Momentum toward passing a new Israeli draft law — intended to formalize the status of yeshiva students and set updated enlistment targets — hit another major obstacle, as the legal adviser to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee came out firmly against including civil–security service as part of the draft quotas.
The development follows a report yesterday indicating that the committee’s legal adviser, Miri Frenkel-Shor, had already demanded at least two more months of deliberations on the draft law. Such a delay would push the legislative process dangerously close to the deadline for passing the state budget, creating additional political pressure.
As time goes on, the challenges surrounding the legislation appear only to intensify.
Chareidi parties have insisted that the new draft law recognize civil–security service — work in the police, the Shin Bet, the Mossad, and the Prison Service — as part of the enlistment goals. Their argument is that, given the new targets proposed, these roles must count toward meeting the law’s requirements.
But Frenkel-Shor issued a formal legal opinion rejecting that proposal outright.
In her written assessment to committee members, she stated: “The civil–security service track, which is open only to graduates of chareidi educational institutions, constitutes a violation of equality since the nature of national-civil service is fundamentally different from military service, even if it is considered civil–security service.”
She added further concerns, writing that this service track is significantly shorter, voluntary rather than compulsory, and does not include reserve duty — all of which, she argued, create a substantial disparity between it and actual army service.
According to her, even though civil–security placements may involve some form of security contribution, they “do not currently meet the test of present security needs, which require increasing the number of IDF combat soldiers and personnel.”
The reaction in the chareidi factions has been one of deep concern. There is growing fear that as discussions progress, the legal adviser will object to additional core elements of the bill, making passage nearly impossible.
A senior chareidi figure involved in negotiating the draft law warned: “At this pace, if she indeed opposes the central clauses, we will not be able to amend them, because the rabbanim will not allow it. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to pass a law that contradicts the legal adviser’s position. And if we pass it anyway, it is almost certain to be struck down by the High Court, which would only create a bigger mess. If this continues, there will be no law.”
{Matzav.com}
A stormy scene erupted in the Knesset on Monday after MK Naama Lazimi of the Democrats party was forcibly removed from the podium for the second time in two weeks, following harsh remarks in which she again referred to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu as a “mafioso” and “head of a crime organization.”
The incident occurred during a plenary session following Netanyahu’s address, in which he criticized the opposition. Immediately afterward, Lazimi took to the podium and declared: “Today we saw yet another deranged performance from the head of the crime organization known as Binyamin Netanyahu. So what is this mafioso, who is extorting an entire country, telling us?”
Her remarks triggered an immediate uproar. Likud MK Tali Gottlieb, seated in the plenum, burst out at Lazimi: “You will not call a prime minister a mafioso — get down!” Gottlieb then appealed to the deputy Knesset speaker, MK Nissim Vaturi, who was overseeing the session, to order Lazimi’s removal.
“You will not call a prime minister a mafioso, get down,” Gottlieb repeated. Lazimi continued speaking and claimed that Netanyahu had transferred suitcases of money to Hamas. At that point, Knesset ushers approached the podium and removed her by force.
This is the second time in two weeks that Lazimi has been ousted from the podium. Two weeks earlier, she was also removed after calling the Likud “a crime organization.” At that time she said: “I want to say something to those who call themselves members of the Likud party, but in reality have long been members of a crime organization.” She continued attacking the coalition: “When the entire Prime Minister’s Office works with a hostile state, Qatar, to make money during wartime and you all stay silent — are these not the codes of organized crime?”
Deputy Speaker Eliahu Revivo, who chaired that earlier session, demanded she retract her statements; after she refused, he ordered her removal. Today, Lazimi repeated similar accusations — and was again removed from the podium.
Earlier in the session, Netanyahu delivered remarks as part of a “40 signatures” debate and sharply criticized the premise of the discussion, which focused on Israel’s supposed declining international standing. “Collapse of Israel’s international status? What a disconnect from reality. What a recycling of hollow slogans that are the opposite of what is actually happening. The State of Israel today is stronger than ever,” he said.
Netanyahu also addressed Israel’s relations with the United States and Russia. “We are friends of the U.S., but we are two independent countries. The friendship is based on shared values and shared interests, which have only sharpened,” he said. “Israel has no better ally than the United States, and the United States has no better ally than Israel.”
On ties with Russia, the prime minister said: “We have ongoing contact with another global power, Russia. I speak regularly with President Putin in order to strengthen the relationship.”
He then discussed the first state visit of the German chancellor to Israel yesterday, explaining its significance. Members of Yesh Atid interrupted with jeers: “He came here because you can’t land in Germany.” Netanyahu shot back: “Why do you keep repeating that lie?”
Turning to the draft law, Netanyahu said: “This is the beginning of a historic process. It is expected to triple or quadruple what the previous government — which called itself the healing government — achieved.”
As opposition shouting grew louder, Netanyahu concluded with a declaration aimed at the core of the public debate: “The world of Torah protected us for thousands of years and will continue to protect us — together with the draft.”
{Matzav.com}
President Donald Trump sharply escalated his criticism of Mexico on Monday, alleging that the country is violating its decades-old water-sharing obligations and depriving Texas agriculture of essential resources. He charged that Mexico has fallen drastically short of delivering the water owed under the 1944 U.S.–Mexico Water Treaty and declared that he is prepared to slap an additional 5% tariff on Mexican goods if the situation is not remedied at once.
The treaty requires each country to send designated amounts of river water across the border—Mexico must transfer 1.75 million acre-feet from the Rio Grande over every five-year cycle. Trump argued on Truth Social that the current cycle has ended with Mexico “owing” roughly 800,000 acre-feet, an amount he says represents a blatant breach of the agreement. “Mexico continues to violate our comprehensive Water Treaty, and this violation is seriously hurting our BEAUTIFUL TEXAS CROPS AND LIVESTOCK,” he wrote, insisting that the deficit accumulated entirely “over the past five years.”
Trump demanded that Mexico begin by releasing 200,000 acre-feet before Dec. 31, stressing that the remainder must follow shortly afterward. He lamented that Mexico has not addressed the problem: “As of now, Mexico is not responding, and it is very unfair to our U.S. Farmers who deserve this much needed water.” He then announced a retaliatory step, saying, “That is why I have authorized documentation to impose a 5% Tariff on Mexico if this water isn’t released, IMMEDIATELY. The longer Mexico takes to release the water, the more our Farmers are hurt. Mexico has an obligation to FIX THIS NOW. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
This is not Trump’s first warning. In an April 10 Truth Social post, he raised similar concerns, contending that Mexico had repeatedly shorted its treaty commitments. By late April, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins stated that Mexico had agreed to increase deliveries in an effort to shrink the shortfall, noting that the arrangement provided immediate relief for the growing season while also laying out near-term commitments through the close of the five-year cycle in October.
Yet frustrations in Texas have only intensified. Last month, Gov. Greg Abbott again blasted Mexico for what he called chronic noncompliance. “Mexico must be held accountable for their continued breaches of our long-standing water agreement,” he said, arguing that farmers in the Rio Grande Valley are suffering the consequences. Abbott warned that “Texas farmers are enduring preventable hardship and an erosion of the agricultural viability of the Rio Grande Valley,” citing “almost 2 million acre-feet” in missing water across more than two years’ worth of obligations. He also emphasized that “The breach of the 1944 Water Treaty violates foundational elements of international law and diplomacy and must be corrected immediately.”
The treaty imposes reciprocal responsibilities: the U.S. must send 1.5 million acre-feet from the Colorado River to Mexico annually, while Mexico must fulfill its Rio Grande deliveries in cumulative five-year blocks. The most recent cycle fell so far short that Mexico delivered less than half of its promised supply.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, speaking on Oct. 30, insisted her administration intends to meet the treaty’s terms. “There will be a delivery of water now that there are more resources, without putting human consumption and agriculture at risk,” she said, according to El País.
{Matzav.com}
President Donald Trump on Monday offered his most detailed explanation yet for why U.S. forces launched a second missile at a drug-smuggling vessel in the Caribbean, arguing that the two men who survived the initial strike were attempting to overturn their capsized boat. He said the military could not allow them to restore the vessel because “that boat was loaded up with drugs,” framing the follow-up strike as a necessary step to stop narcotrafficking at its source.
Trump also shifted his tone regarding public release of the classified footage. Days earlier, he told reporters he saw “no problem” with making the video public. On Monday, however, he insisted that the matter rests entirely with War Secretary Pete Hegseth. “Whatever Pete Hegseth wants to do is OK with me,” he said when pressed about the apparent change. He later rejected the idea that he had previously endorsed disclosure, despite having said last week, “Whatever they have we’d certainly release.”
Lawmakers, especially from the Democrat side, are demanding full visibility into the Sept. 2 mission. The operation, which unfolded in the Caribbean Sea, left nine people dead in the first strike and two more in the second. It marked the beginning of a months-long U.S. campaign targeting cartel-linked smuggling vessels across the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, a campaign that has now resulted in at least 87 fatalities across 22 acknowledged strikes. Congress is tightening its demands, inserting language into the upcoming $900 billion defense bill requiring the Pentagon to provide “unedited video of strikes” or face cuts to a quarter of Hegseth’s travel funding.
The Pentagon has yet to comment on Trump’s assertion that the survivors were trying to restore the overturned craft, nor has it addressed where Hegseth’s review stands. Over the weekend, Hegseth told Fox News that officials were still examining the footage, cautioning that “Whatever we were to decide to release, we’d have to be very responsible” about the implications of doing so.
Trump continues to frame the maritime strike campaign as integral to stopping fentanyl and other dangerous narcotics from reaching American shores. He has repeatedly said the United States is engaged in armed conflict with “narco-terrorists,” portraying the strikes as part of a broader national-security strategy that targets cartel networks tied to governments such as that of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
On Capitol Hill, reactions to the classified footage diverged sharply along party lines. Sen. Tom Cotton, who leads the Senate Intelligence Committee and was fully briefed by the Navy admiral overseeing the missions, said the video raised no concerns for him. “It’s not gruesome. I didn’t find it distressing or disturbing,” he said, adding that it resembled “any number of dozens of strikes we’ve seen on jeeps and pickup trucks in the Middle East over the years.” He has no objection to the footage being released to the public.
Democrat lawmakers who viewed the same material described the scenes very differently. Rep. Jim Himes said the footage “was profoundly shaking,” while Rep. Adam Smith said it “did not appear that these two survivors were in any position to continue the fight.” Both argued that the circumstances surrounding the second strike require further scrutiny, particularly regarding compliance with the laws of armed conflict.
Their concerns intensified after reports emerged about Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley’s testimony. Bradley told members of Congress that there was no directive from Hegseth to “kill them all,” but the full video sequence raised enough questions that lawmakers demanded additional explanations. Some legal scholars also weighed in, warning that killing survivors adrift at sea could constitute a breach of wartime legal standards.
Others, however, countered that interpretation, arguing that because the operation is classified as part of an armed campaign against narco-terrorist groups, those aboard the vessel were lawful combatants. Under this legal framing, even survivors of an initial attack can still be considered active threats, capable of calling for backup, salvaging drugs, or renewing hostilities — making them legitimate military targets rather than shipwrecked civilians.
{Matzav.com}
