if fewer than 120 MKs vote for or against it. Abstentions can therefore affect the balance between supporters and opponents during a confidence vote.
​
At the same time, neither Goldknopf nor Asher has announced that UTJ would facilitate an Eisenkot government. Their public statements instead establish the draft issue as the condition that would have to be resolved before the party would support or enter any future coalition.
​
Asher’s statement is also significant because it was issued in the name of United Torah Judaism as a whole, amid deep internal divisions within the chareidi political establishment and the widening dispute inside Agudas Yisroel itself.
​
The message from Asher was that personalities and longstanding political alliances will not determine the party’s position following the election. According to his statement, the decisive issue will be whether a prospective government agrees to protect the status of those learning Torah in accordance with the directives of the Gedolei Yisroel.
​
With coalition calculations already dominating Israel’s political campaign, the declaration adds another major condition to the formation of the next government: for United Torah Judaism, Asher says, there will be no coalition support without first resolving the status of bnei yeshivos.

{Matzav.com}

Light rail service in Yerushalayim was partially suspended Monday after an electrical cable was damaged near the Monster Park area, disrupting service during a busy travel period and forcing passengers to rely on replacement bus routes.
​
Maintenance crews were dispatched to repair the damaged cable and worked at the site in accordance with the required safety procedures. During the disruption, light rail trains operated only between Neve Yaakov North and Denya Square.
​
Passengers traveling toward Hadassah Ein Kerem, or heading from the hospital toward central Yerushalayim, were directed to alternative bus services.
​
For passengers traveling toward Hadassah Ein Kerem, several replacement options were made available from the Hechalutz stop on Ish Shalom Road at the corner of Farbstein Street. Routes 27 and 27A served stops from Yefeh Nof through Hadassah Ein Kerem, Route 33 operated to Yefeh Nof and Har Herzl, Route 35 served stops between Yefeh Nof and Monster Park, Routes 91 and 505 traveled to Yefeh Nof, and Route 16 was available for passengers heading to Har Herzl.
​
For those traveling in the opposite direction, Route 27 operated from Hadassah Ein Kerem to Denya Square. Route 19 served the route from Hadassah Ein Kerem through Monster Park and continued toward the downtown area at Davidka. Route 35 operated from Monster Park to Denya Square, while Route 16 ran from Har Herzl on Hapisgah Street and Yefeh Nof to Denya Square. Route 91 also operated between Yefeh Nof and Denya Square.
​
Additional replacement service was made available from the Central Bus Station. Routes 27 and 27A traveled from the station through Kiryat Moshe, Hechalutz, Yefeh Nof and Har Herzl before continuing to Hadassah Ein Kerem. Route 39 served Kiryat Moshe, Yefeh Nof and Har Herzl.
​
In the direction from Hadassah Ein Kerem, Route 27 operated to the Central Bus Station, while Route 19 ran through Monster Park and continued to Davidka in the city center. Route 35 operated from Monster Park to Hechalutz, Route 39 from Yefeh Nof to the Central Bus Station, Route 16 from Har Herzl through Yefeh Nof and Denya Square to Hechalutz, and Route 91 from Yefeh Nof through Denya Square to Hechalutz.
​
Officials said at the time that full light rail service would resume once repairs to the damaged electrical infrastructure were completed.

The escalating internal battle within Agudas Yisroel spilled into the streets Sunday night when MK Meir Porush was physically attacked by a group of individuals following a Simchas Bais Hashoeivah in Kiryat Gat.

Porush had attended the Simchas Bais Hashoeivah of the Kretschnif chassidus, where he was seated prominently at the mizrach alongside the Kretschnifer Rebbe. According to reports, shortly after the event concluded and Porush left the gathering, a group that had been waiting outside confronted and attacked him.

The incident reportedly was not spontaneous. According to Kikar HaShabbat, messages had circulated beforehand on internal communication lines identified with the Ger chassidus calling on people to come to the location because Porush would be attending the event.

The confrontation comes amid an extraordinary rupture within Agudas Yisroel following the establishment of Chomas Toras Yisroel, the new political faction formed by Porush, representing Shlomei Emunim, together with Belzer representative Eliakim Stark.

Earlier Sunday, Porush participated in a founding gathering for the new faction in Bnei Brak, where representatives of the participating communities gathered as the new political framework moves forward ahead of the elections.

Stark addressed the gathering and spoke sharply about what he described as the failures of the existing political leadership in protecting the Torah world.

“We did not succeed in the most basic mission, of protecting yeshiva students and kollel avreichim,” Stark said, calling for renewed unity around a political approach aimed at protecting the Olam HaTorah.

The creation of Chomas Toras Yisroel represents one of the most significant internal changes within United Torah Judaism in decades. Under the new arrangement, Porush and Stark are operating through a separate political framework while remaining part of the broader United Torah Judaism list.

The move followed months of mounting friction within Agudas Yisroel, particularly between Porush and figures associated with Ger, over control of party finances, representation and the allocation of political resources.

In an interview ahead of Sukkos, Porush publicly explained why he believed the split had become necessary.

“What happened with the handling of the funds in Agudat Yisrael, public funds that belong to the public, is something that is forbidden to do and that I could no longer remain silent about,” Porush said.

According to Porush, the dispute stretches back years.

“For years, and essentially since the changing of the guard, when my late father resigned from his activities in the leadership of Agudat Yisrael, all the funds were controlled by one individual, who was appointed by the Central Faction,” he said.

Porush alleged that the arrangement resulted in “a completely illogical allocation of party resources, an unfair distribution of positions, and more.”

The bitter dispute over the new faction has unfolded alongside another controversy involving the future political direction of Agudas Yisroel.

Recent reports have claimed that figures within Ger have been considering how the faction would respond to the possible formation of a government headed by Gadi Eisenkot. One report claimed that Yitzchok Goldknopf might abstain rather than vote against an Eisenkot-led minority government, fueling speculation that elements within Agudas Yisroel could move away from their longstanding political alignment with Netanyahu.

Goldknopf subsequently responded by setting out conditions for Agudas Yisroel’s participation in or support for any government.

“Agudat Yisrael will not support the establishment of a government and will not provide outside support to any government without resolving the status of yeshiva students and passing a draft law without sanctions and without quotas,” Goldknopf said.

UTJ chairman MK Yaakov Asher similarly sought to distance the party from speculation that its decisions would be driven by personalities or political retaliation.

“United Torah Judaism has no desire to bring down or crown anyone, and we do not act out of revenge or other interests,” Asher said.

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu holds an overwhelming advantage over his political rivals among Israel’s chareidi population, with 84% of respondents in a new poll naming him as the person best suited to serve as prime minister.
​
The survey, conducted among the chareidi public and analyzed by veteran pollster Shlomo Filber, found that Netanyahu towers over every other potential candidate for the premiership, with none of his rivals reaching even 5%.
​
Gadi Eisenkot finished a distant second with 4% support. Benny Gantz received just 1%, Naftali Bennett registered 0.8%, and Avigdor Lieberman received only 0.2%.
​
The results are particularly striking in light of the severe political tensions that have developed between the chareidi parties and Netanyahu’s government over the status of bnei yeshivos and the ongoing battle surrounding a new draft law.
​
Despite those disputes, the survey suggests that anger over the draft issue has not translated into significant support among chareidim for any of Netanyahu’s leading political opponents.
​
The findings also demonstrate the enormous gap between Netanyahu’s standing among chareidim and that of the politicians seeking to replace him. Eisenkot, who has emerged as a significant challenger to Netanyahu in national polling, managed just 4% among the chareidi respondents surveyed.
​
Bennett fared even worse, receiving less than 1%, while Gantz registered only 1%.
​
Lieberman, whose longstanding battles with the chareidi parties and positions on religion-and-state issues have made him deeply unpopular within the community, finished at the bottom with just 0.2%.
​
The survey comes at a particularly sensitive moment in chareidi politics. The crisis surrounding the draft of bnei yeshivos has strained the longstanding alliance between Netanyahu and the chareidi parties and has prompted increasing discussion about whether that political partnership will continue in its traditional form following the next election.
​
Recent reports have even raised the possibility that elements within Agudas Yisroel could take a different approach to the formation of a future government if the issue of bnei yeshivos remains unresolved.
​
The new numbers, however, indicate that whatever disagreements may exist between chareidi political leaders and Netanyahu, the prime minister personally remains far more acceptable to chareidi respondents than any of the alternatives presented in the survey.
​
The poll should not be confused with a Knesset voting survey. Chareidi voters traditionally cast their ballots overwhelmingly for the sector’s own parties, primarily Shas and United Torah Judaism. The question here concerned whom respondents believe is best suited to serve as prime minister, rather than which party they intend to support.
​
That distinction makes the findings especially revealing about attitudes toward Israel’s political leadership. Even chareidi voters who intend to support their traditional parties appear, according to the survey, to overwhelmingly prefer Netanyahu to the other candidates when it comes to who should lead the country.
​
The extraordinarily low numbers recorded by Netanyahu’s rivals also indicate that none has thus far succeeded in establishing himself as a serious alternative within the chareidi community.
​
The survey therefore presents a striking political picture: despite the upheaval surrounding the draft law, the tensions between the government and the chareidi parties, and continuing uncertainty over future political alliances, Netanyahu retains an enormous advantage among chareidi respondents, with 84% choosing him over every other contender for the premiership.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says Iran is approaching a critical economic breaking point, predicting that within approximately two weeks the Islamic Republic will complete its remaining oil deliveries to China and be left with virtually nothing to trade as the Trump administration intensifies its economic blockade and sanctions campaign against Tehran.
​
Bessent said Sunday that only about 15 million barrels of Iranian oil remain aboard ships awaiting delivery, arguing that once those shipments reach China, Tehran will lose one of its final major sources of international trade and revenue.
​
“I am confident, given that there’s only 15 million more barrels of Iranian oil on the water, that Iran will have nothing left to trade for anything,” Bessent told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”
​
“Probably within the next two weeks, they are going to make their final deliveries of oil to China, and then they will have nothing,” Bessent added. “It is an empty set. And I believe that they are feeling the pressure here, and that’s why they want a deal.”
​
Bessent attributed Iran’s worsening economic position to the administration’s broader maximum-pressure campaign, including what the Treasury Department has dubbed Operation Economic Outcast, an effort aimed at isolating Tehran from international banking, trade, transportation and other economic channels.
​
The campaign intensified after the collapse of the U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding earlier this year. The United States subsequently imposed a sweeping maritime blockade aimed at preventing goods and oil from entering or leaving Iranian ports.
​
In his Sunday interview, Bessent offered a broader account of the pressure campaign than he had previously provided, saying it began with the Trump administration’s renewed maximum-pressure policy in the spring of 2025.
​
He pointed to the collapse of Iran’s currency as one measure of the economic damage, saying the rial had been trading at approximately 800,000 to the dollar when the campaign began and had since fallen to roughly 2.4 million.
​
Bessent also said the economic campaign followed six weeks of U.S. military action that inflicted extensive damage on Iran’s armed forces and industrial infrastructure. He claimed Iran had lost its air force and navy, suffered major damage to its missile and drone capabilities, and seen 85% to 90% of its factories destroyed. Those figures were presented by Bessent during the interview and have not been independently confirmed.
​
The Treasury secretary said the military campaign was followed by what President Trump has described as a “wall of steel” — a blockade intended to prevent both exports and imports from reaching Iran.
​
Bessent emphasized that Iran’s dependence on imported gasoline has become particularly damaging despite the country possessing some of the world’s largest energy reserves. He said fuel shortages and gasoline lines are now adding to the economic pressure on the Iranian population and government.
​
The Treasury Department has simultaneously targeted the financial networks that Washington says allow Iran to circumvent sanctions. Bessent said three banks have already been shut down through the campaign and warned foreign institutions that the United States is identifying entities continuing to assist Tehran.
​
He said Washington now has expanded authorities targeting cryptocurrency transactions, airlines, maritime activity and other mechanisms that Iran could use to conduct business outside the traditional banking system.
​
Bessent further claimed that Chinese assistance to Iran has been substantially reduced, disputing suggestions that Beijing continues to provide Tehran with significant military and economic support.
​
The economic pressure comes as Iranian officials seek a new agreement with Washington. Tehran recently proposed reopening the Strait of Hormuz within seven days as part of a broader arrangement that would require U.S. concessions, including easing the blockade, lifting oil sanctions and releasing approximately $12 billion in frozen Iranian assets. Iran has also sought a halt to hostilities as part of the proposal.
​
President Trump rejected the proposal as presented, although both Washington and Tehran have continued to signal that diplomatic negotiations remain possible. Mediators, including Qatar, have been working to facilitate indirect discussions between the two governments.
​
Bessent rejected Iran’s portrayal of reopening the Strait of Hormuz as a major concession, arguing that commercial shipping is already moving through the strategic waterway.
​
“The straits are open,” Bessent insisted. “We’re averaging now 15 to 22 million barrels a day… It was at about 20 [million] pre-conflict.”
​
According to Bessent, the United States has succeeded in preventing Iranian oil exports while allowing substantial quantities of oil from other producers to continue moving through the waterway.
​
The Strait of Hormuz has nevertheless remained a major source of global economic uncertainty throughout the conflict. In peacetime, roughly one-fifth of internationally traded oil and natural gas passes through the narrow waterway, making disruptions there capable of producing significant movements in global energy markets.
​
Shipping through the strait has faced disruptions since early March amid Iranian attacks on vessels and the wider military confrontation. The Trump administration says U.S. forces have maintained a protected shipping route near Oman to allow commercial traffic to continue.
​
Washington is also looking beyond the immediate confrontation with Iran. The United States has reportedly proposed a multibillion-dollar initiative with Arab allies to strengthen alternative energy transportation infrastructure and reduce the region’s dependence on the Strait of Hormuz, including new pipeline capacity that could lessen Iran’s ability to disrupt global oil supplies.
​
Despite President Trump’s rejection of Tehran’s latest proposal, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi have maintained that Iran remains prepared to negotiate under acceptable conditions. Tehran says it will not negotiate under coercion and wants Washington to fulfill commitments Iran says were included in the failed earlier agreement.
​
Bessent, however, argued that Iran’s renewed interest in negotiations is itself evidence that the economic campaign is succeeding.
​
“They are isolated from the world,” Bessent said. “They are a pariah state. And my job is to make sure that, when they come with a deal, that they want to stick to it. They did not stick to the MOU.”
​
The Treasury secretary said any future agreement would ultimately be President Trump’s decision, while predicting that Iran’s worsening economic condition would make Tehran less able to walk away from another accord.
​
“Next time, if there is a deal, and that’s at President Trump’s discretion, they will stick to it, because they are on their knees.”

President Donald Trump is urging his MAGA supporters to turn out for Republican candidates in the November midterm elections as though his own name were on the ballot, while pledging to personally use his political influence and financial resources to help GOP candidates during the campaign’s final five weeks.
​
Trump issued the appeal Monday morning on Truth Social as Republicans fight to preserve their narrow majority in the House and their control of the Senate.
​
“MAGA, pretend I am on the ballot,” Trump wrote. “Don’t let them open your Borders, and allow crime to again flourish. KEEP AMERICA GREAT!!!”
​
The message came as Trump praised Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action, following Roberts’ television appearance Monday morning, during which he pushed back against recent assessments suggesting that Republicans are facing increasingly difficult political conditions heading into Election Day.
​
“The topic was Fake Polls and how well the Republicans are going to do in the upcoming Midterms,” Trump wrote.
​
Trump also made clear that he plans to become personally involved in helping Republican candidates across the country during the final stretch of the campaign.
​
“I’ll be out there spending money, and helping every one of them get elected,” Trump said. “I won most of these places, often by a landslide.”
​
Roberts challenged increasingly pessimistic assessments of Republican prospects, arguing that Washington political analysts have repeatedly been wrong and that individual congressional races remain highly competitive.
​
He described control of the House as a “jump ball” and argued that analysts could be underestimating conservative turnout. Roberts also disputed predictions of major Republican difficulties in Senate contests, pointing to several races where he believes GOP candidates can remain competitive.
​
Trump’s push comes just days after the nonpartisan Cook Political Report shifted its ratings in 15 House races toward Democrats, reflecting what its analysts described as an increasingly favorable political environment for Democrats.
​
Two Republican-held districts — Arizona’s 1st Congressional District and New Jersey’s 7th — were moved from Toss Up to Lean Democrat.
​
Three additional GOP-held seats, including the Texas district represented by Rep. Monica De La Cruz, moved into the Toss Up category.
​
Following the changes, Cook currently places 208 House races in the Democratic column and 205 in the Republican column, with 22 contests rated Toss Ups. Of those 22 Toss Ups, 17 are Republican-held seats and five are Democratic-held seats.
​
Republicans, however, enter the final stretch with a substantial financial advantage at the congressional campaign committee level.
​
The National Republican Congressional Committee finished August with $89 million in cash on hand, compared with $76 million for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, giving Republicans a roughly $13 million advantage.
​
The $13 million edge is the largest the NRCC has held over its Democratic counterpart at this stage of an election cycle.
​
Republicans have also begun putting that money to work across the House battlefield. As of Sept. 18, the NRCC had spent approximately $16.9 million on advertising across 39 districts, compared with roughly $3.7 million spent by the DCCC across 13 districts.
​
Cook House analyst Erin Covey has said the current environment points to a Democratic gain of between five and 15 seats, although that assessment could change substantially during the remaining weeks of the campaign.
​
Trump, however, is signaling that he intends to make himself a central part of the GOP’s closing argument.
​
His request that supporters behave as though he personally were on the ballot reflects one of the Republican Party’s major challenges in a midterm election: motivating voters who strongly support Trump to participate even though the president himself is not standing for election.
​
With Election Day approaching and control of Congress hinging on a relatively small number of competitive districts, Trump indicated Monday that he plans to put his money, political organization and personal appeal behind Republican candidates.
​
“I’ll be out there spending money, and helping every one of them get elected,” Trump said.

Former New York Gov. George Pataki is blasting the state’s decision to end the requirement that students pass Regents exams to receive a high school diploma, accusing education officials of lowering academic standards rather than confronting failing schools.
​
The New York Board of Regents voted earlier this month to move forward with a sweeping overhaul of the state’s graduation system. Beginning with students graduating in 2028, passing a prescribed set of Regents exams will no longer be required for a diploma. The exams themselves are not being abolished and will continue to be administered, including where required under federal law, but they will no longer serve as a separate graduation hurdle.
​
Pataki, the three-term Republican governor who served from 1995 through 2006 and whose administration helped make Regents exams a statewide graduation requirement, condemned the change in unusually sharp terms.
​
“Getting rid of the Regents is incredibly stupid,” said George Pataki, the Republican three-term New York governor from 1995 through 2006, to The Post.
​
“It seems like the Education Department’s main function right now is to disguise the fact that too many New York State schools are failing to educate our kids,” Pataki said.
​
“So instead of doing the appropriate testing so that corrective measures could be taken to improve [performance], they simply get rid of the tests to hide their failure.”
​
“This is really a sad day for New York.”
​
The change is part of the State Education Department’s “NY Inspires” initiative, a multiyear restructuring of New York’s high school graduation system. State officials say the goal is to measure student achievement through a broader range of academic work and demonstrated skills instead of making passage of a specific series of standardized exams a prerequisite for receiving a diploma.
​
The state’s plan calls for moving away from the existing system of local, Regents and Regents with Advanced Designation diplomas and eventually replacing them with a single New York State high school diploma. Students will still be able to distinguish themselves through seals and endorsements, including a replacement for the current Advanced Designation.
​
Under the current system, students generally must earn the required credits and satisfy assessment requirements that include English language arts, mathematics, science and social studies, along with an additional pathway requirement.
​
Those assessment requirements became a central part of New York’s graduation system during Pataki’s administration, when Richard Mills served as state education commissioner. Current 12th graders are expected to be the final graduating class required to satisfy the existing Regents testing requirements.
​
Students graduating beginning in 2028 will no longer have to pass Regents exams to earn their diplomas, although the tests will remain available and will continue to play a role in measuring academic performance.
​
The Education Department says districts will instead use broader local assessment strategies incorporating multiple forms of evidence, potentially including classroom assessments, student work, performance-based learning, teacher observations and state examinations.
​
The overhaul does not mean that students will simply receive diplomas without academic requirements. The state says existing credit requirements will initially remain, while later phases of the initiative will introduce additional requirements and eventually move toward a competency-based graduation system.
​
Full implementation of the new competency-based model is scheduled to begin with students entering ninth grade in the fall of 2029. Under that framework, students will be expected to demonstrate proficiency in state learning standards as well as a broader set of competencies.
​
Pataki, however, argues that eliminating the requirement to pass Regents exams removes an important statewide benchmark and makes it more difficult to identify schools that are failing to properly educate their students.
​
He also invoked the recent controversy surrounding New York Times writer Nikole Hannah-Jones and the Brooklyn public school her daughter attended, arguing that struggling schools demonstrate why New York should be strengthening rather than weakening objective measures of student achievement.
​
“This is a disgrace,” Pataki said.
​
“The next time Democrats talk about income inequality, ask them how their subservience to the teachers union is helping low income minority kids get a step up in life,” he said.
​
The issue is also spilling into the 2026 gubernatorial campaign, where education policy has become another dividing line between Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul and Republican Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman.
​
“We pay the highest taxes in the nation under Kathy Hochul, yet too many of our children are still not getting the results they deserve,” Blakeman said in a statement. “Taxpayers and students deserve higher standards, stronger schools and real accountability for the enormous amount of money New York spends on education.
​
The Board of Regents, rather than the governor, has direct authority over state education policy and graduation requirements. Its 17 members are elected by the state Legislature, where Democrats hold majorities. Hochul therefore does not appoint the Regents or directly control their decisions, although the governor wields substantial influence over education policy through the state budget and legislation.
​
Hochul has nevertheless expressed reservations about the decision and particularly about the uncertainty surrounding what will replace the current graduation standards.
​
“Governor Hochul shares the concerns many New Yorkers have raised about the decision to eliminate the current standards for earning a high school diploma and the lack of clarity about what will replace them,” a Hochul rep said Sunday.
​
“While this decision rests with the independent State Education Department, she believes strongly that a New York diploma must remain a meaningful credential that students, families, colleges and employers can trust. The Board of Regents have a responsibility to preserve academic rigor and ensure clear, consistent graduation standards across the state.”
​
State education officials fired back forcefully at Pataki, accusing him of attacking an education system in which he has not been closely involved for decades.
​
“We understand former Governor George Pataki has not been engaged in the education landscape since 1998 when he signed the law creating charter schools,” the state DOE said. “While he’s entitled to his political opinion, it is not reflective of the current climate and support educators statewide are providing the Department through ongoing stakeholder engagement.”
​
“We are committed to ensuring every New York student, not simply students fortunate enough to attend a particular school, has access to rigorous teaching and meaningful ways to demonstrate what they know and can do.”
​
The Education Department says its new approach could incorporate portfolios, long-term projects, problem-solving exercises and other methods of demonstrating academic competency rather than relying predominantly on standardized testing.
​
The state also says students under the new system will be expected to develop information-literacy skills and learn to “recognize misinformation, distinguish fact from opinion, evaluate sources, and identify claims that are presented without important context.”
​
“We are far more interested in equity, academic rigor, and preparing New York’s students for the future than in preserving the education politics of the 1990s,” the SED said.
​
Education officials also took a personal swipe at Pataki, pointing out that the statewide Regents graduation mandate he is defending did not exist when he attended high school.
​
“It’s also worth noting that when Pataki graduated from high school, New York students could graduate without satisfying a Regents exam requirement, and yet somehow, that era still produced a public high school graduate from Peekskill who went to Yale and later became Governor of New York,” the SED said.
​
The State Education Department is now responsible for developing the detailed regulations, guidance and assessment structure that will accompany the transition. State officials say Regents exams will remain part of New York education, but their purpose will shift toward measuring mastery of state learning standards rather than determining whether an individual student receives a diploma.
​
Critics say that still leaves a major question unanswered: What statewide accountability mechanism will replace the requirement being removed?
​
Stan Litow, a member of the SUNY Board of Trustees, former New York City deputy schools chancellor and one of the architects of the P-TECH school model, said changing the system before a fully developed replacement is ready is problematic.
​
“You can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” said Stan Litow, a member of the SUNY Board of Trustees, former New York City deputy schools chancellor and architect in designing Pathways in Technology Early College High Schools or P-TECH schools.
​
“Removing an accountability system without a replacement in place is a flawed way of proceeding,” he said.
​
The Regents exams themselves have long attracted criticism from both sides of the education debate. Even supporters of statewide testing have argued that the exams have sometimes been weakened over the years, while past controversies have included allegations of manipulated scoring and pressure to maintain graduation rates.
​
The debate, therefore, is increasingly centered not simply on whether the Regents exams are an ideal measurement tool, but on what should replace their role as a uniform statewide graduation benchmark — and whether New York can move toward a more flexible system without reducing the meaning of a high school diploma.

{Matzav.com}

​Republican political committees may have lost an estimated $117 million in potential donations after fundraising emails containing WinRed links were disproportionately routed to spam by Gmail, Microsoft Outlook and Yahoo during two periods in 2025, according to a newly published academic study, the NY Post reports.
​
The research, conducted by University of Iowa finance professor Cameron Ellis and University of Alabama professor Lars Powell, examined Federal Election Commission contribution records alongside email inbox-placement data and paired-email tests. The researchers concluded that approximately 142,126 expected first-time WinRed donations disappeared during periods when Republican fundraising messages experienced unusually severe filtering.
​
The study itself does not conclude that political bias caused the filtering. Rather, Ellis and Powell say their data demonstrate that specific link-based filtering decisions by major email providers coincided with a dramatic and measurable decline in Republican fundraising while comparable ActBlue-linked messages did not experience the same decline.
​
One of the episodes began June 30, 2025, when Republican consulting firm Targeted Victory alerted Google that messages containing links to WinRed, the GOP’s principal online fundraising platform, were being diverted to spam. That period continued until September 15, when Google stopped relying on SURBL, an outside service whose blocklist had been identifying WinRed-linked messages as potentially problematic.
​
During that period, according to the researchers, first-time WinRed donations fell approximately 75% relative to expected levels as messages were filtered by Gmail, Outlook and Yahoo.
​
A separate episode occurred between February and April 2025 and involved Microsoft Outlook. During that period, first-time WinRed donations dropped 83% compared with normal levels as Republican fundraising emails experienced sharply reduced inbox placement.
​
Together, the researchers calculated, the two filtering episodes resulted in approximately 142,126 missing first-time donations.
​
The researchers did not simply multiply the number of missing donations by an average initial contribution. Their $117 million estimate incorporates the projected value of newly acquired donors over time. That distinction is important: the $117 million is an economic estimate of donations researchers believe Republicans would have received from those missing donors, rather than $117 million in individual transactions that were directly blocked by spam filters.
​
The scale of the estimated loss is particularly striking when compared with overall Republican fundraising. The Republican National Committee, National Republican Congressional Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee together reported approximately $377 million in fundraising during 2025.
​
“It’s a pretty big number,” Powell said in an interview with The Post. “You can really think of that as an in-kind gift to ActBlue recipients.”
​
The researchers were careful, however, not to conclude that Gmail, Outlook or Yahoo deliberately discriminated against Republicans for political reasons.
​
Instead, the paper concluded that “a narrow, link-level placement decision by a small number of mailbox providers produced a measurable and economically meaningful drop in political fundraising, and that the mechanism was observable only because private paired-test evidence leaked into public reporting.”
​
The researchers said a central problem is the lack of transparency surrounding the algorithms used by major email providers to decide which messages reach inboxes and which are routed into spam.
​
In explaining the difficulty of determining why particular filtering decisions were made, Powell said “we can’t read their minds.”
​
Google strongly disputed the study’s conclusions and methodology.
​
A Google spokesperson said the research “relies on deeply flawed methodology that fundamentally misunderstands how Gmail works.”
​
“Our spam protections apply equally to everyone, regardless of political affiliation and we encourage bulk senders to follow best practices to reach inboxes,” the spokesperson added. “Ultimately, people are in full control of their inboxes, with the power to mark messages as spam, block senders, or unsubscribe at any time.”
​
Google also challenged the $117 million estimate, arguing that the figure represents a theoretical calculation of the value of donors who researchers believe were lost rather than an accounting of specific contributions that unquestionably would have occurred.
​
Microsoft declined to comment on the findings, while Yahoo did not respond to a request for comment.
​
To conduct the analysis, Ellis and Powell examined itemized Federal Election Commission contribution records and separated first-time donors from repeat donors using WinRed and ActBlue.
​
They then compared donation patterns with inbox-placement data covering periods in which Republican messages were being filtered. This allowed them to estimate how many new contributions would normally have been expected during those periods.
​
“Inbox placement data and paired email tests showed when the filtering happened and supported that WinRed links were the trigger,” Powell said.
​
The findings add new data to a controversy that has simmered for years over whether email providers treat political messages from Republicans and Democrats differently.
​
Republicans have repeatedly accused Google in particular of disproportionately filtering conservative political emails. Google has consistently denied intentionally favoring one political party and has said its automated systems evaluate messages according to factors designed to protect users from spam and unwanted email.
​
Previous legal and regulatory challenges did not establish unlawful political discrimination by Google. In 2023, the Federal Election Commission dismissed an RNC complaint involving Gmail, finding “no reason to believe” Google had violated federal election law. A federal judge also dismissed a separate Republican National Committee lawsuit against Google in 2024.
​
The 2025 controversy took another turn when Targeted Victory conducted paired-email testing. According to the Republican consulting firm, messages containing WinRed links were flagged while otherwise identical messages containing ActBlue links were successfully delivered.
​
Targeted Victory said some Republican fundraising messages were not merely sent to spam but were marked by Gmail as “dangerous.”
​
The complaints attracted the attention of Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson, who wrote Google CEO Sundar Pichai warning that politically discriminatory email filtering could potentially raise consumer-protection concerns.
​
Google subsequently stopped using SURBL in Gmail’s filtering system on September 15, 2025. Ellis and Powell reported that Republican email inbox placement “normalized” after that change.
​
Republican officials say the new academic findings bolster their longstanding contention that the filtering had significant real-world consequences.
​
“Google’s biased algorithms sidelined Republican fundraising emails for years while boosting Democrats’ donor outreach,” Bernadette Breslin, press secretary for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told The Post.
​
“The NRSC has helped lead the investigation into Google’s suppression of mail to conservative subscribers, and this long-overdue update is a chance to level the playing field for online fundraising,” Breslin added.
​
A Republican adviser familiar with the dispute similarly described the findings as a “massive proof point in what we already knew to be true.”
​
“Smoking gun that conservatives are being systematically disenfranchised,” the adviser added.
​
Meanwhile, Gmail has changed the way qualifying political email can be handled. Google launched a Verified Sender Program for eligible American political committees, including candidates, political parties and PACs.
​
Under the program, participating organizations must verify their identities and sending domains and satisfy Gmail’s technical and security requirements. They must also maintain compliance with the program’s policies.
​
The program is intended to improve deliverability for authenticated political senders while leaving individual Gmail users with the ability to mark messages as spam, block senders or unsubscribe.
​
Powell said he had not discussed his study with Google and could not say whether the new policy resulted from the controversy. He suggested, however, that business considerations could ultimately influence how Google responds to complaints from political email senders.
​
“They make money by having people send more emails. If people start changing, that’s bad for their business model,” Powell said. “I think that’s when we find out whether they’re more blue or green.”
​
The researchers’ central finding remains narrower than the partisan accusations surrounding it: during two identifiable periods when WinRed-linked messages suffered sharp drops in inbox placement, Republican first-time donations fell dramatically, while comparable Democratic fundraising did not show the same pattern.
​
Whether those filtering decisions resulted from political bias, technical spam-detection rules or other factors remains disputed. What Ellis and Powell say their data establish is the financial consequence: an estimated 142,126 lost first-time Republican donors with a projected value of approximately $117 million.

​
The New York Public Library is facing criticism after hosting Pulitzer Prize-winning author Benjamin Moser for an event promoting his new book on Jewish anti-Zionism, during which Moser compared Israel to a “dog shelter,” accused major American Jewish organizations of supporting “genocide,” and joined retired Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi in sharply attacking Zionism.
​
The September 22 program at the NYPL’s Stephen A. Schwarzman Building on 42nd Street was held to mark the publication of Moser’s new 400-page book, Anti-Zionism: A Jewish History. Moser discussed the book with Khalidi, the Edward Said Professor Emeritus of Arab Studies at Columbia and a longtime critic of Israel. The event was organized through the library’s Dorothy and Lewis B. Cullman Center for Scholars and Writers, where Moser was a 2025-2026 fellow while working on the book.
​
During the discussion, Moser sought to characterize the relationship that some American Jews historically had with Israel, comparing their support for the Jewish state to support for an animal shelter.
​
“Israel was like a dog shelter … Isn’t it nice there’s a dog shelter?” Moser said at the event, held in the NYPL’s Stephen A. Schwarzman Building.
​
The event did not feature a pro-Israel participant opposite Moser. Instead, Moser was interviewed by Khalidi, whose own scholarship and public advocacy have included extensive criticism of Zionism and Israeli policies. According to the account of the event, Khalidi largely agreed with Moser’s arguments during the discussion.
​
Moser also dismissed concerns expressed by some American Jews about growing antisemitism and their personal safety, portraying some of those fears as exaggerated.
​
Moser called it a “‘poor me’ thing” where Jews are walking “down Madison Avenue” and complaining that “‘I couldn’t get a croissant and it’s like [Polish Nazi concentration camp] Treblinka,’” Moser said. “This is really stuff you see on social media every day.”
​
Both Moser and Khalidi referred during the discussion to Zionists as “intellectual thugs,” contending that supporters of Israel seek to suppress criticism of the Israeli government and its conduct in Gaza.
​
Moser went further in his criticism of the organized American Jewish community, saying that “the leadership of almost all of the main Jewish institutions” in America “have supported this genocide” in Gaza and said “nothing has made Jews look worse in history…than Zionism.”
​
The characterization of Israel’s conduct in Gaza as genocide remains fiercely disputed. Israel has rejected the allegation, saying its military operations have targeted Hamas following the October 7, 2023, terror attack and that Hamas’s embedding of military infrastructure among civilians has contributed to the enormous civilian toll. Critics of Israel, including Moser and Khalidi, have accused Israel of genocide and systematic mistreatment of Palestinians.
​
During the NYPL event, Moser also argued that Israel’s creation involved the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and was followed by the establishment of what he described as an apartheid system. He additionally referred to Theodor Herzl, widely regarded as the father of modern political Zionism, as “weird.”
​
The discussion focused heavily on Israel’s conduct in Gaza while giving comparatively little attention to Hamas’s October 7 massacre, according to the account of the event. The Hamas-led assault killed approximately 1,200 people in Israel and saw 251 people taken hostage into Gaza, triggering the war that followed.
​
Moser’s book, released by Doubleday on the same day as the library event, seeks to trace a history of Jewish opposition to Zionism through figures from different countries, religious backgrounds and political movements. The publisher describes the work as an effort to challenge the proposition that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are synonymous.
​
The library itself has been directly involved in Moser’s work. Moser spent the 2025-2026 academic year as a fellow at the NYPL’s Cullman Center, where his stated project was a global history of anti-Zionist Jews. His previous book Sontag: Her Life and Work won the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for Biography.
​
Criticism of the event quickly emerged, with former New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind, founder of Americans Against Antisemitism, blasting the publicly supported library for providing Moser with a prominent platform.
​
“You have a right to free speech. But don’t use our taxpayer dollars to give this Jew hater a platform,” said former Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind, founder of the group Americans Against Antisemitism.
​
The controversy has also reached City Hall. The office of New York City Council Speaker Julie Menin said it had received complaints concerning the program and was communicating with the NYPL to obtain additional information about what occurred.
​
The New York Public Library defended its decision to host the event, maintaining that presenting controversial viewpoints does not constitute institutional endorsement.
​
“The Library abides by an overarching principle to host speakers, programs, and public discussions that offer a diversity of viewpoints and cultural perspectives,” NYPL spokesperson Melissa Grace said. “We host over 100,000 events a year.
​
“Programming is never an institutional endorsement, but rather an opportunity to let people come to their own conclusions, debate, or even change their minds,” Grace added. “We do not police speech, which is consistent with our commitment to intellectual freedom and the protections of the First Amendment.”
​
The library also stressed that its programming has included viewpoints from across the Israeli-Palestinian debate and programming focused specifically on Jewish history, antisemitism and Israel.
​
Brent Reidy, the NYPL’s director of research libraries, acknowledged the sensitivity of the subject when introducing the Moser event, saying people within and outside the institution have “strong and differing feelings on Zionism, antii-Zionism and rising antisemitism and Islamophobia.”
​
“We hold complex and often difficult conversations,” he said.
​
The library pointed to its annual observance of Jewish American Heritage Month and previous programs involving a range of Jewish and Israeli subjects. Earlier programming has included an event concerning Holocaust survivor Gary “Pips” Phillips and a discussion featuring Israeli and Palestinian peace activists who had lost relatives in the conflict.
​
In 2025, the NYPL hosted Sen. Chuck Schumer for a discussion of his book Antisemitism in America: A Warning. In 2020, it hosted New Yorker editor David Remnick in conversation with Natan Sharansky, the famed Soviet refusenik, former Israeli government minister and human rights activist. ​

The controversy comes as Moser is making the case for his book in a series of appearances and interviews surrounding its release. The work presents anti-Zionism as a longstanding current within Jewish intellectual and religious history rather than a phenomenon arising principally from the contemporary Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
​
The book itself has already generated substantial debate. A recent Jewish Book Council review described it as deeply critical of Zionism and catalogued a series of explosive allegations made by Moser against Zionists, while other reviews have challenged elements of his historical framing and accused the book of minimizing complexities that do not fit its thesis.
​
For the NYPL, however, the immediate controversy centers less on the publication of Moser’s book than on the decision by one of the nation’s most prominent publicly supported cultural institutions to provide a platform for the discussion — and whether its stated commitment to presenting diverse viewpoints adequately addresses criticism that this particular program offered no substantive pro-Israel counterpoint.

{Matzav.com}

A new University of Chicago survey is raising alarms about growing acceptance of political violence in the United States, with political scientist Robert Pape reporting that 25% of American adults — including 44% of self-identified Democrats — say they support the use of force to prevent President Donald Trump from being president.
​
Pape, who directs the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, or CPOST, said the overall figure represents roughly 65 million American adults. The nationally representative polling is conducted by CPOST in conjunction with NORC at the University of Chicago, as part of a series of surveys examining American attitudes toward political violence.
​
The findings measure expressed support for the use of force, rather than respondents’ intentions to personally commit violence. Pape said, however, that years of follow-up focus groups and survey experiments conducted by his team indicate that many respondents who endorse “force” understand the term to encompass serious physical violence.
​
Pape discussed the latest findings in an interview with podcaster Chris Williamson, warning that political violence in the United States has reached levels not experienced in decades and could become particularly dangerous surrounding the 2026 midterm elections.
​
“We haven’t seen this level of violence, political violence, since the 1960s,” Pape said in a recent interview.
​
Pape has warned that, in an extreme scenario, the coming election period could become “the most violent election in American history.”
​
He attributed his concern not to a single political party or ideology, but to several trends occurring simultaneously, including intense partisan hostility, demographic and social upheaval, economic pressures and the willingness of substantial minorities of Americans to tell pollsters that political force can sometimes be justified.
​
Discussing his newest data with Williamson, Pape said 25% of adults nationwide now endorse using force to prevent Trump from being president. Among respondents identifying themselves as Democrats, that figure climbed to 44%.
​
“This is a stunning number,” he said. “This is not just another turn of the data.”
​
The latest findings represent a sharp increase from earlier CPOST surveys. Pape said support for force against Trump had previously registered at approximately 9%, before reaching 14% in September 2025. A May 2025 CPOST survey found 39% of Democrats agreeing that force was justified to remove Trump from the presidency, compared with the latest figure of 44%.
​
Pape said his researchers have also sought to determine what respondents actually mean when they say they support “force.” Through focus groups and additional survey work, he said, researchers found that among those supporting force against Trump, 55% associated the term with lethal violence, including assassination, while other respondents envisioned violence resembling riots or mass civil disorder.
​
At the same time, Pape’s research has also identified support for coercive political force among Trump supporters. In the latest polling, he said 16% of Americans supported Trump using the military to suppress Democratic protesters.
​
For Pape, those findings are evidence of a broader phenomenon he describes as “violent populism,” in which the willingness to justify political violence is spreading beyond organized extremist movements and becoming increasingly accepted among otherwise ordinary Americans.
​
Pape argues that social media can intensify and spread political rage, but he does not regard online platforms as the fundamental cause. Instead, his research points to deeper political, economic, demographic and social forces driving the increasing willingness to view violence as an acceptable response to political conflict.
​
His greatest concern surrounding the midterm elections is not necessarily Election Day itself. Instead, Pape believes the most dangerous period could begin once ballots are counted and continue through the certification process and the seating of elected officials in January.
​
“That’s the real danger zone,” he said.
​
According to Pape, a crucial factor will be whether defeated candidates and their supporters accept election results or instead conclude that victories were illegitimately taken from them. A contested result combined with already elevated public support for political violence, he argues, could create conditions for serious unrest.
​
The latest numbers come against the backdrop of two assassination attempts against Trump during the 2024 presidential campaign.
​
On July 13, 2024, Thomas Matthew Crooks opened fire on Trump’s campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. Trump was struck by a bullet, rally attendee Corey Comperatore was killed, and spectators David Dutch and James Copenhaver were wounded. The FBI subsequently investigated the shooting as an assassination attempt and potential act of domestic terrorism. Investigators determined that Crooks acted alone but never established a definitive motive.
​
Two months later, Ryan Wesley Routh was arrested after a Secret Service agent spotted him concealed along the fence line of Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida, with a rifle as Trump was playing nearby.
​
A federal jury convicted Routh in September 2025 of attempting to assassinate Trump, assaulting a federal law enforcement officer and firearms offenses. In February 2026, a federal judge sentenced Routh to life in prison plus an additional 84 months.
​
Trump and Republican officials have not been the only targets of politically motivated violence and threats. Democratic elected officials have also faced attacks and threats, a fact Pape cites in arguing that the current danger cannot be understood solely through a partisan lens.
​
Historical research nevertheless shows significant differences in the lethality of extremist violence. National Institute of Justice-funded research examining ideologically motivated violence since 1990 found that far-right extremists carried out 227 attacks resulting in more than 520 deaths, while far-left extremists were responsible for 42 attacks resulting in 78 deaths. Those historical figures describe extremist violence over several decades and are distinct from Pape’s current polling of public attitudes toward political force.
​
The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing remains the deadliest prominent example of modern anti-government far-right terrorism in the United States. Timothy McVeigh’s bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building killed 168 people.
​
Pape contends that the political environment changed substantially beginning around the 2016 election. His research describes the ensuing period as an emerging era of “violent populism,” marked by increasing threats and violence directed at political figures across ideological lines.
​
CPOST has also studied threats against members of Congress. Pape’s research has found a dramatic increase in charged threats against lawmakers beginning after 2016, with Democratic and Republican members alike becoming targets.
​
Pape’s concern is therefore less about assigning political violence exclusively to the right or the left than about the growing number of Americans across the political spectrum who appear prepared to justify it.
​
“Once you come to see that there are tens of millions of Americans that support political violence, that changes everything,” Pape said.
​
Another striking example of changing public attitudes followed the December 2024 killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in Manhattan. Luigi Mangione was charged in the killing, which generated widespread discussion online about anger toward the health insurance industry.
​
An Emerson College poll conducted shortly afterward found that 68% of voters considered the killer’s actions unacceptable, while 17% found them acceptable and 16% were unsure. The partisan differences were notable: 22% of Democrats considered the killing acceptable, compared with 12% of Republicans and 16% of independents. Among voters ages 18 to 29, 41% said the killing was acceptable.
​
A separate Generation Lab survey conducted among 1,026 college students in December 2024 likewise found substantial sympathy for the killing among younger Americans, adding to concerns among researchers about weakening social taboos against political and ideological violence.
​
Pape argues that the danger increases when political violence begins to acquire a broader constituency of people who may never themselves carry out an attack but nevertheless regard violence committed by others as legitimate.
​
His fear is that the United States could enter a cycle in which violence against one political faction becomes justification for retaliation by the other, progressively eroding longstanding norms against using physical force to resolve political disputes.
​
While most Americans continue to reject political violence, Pape says the growth of the minority willing to justify it represents a significant change — particularly as the country approaches another contentious national election and both sides increasingly perceive the political stakes as existential.

​
A potentially significant shift is emerging within Agudas Yisroel ahead of Israel’s upcoming election, with senior figures reportedly saying that party chairman MK Yitzchok Goldknopf could abstain rather than vote against a minority government headed by Gadi Eisenkot — a move that could alter the parliamentary arithmetic needed to establish Israel’s next government.
​
The report was first publicized Monday evening by political commentator Amit Segal, who cited senior figures in Ger as saying that Goldknopf would not necessarily vote against an Eisenkot-led minority government. Instead, according to those sources, he could abstain from the confidence vote. The report remains an assessment attributed to party and Ger sources, rather than a formal commitment by Goldknopf or Agudas Yisroel.
​
Other reports indicated that Goldknopf may not be alone. MK Yaakov Tessler, another Ger representative in Agudas Yisroel, was also named as someone who could potentially abstain, while some political sources suggested that additional members of United Torah Judaism might ultimately take the same course. There is considerably more uncertainty, however, regarding the position of Degel HaTorah, and no such decision has been announced by the party.
​
The development comes after an extended rupture between Agudas Yisroel and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu over the failure to secure legislation protecting the status of bnei yeshivos. Goldknopf has repeatedly argued over the past year that the chareidi parties entered Netanyahu’s coalition with a commitment that the status of lomdei Torah would be legislatively resolved, and he has sharply criticized Netanyahu over what he regards as the failure to fulfill that commitment.
​
The dispute eventually led Goldknopf and Agudas Yisroel away from the Netanyahu government, and Goldknopf has increasingly rejected the assumption that the chareidi parties must automatically remain part of a permanent Netanyahu-led political bloc. Months ago, he publicly warned against assuming that the chareidi electorate would remain part of the Netanyahu bloc if the government failed to deliver on the issue of bnei yeshivos.
​
The significance of an abstention could be substantial. A government seeking the Knesset’s confidence does not necessarily need 61 affirmative votes if enough MKs abstain; what matters in an ordinary confidence vote is whether the government receives more votes in favor than against. As a result, every MK who abstains rather than votes against a proposed government can change the numbers needed for it to take office.
​
That possibility takes on added importance because Eisenkot has already been publicly discussing a scenario in which he could seek to establish a minority government if his political camp does not reach 61 seats. Earlier this month, Channel 12 reported that Eisenkot was preparing what has been described as the “Eisenkot Plan,” under which a minority government could seek Knesset confidence without bringing the Arab parties into the coalition.
​
Until now, much of the discussion surrounding such a government centered on the possibility of Arab parties abstaining. The latest development raises a different possibility: that members of Agudas Yisroel could themselves decline to vote against an Eisenkot government, potentially reducing the number of votes required for such a government to survive its initial confidence vote.
​
Goldknopf, however, responded to Monday’s report by laying down what he described as Agudas Yisroel’s fundamental condition for dealing with any future government, without confirming that he would abstain in favor of allowing an Eisenkot government to take office.
​
“Agudas Yisrael will not support the establishment of a government and will not provide outside support to any government without resolving the status of yeshiva students and passing a draft law without sanctions and without quotas,” Goldknopf said.
​
The wording immediately drew attention because Goldknopf did not explicitly say that Agudas Yisroel would vote against an Eisenkot government. At the same time, his declaration that the party would not “provide outside support” to a government that failed to satisfy its demands could also be understood as ruling out an abstention designed to enable such a government to take office. For now, therefore, the precise position remains unresolved.
​
Agudas Yisroel’s insistence on legislation without quotas or sanctions is not new. The party’s Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah has opposed legislation imposing sanctions on lomdei Torah, and Goldknopf has repeatedly placed preservation of the status of bnei yeshivos at the center of the party’s political demands.
​
The latest reports nevertheless underscore how deeply the draft-law dispute has altered the political relationship between Agudas Yisroel and Netanyahu. Goldknopf has previously said that Netanyahu bore primary responsibility for the failure to pass legislation acceptable to the chareidi parties and has argued that the alliance cannot simply be taken for granted.
​
For now, the reported abstention remains a possible post-election scenario rather than an announced Agudas Yisroel policy. Much will depend on the election results, the position ultimately taken by the Gedolei Yisroel, the negotiations over the status of bnei yeshivos, and whether any prospective coalition is prepared to meet Agudas Yisroel’s demand for legislation without quotas and sanctions.

{Matzav.com}

[Video below.] TalkTV presenter Alex Phillips confronted British Defense Secretary Wes Streeting in a heated exchange over the government’s handling of national security, immigration and terrorism following the arrest of five men in connection with a suspected plot targeting RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire.
​
The confrontation came after five men were arrested near the military installation, which is used by the U.S. military. British counterterrorism authorities said Monday that the suspects are all British nationals in their 20s from London. Police are investigating whether individuals acting on behalf of a foreign state may have been involved, though authorities have not established a motive publicly.
​
Phillips focused much of her criticism on reports that a local farmer raised the alarm after encountering masked men and suspicious vehicles near the base. Streeting has since said British security authorities had prior awareness of the suspects, suggesting that the farmer had only a partial picture of the broader operation.
​
During an interview with The Express, Phillips pressed Streeting over what she portrayed as interconnected threats involving illegal immigration, terrorism, Islamist extremism and Russia.
​
“You’re the defence minister. What are you doing about the small boat crossings, the terror cells, Islamism, the threat from Russia?” she asked.
​
Phillips then challenged the British government over its policies toward Israel, questioning why London would take punitive measures against a country that provides intelligence assistance to Britain.
​
“Why is Israel sanctioned when they provide a lot of our intelligence reports for us?”
​
Phillips also accused the government of failing to heed warnings from intelligence officials and former senior security figures who have raised concerns about immigration and national security. “I would take a little guess here, Wes,” she said.
​
She then suggested that the suspects in the Fairford case may have entered Britain from abroad specifically to carry out an attack — an assertion that was contradicted by information subsequently released by British authorities identifying all five arrested men as British nationals from London.
​
“Let me teach you a thing or two, in case you don’t get it yet. I would imagine that whatever has happened near Fairford, the people who did it probably came into the country from elsewhere and came there specifically to do whatever they were planning to do. Perhaps, let me make it clear, you should join a dot, right?”
​
Phillips continued by attacking the government’s treatment of asylum seekers and its use of hotels and other facilities to accommodate migrants.
​
“They told you it themselves. And yet you’re still going, oh, yeah, aren’t they nice? They’re just asylum seekers. Give them a hotel. Let them stay on a military base. And don’t worry about that perimeter fence. We’ll open it wider.”
​
The five men were initially detained on suspicion of offenses under Britain’s Explosives Act and preparation of a terrorist act after police received a report concerning three suspicious vehicles traveling toward RAF Fairford early Sunday. Counterterrorism police said Monday that the investigation remained ongoing and had generated multiple new lines of inquiry.

Matzav.com regrets to inform you of the petirah of Rebbetzin Devorah Marcus a”h, wife of Hagaon Rav Mordechai Marcus zt”l, longtime rov of the Lakewood Minyan in Flatbush. Rebbetzin Marcus was niftar on Thursday, before Yom Tov.

For decades, Rebbetzin Marcus stood faithfully at the side of her illustrious husband, enabling him to devote his life to limud haTorah and harbotzas haTorah. Behind the extraordinary Torah accomplishments for which Rav Marcus was renowned was a devoted eishes chayil who built a home centered entirely around Torah and created the environment in which his remarkable aliyah and accomplishments could flourish.

Rav Marcus zt”l, who was niftar in 2020 at the age of 78, was regarded by those who knew him as one of the exceptional Torah minds of his time. He possessed an extraordinary command of Shas, Shulchan Aruch and poskim, combined with an analytical brilliance that made an impression on distinguished talmidei chachomim and rabbonim who learned with him and attended his shiurim. In his younger years, Rav Marcus learned at Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yaakov Yosef, RJJ, where his unusual abilities were already evident. Even as a young ben Torah, his brilliance was recognized by his rabbeim, who respected the incisiveness with which he approached a sugya. He could identify a weakness in a sevara almost immediately and possessed an uncommon ability to penetrate to the heart of a difficult Torah discussion.

Over the years, Rav Marcus acquired a breathtaking breadth of yedios haTorah. His mastery extended across virtually every area of Shas and halacha, yet his knowledge was accompanied by the ability to analyze difficult questions with remarkable depth and clarity.

Despite what he knew and what he had accomplished, there was little outward indication that one was speaking with a man of such extraordinary stature. His middos, simplicity and respect for every person were as memorable to those around him as his brilliance in Torah.

Throughout that life of Torah, Rebbetzin Marcus was his steadfast partner.

She understood what her husband possessed and what his Torah could mean for others, and she devoted herself to allowing that Torah to grow unhindered. The demands of raising a large family and maintaining a home were carried with dedication and strength, while Rav Marcus was able to spend his days and years immersed in learning, teaching, writing and answering difficult shailos.

But Rebbetzin Marcus’s contribution was far greater than simply making room for her husband’s Torah. Together, Rav and Rebbetzin Marcus built a magnificent family. Torah was the center around which family life revolved, and the fruits of that partnership can be seen in the generations they raised.

Rebbetzin Marcus is survived by her children, all devoted bnei Torah and marbitzei Torah: R’ Shloimy Marcus, R’ Shaya Marcus, R’ Michoel Marcus, R’ Aharon Marcus, R’ Avrumi Marcus, R’ Moshe Marcus, R’ Aryeh Marcus, Mrs. Miriam Hendler and Mrs. Rochel Hamaoui, as well as numerous grandchildren.

The levayah was held Thursday night at the Congregation Sons of Israel Memorial Chapel on Ramsey Avenue in Lakewood.

Yehi zichrah boruch.

{Matzav.com}

​
New details have emerged about the extraordinary measures Israel reportedly took to prevent Hezbollah from discovering the booby-trapped pager operation before thousands of the devices were detonated in September 2024, including the targeted killing of a suspicious Hezbollah operative and an airstrike that destroyed equipment sent from Iran to test the pagers.
​
The previously undisclosed details are featured in “Paging Hezbollah,” a documentary directed by Justin Falk that is scheduled to be released in the United States on October 30. The film examines the Israeli operation and the tense period leading up to its activation, when officials feared Hezbollah might uncover the plot.
​
According to information being disclosed ahead of the documentary’s release, Israeli officials took covert action on multiple occasions after indications emerged that Hezbollah was getting dangerously close to discovering what had been done to the communications devices.
​
One of the most serious concerns arose in early August 2024, when Israel’s security establishment learned that a Hezbollah operative had become suspicious of the pagers that had been distributed among members of the organization and was preparing to inspect them.
​
Israeli officials responded by targeting and killing the operative before he could carry out the examination. But because his sudden elimination could itself have alerted Hezbollah that his suspicions were well-founded, the strike was reportedly designed to create the impression that another person who was nearby had actually been the intended target.
​
Israeli intelligence later identified another potential threat to the operation when Iran dispatched an unusual shipment of advanced mirror machines to Lebanon. The equipment was reportedly intended to examine the pagers and determine their reliability and authenticity.
​
The Israeli Air Force subsequently attacked the shipment, destroying the testing equipment before it could be used. As with the earlier targeted killing, Israel reportedly sought to conceal the actual reason for the strike, portraying it instead as an ordinary intelligence-based operation against Hezbollah.
​
The documentary includes interviews with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, former Mossad chief David Barnea, former Northern Command commander Maj. Gen. Uri Gordin and other officials and figures involved in the events.
​
The filmmakers also detail the methods Israel reportedly used to penetrate Hezbollah’s supposedly secure communications infrastructure, combining sophisticated engineering with extensive infiltration of the terror group’s international supply chain to place the compromised devices into Hezbollah’s hands.

{Matzav.com}

​The IDF and Shin Bet have raised their level of alert in the Gaza Strip following specific intelligence indicating that Hamas may attempt to carry out an attack aimed at kidnapping an Israeli soldier in the near future.
​
In response to the intelligence warning, heightened security measures have been introduced across Israeli forces operating inside Gaza, with particular attention being given to preventing Hamas terrorists from exploiting vulnerabilities in IDF positions or troop movements.
​
According to a report by Ynet, the alert status has been increased in both operational divisions currently deployed in the Gaza Strip — the territorial division and the 99th Division.
​
As part of the heightened readiness, senior commanders from all units operating in the Gaza sector were instructed several days ago to remain in the area until further notice.
​
Commanders have also been ordered to carry out ongoing readiness assessments, review and drill emergency procedures, and reinforce vigilance among the soldiers serving under their command.
​
Israeli forces are presently positioned at approximately 40 outposts within the area of the “Yellow Line,” while another 10 IDF outposts are situated beyond the security fence.
​
Security precautions have been tightened at each of those positions in light of the intelligence warning. Patrols have been increased, defensive zones surrounding the positions have undergone additional inspections, and soldiers have received more stringent orders governing their movements.
​
The new directives also place particular emphasis on preventing soldiers from moving alone and prohibit troops from unnecessarily remaining in exposed locations, as the IDF and Shin Bet seek to minimize opportunities for a potential kidnapping attack.

{Matzav.com}

[Video below.] Tens of thousands of mispallelim packed the Kosel plaza in Yerushalayim on Monday morning for the first mass Birchas Kohanim of Chol Hamoed Sukkos, with hundreds of kohanim raising their hands together to bentch the enormous crowd during Shacharis and Mussaf.
​
The traditional gathering, now in its 56th year, was originally established by Rav Menachem Mendel Gefner zt”l and has for many years been organized by the Western Wall Heritage Foundation during Chol Hamoed Pesach and Sukkos.
​
Among those attending were the Rishon Letzion, Rav Dovid Yosef; Chief Rabbi Rav Kalman Ber; Rav Shmuel Rabinowitz, Rav of the Kosel and Holy Sites; Defense Minister Yisrael Katz; National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir; Minister Yitzchak Wasserlauf; Yerushalayim Mayor Moshe Lion; Israel Police Commissioner Danny Levy; Yerushalayim District Police Commander Avshalom Peled; former U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman; Western Wall Heritage Foundation director Mordechai “Soli” Eliav; Religious Services Ministry director-general Yehuda Avidan; former hostage Bar Kuperstein; and Motti Wieder, father of Sgt. Maj. Elishiv Eitan Wieder Hy”d.
​
Rav Rabinowitz led the tefillos as shliach tzibbur. During Birchas Kohanim, Defense Minister Katz, who is a kohen, joined the hundreds of other kohanim in duchening.
​
Following davening, a kabbolas pnei rabo gathering was held with the Chief Rabbis and Rav Rabinowitz, with thousands of people passing by to receive their brachos for Yom Tov.
​
Particularly emotional moments took place during the gathering when former hostage Bar Kuperstein joined the tens of thousands in a tefillas hoda’ah, expressing gratitude for the return of the hostages a year ago.
​
Motti Wieder, whose son Sgt. Maj. Elishiv Eitan Wieder Hy”d fell in battle in southern Lebanon on Erev Sukkos two years ago, recited Kaddish in memory of his son.
​
A second mass Birchas Kohanim gathering is scheduled to take place at the Kosel on Thursday, giving those unable to attend Monday’s event another opportunity to participate. The Western Wall Heritage Foundation said the event will be broadcast beginning at 8:45 a.m.
​
The foundation urged those planning to visit the Kosel throughout Sukkos to follow instructions from Israel Police and event personnel, who will regulate the flow of visitors into the plaza during the heavily attended Yom Tov period.
​
The Western Wall Heritage Foundation said: “The gathering was dedicated with heartfelt prayers for the welfare of IDF soldiers, the recovery of the wounded, and the peace and unity of Israel. The Foundation prepared in advance for the arrival of tens of thousands of visitors and worshippers during Sukkos to commemorate the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and we invite the public to participate in the second gathering, which will take place this coming Thursday.”
​
Meanwhile, the foundation apologized to hundreds of visitors seeking tickets for tours of the Kosel tunnels during Chol Hamoed Sukkos, saying tickets had already sold out in advance. Only a small number of spaces remain for the new “Gate of Heaven” presentation that recently opened to Kosel visitors.

WATCH:



{Matzav.com}

The Torah community of Ramat Shlomo in Yerushalayim is mourning the sudden petirah of Rav Shmuel Shmelka Klein zt”l, one of the neighborhood’s respected talmidei chachomim, who was niftar at the age of 70.
​
Rav Shmuel Shmelka was born on 26 Sivan 5716/1956 to his father, Rav Yaakov Yisroel Klein zt”l of Bnei Brak.
​
Upon reaching marriageable age, he married his wife, the daughter of Rav Nochum Tzvi Kaztzkow zt”l.
​
Throughout his life, Rav Shmuel Shmelka devoted himself with exceptional diligence to limud haTorah. Those who knew him describe a person whose life revolved around Torah and avodas Hashem, and who was beloved by those around him for the warmth and pleasant countenance with which he greeted others.
​
Friends and acquaintances recalled an elevated personality who continued serving Hashem faithfully despite considerable yissurim that he endured over the years. He accepted his suffering with emunah and without complaint, while continuing his dedication to Torah and avodas Hashem.
​
His sudden petirah during Chol Hamoed Sukkos came as a profound shock to his family, friends and the many people who knew him in the Ramat Shlomo community.
​
The levayah was held today, the second day of Chol Hamoed Sukkos, at 3:30 p.m. from his home at 3 Lopian Street in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood of Yerushalayim. From there, the levayah proceeded to Har Hazeisim for kevurah.
​
Rav Shmuel Shmelka leaves behind his grieving family, including members of the Klein, Broide, Stenger, Heiman and Zaritzky families.
​
The family will sit shivah at his home following Yom Tov.
​
Yehi zichro boruch.

​The decades-long legal battle surrounding the Ponevezh Yeshiva has now reached Israel’s Supreme Court, with Rav Shmuel Markowitz, the Mesores HaTorah organization and Rebbetzin Tziporah Markovitz seeking to overturn a lower-court ruling that upheld an arbitration decision requiring their faction to vacate portions of the yeshiva campus. They are also seeking an emergency stay of the eviction, currently scheduled for September 30, and of the financial obligations imposed upon them.
​
At the heart of the appeal is the contention that a final arbitration ruling issued more than 25 years ago, in 2000, has effectively been rewritten retroactively. According to the petitioners, that original ruling granted Rav Markovitz substantive, independent and permanent rights within the yeshiva, even describing him as a “king in his domain” with regard to the area placed under his authority. A subsequent arbitration ruling issued in 2025, however, determined that those rights had effectively expired around 2007.
​
The petitioners argue that this is the central legal flaw in the latest decision. They say the 2000 ruling contained no provision under which those rights would expire. Instead, they contend, the later arbitrator created an “implied condition” that did not appear in the original ruling and, according to the appeal, had never even been asserted by either party.
​
The appeal maintains that a final and binding ruling cannot be revisited years later by inserting a condition that was never part of the original decision and then using that newly created condition to extinguish rights expressly established by the earlier ruling. The petitioners argue that what occurred was therefore not merely an interpretation of the 2000 ruling, but a substantive alteration — and perhaps effective nullification — of its outcome under the guise of interpretation.
​
They also point to what they describe as an consequence of the 2025 decision: individuals who had occupied and used the premises for years based on rights they say were established by a binding arbitration ruling were retroactively deemed to have become “trespassers” as far back as 2007. According to the petitioners, no ruling at the time declared that their rights had expired, and the later decision did not establish a precise date on which the alleged expiration occurred.
​
A separate component of the appeal challenges the Tel Aviv District Court’s reasoning in approving the arbitration award. The petitioners say one of the central grounds for rejecting their request to overturn the award was the conclusion that Rav Markovitz was now barred from relying upon the 2000 ruling because of positions he had taken in earlier legal proceedings.
​
The petitioners counter that the specific argument of legal preclusion ultimately relied upon by the court was never presented against them in a manner that gave them a proper opportunity to address or rebut it.
​
Their Supreme Court filing describes the result as a legal “trap.” They note that an earlier court ruling in 2015 held that the 2000 arbitration decision was final and could not be changed. The petitioners say they were consequently required to conduct themselves in accordance with that determination, yet their reliance upon that same final ruling is now being invoked against them as grounds for preventing them from asserting their rights. They characterize this as a miscarriage of justice and a violation of their right to present their arguments.
​
According to the petitioners, the legal ramifications extend far beyond the longstanding dispute within Ponevezh. They argue that if a final arbitration ruling can later be interpreted by adding an unwritten “implied condition,” and that condition can then be used retroactively to eliminate rights expressly granted in the original ruling, the case raises fundamental questions about the finality of court judgments and arbitration awards generally.
​
The appeal therefore asks the Supreme Court to address what the petitioners describe as a precedent-setting legal question: where the boundary lies between interpreting a final ruling and effectively changing or overturning it, and how much authority a subsequent arbitrator possesses to alter the practical consequences of an earlier binding decision.
​
Alongside those broader legal arguments, the petitioners are warning of severe and immediate consequences if the eviction is carried out before the Supreme Court considers the case. The current ruling sets September 30, 2026, as the deadline to vacate the premises.
​
According to the application, the affected Ponevezh campus currently serves approximately 1,266 talmidim and avreichim. That number includes 226 minors, while approximately 837 of the talmidim live in the yeshiva’s dormitory facilities.
​
The petitioners say there is presently no alternative campus capable of accommodating an institution of that size. Their request for a stay states that a replacement complex would require approximately 18,000 to 25,000 square meters of space, including batei medrash, classrooms, dormitories, a kitchen, dining rooms and the necessary supporting infrastructure.
​
Even under an optimistic timetable, they contend, preparing an alternative campus and securing all necessary permits and approvals would take at least two years. They estimate that such a move would cost no less than NIS 200 million.
​
The petitioners further note that the arbitrator himself acknowledged the enormous practical difficulties involved in an eviction. According to their filing, the arbitrator recognized that relocating Rav Markovitz’s yeshiva framework would require extensive resources and that finding a solution for such a large number of talmidim would be no simple undertaking. At the same time, they say, the arbitrator determined that transferring the property to the opposing side was not necessary for that side’s current operations.
​
That finding, the petitioners argue, strengthens their request to preserve the existing situation until the Supreme Court rules on the appeal. They maintain that once the yeshiva is evacuated, restoring the previous situation would be virtually impossible, whereas temporarily postponing the eviction would, in their view, cause no substantial harm to the respondents.
​
In a statement accompanying the filing, the petitioners said:
​
“What was placed before the Supreme Court today is not another chapter in the Ponevezh dispute. This is a fundamental question of the rule of law: Is a final judgment truly final, or can it be rewritten 25 years later, an ‘implied condition’ that was never written in it invented, and then it can be retroactively determined that rights that were defined as permanent simply disappeared.
​
“The result that was reached is absurd: In 2025, an entire community was told that it had effectively been a ‘trespasser’ since 2007 – even though throughout all those years it was never told that its rights had expired, it was never determined when they expired, and the basis for their expiration did not appear at all in the final ruling under which it operated.
​
“More seriously, the judgment that approved the arbitration relies, in our view, on an argument of preclusion that was not raised against the petitioners in a manner that allowed them to address it. Substantive rights cannot be denied on the basis of an argument to which the party harmed by it was not given a genuine opportunity to respond.
​
“Now they are seeking to carry out the irreversible even before the Supreme Court has had its say: to evict 1,266 students and avreichim, hundreds of them minors and dormitory students, and dismantle a campus and a way of life that were built over decades – when even the arbitration ruling itself determined that the other side does not need the property for its current operations. First it must be determined whether the ruling can stand legally, and only afterward should a result be implemented that cannot be reversed. A final ruling is not a draft that can be rewritten after a quarter of a century.”

{Matzav.com}

It is with great sadness that Matzav.com reports the petirah of the Djerka Rebbe, Rav Aharon Brizel zt”l, who was niftar in New York at the age of 73 following a serious medical condition.

​The Rebbe had grown increasingly weak in recent weeks, with his condition fluctuating. Over the last several days, his health deteriorated significantly and he was hospitalized in New York in serious condition. His chassidim, family members and admirers throughout the world davened fervently for the refuah of Rav Aharon ben Chana Yuta, and a major atzeres tefillah was held at his bais medrash in Boro Park. Sadly, the Rebbe was niftar surrounded by members of his family and those close to him.
​
The Rebbe was born in Yerushalayim on 27 Nissan 5713/1953 to his father, Rav Pinchas Brizel zt”l, a prominent Karlin chossid and a member of the distinguished Brizel family, which has long been associated with the old Yerushalmi community. His mother, Chana Yuta a”h, was a daughter of Rav Chaim Hy”d, who served as a dayan in Kleinwardein.
​
Growing up in Yerushalayim, Rav Aharon absorbed Torah and yiras Shomayim from an early age. He became a close talmid of the Birkas Shalom of Ashlag, Rav Baruch Shalom Ashlag zt”l, the eldest son of the Baal HaSulam, Rav Yehuda Leib Ashlag zt”l. From his rebbe, Rav Aharon absorbed a distinctive approach to avodas Hashem, pnimiyus haTorah and chassidus, with particular emphasis on middos, compassion and love for other Yidden.
​
Rav Aharon eventually established his home in the United States and founded the Djerka chassidus. His batei medrash in Boro Park and Yerushalayim became known not only as places of Torah and tefillah, but as addresses for extraordinary hachnosas orchim and chessed.
​
The Rebbe’s path toward becoming an Admor was itself unusual. He initially established his following not as a Rebbe, but as a mekubal teaching Kabbalah according to the approach of Ashlag. A group of devoted talmidim gradually gathered around him, eventually becoming his chassidim.
​
Over the years, he established his home and bais medrash on Lapidot Street in Yerushalayim’s Bais Yisroel neighborhood. His home became particularly renowned for its open doors, with dozens of bochurim regularly joining him at his table every Shabbos.
​
Indeed, hachnosas orchim became one of the defining features of the Rebbe’s life. His doors and his heart were open to people from every background, particularly those who were struggling, lonely or simply needed somewhere to go. Whether in Eretz Yisroel or America, visitors knew that they could find a warm meal, a welcoming face and a place where they would be made to feel at home.
​
Those who knew the Rebbe related that his hachnosas orchim was never merely something delegated to gabbaim or followers. Despite the people surrounding him and his position as a Rebbe, Rav Aharon personally involved himself in caring for those who came through his doors.
​
Following a path reminiscent of Rav Shayele of Kerestir zy”a, the Rebbe would enter the kitchen himself, prepare food and personally distribute meals to hungry and needy Yidden. He performed these acts with simplicity and warmth, sharing in the pain and difficulties of those who turned to him for assistance.
​
At the same time, his bais medrash became a gathering place for chassidim, talmidei chachomim and Yidden seeking greater closeness to Hashem. Rav Aharon was known for his fiery avodas hatefillah, his warm words of encouragement and his unusual ability to combine depth in pnimiyus haTorah with simplicity, accessibility and a welcoming chassidishe warmth that drew people toward him.
​
The Rebbe endured a particularly painful personal tragedy during the past year with the untimely petirah of his granddaughter, Mrs. Miriam Sarah Bard a”h, daughter of Rav Moshe Shmuel Rottenberg, director of the Rav Lehoshia chessed organization. She was just 24 years old when she was niftar following a serious illness.
​
Despite the profound pain of that loss, the Rebbe accepted the decree with emunah and continued leading and strengthening those around him with tremendous devotion, even as he himself endured considerable suffering.
​
The Rebbe leaves behind a distinguished family of sons, daughters, sons-in-law and grandchildren, including marbitzei Torah and yirah, who continue the Torah, avodah and chessed that characterized his life and his leadership in the chassidishe communities of Eretz Yisroel and the United States.
​
Details regarding the levayah will be announced when they become available.
​
Yehi zichro boruch.