Feed aggregator

The Township of Lakewood, NJ will discontinue municipal garbage collection for private schools and houses of worship beginning January 1, 2027, a significant change that will force hundreds of local yeshivos, schools, shuls, and other religious institutions to make alternative arrangements for disposing of their trash.

The decision, which is expected to save the township approximately $2 million annually, comes as Lakewood struggles with a substantial municipal budget shortfall and faces pressure to reduce spending as part of efforts to secure financial assistance from the State of New Jersey.

According to information obtained from the township, the elimination of garbage collection for private educational and religious institutions is not a voluntary policy change, but rather a condition imposed by state officials in connection with financial assistance intended to stabilize Lakewood’s finances.

The Lakewood Township Committee stated that “the change is being required by the state as a condition for the Township to receive financial assistance to help stabilize its budget. As a result, Township officials have little choice but to implement the policy.”

The new arrangement means that private schools and shuls that have relied on township sanitation trucks will have to secure their own garbage collection services, presumably through private waste disposal companies, beginning with the new calendar year.

For Lakewood’s extensive network of yeshivos, Bais Yaakov schools, shuls, and other religious institutions, the change could create a substantial new operating expense. Many of these institutions serve hundreds of residents and generate considerable amounts of waste through daily activities and communal functions.

The costs of private sanitation services will vary depending on the size of each institution, the volume of waste generated, and the frequency of collection required. Larger schools and institutions with extensive food service operations could face particularly significant expenses.

The announcement comes amid growing concerns over Lakewood’s financial condition, which has already prompted cuts to other municipal services and subsidies.

Earlier this year, township officials eliminated a $2.75 million municipal subsidy for courtesy busing provided through the Lakewood Student Transportation Authority, citing the municipality’s worsening financial position.

Lakewood Mayor Ray Coles recently described the mounting financial pressures facing the township, including rising fuel costs, increased expenses for police and sanitation vehicles, higher health insurance premiums, and escalating utility costs.

“Our expenses have gone through the roof,” Coles said.

The township also faced an exceptionally expensive winter, with snow removal costs reportedly reaching approximately $8 million. Its financial difficulties were compounded when the state rejected a request to increase property taxes by approximately $12.9 million.

The possibility of eliminating municipal garbage collection for shuls and yeshivos had already been raised in recent discussions about Lakewood’s budget crisis. The newly announced January 1 implementation date now gives affected institutions just over two months to prepare for the transition.

New Jersey’s Transitional Aid to Localities program provides financial assistance to municipalities experiencing severe structural budget problems, but recipients are subject to extensive state oversight and may be required to implement additional fiscal controls.

State guidelines provide for oversight of municipal hiring, purchasing, and other financial decisions, as well as further measures directed by the Division of Local Government Services.

Lakewood officials have attributed the new sanitation policy to the requirements associated with obtaining state financial assistance.

The township’s existing municipal code already provides that commercial and institutional properties must arrange for private waste collection when municipal service is not available. The new policy would therefore shift affected schools and religious institutions into a system in which they are responsible for obtaining and paying for their own service.

Unlike a typical municipality, Lakewood has an exceptionally extensive network of nonpublic educational institutions serving tens of thousands of children. The township is also home to numerous shuls, kollelim, and other communal facilities, many of which operate on limited budgets supported by tuition, donations, and fundraising.

The elimination of township-funded sanitation service will effectively transfer an expense previously borne by the municipality directly to these institutions.

Although the township expects to save approximately $2 million, the overall financial burden will not disappear. Instead, the affected schools and religious organizations will have to absorb the costs themselves or pass the costs on to already-overburdened parents and taxpayers.

{Matzav.com}

By Rabbi Pinchos Lipschutz

Avrohom was sitting at the entrance of his tent, in the heat of the day, recovering from a painful procedure at an advanced age. He could have been forgiven for remaining inside, resting and tending to himself. Instead, the Torah tells us, “Vayisa einov vayar.” Avrohom sat outside, lifted his eyes, and looked outward. When he saw three strangers approaching, he ran toward them, welcomed them, offered them food and drink, and concerned himself with their needs.

The image that the Torah uses to depict Avrohom Avinu is that of a person who is always looking beyond himself.

Chazal tell us that Avrohom’s home had openings on all four sides to make it easier for guests to feel welcome and to enter. Avrohom’s tent was not a fortress into which he sought retreat from the world. Avrohom understood that the service of Hashem does not mean withdrawing from responsibility for the people around him.

That message becomes even more powerful later in the parsha, when Hakadosh Boruch Hu tells Avrohom what is about to happen to Sedom.

Avrohom could have responded with silence. Sedom was the antithesis of everything he represented. It was a society built on cruelty and corruption, a place whose very name became synonymous with moral depravity. Avrohom had no personal responsibility for its inhabitants, and he certainly had no reason to defend their way of life.

Yet, when he hears that Sedom is destined for destruction, he immediately begins to plead with Hashem not to destroy the city.

Avrohom cannot stand quietly when other human beings are at risk. He pleads. He bargains. He asks whether fifty tzadikim can save the city, then forty-five, forty, thirty, twenty, and finally ten.

Avrohom did not know the people he was advocating for, and it is very likely that he knew they were totally unlike him. He was advocating for human beings simply because they were human beings.

Avrohom’s greatness was not simply that he was a righteous tzaddik. His greatness was that he understood that righteousness carries responsibility. A person who knows the derech Hashem cannot live only within the boundaries of his own private life. He must look outward and ask what kind of world he is helping to create.

The work of refining middos requires a person to accustom himself to caring about others, so that the needs of another person become as important to him as his own needs.

Rav Moshe Braverman of Yerushalayim was invited to attend a gathering in a nearby neighborhood to raise funds for a young almanah who needed financial assistance.

Rav Braverman stood up and said, “Whoever wishes to help this young almanah should leave.”

The people who had gathered to raise funds for the young woman looked at him in amazement and didn’t understand what he wanted from them.

When the hubbub calmed down, he continued. He said, “Those who should remain here are those who feel the pain of the young woman and her children as if it were their own pain and their own problem. I don’t want you here if you think that how this almanah should go on is her problem, but I’ll help her. You should only be here if you feel her problem as if it were your own, if you feel the children’s pain as if it were your pain.”

Rav Yisroel Salanter would say that, in our generation, a person cannot be a tzaddik nistar, a hidden tzaddik. There is simply too much to do, too much to accomplish, too many people who need help, and too many opportunities to bring Torah and kedusha into a world that desperately needs them. How can a person close himself within his own daled amos, devote himself exclusively to his private avodah, and still consider himself a complete tzaddik when there is so much good left undone?

Rav Yisroel did not merely preach this idea. He lived it. He left the familiar confines of Lita and traveled through Germany, Prussia, and Paris to reach Jews who needed guidance, strengthen their connection to Torah, and spread kedusha wherever he could. He understood that the responsibility of a Yid requires him to be concerned about the world around him and to reach out to others to make them and the world a better place.

This is one of the great differences between Avrohom Avinu and Noach, and why there are opinions in Chazal that if Noach had been in Avrohom’s generation, he would not have been considered a tzaddik.

Noach was a tzaddik who survived a corrupt generation. When the world around him descended into depravity, he was able to preserve himself and his family, to maintain his integrity amid a society that had abandoned its moral foundations. He remained a tzaddik tomim in a world of rishus and tumah. Hashem commanded him to build a teivah, enter it with his family and every type of creature, and remain inside it while the Mabul destroyed the world outside.

Avrohom was the av hamon goyim, the father of a multitude of nations. He did not only seek to protect his holiness from the world. He sought to bring holiness to the world, to teach humanity about Hashem, and to demonstrate through his own life what it means to live with chesed, righteousness, and moral responsibility.

Noach built a teivah. Avrohom built a tent.

The teivah had to be closed off from the world outside. Its walls were necessary for survival; they protected those inside from the destruction raging beyond them. Avrohom’s tent, by contrast, was open on all four sides. It was designed to welcome the stranger, to offer shelter to the traveler, and to create opportunities for people to encounter the goodness and truth that Avrohom embodied.

Noach’s greatness was that he remained a tzaddik despite the corruption surrounding him. Avrohom’s greatness was that he could not be satisfied with his own tzidkus while the world around him remained in darkness. It wasn’t enough for him that he discovered Hashem. He wanted to share that knowledge with as many people as he could. He dedicated his life to bringing others closer to Hashem.

The lesson is not that we should abandon the walls that protect our families, our communities, and our mesorah. Those walls are vital. The lesson is that they must not become the limits of our concern. We build strong Jewish homes and institutions so that Torah can flourish, but we need to care about the wellbeing of the world. We should have something to contribute to it, something to teach, something to share, and something to offer those who might otherwise never encounter the light of Torah.

A person can spend a lifetime perfecting his own daled amos and his home. But Avrohom Avinu teaches us that the ultimate test is what happens when someone approaches the entrance. Do we turn inward, satisfied with the spiritual world we have constructed for ourselves, or do we lift our eyes, recognize the needs of another human being, and make room for him in our lives?

The teivah saved Noach and his family from the Mabul and was necessary for that time. But following the Mabul, Avrohom’s tent became a model for a life devoted to bringing brocha to others.

Torah Jews know that we must guard our values, our homes, and our children. We cannot allow the culture outside our doors to dictate who we are. There is also a danger in believing that because we have built strong Jewish homes, nothing outside those homes matters. In fact, it does matter. The society in which we live affects our children. It affects our communities. It affects the safety and security of our families. It affects the ability of Torah institutions to function and of Jewish life to flourish. We may not control everything that happens around us, but we are not exempt from caring about it simply because we have our own private world.

Obviously, we are not responsible for everything that goes on, and we are not obligated to involve ourselves in every argument, but when we are given the ability to participate in helping the society in which Hashem has placed us, we must take advantage of the opportunity.

Avrohom’s tent had an entrance in every direction because wherever he looked, he saw another opportunity to do chesed, another person whose needs mattered, another responsibility that could not simply be pushed aside.

We, too, have our tents. We have our families, our shuls, our yeshivos, our schools, and our communities. We work hard to build walls that protect the values we hold dear.

But while we build those walls, we must have doors, because there are times we have to look out, reach out, and go out.

The society in which our children will grow up makes a difference, and to the degree that we can impact it, we should. The culture in which we live makes a difference, and if we can influence it and help improve it, then we should.

Avrohom Avinu teaches us that a life devoted to Hashem cannot be confined to our own spiritual growth and the welfare of our own families. We must do what we can to uphold the values of morality, decency, and responsibility that make a society better.

We have been blessed to live in a country where we can build shuls and yeshivos, educate our children in Torah as we choose, and practice our faith openly. These are extraordinary blessings, and we must never assume that they will always be taken for granted or that the conditions that have allowed Jewish life to flourish will continue without the efforts of those who cherish them. The future of our communities depends not only on what we accomplish within our own walls, but also on whether we take seriously our responsibility for the world beyond them.

We are already witnessing cracks in the very fabric of the freedom we have long cherished. The rising tide of antisemitism, the open hostility directed at Jewish communities, and the increasingly strident public condemnation of Israel are warning signs that we cannot afford to dismiss.

When hatred of Jews is normalized, when Israel is singled out for condemnation and the threats and violence directed against it are minimized or ignored, and when Jewish students and families must question whether they can live openly and safely as Jews, we must recognize that something fundamental is being eroded.

The flag of freedom still flies, but we cannot assume that the freedoms we have enjoyed will endure on their own. Preserving them requires vigilance, courage, and a willingness to stand up before the cracks grow into something far more difficult to repair.

That responsibility requires us to act. On Election Day, we must go out and vote, supporting candidates and policies that uphold the moral foundations of society, respect religious freedom, and help preserve an America in which Torah Jews can continue to live, learn, raise families, and transmit our mesorah to the next generation.

We cannot control every outcome, and we certainly cannot determine the course of history. But we are responsible for doing our part, using the opportunities available to us to protect what is precious and strengthen the society in which we have been privileged to live.

When we see one party stray and become home to antisemites, and welcoming to socialists and communists who despise us and what we stand for, we should seriously consider whether supporting its candidates is prudent.

When a party nominates and supports candidates who are hostile to the Jewish state and advances policies that conflict with our most deeply held values, we must be prepared to withhold our support. When a party opposes efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring the nuclear weapons it seeks to use against Israel, we must have the courage and conviction to vote accordingly. And when candidates promote positions that undermine traditional family values and the moral principles upon which a healthy society depends, they should not expect to receive our votes.

Avrohom Avinu did not regard the condition of the world as someone else’s concern. Neither can we. We must remain steadfast in our commitment to Torah and avodas Hashem, while recognizing that this commitment carries with it an obligation to help shape the world around us. We must educate our children, strengthen our communities, stand up for our values, and exercise the civic responsibilities that are ours.

We must carry on perfecting our homes, yeshivos, schools, and shuls, and doing what we can to make the world a safer and better place, doing what we can to enhance the kochos of kedusha and preparing the world for Moshiach Tzidkeinu.

Vice President JD Vance has reportedly established contact with a powerful Iranian hardliner in an attempt to reopen negotiations between Washington and Tehran, even as President Donald Trump considers launching another round of military attacks against Iran after next week’s midterm elections.

The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that Vance sent a letter to Mohsen Rezaei, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and a former longtime commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The communication was part of an effort to determine whether a diplomatic agreement could be reached before the United States undertakes another military operation.

American officials and other individuals familiar with the exchanges told the newspaper that the administration is exploring whether direct engagement with Iran’s hardline leadership could produce a breakthrough after previous diplomatic efforts failed to resolve the confrontation.

One individual familiar with the initiative said Vance had written to Rezaei at Trump’s direction and that the president knew about the outreach. Trump, however, offered a different explanation when questioned about the matter Wednesday, denying that he had instructed the vice president to initiate peace negotiations.

“No. They need help with medical supplies and various things. He asked me what I thought. I said, ‘If you want to do that, that’s okay’. Basically, it’s getting supplies in to help people that are not well.”

The reported contacts come amid mounting speculation about another American offensive against Iran. According to an earlier Wall Street Journal report, the administration has been considering a concentrated military campaign that could begin in the weeks following the November 3 midterm elections.

Officials involved in the diplomatic discussions are reportedly trying to establish whether sufficient common ground exists to avert further fighting. Some in Washington believe that negotiating with figures closely connected to Iran’s security establishment could prove more effective than dealing exclusively with the country’s conventional diplomatic representatives.

The initiative remains preliminary, however. A person familiar with the communications said Vance’s letter and subsequent exchanges have focused on identifying a possible structure for future talks, with neither side yet advancing a comprehensive agreement.

Rezaei indicated last week that Tehran would refuse to resume negotiations unless Washington first accepted certain Iranian conditions. His position reflects the significant obstacles facing any attempt to restart discussions while the threat of renewed military action remains.

Neither government has officially acknowledged the reported diplomatic channel. A representative for Vance declined to discuss the matter, while the White House referred inquiries to the vice president’s office. Iran’s Foreign Ministry said it had no information concerning the alleged contacts, and Rezaei’s office did not provide a response.

A major obstacle remains Iran’s nuclear program, particularly its production of uranium enriched to levels far beyond those required for ordinary civilian nuclear power generation.

In an interview with Reuters earlier this month, Vance made clear that the administration expects Tehran to take measurable steps to curtail its enrichment activities before Washington would agree to a settlement.

“If you don’t want a nuclear weapon, then why do you need 60% enriched fuel? And if you want to show commitment to not building a nuclear ⁠weapon, don’t build highly enriched fuel. That’s a very basic threshold issue,” Vance said.

“I think if they want to show a commitment to not building a nuclear weapon, they would do something meaningful on their enrichment capacity.”

Vance also rejected the possibility of accepting Iranian promises about future nuclear conduct without corresponding changes on the ground.

“We’re not going to trade words for actions,” Vance told Reuters.

The vice president nevertheless left open the possibility of a diplomatic resolution if Iran agreed to concrete and verifiable restrictions on its nuclear activities.

The latest reporting adds another detail: According to Axios, Vance’s message specifically emphasized that any renewed negotiations would have to address Iran’s nuclear program. An American official said Vance had proposed sending the letter to Trump, who supported the initiative.

Iran, meanwhile, is also reportedly considering a separate proposal conveyed through Qatari intermediaries. Tehran has insisted that its own demands must be addressed before formal negotiations can resume, leaving considerable uncertainty over whether the latest American overture will lead to substantive talks.

The diplomatic effort follows the collapse of earlier negotiations over Iran’s nuclear activities and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Washington has continued pressing Tehran to accept restrictions on uranium enrichment, while Iranian officials have sought economic concessions and guarantees against further attacks.

For now, the administration is pursuing diplomatic contacts while keeping military options available. Trump has not publicly committed to a new attack, but the possibility of renewed strikes after the November 3 elections remains under consideration.

{Matzav.com}

Israel’s Central Elections Committee began tallying special double-envelope ballots early Thursday morning, with the country’s parliamentary election still leaving the current governing coalition well short of the 61 seats needed for a Knesset majority.

With approximately 91% of votes counted as of 5:49 a.m., the latest official figures showed the current coalition holding 53 seats, the opposition bloc 48, and the Arab parties 19. The allocation remained unchanged from the previous update, although the outstanding ballots could still affect the final distribution of seats.

The counting of double-envelope votes began at 1 a.m. Thursday, following the completion of preliminary procedures to receive, scan, and verify the ballots, according to the Central Elections Committee.

These special ballots are cast by Israelis who cannot vote at their assigned polling places, including soldiers serving in the IDF, hospitalized patients, inmates, diplomats posted overseas, and people with mobility limitations who vote at specially accessible locations.

Unlike ordinary ballots, which are deposited anonymously at polling stations, double-envelope votes undergo an additional identification process designed to prevent duplicate voting while preserving ballot secrecy.

Each voter seals the ballot inside a standard voting envelope, which is then placed inside a second envelope containing identifying details. Election officials check the information to confirm that the individual has not already cast a ballot elsewhere.

After the verification process, the outer envelopes are separated from the inner envelopes, which are mixed together before counting. This prevents individual votes from being traced back to the people who cast them.

The verified ballots are subsequently transported to the counting facility located in the Knesset parking area.

Meanwhile, election officials continued processing returns from regular polling stations across Israel. By 1 a.m., results had arrived from 11,712 of the country’s 12,018 ordinary polling locations, representing 5,126,759 voters. The remaining stations were still undergoing standard verification procedures.

Under the partial results, Likud remained the largest party with 26 seats, followed by Yashar with 21 and Together with 12. The Joint List was projected to receive 11 seats, while the Democrats and Ra’am each stood at eight.

Yisrael Beytenu, United Torah Judaism, Otzma Yehudit, and Shas were each projected to win seven seats, while the combined Religious Zionist Party-Zehut slate held six.

The figures placed the two major chareidi parties, United Torah Judaism and Shas, at a combined 14 seats.

Two smaller parties remained below the electoral threshold required to enter the Knesset. The Reservists-Economic Party had received 2.63% of the vote, while Amcha Yisrael stood at 1.6%.

The Central Elections Committee has estimated that between 430,000 and 480,000 double-envelope ballots were cast, although officials cautioned that the figure remains preliminary. With roughly 40,000 votes corresponding to a Knesset seat, the outstanding ballots could influence several parties’ final seat totals.

Voter participation reached approximately 77.7%, Israel’s highest turnout since 1999. The IDF reported that nearly 80% of eligible soldiers voted, an increase over the previous election.

Election officials expect the counting process to be substantially completed today, while the final certified results are scheduled for publication on November 4

{Matzav.com}

WATCH:

LISTEN:

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

LISTEN:

A wave of internal criticism is sweeping through Shas following the party’s disappointing performance in Israel’s Knesset elections, with some figures within the Sephardic chareidi party calling for chairman Aryeh Deri to be replaced after Shas lost four of its 11 parliamentary seats.

With election results indicating that Shas will hold just seven seats in the next Knesset, the party is facing growing questions about its campaign strategy, leadership decisions, and failure to retain voters who previously supported it.

According to a report by Kan News, the electoral setback has prompted criticism from party insiders who believe that Deri and his campaign team fundamentally misjudged where Shas was most vulnerable and devoted their efforts to the wrong political battles.

Throughout the campaign, Shas officials reportedly viewed National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and his Otzma Yehudit party as their principal competitors for votes. However, following the election, some within Shas are arguing that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s Likud party posed the greater danger and that Shas failed to recognize the extent to which its traditional supporters were shifting toward Netanyahu.

The criticism also extends to how the party distributed its campaign resources. According to Shas officials cited in the report, the party invested considerable attention in attracting voters from peripheral communities and among traditionally observant Israelis, while giving insufficient attention to its established chareidi voter base.

Those critics contend that the decision weakened the party’s connection with the constituency that has historically formed the foundation of its political strength.

The disappointing results have now triggered calls for a change at the top of Shas, although even those advocating Deri’s removal reportedly acknowledge that the likelihood of such a leadership shakeup remains extremely small.

One party figure described the concentration of authority within Shas in blunt terms, saying, “Deri is the sole ruler.”

The criticism has also reached the party’s senior rabbinic leadership, with questions being raised about the circumstances surrounding the loss of nearly 40 percent of Shas’s parliamentary representation.

Harav Moshe Maya, a senior member of the Shas Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah, reportedly sought to speak with Deri on Wednesday to discuss the election results and determine what went wrong.

According to Kan News, Deri declined to hold the requested conversation with Rav Maya.

The turmoil reportedly extends beyond the party’s political leadership. Channel 13 reported that associates of Rav Yitzchak Yosef are seeking to convene the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah to examine the election failure and reconsider the distribution of authority within Shas. They are also reportedly pushing for Rav Yosef to be formally appointed president of the council, following his earlier designation as the party’s spiritual leader.

Those associates reportedly contend that Deri’s strategy of appealing simultaneously to chareidi and traditional voters has failed, and that the rabbinic leadership should exercise greater influence over the party’s direction.

The magnitude of the setback was also evident on election night, when Deri refrained from delivering a planned address to supporters after exit polls projected a steep decline. Shas subsequently postponed its planned election celebration while awaiting the official results.

Separate analyses of the partial vote count suggest that Shas suffered particularly severe losses in outlying communities, where its support reportedly fell by approximately 42%, compared with a decline of roughly 25% in chareidi population centers.

The party’s difficulties have been compounded by United Torah Judaism’s unexpectedly strong showing, with partial results placing the Ashkenazic chareidi party ahead of Shas in the popular vote, a potentially significant reversal of the traditional balance between the two parties.

The final allocation of Knesset seats remains subject to the completion of the ballot count, but the political fallout within Shas has already begun, placing Deri under unusually intense scrutiny from within his own party.

{Matzav.com}

Israel’s Joint List of Arab parties announced Wednesday that it is prepared to cooperate with opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot to establish an alternative government and remove Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu from power, potentially opening a new path toward breaking the political deadlock following Tuesday’s Knesset elections.

The announcement comes as updated election results show that neither Netanyahu’s right-wing and chareidi bloc nor the opposition parties have secured the 61 seats required to form a majority government. With 88.6% of the votes counted, Netanyahu’s bloc stood at 53 seats, the opposition bloc at 48, and the Arab parties at 19.

Those figures leave the Arab factions holding considerable parliamentary influence, with their support potentially allowing Eisenkot to establish a temporary minority government or pursue other parliamentary measures against Netanyahu.

In a statement Wednesday, the Joint List said the strong turnout among Arab voters demonstrated widespread opposition to Netanyahu’s government and created an opportunity for political change.

The party declared that Arab voters had turned out in large numbers across the Galilee, the Triangle region, and the Negev, despite what it characterized as intimidation, incitement, and discrimination during the election campaign.

According to the statement, the Joint List intends to use its parliamentary strength to bring Netanyahu’s leadership to an end and is willing to cooperate with other parties to establish a replacement government.

The party said it would support an alternative administration committed to fundamentally changing what it described as the current government’s discriminatory policies, recognizing the rights of Arab citizens, and ending the exclusion of Arab political representatives from government decision-making.

The Joint List also pledged to continue pursuing full equality and political cooperation on behalf of its constituents, presenting its electoral performance as a mandate to seek a greater role in Israel’s political leadership.

The Joint List’s offer presents Eisenkot with a difficult political decision. During the election campaign, he did not entirely rule out cooperation with Arab parties, particularly Ra’am, but two major figures in the opposition bloc, Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Lieberman, have opposed forming a government dependent on their support.

Joint List chairman Yousef Jabareen said Wednesday that his party’s parliamentary representation could help bring about a change in government. Meanwhile, MK Ahmad Tibi confirmed in a radio interview that contacts were already taking place with parties in the opposition bloc.

Tibi indicated that the Joint List was not necessarily demanding cabinet positions in exchange for its support and was prepared to consider arrangements that would allow an alternative government to take office without the Arab parties formally joining the coalition.

Even if the opposition cannot agree on a new government, cooperation with the Arab factions could enable it to pursue significant parliamentary changes. One proposal under discussion involves replacing Likud’s Amir Ohana as Knesset speaker and advancing legislation to establish a state commission of inquiry into the October 7 massacre.

Tibi has indicated that Joint List lawmakers would support an opposition candidate for Knesset speaker, potentially giving the anti-Netanyahu parties sufficient votes to challenge Likud’s control of the position.

Another possibility being discussed is the establishment of a temporary government supported from outside by Arab lawmakers, followed by another election. No agreement has been announced on such an arrangement.

The latest count reported by Israeli media showed Netanyahu’s bloc holding 53 seats, the opposition bloc 48, and the Arab parties 19, with hundreds of thousands of special ballots still awaiting inclusion in the final results.

For Eisenkot, the immediate question is whether the opposition parties can agree to accept Arab parliamentary support despite their differences over such cooperation. Without an agreement, neither political camp currently has a clear path to a 61-seat majority.

{Matzav.com}

Republicans have poured an estimated $183 million into television advertisements targeting Democrats over transgender-related policies, launching an enormous advertising offensive in the closing days of the 2026 midterm elections as President Donald Trump and his party seek to maintain control of Congress.

The campaign has produced approximately 217,000 television ad airings nationwide through October 25, according to figures compiled by advertising research firm AdImpact. The spending exceeds the $151 million Republicans devoted to similar advertisements during the comparable period of the 2024 presidential election.

The unprecedented investment reflects a calculated Republican strategy to make transgender policies a defining issue in competitive congressional races, particularly in states where GOP candidates are attempting to overcome voter dissatisfaction over inflation and the cost of living.

Republican advertisements have focused heavily on biological males competing in women’s sports, gender-transition medical procedures for minors, and Democratic candidates’ positions on those issues.

The largest concentration of spending has occurred in Texas, where Republican organizations have invested approximately $58 million in transgender-related television advertising in the closely watched Senate race between Republican Ken Paxton and Democrat James Talarico.

Those advertisements have aired more than 50,000 times, accounting for roughly one-fifth of the television advertising in the state’s Senate contest.

A Republican super PAC called Texas PAC, which receives substantial financial backing from billionaire Elon Musk, has produced several advertisements portraying Talarico as holding extreme positions on transgender policies.

One advertisement borrows a message from Trump’s successful 2024 presidential campaign, contrasting Democratic support for transgender policies with the Republican argument that the party represents ordinary Americans.

Another advertisement accuses Talarico of supporting taxpayer-funded gender-transition surgery for minors, while a separate commercial alleges that he favors criminal penalties against parents who refuse to support their children’s gender transitions.

“If you care about your children, do not vote for James Talarico,” the narrator declares in one advertisement.

That particular commercial has aired nearly 17,000 times at a cost exceeding $23 million.

Talarico has publicly stated that he opposes gender-reassignment surgery for minors, raising questions about the accuracy of some of the accusations being circulated against him.

Ohio has emerged as another major battleground for the Republican advertising strategy.

Republican groups, including the Senate Leadership Fund, have spent nearly $26 million on transgender-related advertisements attacking Democratic Senate candidate Sherrod Brown.

Several of those commercials feature an individual who underwent gender-transition surgery as a minor and later reversed the transition, expressing regret over the medical procedures.

The advertisements accuse Brown of supporting such procedures for children and permitting biological males to participate in women’s athletic competitions.

Brown’s campaign has rejected the allegations, describing the advertisements as a “total lie” and accusing Republicans of attempting to divert attention from economic issues.

The independent fact-checking organization PolitiFact also rated one of the advertisements false.

The criticism stems partly from a 2023 interview in which Brown said medical decisions involving children should be made by families and doctors rather than politicians. Republican advertisements have used those remarks to portray him as supporting specific medical procedures for minors.

Beyond Texas and Ohio, Republicans have invested substantial sums in similar advertising campaigns in Kansas, South Carolina, Iowa, and Mississippi.

In Kansas, transgender-related Republican advertisements have aired approximately 7,000 times at an estimated cost of nearly $7 million.

South Carolina, which has become an unexpectedly competitive Senate battleground, has seen more than $5 million spent on such advertisements.

The Republican advertising campaign has been accompanied by repeated statements from Trump, who has made transgender policies a prominent theme of his final campaign appearances before Election Day.

During a rally Monday in Corinth, Mississippi, Trump accused Democrats of promoting what he called the “transgender mutilization of your children.”

At a rally in Florida on Sunday, the president repeatedly criticized the participation of biological males in women’s sports and gender-transition medical procedures.

The emphasis reflects the Republican Party’s belief that transgender issues can motivate conservative voters and persuade undecided Americans who are concerned about parental rights, education, and the direction of American culture.

Republican pollster Chris Wilson said the strategy is intended to communicate broader concerns about Democratic values rather than simply appeal to voters who consider transgender policy their most important issue.

“Republicans clearly believe these issues expose a cultural disconnect between Democratic candidates and a significant portion of the electorate,” Wilson said.

“It’s not necessarily that transgender policy is a top voting priority, it’s that voters can use a candidate’s position on it as a proxy for their broader values and judgment.”

The spending figures reveal a striking disparity between the two political parties.

While Republican organizations have devoted approximately $183 million to transgender-related television advertising, Democratic groups have spent roughly $11 million on the subject, much of it responding to Republican accusations.

Nevertheless, public opinion surveys suggest that transgender policies rank considerably below economic concerns for most Americans.

An October Associated Press-NORC poll found that approximately one in ten registered voters considered transgender issues among the most important questions facing the country in this election.

By comparison, roughly eight in ten identified the economy or cost of living as a major priority.

That disparity has raised questions about whether the Republican advertising campaign will succeed in persuading voters whose primary concerns involve household expenses, gasoline prices, and financial security.

Republican strategists argue that voters may regard a candidate’s position on transgender issues as an indication of broader political judgment, even if the issue does not directly affect their daily lives.

The strategy also builds on Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, when Republican advertisements attacking Democratic transgender policies became a prominent feature of the election.

This year’s campaign, however, has surpassed the previous presidential election’s spending levels despite being a midterm contest.

With Election Day scheduled for Tuesday, November 3, Republicans are betting that the advertising offensive will help protect vulnerable Senate seats and energize conservative voters in competitive races.

Whether the enormous expenditure changes the outcome remains uncertain.

“The interesting question isn’t why Republicans are running these ads, it’s whether they’re still persuading anyone or simply reinforcing attitudes voters already hold,” Wilson said.

“Those are two very different things, and $100 million in spending doesn’t tell us which is happening.”

“We’ll find that out on Election Day.”

[Video below.] Former President Barack Hussein Obama launched a blistering personal attack on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth during a campaign rally in Cleveland, Ohio, mocking the Pentagon chief for his emphasis on military personnel’s physical appearance, testosterone levels, and a controversial proposal to livestream the execution of the convicted Fort Hood terrorist.

Speaking at an event supporting Democratic gubernatorial candidate Amy Acton and Senate candidate Sherrod Brown, Obama accused Hegseth of concentrating on superficial displays of military toughness while the United States continues to confront serious challenges stemming from its war with Iran.

“The defense secretary is laser-focused on very important matters like the jawline and testosterone levels of our troops and live-streaming executions, because that’s how he thinks you cultivate that manly, warrior spirit,” Obama said sarcastically, drawing laughter from the audience.

The former president then turned his criticism toward Hegseth personally, suggesting that the defense secretary spends an excessive amount of time worrying about his own appearance.

“How much time do you think this defense secretary spends looking at himself in the mirror in the morning?” Obama asked. “You know he’s working his hair, because that’s how ‘warriors’ look.”

Obama went on to question the competence of the Trump administration, accusing senior officials of failing to approach their responsibilities seriously.

“These are not serious people, they’re not serious people. And the problem is you end up having to pay the price for their lack of seriousness,” he declared.

The remarks were part of a broader attack on President Donald Trump’s handling of the Iran war, which Obama blamed for American military casualties, depleted weapons stockpiles, and higher energy prices.

Obama argued that the administration’s military campaign had failed to produce the results Trump initially promised, pointing to Iran’s continued ability to influence shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and the resulting impact on global oil markets.

His criticism of Hegseth drew on several Pentagon initiatives that have attracted considerable attention in recent months.

Hegseth has made physical fitness, grooming standards, and what he calls a renewed “warrior ethos” central priorities of his leadership. During a September 2025 address to senior military commanders at Quantico, Virginia, he announced stricter standards concerning physical appearance, weight, haircuts, and facial hair.

The defense secretary has argued that restoring discipline and maintaining demanding physical standards are essential to military readiness, rejecting suggestions that such requirements are merely cosmetic.

More recently, the Pentagon introduced testosterone screening for male service members aged 30 and older as part of their annual health assessments. The initiative is intended to identify hormone deficiencies that could affect physical performance and overall health.

Hegseth has defended the screening program as a medical readiness measure rather than an effort to artificially enhance troops’ physical capabilities.

Obama also referenced the controversy surrounding Hegseth’s proposal to publicly broadcast the execution of Nidal Malik Hasan, the former Army psychiatrist convicted of murdering 13 people and wounding dozens more in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting.

Hasan, who was sentenced to death in 2013, is scheduled to be executed by firing squad on December 3. Hegseth had indicated that the execution would be livestreamed, prompting criticism from lawmakers in both political parties.

Republican Congressman Austin Scott and Democratic Congressman Adam Smith were among those who objected to turning the execution into a public broadcast, despite differing political positions.

President Trump subsequently announced on October 15 that the execution would proceed as scheduled but would not be livestreamed, effectively reversing the controversial proposal.

Obama’s comments came as he returned to the campaign trail ahead of the November 3 midterm elections, seeking to rally Democratic voters and criticize the administration’s record on foreign policy and the economy.

The former president also campaigned in Michigan for Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, where he continued attacking Trump’s leadership and the administration’s approach to the Iran conflict.

Hegseth and the Pentagon have previously defended the administration’s military reforms, maintaining that stronger physical standards, improved readiness, and a renewed emphasis on combat effectiveness are necessary to strengthen the armed forces.

The defense secretary has also defended his handling of military operations against Iran, while administration officials have argued that the conflict’s economic effects will ease as the military situation stabilizes.

{Matzav.com}

Democrats party chairman Yair Golan is calling on Israel’s opposition leaders to reconsider their refusal to cooperate with Arab political parties, arguing that such an arrangement may be necessary to prevent Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu from remaining in power following Tuesday’s Knesset elections.

Golan’s appeal comes as the election results point toward a deeply divided Knesset, with neither Netanyahu’s bloc nor the parties seeking to replace him holding the 61 seats required for a parliamentary majority.

According to the partial results available Wednesday, after approximately 85.6 percent of the votes had been counted, Netanyahu’s political bloc held an estimated 53 seats, the opposition parties aligned against him controlled approximately 48, and the Arab parties accounted for another 19.

Those figures have placed the Arab factions at the center of discussions about the next government, despite campaign commitments by several opposition leaders that they would not rely on Arab parliamentary support.

Golan argued that the parties seeking to replace Netanyahu must consider cooperation across the political divide rather than allow their pre-election pledges to prevent the establishment of an alternative government.

The proposal presents a particular challenge for Gadi Eisenkot, whose Yashar party has emerged as a major force in the opposition, as well as Naftali Bennett, who has sought to position himself as a candidate capable of forming a government without Netanyahu.

Both leaders face the difficulty of assembling a majority from parties whose positions on security, religion and state, and relations with Arab political factions differ considerably.

One possibility being discussed involves establishing a minority government supported from outside the coalition by Arab Knesset members.

Under such an arrangement, Arab parties would not necessarily receive ministerial positions or formally join the government, but their parliamentary votes or abstentions could enable the government to take office and survive confidence votes.

The proposal faces substantial resistance, particularly from Yisrael Beiteinu chairman Avigdor Lieberman, who has opposed forming a government dependent on Arab parties.

Lieberman’s position could prove decisive because the opposition cannot readily assemble a majority without either Arab parliamentary support or cooperation from parties traditionally aligned with Netanyahu.

The debate has also drawn attention to the possibility of negotiations with Shas and United Torah Judaism, which could provide an alternative route to a coalition that excludes the Arab parties.

However, any arrangement involving the chareidi factions would require agreements on the military draft status of yeshiva bochurim, educational funding, and other matters that have divided the parties.

Golan wrote on X that the opposition should not accept Netanyahu’s distinction between Jewish and Arab votes, saying that Arab citizens must be treated as legitimate participants in determining Israel’s political future.

“We have a majority. We have responsibility. And we have an opportunity to form a government of change in partnership with Israel’s Arab citizens. A government that will serve all Israeli citizens,” Golan wrote.

Joint List chairman Yousef Jabareen also indicated that his party was prepared to cooperate with efforts to replace Netanyahu.

“We are ready and prepared to pave the way for ousting the Netanyahu government,” Jabareen said.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, rejected the possibility of establishing a government dependent on the Arab factions.

“We must not endanger Israel by forming a government that relies on anti-Zionist Arab parties,” the prime minister said.

The election results have given the Arab parties an unusually influential position. The Joint List was projected to win 12 seats and Ra’am seven, bringing their combined representation to 19 seats, compared with 10 in the outgoing Knesset.

The opposition bloc’s projected 48 seats, combined with the Arab parties’ 19, would amount to 67 mandates. However, that numerical majority does not translate automatically into a governing coalition, given the objections expressed by several opposition leaders to cooperation with the Arab factions.

President Isaac Herzog urged political leaders Wednesday to remain open to compromise and avoid another election, as the Central Elections Committee continued processing outstanding ballots.

Approximately 430,000 to 480,000 special double-envelope ballots, including votes cast by soldiers and other eligible voters away from their regular polling stations, were still awaiting counting. The final official election results are expected on November 4.

Golan’s proposal has not been adopted by Eisenkot, Bennett, or Lieberman, and no agreement to establish a government with Arab-party support has been announced.

{Matzav.com}

Yisrael Beiteinu chairman Avigdor Lieberman could hold the key to determining whether Israel’s next government is a broad unity coalition, a minority government supported by Arab parties, or whether the country returns to the polls for another election, according to veteran political commentator Yaakov Rivlin. In a wide-ranging analysis of Tuesday’s election results, Rivlin suggested that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s weakened parliamentary position could create an opening for a unity government that might exclude the chareidi parties.

Speaking with journalist Avi Blum on Kol Chai’s main evening news broadcast Wednesday, Rivlin examined the complicated political situation emerging from the elections to the 26th Knesset. Although Netanyahu’s Likud performed considerably better than many pre-election polls had predicted, Rivlin argued that the prime minister had nevertheless suffered a substantial loss of coalition strength.

“Who holds the keys to all the governments? Avigdor Lieberman,” Rivlin declared, identifying the Yisrael Beiteinu leader as a potentially decisive figure in the negotiations over the next coalition.

Rivlin rejected the suggestion that Netanyahu’s electoral performance should be viewed as a victory simply because Likud exceeded expectations.

“We expected a defeat and got half a defeat,” he said, pointing to the decline in the prime minister’s parliamentary support.

The outgoing coalition controlled 68 seats in the Knesset, while the election results available at the time of the interview indicated that Netanyahu’s bloc had fallen to approximately 54 or 55 mandates. Rivlin maintained that the opposition’s failure to achieve a decisive majority did not erase the significance of that decline.

The loss of more than a dozen seats from the outgoing coalition’s strength means that Netanyahu can no longer rely on his traditional political partners to provide an automatic parliamentary majority.

Blum, however, suggested that the absence of a 61-seat majority could paradoxically give Netanyahu greater flexibility in coalition negotiations.

Under that scenario, the prime minister could argue that the election results require him to pursue a broad unity government rather than remain exclusively dependent on his longstanding right-wing and chareidi allies.

Such an arrangement might allow Netanyahu to negotiate with opposition leaders without being bound by all the demands of the parties that participated in his previous coalition.

Rivlin expressed reservations about that interpretation, pointing out that Netanyahu would still have to consider his relationship with Shas and United Torah Judaism.

Even if the prime minister succeeded in establishing a unity government without the chareidi parties, Rivlin argued, he would have an interest in preserving those relationships in case the new coalition eventually collapsed.

Abandoning his traditional allies could leave Netanyahu without a political safety net if a unity arrangement proved unsustainable.

The discussion then turned to the possibility that security developments, particularly a renewed confrontation with Iran, could dramatically alter the political calculations.

Rivlin raised the possibility that another major military escalation would intensify pressure on the political leadership to establish a national unity government.

“Everyone will demand a unity government. In that government, everyone will have to compromise. The chareidim will have to compromise on the draft law, if they are not left outside. Netanyahu will have to compromise, Eisenkot will have to compromise,” Rivlin said.

He emphasized that this was a hypothetical scenario dependent on future security developments, rather than information indicating that such a decision had already been reached.

A national emergency could potentially change the priorities of political leaders who currently oppose serving together, particularly if the country faced an extended military confrontation.

At the same time, Rivlin suggested that the military draft issue could become a decisive factor in determining whether Shas and United Torah Judaism would participate in such a coalition.

The parties have made the status of yeshiva bochurim a central political demand, while several potential unity partners have insisted on changes to existing military service arrangements.

If a compromise could not be reached, a unity government might be established without chareidi representation.

The alternative possibility of a minority government headed by Gadi Eisenkot also received considerable attention during the interview.

Eisenkot’s opposition bloc, together with the Arab parties, could potentially command enough parliamentary support to challenge Netanyahu’s continued leadership. However, Rivlin questioned whether such an arrangement could be translated into a functioning government.

He identified Lieberman as a major obstacle to a government dependent on Arab parliamentary support.

The Yisrael Beiteinu chairman has long opposed relying on Arab parties to establish a coalition, and his position could complicate efforts to form an Eisenkot-led minority government.

According to Rivlin’s analysis, if Lieberman refuses to support such an arrangement, the remaining political leaders may have to choose between negotiating a unity government and preparing for another election.

Lieberman’s position is particularly significant because the opposition contains parties with sharply different views on security, religion and state, and cooperation with Arab political factions.

Those differences could make it difficult to transform a shared desire to replace Netanyahu into a workable governing agreement.

The conversation also focused extensively on the disappointing election results for Shas, which appears to have suffered a considerable decline in voter support.

Rivlin estimated that the party had lost nearly 100,000 votes compared with the previous election, with the decline evident not only in development towns and peripheral communities but also in established chareidi population centers.

He attributed part of the decline to changes in the voting behavior of traditional Sephardic voters who had previously supported Shas.

In earlier elections, Rivlin explained, Shas had successfully appealed to voters who identified with Jewish tradition but were not necessarily part of the chareidi community.

The party presented itself as an alternative to Likud that combined a traditional Jewish identity with political representation for Sephardic communities.

This time, however, the military draft controversy and Likud’s aggressive campaign emphasizing the importance of voting for a large party appeared to influence some of those voters to return to Netanyahu’s party.

Rivlin suggested that Shas had struggled to communicate a message capable of satisfying both its chareidi base and its broader traditional electorate.

The ongoing controversy over the conscription of yeshiva students, together with the arrests of bochurim, created tensions within the Sephardic community and complicated the party’s electoral messaging.

Attempts to present Torah study and military service as compatible national priorities did not necessarily resonate with all segments of the party’s electorate, Rivlin argued.

He also pointed to shortcomings in the party’s local election operations.

Although Shas maintained an organized campaign infrastructure, some local representatives failed to produce the number of votes expected of them.

Rivlin suggested that the results could lead to an internal review of those representatives’ performance and potentially affect their positions within the party.

The contrast with United Torah Judaism was particularly striking.

While Shas experienced a substantial decline, United Torah Judaism maintained its projected parliamentary representation and increased its overall vote total.

Rivlin attributed the party’s performance partly to changes within Degel HaTorah that were carried out under the direction of its rabbinic leadership.

He also credited MK Yaakov Asher with helping to bring together competing elements within a party that had experienced significant internal disagreements.

“Yaakov Asher succeeded in creating a consensus,” Rivlin said, describing the efforts to preserve unity within United Torah Judaism.

The ability to maintain internal cooperation despite disagreements was an important factor in the party’s electoral performance, according to his assessment.

Blum suggested that the clarity of United Torah Judaism’s rabbinic leadership may also have contributed to its ability to mobilize voters.

He contrasted that situation with the challenges facing Shas, whose leadership had struggled to present a message that appealed equally to its different constituencies.

Rivlin cautioned, however, that a definitive assessment would require a detailed examination of the final results from individual cities and polling stations.

Such an analysis would help establish where Shas lost support, where United Torah Judaism gained votes, and whether the changes reflected broader political trends or specific local circumstances.

Rivlin also recalled the 2015 Knesset election, when Shas won seven seats while facing a challenge from Eli Yishai, who had broken away from the party to establish a competing political movement.

At the time, securing seven mandates was considered a significant achievement because Shas had been forced to contend with a rival party seeking support from the same electoral base.

The present election, Rivlin argued, presents a very different picture.

Rather than defending its position against a major internal challenger, Shas entered the election as an established coalition party with an extensive political organization.

Its decline to approximately seven seats therefore carries different implications than the same numerical result did in 2015.

Nevertheless, both Rivlin and Blum emphasized that the ultimate political significance of the election would depend not only on how many seats the chareidi parties received but also on whether they would participate in the next government.

A party with fewer mandates could still wield considerable influence if its support were essential to establishing a coalition.

Conversely, even a party that maintained its parliamentary representation could find itself excluded from power if other factions succeeded in forming a government without it.

That possibility has become increasingly relevant as political figures examine combinations that could include Netanyahu and opposition parties while leaving Shas and United Torah Judaism outside the coalition.

For the chareidi parties, the outcome of the coalition negotiations could have far-reaching consequences for the military draft issue, educational funding, religious institutions, and other matters central to their constituencies.

The election results have also placed Netanyahu in an unfamiliar position, requiring him to consider arrangements beyond the political bloc that has supported his government.

Although his parliamentary strength has declined, the divisions among his opponents have prevented the emergence of a straightforward alternative.

Rivlin’s assessment was that Lieberman’s decisions could become critical in determining which of the competing political scenarios ultimately takes shape.

If Lieberman refuses to support a minority government dependent on Arab parties, the opposition’s options could narrow considerably. At the same time, Netanyahu would still need to persuade political rivals to join a coalition under his leadership.

The result is a political deadlock in which both camps face significant obstacles, and negotiations over the next government could prove as consequential as the election itself.

The final allocation of Knesset seats remains subject to the counting of outstanding ballots, and the coalition possibilities discussed by Rivlin are political scenarios rather than confirmed agreements. His analysis nevertheless highlights a central question emerging from the election: whether Netanyahu’s loss of parliamentary strength will lead to a change in government, another election, or a broader coalition that could fundamentally alter the political position of the chareidi parties.

{Matzav.com}

A behind-the-scenes political initiative is reportedly underway to bring Naftali Bennett together with Shas and United Torah Judaism in a potentially dramatic realignment that could pave the way for a government without Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu or the Arab parties. The proposal, disclosed Wednesday evening by Kol Chai, would give Bennett a stronger negotiating position against Gadi Eisenkot and enable him to demand the first turn as prime minister under a proposed rotation agreement.

The reported initiative comes as Israel awaits the completion of vote counting in the 26th Knesset elections, with neither Netanyahu’s political bloc nor the opposition holding a clear majority. Political operatives are exploring various combinations that could break the deadlock, including arrangements that would have appeared highly unlikely before the election.

According to information reported by Meni Gira Schwartz of Emess and disclosed during Kol Chai’s main evening news broadcast, individuals involved in the initiative are attempting to establish discreet channels of communication with the leadership of the chareidi parties before formal coalition negotiations begin.

The central idea involves creating a coordinated political bloc consisting of Bennett’s Beyachad party, Shas, and United Torah Judaism. By combining their parliamentary strength, the three parties could form a grouping larger than Eisenkot’s Yashar party, potentially allowing Bennett to present himself as the leading figure capable of assembling an alternative government.

Such an arrangement would also give Bennett additional leverage in negotiations with Eisenkot, whose party has emerged as a major force in the opposition following Tuesday’s election.

Under the proposal, Bennett would demand that he serve as prime minister during the first half of the government’s term, with Eisenkot assuming the premiership during the second half.

The arrangement would effectively reverse the current political dynamic, in which Eisenkot is viewed as a leading candidate to receive the first mandate to form a government from President Isaac Herzog.

Those promoting the initiative believe Bennett could strengthen his position by demonstrating that he has the support of the chareidi parties and can offer a governing alternative that does not depend on the Arab factions.

The proposed coalition would be presented as a Jewish government incorporating religious and secular parties, with Bennett’s religious background and right-wing political identity potentially making him more acceptable to the chareidi leadership than other opposition figures.

The initiative is reportedly being advanced against a backdrop of growing frustration within Shas over the conduct of Netanyahu and Likud during the election campaign.

According to the report, individuals close to Shas chairman Aryeh Deri believe Likud’s aggressive campaign to consolidate right-wing voters came at the expense of Shas, contributing to the party’s disappointing electoral performance.

Deri is also reportedly upset that Netanyahu failed to defend him against criticism concerning his grandchildren who do not serve in the IDF, despite Deri’s own participation in Israel’s security cabinet.

The criticism became a point of contention during the campaign, and sources close to Deri reportedly believe Netanyahu should have intervened more forcefully on his behalf.

Those seeking to advance the Bennett-chareidi alliance are said to view these tensions as an opportunity to open discussions with Shas and United Torah Judaism about an alternative political partnership.

The proposed understandings would focus heavily on the issues most important to the chareidi parties, particularly the status of yeshiva bochurim and the funding of chareidi educational institutions.

One of the principal components would involve reaching an agreement on legislation regulating the military service obligations of yeshiva students, a matter that has repeatedly generated coalition crises and remains among the most contentious issues in Israeli politics.

The parties would also seek commitments concerning government funding for chareidi schools and yeshivos, alongside broader understandings on religious affairs and the relationship between religion and state.

According to the report, those promoting the initiative believe Bennett’s personal religious background could make him a candidate whom the rabbinic leadership might be willing to consider, provided that acceptable agreements are reached on the relevant issues.

Any decision by Shas or United Torah Judaism to support such an arrangement would ultimately depend on the approval of the respective Gedolei Yisroel and rabbinic authorities guiding the parties.

Despite the potentially significant political implications, the proposed alliance faces substantial obstacles.

Even if Bennett succeeds in obtaining the support of Shas and United Torah Judaism, he would still need to assemble a broader coalition capable of securing sufficient parliamentary backing.

That would likely require cooperation between the chareidi parties and two political forces that have frequently opposed their positions on religious affairs: Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu and the Democrats party.

Lieberman has been one of the most outspoken critics of chareidi exemptions from military service and has repeatedly demanded far-reaching changes to Israel’s policies concerning yeshiva students and religious institutions.

The Democrats have likewise supported positions on military service and religion-and-state issues that differ sharply from those of the chareidi parties.

Bringing these factions into a single coalition would therefore require substantial compromises on some of the most politically sensitive issues facing the country.

Nevertheless, individuals involved in promoting the initiative reportedly believe that a shared determination to replace Netanyahu and prevent further judicial reform measures could persuade the potential partners to reach an accommodation.

One possibility under discussion would involve adopting a softened version of a draft-law framework previously negotiated between the chareidi parties and Likud.

Such an arrangement could potentially provide the chareidi parties with assurances concerning the continued status of yeshiva students while allowing the other coalition partners to claim that progress had been made toward resolving the military service dispute.

Whether Lieberman or the Democrats would accept such a compromise remains uncertain, and there has been no indication that either party has agreed to the proposed formula.

The report also raises questions about the willingness of the chareidi parties to abandon their longstanding political partnership with Netanyahu in favor of a coalition containing several of his most determined opponents.

Although tensions between Likud and its chareidi allies have surfaced repeatedly, Shas and United Torah Judaism have generally remained closely aligned with Netanyahu on coalition matters.

A decision to join Bennett in an alternative government would therefore represent a significant change in the political relationships that have shaped Israel’s governing coalitions for years.

For Bennett, however, the potential advantages are substantial.

A preliminary agreement with the chareidi parties could enable him to challenge Eisenkot’s position as the leading opposition candidate for prime minister while simultaneously presenting a possible route to a government that excludes both Netanyahu and the Arab parties.

It could also complicate Eisenkot’s coalition negotiations by forcing him to consider whether he would be willing to accept the second position in a premiership rotation agreement.

Yet the reported plan remains preliminary, and the parties involved have not confirmed that negotiations are taking place.

Bennett’s associates denied the report and did not confirm the details of the alleged initiative.

United Torah Judaism also issued a statement distancing itself from suggestions that it had received approaches from other political leaders.

The office of MK Yaakov Asher, chairman of United Torah Judaism, released the following clarification:

“In response to inquiries from journalists, we wish to clarify that there have been no approaches from party leaders, apart from a message conveyed by Prime Minister Netanyahu’s associates indicating his intention to preserve the coalition parties.”

The statement indicated that Netanyahu’s camp had already communicated its desire to maintain the existing political partnership with the chareidi factions.

At the same time, it did not establish whether intermediaries unaffiliated with the formal party leadership had attempted to initiate indirect discussions.

The distinction is significant because the reported initiative centers on efforts by political figures to open unofficial channels before the parties themselves enter formal negotiations.

No agreement has been reached, and there is no confirmation that the proposal has progressed beyond preliminary political contacts.

The reported maneuvering comes amid a broader struggle between Bennett and Eisenkot over leadership of the political camp seeking to replace Netanyahu.

Eisenkot’s Yashar party is positioned to receive support from several opposition factions, while Bennett is exploring potential political arrangements that could strengthen his own claim to the premiership.

The final election results, expected to be submitted to President Herzog on November 4, will determine the precise parliamentary balance before formal coalition consultations begin.

Until then, the reported Bennett-chareidi initiative adds another possible scenario to an already complicated political landscape, with the future of the chareidi parties potentially becoming a decisive factor in determining who leads Israel’s next government.

{Matzav.com}

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is facing criticism from Democratic lawmakers, Arab American organizations, and members of the scientific community after claiming during a campaign appearance in Michigan that Arabs have failed to make significant contributions to science or win some of the world’s most prestigious academic awards.

“There’s 500 million Arabs in the world, and yet they don’t produce science, they don’t win the Nobel Prize, they don’t win the Fields prize, they don’t win the Wolf Prize,” Kennedy said.

The remarks, delivered in a state with one of the country’s largest Arab American populations, quickly drew objections from critics who pointed to numerous Arab scientists and scholars whose achievements directly contradict Kennedy’s assertions.

Among those responding was Dr. Peter Hotez, dean of Baylor University’s National School of Tropical Medicine, who cited the accomplishments of his late colleague Ahmed Zewail, an Egyptian American chemist who received the 1999 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his pioneering research into chemical reactions.

“God rest his soul he didn’t have to endure this,” Hotez wrote on X.

Zewail had also received the prestigious Wolf Prize in Chemistry in 1993, six years before earning his Nobel Prize, contradicting another portion of Kennedy’s statement.

Another example is mathematician Michael Atiyah, born in England to a Lebanese father and Scottish mother, who received the Fields Medal in 1966. The award is widely regarded as one of the highest honors in mathematics.

The controversy also prompted renewed attention to the broader history of Arab contributions to mathematics, medicine, chemistry, and other scientific disciplines. Al Jazeera published an extensive examination of those accomplishments in response to Kennedy’s comments.

The Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately provide a response to The Hill’s request for comment.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a particularly forceful condemnation of Kennedy’s remarks, accusing the cabinet secretary of promoting offensive stereotypes about Arabs.

“Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s vile anti-Arab rant is a textbook display of unvarnished racism and bigotry,” the U.S.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) wrote in a post on X.

“To stand on a public stage as a sitting U.S. cabinet official and dehumanize half a billion people – and millions of Muslim and Christian Arab Americans – with fabricated, white supremacist talking points is utterly disqualifying for public office,” CAIR wrote.

Kennedy’s comments also became an issue in Michigan’s closely watched U.S. Senate contest between Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Abdul El-Sayed, a physician of Arab descent who has made public health a central part of his professional career.

Cole Wozniak, a spokesperson for El-Sayed’s campaign, criticized Kennedy for making the remarks while campaigning in Michigan.

“It’s rich to have an anti-scientist come to Michigan to lecture a doctor with two doctoral degrees who has spent his entire career working on public health,” El-Sayed spokesperson Cole Wozniak said in a statement.

The controversy comes as Rogers and Republican allies have intensified their criticism of El-Sayed in the closing days of the Senate race, accusing the Democratic nominee of connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood is an international Islamist political movement, and the United States has designated certain branches as foreign terrorist organizations. El-Sayed has repeatedly denied having any association with the organization and has publicly disavowed it.

President Trump has also sharply attacked El-Sayed, describing him as a jihadist and drawing comparisons to the September 11 terrorists during a campaign rally over the weekend.

Other Michigan Democrats joined the criticism of Kennedy, including Reps. Hillary Scholten and Rashida Tlaib.

“The last I checked, Secretary Kennedy has neither a medical degree nor a Nobel Peace Prize, and his rhetoric has undermined public confidence in health science,” Scholten said in a statement on X. “Maybe he should sit this one out.”

Tlaib, who is Arab American, issued an even harsher response, accusing Kennedy of racism and urging the public to condemn his statements.

“RFK Jr.’s a disgusting racist. We all know that,” Tlaib wrote on X. “We must all speak out louder than the hate. We will not let these fascists win.”

Kennedy’s comments were made Monday at a campaign event in Grand Rapids supporting Rogers. During the speech, he also blamed the Muslim Brotherhood for what he described as a decline in scientific and cultural achievements across the Arab world.

An Associated Press fact-check published Tuesday identified several additional Arab and Arab-descended award recipients, including Egyptian novelist Naguib Mahfouz, who won the 1988 Nobel Prize in Literature, and Jordanian-born chemist Omar Yaghi, who received the 2025 Nobel Prize in Chemistry after previously winning the Wolf Prize.

{Matzav.com}

Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed has fired back at President Donald Trump over his repeated references to the candidate’s Muslim name and religion, accusing the president of hypocrisy for criticizing him while maintaining close relationships with wealthy Arab governments, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Speaking at a campaign rally in Grand Rapids, El-Sayed pointed to Saudi investments connected to Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Qatar’s offer of a luxury aircraft valued at approximately $400 million, arguing that the president appears comfortable dealing with prominent Muslim figures overseas while taking issue with the name of a Muslim American seeking public office.

“I get that the president of the United States takes personal offense to my first name,” El-Sayed told supporters. “He doesn’t mind as much when it’s a shared name from the Saudis who are funding his son-in-law’s private equity. Doesn’t seem to mind as much when it’s the Qataris who are giving him a $400 million private jet. He just seems to have trouble pronouncing it when it’s my name.”

The Democratic candidate, who is competing against Republican former Congressman Mike Rogers in one of the nation’s most closely watched Senate contests, went on to suggest that Trump might soon have to address him by a different title.

“But y’all, I don’t care how he pronounces my name,” El-Sayed continued. “I don’t even care that he remembers my whole name. Because he can just go on and call me ‘senator’ after November. I will be Senator Mohamed to you, bro.”

The remarks came amid an increasingly heated campaign in Michigan, where Trump has made El-Sayed’s Muslim identity and political record central themes of his efforts to help Rogers win the open Senate seat in the November 3 midterm elections.

During a rally in Port Huron on Sunday, Trump accused El-Sayed of having connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and warned voters against electing him to the Senate.

“I’m here to keep a jihadist, Muslim Brotherhood member from becoming a United States senator,” Trump declared.

The president also invoked the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, drawing a comparison between the struggle against the hijackers aboard United Airlines Flight 93 and the effort to defeat El-Sayed at the ballot box.

“Twenty-five years later, Michigan needs to stand up and fight, just like Todd did, to stop a jihadist from walking into the Capitol,” Trump said, referring to Todd Beamer, the Michigan native who helped lead the passenger resistance aboard Flight 93.

Trump further claimed that El-Sayed would present a security threat if elected, saying he would be the only senator required to pass through a metal detector before entering the chamber.

El-Sayed has rejected allegations that he belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood or supports violent extremism. The accusations have become a recurring issue in the Senate campaign, with Republicans highlighting his past statements and political associations while the Democrat accuses his opponents of attempting to exploit religious fears.

The controversy has also drawn attention to Trump’s repeated references to El-Sayed as “Mohamed,” which is the candidate’s middle name. At earlier campaign appearances, Trump mocked the pronunciation of his opponent’s name and used variations of it while criticizing his political views.

El-Sayed, whose full name is Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed, has responded by arguing that the president is deliberately focusing on his Muslim background to distract from economic issues facing Michigan voters.

His latest response introduced Trump’s financial and diplomatic relationships with Saudi Arabia and Qatar into the dispute.

Kushner’s private equity firm, Affinity Partners, has received substantial investment from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, a relationship that has drawn scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest because of Kushner’s previous role as a senior White House adviser and his close ties to Saudi officials.

El-Sayed suggested that Trump has shown considerably less concern about Arabic names when dealing with Saudi figures whose financial relationships benefit businesses associated with the president’s family.

The candidate also cited Qatar’s offer of a Boeing 747-8 aircraft for use by the United States government, an arrangement that generated controversy because of the aircraft’s enormous value and questions about whether accepting it would raise constitutional, ethical, or national security concerns.

The Trump administration has defended the proposed aircraft arrangement, maintaining that the plane would be transferred through appropriate government channels rather than accepted as a personal gift to the president.

El-Sayed nevertheless used the episode to argue that Trump’s criticism of his name reflects a political double standard.

The exchange comes as both parties pour attention and resources into Michigan’s Senate contest, which could help determine control of the chamber. Rogers, a former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has emphasized national security and criticized El-Sayed’s progressive positions, while El-Sayed has campaigned on economic affordability, health care, and opposition to Trump’s policies.

El-Sayed, a former Detroit health director and public health physician, would become the first Muslim elected to the United States Senate if he wins.

Former President Barack Obama has also entered the campaign on El-Sayed’s behalf, appearing at a Democratic rally in Detroit on Saturday and criticizing attempts to portray the candidate’s name or faith as evidence that he is unfit for office.

Obama drew parallels to the attacks he faced during his own presidential campaigns, when opponents questioned his birthplace and religious background.

At a separate appearance Monday, El-Sayed again accused Trump and Republicans of attempting to divert voters’ attention from everyday economic concerns.

“They have nothing to say about solving the problems in your life. They’re not talking about you,” El-Sayed said, arguing that the campaign should focus on issues such as grocery prices, gasoline costs, housing, and health care.

Trump, meanwhile, has continued to campaign aggressively for Rogers, portraying the Republican as the candidate better suited to represent Michigan and warning that an El-Sayed victory would advance a radical political agenda.

The increasingly personal confrontation illustrates the intensity of the Senate race as Election Day approaches, with religious identity, national security, foreign financial relationships, and economic policy all becoming part of the closing arguments to Michigan voters.

{Matzav.com}

[Video below.] Secretary of State Marco Rubio delivered an unusually brief speech at President Donald Trump’s campaign rally in Corpus Christi, Texas, speaking for just 11 seconds after Trump unexpectedly called him onto the stage.

“It’s an honor to work for the greatest country in the world, for the greatest president in the history of the United States of America. We love you, Texas. Thank you,” Rubio told the crowd before promptly concluding his remarks.

Rubio had accompanied Trump to two campaign events in Texas earlier that day. A State Department official explained to The Hill that Rubio was traveling in his capacity as national security adviser, allowing him to discuss important government matters with the president while they were on the road.

“He needs time with the president on all kinds of issues. The president will be on the go, so being on the plane with him gives him a chance to talk to him about these items,” the official told The Hill.

Rubio was not the only Republican official to make a remarkably short appearance at a Trump rally this week. During a campaign event in Mississippi on Monday, Trump invited Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith onto the stage to address the audience.

“Is this not the best president in our lifetime?” Hyde-Smith exclaimed before quickly stepping away from the microphone.

Trump welcomed the senator’s brief appearance, explaining that he appreciates speakers who keep their comments short rather than delivering lengthy addresses during his campaign events.

“I love that. Sometimes they get up, and they talk for 10 minutes,” the president said.

Rubio’s appearance the following day was similarly concise, with the secretary of state offering a quick endorsement of Trump before handing the stage back to the president.

WATCH:

{Matzav.com}

[Video below.] Conservative investigative journalists James O’Keefe and Cam Higby are facing reported felony charges in Minnesota stemming from an undercover operation at a Minneapolis polling location, where they sought to expose what they described as serious weaknesses in the state’s voter identification and election verification procedures.

According to accounts of the case, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office has pursued charges involving unlawful voting and identity theft following an investigation conducted during Minnesota’s August primary election. The case centers on whether the journalists crossed the line from documenting potential election security vulnerabilities into illegally impersonating registered voters.

O’Keefe and Higby maintain that their operation was an exercise in investigative journalism designed to demonstrate how Minnesota’s voting procedures could potentially be exploited. They say neither of them actually cast a ballot, arguing that their actions were intended to test the system rather than influence an election outcome.

The investigation involved both men entering a polling location in disguises intended to make them appear to be members of Minneapolis’s Muslim community. Higby wore a black abaya and face covering, presenting himself as a Muslim woman, while O’Keefe wore a white thobe and head covering. Both reportedly used imitated foreign accents during their interactions with election personnel.

The operation was designed to examine two aspects of Minnesota election law: the circumstances under which registered voters may obtain ballots without presenting photo identification, and the state’s vouching procedures, which allow eligible registered voters to help establish the residence of certain individuals seeking to register on Election Day.

During the encounter, Higby allegedly presented himself as a female registered voter using another person’s name. The objective, according to the journalists, was to determine whether election workers would proceed with the ballot application without demanding photographic identification or otherwise verifying that the person standing before them was the registered voter whose name had been provided.

O’Keefe, meanwhile, participated in a separate portion of the operation intended to test whether a purported registered voter could vouch for another individual seeking to register. The journalists sought to demonstrate that a person falsely claiming to be an established voter might be able to exploit the system’s reliance on voter attestations.

Minnesota does not generally require registered voters to present photo identification at the polls simply to receive a ballot. Election officials instead use registration records and other procedures to administer voting, while state law establishes penalties for individuals who knowingly provide false information or impersonate another voter.

The journalists contend that the undercover encounters demonstrated vulnerabilities that could be exploited by individuals seeking to commit election fraud. Election authorities, however, distinguish between the absence of a universal photo identification requirement and the absence of safeguards, pointing to criminal penalties and other verification measures intended to protect the voting process.

A central issue in the reported prosecution is the journalists’ assertion that they deliberately stopped short of casting ballots.

They have maintained that no votes were submitted during the operation, a distinction they consider critical to their defense. Prosecutors’ reported theory, however, concerns alleged misrepresentations made during the ballot application process, raising the question of whether a violation can occur even when an individual does not ultimately deposit a ballot.

Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon has taken the position that intentionally impersonating voters threatens the integrity of the election process. The state’s position reflects a broader concern that deliberately providing false information to election workers can itself undermine election administration, regardless of whether the conduct results in a fraudulent vote being counted.

The case has generated criticism among conservative commentators and supporters of undercover investigative journalism, who argue that the prosecution could discourage journalists from testing government systems and exposing possible security deficiencies.

Critics contend that the purpose of the operation was to reveal vulnerabilities in a public process, and that criminally prosecuting the journalists for their investigative methods risks treating an attempt to expose wrongdoing as wrongdoing itself.

The dispute also raises questions about the legal boundaries of undercover reporting. Journalists have long used disguises, assumed identities, and concealed recording equipment to investigate matters of public interest. Such methods, however, do not automatically exempt reporters from generally applicable criminal laws, and the legal significance of the Minnesota operation will depend on the specific conduct alleged and the statutes cited.

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty formally announced the charges Wednesday, October 28, identifying O’Keefe, 42, and Higby, 26, as the defendants. Each faces one felony count of unlawful voting and one felony count of identity theft in connection with their activities during the August 11 primary election.

According to prosecutors, the two visited four polling locations in Hennepin County and used the names and addresses of registered voters without those individuals’ knowledge or permission. Some of the identities allegedly belonged to deceased residents, while at least one belonged to a living voter who had participated in the primary.

Moriarty acknowledged that neither journalist received or cast a ballot and that neither signed the required oath. She nevertheless argued that Minnesota law prohibits intentionally misrepresenting one’s identity during the ballot application process, even if the individual stops before actually voting.

At a Wednesday news conference, Moriarty rejected suggestions that the prosecution was based on the men’s political views or the controversial nature of their disguises.

“It is not against the law to be performative, it is not against the law to be offensive, it is not against the law to say the things they said standing outside the polling place,” Moriarty said.

She maintained that the alleged criminal conduct occurred when the men entered polling places and presented themselves to election workers using identities belonging to other people.

Prosecutors also said election workers had identified suspicious behavior during the encounters, challenging the journalists’ contention that the operation demonstrated an absence of meaningful safeguards.

Higby responded to the charges Wednesday by accusing Minnesota authorities of pursuing a politically motivated prosecution.

“This investigation was conducted to expose vulnerabilities in the Minnesota voting system, which affects all Americans. I never voted, I never signed an affidavit, and I never violated a law. For showing how Minnesota abuses votes, they seek to take mine away from me permanently,” Higby said.

In an earlier explanation of the operation, Higby argued that election workers appeared willing to proceed without verifying his identity through photographic identification.

“I didn’t actually vote,” Higby said during an August livestream. “I just showed up and tested the system.”

He claimed that at one polling location, election personnel did not request identification from him or the individuals for whom he purportedly intended to vouch, despite his face being concealed.

Under Minnesota law, a registered voter may vouch for the residence of up to eight individuals seeking to register in the same precinct. The individual providing the voucher must sign an oath attesting to the information. State election officials say the procedure is subject to verification and accounted for fewer than 0.6% of votes cast in 2024.

Secretary of State Simon defended the state’s election system and criticized the conduct of the two journalists.

“Any attempt to disrupt or deceive our election workers will not be tolerated. We are grateful to our law enforcement partners for holding these individuals to account,” Simon said.

The prosecution places O’Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas and current leader of Citizen Justice League, at the center of another dispute over undercover journalism and the limits of investigative reporting.

Supporters of the operation argue that journalists must be able to expose potential government vulnerabilities, particularly in election systems where public confidence depends on effective safeguards against fraud. Prosecutors maintain that investigative motives do not authorize the use of other people’s identities in a regulated voting process.

Each felony count carries a potential maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine, although Moriarty indicated that probation would be the presumptive outcome under Minnesota sentencing guidelines if the defendants were convicted.

Both men were charged by summons rather than arrested and are scheduled to make their initial court appearances on November 16.

The case is expected to draw continued attention from election security advocates and press freedom supporters as the defendants challenge the allegations. At issue will be whether their undercover actions constituted prohibited ballot applications under Minnesota law, despite the undisputed fact that neither man actually cast a vote.

WATCH:

{Matzav.com}

He lost his father before turning 3. His widowed mother raised him and his siblings alone.

Now, as he prepares for his wedding, his mother cannot afford even the basic necessities!

PLEASE HELP THIS YESOM GET MARRIED WITH DIGNITY! CLICK HERE TO DONATE.

Israel’s Central Elections Committee announced Wednesday evening that between 430,000 and 480,000 special ballots remain to be counted in the country’s 26th Knesset elections, with the process expected to begin early Thursday morning and conclude by Thursday evening, October 29. The outstanding votes could alter the final distribution of Knesset seats, with particular attention focused on Shas, which is facing the possibility of losing its seventh mandate.

The committee said preparations are underway to process the ballots, which are submitted through a special double-envelope system designed to allow eligible voters to cast their ballots outside their registered polling locations. Officials emphasized that the estimated number of outstanding envelopes remains preliminary, as the collection, verification, and processing procedures have not yet been completed.

The double-envelope ballots include votes cast by soldiers, members of the security forces, and residents displaced from their homes who voted at locations other than their regular polling stations. These ballots require additional verification to ensure that each individual voted only once before the votes can be included in the official tally.

In the previous Knesset election, held in 2022, more than 460,000 Israelis voted through the double-envelope system. Ahead of this year’s election, officials had initially anticipated a substantially larger number, estimating that between 600,000 and 650,000 ballots might be submitted through the special procedure.

Those higher projections reflected the continuing effects of the war, the extensive mobilization of military reservists, and the large number of displaced residents who were expected to vote away from their registered addresses.

However, the latest estimates place the actual number of double envelopes considerably below those earlier projections.

Election officials are currently completing the scanning and verification of the outer envelopes, which contain identifying information used to confirm each voter’s eligibility and prevent duplicate voting.

Once the verification process has been completed, the inner ballot envelopes are removed from their outer coverings and mixed together. This procedure separates voters’ identifying details from their ballots, preserving the secrecy of the vote.

The verified envelopes are then transferred to the counting facility located in the Knesset parking complex, where election workers will begin tabulating the remaining votes.

According to the Central Elections Committee’s announced schedule, counting is expected to begin at approximately 1 a.m. Thursday, October 29, after the scanning process has been completed.

Officials anticipate that the counting will continue throughout Thursday, with the process expected to be completed during the evening hours.

Updated results will be published on the Central Elections Committee’s website as the count progresses, allowing the public and political parties to monitor changes in the distribution of votes.

The committee also plans to hold a press briefing after the counting process has concluded and the updated results become available.

Although most ballots have already been counted, the remaining votes could have a meaningful effect on the final allocation of the Knesset’s 120 seats.

Because seats are distributed according to the parties’ respective vote totals, even relatively modest changes in the count can determine which party receives a final mandate, particularly when competing parties are separated by narrow margins.

The outstanding ballots are therefore being watched closely by political parties whose final seat totals remain uncertain.

Among the most closely watched developments is the competition between the two established chareidi parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism.

According to the count completed thus far, both parties are projected to receive seven Knesset seats, although United Torah Judaism holds a lead of approximately 18,600 votes over Shas in the overall popular vote.

That difference has generated concern within Shas, where party officials fear that the remaining double-envelope ballots could change the allocation and leave the party with only six seats.

Such an outcome would represent a significant setback for Shas, which has traditionally been the larger of the two chareidi parties and has played a central role in coalition negotiations.

United Torah Judaism, meanwhile, is closely monitoring the outstanding votes as it seeks to preserve its projected seven seats and determine its final position relative to Shas.

The results could also influence the broader political negotiations over the formation of Israel’s next government, particularly given the narrow margins separating the competing blocs.

With neither Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s political allies nor the opposition holding a clear governing majority, even a single seat shifting between parties could affect the calculations of those attempting to assemble a coalition.

The special ballots have played an important role in previous Israeli elections, occasionally changing the final seat distribution after the initial count appeared to establish a particular result.

For that reason, party officials are cautioning against treating the current projections as final until all eligible ballots have been processed and the remaining votes incorporated into the official totals.

The Central Elections Committee has stressed that its priority is to complete the verification and counting procedures accurately while maintaining the confidentiality and integrity of the voting process.

The updated figures expected Thursday evening should provide a clearer picture of the final balance between the parties, although the formal election certification process will continue afterward.

The official results are scheduled to be presented to President Isaac Herzog on November 4, after which he will begin consultations with the parliamentary factions to determine which lawmaker should receive the first opportunity to form a government.

For Shas, United Torah Judaism, and several other parties awaiting the final allocation of mandates, Thursday’s count could determine whether their current seat totals remain intact or change in the closing stage of the election.

In addition to soldiers and displaced residents, the double-envelope system is used by diplomats serving overseas, prisoners, hospital patients, certain medical personnel, and voters with disabilities who use specially designated accessible polling stations. These categories account for hundreds of thousands of ballots that must undergo individual verification before being added to the nationwide count.

The size of the remaining vote is substantial. With approximately 40,000 votes representing the equivalent of one Knesset seat under the current electoral calculations, the outstanding ballots amount to roughly 11 to 12 seats’ worth of votes. Those seats are not allocated separately, but the additional ballots can change the nationwide proportions used to distribute mandates among the parties.

Historically, votes cast through the double-envelope system have tended to favor parties with greater support among soldiers and other voters who use special polling arrangements. Chareidi and Arab parties have generally received a smaller proportion of these votes than they receive from the electorate as a whole, making the final count especially consequential for their seat allocations.

The 2022 election demonstrated the potential impact. United Torah Judaism initially appeared positioned to secure eight mandates, but the inclusion of the double-envelope ballots reduced its final representation to seven. At the same time, Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu gained a seat, increasing its representation from five to six.

The Central Elections Committee has also arranged for the counting process to be broadcast through news feeds and its official YouTube channel, providing public access to the proceedings as the remaining ballots are processed.

The results of Thursday’s count will be particularly significant given the exceptionally high turnout in Tuesday’s election, which reached approximately 77.7%, the highest participation rate in more than two decades.

With the final composition of the Knesset still unsettled, the outstanding votes represent the last major stage of the election count before Israel’s political leaders turn their attention fully to the negotiations over the next government.

{Matzav.com}