Feed aggregator

A stark warning was sounded in the Knesset on Wednesday as lawmakers approved another extension of Israel’s prison emergency, with National Security Committee chairman MK Tzvika Fogel warning that without urgent action to address overcrowding and staffing shortages, “the next October 7” could originate from inside the country’s prisons.

The committee approved extending the special incarceration emergency for another month, through October 15, 2026. The government had requested a two-month extension, but lawmakers shortened it amid the approaching elections and concerns over whether the temporary committee expected to operate in the next Knesset would be able to conduct another review at the appropriate time.

The emergency designation gives the Israel Prison Service exceptional authority to hold prisoners and detainees under conditions that would ordinarily violate statutory minimum living-space requirements. In some circumstances, inmates can also be housed without individual beds.

According to figures presented by the Ministry of National Security, 23,049 prisoners and detainees were being held in IPS facilities as of Wednesday morning. Israel’s prison system has been under extraordinary pressure since the October 7 massacre and the ensuing war, with thousands of additional security prisoners entering the system. Earlier official Knesset data showed the prison population rising by more than 6,850 inmates between the beginning of the war and January 2026.

Authorities are now working to dramatically expand capacity. The Ministry of National Security expects approximately 3,000 additional spaces for security prisoners to become available by the end of 2026 and the beginning of 2027, according to information presented at Wednesday’s hearing.

The Israel Prison Service has also stepped up recruitment as it attempts to cope with the growing inmate population and a shortage of personnel.

Officials told the committee that 1,115 new prison officers have been recruited through targeted campaigns, specialized recruitment programs and incentives for personnel serving at facilities in southern Israel. The IPS is also preparing to open a facility in Yerushalayim and is pursuing additional recruits from the chareidi community, recently discharged soldiers and candidates brought in through special recruitment and referral programs.

Israel’s prison-capacity crisis predates October 7 but worsened dramatically after the massacre and war. A State Comptroller report discussed by a Knesset committee in June found that approximately 16,000 people were incarcerated before the war, including more than 5,000 security prisoners. The total subsequently climbed to approximately 23,000, including roughly 10,000 security prisoners.

The comptroller’s findings also indicated that Israel had not sufficiently prepared for an emergency scenario requiring the rapid absorption of thousands of security prisoners. Planning had relied heavily on overcrowding existing facilities and expanding current prisons rather than maintaining enough reserve capacity for a major security emergency.

Fogel warned Wednesday that repeatedly extending the prison emergency could not serve as a permanent solution to the underlying problem.

He said the growing inmate population and pressure on prison facilities were creating risks for IPS personnel and argued that additional government ministries needed to become directly involved in finding a long-term solution.

“If additional government ministries do not get involved quickly, it could be that the next October 7 will not come from Yehudah and Shomron, but from inside a prison,” Fogel warned.

The concern surrounding prison security is not merely theoretical. Israeli prison officials have previously warned of efforts by security prisoners to coordinate disturbances and accumulate improvised weapons. During a Knesset hearing last year, a senior IPS official said intelligence indicated increasing friction inside prisons, including “the intentions and accumulation of cold weapons and coordination of protest measures.”

At Wednesday’s hearing, however, officials also stressed that the overcrowding problem extends beyond security prisoners.

A representative of the Israel Bar Association told lawmakers that only 16 percent of applications for early release are currently approved. She argued that broader use of early release for suitable criminal prisoners could alleviate overcrowding while allowing those inmates to enter rehabilitation programs outside prison.

Fogel said that while Israel must contend with the large population of security prisoners, the government also has an obligation to rehabilitate criminal inmates and avoid incarceration conditions that could increase the likelihood that they return to crime after their release.

The government has been adding prison capacity at several facilities. Earlier this year, the Knesset was told that construction had been completed on 480 additional spaces at Maasiyahu Prison, while expansion projects were underway at Tzalmon, Ofer, Ketziot and Saharonim.

The scale of the problem has changed considerably since October 7. Official figures presented in September 2025 showed 24,715 people incarcerated at the time — an increase of approximately 8,360 since the massacre — including 11,115 security prisoners.

Wednesday’s one-month extension gives the IPS additional time to operate under the emergency provisions while construction and recruitment continue.

But Fogel made clear that, in his view, expanding facilities and repeatedly renewing emergency measures cannot substitute for a comprehensive government response, warning that overcrowding, insufficient staffing and a large concentration of security prisoners could ultimately develop into a serious security threat if the problem is allowed to fester.

{Matzav.com}

A new package of economic sanctions targeting chareidi men who have not reported for IDF service is being prepared by an interministerial team, with families potentially losing thousands of shekels annually in housing assistance, after-school subsidies and government funding for vacation programs.

The measures, first reported Wednesday night by Channel 13’s Yoeli Brim, are expected to take effect during 2027 and would expand an already growing array of financial penalties being imposed on chareidi draft-eligible men who have not regularized their status with the IDF.

One of the most significant new measures under consideration involves government-subsidized housing loans. Under the proposal, draft defaulters would lose eligibility for enhanced housing loans offered with government assistance and preferential terms.

The benefit is separate from an ordinary bank mortgage. According to the Channel 13 report, losing eligibility could cost an affected family approximately 7,000 shekels per year.

Another planned measure would eliminate subsidies for after-school programs for children whose father is classified as a draft defaulter. The financial impact of that change alone could reach approximately 10,000 shekels annually for some families.

Government assistance for summer camps and other programs operating during school vacations could also be withdrawn. Depending on a family’s circumstances, that could result in several thousand additional shekels in annual expenses.

Taken together, the three newly reported measures could cost some affected households more than 17,000 shekels per year, before taking into account other benefits that have already been eliminated or restricted.

The latest proposals are part of a much broader effort by Israel’s legal authorities to use economic and civilian measures against chareidi men who remain obligated to serve following court rulings that ended the previous blanket framework under which full-time yeshiva students could defer military service.

A government review has examined numerous benefits available to individuals and households, including assistance involving housing, education, transportation and employment. A Knesset Research and Information Center review previously catalogued 18 separate categories of individual benefits potentially relevant to the debate.

Other sanctions that have already been advanced include restrictions on eligibility for municipal property-tax discounts, public-transportation discounts, daycare subsidies and participation in government-subsidized housing programs.

In July, the Construction and Housing Ministry notified chareidi draft defaulters that their eligibility for subsidized housing programs, including Dira BeHanacha, was being revoked following a decision by the Israel Land Authority Council.

Daycare assistance has emerged as one of the most financially consequential elements of the sanctions. According to an analysis by the Israel Democracy Institute, daycare subsidies worth an average of approximately 26,400 shekels annually per affected chareidi family have already been withheld from draft-eligible avreichim since March 2025. Reduced National Insurance payments previously available to eligible yeshiva students were also eliminated beginning in January 2026, according to the analysis.

The issue has generated a major battle within the government and Knesset because many chareidi lawmakers argue that sanctions tied to benefits received by a household punish wives and children rather than solely the individual subject to the draft obligation.

That argument has been particularly prominent in the fight over daycare subsidies. Chareidi lawmakers have sought legislation under which eligibility for daycare assistance would be calculated primarily according to the mother’s employment or educational status, contending that withdrawing the subsidy could discourage chareidi women from remaining in the workforce. Government economic officials and opponents of the legislation have argued that such changes could weaken incentives connected to military service.

The latest sanctions are reportedly being formulated following petitions and court proceedings concerning enforcement of the draft obligation. Israel’s attorney general and other legal officials have argued that government ministries must ensure that individuals who have not complied with their military obligations do not continue receiving certain state benefits whose eligibility criteria are connected to their status.

Earlier this year, Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara’s office submitted to the High Court an extensive list of possible economic measures. Among those identified were restrictions involving public transportation, municipal property taxes, subsidized housing, daycare and after-school programs, as well as certain scholarships and educational assistance programs.

The measures have generated fierce opposition within the chareidi community, where rabbonim have instructed yeshiva bochurim to continue their Torah learning amid the ongoing confrontation over the draft.

The financial implications could become substantial. Published estimates cited in the Israeli reports indicate that the collection of sanctions could ultimately reduce government expenditures by close to one billion shekels annually, while individual families affected by several of the restrictions could lose benefits worth tens of thousands of shekels each year.

The latest three measures — involving housing loans, after-school programs and vacation programs — remain under development and are reportedly slated to take effect during 2027. Their implementation would mark another expansion of the economic pressure being applied to chareidi draft defaulters as Israel’s political and legal battle over the status of yeshiva bochurim continues.

{Matzav.com}

[COMMUNICATED]

The Feigenbaum Machzor brings Rabbi Yitzchak Feigenbaum’s depth and clarity to the tefillos of Yom Tov, helping familiar words land differently.

Now available in Nusach Ashkenaz and Nusach Sefard.

Click HERE to order your machzor

Hunter Biden leveled extraordinary accusations against Israeli Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu in a new interview with British broadcaster LBC, claiming without presenting evidence that Netanyahu knew in advance that Hamas was planning the October 7 massacre and deliberately failed to prevent it. Biden also characterized Israel’s conduct in Gaza as “akin to genocide.”

The remarks came during a wide-ranging interview with veteran British journalist Andrew Marr on LBC’s Tonight with Andrew Marr, during which the son of President Joe Biden discussed President Donald Trump, American politics, Israel and Gaza, as well as his own struggles with addiction.

Biden directed some of his strongest criticism at Netanyahu, alleging that the Israeli prime minister had advance knowledge that an attack was being planned for October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists invaded southern Israel, murdering approximately 1,200 people and taking more than 250 hostages.

According to LBC’s account of the interview, Biden claimed Netanyahu knew an attack was being planned but “did absolutely nothing about it.” Biden did not provide evidence during the interview establishing that Netanyahu personally knew Hamas would launch the October 7 assault or that he intentionally allowed it to occur.

Biden went further, suggesting that Israeli authorities knowingly allowed the Hamas assault to happen in order to obtain public support for subsequent military action in Gaza. Israel Hayom reported Biden as saying that “they knew” what was coming and allowed it to occur so they could pursue a plan that otherwise would never have received approval. The report noted that Biden did not specify precisely whom he meant by “they” or produce evidence supporting an allegation that Israeli leaders deliberately permitted the massacre to take place.

His allegations appear to draw on reports and longstanding questions surrounding intelligence failures before October 7. Israeli military and intelligence bodies have faced intense scrutiny over warning signs and information about Hamas’s preparations that existed before the massacre. The existence of missed intelligence and security failures, however, is distinct from Biden’s allegation that Netanyahu personally knew the attack was coming and intentionally declined to stop it.

Biden also launched a broad attack on Netanyahu’s conduct of the subsequent Gaza war, describing the Israeli campaign as “akin to genocide,” while acknowledging that “genocide” is a “very loaded” term.

The accusation comes amid an international dispute over that terminology. Israel has rejected allegations of genocide, maintaining that its war is directed against Hamas and other terrorist organizations following the October 7 massacre and that civilian casualties occur despite measures intended to reduce them. Israel has also accused Hamas of operating from civilian areas and infrastructure.

The LBC interview was not the first occasion on which Biden has publicly advanced allegations that Israeli leaders knew more about Hamas’s October 7 plans than they have acknowledged.

During a lengthy 2025 interview with YouTuber Andrew Callaghan, Biden questioned Israel’s preparedness despite reports that Israeli intelligence had obtained information concerning Hamas’s operational plans before the attack. In that interview, Biden also discussed the profound impact of October 7 on ordinary Israelis and their desire to eliminate the Hamas threat.

More recently, Biden made even stronger allegations during another podcast appearance. In an interview released this month, he said, “what’s happening in Palestine right now is genocide,” and accused Netanyahu and his Likud-led government of acting in an “evil” manner. He then asserted that Netanyahu knew about the October 7 attacks before they occurred.

Biden has also sharply escalated his personal rhetoric against Netanyahu in recent months. During an August appearance on Tucker Carlson’s podcast, he reportedly called Netanyahu “evil incarnate.” He has additionally aired unsubstantiated theories involving Israeli figures and the dissemination of material from his laptop, while acknowledging that he did not possess forensic evidence tying Israeli intelligence or Israeli government officials to the alleged activity.

His latest comments are particularly notable given his father’s complicated relationship with Netanyahu during the Gaza war. President Joe Biden repeatedly declared his support for Israel following October 7 and traveled to Israel days after the massacre. As the war continued, however, his administration increasingly clashed with Netanyahu’s government over civilian casualties, humanitarian conditions in Gaza and the conduct of Israeli military operations.

Hunter Biden’s LBC appearance extended far beyond Israel. He also launched a blistering attack on President Trump, describing him as “an existential threat to not just our constitutional republic, but to all of NATO and for the entire globe.” He characterized Trump as the greatest global crisis since World War II and said he feared Trump might attempt to remain in the White House after his term expires.

“I don’t think that he has any plans of leaving the White House,” Biden said.

Asked by Marr about the implications of such a scenario, Biden said the United States would be entering “completely uncharted territory” and should “plan for the worst and hope for the best.”

Biden also called for a political “reckoning” after the Trump presidency and argued that Democrats should consider impeachment proceedings if they regain control of the House, accusing Trump of conduct he said amounted to “high crimes and misdemeanours.”

Despite his increasingly prominent media appearances, Biden told Marr that he has no plans to run for president or seek political office. Instead, he said he wants to devote attention to helping people struggling with addiction, drawing on his own highly publicized history of substance abuse and recovery.

Biden said the intense public scrutiny of his addiction ultimately forced him to confront his problems openly and, “in many ways,” helped save his life.

His accusations concerning Netanyahu and October 7, however, are likely to be among the most controversial remarks from the interview. While serious investigations and reporting have documented major Israeli intelligence and security failures preceding the Hamas invasion, Biden went substantially further by alleging intentional inaction by Netanyahu — a claim for which he offered no substantiating evidence in the LBC interview.

{Matzav.com}

A frightening scene unfolded Wednesday morning on the George Washington Bridge when police officers surrounded an Uber and took its driver into custody at gunpoint, while a yungerman and his family were still inside the vehicle as passengers.

The dramatic arrest came after the Uber driver reportedly fled from the scene of an earlier incident at the Sloatsburg Rest Area in Rockland County.

Video recorded from inside the Uber by the frum passengers captured the tense moments as law enforcement officers approached the vehicle with their weapons drawn and ordered the driver out.

The yungerman and his family had apparently entered the Uber as ordinary passengers and suddenly found themselves caught in the middle of a police operation involving their driver.

According to initial reports, authorities had been searching for the driver in connection with an incident that occurred earlier at the Sloatsburg Rest Area. Precisely what took place there remains unclear.

Authorities were investigating whether the original incident involved an assault or a possible stabbing. No additional details regarding the alleged victim, the circumstances leading up to the incident or the driver’s alleged role had been publicly confirmed as of the initial report.

The Uber was ultimately intercepted on the George Washington Bridge, where officers conducted the high-risk traffic stop.

The driver was ordered from the vehicle at gunpoint and taken into custody as the stunned family watched from inside.

Despite the alarming circumstances surrounding the arrest, there were no immediate reports that the passengers were injured.

Authorities have not yet publicly released the driver’s identity or announced what charges, if any, have been filed against him.

The precise sequence of events — including when the frum family entered the Uber, whether the driver was already being sought by police at that point and how authorities tracked the vehicle to the George Washington Bridge — also remained unclear.

{Matzav.com}

Vice President JD Vance, today one of President Donald Trump’s closest political allies, privately sought contact with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016 and offered strategic advice aimed at stopping Trump from winning the White House, according to a newly published Vanity Fair investigation. Vance’s office strongly disputes the characterization that he was attempting to help Clinton win.

The revelation adds a previously unreported chapter to Vance’s well-known opposition to Trump during the 2016 campaign. While Vance’s public criticism of Trump at the time has long been documented, Vanity Fair reports that his efforts extended behind the scenes, where he sought access to senior Clinton campaign officials and offered specific recommendations for winning working-class voters in crucial Midwestern states.

According to Vanity Fair, Vance contacted an intermediary connected to the Clinton campaign and asked to be put in touch with Jake Sullivan, then one of Clinton’s senior policy advisers and later President Joe Biden’s national security adviser.

“JD called me and said, ‘Can you put me in touch with Jake Sullivan?’” the intermediary recalled.

When the intermediary initially indicated that Sullivan was too busy, Vance reportedly persisted.

“He called me again and he said, ‘I hate Hillary. But I hate Trump more. Trump can’t win. He can’t win. Hillary’s going to lose, but she doesn’t have to,’” the source told Vanity Fair.

Vance reportedly went beyond expressing his opposition to Trump and laid out a concrete strategy he believed Clinton should follow. He urged her campaign to devote immediate attention to Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — working-class states that would ultimately prove decisive in Trump’s victory.

According to the intermediary, Vance believed Clinton was failing to understand the frustration of voters in communities like his hometown of Middletown, Ohio. He urged her to spend less time appearing alongside celebrities and instead personally visit those communities and address issues that had alienated working-class voters.

The source said Vance specifically argued that Clinton should come to the Midwest rather than remain “down with Beyoncé in Miami” and should apologize for her vote authorizing the Iraq War. Vance believed that decision continued to resonate in communities where families had sent sons and fathers to fight overseas.

Clinton, then a senator from New York, had voted in 2002 to authorize the use of military force against Iraq. She later described that vote as a mistake.

Vanity Fair reports that Vance eventually succeeded in speaking directly with Sullivan roughly six weeks before the November 2016 election. A person close to Sullivan confirmed that a conversation occurred, although the source did not recall Vance specifically laying out his proposed strategy for Clinton’s campaign in the so-called Blue Wall states.

The source did, however, remember Vance focusing on the political damage caused by Clinton’s widely criticized “basket of deplorables” remark about some Trump supporters.

Vance reportedly believed Clinton needed to repair the damage quickly and urged the campaign to sharpen its focus.

“She’s got to focus,” Vance said, according to the source.

The Office of the Vice President pushed back forcefully against Vanity Fair’s portrayal of Vance’s actions, arguing that his discussions about working-class voters should not be interpreted as an effort to elect Clinton.

“A lot of people asked the Vice President for advice in 2016. He never worked for a campaign, but he urged both Republicans and Democrats to care about working class towns like Middletown, Ohio. We 100 percent reject the characterization that he was trying to help Hillary win,” Vance spokeswoman Taylor Van Kirk said.

The episode occurred during a period when Vance, fresh off the success of his memoir Hillbilly Elegy, was emerging as a nationally recognized commentator on working-class America and was also an outspoken conservative critic of Trump.

Vance repeatedly criticized Trump during the 2016 campaign. In an August 2016 NPR interview, he said he could not “stomach” Trump and described him as “toxic,” arguing that Trump was leading white working-class voters toward “a very dark place.” At one point, Vance said that if he believed Trump had a genuine chance of winning, he might have to “hold my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton.”

His criticism extended well beyond that interview. Vance famously described Trump as “cultural heroin” and, in a private message that later became public, wondered whether Trump might be “America’s Hitler.”

Vance ultimately did not vote for either Trump or Clinton in 2016. He has said he cast his ballot for independent conservative candidate Evan McMullin.

The newly reported contact with the Clinton campaign provides additional context for Vance’s subsequent political transformation. Vance eventually abandoned his opposition to Trump, embraced much of his political agenda and ran for the U.S. Senate from Ohio in 2022 with Trump’s endorsement.

After winning the Senate seat, Vance became one of Trump’s prominent allies in Washington. Trump selected him as his running mate in 2024, and Vance became vice president following their election victory.

Vance has publicly addressed his change of position over the years, saying his earlier assessment of Trump was wrong and pointing to Trump’s record in office as a major reason he reconsidered his views.

Vanity Fair’s report also quotes White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles discussing Vance’s evolution. According to the profile, Wiles characterized the transformation as “political,” occurring as Vance moved toward a Senate run.

The newly disclosed episode is drawing attention because it indicates that Vance’s 2016 opposition to Trump included direct communication with figures in the campaign of Trump’s Democratic opponent. Vance’s office, however, rejects the contention that those conversations were undertaken for the purpose of helping Clinton defeat Trump.

Chris Whipple, the author of the Vanity Fair profile, also discussed his reporting with NPR, describing Vance as privately urging the Clinton camp to recognize its vulnerability among Midwestern working-class voters and to address the fallout from Clinton’s comments about Trump supporters.

Nearly a decade later, the political circumstances are dramatically different: Vance, who was fiercely critical of Trump during the 2016 election, now serves alongside President Trump as vice president of the United States.

{Matzav.com}

Millions of Americans receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits will see changes beginning Oct. 1, when new federal cost-of-living adjustments take effect, increasing maximum monthly benefits for most households while updated eligibility rules also come into force. The U.S. Department of Agriculture adjusts SNAP maximum allotments, deductions and income standards at the beginning of each federal fiscal year.

For most recipients, the increase will be relatively modest. A one-person household in the 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., will be eligible for a maximum of $306 per month, up from $298. The maximum for a family of four will rise from $994 to $1,023, an increase of $29 per month.

Overall, the new maximum allotments represent an increase of roughly 2.9 percent. The annual adjustments are based on changes in the cost of living and USDA’s Thrifty Food Plan, which estimates the cost of providing nutritious, low-cost meals to a household.

Beginning Oct. 1, the maximum monthly SNAP benefits in the 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., will be:

Household size New maximum Previous maximum 1 $306 $298 2 $562 $546 3 $808 $785 4 $1,023 $994 5 $1,217 $1,183 6 $1,463 $1,421 7 $1,616 $1,571 8 $1,841 $1,789 Each additional person $225 $218

The maximum allotments are different in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands, reflecting different food costs. In some rural areas of Alaska, for example, a four-person household will be eligible for as much as $2,027 per month.

Hawaii is an exception to the general increase, with maximum benefits declining slightly. The maximum monthly allotment for a four-person household there will be $1,655.

SNAP provides food assistance to tens of millions of lower-income Americans. Along with the new benefit amounts, recipients and applicants will also encounter updated income standards and other eligibility provisions beginning with the new federal fiscal year. USDA says SNAP eligibility generally depends on household income, resources and other circumstances, although individual states can apply different rules through programs such as broad-based categorical eligibility.

Under the new standards cited in the report, the gross monthly income threshold under regular federal rules will rise to $1,729 for a one-person household and $3,575 for a household of four. Actual eligibility can vary depending on the state, household composition, deductions and whether categorical eligibility rules apply.

The federal resource limit under regular SNAP rules will remain $3,000 for most households and $4,750 for households containing a person who is disabled or at least 60 years old. Many states, however, use categorical-eligibility policies that can raise or eliminate those asset limits for qualifying households.

Eligibility can also be affected by employment, age, disability and immigration status. Federal law includes work requirements for certain SNAP recipients, and legislation enacted in 2025 changed some of those requirements as well as rules governing eligibility for some noncitizens.

Those changes stem in part from President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted in 2025. Among other provisions, the law modified work requirements for certain able-bodied adults, changed future treatment of the Thrifty Food Plan and created a system under which states can eventually be required to shoulder a portion of SNAP benefit costs based on their payment error rates.

SNAP participation has fallen over the past year as various changes have begun taking effect. According to the figures cited in the original report, enrollment declined by approximately 13 percent over the one-year period.

States could face additional financial consequences in coming years because the 2025 law links part of their responsibility for SNAP benefit costs to payment error rates. That provision could require states with higher error rates to contribute more toward benefits, adding another significant change to the program beyond the new October benefit levels.

{Matzav.com}

Rep. Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced Wednesday that he will not clear the Trump administration’s proposed $2.8 billion weapons sale to Israel, citing concerns over the potential use of 40,000 2,000-pound bombs in heavily populated areas of Gaza and Lebanon. The hold does not by itself permanently block the transaction.

Meeks, a New York Democrat, stressed that he continues to support Israel’s security and its ability to defend itself from regional threats, but said he wanted additional assurances regarding the use of the powerful munitions.

“I therefore will not clear this sale at this time. The decision does not diminish Congressional support for Israel’s legitimate defense needs; it reflects Congress’s responsibility to ensure that U.S.-funded weapons are used lawfully, responsibly, and with meaningful safeguards for human life.”

The public announcement was unusual because objections raised during the informal congressional review of major foreign weapons sales are generally handled privately while lawmakers and the State Department attempt to resolve outstanding concerns. Meeks’ decision comes amid growing disagreements among congressional Democrats over U.S. military assistance to Israel and the conduct of Israel’s military operations in Gaza and Lebanon.

Under the traditional arms-sale review process, senior lawmakers on the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations committees receive advance notice of major proposed transactions. They can place an informal hold on a package while seeking further information, although an individual lawmaker does not possess an absolute veto over a sale.

The State Department generally attempts to address lawmakers’ concerns before formally proceeding. The Trump administration, however, has previously moved ahead with weapons transfers to Israel despite congressional objections, including by invoking emergency national-security authority to bypass the customary review process.

The State Department did not immediately comment on Meeks’ announcement.

The proposed $2.8 billion package is one of the largest recent U.S. sales of heavy bombs to Israel. It includes 20,000 MK-84 bombs and 20,000 BLU-117 bombs, each weighing approximately 2,000 pounds, as well as 20,000 I-2000 Penetrator warheads.

The MK-84 is a powerful general-purpose bomb designed to inflict extensive damage on hardened targets. Its destructive capacity, particularly when employed in densely populated areas, has been at the center of the debate in Washington over the transfer of such munitions to Israel.

The Biden administration previously suspended a shipment of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel amid concerns about civilian casualties during the Gaza war. The Trump administration subsequently resumed transfers of heavy munitions and has approved or expedited billions of dollars in additional military sales to Israel.

The controversy surrounding the latest package comes as Israel continues military operations against regional adversaries, while critics of Israel’s conduct have pressed Washington to impose greater restrictions on American weapons. Israel has maintained that its military operations are directed against Hamas and other armed groups and that it seeks to minimize civilian casualties.

Despite his decision to hold up the transaction, Meeks emphasized that his objection was directed at the particular weapons package and the assurances surrounding its use, rather than at Israel’s overall defense relationship with Washington.

“I remain firmly committed to Israel’s security and its ability to defend itself against serious regional threats. But the Trump administration’s proposed sale of 40,000 2,000-pound bombs, some of the most destructive munitions in our arsenal, raises grave, unresolved concerns about how these munitions could be used in densely populated areas of Gaza and Lebanon.”

The dispute also reflects a broader shift among House Democrats over military assistance to Israel. While bipartisan support for the U.S.-Israel security relationship remains substantial in Congress, a growing number of Democratic lawmakers have backed efforts to restrict or condition certain weapons transfers.

That divide was demonstrated when Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, forced a House vote on legislation aimed at ending U.S. military assistance to Israel. The measure attracted support from 103 Democratic lawmakers, illustrating the extent to which opposition to some forms of American military support for Israel has expanded within the Democratic caucus.

{Matzav.com}

Kamala Harris will travel to Michigan next week to campaign alongside Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed, marking their first joint public appearance since she endorsed the progressive candidate following his August primary victory.

The appearance comes as national Democrats seek to rally behind El-Sayed following a contentious primary that exposed divisions within the party, particularly over U.S. support for Israel. Harris and El-Sayed have spoken several times since her endorsement, but Tuesday’s event will be the first time they appear publicly together.

Harris and El-Sayed are scheduled to participate in a roundtable Tuesday focusing on Black maternal health, according to his campaign. El-Sayed is a physician who previously headed the health departments in Detroit and Wayne County.

Harris spokesman Eduardo Negrón said the visit is intended in part to encourage Democratic turnout in Michigan.

“Vice President Harris looks forward to returning to Michigan to help turn out the vote in this critical state,” Negrón said in a statement. “It is critical we flip the Senate so we can bring down prices and stand up to Donald Trump’s corruption.”

El-Sayed, whose full name is Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed, will face Republican Mike Rogers in November for the Senate seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Gary Peters. Rogers, a former congressman, and other Republicans have sought to portray El-Sayed’s progressive politics as outside Michigan’s mainstream.

“They believe that they can move the state and the country, by the way, to be more accepting of this socialism,” Rogers told Breitbart News, describing El-Sayed as the “Democratic Socialists of America darling right now” and calling the race “crazy versus common sense.”

El-Sayed has drawn substantial criticism from pro-Israel groups and some Jewish leaders over his rhetoric concerning Israel and the war in Gaza. He has repeatedly accused Israel of committing “genocide” and “apartheid,” advocated ending U.S. military assistance to Israel — including defensive aid — and declined during a CNN interview to say that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state.

During an April CNN interview, El-Sayed was asked whether he considered the Israeli government to be as evil as Hamas.

“Yes, killing tens of thousands of people makes you pretty damn evil,” El-Sayed responded. “It’s not how evil is this one versus that one — Hamas: Evil, Israeli government: Evil. We can say both.”

Asked by CNN in July whether Israel has a right to exist, El-Sayed repeatedly declined to answer the question directly. “Israel exists. The question is whether or not we want a politics where our money is sent over to Israel to do genocide and apartheid instead of investing in our own kids,” he said. When pressed again, he responded, “I’m not — I’m not going to play this gotcha game about whether or not it has a right to exist.”

El-Sayed also faced criticism over his response to a March attack on Temple Israel in West Bloomfield. Although he condemned the attack, he subsequently said, “Hurt people hurt people,” while discussing the attacker’s family history and the Middle East conflict. Some Jewish leaders and political opponents charged that the remark minimized or rationalized the attack. El-Sayed apologized in August for the controversy, saying, “My comments may have been misconstrued to justify something I did not mean to justify,” and adding, “To anyone who feels like my comments might have been hurtful, I’m really sorry.”

His association with left-wing streamer Hasan Piker has generated additional controversy. Piker, who previously campaigned alongside El-Sayed, has made inflammatory statements about Israel and Jewish Americans, including saying Hamas was “1,000 times better” than Israel. After Piker recently faced criticism for remarks suggesting that American Jews who strongly identify with Israel were “making antisemitism worse,” El-Sayed distanced himself from the comments, saying, “nobody speaks for this campaign besides me and my campaign spokespeople.” El-Sayed added, “My commitment to Jewish safety is the same as my commitment to the safety of my own daughters.”

Polling cited in the original report indicated a close contest. A Detroit News/WDIV-TV survey put Rogers at 45.8 percent and El-Sayed at 44.4 percent, after previous polling had shown El-Sayed ahead.

Harris endorsed El-Sayed after his August primary victory, praising his candidacy and emphasizing the importance of the election.

“Dr. Abdul El-Sayed understands that the power is with the people, and that the stakes couldn’t be higher in this election,” Harris said at the time.

White House communications director Steven Cheung responded critically to Harris’ endorsement, writing that Harris “should really re-evaluate her life choices before running for president again.”

The Michigan contest is being closely watched because Democrats are seeking to retain the seat currently held by Peters while attempting to gain control of the Senate. El-Sayed’s narrow primary victory over Rep. Haley Stevens followed a bitter campaign that highlighted Democratic disagreements over Israel and progressive politics. Other prominent Democrats have since moved to support El-Sayed as the party seeks unity ahead of November.

A Manhattan judge has ordered New York City officials to produce communications between Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s administration and the Rent Guidelines Board as part of a lawsuit alleging that City Hall improperly influenced the independent panel before it approved a historic rent freeze.

New York State Supreme Court Justice Brendan Lantry granted the landlords challenging the freeze limited discovery, directing the city to turn over written communications between City Hall personnel and Rent Guidelines Board officials covering the period leading up to the board’s June vote. The ruling does not give the plaintiffs access to internal communications solely among Mamdani administration officials or solely among board personnel.

In explaining why he authorized the unusual discovery request, Lantry pointed to Mamdani’s campaign pledge that rents would be frozen if he became mayor.

“The question naturally arises: How would the Mayor comply with his ‘guarantee’ to the voters to ‘freeze’ the rent unless he, or his staff, communicated with the Board to ensure that the Board refrained from imposing any rental increase?” Lantry wrote.

The order represents the latest development in a lawsuit filed by landlords seeking to invalidate the Rent Guidelines Board’s June 25 decision establishing a zero-percent increase for both one- and two-year leases covering roughly one million rent-stabilized apartments.

Under the board’s decision, the freeze applies to qualifying leases beginning between Oct. 1, 2026, and Sept. 30, 2027.

Mamdani had made a rent freeze a prominent campaign pledge before taking office. In February, he named six members to the nine-member Rent Guidelines Board, including its chair. City Hall described the RGB at the time as an independent body responsible for determining annual rent adjustments for the city’s rent-stabilized housing.

The landlords filed their lawsuit in July, contending that the board did not independently give proper consideration to the financial circumstances facing property owners. Instead, they allege that the process was geared toward producing the outcome Mamdani had promised during his campaign. The city disputes those allegations.

Attorneys for the city and the board have maintained that the Rent Guidelines Board followed the required process and considered extensive research and testimony before reaching its decision. They have argued that tenants were struggling to absorb additional increases and that the record provided a rational basis for the freeze.

“The court acknowledges that discovery in a special proceeding is rare,” Lantry wrote, adding that it was also “unprecedented” for a mayoral candidate to guarantee that an independent board would freeze rents after his election.

Randy Mastro, an attorney representing the landlords, welcomed the decision, saying the communications could bolster their argument that the board’s deliberations produced “a predetermined outcome.”

The broader lawsuit asks the court to throw out the rent freeze and direct the Rent Guidelines Board to reconsider the matter. The challenged rent guidelines remain scheduled to take effect Oct. 1 while the litigation proceeds.

{Matzav.com}

Kim Yo Jong, the powerful sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, has rejected international demands that Pyongyang abandon its nuclear weapons, ridiculing such efforts as “silly talk” and “all noises” while insisting that North Korea’s status as a nuclear-armed state is “absolute.”

Kim, a senior figure in North Korea’s ruling Workers’ Party, issued the comments Thursday as delegates gathering in Vienna for the 70th regular session of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s General Conference considered a resolution addressing North Korea’s nuclear program.

“The human beings who are talking about the change of the present position of our state should clearly understand how miserable it is and how useless it is,” Kim Yo Jong said in a statement carried by the state-run Korean Central News Agency.

She went on to mock those who believe North Korea can be persuaded to reverse course on its nuclear program.

“If they believe that it is really possible, they will only hear the word of idiots who are ignorant of the law of the world.

“In fact, if there are no rogues against the DPRK, many countries will probably not have to waste time on empty talk and will live in a safer and peaceful world.”

Kim brushed aside renewed international demands for North Korean denuclearization as “all noises, not surprising and not new.”

“No matter how desperately the IAEA and the West may hold periodic meetings and talk about the denuclearization according to the fixed scenario, they can have no effect on the will and ability of the DPRK to take all necessary measures to defend the supreme interests of the state,” she said.

She further asserted that North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons was irreversible and portrayed the country’s arsenal as a means of deterring its adversaries.

“The DPRK’s position as a nuclear weapons state is absolute … and its powerful existence makes a significant contribution to deterring the outrageous acts of international rogues and ensuring peace and security,” Kim Yo Jong continued.

“No matter how rhetorically the hostile forces may deny, the reality in which the nuclear position of the DPRK has been permanently settled physically and legally cannot change even a bit.

“No one and nothing can ever reverse the crucial changes in the strength and position of the DPRK and prevent them in the future, too.”

Her remarks came amid continuing scrutiny of North Korea’s nuclear infrastructure. In his latest assessment of the country’s nuclear activities, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said the agency had identified a second uranium-enrichment facility at Yongbyon and detected signs that enrichment operations were continuing at both Yongbyon and Kangson, Reuters reported.

International monitors have also seen indications that nuclear reactors located at the Yongbyon complex remain operational.

The IAEA has been unable to carry out on-the-ground verification work inside North Korea since April 2009. Grossi said Pyongyang’s continued expansion of its nuclear program violates United Nations Security Council resolutions and remains a “cause for serious concern.”

With inspectors unable to enter the country, the IAEA has monitored North Korea’s nuclear developments through satellite imagery and other publicly available information, including photographs released by North Korean state media.

{Matzav.com}

The Trump administration has announced new visa restrictions targeting South African nationals it determines are responsible for or complicit in race-based discrimination, uncompensated land seizures or incitement of violence against racial or ethnic minorities, escalating a long-running dispute between Washington and Pretoria over the treatment of Afrikaners and other minority groups.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Tuesday that the new policy was being implemented because “the South African government has not adequately addressed the previously laid out concerns.”

“The United States will not allow such behavior to go unchecked. These actions directly undermine peace, economic stability, and the rule of law, and they are incompatible with the pillars of America’s foreign policy,” he said.

“We once again strongly urge the South African government to quickly address these egregious actions,” he added.

The latest move follows President Donald Trump’s February 2025 executive order addressing what the administration called “Egregious Actions of the Republic of South Africa.” The order accused Pretoria of pursuing discriminatory policies against Afrikaners and specifically objected to South Africa’s Expropriation Act, which the administration said could permit agricultural property to be taken without compensation.

The executive order also accused South Africa of adopting “policies designed to dismantle equal opportunity in employment, education, and business, and hateful rhetoric and government actions fueling disproportionate violence against racially disfavored landowners.”

Rubio said Tuesday that the administration “remains gravely concerned about racially motivated crime and government-sponsored discrimination occurring against the Afrikaners and other minority populations in South Africa.”

The restrictions do not amount to a blanket prohibition on South Africans traveling to the United States. Instead, they establish a mechanism allowing Washington to deny visas to individuals determined to fall within the categories outlined by the administration. Reports indicated that certain family members of affected individuals could also be covered.

The administration did not publicly identify specific individuals affected by the restrictions or provide a list of South African laws that would automatically result in a visa denial. The policy therefore establishes a framework under which restrictions can be imposed on particular people based on determinations by the U.S. government.

Ordinary South African citizens are consequently not automatically barred from obtaining American visas under the new policy. Applicants who are not deemed to have participated in the conduct targeted by Washington remain subject to the regular U.S. visa process and other existing immigration rules.

In a social media statement Tuesday, Rubio accused South Africa’s leaders of pursuing policies driven by hostility toward the country’s Afrikaner population, saying South Africans have been “failed by a government that is destroying its economy through an obsessive pursuit of racial grievance against the Afrikaner minority.”

“The South African government has consistently failed to adequately address rural crime, violent and dehumanizing rhetoric, and race-based discriminatory policies against Afrikaners and other minority populations,” he said.

South Africa strongly rejected Washington’s characterization of its policies. Foreign Minister Ronald Lamola said Wednesday that Rubio’s announcement “aligns with the mischaracterization of South Africa’s domestic policies by fringe groups who wrongly portray themselves as representatives of ‘minorities’ and Afrikaners in general.”

The South African government defended its efforts to address the legacy of apartheid and maintained that its laws are consistent with the country’s constitutional responsibilities. It asserted a “sovereign right to put in place laws that address the nation’s concern over centuries of racial injustice.”

Land ownership remains one of the central issues in the dispute. White South Africans, who make up a minority of the population, continue to own a disproportionately large share of privately held agricultural land, although estimates vary depending on how ownership is measured. Pretoria has argued that land reform is necessary to address historical racial disparities, while critics have warned against policies that could permit uncompensated confiscation.

President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the Expropriation Act in 2025. The legislation permits expropriation without compensation in specified circumstances when authorities determine that doing so is “just and equitable and in the public interest.” The Trump administration and other critics have argued that the law leaves property owners vulnerable to uncompensated seizures, while the South African government has disputed claims that it amounts to arbitrary confiscation.

The disagreement over land reform forms part of a broader deterioration in relations between Washington and Pretoria. Trump’s 2025 executive order also criticized South Africa over its case accusing Israel of genocide at the International Court of Justice and over Pretoria’s relations with Iran.

U.S. Ambassador to South Africa L. Brent Bozell indicated Wednesday that the visa policy may not be Washington’s final response.

“As has been made absolutely clear, the time for endless “dialogue” has run its course. No more. America has just so much patience,” Bozell said.

“We want strong, and lasting relations with the South African government. It needs to show it wants the same. So far it has shown it cares for neither,” he said.

Bozell then warned that additional U.S. measures could follow if the dispute remains unresolved.

“As a result, the consequences, as I’ve attempted time and again to express, are necessarily going to be severe. This visa restriction policy is only the first step in a series of escalatory measures that will show America’s firm resolve in this matter,” Bozell warned.

WATCH:

LISTEN:

https://matzav.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Bitachon4Life-Shiur-1873-Seiver-Part-73-Essence.mp3

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

 

LISTEN:

https://matzav.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Stories4Life-Shiur-622-Real-Gemara-R-Shach.mp3

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani said Wednesday that he has no intention of participating in protests against Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu when Netanyahu comes to New York for the United Nations General Assembly next week, while maintaining that New Yorkers have a constitutional right to demonstrate.

The announcement came as the city prepares for demonstrations surrounding Netanyahu’s visit and his scheduled September 24 address to the General Assembly. Mamdani said his administration has been coordinating with the NYPD over security surrounding the annual gathering of world leaders.

Mamdani, New York’s first Muslim mayor, had drawn criticism from some Jewish and pro-Israel groups over remarks he made earlier this summer concerning possible demonstrations against Netanyahu. Asked in July about protests surrounding the Israeli leader’s visit, Mamdani said: “If anyone feels a level of frustration or opposition, protest is something that we will always respect. I leave it to New Yorkers themselves to make that decision.”

On Wednesday, however, the mayor made clear that he personally would not be taking part in the demonstrations.

“I do not have any plans to attend any protest at the UN General Assembly.”

Mamdani also rejected the suggestion that he has been urging New Yorkers to take to the streets against Netanyahu.

“To New Yorkers, I have never encouraged them to protest. What I have always told them is that they have the right to do so in the city.”

Mamdani has been a persistent critic of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. He has described Israel’s actions there as genocide, accused the country of committing war crimes in its operations against Hamas, and called for an end to U.S. financial and military assistance to Israel.

His positions on Israel have repeatedly generated controversy, including during his campaign for mayor. Mamdani faced criticism over his response to the phrase “globalize the intifada” and over comments he made on October 8, 2023, one day after the Hamas-led October 7 attack on southern Israel.

After becoming mayor, Mamdani rescinded several Israel-related executive orders that had been issued by his predecessor, Eric Adams. He later became the first New York City mayor not to participate in the city’s annual Israel Day Parade.

Before taking office, Mamdani was a regular participant in anti-Israel demonstrations, including a July 2023 rally in Manhattan where he led chants. Since becoming mayor, however, he has not personally joined an anti-Israel demonstration.

Another source of controversy has been Mamdani’s previous pledge to enforce the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant for Netanyahu if the Israeli prime minister came to New York. The ICC issued the warrant over allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity, allegations Netanyahu and Israel have rejected.

In July, Mamdani said his administration had examined possible legal avenues for detaining Netanyahu. He subsequently acknowledged that New York City does not have the legal authority to carry out the ICC warrant and instead called on federal authorities to act. The United States is not a party to the ICC, and legal experts have said a New York City mayor lacks authority to enforce the court’s warrant.

President Donald Trump responded at the time on Truth Social, declaring that Netanyahu “will not be arrested, in any way, shape or form, while in the United States of America.”

Mamdani has also recently sought to engage with New York’s Jewish communities. Ahead of Rosh Hashanah earlier this month, he visited Eichler’s Judaica store in Borough Park, Brooklyn, where he met local Jewish leaders, store employees and residents.

While much of the visit featured cordial exchanges, Mamdani was also confronted by a woman who sharply criticized him over antisemitism in the city.

“It’s all because of you we have so much antisemitism…You have such chutzpah for coming here.”

{Matzav.com}

The Trump administration has once again denied Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas and members of his delegation visas to enter the United States for the upcoming United Nations General Assembly in New York, marking the second consecutive year that Abbas has been barred from attending the gathering in person.

The State Department confirmed the decision Wednesday night, following an earlier report by the Saudi outlet Al-Hadath that Abbas and his delegation would not receive visas for the annual UN session.

In explaining the move, the State Department accused the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization of failing to abide by commitments under U.S. law. Washington cited their efforts against Israel in international bodies, attempts to secure unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state, and continued policies involving payments connected to terrorists and the glorification of violence.

“As a consequence of their failure to reform, contrary to their commitments to the United States, and their ongoing activities that undermine the prospects for peace, the United States will extend sanctions that deny visas to PLO members and PA officials,” the State Department said.

At the same time, the administration said it would continue an existing waiver permitting personnel from the Palestinian mission to the United Nations to operate in New York.

The action largely repeats what occurred ahead of last year’s General Assembly. In 2025, the United States similarly declined to grant Abbas a visa, preventing him from traveling to New York. The General Assembly subsequently voted to permit him to deliver his address remotely by video.

Abbas had sought in recent weeks to persuade Washington to reverse course. During a visit to Ankara last month, he appealed to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to raise the issue with President Donald Trump. Erdogan, who has referred to Trump as a “good friend,” later spoke by telephone with the President. The State Department’s confirmation Wednesday that the restrictions remain in effect means Abbas will nevertheless be unable to attend in person.

Abbas had been scheduled to address the UN General Assembly on the morning of September 24.

{Matzav.com}

United Torah Judaism chairman MK Yaakov Asher sharply criticized Israel’s High Court of Justice and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara on Wednesday over the cancellation of a major government-sponsored conference commemorating Maran Rav Ovadia Yosef zt”l, accusing them of showing disregard for the legacy of one of the most influential Torah leaders in modern Israeli history.

Asher’s statement came after the High Court proceedings surrounding the event ended without a ruling on the underlying legal dispute. The three-day conference, which had been scheduled for October 6-8 at Binyanei Ha’Uma in Yerushalayim, had already been canceled after the Religious Services Ministry concluded that there was no longer enough time to organize it. The attorney general had objected to holding the government-funded gathering so close to the October 27 Knesset elections because of Rav Ovadia’s historic association with Shas.

“The decision of the High Court and the position of the attorney general prove once again just how disconnected they are from the public,” Asher said. “Approximately one million people walked behind the bier of Maran Rav Ovadia Yosef zt”l, and very many continue to follow the light of his rulings and his legacy, without any connection to one political affiliation or another.”

Asher added, “Unfortunately, the legacy of Maran Rav Ovadia is not among their priorities. Had the High Court justices accorded his personality and accomplishments the respect they deserve, it would have been possible to find a balanced and satisfactory arrangement rather than crudely canceling the event intended to perpetuate his memory.”

The statement was particularly notable because Asher, who recently became chairman of United Torah Judaism amid changes in Degel HaTorah’s Knesset representation, was publicly weighing in on the controversy surrounding the legacy of Rav Ovadia, the longtime Sephardic posek and spiritual leader most closely identified politically with Shas.

At Wednesday morning’s High Court hearing, the judges did not issue a substantive ruling on whether the attorney general’s original position was legally justified. Instead, after Religious Services Ministry Director-General Yehuda Avidan informed the court that the event could no longer practically be held on its scheduled dates, the dispute was deemed effectively theoretical. The court indicated that a similar dispute arising in the future could still be brought before it.

The distinction became a central point in the aftermath of the hearing. While Shas officials strongly condemned the outcome, the court did not rule on the merits that Baharav-Miara’s position regarding the conference was correct. Rather, the cancellation of the event meant that there was no longer a practical remedy for the court to grant concerning the October 6-8 gathering.

The controversy began after the attorney general opposed holding the large, government-funded conference in the weeks immediately preceding the Knesset election. Her position was that because Rav Ovadia founded Shas and his image and legacy remain closely associated with the party, such an event during the election period could raise concerns regarding prohibited election activity. She proposed that the conference instead be held after the election.

The state stressed that the position did not bar commemorations of Rav Ovadia generally. According to the state’s position presented in the proceedings, there was no objection to the annual memorial itself, official ceremonies, or privately funded commemorative events; the dispute concerned the timing of the large government-funded conference.

Shas rejected that distinction, arguing that the conference was intended to honor Rav Ovadia’s Torah legacy rather than promote the party he founded. The party also alleged selective treatment, pointing to other state memorial events held near elections and arguing that Rav Ovadia’s identification with Shas should not transform a gathering devoted to his Torah and legacy into a political event.

MK Erez Malul of Shas similarly accused the court of using the event’s cancellation to avoid addressing the underlying dispute.

“If you had removed the attorney general’s directive from the outset, a nonpolitical heritage conference for all of Am Yisrael would have taken place,” Malul said.

He questioned the distinction between the Rav Ovadia event and other state commemorations, asking, “With all due distinction, is a memorial for the Rabin assassination not political? Rabin was purely political.”

Malul charged that “the High Court and the attorney general are working together against Shas and the right,” adding that “it pains the heart to see the harm being done to millions of believers.” His allegations represented his characterization of the dispute; the state maintained that its objection was specifically tied to election-law concerns surrounding the timing and government funding of the conference.

Shas MK Moshe Abutbul also expressed deep disappointment, saying that he had anticipated the outcome.

“I was very, very disappointed, but it was expected. A few minutes earlier I was interviewed and said clearly: the answer will be negative, because we know the High Court,” Abutbul said.

The controversy also drew a forceful response from Rishon LeTzion Rav Yitzchak Yosef, Rav Ovadia’s son, who called for communities throughout Eretz Yisroel to organize their own gatherings in his father’s memory.

“We are approaching the day of the hillula of Maran, my father, zecher tzaddik v’kadosh livracha, in less than a month,” Rav Yitzchak Yosef said. “Unfortunately, the power of the left has grown stronger. The attorney general has made a final decision not to hold a hillula for Maran.”

Rav Yitzchak Yosef urged shuls and communities across the country to respond by dramatically expanding local commemorations.

“I call from here to hold hillulas — at least a thousand hillulas! In every corner of the country, in every shul, everywhere. Therefore, there is no need to take them into consideration; we will hold hillulas in shuls, in halls, in every city and every moshav.”

The dispute centers on legislation enacted in 2025 establishing an official framework for commemorating Rav Ovadia Yosef. The law requires the Religious Services Ministry to conduct an educational conference dealing with subjects connected to his teachings and vision on the anniversary of his petirah or at a date close to it. This year, Rav Ovadia’s yahrtzeit falls on October 14, less than two weeks before the October 27 Knesset election.

The government conference had initially been moved to October 6-8, but the attorney general concluded that even those earlier dates remained too close to Election Day. The Religious Services Ministry formally canceled the event after its producer advised that, given the continuing legal proceedings and the remaining preparation time, it was no longer technically possible to stage the gathering as planned.

The legal proceedings may have ended without a ruling on the broader question, but the controversy over the cancellation — and over how Rav Ovadia’s Torah legacy should be treated when it intersects with an election campaign — continued to draw fierce reactions across the chareidi political spectrum Wednesday.

{Matzav.com}

The Federal Reserve raised interest rates Wednesday for the first time in more than three years, reversing the direction of monetary policy as officials moved to confront inflation that has remained stubbornly above the central bank’s target.

The Fed increased its benchmark federal funds rate by one-quarter of a percentage point, bringing its target range to 3.75% to 4%. The decision was unanimous. More significantly, new projections released Wednesday showed that Fed officials see rates ending 2026 at a median 4.1%, suggesting another quarter-point increase could come before the end of the year.

For ordinary Americans, the simplest explanation is this: borrowing money is becoming more expensive again.

That does not mean every mortgage, car loan or credit card rate will immediately rise by exactly one-quarter of a percentage point. But the Fed’s move pushes upward on borrowing costs throughout the financial system, particularly loans carrying variable interest rates. Major U.S. banks began raising their prime lending rates following Wednesday’s decision.

For households already struggling with elevated prices, the timing is particularly significant. The Fed is effectively accepting some additional financial pressure on borrowers in an effort to prevent inflation from becoming more deeply entrenched.

Why Did the Fed Raise Rates?

The central bank’s explanation was straightforward: inflation is still too high.

“Inflation remains elevated,” the Federal Open Market Committee said in its statement Wednesday. “Today’s policy action will support a timelier return to the Committee’s 2 percent goal. The Committee will deliver price stability.”

The Fed’s latest projections underscore the problem. Officials now expect their preferred measure of inflation, the Personal Consumption Expenditures price index, to rise 3.7% in 2026, while core PCE inflation, which excludes volatile food and energy prices, is projected at 3.4%. Both remain well above the Fed’s 2% objective.

At the same time, the economy has remained strong enough to give the Fed room to act. The central bank said economic activity continues to expand “at a solid pace,” domestic spending remains resilient, capital investment is robust, and unemployment has changed little.

That combination — persistent inflation alongside a relatively solid economy — is crucial. If unemployment were soaring or the economy were contracting sharply, the Fed would have much more reason to worry that higher rates could deepen a downturn. Instead, policymakers concluded that inflation currently represents the greater concern.

What Does It Mean for Mortgages?

This is one of the most misunderstood parts of a Fed rate move.

The Fed does not directly set mortgage rates.

Thirty-year fixed mortgage rates are influenced much more heavily by longer-term Treasury yields and investors’ expectations about future inflation, economic growth and Fed policy. As a result, mortgage rates do not necessarily increase by a quarter point simply because the Fed raised its overnight rate by a quarter point.

But Wednesday’s decision matters nonetheless. If financial markets conclude that inflation will remain elevated and the Fed will have to keep rates higher for longer, longer-term borrowing costs can remain elevated as well.

That means prospective homebuyers should not assume Wednesday’s decision automatically adds exactly 0.25 percentage point to a 30-year mortgage — but it does make the prospect of substantially cheaper mortgages in the near term less certain.

Homeowners with existing fixed-rate mortgages are largely insulated. If someone already has a 30-year fixed mortgage at a set rate, Wednesday’s Fed decision does not change that rate or monthly principal-and-interest payment.

Borrowers with adjustable-rate mortgages, however, may eventually face higher payments depending on the particular benchmark and adjustment schedule attached to their loan.

What About Credit Cards?

This is where consumers are more likely to feel the effects directly.

Most credit cards have variable interest rates tied, directly or indirectly, to the prime rate. When the Fed raises rates and banks raise their prime rates, credit-card APRs typically follow.

Someone who pays the full balance every month may notice little difference.

Someone carrying thousands of dollars in revolving credit-card debt could end up paying more interest, particularly if additional Fed increases follow Wednesday’s move.

The same basic principle can affect home-equity lines of credit and other variable-rate debt.

Will Car Loans Get More Expensive?

Potentially, yes.

Auto-loan rates are not mechanically dictated by the federal funds rate, but lenders’ financing costs and broader market rates influence what consumers are offered.

The effect of a quarter-point Fed increase on any single monthly car payment may be relatively modest, particularly compared with the vehicle’s price, down payment, credit score and loan term. But if Wednesday marks the beginning of several increases rather than a one-time adjustment, financing conditions could become noticeably tighter.

That is why the Fed’s outlook may ultimately matter more than Wednesday’s quarter-point move itself.

There Is Some Good News: Savers Could Benefit

Higher interest rates are not universally bad.

People keeping money in high-yield savings accounts, money-market accounts and certificates of deposit may benefit if banks pass higher rates along to depositors.

Treasury securities and other short-term fixed-income investments can also offer higher yields when market rates rise.

Banks do not necessarily increase savings rates immediately or by the full amount of a Fed increase, however. Consumers generally have to compare rates because institutions compete differently for deposits.

In other words, Wednesday’s decision creates a familiar divide: borrowers generally dislike higher rates; savers can benefit from them.

Why Raise Rates When Everything Already Costs So Much?

It sounds counterintuitive.

If groceries, housing and other necessities are already expensive, why would policymakers deliberately make borrowing more expensive too?

Because the Fed is trying to slow the rate at which prices continue rising.

Higher interest rates discourage borrowing and encourage saving. A family may postpone buying a car. A business may reconsider an expansion financed with borrowed money. A prospective homeowner may decide that a particular house is unaffordable.

Multiply those decisions across millions of households and businesses, and overall demand cools.

Businesses then have less ability or incentive to continually raise prices, hiring can moderate, wage pressures can ease, and inflation can gradually decline.

The Fed is not attempting to make today’s prices go back to where they were several years ago. Its 2% inflation objective is aimed at getting prices to rise much more slowly going forward.

Could Higher Rates Hurt the Economy?

Yes — and that is the central risk.

Interest-rate policy works partly by deliberately restraining economic activity. Push rates too little, and inflation can persist. Push them too far, and businesses can cut investment and hiring, consumers can reduce spending, housing can weaken, unemployment can rise and the economy can potentially enter a recession.

The Fed currently believes the economy has enough underlying strength to withstand tighter policy. Its September projections put 2026 GDP growth at 2.3% and unemployment at 4.1%. Notably, officials actually lowered their unemployment projection from the 4.3% they forecast in June.

That helps explain why officials were willing to raise rates now: they see an economy that remains relatively resilient while inflation continues running too hot.

Is This Just One Rate Hike?

This may be the most consequential part of Wednesday’s announcement.

The Fed’s new projections suggest policymakers do not currently view this as necessarily a one-and-done move.

The median projection for the federal funds rate at the end of 2026 is now 4.1%, compared with 3.8% in the Fed’s June projections. The median remains 4.1% for the end of 2027 before declining to 3.9% in 2028 and 3.6% in 2029.

Those projections are not promises. Inflation could cool unexpectedly, the economy could weaken, unemployment could rise, or another shock could force officials to change course.

But Wednesday’s message was nevertheless significant: the Fed is currently contemplating tighter monetary policy, not a quick return to rate cuts.

The Bottom Line

For most Americans, Wednesday’s increase by itself will probably not dramatically change their finances overnight.

The bigger issue is what it signals.

After years in which consumers and financial markets increasingly looked toward lower borrowing costs, the Federal Reserve has changed direction. Inflation remains sufficiently persistent that officials are willing to make money more expensive again — and they are signaling that another increase may be necessary.

For someone with a fixed-rate mortgage and no major borrowing plans, the immediate effect could be minimal. For someone carrying credit-card debt, using a home-equity line, buying a car, purchasing a home or taking out a business loan, higher rates can matter considerably. For someone with substantial cash savings, the development could actually produce better returns.

And that is what Wednesday’s decision really means: the Fed believes inflation remains a serious enough problem that it is prepared to keep pressure on the economy — and on borrowers — until price increases move convincingly closer to its 2% goal.

{Matzav.com}

The American Airlines passenger whose alleged midair outburst became so uncontrollable that fellow travelers restrained him with duct tape and zip ties told a Maryland court that he had no memory of the episode — and appeared stunned as the allegations against him were read aloud.

Layne Lundeen, 67, made the claim during court proceedings in Annapolis, Maryland, following his arrest in connection with the incident, which forced the Newark-bound flight to divert to Baltimore.

“I don’t remember any of what happened,” Lundeen said, according to The Banner, which obtained audio of the proceeding.

As he attempted to understand the allegations against him, Lundeen appeared surprised to learn that he was accused of assaulting a law enforcement officer.

“I assaulted a police officer? Is that what it says?” he reportedly said. “I don’t have my glasses.”

District Court Commissioner George Haag then went through the accusations facing Lundeen, prompting another expression of disbelief from the Arizona man.

“Oh my God. What a mess. I don’t remember any of it.”

The charges followed a chaotic incident aboard an American Airlines flight during which Lundeen allegedly launched into a racist tirade and became so disruptive that other passengers intervened. He was ultimately restrained with duct tape and zip ties as the flight crew diverted the aircraft to Baltimore for an emergency landing.

During the court proceeding, Haag asked Lundeen why he had come to Maryland.

“What brings you to Maryland?” Haag asked.

Lundeen responded that Maryland had never been part of his travel plans.

“I came to New York City. I don’t know how I got to Maryland. I was supposed to land in New Jersey.”

Lundeen, a realtor from Arizona, had reportedly been traveling east to assist one of his daughters as she moved into a new apartment. The trip also coincided with her birthday.

The fallout from the incident extended beyond his arrest. Long Realty Company, the Tucson-based real estate firm where Lundeen worked, terminated his employment after footage and accounts of the episode circulated widely.

Referring to the unfortunate circumstances surrounding what was supposed to have been a family trip, Lundeen told the commissioner, “I got a double whammy for my trip. Well, now it’s a triple whammy.”

Near the end of the hearing, Lundeen appeared focused on figuring out how to resume his interrupted journey, asking Haag how far he was from New York City.

“That depends on mode of transportation and traffic,” the commissioner responded, “but at least a few hours.”

Authorities charged Lundeen with second-degree assault and disorderly conduct in connection with the incident.

Police said witnesses aboard the aircraft described Lundeen as having “became increasingly unruly” as the flight progressed.

Jonathan Cahn, a controversial author and Messianic rabbi who was seated beside Lundeen, previously provided his account of what he said triggered the dramatic change in his seatmate’s behavior.

According to Cahn, the two men initially had a friendly conversation, but the atmosphere abruptly changed after their discussion turned to spirituality. Lundeen reportedly told the court that his conversation with the passenger seated beside him was essentially the last thing he remembered before the incident.

“I have never seen someone change in a split second from light to dark as I saw then, as if something had taken him over,” Cahn previously said. “He went from the friendliest guy in the world to this dark person.”

Cahn said that during the conversation, he spoke about “the reality of the real power of god on Earth and in our lives.”

The disturbance escalated from there, according to witnesses, eventually requiring passengers to physically restrain Lundeen. Images and video showing him secured to his seat with duct tape and zip ties subsequently spread online.

Following the flight’s diversion, Lundeen was taken into custody shortly after the aircraft landed in Baltimore.

Despite the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the case, Lundeen was released on his own recognizance after his court appearance. As a condition of his release, he was instructed to refrain from consuming alcohol or drugs, with the exception of prescribed medications, according to The Banner.

Lundeen is scheduled to return to court on Oct. 19 in the District Court of Maryland for Anne Arundel County in Glen Burnie.