Feed aggregator

Federal immigration authorities are searching for an illegal immigrant from Guinea who allegedly assaulted a New York City police officer with a deadly weapon and was subsequently released from custody despite repeated requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold him for federal agents. The Department of Homeland Security is blaming New York City’s sanctuary policies for allowing the suspect to remain at large.

Alpha Bah, who entered the United States illegally in 2023, has been arrested multiple times in New York, including on charges involving violence against law enforcement. According to DHS, city authorities disregarded two separate ICE detainers, releasing Bah without giving immigration officials an opportunity to take him into federal custody.

The latest incident occurred following Bah’s arrest on charges of aggravated assault on a police officer with a deadly weapon, resisting arrest, obstructing governmental administration, and attempting to use public transportation without paying the required fare. ICE submitted a detainer to Queens Central Booking on October 7, 2026, seeking to assume custody of Bah. However, the New York Police Department released him without alerting federal immigration authorities, DHS said.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin sharply criticized the decision, arguing that the case illustrates the consequences of immigration enforcement restrictions adopted by Democratic officials in New York.

“This is the vision of sanctuary politicians in a nutshell: the open-border policies of the Biden Administration let this criminal into our country, and then sanctuary politicians in New York released him after arresting him without notifying ICE,” Mullin told Fox News Digital.

The administration has repeatedly clashed with sanctuary jurisdictions that limit communication and cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities. The Trump administration maintains that such restrictions interfere with efforts to identify, detain, and deport illegal immigrants who have been arrested on criminal charges.

Mullin pointed specifically to the seriousness of the allegations against Bah, warning that his release could expose the public to further danger.

“This illegal alien from Guinea was arrested for assaulting a police officer with a deadly weapon. Despite these violent charges, New York City sanctuary politicians refused to honor ICE’s detainer and RELEASED him back onto the streets, and he remains at large,” Mullin said in a statement.

The secretary also directed his criticism at New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, urging both officials to abandon policies that restrict cooperation with ICE.

He added, “DHS is calling on Governor Kathy Hochul and Mayor Zohran Mamdani to knock it off with these evil sanctuary policies before another American gets hurt, or worse.”

Federal officials say the October incident was not the first time local authorities released Bah despite an immigration detainer. In June 2026, he was arrested in Manhattan on a charge of attempting to obtain transportation without paying. ICE issued a request to Manhattan Central Booking asking that he be held for federal custody, but the NYPD released him following that arrest as well.

DHS records indicate that Bah first crossed into the United States unlawfully in November 2023. He subsequently spent time in Arizona, where he was apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol agents. The department also reported that Bah was arrested on criminal trespassing charges in January 2025 but was released before ICE could submit a detainer. Federal officials attributed that earlier release to immigration practices in effect during the Biden administration.

The repeated releases have renewed the Trump administration’s criticism of sanctuary jurisdictions, particularly those that refuse to honor federal immigration detainers. Such detainers request that local authorities notify ICE before releasing a person and, when legally permitted, briefly maintain custody to allow federal agents to assume responsibility. New York City’s sanctuary rules generally restrict compliance with these requests except in circumstances specified by law.

The controversy also comes amid heightened scrutiny of New York City’s handling of criminal cases involving illegal immigrants. A recent House Republican report accused city prosecutors of structuring certain plea agreements in ways that reduced the likelihood of deportation. Those allegations have added to the broader dispute between federal officials and New York authorities over immigration enforcement and the role of local criminal justice agencies.

New York’s sanctuary policies have expanded under Hochul, who has supported measures limiting the involvement of state and local law enforcement in federal immigration operations. In May, the governor signed legislation restricting law enforcement agencies from entering into formal immigration enforcement partnerships with ICE.

Hochul’s approach has also generated opposition from law enforcement officials, including sheriffs who have challenged restrictions on their ability to cooperate with federal authorities. Supporters of the restrictions argue that local police resources should be directed toward public safety rather than federal civil immigration enforcement, while critics contend that the policies obstruct the removal of individuals accused of serious crimes.

Mayor Mamdani has likewise taken steps to strengthen New York City’s sanctuary protections. After taking office, he signed an executive order intended to “reaffirm the city’s commitment to being a sanctuary for all New Yorkers.”

The mayor’s directive placed additional limitations on federal immigration enforcement activities on city-owned property, strengthened safeguards governing access to information about immigrants, and established a review process to determine whether municipal agencies were complying with existing sanctuary requirements.

Mamdani has also publicly advised New Yorkers about their rights during encounters with ICE officers, including the circumstances under which federal agents may enter private property and conduct searches. His position has drawn criticism from opponents who argue that city leadership is encouraging resistance to federal immigration enforcement, while supporters describe the guidance as an explanation of constitutional protections.

DHS has argued that cooperation between federal immigration officers and local police departments is essential to removing dangerous offenders from American communities. The department maintains that restrictions on information sharing and custody transfers can allow individuals wanted by immigration authorities to be released before federal agents can intervene.

“The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) partnerships with local law enforcement are key to removing criminal illegal aliens including murderers, rapists, pedophiles, gang members, and terrorists from American communities,” DHS said in a statement responding to the introduced policies. “7 of the 10 safest cities in the U.S. cooperate with ICE.”

The Bah case has become another flashpoint in the escalating confrontation between the Trump administration and New York’s Democratic leadership. Federal officials are demanding greater cooperation from city authorities, while the state’s sanctuary framework continues to limit the circumstances under which local agencies may assist immigration enforcement operations.

The dispute extends beyond New York City’s existing sanctuary rules. On July 24, Attorney General Letitia James and Hochul announced that 12 local law enforcement agencies with federal immigration cooperation agreements had been formally instructed to terminate those arrangements by August 25. The notices were issued under the state’s Local Cops, Local Crimes Act, which prohibits agreements authorizing local officers to perform federal civil immigration enforcement functions.

The Trump administration challenged the state restrictions in federal court, but on August 3, a federal judge declined to issue a preliminary injunction blocking New York’s prohibition on ICE cooperation agreements. The ruling represented a legal victory for Hochul and James, although the broader litigation over the state’s immigration policies continued.

Mamdani’s administration also released findings from its citywide sanctuary compliance audit in May. The recommendations included new procedures for NYPD responses to immigration enforcement incidents, revised guidelines governing federal agents’ access to city property, and additional training for municipal employees. Those measures reflect the city’s continuing effort to strengthen its immigration protections even as federal officials demand greater cooperation.

As of Wednesday, October 28, DHS said Bah remained at large. The department has not announced his apprehension, and the allegations arising from his arrests remain criminal charges rather than convictions.

Global oil prices climbed sharply Wednesday after Yemen’s Iranian-backed Houthi terrorist group claimed to have struck Saudi Arabia’s largest oil refinery with a ballistic missile, raising fears of further disruptions to energy supplies as tensions across the Middle East continue to escalate.

Brent crude, the international oil benchmark, rose above $115 a barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude climbed past $102. The increases followed a nearly $2 decline in oil prices Tuesday, when hopes for diplomatic progress in the region had temporarily eased concerns about supply disruptions.

The Houthis announced Tuesday that they had targeted the Ras Tanura refinery in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province, one of the kingdom’s most important energy installations. The facility, operated by Saudi Aramco, has the capacity to process approximately 550,000 barrels of oil per day and is located near a major crude oil export terminal on the Persian Gulf.

Houthi military spokesman Yahya Saree claimed that the ballistic missile struck its intended target and caused large fires at the complex.

Saudi authorities had not confirmed that the refinery was struck or that it sustained damage, leaving the extent of the reported attack unclear.

The Saudi-led military coalition separately announced Tuesday that its air defenses had intercepted three ballistic missiles directed toward the kingdom’s Eastern Province and four drones targeting southern Saudi Arabia.

The reported attack comes amid an intensifying confrontation between the Houthis and Saudi-backed forces in Yemen, with the Iranian-aligned group expanding its missile and drone operations against Saudi territory.

On Wednesday, the Houthis also warned civilians to evacuate the international airport in Aden, where Yemen’s internationally recognized government is based. Yemeni government forces subsequently reported an attack on the airport.

The latest developments have heightened concerns that continued fighting in Yemen could threaten Saudi energy infrastructure and shipping routes vital to international commerce.

Ras Tanura is particularly significant because of its role in Saudi Arabia’s petroleum industry. The complex includes refining facilities and an important export hub through which Saudi crude reaches international markets.

Even the possibility of damage to such a facility can influence global oil prices, as traders weigh the risk of reduced production, interrupted shipments, or further attacks.

By early Wednesday afternoon, Brent crude futures were trading at approximately $115.43 a barrel, an increase of 1.4 percent, while West Texas Intermediate had risen to about $102.82, a gain of 2.9 percent.

The price increases also reflected uncertainty over whether President Donald Trump might authorize renewed military action against Iran following next week’s U.S. midterm elections.

Reports that Washington has warned Gulf allies about the possibility of additional American strikes have added to concerns that the regional conflict could expand and further disrupt oil production and transportation.

Market analysts at ING said investors remain concerned about the possibility of renewed fighting involving Iran, with the uncertainty contributing to elevated crude prices.

The renewed rise in energy prices comes as consumers and businesses continue to contend with higher fuel costs resulting from months of instability in the Middle East.

In the United States, sustained increases in crude prices can eventually translate into higher gasoline, diesel, and heating oil costs, although retail prices also depend on refining expenses, inventories, and local market conditions.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies, known as OPEC+, are scheduled to meet Sunday to review production plans. According to reports, the group is expected to maintain its existing December output targets.

Meanwhile, preliminary industry data indicated that U.S. crude inventories fell by approximately 2.03 million barrels during the week ending October 23, adding another factor to the market’s assessment of available supplies.

Saudi Arabia has been engaged in military operations against the Houthis since 2015, when it began leading a coalition supporting Yemen’s internationally recognized government against the Iranian-backed movement.

The Houthis, who control Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, and large portions of the country’s territory, have intensified their attacks against Saudi Arabia in recent months, targeting airports, military installations, and energy infrastructure.

As of Wednesday, the reported damage at Ras Tanura remained unverified, but the Houthi claim and the continuing escalation in Yemen were already having a measurable effect on international energy markets.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s political bloc remains eight seats short of a Knesset majority as Israel’s election count continues, with the latest official figures showing his allies holding 53 seats, the opposition controlling 48, and the Arab parties emerging with a combined 19 seats, potentially placing them in a decisive position in the battle to form the next government.

According to figures released by the Central Elections Committee on Wednesday evening, October 28, approximately 88.6% of the ballots in the election for Israel’s 26th Knesset had been counted as of 8:48 p.m. The updated totals indicate that neither Netanyahu nor the parties opposed to his continued leadership currently command the 61 seats necessary to secure a parliamentary majority.

The results also reflect significant changes in the balance of power among Israel’s political parties, with Likud maintaining its position as the largest faction but losing ground compared with earlier counting updates.

Netanyahu’s Likud stands at 26 seats, down one from the previous projection, while the Yashar party headed by former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot is in second place with 21 seats, also one fewer than in the preceding update.

The Joint List, representing several Arab political factions, has gained another seat and now holds 12 mandates, placing it alongside Naftali Bennett’s Beyachad party, which is likewise projected to secure 12 seats.

The increase in the Joint List’s representation, combined with the strengthening of Ra’am, has brought the two Arab parties to a total of 19 seats, giving them an unusually substantial presence in the next Knesset.

Ra’am, headed by Mansour Abbas, has risen to seven seats, an increase of one from the earlier figures.

The updated distribution highlights the political importance of the Arab electorate, which participated in the election at a particularly high rate and helped deliver a strong showing for the Arab parties.

Among the other opposition factions, the Democrats, led by Yair Golan, are projected to win eight seats, while Avigdor Liberman’s Yisrael Beytenu holds seven.

The Chareidi parties have also experienced a difficult election, with United Torah Judaism projected to receive seven seats and Shas falling to six, according to the latest figures.

For Shas, the result represents a substantial decline from its previous electoral performance and reflects the party’s difficulties retaining support among both Chareidi and traditional Sephardic voters.

Otzma Yehudit, headed by Itamar Ben-Gvir, is projected to secure seven seats, while the joint Religious Zionism-Zehut list, led by Bezalel Smotrich and Moshe Feiglin, is credited with six.

The combined results leave Netanyahu’s existing political camp with 53 mandates, far below the threshold needed to establish a government without obtaining support from parties outside his current alliance.

The opposition bloc, meanwhile, has 48 seats, meaning that it, too, would need additional parliamentary partners to assemble a governing majority.

The unusually large representation of the Arab factions complicates the coalition calculations for both sides, particularly given the political disagreements that have historically made cooperation between some of the parties difficult.

Although the 19 seats held by the Joint List and Ra’am could prove consequential in determining whether a government can be formed, their electoral success does not automatically translate into participation in a coalition.

The ultimate outcome will depend on negotiations among party leaders, their willingness to cooperate across political divisions, and the recommendations they submit to the president during the government-formation process.

The continuing count has also left several smaller parties outside the Knesset, with their votes potentially playing an important role in determining the final allocation of seats.

The Reservists and Economic Party, headed by Yoaz Hendel and economist Yaron Zelekha, has received approximately 2.63% of the vote, below the 3.25% electoral threshold required to enter the Knesset.

The Amcha Yisrael party, led by retired Brigadier General Ofer Winter, has attracted approximately 1.61% of the vote, also falling short of the threshold.

Under Israel’s electoral system, votes cast for parties that fail to qualify for Knesset representation do not translate into parliamentary seats. The remaining seats are distributed among qualifying parties according to the election rules, including applicable surplus-vote agreements.

As a result, relatively small changes in vote totals can affect the final seat distribution, particularly when parties are competing for the last available mandates.

Election officials are now concentrating on the remaining ballots, including votes cast through the special double-envelope system.

These ballots include those submitted by IDF soldiers, prisoners, diplomats serving overseas, hospital patients and other eligible voters unable to cast ballots at their regular polling stations.

Unlike ordinary ballots, double-envelope votes require additional verification to ensure that each individual has voted only once. The process involves checking voter information before the ballots can be added to the national totals.

The Central Elections Committee indicated that hundreds of thousands of these ballots remained to be processed, along with a smaller number of regular ballots requiring additional scrutiny.

The outstanding votes could still alter the projected distribution of seats, particularly among parties whose current totals place them close to gaining or losing an additional mandate.

Election officials have indicated that a more complete count is expected Thursday, while the final certified results are scheduled for publication on November 4.

The election was also marked by exceptionally high voter participation, with nationwide turnout reaching approximately 77.7%, the highest level recorded since 1999.

Participation among Arab voters was estimated at approximately 80%, helping explain the dramatic increase in representation for the Joint List and Ra’am.

The IDF separately reported that 79.9% of eligible military personnel voted, an increase of 6.2 percentage points compared with the previous election in 2022.

Military officials operated more than 890 polling stations at bases and military positions, including locations beyond Israel’s borders, to enable soldiers and reservists to participate.

The unusually strong turnout has increased the total number of ballots that election officials must process, contributing to the extended counting period.

The political implications are already becoming apparent, with both Netanyahu and Eisenkot facing difficult coalition calculations.

Netanyahu’s bloc would need at least eight additional seats to reach the required majority, while Eisenkot’s 48-seat opposition grouping would need 13 more.

Together, the opposition parties and the Arab factions currently hold 67 seats, although that numerical total does not represent an agreed-upon governing coalition.

Several opposition leaders have expressed reservations about relying on Arab parties, and Netanyahu has ruled out forming a government dependent on their support.

The possibility of cooperation between rival Jewish parties also remains uncertain, given the political differences and longstanding disputes separating the major factions.

Once the official results are finalized, President Isaac Herzog will consult representatives of the elected parties before assigning a Knesset member the task of forming a government.

The president is not required to select the leader of the largest party. Rather, the decision is based on which candidate appears most capable of assembling a coalition that can command the confidence of the Knesset.

The candidate selected will ordinarily receive 28 days to form a government, with the possibility of an extension of up to 14 additional days.

If coalition negotiations fail, the process can move to another candidate or eventually lead to another election.

For now, Netanyahu remains prime minister while the counting and subsequent coalition negotiations proceed.

The latest results leave Israel facing a potentially prolonged period of political uncertainty, with the final ballots still capable of shifting individual mandates but neither major bloc presently possessing a clear path to a 61-seat majority.

{Matzav.com}

A knife-wielding attacker was shot and killed outside the Israeli Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, early Wednesday after assaulting a security guard, in an incident that Serbian authorities are investigating as a possible act of terrorism.

The confrontation occurred shortly after midnight near the Israeli diplomatic compound in the Serbian capital. According to initial reports, the assailant approached the embassy’s security perimeter armed with knives and attacked a guard stationed outside the facility.

The guard sustained minor injuries during the confrontation. The attacker was subsequently shot and killed.

Israeli officials confirmed that no members of the embassy’s diplomatic staff were injured in the incident.

Serbian authorities launched an investigation into the attack, focusing on the assailant’s identity, possible motives, and whether the incident involved additional individuals.

The authorities described the incident as a terrorist attack, although the precise circumstances surrounding the confrontation and any organizational affiliation of the attacker had not been established in the initial reports.

The attack prompted renewed attention to security arrangements at Israeli diplomatic missions, which have faced threats and attempted attacks in various countries.

Serbia and Israel maintain diplomatic relations, and the Israeli Embassy in Belgrade operates under security precautions intended to protect diplomatic personnel and visitors.

The incident also recalls a June 2024 attack outside the same embassy, when a man armed with a crossbow wounded a Serbian police officer guarding the compound. The officer returned fire and killed the attacker. Serbian officials subsequently characterized that incident as terrorism.

Serbian Interior Minister Ivica Dacic later disclosed that the attacker was a minor believed to be from the western Serbian city of Sabac and had already been monitored by the country’s security agencies. According to Dacic, the suspect was known as a supporter of ISIS and had displayed the terrorist organization’s black flag on his Instagram account.

Dacic said the attacker shouted “Allahu Akbar” as he approached the security post carrying two knives.

Belgrade prosecutors provided further details, saying the assailant, dressed in black, opened the door of the guard booth and rushed toward the officer. He then threw one of the knives, striking the guard on his left cheek. The officer drew his service weapon and fired several shots, killing the attacker at the scene.

Prosecutors said the officer acted in self-defense.

Following the attack, Serbia raised its national terrorism alert to the highest level, ordering additional police patrols and security checks at sensitive locations, including infrastructure facilities and areas where large crowds gather.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry confirmed that the embassy was closed at the time and that none of its personnel had been harmed.

Israeli Ambassador Avivit Bar-Ilan condemned the attack and expressed appreciation for the Serbian officer’s actions, saying his response had prevented potentially more serious consequences.

The injured officer was reported to be in good condition and was expected to be released from the hospital later Wednesday.

The incident marked the second attack against security personnel at Israel’s embassy in Belgrade in just over two years. In June 2024, an assailant armed with a crossbow wounded a Serbian police officer in the neck before being shot and killed.

Serbian authorities are continuing to investigate the latest attack, including the suspect’s suspected extremist connections and his activities before approaching the embassy.

Israel’s Shas party has suffered one of the most devastating electoral defeats in its history, losing an estimated 100,000 votes or more compared with the previous Knesset election, as dramatic declines in both traditional Sephardic strongholds and Chareidi communities have raised serious questions about the party’s political future.

An analysis of the results from Tuesday’s election for the 26th Knesset reveals that Shas, led by Aryeh Deri, received just 257,898 votes in the regular ballot count, compared with 392,964 votes in the previous election. The difference amounts to 135,066 votes, representing an extraordinary erosion of the party’s electoral base.

Even after the remaining special ballots, known in Israel as double envelopes, are counted, the party is expected to finish with a loss of at least 100,000 votes. Analysts estimate that those ballots could add as many as 35,000 votes to Shas’s total, but even that would leave the party substantially below its previous performance.

The scale of the defeat is particularly striking because Shas has traditionally drawn support from two distinct constituencies: Sephardic Chareidi voters who identify closely with the party’s rabbinic leadership and traditional Sephardic Jews who may not lead strictly Chareidi lifestyles but have historically maintained strong political and cultural ties to the movement.

Both groups appear to have abandoned the party in significant numbers.

According to preliminary estimates, approximately 30,000 of the missing votes came from the Chareidi population, while another 70,000 were lost among traditional voters. Those figures suggest that the setback cannot be attributed solely to dissatisfaction within the yeshiva world or to changes in the broader Israeli political environment.

Rather, the results indicate a substantial weakening of Shas’s appeal across the two populations that have sustained its political influence for decades.

Dr. Gilad Malach of the Israel Democracy Institute described the results as the party’s poorest electoral performance in approximately 35 years, with support falling back to levels associated with the 1992 Knesset election.

The comparison is particularly significant given the party’s subsequent rise into one of Israel’s most influential political forces, regularly holding enough Knesset seats to play a decisive role in coalition negotiations.

For decades, Shas has served as a major representative of Sephardic Chareidi interests while also attracting substantial backing from traditional Jewish communities in development towns and other areas outside Israel’s major metropolitan centers.

The latest election results suggest that the party has lost considerable ground in precisely those communities where its political organization and longstanding relationships once provided a dependable electoral advantage.

The most severe declines were recorded in Israel’s peripheral cities, where Shas experienced an average drop of approximately 42 percent in voter support.

These communities have historically been central to the party’s electoral identity, making the magnitude of the losses especially consequential.

In Dimona, Shas suffered a 48.5 percent decline, meaning that nearly half of its previous support disappeared.

Netivot, another city with longstanding ties to Sephardic religious institutions and Shas’s political network, recorded a 46.3 percent drop.

In Ofakim, support fell by 45 percent, while Sderot registered a decline of 42.1 percent.

The results in these cities demonstrate that the party’s losses were not concentrated in a single locality or confined to one geographic region. Instead, substantial numbers of voters moved away from Shas across a broad swath of southern Israel.

The pattern continued in Ashkelon, where the party’s vote total declined by 39.9 percent, and in Netanya, where it fell by 39 percent.

Ashdod, home to a large and politically active Chareidi population, recorded a 37.2 percent decrease.

The declines in these cities are particularly notable because Shas has traditionally benefited from established local institutions, communal networks and strong voter identification with its religious leadership.

Even in areas with substantial Chareidi populations, the party was unable to preserve the level of support it enjoyed in the previous election.

Across Chareidi population centers, Shas’s vote totals fell by an estimated 25 percent, indicating that the party’s difficulties extended well beyond its traditional but less religiously observant electorate.

The decline was also evident in central Israel. In Holon, Shas lost 29.6 percent of its previous vote, while Tzefas recorded a decrease of 21.5 percent.

Yerushalayim, one of the party’s most important electoral centers, saw a comparatively smaller but still substantial decline of 15.34 percent.

In Teveria, Shas’s vote fell by 9.1 percent, making it one of the less severe declines among the cities examined.

The figures point to a nationwide contraction in the party’s support, although the severity of the losses varied considerably from one community to another.

Additional election data from three major Chareidi cities further illustrates the changing political landscape.

In Elad, Shas received 8,920 votes, compared with 9,743 in 2022, a decline of 823 votes, or 8.4 percent. United Torah Judaism, meanwhile, increased its support in the city from 6,862 to 8,456 votes.

A similar pattern emerged in Beitar Illit, where Shas fell from 7,303 votes in the previous election to 6,027 this year, losing 1,276 votes, or 17.5 percent. United Torah Judaism increased its total from 14,081 to 18,033 votes.

In Modiin Illit, Shas declined from 5,277 votes to 4,746, a decrease of 531 votes, while United Torah Judaism added 4,580 votes to its previous total.

Across those three cities combined, Shas lost 2,630 votes, while United Torah Judaism gained 10,126, illustrating the different electoral trajectories of the two major Chareidi parties in those communities.

The figures do not establish precisely where former Shas voters went. Some may have supported other parties, while others may have stayed home. Determining the reasons for the decline will require more detailed analysis of turnout, voting patterns and the political issues that influenced voters.

The results nevertheless represent a substantial setback for Deri and the Shas leadership, particularly after a campaign conducted amid intense debate over the military draft, the position of yeshiva students and the relationship between Chareidi parties and the broader political establishment.

The losses among traditional voters may be especially troubling for Shas because that constituency has historically allowed the party to extend its influence beyond the boundaries of the strictly Chareidi population.

The party’s political strength has long depended on its ability to combine religious identification, Sephardic communal loyalty and broader appeals to voters who feel connected to its institutions and traditions.

A reduction of approximately 70,000 votes among traditional supporters, if the preliminary estimate is borne out, would represent a major change in that longstanding electoral coalition.

The disappointing results have already affected the party’s immediate post-election plans.

On Tuesday, Shas canceled a gathering scheduled to take place in Yerushalayim following the election, an indication of the subdued atmosphere surrounding the party’s performance.

The cancellation came as party officials and activists began assessing the extent of the losses and the implications for Shas’s position in the next Knesset.

The final picture will become clearer once the Central Elections Committee completes the count of special ballots and confirms the official results.

Those additional votes could modestly improve the party’s overall total, but the preliminary figures already indicate that Shas has suffered a significant reversal compared with its showing in 2022.

For a movement that has played a central role in Israeli politics for more than four decades, the election has raised fundamental questions about the durability of its traditional voting base and its ability to rebuild support in the communities that once formed the foundation of its electoral strength.

Federal prosecutors announced Wednesday that a 32-year-old woman accused of stabbing two visibly Jewish men with a needle-like object in Manhattan’s Diamond District has been charged with federal hate crimes, escalating a case that has alarmed New York’s Jewish community.

Anna Mochalova, a Russian national, faces two federal hate crime counts stemming from the October 21 attacks, which authorities say occurred within minutes of each other in Midtown Manhattan. Each charge carries a maximum prison sentence of 10 years, meaning she could face up to 20 years if convicted on both counts.

The charges were announced by U.S. Attorney Jamie McDonald of the Southern District of New York, FBI Assistant Director in Charge James C. Barnacle Jr., and NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch.

Mochalova, who had previously been arrested and charged in state court, was transferred to federal custody Wednesday and was expected to appear before U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger in Manhattan.

According to the federal criminal complaint, the first attack occurred at approximately 5:50 p.m. on October 21, when an Orthodox Jewish man was walking along West 47th Street between Fifth and Sixth Avenues.

The victim, who had a beard and was wearing a black hat, black suit, white shirt, and tzitzis, noticed a woman following him while speaking Russian. Moments later, prosecutors allege, Mochalova stabbed him in the lower back with a sharp object that produced a sensation resembling a needle prick.

The woman then continued toward Sixth Avenue, leaving the injured man behind.

Shortly afterward, prosecutors say, Mochalova approached two Jewish men standing at the northeast corner of Sixth Avenue and West 45th Street, approximately two blocks from the first attack.

Both men were wearing yarmulkes.

According to investigators, Mochalova repeatedly bumped into one of the men. When he confronted her about her behavior, she allegedly stabbed him in the right forearm with a sharp object.

The victim, who understood Russian, told investigators that the woman threatened him by saying, “run away, I have a gun.”

Prosecutors say the woman then turned to the second man and asked whether he was Jewish.

The man responded, “I don’t know, I’m Muslim?”

According to the complaint, Mochalova replied that she “was so sorry” before fleeing north along Sixth Avenue.

Authorities cited the exchange as part of the evidence supporting their allegation that the victims were deliberately targeted because of their Jewish identity.

Investigators have not yet identified the precise weapon used in the attacks or determined whether it contained any substance. That uncertainty has heightened concern because the injuries were reportedly inflicted with an object resembling a needle or syringe.

In announcing the federal charges, McDonald condemned the alleged attacks and pledged that his office would pursue those responsible for religiously motivated violence.

“This Office will continue to seek justice for victims of hate-based crimes and will aggressively prosecute those who seek to spread bigotry through violence,” McDonald said.

“As alleged, Anna Mochalova deliberately and viciously targeted Jewish victims with violence. Mochalova allegedly stabbed two men specifically because they were Jewish, an attack made all the more terrifying because the specific weapon used—and its potential contents—remain unknown pending further investigation. Mochalova’s alleged actions were an attack on the fundamental right to freely and safely express one’s religious identity in public.”

FBI Assistant Director Barnacle said federal authorities would continue working to protect Jewish New Yorkers from violence and intimidation.

“Acts of hate and harassment have no place in our city,” Barnacle said. “The alleged hate-motivated crimes committed against Jewish members of our community are unacceptable and have no place in New York. We will continue to use the full force of the law to protect the safety, security, and rights of every New Yorker, including members of our Jewish community.”

NYPD Commissioner Tisch also denounced the attacks, describing them as an assault on the security of an entire community.

“A hate crime is a message written in violence, and this defendant’s message was loud and clear,” Tisch said. “As alleged in the complaint, Anna Mochalova attacked two visibly Jewish New Yorkers, striking fear in an entire community. Every New Yorker has the right to walk our streets safe from hatred and violence, and the NYPD will always hold those who threaten that right accountable. I thank the NYPD investigators and our federal partners for responding swiftly to this unacceptable act of hate.”

The case initially drew widespread attention after surveillance footage emerged showing a woman apparently following a visibly Jewish man through the Diamond District before the attack.

The first victim, identified in earlier reports as a 26-year-old rabbi, was taken to Bellevue Hospital for evaluation. His injuries were not believed to be life-threatening.

Manhattan Shomrim Safety Patrol assisted the NYPD Hate Crimes Task Force in the investigation, appealing to witnesses and requesting surveillance recordings, dashcam footage, and cellphone videos from the surrounding area.

The suspect was arrested on Shabbos following the investigation. She subsequently appeared in Manhattan Criminal Court, where she faced state charges including assault as a hate crime, menacing, weapons possession, and aggravated harassment.

{Matzav.com}

[COMMUNICATED]

Picture three homes in your neighborhood.

In one, Tatty has been in the hospital for two months. His eight-year-old eats supper at the neighbors’ and stopped asking when he’s coming home.

In the second, Mommy spends her nights at a hospital bedside in the city. Her eleven-year-old runs the house — supper, homework, little brothers.

In the third, a six-year-old knows her nurses’ names better than her classmates’.

Three different homes.

One story: when illness enters a home, the children are suddenly JUMPING through life alone.

Boruch Hashem, there’s Tantzers. The birthday party that shows up in the hardest week. The hospital visits every single week. The Family Center, open every night, where a kid whose house became a hospital gets supper, homework help, and two hours of simply being a kid.

The volunteers give the time and the heart. But the parties, the visits, and the Family Center cost real money — and that part is ours to carry. NOW, the Tantzers campaign is live: 36 hours to cover a year of showing up.

Don’t watch from the seats. Be a Tantzer.

No child jumps alone.

Click HERE to donate!

The Justice Department is urging a federal judge to block the public release of documents connected to the FBI-era immigration investigation of Rep. Ilhan Omar, warning that disclosure of the warrant used to search the Minnesota Democrat’s Washington, D.C., residence could compromise an ongoing criminal inquiry.

In a 47-page court filing submitted Tuesday, federal prosecutors argued that making the search warrant and accompanying records public before investigators have completed their work would threaten the integrity of the case. The filing, much of which was heavily redacted, was submitted by Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

The government is seeking to prevent several major news organizations and the conservative watchdog organization Judicial Watch from obtaining the documents at this stage of the investigation. Prosecutors maintain that the records contain sensitive information that should remain confidential while authorities determine whether criminal charges are warranted.

According to the Justice Department, releasing the materials now “imperils the investigation.”

The legal dispute follows an October 12 search of Omar’s Washington residence by agents from Homeland Security Investigations, a division of the Department of Homeland Security. Federal authorities have acknowledged that the operation was conducted as part of an active criminal investigation, although they have disclosed relatively little about its scope.

People familiar with the matter have told ABC News that investigators are examining questions involving Omar’s immigration documentation. The New York Times separately reported that the warrant identifies possible offenses involving false statements, immigration-related fraud and conspiracy.

Those references describe potential violations being examined by investigators and do not establish that Omar committed any crime. The congresswoman has not been charged and has repeatedly denied wrongdoing.

Pirro argued in the court filing that requests to disclose the warrant materials are premature because prosecutors have not yet reached or publicly announced a decision on whether to bring charges.

The Justice Department indicated that it is not necessarily opposed to releasing portions of the documents at a later stage, potentially with sensitive information removed. Its immediate objection concerns disclosure while investigative steps remain underway.

Prosecutors asked Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to reject the applications without prejudice, a procedural outcome that would allow the news organizations and Judicial Watch to renew their requests as the case develops.

The government also requested an opportunity to seek emergency appellate intervention if Boasberg decides that the documents must be unsealed.

Under that proposal, the judge would temporarily delay any disclosure order, giving federal attorneys time to ask a higher court to prevent the records from becoming public.

Boasberg, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Barack Obama, must now weigh the government’s arguments for maintaining secrecy against claims that the public has a substantial interest in understanding why federal agents searched the home of a sitting member of Congress.

The organizations seeking access to the warrant include The New York Times, The Associated Press, CNN and other major media outlets, along with Judicial Watch. Their attorneys contend that the unusual circumstances surrounding the search justify greater transparency, particularly because it involved an elected federal official seeking reelection.

They argue that the public should be able to examine the legal basis for the search and determine what evidence federal investigators presented to obtain judicial authorization.

The warrant application and supporting affidavit could reveal the suspected offenses under investigation, the information authorities relied upon when requesting permission to search Omar’s home, and the categories of evidence agents were authorized to seize.

The dispute has become particularly contentious because the search took place just 22 days before the November 3 congressional elections, in which Omar is seeking a fifth term representing Minnesota’s Fifth Congressional District.

Justice Department guidelines generally call for heightened caution when investigative actions involving political candidates could become public close to an election. The department has traditionally sought to avoid unnecessary investigative steps that could influence an electoral contest, particularly within the final 60 days.

The timing of the search has therefore prompted criticism from Democrats and questions about whether federal authorities followed the department’s established practices for politically sensitive investigations.

Omar has characterized the operation as politically motivated, describing it as “an attempt to target political enemies and weaponize federal law enforcement.”

The congresswoman has maintained that she and her family provided accurate information during the immigration process and that the allegations being examined by federal investigators are baseless.

Omar was born in Somalia and fled the country’s civil war with her family before eventually entering the United States as a refugee. She has said that she obtained American citizenship in 2000 through her father’s naturalization, when she was 17 years old.

According to Reuters, the federal investigation is examining whether Omar or relatives supplied inaccurate information when the family entered the United States or during subsequent citizenship proceedings. One issue reportedly receiving attention is whether information concerning Omar’s age was correctly represented in immigration documents.

Investigators have also issued subpoenas to members of Omar’s family, according to reporting on the inquiry. During the October 12 search, agents seized electronic devices and other personal materials that could be relevant to the investigation.

Omar has questioned the scope of the search and said authorities have provided her with little information about the allegations being investigated.

In an interview last week, she described being surprised by some of the items agents removed from her home, including old phones, notebooks and other personal belongings.

The congresswoman has also said that publicity surrounding the search generated security concerns, prompting her to consider leaving her Washington residence.

President Trump, who has repeatedly criticized Omar over her political positions and immigration background, addressed the investigation Tuesday and raised the possibility that she could ultimately face deportation.

Trump described Omar as a “sick and very dishonest person,” according to The New York Times.

Any effort to revoke Omar’s American citizenship would require separate legal proceedings and proof that she obtained citizenship unlawfully. A criminal investigation by itself does not establish grounds for denaturalization, and the congresswoman has not been charged with any offense.

The controversy has also expanded beyond Omar’s immigration history. Pirro has previously acknowledged that federal authorities are examining questions involving the congresswoman’s financial disclosures, although officials have not publicly established that those matters are connected to the search warrant now at issue.

The Justice Department’s latest filing focuses on the potential consequences of releasing investigative records before prosecutors have determined whether the available evidence supports criminal charges.

Federal authorities argue that disclosing the documents prematurely could reveal investigative methods, identify individuals connected to the inquiry or expose evidence that investigators have not finished evaluating.

The news organizations counter that the search of a sitting member of Congress is an extraordinary government action that demands public accountability, especially when conducted so close to an election.

The competing arguments leave Boasberg to decide whether the government’s interest in protecting an active investigation outweighs the public’s interest in examining the justification for the search.

Under the schedule established by the judge, the organizations seeking disclosure have until Friday, October 30, to respond to the Justice Department’s arguments.

Boasberg has not yet issued a final ruling on whether the warrant documents will remain sealed or whether some portion of the records must be released.

The case could also move to an appellate court if the judge orders disclosure and prosecutors pursue the emergency relief they have requested.

For now, the central details of the investigation remain shielded from public view, even as the political controversy surrounding the search continues to grow.

With Election Day less than a week away, the dispute over the warrant has become a separate legal battle over government secrecy, press access and the handling of a criminal investigation involving one of President Trump’s most outspoken congressional opponents.

{Matzav.com}

It is with sadness that Matzav.com reports the sudden petirah of R’ Dovid Anshel Danziger z”l, a longtime resident of Flatbush who later made his home in Lakewood, NJ. He was 74 years old.

The niftar was the father of Rav Moshe Tzvi Danziger, rov of Khal Ohr Yaakov in Lakewood’s Raintree neighborhood.

R’ Dovid was a talmid of Yeshiva Rabbeinu Chaim Berlin, where he spent his formative years immersed in limud haTorah and absorbed the traditions of the yeshiva.

For many years, R’ Dovid resided in Flatbush, Brooklyn, where he raised his family. He subsequently relocated to Lakewood, settling in the Enclave community, where he spent his recent years.

His sudden petirah has brought sadness to his family, friends, and those who knew him over the years in Flatbush and Lakewood.

He leaves behind a family continuing his legacy, including his son, Rav Moshe Tzvi Danziger.

The levayah was held today at the Congregation Sons of Israel Chapel on Ramsey Avenue in Lakewood. Kevurah was held in Lakewood.

The family will be sitting shivah at 411 Monticello Lane in Lakewood.

Yehi zichro boruch.

{Matzav.com}

A gun control activist was arrested after spray-painting a political message across the names of victims at the 9/11 Memorial in Lower Manhattan, defacing one of the nation’s most solemn memorial sites in a stunt that he recorded and subsequently publicized on social media.

Jonathan Andrew Tijerina, 31, allegedly carried out the vandalism Monday evening, October 26, targeting the North Tower Reflecting Pool at the World Trade Center memorial. The red paint was applied directly over sections of the bronze panels bearing the names of people murdered in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Police charged Tijerina with criminal mischief and making graffiti in connection with the incident, which authorities said caused more than $2,500 in damage.

The message painted across the memorial read “Juststopkillingkids.com,” directing attention to a website operated by Tijerina that advocates stricter gun control measures.

The incident was captured in videos subsequently published on Instagram, showing the activist approaching the memorial, removing a can of spray paint from his bag and writing across several of the engraved panels.

The footage documented the act from beginning to end, including the moments when Tijerina walked toward the reflecting pool and began applying red paint to the memorial’s surface.

Rather than distancing himself from the vandalism, Tijerina publicly identified himself as the individual responsible and used the incident to promote his political campaign.

“My name is Jon Tijerina and I’ve just spray-painted ‘just stop killing kids’ on the 9/11 Memorial,” Tijerina boasted.

The 9/11 Memorial & Museum said security personnel and law enforcement responded promptly and that the affected sections were cleaned and restored.

In a statement addressing the incident, a spokesperson emphasized the importance of protecting the memorial as a place dedicated to the victims and their families.

“The 9/11 Memorial is a sacred place of reflection at the heart of a rebuilt World Trade Center that honors the 2,983 victims killed in the September 11, 2001 and February 26, 1993 terrorist attacks. Yesterday’s brief incident was swiftly addressed by security staff and law enforcement, and the impacted area was immediately restored to its commemorative state,” a spokesperson told CBS New York.

The memorial’s two reflecting pools occupy the footprints of the original Twin Towers, which were destroyed when Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked commercial aircraft and crashed them into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

The bronze parapets surrounding the pools display the names of those killed in the attacks, along with the victims of the February 26, 1993, World Trade Center bombing.

For families who lost loved ones, the engraved names serve as a permanent tribute and a place for remembrance. The defacement of those panels brought a political demonstration directly onto a memorial dedicated to the dead.

Tijerina’s actions were connected to a campaign he describes as a movement of “nonviolent civil resistance,” through which he seeks changes to federal firearms laws.

His organization argues that demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience can pressure elected officials into adopting policies that activists believe would reduce gun violence.

Following his arrest, the organization issued a statement portraying the incident as an effort to draw attention from President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

“On October 26, 2026, Jon Tijerina was arrested for spraying red paint on Freedom Tower in NYC. He is demanding that Trump and Mamdani enforce common-sense, highly popular demands with respect to guns such as Universal Background Checks and a National Gun Registry,” Tijerina’s organization wrote in a follow-up post.

Although the statement referred to Freedom Tower, the vandalism took place at the nearby 9/11 Memorial’s North Tower Reflecting Pool, rather than on the skyscraper itself.

The campaign’s principal demands are the establishment of universal background checks for firearm purchases and the creation of a national gun registry.

Supporters of universal background checks argue that requiring screening for nearly all gun transfers would close gaps in existing federal law. A national firearm registry, meanwhile, would involve a broader system for recording information about firearms and potentially their owners.

Both proposals have been subjects of longstanding political debate, with supporters arguing that they would strengthen efforts to prevent gun violence and opponents raising concerns about constitutional protections, privacy and government oversight.

Tijerina’s website presents the proposals as achievable reforms that would bring American firearm regulations closer to those adopted in other developed countries.

“We have two specific, achievable demands. Both have majority public support. Both already exist in other high-income countries. Neither requires repealing the Second Amendment. We are not asking for the impossible — we are asking for what every other wealthy democracy already has,” the website states.

Tijerina also pointed to a recent shooting following Florida A&M University’s homecoming football game as part of the motivation behind his protest. The incident, which left multiple people injured, had drawn renewed attention to gun violence and firearm access.

The activist connected that shooting to his broader argument that elected officials have failed to adopt measures he believes would reduce the number of children and young people killed or injured by firearms.

The memorial vandalism was not Tijerina’s first attempt to attract attention through an unconventional political demonstration.

Earlier this month, he said he had completed a seven-day fast to demand the construction of two million affordable housing units in New York City within five years.

Tijerina subsequently complained that the demonstration had received little public attention, despite his decision to go without food for an extended period.

His organization’s later social media statements portrayed the arrest at Ground Zero as another episode in an ongoing campaign of civil disobedience. The group said he had previously been arrested in multiple states and had undertaken other extended fasts in pursuit of political objectives.

The response from authorities at the memorial was immediate. According to Port Authority Police, memorial personnel notified officers at approximately 5 p.m. Monday that a man had been detained following the defacement of panels along the northern side of the North Pool.

Officers arrested Tijerina and transferred him to Manhattan Central Booking for processing.

The vandalism was also witnessed by visitors, including a 16-year-old tourist from the United Kingdom who told CBS News New York that police intervened almost immediately after the spray-painting began.

The witness, Ed Duffy, described seeing the suspect mark the engraved names with red paint before officers arrived and took him into custody.

Police said surveillance cameras also recorded the incident, providing additional evidence alongside the videos Tijerina himself published.

The suspect faces criminal charges stemming from the damage to the memorial, although the allegations have not yet been adjudicated in court.

Despite initial estimates placing the damage above $2,500, memorial officials said the graffiti was successfully removed and that the affected panels suffered no permanent damage.

The incident comes during the year marking the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, a milestone that has brought renewed attention to the memorial and the families whose loved ones are commemorated there.

While Tijerina has defended his conduct as an effort to force public discussion of gun legislation, the incident has also drawn attention to the decision to use the names of terrorism victims as the setting for an unrelated political protest.

The memorial has since been returned to its original appearance, but the criminal case against Tijerina remains a consequence of a demonstration that he deliberately recorded and publicized.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party is demanding an urgent criminal investigation into alleged widespread voting irregularities in Arab communities during Israel’s election for the 26th Knesset, claiming that serious violations may have compromised the integrity of Tuesday’s national vote.

In a statement issued Wednesday, Likud announced that it was preparing to hand over hundreds of witness accounts and other materials to the Israel Police, the Shin Bet security service and the Central Elections Committee. The party contends that the information points to suspected criminal activity at numerous polling locations in Arab towns and villages.

The allegations, which have not been independently verified, include suspected vote-buying, voter intimidation, identity fraud, unauthorized activity inside voting booths and discrepancies in ballot counts.

Likud issued an especially forceful accusation against the Arab political parties, declaring that “the elections in the State of Israel were stolen by Arab parties that support terrorism and the destruction of the Jewish state.”

The statement marks a significant escalation in the political confrontation following an election in which the balance of power between the competing blocs remains a central concern. Likud is arguing that alleged misconduct in Arab polling stations warrants immediate scrutiny by both criminal investigators and Israel’s domestic security authorities.

Among the most serious allegations is the reported discovery of thousands of envelopes allegedly containing cash alongside voting slips for Ra’am, the Islamist-oriented Arab political party. Likud maintains that the materials raise suspicions of organized efforts to influence voters through financial inducements.

The party has not publicly established who allegedly distributed the envelopes, how many voters may have been affected or whether the reported materials were connected to a coordinated operation. Those questions would require examination by the relevant investigative authorities.

Likud also claims that election workers at certain polling stations were subjected to threats and acts of violence, potentially interfering with their ability to supervise voting and enforce election procedures.

Another allegation involves multiple individuals allegedly entering the private voting area together, despite rules designed to protect the secrecy and independence of each voter’s ballot.

The party further contends that some ballots may have been cast using duplicate identities, raising questions about whether individuals were improperly permitted to vote more than once or whether identification procedures were circumvented.

In addition, Likud alleges that certain polling stations recorded inconsistencies between the number of ballot envelopes and the number of voters officially registered as having participated.

Such discrepancies, if substantiated and not explained by administrative errors or lawful voting procedures, could require a detailed examination of polling station records, voter lists and ballot reconciliation reports.

The party has also raised concerns about the alleged use of voter mobilization software that it says was prohibited under election regulations. Likud has not publicly provided sufficient technical details to establish which systems were used or precisely how their use may have violated the law.

The accusations come against the backdrop of an unexpectedly strong showing by Arab parties in Tuesday’s election. With approximately 85 percent of ballots counted, Ra’am and the Joint List were projected to secure a combined 19 Knesset seats, a historic result that could substantially complicate efforts by Netanyahu or his political opponents to assemble a governing coalition.

The projected gains have become especially consequential because neither Netanyahu’s bloc nor the Jewish-led opposition parties appeared positioned to secure the 61 seats required for a parliamentary majority. The final allocation remains subject to the completion of the vote count, including ballots cast by soldiers and other eligible voters using special voting arrangements.

The controversy is not limited to allegations issued after the election. During voting on Tuesday, Likud’s election integrity operation reported receiving hundreds of complaints concerning procedures at Arab polling stations.

According to figures released by the party, its representatives collected 620 reports of suspected irregularities during the day and subsequently submitted 775 complaints to the Central Elections Committee.

The complaints covered a wide range of alleged problems, including the handling of voter information, questions involving ballot papers and envelopes, difficulties verifying voter identities, and reports of intimidation directed at polling station personnel.

Among the specific incidents cited by Likud were the reported disappearance of 10 sealed ballot envelopes at a polling station in Fassuta and an alleged discrepancy involving 11 envelopes at a polling location in Jadeidi-Makr.

The party’s election integrity headquarters also criticized instructions intended to reduce overcrowding at polling stations, arguing that pressure to accelerate voting could weaken safeguards intended to prevent improper voting.

In a separate development, Israeli police arrested three men from Bedouin communities in the Negev on election day on suspicion of attempting to purchase votes for Ra’am.

During searches connected to the investigation, officers reportedly recovered envelopes containing tens of thousands of shekels in cash, together with voting slips and other materials suspected of being connected to the alleged scheme.

Investigators are examining whether the money was intended to be distributed to voters in exchange for supporting the party led by Mansour Abbas. The arrests represent an actual law enforcement investigation, although the suspects have not been convicted and the allegations against them remain subject to investigation.

The arrests have intensified demands from right-wing politicians for a broader examination of the Arab-sector vote. Several lawmakers have called for particularly aggressive action, including proposals to disqualify votes allegedly connected to improper inducements.

Those demands go beyond Likud’s request for an investigation and would raise additional legal questions about the evidence necessary to invalidate ballots or alter election results.

Despite the seriousness of the allegations, no finding has established that widespread fraud changed the outcome of the election. An official from the Central Elections Committee reportedly dismissed claims of election fraud during an interview with Channel 12 earlier Wednesday.

Likud has not publicly identified every polling station implicated in its latest allegations or provided a verified accounting of how many votes might have been affected.

The party nevertheless insists that the material it has assembled warrants immediate intervention by the country’s principal law enforcement and security agencies.

“We demand that the police and Shin Bet conduct a thorough investigation into the theft of the elections by the Arab parties and bring the perpetrators to justice,” Likud stated.

“This is a serious violation of Israeli democracy and the voting rights of Israeli citizens. Law enforcement agencies must act decisively and immediately.”

The Central Elections Committee is responsible for overseeing the integrity of the voting process and the official tabulation of ballots. Complaints involving suspected criminal conduct may also require police investigation, while any Shin Bet involvement would depend on the nature of the allegations and the agency’s legal authority.

The developing dispute places additional pressure on election officials as they work to finalize the results of one of Israel’s most politically consequential elections.

For Netanyahu and Likud, the allegations have introduced a new and potentially explosive issue into the post-election struggle over the composition of the next Knesset.

For election authorities, the immediate challenge will be determining which complaints can be substantiated, whether criminal offenses occurred and, critically, whether any proven irregularities affected the validity of individual ballots or the overall result.

Until those questions are resolved, Likud’s accusations remain allegations, even as the party demands that investigators move swiftly to examine what it describes as a serious assault on the integrity of Israel’s democratic process.

Rep. Ilhan Omar, the Minnesota Democrat who has frequently clashed with President Donald Trump, could potentially face criminal prosecution and the loss of her American citizenship if federal authorities establish that she obtained citizenship through immigration fraud, according to a former federal immigration judge. The allegations against the congresswoman remain unproven, however, and any attempt to revoke her citizenship would require a separate legal process.

Former immigration judge Nathan Hansen said that a finding of fraud connected to Omar’s naturalization could provide grounds for the Justice Department to pursue denaturalization, although neither a criminal investigation nor a conviction would automatically strip her of citizenship.

Omar is reportedly facing federal scrutiny on two separate fronts. One investigation concerns allegations involving immigration and citizenship documentation associated with the congresswoman and her family, while another reportedly examines questions surrounding her financial disclosures and a significant change in her reported financial circumstances.

The existence of allegations does not establish that Omar committed a crime, and federal authorities have not publicly demonstrated that she engaged in immigration fraud.

Hansen explained that the central legal question would be whether prosecutors could establish a connection between any proven misconduct and the circumstances under which Omar became a naturalized American citizen.

“If there was some sort of nexus between the criminal conviction and somebody’s citizenship, it might be more likely that the Department of Justice would bring a denaturalization proceeding,” Hansen said, adding that the decision would ultimately be discretionary.

Under federal law, naturalized citizenship may be revoked through judicial proceedings if the government proves that it was obtained illegally or through the concealment of a material fact or willful misrepresentation. Such proceedings are distinct from ordinary criminal prosecutions and are subject to demanding evidentiary standards.

Consequently, even if investigators were to uncover wrongdoing unrelated to Omar’s naturalization, that would not necessarily provide a legal basis for taking away her citizenship.

The federal investigation has already resulted in a search of Omar’s Washington, D.C., residence. On October 12, agents from Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative division of the Department of Homeland Security, entered the property under a warrant obtained through the Justice Department.

Investigators reportedly removed electronic devices and other materials from the residence. Fox News reported that the items included Omar’s cellphone, passport and computer, and subsequently reported that authorities had obtained a DNA sample associated with the investigation.

The Justice Department confirmed that agents carried out a court-authorized search connected to an ongoing criminal investigation but has provided limited public information about the evidence being examined or the specific allegations under review.

Reports indicate that investigators are examining immigration documents prepared when Omar was a child, including paperwork associated with her late father. The congresswoman, who was born in Somalia, arrived in the United States with her family after receiving asylum and became a naturalized American citizen in 2000.

Omar has repeatedly denied allegations concerning her immigration history and has characterized the federal investigation as an attempt by the Trump administration to intimidate a political opponent. She has maintained that she committed no wrongdoing.

The October 12 search drew criticism from Democratic lawmakers, who questioned the decision to conduct such a conspicuous investigative operation only weeks before the November 3 midterm elections, in which Omar is seeking another term in Congress.

The congresswoman subsequently said she intended to leave her Washington residence because publicity surrounding the search had exposed its location and left her concerned about threats against herself and her family.

Hansen also addressed whether the age of the allegations could complicate a potential prosecution. Because the immigration documents reportedly under examination date back many years, questions have arisen about whether applicable statutes of limitations might prevent criminal charges.

The former judge suggested that allegations involving concealed fraud could raise legal arguments affecting the calculation of filing deadlines.

“My view of that is generally that fraud stops any statute of limitations,” Hansen said, explaining that concealing information could make it unfair to allow a deadline to expire while the alleged wrongdoing remained hidden.

The legal situation is more complicated than that general observation, however. Whether a limitations period can be extended or suspended depends on the particular statute, the alleged conduct and any legally recognized basis for tolling. The mere allegation of fraud does not automatically eliminate every statutory deadline.

Civil denaturalization proceedings also involve legal requirements separate from those governing criminal prosecutions. Federal authorities would need to establish grounds for revoking citizenship rather than relying solely on the existence of an investigation.

The separate inquiry involving Omar’s finances has reportedly focused on discrepancies between financial disclosures filed in different years. Investigators are examining the circumstances behind a substantial reported change in her declared financial position, although the existence of such a discrepancy does not itself establish misconduct.

No publicly established finding has linked the financial allegations to fraud in Omar’s naturalization process, and the two inquiries would have to be evaluated according to their respective evidence and applicable laws.

Beyond the congresswoman’s situation, Hansen pointed to what he described as serious administrative problems within the nation’s immigration enforcement and court systems.

He estimated that Minnesota alone has approximately 20,000 to 30,000 pending immigration removal cases for which court dates have not yet been scheduled, reflecting the substantial backlog facing immigration judges and federal authorities.

Hansen attributed some of the pressure on the system to the large number of asylum applications and immigration proceedings, including cases he believes lack sufficient legal merit.

Drawing on his experience as an immigration judge, he said he had encountered applications containing questionable assertions and documentation that he suspected had been falsified.

Those broader concerns, Hansen suggested, demonstrate the difficulties authorities face in distinguishing legitimate immigration claims from potentially fraudulent submissions while managing an already overburdened system.

For Omar, the immediate question remains whether investigators will uncover evidence sufficient to justify criminal charges. Any subsequent attempt to revoke her citizenship would require additional legal action and proof that the alleged wrongdoing affected her eligibility for naturalization.

As the investigation continues, the Minnesota congresswoman remains in office and has not been found guilty of the allegations being examined. The possibility of denaturalization remains a potential legal consequence described by Hansen, rather than a decision that federal authorities have announced or a result that has been established.

{Matzav.com}

Israel’s chareidi political parties signaled Wednesday that they are not ruling out cooperation with a government led by opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot, potentially opening the door to a dramatic realignment of Israeli politics following Tuesday’s inconclusive Knesset election.

In remarks that could have major implications for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s efforts to remain in office, a senior Shas source indicated that the party might be prepared to join an Eisenkot-led coalition if legislation acceptable to the chareidi community is enacted to regulate the military service status of yeshiva bochurim.

At the same time, senior United Torah Judaism figure Yitzchak Goldknopf declined to categorically reject cooperation with Eisenkot, saying that any such decision would be referred to the party’s rabbinic leadership.

The developments came as Israel’s political parties began assessing their options after an election that left neither Netanyahu’s right-wing and religious bloc nor the opposition with the 61 Knesset seats required to form a government.

According to Wednesday afternoon’s developing count, Netanyahu’s bloc stood at 53 seats, while the principal opposition bloc held 48 seats and the Arab parties controlled a combined 19 seats. Hundreds of thousands of special ballots remained uncounted, leaving the final parliamentary distribution uncertain.

The inconclusive results have intensified speculation about whether the chareidi parties, traditionally associated with Netanyahu’s political camp, might reconsider their alliances if doing so would advance their central demand for legislation protecting the status of yeshiva students.

In comments reported by Channel 12, an unnamed Shas official suggested that Eisenkot could establish a government without immediately including the chareidi parties, while leaving open the possibility of their joining at a later stage.

“If Eisenkot has any sense, he will form a government and not fill the [ministerial positions] that are important to us,” the Shas source said.

“If there is a reasonable conscription law, perhaps we will join later,” the official added.

The remarks represent a potentially significant development in the post-election political maneuvering, suggesting that at least some figures within Shas are prepared to consider cooperation with Eisenkot under certain circumstances.

However, the comments were attributed to an unnamed party source and do not constitute an official decision by Shas or its rabbinic leadership.

Nor do they establish that negotiations are underway between Shas and Eisenkot over a coalition agreement.

The proposal outlined by the source would allow Eisenkot to form a government initially without Shas, while preserving the possibility of bringing the party into the coalition if the military draft issue is resolved in a manner acceptable to its leadership.

Such an arrangement could potentially offer Shas a way to avoid assuming responsibility for a government before the draft controversy is addressed, while maintaining leverage over the legislation that would ultimately determine its participation.

The suggestion also reflects a broader discussion within the chareidi political establishment about whether remaining outside the next government, at least initially, might be preferable to entering another coalition without guarantees concerning the status of yeshiva bochurim.

The issue has dominated chareidi politics for months, as the government struggled to enact legislation addressing military conscription while facing legal challenges and growing public pressure over the exemption of full-time yeshiva students from army service.

Shas chairman Aryeh Deri made the party’s position clear earlier this month, declaring that Shas would not participate in or support the next government unless the status of yeshiva students was regulated.

“There will be no government in Israel with Shas’s support or participation unless the status of yeshiva students is regulated,” Deri said in an October 14 interview with Kikar HaShabbat.

His declaration did not limit that demand to a government headed by Netanyahu.

That distinction has assumed greater importance following Tuesday’s election, with neither major political bloc possessing a parliamentary majority and the chareidi parties potentially holding significant influence over the formation of a new government.

United Torah Judaism has adopted a similarly firm position regarding the draft law.

Party chairman Yaakov Asher previously declared that UTJ would not enter a government unless legislation regulating the status of yeshiva students had actually been passed.

“United Torah Judaism will not enter a government that does not actually pass the law regulating the status of yeshiva students, known as the draft law. Period,” Asher said before the election.

He also indicated that the party did not consider itself permanently bound to any particular political bloc.

“We do not belong to any bloc. Whoever wants us should come and ask for our bloc’s support. That is the decision we have made for now,” Asher said.

Those statements suggest that the chareidi parties intend to make the draft issue, rather than their longstanding political relationship with Netanyahu, the determining factor in any future coalition arrangement.

Further attention was drawn to the possibility of cooperation with Eisenkot when Goldknopf, a senior Agudas Yisroel figure, addressed the subject in an interview with Kol Barama radio.

Asked whether United Torah Judaism might cooperate with Eisenkot’s political bloc, Goldknopf said the matter would be brought before senior rabbinic authorities and that their decision would determine the party’s position.

He did not endorse an Eisenkot-led government, but neither did he categorically reject the possibility.

His response reflected the central role of Gedolei Yisroel in determining the political direction of the chareidi parties, particularly on matters involving the protection of Torah study and the status of yeshiva students.

Any decision to support or join a government led by Eisenkot would represent a major political development, given the chareidi parties’ longstanding cooperation with Netanyahu and the sharp disagreements between Eisenkot and chareidi leaders over military conscription.

Eisenkot, a former IDF chief of staff who heads the Yashar party, has made changes to the military draft system a central element of his political platform.

He has repeatedly argued that Israel must expand military service and reduce exemptions, including those available to chareidi men.

During the election campaign, Eisenkot said he would not compromise on his principles regarding military service and indicated that the chareidi parties did not currently satisfy his conditions for coalition participation.

Those positions create an obvious obstacle to any agreement.

While Shas and United Torah Judaism insist on legislation protecting the ability of full-time yeshiva students to continue learning, Eisenkot has called for a substantially different approach to military service.

Bridging those positions would require negotiations over the details of a draft law, including which students would be eligible for exemptions or deferments, what enlistment requirements would apply and how the legislation would be enforced.

The legal dimension is equally significant.

Israel’s High Court of Justice has ruled that the government lacks a legal basis for blanket exemptions from military service for chareidi yeshiva students, and subsequent legislative efforts have faced legal challenges.

Chareidi political leaders have expressed concern that even a law passed by the Knesset could later be struck down by the court.

That uncertainty has contributed to discussions within the chareidi parties about whether they should remain outside the next coalition until the legal and political questions surrounding the draft issue are resolved.

Reports published before the election indicated that some figures within the chareidi political establishment were considering a strategy under which Shas and United Torah Judaism would initially refrain from recommending either Netanyahu or Eisenkot for prime minister.

Under that approach, the parties could remain in the opposition while the next government attempted to address the draft controversy, potentially joining the coalition at a later stage if an acceptable arrangement emerged.

Those discussions were described as preliminary and had not been formally adopted by the parties or approved by their rabbinic leadership.

Nevertheless, Wednesday’s comments suggest that the possibility remains under consideration as the political parties confront the results of the election.

The developments also complicate Netanyahu’s efforts to secure another term as prime minister.

For years, Shas and United Torah Judaism have been among his most dependable political allies, frequently providing the parliamentary support necessary to establish and maintain right-wing governments.

Their willingness to consider alternative arrangements, even hypothetically, could affect the coalition negotiations that follow the final vote count.

At the same time, it remains unclear whether Eisenkot could form a government capable of meeting the chareidi parties’ demands.

Several parties in the opposition bloc have taken strong positions in favor of expanding chareidi military enlistment, and any legislation perceived as preserving broad exemptions for yeshiva students could encounter substantial resistance.

Yisrael Beiteinu chairman Avigdor Liberman has been particularly outspoken in his opposition to the existing exemption system, while other opposition figures have argued that military service obligations must be distributed more equally.

Those disagreements could make it difficult for Eisenkot to satisfy the chareidi parties without alienating other potential coalition partners.

The election results have also raised the possibility of an opposition government receiving parliamentary support from Arab parties, although that option carries its own political complications.

With the Arab parties projected to hold 19 seats, their willingness to support an alternative government could become an important factor in coalition negotiations.

Senior Joint Arab List figures have already expressed their readiness to help remove Netanyahu from office, including through parliamentary arrangements that would not necessarily require formal participation in the government.

However, cooperation between the opposition and Arab parties would not by itself resolve the disagreements surrounding the draft law or guarantee a stable governing majority.

For the chareidi parties, the political uncertainty comes after an election in which their combined representation appears to have declined.

Wednesday’s count placed Shas and United Torah Judaism at seven seats each, giving them a combined 14 seats compared with 18 in the previous Knesset.

The reduction could affect their parliamentary leverage, although their willingness to cooperate with different political blocs could also become significant if neither side can assemble a majority without them.

The situation presents Shas and United Torah Judaism with a difficult calculation.

Entering a government without an acceptable draft law could expose them to renewed criticism from within the chareidi community, particularly after months of controversy over military conscription and the treatment of yeshiva bochurim.

Remaining outside the government, meanwhile, would mean surrendering direct influence over ministries and coalition decisions while attempting to advance their demands from the opposition benches.

A third possibility, suggested by the Shas source, would involve allowing a government to form without the chareidi parties and considering participation only after the draft issue has been resolved.

Whether that approach is politically feasible remains uncertain.

President Isaac Herzog is expected to begin consultations with the elected parties after the official results are finalized, seeking to determine which candidate has the best prospect of forming a government.

The chareidi parties’ recommendations during that process could prove consequential, particularly if neither Netanyahu nor Eisenkot emerges with a clear path to a majority.

For now, the comments from Shas and Goldknopf stop well short of a commitment to support Eisenkot.

They do, however, indicate that the chareidi parties are leaving their options open and that the battle over the status of yeshiva bochurim could determine not only the terms of the next coalition agreement, but also which political leader ultimately heads Israel’s next government.

A closely watched New York State Senate race in Rockland County has developed into a contentious political battle within Monsey’s frum community, with major Chassidishe kehillos throwing their support behind Democratic challenger Joe Rand while Litvishe rabbonim and askanim have issued a forceful endorsement of Republican incumbent Senator Bill Weber, exposing sharply different views about political loyalty, government funding, and the future of the community’s representation in Albany.

With Election Day scheduled for Tuesday, November 3, the contest for New York’s 38th State Senate District has become about considerably more than which candidate will occupy a seat in the state Legislature. The endorsements have prompted an increasingly public debate over whether the frum community is better served by retaining a Republican senator with an established record of support on issues important to Orthodox Jews or electing a Democrat who could work within the party that controls the State Senate.

The dispute has taken on particular significance because Weber, who first won the seat in 2022, previously enjoyed substantial support from Orthodox Jewish voters. Now, several kehillos that helped shape the political landscape in Rockland County are supporting his Democratic opponent.

Among the communities that have announced their backing for Rand are both Satmar kehillos in Monsey, the Viznitzer kehillah, Mosdos Pupa and the Skverer community in New Square. Their endorsements have been accompanied by public statements from community leaders and political activists arguing that effective representation requires access to the Democratic leadership in Albany.

On the other side, Rav Ari Senter has publicly urged voters to retain Weber, praising his record of standing with the Jewish community, confronting antisemitism and defending Israel while warning against further concentration of Democratic political power in New York.

The disagreement has created an unusual situation in which respected rabbonim and established communal organizations are taking different positions in the same election, even as many of them continue to support the same candidates in other races.

One of the most striking developments came on October 17, when both Satmar kehillos in Monsey announced identical endorsements for four major offices.

Their joint slate included Republican Congressman Mike Lawler for reelection, Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul, Democrat Joe Rand for state Senate and Democratic Assemblyman Aron Wieder.

Mosdos Pupa had previously announced support for the same four candidates, while the Viznitzer kehillah and its voting committee subsequently issued endorsements that included Lawler, Rand and Wieder, along with Democratic candidates in other contests.

The support for Rand expanded further when the Skverer community announced its endorsement following a visit by Governor Hochul to New Square.

During the governor’s visit, she met with the Skverer Rebbe and community leadership. According to local reporting, Hochul requested the community’s support for Rand, and community leaders agreed to endorse him.

Hochul’s visit was part of a broader series of meetings with Chassidishe communities, including stops in Kiryas Joel, Monsey and New Square.

In Monsey, she visited the Viznitz girls’ school and met with officials from the Village of Kaser and leaders of the Viznitz mosdos. She subsequently traveled to New Square, where she was welcomed by community officials before meeting with the Skverer Rebbe.

At the same time, the endorsements have generated criticism among those who believe Weber’s support for the Jewish community during his first two terms should carry greater weight than the prospect of improved access to Albany’s Democratic leadership.

That argument was articulated particularly forcefully by Rav Ari Senter in a public video endorsing the incumbent.

“I’d like to take this opportunity to explain why the state Senate race is a very imperative election,” Rav Senter said.

He framed the contest partly as a question of maintaining political checks and balances in a state where Democrats already control the governorship and both houses of the Legislature.

“For the last four years, Bill Weber has been that checks and balance,” Rav Senter said. “He has represented us, and he has represented our ideology and our community.”

Rav Senter also emphasized Weber’s record on issues involving antisemitism, Israel and the broader Jewish community.

“He has stood by and fought strongly for our community and against anti-Semitism and the strong negative movement against Israel and the Jewish community at large,” he said.

The rav praised Weber for maintaining consistent positions even when doing so might be politically difficult.

“I would like to personally compliment Bill on the fact that, despite the challenges of an election, he has stood by his ideals,” Rav Senter said. “He has never bent the truth.”

He also emphasized that Weber has not changed his message depending on which constituency he is addressing.

“He has been the same Bill whether he’s in front of us or his other constituents,” Rav Senter said. “He represents all of us.”

In explaining his support, Rav Senter grouped Weber with Congressman Lawler as elected officials whose relationships with the Orthodox Jewish community have been established through their actions in office.

“It is very clear that both Mike Lawler and Bill Weber have been friends of our community,” he said.

Rav Senter urged voters to evaluate elected officials based on demonstrated conduct rather than assurances about what a different candidate might accomplish after taking office.

“In reality, we should base our decisions on facts, not promises,” he said.

He concluded by emphasizing the importance of supporting officials who have stood with Jewish communities in the United States and Eretz Yisroel.

“We have to vote and stand by our community, stand by Eretz Yisroel, stand by the Jewish community in the United States, and recognize we have to support those who support us,” he said.

The underlying political disagreement has been brought into sharper focus by a lengthy public letter from community activist Mr. Yossi Gestetner, published October 25, explaining why he has changed his position after supporting Weber in both 2022 and 2024.

Gestetner argued that the central consideration should be an elected official’s practical ability to deliver results for the community, rather than personal relationships or party loyalty.

He acknowledged that he had worked to elect Weber in 2022 because the previous Democratic senator had taken positions that he regarded as harmful to the Orthodox Jewish community.

At the time, Gestetner explained, replacing that senator was a priority even though Weber would serve in the Republican minority.

Gestetner said he supported Weber again in 2024 because he believed the senator deserved additional time to develop relationships and establish himself in Albany.

But after four years, Gestetner argued, the limitations of serving in the minority had become increasingly apparent.

His criticism was directed less at Weber’s intentions than at the political structure within which he operates.

Gestetner contended that a legislator may be personally capable and sympathetic to community concerns yet remain limited in what he can accomplish without the relationships and institutional influence that come from membership in the majority party.

As an example, he pointed to Rand’s tenure as mayor of Nyack, a village with approximately 7,000 residents.

Gestetner credited Rand with securing approximately $7 million in government funding for the village, presenting that record as evidence of his ability to obtain assistance from state officials.

He argued that similar relationships could be valuable to Rockland County’s much larger population, particularly as communities seek funding for infrastructure, schools and other local needs.

The activist also drew comparisons with Congressman Lawler and Assemblyman Wieder, arguing that political relationships and access to decision-makers can substantially affect what an elected official is able to accomplish.

The letter represented a public explanation for why some longtime Weber supporters have moved toward Rand, despite their previous cooperation with the Republican senator.

It also exposed a deeper disagreement within the community over the appropriate balance between ideological considerations and practical political relationships.

For Weber’s supporters, the question is whether replacing a Republican who has publicly defended Orthodox Jewish interests with a Democrat would strengthen the political influence of a party whose broader policy positions have generated concern among many frum voters.

For Rand’s supporters, the question is whether continuing to elect a senator from the minority party limits the community’s ability to obtain assistance and influence decisions in a Legislature controlled by Democrats.

Neither argument is confined to this election. Similar debates have surfaced for decades, particularly in areas where community voting blocs have sought to maintain working relationships with officials from both major parties.

In Rockland County, however, the disagreement has become unusually visible because prominent communal endorsements are being announced publicly and because several of the individuals involved have longstanding relationships with the incumbent.

The debate has also unfolded against a backdrop of concerns over yeshiva education, government assistance to religious institutions, antisemitism, public safety and the direction of New York State politics.

The Senate race has consequently attracted attention from political figures beyond the district itself.

Rand has publicized endorsements from elected officials, village leaders, school board members and other local representatives, presenting the breadth of that support as evidence of his relationships throughout Rockland County.

Weber, meanwhile, has emphasized his record as an incumbent and his support for the Jewish community during a period of heightened concern over antisemitism and anti-Israel activity.

The election also comes amid broader political disagreements in New York, including the contest between Hochul and Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman.

The fact that several Chassidishe kehillos have endorsed Hochul and Rand while also supporting Republican Congressman Lawler illustrates the unusual political alignments emerging in Rockland County.

It also shows why the Senate contest cannot be understood simply as a referendum on national party politics.

The outcome will determine whether Weber secures another term or whether Rand succeeds in returning the district’s Senate seat to Democratic control.

Weber won the district by 3,213 votes in 2022 and by 9,528 votes in 2024. A poll commissioned by his campaign placed him ahead of Rand, 53% to 35%, although the survey was sponsored by one of the candidates and does not establish the current state of the race.

Another development in the debate over the State Senate race came when Rav Chaim Schabes, rov of Kehillas Knesses Yisroel in New Hempstead, publicly reaffirmed his endorsement of Democratic candidate Joe Rand, responding to reports circulating within the community that he had withdrawn his support.

Rav Schabes expressed disappointment over what he described as inaccurate accounts of his position, making clear that his endorsement of Rand remains in effect. He explained that while he does not necessarily agree with every decision or position taken by every candidate he endorses, such differences should not be interpreted as a reversal of his support.

The rov also stressed the importance of following the guidance of mosdos and Gedolim as the November 3 election approaches, emphasizing the role of established communal leadership in helping voters navigate the competing political considerations.

In clarifying his position, Rav Schabes reiterated his support for Congressman Mike Lawler, Joe Rand for State Senate and Assemblyman Aron Wieder. He concluded by extending his wishes for bracha v’hatzlacha to all three candidates.

The clarification adds another dimension to the divisions within Monsey’s frum community, with Rav Schabes maintaining his support for Rand even as Rav Ari Senter and other rabbonim have publicly backed incumbent Senator Bill Weber. It also highlights how the competing endorsements have generated considerable discussion, including conflicting accounts of where individual rabbonim stand.

{Matzav.com}

Nearly two years after New York City began charging motorists to enter Manhattan’s congestion pricing zone, drivers say they are still battling the same traffic jams while paying thousands of dollars annually in additional tolls, and newly examined commercial vehicle data raises questions about how much the controversial program has actually improved traffic conditions, the NY Post reports.

An analysis of more than 50,000 commercial vehicle trips found that driving speeds across much of Manhattan’s congestion zone remained largely unchanged during the program’s first year. Some sections experienced slower traffic than before the tolls were introduced, even as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority collected hundreds of millions of dollars from motorists.

The findings stand in contrast to the MTA’s repeated declarations that congestion pricing has substantially reduced traffic and improved travel times. The agency has characterized the program as an “unqualified success,” with MTA Chairman Janno Lieber maintaining that “all of the metrics” demonstrate that motorists are benefiting from shorter trips.

But for drivers who regularly enter Manhattan below 60th Street, the financial burden is considerably easier to measure than any improvement in their daily commutes.

The congestion charge, which began in January 2025, currently costs most passenger vehicles equipped with E-ZPass $9 to enter the designated zone during peak hours. Commercial trucks face considerably higher charges, with larger vehicles paying as much as $21.60 per entry.

For workers whose jobs require them to drive into Manhattan regularly, those charges have become another substantial expense in a city already known for its high cost of living.

“It’s just a money grab,” said Michael, a 55-year-old delivery worker from Queens who spoke to the New York Post while stopping at a Mobil gas station near West 36th Street and Tenth Avenue. “Working people can’t afford it.”

The courier said the program has imposed a considerable financial burden without producing the promised improvement in traffic.

“I’m paying up to four grand, and I’m not getting any benefit,” he said. “Traffic is not flowing.”

Other motorists offered similar accounts, describing commutes that remain lengthy and unpredictable despite the new fees.

Benadon Benmore, a 40-year-old ironworker who lives in Harlem and works in Hell’s Kitchen, said his daily trip home has not become any easier since the tolling system took effect.

“It still takes me two hours to get home,” Benmore said. “I’m gonna get me a real horse.”

Some drivers acknowledged that traffic initially improved after the congestion charge was introduced, but said those benefits have gradually disappeared.

Jhoffre Arevalo, a 40-year-old Uber driver from Flushing, recalled a noticeable reduction in congestion during the program’s early months.

“When congestion pricing started, you’d see the difference. Traffic went down a lot,” Arevalo said. “But now it comes back to normal. I think I see more traffic now.”

The conflicting assessments have become a central issue in the debate over whether congestion pricing is delivering on the promises made by Gov. Kathy Hochul and transportation officials.

The MTA has reported that the program reduced the number of vehicles entering the congestion zone by approximately 11% during 2025, a figure the agency has cited as evidence that the toll is successfully discouraging unnecessary driving into Manhattan.

However, vehicle counts collected by the Port Authority at the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, two major routes into the affected area, indicated a smaller reduction of approximately 4.5% in 2025 compared with 2024.

The two measurements cover different sets of vehicles and entry points, meaning they are not directly interchangeable. Nevertheless, the discrepancy has contributed to questions about the extent of the program’s impact on actual driving conditions.

A separate analysis by Geotab, a company that provides vehicle tracking and fleet management technology, examined commercial driving patterns before and after congestion pricing began.

Using GPS information from more than 50,000 truck and van trips within the tolling zone, researchers compared traffic speeds during the daytime hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. in 2024 and 2025.

The results indicated that traffic speeds improved along only 37% of the roadway mileage examined.

Another 46% showed no statistically significant change, while approximately 16% experienced slower vehicle speeds after the congestion charge was implemented.

The findings suggest that reductions in the number of vehicles entering Manhattan have not translated into faster travel across every part of the congestion zone.

The Geotab analysis focused on tracked commercial vehicles rather than all traffic, however, and does not by itself establish the program’s overall effect on every category of motorist.

Commercial vehicles may also respond differently to congestion pricing because of the way their tolls are assessed.

Unlike passenger cars, which generally pay the congestion charge only once per day, trucks are charged each time they enter the zone.

That distinction can create an incentive for commercial drivers to remain within the affected area rather than leave and return later for additional deliveries or assignments.

Geotab’s findings indicated that commercial vehicles were making more stops and spending more time idling after the tolling system began.

The company’s tracking software considers a trip completed when a vehicle’s engine is turned off or when it remains stationary for more than 3.3 minutes.

Using that definition, the data showed that tracked trucks and vans averaged approximately 4.6 trips or stops per day in 2025, compared with four in 2024.

Researchers concluded that the increase in vehicle activity contributed to higher emissions from the commercial fleet being monitored.

The findings raise additional questions about the environmental benefits of congestion pricing, another major argument advanced by supporters of the program.

Hochul has repeatedly credited the tolling system with producing “cleaner air” in Manhattan.

But an August report from the New York City Health Department found that measured air pollution within the congestion zone was not significantly different from the levels expected in the absence of the program.

That finding does not necessarily establish that congestion pricing has had no environmental effect. Changes in air quality can be influenced by weather, regional pollution and other factors, while benefits may take longer to become detectable in some measurements.

Nevertheless, the report has provided critics with additional grounds to challenge the administration’s claims about the program’s environmental accomplishments.

Meanwhile, the financial results have been substantial.

According to MTA board documents, congestion pricing generated more than $700 million in revenue during 2025, its first year of operation.

Through September 2026, the tolling program had collected an additional $548 million.

The money is intended to support the MTA’s capital improvement program, including investments in subway, bus and commuter rail infrastructure.

Transportation officials argue that the revenue is essential for modernizing the region’s public transit network and reducing the need for residents and commuters to rely on private vehicles.

The agency has also begun displaying signs at construction projects informing the public that improvements were “made possible by congestion pricing.”

For motorists already frustrated by the cost of entering Manhattan, those signs have become another reminder of the money they are required to pay.

The annual expense can be considerable even for drivers of ordinary passenger vehicles.

A motorist who enters the zone during peak hours five days a week and pays the standard $9 E-ZPass charge spends $45 weekly.

Over 50 working weeks, that amounts to approximately $2,250 annually in congestion charges alone, not including bridge and tunnel tolls, parking, fuel, insurance or vehicle maintenance.

The financial burden is substantially greater for commercial drivers.

A large truck paying $21.60 per entry would incur $108 in congestion charges over a five-day workweek, equivalent to approximately $5,400 over 50 weeks.

If that truck must enter the zone twice each workday, its annual congestion charges could reach $10,800.

For small businesses, independent contractors, delivery operators and tradespeople who depend on vehicles to transport equipment and merchandise, those expenses can be difficult to absorb.

Some companies may pass the additional costs along to customers, while others must account for the tolls as another operating expense.

The controversy is likely to intensify because the current $9 passenger vehicle charge is only the first stage of the program’s planned pricing schedule.

Under the existing timetable, the standard peak-hour toll is scheduled to increase to $12 in 2028 and $15 in 2031.

That would represent a 66.7% increase from the current rate by the beginning of the next decade.

A driver entering the zone five days a week at the eventual $15 rate would pay $75 weekly, or approximately $3,750 over 50 working weeks.

The planned increases have fueled opposition among motorists who believe they are being asked to shoulder an ever-growing financial burden without receiving corresponding improvements in road conditions.

The debate has also become a prominent political issue in New York, with opponents accusing Hochul of imposing an unfair additional cost on working families and commuters.

Supporters maintain that congestion pricing is designed to reduce vehicle traffic, improve public transportation and provide a reliable source of funding for long-delayed transit improvements.

They also point to the MTA’s reported reduction in vehicle entries as evidence that the program is influencing driving behavior, even if traffic conditions have not improved uniformly across Manhattan.

Critics counter that fewer vehicle entries do not necessarily mean that the remaining motorists are experiencing substantially faster trips, particularly when construction, commercial deliveries, double parking and other sources of congestion continue to affect traffic flow.

The Geotab findings have added a new dimension to that argument by showing that, at least among the commercial vehicles studied, large portions of the zone experienced little measurable improvement in travel speeds.

For drivers who must enter Manhattan regardless of the toll, the question is whether the additional expense is producing a meaningful benefit.

With toll collections continuing and further rate increases already scheduled, that question is becoming increasingly consequential for workers and businesses that depend on the city’s roads.

And for Michael, the Queens courier who says he is spending thousands of dollars on the program while continuing to struggle through Manhattan traffic, the conclusion is straightforward.

“The tolls are eating us alive,” Michael said.

{Matzav.com}

The United States has reportedly warned several Persian Gulf nations to prepare for the possibility of a brief but powerful military campaign against Iran following next week’s midterm elections, as President Donald Trump weighs another major offensive against Tehran’s nuclear facilities, missile infrastructure and military installations.

According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, American officials have communicated the warnings through diplomatic and military channels, signaling that Washington is seriously considering renewed hostilities after the November 3 elections. The preparations come amid mounting concerns that Iran is rebuilding military capabilities damaged during earlier American and Israeli strikes and that diplomatic efforts to reach a new agreement with Tehran have made little progress.

Trump has not authorized a new operation, according to people familiar with the administration’s deliberations, but is reportedly moving closer to approving a substantial military campaign if Iranian leaders refuse to make concessions. Such an operation could involve coordinated American and Israeli attacks designed to further weaken Iran’s military capabilities and increase pressure on the regime to negotiate.

The president himself raised the prospect of renewed military action during a rally last week, referring to the previous American-Israeli bombing campaign against Iran.

“We may do another little Epic Fury,” Trump said. “Or they’ll agree.”

The remarks reflected the administration’s strategy of combining military threats with economic pressure in an effort to force Tehran into an agreement addressing its nuclear program and other security concerns.

The Pentagon, meanwhile, has reportedly begun strengthening its military position across the Middle East in preparation for a possible escalation.

Among the measures under consideration or already underway is the deployment of an additional Patriot missile defense system from Texas to Israel, intended to reinforce defenses against potential Iranian missile attacks.

American forces have also been restoring ammunition stockpiles depleted during previous operations, while military planners prepare bomber and fighter aircraft for possible missions against Iranian targets.

The United States is additionally considering deploying another aircraft carrier strike group and a Marine expeditionary unit to the region next month, according to the Journal.

Those forces would supplement approximately 20 American warships already operating in Middle Eastern waters, potentially giving Washington additional capabilities for sustained air operations, missile defense and maritime security.

The buildup would also provide the United States with greater flexibility to respond if Iran attempts to retaliate against American bases, allied countries or commercial shipping routes.

The White House has declined to provide details about possible military plans, maintaining that the president has not ruled out any course of action.

“President Trump keeps all options on the table to ensure that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon,” the administration said.

Trump has publicly indicated that he does not intend to launch a new attack before the midterm elections, leaving open the possibility of military action afterward if negotiations remain unsuccessful.

The timing has drawn particular attention because the administration is attempting to manage an increasingly dangerous confrontation with Iran while Americans prepare to vote in congressional elections.

Although diplomatic intermediaries have continued efforts to reopen negotiations, those initiatives have reportedly failed to produce a breakthrough.

The administration has maintained extensive economic sanctions against Tehran, while a naval blockade has sharply curtailed Iranian oil exports and international trade.

Those restrictions have placed substantial pressure on Iran’s economy and reduced the financial resources available to its government.

American officials nevertheless remain concerned that economic pressure alone may not prevent Tehran from restoring its military capabilities.

Iran has reportedly been working to rebuild its ballistic missile arsenal and related infrastructure following extensive damage inflicted during earlier American and Israeli attacks.

That rebuilding effort is particularly significant for Israel and American forces stationed throughout the region because Iran’s missile systems represent one of Tehran’s principal means of threatening military bases, population centers and critical infrastructure.

A renewed offensive could therefore focus not only on nuclear facilities but also on missile production sites, launch systems, military command centers and other installations considered essential to Iran’s ability to conduct attacks.

Such operations would carry substantial risks, however, particularly if Iranian leaders conclude that the United States and Israel intend to inflict lasting damage on the regime’s military capabilities.

Tehran has warned that another American attack could provoke retaliation extending well beyond Iranian territory.

Iranian officials have threatened strikes against United States military installations and strategically important economic facilities throughout the Persian Gulf, raising concerns that neighboring countries could become targets even if they do not directly participate in an offensive.

American bases in Gulf Arab countries, as well as energy installations, ports and transportation infrastructure, could face heightened danger in the event of a broader regional confrontation.

The possibility of Iranian retaliation helps explain why Washington has reportedly begun warning Gulf governments to prepare for renewed hostilities.

Those countries have strong security relationships with the United States but also face considerable economic and security risks if fighting spreads across the region.

A military confrontation involving attacks on oil installations or shipping lanes could disrupt energy supplies and international commerce, potentially producing economic consequences far beyond the Middle East.

The Strait of Hormuz remains a particularly sensitive flashpoint because of its importance to international oil shipments and its proximity to Iranian military positions.

Any attempt by Tehran to interfere with shipping through the waterway could draw additional American military involvement and widen a conflict that Washington may initially intend to keep limited.

Concerns about escalation have grown further following reports that Iranian military officials are considering whether to strike first if they become convinced that another American or Israeli offensive is imminent.

Time magazine reported that Iranian commanders have discussed the possibility of preemptive attacks under such circumstances.

Such a decision would significantly increase the danger of a broader war, potentially forcing Washington and its regional allies to respond to Iranian strikes before any planned American operation begins.

The possibility of preemptive action also complicates the administration’s efforts to use military preparations as leverage in negotiations.

A buildup intended to convince Tehran that the United States is prepared to attack could instead persuade Iranian commanders that an attack is unavoidable, increasing the risk of miscalculation.

The latest developments follow months of confrontation between Washington and Tehran, during which military operations, sanctions and diplomatic initiatives have failed to produce a lasting settlement.

Trump has repeatedly insisted that Iran must never be permitted to acquire a nuclear weapon, describing that objective as a central requirement of American national security policy.

Israeli officials have likewise maintained that Iran’s nuclear ambitions and ballistic missile capabilities represent major threats to the Jewish state.

Previous American and Israeli military operations inflicted substantial damage on Iranian facilities, but reports of renewed missile production and efforts to restore damaged infrastructure have raised questions about whether those attacks achieved lasting results.

The administration now faces a decision over whether another military campaign would further weaken Iran’s capabilities and improve the prospects for an agreement or instead trigger an extended regional confrontation.

Some national security analysts have urged caution, arguing that the existing combination of sanctions and maritime restrictions already gives Washington significant leverage.

Behnam Ben Taleblu, senior director of the Iran program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, warned against abandoning that advantage without a compelling strategic reason.

“Otherwise, at the moment, the U.S. has a winning hand through maintaining sanctions and the blockade. It should stay the course,” he told the Journal.

That assessment reflects a broader debate over whether military action would strengthen America’s negotiating position or risk sacrificing the gains achieved through sustained economic pressure.

Supporters of a more aggressive approach argue that Iran’s efforts to rebuild its military infrastructure demonstrate that additional force may be necessary to prevent Tehran from restoring capabilities damaged during previous operations.

Others caution that even a relatively short campaign could provoke retaliation against American personnel and regional allies, potentially creating a conflict far more extensive than originally anticipated.

The administration has not disclosed what specific conditions would trigger a new offensive, which targets might be selected or how long an operation could last.

Nor has Washington publicly confirmed that a final military decision has been made.

For now, the warnings to Gulf governments and reported military preparations indicate that the possibility of renewed war is being taken seriously at the highest levels of the American government.

With the midterm elections approaching, regional governments are watching closely for indications of whether Trump will authorize another round of strikes or continue attempting to force Iranian concessions through sanctions, diplomatic pressure and the threat of military action.

The coming days could determine whether the current confrontation remains a campaign of economic coercion and military deterrence or develops into another major American-Israeli offensive against Iran.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump joked Tuesday that Sen. Ted Cruz could become the first Supreme Court nominee to receive unanimous support from the Senate, not because of his judicial qualifications, but because lawmakers in both parties would be delighted to see the Texas Republican leave Congress.

The president delivered the remarks during an appearance in Lubbock, Texas, reviving a running joke about Cruz’s sometimes strained relationships with his Senate colleagues and suggesting that those tensions could make him the easiest Supreme Court nominee in American history to confirm.

“I would pick Ted Cruz to be the next Supreme Court Justice,” Trump told the crowd. “The Democrats will 100% vote for it because they hate the guy and they want to get rid of him. And the Republicans would 100% vote for it because they can’t stand him.

“So I’d get 100% of the vote.”

The comments drew attention because Trump has repeatedly floated Cruz’s name in connection with a potential Supreme Court appointment, even as the senator has made clear that he has no interest in accepting such a position. Trump’s latest remarks turned what would ordinarily be a discussion about the qualifications of a possible nominee into a joke about the prospect of bipartisan agreement over Cruz’s departure from the Senate.

The president has made variations of the same observation on several occasions this year. During an earlier appearance, he suggested that Democrats and Republicans might find common ground on a Cruz nomination for the simple reason that neither side would object to removing him from Capitol Hill.

Trump revisited the idea in July at a White House event highlighting Trump Accounts, once again portraying Cruz as a potential judicial nominee whose confirmation could attract overwhelming support from lawmakers who otherwise disagree on nearly every major political issue.

Behind the humor is a history of actual conversations between Trump and Cruz about the Supreme Court. The Texas senator has acknowledged that the president previously raised the possibility of appointing him to the nation’s highest court and that the discussions were more than casual speculation.

Speaking at a Wall Street Journal event in April, Cruz disclosed that Trump had approached him about each of the three Supreme Court openings that arose during his first administration. According to Cruz, he declined the opportunity on all three occasions, choosing to remain in elected office rather than pursue a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary.

Cruz has explained that he prefers the legislative arena, where he can participate directly in political and policy disputes, to the more limited public role expected of a Supreme Court justice. Although a seat on the court would give him considerable influence over constitutional law for decades, the senator has indicated that he has little desire to exchange his political career for judicial service.

He was even more emphatic in September when the possibility arose during an appearance on Sean Hannity’s podcast. Asked whether he would consider joining the Supreme Court, Cruz said his response was “not just no, but …. no.”

Despite his repeated refusals, Cruz possesses the legal credentials ordinarily associated with serious candidates for the nation’s highest court. Before entering the Senate, he built a substantial career as a constitutional lawyer and appellate advocate, including service in several prominent legal positions.

A graduate of Harvard Law School, Cruz served as a law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, an experience that placed him at the center of the Supreme Court’s work early in his legal career. He subsequently served as solicitor general of Texas, representing the state in major appellate litigation and appearing before the Supreme Court in significant constitutional disputes.

Over the course of his legal career, Cruz argued nine cases before the Supreme Court, a level of experience that would distinguish him from many political figures whose names are occasionally mentioned for judicial appointments.

Trump’s previous Supreme Court selections have had a lasting effect on the federal judiciary. During his first administration, he nominated Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, all of whom were confirmed by the Senate and remain members of the court.

Those three appointments helped establish the Supreme Court’s current 6-3 conservative majority, giving Republican-appointed justices a commanding numerical advantage on a range of major constitutional questions.

Any future vacancy would present Trump with another opportunity to shape the court, although the political circumstances surrounding a nomination would depend on which seat became available and the composition of the Senate at the time.

For now, however, the speculation surrounding Cruz remains hypothetical. All nine Supreme Court seats are occupied, no justice has announced a departure, and the White House has made no formal announcement concerning a new nominee.

Trump’s comments therefore amounted to another public jab at a Republican senator with whom he has maintained a complicated political relationship, rather than an indication that a judicial appointment is imminent.

Cruz and Trump were bitter opponents during the 2016 Republican presidential primaries before eventually becoming political allies. Their relationship has since included both cooperation on major conservative priorities and occasional public teasing by the president.

The latest exchange illustrates Trump’s willingness to turn even the possibility of a Supreme Court appointment into an opportunity for political humor, particularly when the potential nominee is a longtime rival turned ally.

And while Cruz has repeatedly insisted that he intends to remain in the Senate, Trump appears unwilling to abandon the prospect of a Supreme Court confirmation vote in which, at least according to the president’s joke, Washington’s divided political parties would finally discover something they could agree upon.

{Matzav.com}

“Mommy, if I beat cancer once, why did it come back?”

Chaim Rubin is only 7 years old.

A year ago, after more than a year of difficult treatments, his parents finally heard the words they had been praying for: Chaim had beaten cancer.

He went back to school, back to his friends, and back to simply being a child.

But at the beginning of Av, everything changed again.  

The seizures returned, and then came the devastating news:

The medulloblastoma was back.

Chaim has already started treatment to help control the disease, but to give him the chance he desperately needs, his family must now get him to the United States for advanced treatment.

The hospital requires a significant deposit upfront, and after already using their savings and everything they had available, the family simply cannot do this alone.

They need our help now.

Every donation can bring Chaim one step closer to the treatment he needs and another chance to fight.

Please open your heart for Chaim ben Yael.

Donate today!

A dramatic decline in support for Shas across Israel’s chareidi communities has emerged as one of the most significant developments in Tuesday’s Knesset election, with new voting figures showing that the Sephardic chareidi party lost more than 20% of its support in major chareidi population centers, despite unusually strong voter participation.

In some outlying communities, Shas experienced an even steeper decline, approaching 40%, raising serious questions about where its traditional voters went and why the party failed to retain its previous level of support.

The findings are particularly striking because they undermine the explanation that the party’s losses were primarily the result of low turnout among chareidi voters. In fact, the four major chareidi cities of Bnei Brak, Modiin Illit, Beitar Illit and Elad recorded a combined turnout of 79.5%, substantially higher than the turnout reported in Israel’s largest cities.

The figures were presented Wednesday by Betzalel Kahn, a senior Kol Chai radio broadcaster and political commentator, during an interview with Ariel Berman on the station’s afternoon news program.

Kahn analyzed the election results after approximately 77.6% of the votes had been entered into the Central Elections Committee’s system, identifying a significant erosion of Shas support even in communities where chareidi voters turned out in large numbers.

According to the figures he presented, Shas was projected to receive seven Knesset seats, the same number as United Torah Judaism, marking a substantial change in the balance of political power between the two established chareidi parties.

The combined strength of Shas and UTJ stood at 14 seats, down four from their representation in the previous Knesset.

The results have prompted questions about the future of Shas and the ability of its leadership to maintain the broad electoral coalition that previously made it Israel’s largest chareidi party.

The scale of the losses becomes clearer when examining the voting figures from individual chareidi cities.

In Beitar Illit, where all 55 polling stations had been counted, Shas received 6,027 votes, compared with 7,303 in the 2022 election. That represents a decline of 17.5% in the party’s vote total, even as the city’s overall turnout reached 80.3%.

United Torah Judaism, meanwhile, increased its vote total in Beitar Illit from 14,081 to 18,033, a gain of 28.1%. Its share of the city’s vote rose to 64.3%, compared with 59.1% in the previous election.

The contrast was particularly pronounced because Shas’s share of the Beitar Illit vote fell from 30.6% to 21.5%, a decline of more than nine percentage points.

A similar pattern emerged in Modiin Illit, where UTJ received 25,242 votes, compared with 20,662 in 2022, an increase of 4,580 votes.

Shas, by contrast, received 4,746 votes in Modiin Illit, down from 5,277 in the previous election, a decline of approximately 10.1%.

The city’s voter turnout reached 83.82%, further demonstrating that Shas’s losses cannot simply be attributed to a lack of participation among chareidi residents.

In Elad, UTJ increased its vote total from 6,862 to 8,456, a gain of 23.2%. Shas declined from 9,743 to 8,920 votes, losing 823 votes, or approximately 8.4%.

Taken together, the results from Elad, Beitar Illit and Modiin Illit reveal a pronounced shift in the balance between the two parties.

UTJ gained 10,126 votes across those three cities compared with the previous election, while Shas lost 2,630 votes.

That means UTJ increased its combined vote total in the three cities by approximately 24.3%, while Shas experienced an overall decline of approximately 11.8%.

The figures do not establish that every voter who abandoned Shas switched directly to UTJ, but they demonstrate that the two parties experienced sharply different electoral trends in the same communities.

Kahn suggested that some former Shas voters did move to UTJ, while a smaller number may have supported Itamar Ben Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit party. Others may have voted for smaller parties or abstained altogether.

The losses were not confined to the established chareidi cities.

An analysis by Dr. Gilad Malach of the Israel Democracy Institute indicated that Shas had suffered declines of approximately 42% in peripheral communities and roughly 25% in chareidi population centers.

Among the most pronounced declines were Dimona, where Shas’s support fell by approximately 48.5%, Netivot, where it declined by 46.3%, Ofakim, where the decrease reached 45%, and Sderot, where support dropped by 42.1%.

Additional declines were reported in Ashkelon, at 39.9%; Netanya, at 39%; Ashdod, at 37.2%; and Cholon, at 29.6%.

The results are especially consequential for Shas because its political strength has historically depended on support extending beyond the established chareidi community into traditional Sephardic neighborhoods and development towns throughout Israel.

The party’s ability to attract voters from those communities helped distinguish it from UTJ, whose support is concentrated more heavily among Ashkenazic chareidi voters.

A contraction in both sectors would therefore present Shas with a broader electoral challenge than a decline limited to a handful of chareidi cities.

Kahn also pointed to the issue of natural population growth.

Even maintaining its previous number of votes would not necessarily have represented growth for Shas, given the expanding population of the communities from which it draws support.

Instead, the party has experienced an actual reduction in votes in numerous locations, despite the larger potential electorate.

The election results also revealed the presence of smaller chareidi political lists that challenged the established parties, although neither came close to crossing the electoral threshold.

According to the partial figures presented by Kahn, the Tzeva Shachor, or Black Color, protest list had received approximately 9,300 votes, surpassing the approximately 8,750 votes recorded for Moti Leitner’s Hatzibur Hachareidi party.

Kahn said he had previously estimated that Leitner’s party would fail to reach 10,000 votes, and the partial results appeared consistent with that assessment.

Although those lists attracted only a small share of the electorate, their participation added another dimension to the internal disagreements that characterized the chareidi election campaign.

Kahn also discussed the broader political picture emerging from the count.

At the stage he analyzed, Netanyahu’s bloc stood at 54 seats, the opposition parties at 49, and the Arab parties at 17.

Likud was allocated 27 seats in the interim calculation, while Shas, UTJ and Otzma Yehudit each stood at seven, and Religious Zionism at six.

Those figures were provisional and subject to change as additional ballots were counted and the final allocation of Knesset seats was calculated.

Kahn also cautioned against automatically counting UTJ as a guaranteed member of Netanyahu’s bloc.

He recalled that Rav Dov Landau had declared that there was no longer a right-wing bloc from the perspective of the chareidi parties, while UTJ’s Yaakov Asher had emphasized that the party regarded itself as part of a Torah bloc rather than a conventional political alliance.

“Rav Dov Landau said there is no longer a right-wing bloc, and Yaakov Asher said that we are the Torah bloc. Whoever wants us will have to pay the price we demand,” Kahn said, recalling those positions.

That distinction could become significant during coalition negotiations, particularly given the continuing dispute over the military draft and the status of yeshiva students.

For Shas, however, the more immediate issue is the substantial decline in support revealed by the election results.

The party entered the election with 11 Knesset seats, while UTJ held seven. The possibility that both parties could emerge with roughly equal representation would constitute a major change in their relative parliamentary strength.

The final seat allocation remains dependent on the completion of the count, including ballots that have not yet been processed.

Nevertheless, the municipal voting figures already available reveal a consistent pattern: UTJ increased its support in several major chareidi communities while Shas lost votes, despite strong overall participation.

The question confronting Shas is therefore considerably more complicated than whether its supporters failed to turn out on Election Day.

In communities where nearly eight out of every ten eligible residents voted, substantial numbers of people who previously supported Shas appear to have made a different electoral choice.

Determining why those voters changed their preferences, and whether the shift represents a temporary reaction to the latest election campaign or a more lasting realignment, will be a central question for Shas leaders as they assess the results of the 2026 election.

{Matzav.com}

[COMMUNICATED]

What should have been a teachable moment turned into a train wreck, when a campaign emphasizing the importance of boundaries crossed a line of its own, portraying a seemingly loving grandmother in what many saw as a predatory light.

A video released by the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre showed grandparents coming to visit, with one child welcoming a kiss while the other clearly does not. The video went viral, with many disturbed by what they saw as an attempt to undermine familial relationships, even as it addressed the important topic of consent. The controversy made international headlines, with Ireland’s justice minister describing it as “inappropriate and demeaning to grandparents,” and unfortunately, the campaign’s larger message has gotten lost in the shuffle.

“The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre had a real opportunity to educate families and promote healthy boundaries,” says Amudim Executive Director Andy Lauber. “Instead, they missed the mark. The goal isn’t to create distance between generations, but to raise children who feel safe, respected, heard, and deeply connected to the people who love them.”

Children need to learn about consent, but the concept goes far beyond a grandmother’s kiss. That moment when one brother wants to wrestle, but the other prefers not to, is a teachable one. Explaining to a child who declines hugs that her sister has the right to turn down her well-meaning embraces is yet another valuable lesson. Our children learn through those exchanges, gaining the skills to express their own boundaries, while respecting someone else’s.

Amudim’s parenting series, My Space. My Feelings. My Voice, addresses those conversations, with guidance from experts in the field on how these lessons develop, how to teach respect alongside boundaries, and what to say when feelings get hurt.

Shira Berkowitz, LCSW, Director of Darcheinu, explains that social and emotional learning doesn’t start by treating the people around a child as a threat. It starts with the child: noticing what they are feeling, paying attention when something feels uncomfortable, and understanding the difference between a healthy boundary and an unhealthy one. “This is my body, and my body should be respected at all times,” Berkowitz says. That is what allows a child to recognize when someone oversteps, whether a stranger, a relative, or a close family friend.

And knowing isn’t enough. “Every skill that we teach, we practice,” Berkowitz says. “Who are we telling? What are we saying? What do we do about this?” A child who has rehearsed those answers can say no with confidence.

A loving Bubby can help teach that lesson by accepting a child’s decision to turn down a kiss, giving them the confidence to know that they have been heard, are respected, and still loved. And parents can be confident that children will speak up when something doesn’t feel right, even if it involves someone they love.

It wasn’t just the Dublin campaign that fell short – the resulting backlash did too. The public outcry could have asked what lessons could have been learned here. Instead, that question has yet to be answered, even as the arguments continue.