Feed aggregator

House Speaker Mike Johnson is rejecting election forecasts predicting that Democrats will capture control of the House of Representatives in next month’s midterm elections, insisting that pollsters are significantly underestimating Republican support and that enthusiasm among GOP voters points to a much stronger showing than current projections suggest.

Speaking during a televised interview Sunday, Johnson challenged polling data and political forecasts showing Democrats with an advantage in the battle for the House, arguing that the surveys fail to accurately reflect the Republican voters he has encountered while campaigning across the country.

“I’m telling you, these polls are off — all of them. They use faulty analysis,” Johnson declared.

The speaker said his confidence was based on extensive firsthand campaigning, explaining that he had traveled through 21 states and visited 39 congressional districts during the preceding three weeks. His stops included districts currently represented by Democrats that Republicans believe they have a realistic opportunity to capture on November 3.

According to Johnson, the crowds attending Republican campaign events have displayed enthusiasm reminiscent of President Donald Trump’s successful 2024 presidential campaign. He also said that when he asks attendees whether they have participated in political surveys, relatively few indicate that they have been contacted by pollsters.

Johnson offered those observations as evidence that polling organizations may be overlooking significant numbers of Republican voters, particularly those who do not routinely participate in surveys but are nevertheless motivated to turn out on Election Day.

During the interview, the program presented an election forecast assigning 219 House seats to the Democratic column, 198 to Republicans, and another 18 as competitive races that could go either way. Because a party needs 218 seats to secure a House majority, those projections would place Democrats in position to take control of the chamber.

Johnson disputed the forecast, maintaining that Republican candidates were performing considerably better on the ground than the numbers suggested. He expressed confidence that the party’s campaign efforts and legislative accomplishments would resonate with voters during the final days before the election.

The speaker said Republicans intend to make the election a referendum on the contrasting policy priorities of the two parties, emphasizing immigration enforcement, energy production, crime, taxation, and economic growth.

“It is an election we refer to as common sense versus crazy,” he said.

Johnson argued that voters face a choice between continuing the Republican agenda under President Trump and returning congressional power to Democrats, whom he portrayed as pursuing policies that would undermine the progress made by the administration and its allies in Congress.

Sunday also marked the third anniversary of Johnson’s election as speaker, a milestone he used to highlight his work on behalf of House Republicans and the party’s efforts to maintain its congressional majority.

Johnson said he had raised approximately $860 million for House Republican campaigns during his tenure as speaker, underscoring the considerable financial resources being directed toward protecting vulnerable Republican incumbents and challenging Democrats in competitive districts.

He pledged to maintain his aggressive travel schedule through Election Day, continuing to campaign for Republican candidates across the country rather than relying on polling forecasts to determine which races deserve attention.

Turning to the Republican legislative record, Johnson credited the party with strengthening border security, reducing taxes, restraining federal spending, and eliminating regulations that he said had burdened American businesses and discouraged investment.

He also pointed to efforts to expand domestic manufacturing, arguing that Republican policies had created incentives for companies to invest in American production and bring economic activity back to the United States.

Among the initiatives Johnson highlighted were investment accounts established for newborn children and a nationwide school choice program, both of which he presented as examples of Republican policies designed to provide families with greater financial opportunity and educational options.

The speaker maintained that these accomplishments should form the foundation of the party’s closing argument to voters, particularly those concerned about the economy and the financial pressures facing their households.

When questioned about continuing public dissatisfaction with economic conditions, Johnson suggested that negative media coverage had contributed to Americans’ perceptions of the economy, arguing that positive developments were not receiving sufficient attention.

At the same time, he acknowledged that many families continued to struggle with the cost of everyday necessities and that the administration and congressional Republicans still had significant work ahead of them.

“Gas prices are too high, we know that. Of course we have more work to be done,” Johnson said.

Johnson urged voters to evaluate the election based on which candidates and policies would best serve their families, arguing that Republicans should be given additional time to implement the changes they have begun since Trump returned to the White House.

“We have set the ship of state on the right course, and it has to be continued,” he said.

The speaker’s comments come as Republicans enter the final stretch of a closely watched midterm campaign in which control of Congress will determine how much legislative freedom President Trump retains during the remaining two years of his term.

A Democratic takeover of the House would give the opposition party control of congressional committees, the ability to launch investigations into the administration, and considerable influence over legislation and federal spending negotiations.

Republicans, meanwhile, are seeking to preserve their majority by defending competitive districts and winning seats currently held by Democrats, particularly in areas where Trump performed strongly in the presidential election.

With Election Day approaching, Johnson is betting that Republican turnout and the party’s campaign organization will prove more consequential than the polling averages and election models currently favoring Democrats.

Johnson’s skepticism toward the polls is not new. During a campaign stop in North Carolina earlier this month, he acknowledged that even Republican internal surveys were having difficulty reaching GOP voters, suggesting that the problem extended beyond publicly released polls.

In a separate interview last week, Johnson said he was concentrating on competitive districts that political analysts had already written off for Republicans. He maintained that the party’s turnout operation and voter enthusiasm could allow Republicans to overcome the historical difficulties faced by the president’s party in midterm elections.

Independent election analysts, however, continue to see a difficult electoral environment for Republicans. Decision Desk HQ’s October 24 forecast placed the probability of a Democratic House victory at approximately 80%, with a projected Democratic majority of 237 seats. The Cook Political Report has also shifted numerous competitive races toward Democrats during October, citing an increasingly favorable political environment for the opposition party.

Retired IDF Major General Gil Regev, a former fighter pilot who headed the military’s Personnel Directorate, has sparked controversy after declaring that he feels a greater personal connection to Palestinian Arabs than to Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, dismissing their shared Jewish identity as a meaningless basis for common ground.

Speaking with journalist Guy Peleg on the All-In podcast, Regev expressed his deep estrangement from Smotrich, a prominent figure in Israel’s religious-nationalist political camp, and argued that his experiences working alongside Palestinians had given him a sense of connection he could never imagine having with the finance minister.

When Peleg asked what he and Smotrich had in common, Regev answered bluntly, “Nothing.”

האלוף גיל רגב מרגיש שיש לו יותר דברים במשותף עם ערבים מרפיח מהשר סמוטריץ'.
למה?
עם הערבים הוא ישב לנגב חומוס ואכל איתם זיתים.
"פיתה נגעה בפיתה". pic.twitter.com/T1XDS6YS7H

— דביר לוגר (@dvirluger) October 25, 2026

Peleg then pointed out that the two men share a Jewish identity, but Regev rejected the suggestion that this created any meaningful bond between them.

“That’s nonsense. I happen to be Jewish; my mother was Jewish. Nobody checked, but I think we tell the truth,” he said.

Regev went on to explain that his perspective had been shaped by personal encounters with Palestinian Arabs over the years, including during his military career and while working on construction projects in Rafah, Sinai, and Yehuda and Shomron.

He recalled spending time alongside Palestinian workers and sharing meals with them, experiences he said had allowed him to recognize their ordinary concerns and aspirations.

“I can share a plate of hummus with a Palestinian. I’ve done that in the past,” he said, describing a period when he was involved in constructing prefabricated buildings, including work carried out on the roof of the Rafah municipal building.

According to Regev, those encounters provided opportunities for conversations that had little to do with the political and national disputes dividing Israelis and Palestinians.

“We worked in Judea and Samaria. Palestinians worked alongside us for a full day, two days, sometimes longer. We would share hummus and eat olives. In those moments, we would talk about life, not politics or the occupation, just life. They told me about their lives. I understood that they wanted to live,” he said.

Regev contrasted those experiences with his feelings toward Smotrich, insisting that the relationships he developed with Palestinian workers were more meaningful to him than any connection he might have with the Israeli minister.

“They and I had more in common than I will ever have with Smotrich. I will never have that kind of connection with him, where we sit at the same plate, pita touching pita,” he said.

The retired general reiterated his sense of alienation from Smotrich, questioning what, if anything, connected them.

“I ask myself, what do I have to do with him? Nothing. I have nothing in common with them.”

The remarks were particularly striking given Regev’s lengthy career in the IDF and his former position as one of the military’s most senior officers.

Regev served as a fighter pilot in the Israeli Air Force before rising through the military’s ranks and eventually heading the IDF Personnel Directorate, a position involving responsibility for the army’s manpower and personnel policies.

His comments reflected a profound political and cultural divide between segments of Israel’s secular establishment and the religious-nationalist community represented by Smotrich.

Rather than viewing their common Jewish background as a source of solidarity, Regev described personal experiences and shared everyday concerns as more significant in determining whom he feels connected to.

The discussion also turned to Regev’s continued residence in Israel, with Peleg questioning why he remained in the country despite his expressed alienation from certain elements of Israeli society.

Regev responded that his age, personal relationships, and established life in Israel made leaving an unrealistic prospect.

“I’m old. Where would I go? I have family and friends. I live in a bubble.”

His answer suggested that, despite his frustration with Israel’s political and social direction, he remained attached to the country through his family, friendships, and the life he had built there.

The interview comes during an especially contentious period in Israeli politics, with the country’s upcoming elections sharpening disagreements over national identity, religious values, security policy, and the relationship between secular and religious Israelis.

Smotrich, who leads the Religious Zionism party, has been a central figure in those disputes, particularly over policies concerning Yehuda and Shomron and the role of religious values in public life.

Regev’s comments placed those divisions in unusually personal terms, presenting his sense of shared humanity with Palestinian workers as stronger than the bond of Jewish identity with an Israeli political leader.

The interview was part of a nearly two-hour podcast episode released on Friday, October 23, under a title warning that Israel was collapsing and approaching the possibility of internal conflict.

During the wider discussion, Regev expressed concern about the country’s future following the elections, arguing that Israel was approaching a critical turning point and warning about the possibility of a confrontation between different segments of Israeli society.

He also discussed the controversy surrounding the judicial overhaul, the protest movement among Israeli Air Force pilots, and his concerns about the military’s handling of friendly-fire incidents and subsequent investigations.

Asked about the possibility of civil conflict, Regev clarified that he was not advocating such an outcome but warning about what he believed could happen.

Iranian authorities have announced another purported meeting involving Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, who has remained out of public view for nearly eight months, fueling continued speculation about his health, whereabouts, and whether he is personally directing the Iranian regime.

The latest announcement came Saturday night from Iran’s judiciary, which claimed that its chief, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei, had met with Khamenei to discuss government affairs and the continuing confrontation with the United States and Israel.

However, officials provided no photographs or video of the encounter and did not disclose when or where it supposedly took place. The absence of any visual confirmation has added to the questions surrounding the Iranian leader, who has not appeared publicly since assuming power in March.

According to Mizan Online, the Iranian judiciary’s official news outlet, the meeting included discussions about domestic governance, judicial responsibilities, and “securing public rights, and effectively combating corruption and its bottlenecks,”

The judiciary also reported that the two discussed “pursuing the recovery of rights and compensation for material and moral damages arising from the crimes of American-Zionist criminals,”

The reference appeared to concern Iran’s demands for compensation following the American-Israeli military campaign that began in March and resulted in the death of Khamenei’s father, longtime Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The elder Khamenei was killed alongside senior Iranian military commanders during strikes in central Tehran at the outset of the war. His son Mojtaba subsequently assumed the position of supreme leader, placing him at the head of the Islamic Republic during one of the most turbulent periods in its history.

Yet despite holding Iran’s highest political and religious office, the younger Khamenei has not delivered a televised address, participated in a publicly documented appearance, or been seen meeting government officials since taking power.

Instead, communications attributed to him have consisted of written messages and statements, including several presented as handwritten communications.

Iranian officials have repeatedly maintained that they are consulting with Khamenei, but the regime has not released footage that would independently establish his condition or current location.

The latest judiciary announcement follows similar accounts involving other senior Iranian officials.

Earlier in the week, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who has been involved in negotiations concerning the ongoing conflict, was reportedly granted a meeting with Khamenei to review “the latest developments” in the confrontation.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has likewise been reported to have met with the supreme leader on several occasions since March, including a purported meeting in early August.

As with the latest encounter, however, these reports have not been accompanied by publicly released photographs or video showing Khamenei participating in the discussions.

The pattern has prompted growing speculation about whether the Iranian leader is seriously incapacitated, being kept in a secure location because of security concerns, or no longer exercising direct control over the regime.

Some reports have gone considerably further, suggesting that Khamenei may have departed Iran or even died from injuries sustained during the war. Those claims have not been independently substantiated.

In July, the Saudi broadcaster Al Hadath reported allegations from an Israeli defense source that Khamenei was no longer inside Iranian territory.

The source further alleged that public statements attributed to the supreme leader were actually being prepared by Ahmad Vahidi and other senior officials within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

According to that account, the Revolutionary Guards were playing an increasingly dominant role in managing the regime’s affairs while internal disagreements and unrest were creating additional instability.

The allegations raised questions about whether senior military officials had assumed effective control over important decisions traditionally reserved for Iran’s supreme leader.

Iranian authorities have not provided publicly verifiable evidence supporting those claims, and the precise division of power within the regime remains unclear.

Questions about Khamenei’s physical condition first emerged shortly after the American-Israeli military operation began.

CNN reported in March that he had suffered injuries during the opening day of the conflict, including a fractured foot, wounds near his left eye, and facial lacerations.

Those reports suggested that Khamenei had survived the initial strikes but had sustained injuries serious enough to raise concerns about his ability to appear publicly or carry out his responsibilities.

Subsequent accounts offered conflicting assessments of his condition, with some suggesting that his injuries were far more severe than initially reported.

President Donald Trump addressed the uncertainty during an August interview on The Glenn Beck Program, saying that he believed Khamenei was still alive but had been badly wounded.

“I don’t think he’s dead. He was very seriously wounded,” Trump said. “The left side of his body, the arm, the leg, the whole thing, he was very seriously wounded. But I don’t think he’s dead.”

Trump also discussed the repeated announcements by Iranian officials that they were meeting with Khamenei or seeking his approval for government decisions.

The President suggested that those claims could indicate that the supreme leader remained alive, although he acknowledged that Iranian officials might also be maintaining the appearance of an active leadership structure.

“And if he is, they’re putting on a pretty good show because they talk about, you know, going back to talk to him all the time, you know, to get a final blessing on things,” the President said.

The remarks highlighted the unusual circumstances surrounding Iran’s leadership, with its highest-ranking official remaining invisible to the public while other senior figures continue to describe meetings and consultations with him.

The uncertainty carries particular significance because Iran’s supreme leader occupies the most powerful position in the country’s political system, exercising ultimate authority over the armed forces, the Revolutionary Guards, and major national security decisions.

Ordinarily, the supreme leader’s public appearances, speeches, and meetings with senior officials provide important indications of the regime’s priorities and internal political direction.

Mojtaba Khamenei’s prolonged absence has deprived outside observers of those signals, leaving intelligence agencies, regional governments, and analysts to assess his status through indirect information and official Iranian announcements.

The lack of visual confirmation has also made it difficult to determine whether decisions attributed to Khamenei are being made personally by him or through other figures within Iran’s political and military leadership.

For the Iranian regime, the question is particularly sensitive as the country continues to confront the consequences of the war, international pressure, and internal political strains.

The Revolutionary Guards remain a central pillar of the Islamic Republic’s security structure, and any uncertainty surrounding the supreme leader’s authority could have significant implications for the balance of power in Tehran.

Saturday’s announcement therefore appeared intended, at least in part, to demonstrate that Khamenei continues to participate in government affairs and remains involved in decisions concerning domestic policy and Iran’s confrontation with Israel and the United States.

But without photographs, video, or other independently verifiable evidence, the announcement has done little to resolve the mystery surrounding his prolonged disappearance.

Additional details released by Iranian state media indicate that the reported discussion with judiciary chief Mohseni Ejei went beyond the matters initially disclosed.

According to Iranian accounts, Khamenei called for extensive changes to the country’s judicial system, including faster court proceedings, stronger anti-corruption enforcement, improved supervision of government institutions, and expanded use of modern technology to administer judicial affairs.

The judiciary chief reportedly presented plans to modernize court operations, reduce administrative expenses, accelerate the handling of cases, and strengthen oversight of judicial personnel.

Khamenei was also said to have demanded greater efforts to pursue compensation from the United States and Israel for damage inflicted during the military campaign.

The latest announcement follows an earlier report that Iranian military official Ali Abdollahi, who oversaw operations at the Khatam al-Anbiya command center, had met with Khamenei. Abdollahi was subsequently appointed chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces while retaining his previous responsibilities.

Meanwhile, Iran’s political leadership continues to face pressure over the economic consequences of the conflict and the breakdown of diplomatic efforts.

President Pezeshkian said Saturday that Iran should make another attempt to reach an agreement with Washington, blaming the United States for the failure of previous negotiations.

The diplomatic impasse follows the collapse of a ceasefire arrangement mediated principally by Pakistan in June. The conflict has continued to affect regional shipping and energy supplies, with the United States maintaining restrictions on Iranian maritime trade and Tehran continuing to assert control over passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

{Matzav.com}

Former IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz sparked outrage on Sunday after comparing leading chareidi rabbonim in Eretz Yisroel to the ayatollahs who rule Iran, prompting a blistering response from United Torah Judaism MK Yaakov Asher, who accused the retired general of hypocrisy and invoked his controversial stock sale during the Second Lebanon War.

Halutz made the remarks during an appearance on the “Moshe Fabrikant Podcast,” where he discussed the leadership of the chareidi community and singled out senior rabbonim, including Maran Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch and the rabbonim of Shas.

In a sweeping attack on the country’s religious leadership, Halutz declared that he saw no meaningful distinction between the rabbonim of Eretz Yisroel and the clerics who preside over the Iranian regime.

“I see no difference between the ayatollahs in Iran and the rabbis in Israel.”

Halutz went further, specifically mentioning Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch and questioning whether the distinctions between Ashkenazic and Sephardic rabbinic leadership made any difference in his comparison.

“Is Rabbi Hirsch any better because he speaks Yiddish? Are the rabbis of Shas any better? In Iran, there is no Sephardic ayatollah and Ashkenazi ayatollah. There is just one.”

The remarks immediately drew condemnation from MK Yaakov Asher, chairman of United Torah Judaism, who responded by recalling a controversy that has followed Halutz since his tenure as the IDF’s chief of staff.

Asher pointed to Halutz’s decision to sell his investment portfolio on July 12, 2006, the day the Second Lebanon War erupted, as Israeli soldiers were being mobilized for a conflict that would ultimately claim numerous lives.

Addressing Halutz directly, Asher wrote:

“Take off your shoes! A despicable man like you, who, while serving as IDF Chief of Staff, just minutes before sending soldiers into the Second Lebanon War, some of whom sadly never returned alive, was concerned at those fateful moments with nothing more than calling the bank to sell your stocks,”

Asher’s response drew on the public controversy surrounding Halutz’s financial transactions at the beginning of the 2006 war, when it emerged that the then-chief of staff had instructed his bank to sell shares from his personal investment portfolio.

The disclosure generated widespread criticism at the time, with critics questioning the judgment of a military commander attending to personal financial matters as Israel entered a major military confrontation.

Halutz maintained that the transaction was unrelated to the outbreak of hostilities and denied acting improperly. Nevertheless, the incident became one of the controversies associated with his leadership during the war.

Asher invoked that episode to challenge Halutz’s standing to criticize the country’s rabbinic leadership, arguing that the former military chief’s conduct made his latest remarks particularly objectionable.

Concluding his response, Asher turned Halutz’s own comparison with Iran against him.

“Such depravity may not even exist at the headquarters of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.”

The comments were made during a lengthy interview released on October 21, in which Halutz, who served as the IDF’s 18th chief of staff, discussed Israel’s political and security situation, Iran, Gaza, and other controversial issues.

Halutz, who previously commanded the Israeli Air Force, headed the military during the 2006 Lebanon war. His handling of that conflict generated widespread criticism, ultimately contributing to his resignation in January 2007.

The stock transaction cited by Asher was reported by the Israeli press in August 2006. According to reports at the time, Halutz instructed Bank Leumi to sell an investment portfolio worth approximately 120,000 shekels on July 12, the day Hezbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers and fighting erupted along Israel’s northern border.

The disclosure provoked anger among politicians and military officers, who questioned why the country’s highest-ranking military commander had been attending to his personal investments during the opening hours of a major military crisis.

Halutz acknowledged the sale but insisted that it was unrelated to the war and denied any improper conduct. The Israel Securities Authority indicated at the time that the transaction did not constitute a violation of securities law.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu delivered a stark warning to Iran and its regional proxies on Sunday, declaring that Israel would unleash an overwhelming military response if Tehran or its allies attempted to attack the country in an effort to interfere with the upcoming Israeli elections.

The warning came during Netanyahu’s visit to an Arrow missile defense battery, where he disclosed that Israeli intelligence had detected indications of possible enemy plans to carry out attacks intended to disrupt the electoral process.

Standing alongside one of Israel’s principal defenses against long-range ballistic missiles, Netanyahu stressed that the military was prepared both to intercept incoming threats and to launch offensive operations against those responsible.

“I’m here at one of our Arrow batteries. The IDF is prepared on both defense and in offense,” Netanyahu said.

The prime minister then publicly addressed the intelligence concerns that had prompted his warning, identifying Iran and its allied organizations as potential sources of attacks ahead of the elections.

“We have intelligence indications that our enemies, Iran and its proxies, may try to challenge us with attacks in order to disrupt the elections.”

Netanyahu made clear that Israel would regard any such action as a serious escalation and would respond with military force far exceeding what its adversaries might anticipate.

“And I warn them: Do not test us. You will suffer blows of a magnitude far beyond proportion, far beyond what you imagine. It will be a decisive blow against you. Make no mistake about us. Do not test us.”

The remarks amounted to an unusually explicit warning that Israel was preparing for the possibility of an Iranian-directed escalation during a particularly sensitive period for the country.

By choosing to deliver the statement at an operational Arrow battery, Netanyahu underscored the importance of Israel’s missile defense capabilities in confronting threats from Iran and other hostile forces.

The Arrow system forms a central component of Israel’s multilayered air defense network and is designed primarily to intercept ballistic missiles, including long-range projectiles that could be launched from Iranian territory.

Netanyahu’s appearance at the battery also served to emphasize that Israeli defense preparations encompass both protective measures against incoming attacks and the ability to strike back at their sources.

The prime minister did not disclose the specific intelligence underlying the warning, identify a particular planned operation, or indicate whether Israeli officials believed an attack was imminent.

His statement nevertheless suggested that security authorities were taking seriously the possibility that Iran or its proxies could attempt to influence events inside Israel through military action as voters prepare to head to the polls.

The warning comes amid longstanding tensions between Israel and Iran, whose regional allies have repeatedly threatened Israeli territory and whose ballistic missile capabilities remain a central concern for Israeli defense planners.

The possibility of attacks timed to coincide with elections adds another dimension to those security concerns, raising the prospect of hostile forces attempting to interfere with the democratic process by creating a major security emergency.

Netanyahu’s message was directed not only at Tehran but also at the organizations operating under Iranian sponsorship or influence throughout the region.

His insistence that Israel was prepared for both defensive and offensive action signaled that any attempted strike could trigger retaliation against the forces responsible.

The prime minister offered no indication that Israel intended to alter the election schedule or that the government had made any decision to take preemptive military action.

For now, his message was one of deterrence, warning Iran and its allies that an attempt to exploit the election period would be met with a decisive Israeli response.

Netanyahu has issued similar warnings several times in recent weeks. In a September 29 appearance at the Tel Nof air base, he cautioned that Israel’s enemies might attempt attacks ahead of the vote. He subsequently identified Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas as potential sources of such an escalation.

In an October 13 interview with Channel 14, Netanyahu said Tehran was seeking to influence the election either through a direct attack or through one of its regional proxies. He also raised the possibility of terrorist activity in Yehuda and Shomron.

Israeli election officials have reportedly examined contingency plans for an attack on October 27, including the possibility of Iranian missile fire as polling stations open. Central Elections Committee Chairman Justice Noam Sohlberg has held discussions about the threat and its potential consequences for voting.

The prime minister’s warnings have also generated political controversy. Opposition leader Yair Lapid has questioned whether the intelligence justifies the public alarm and accused Netanyahu of using the possibility of war to influence the election campaign.

Israeli security forces thwarted a suspected terrorist attack in the Binyamin region of Yehuda and Shomron on Sunday, apprehending a suspect just 30 minutes after receiving intelligence indicating that he was preparing to carry out an attack, believed to have been planned for Route 60.

The rapid operation was conducted jointly by the IDF and Shin Bet, with soldiers from the Binyamin Regional Brigade establishing emergency checkpoints after intelligence officials identified an individual suspected of planning an imminent attack.

According to the military and Shin Bet, security personnel received specific information concerning the suspect’s identity and his alleged intention to carry out an attack along a major roadway in the area.

Acting immediately on the intelligence, IDF troops established checkpoints along routes the suspect was believed likely to use, positioning soldiers to intercept him before he could reach his intended destination.

Within approximately half an hour of the initial warning, soldiers located the suspect at one of the checkpoints and took him into custody.

No weapons were discovered in his possession during the arrest. Nevertheless, security officials said the suspect had expressed an intention to commit an attack, prompting his detention and transfer for further interrogation.

Defense officials believe the intended target was Route 60, a major north-south highway running through Yehuda and Shomron that serves as an important transportation artery for residents throughout the region.

The arrest prevented the suspected plot from progressing further, although authorities have not publicly disclosed the precise nature of the attack the individual allegedly intended to carry out.

Binyamin Regional Council Chairman Israel Ganz, who also heads the Yesha Council, praised the intelligence work and rapid military response, saying the coordination between the Shin Bet and IDF had potentially prevented a deadly incident.

“The Shin Bet’s precise intelligence and the swift action of IDF soldiers prevented a terrorist attack that could have claimed lives.”

Ganz said the incident came amid a troubling period of heightened terrorist activity throughout Yehuda and Shomron, warning that the threat extends well beyond the location of Sunday’s arrest.

“Over the past month, a series of serious terrorist attacks have taken place in Judea and Samaria, some of which claimed lives, and there are terrorists who have yet to be apprehended. This alarming series of incidents requires expanding the offensive operations launched in Hebron following the attack at the Judea Junction to all of Judea and Samaria, and targeting terrorists and terrorist infrastructure before the next attack.”

His remarks referred to recent security operations in the Chevron area following an attack at the Yehuda Junction, which prompted renewed military efforts against terrorist suspects and infrastructure.

Ganz urged security officials to broaden those operations across Yehuda and Shomron, arguing that the recent attacks demonstrated the need for more extensive preventive action.

He also expressed appreciation to senior defense officials and the soldiers involved in protecting communities throughout the region.

“I thank Shin Bet Director David Zini, IDF Central Command Commander Avi Bluth, Judea and Samaria Division Commander Kobi Heller, Binyamin Regional Brigade Commander Anan Fares, and all the heroic soldiers for their determined efforts to save lives. They work day and night to ensure the security of our residents, and we encourage them to continue and intensify the campaign against terrorism.”

The suspect remains in the custody of security authorities for questioning as investigators seek to determine the full circumstances of the alleged plot, including whether other individuals were involved.

The attempted attack comes amid heightened security concerns following a deadly shooting near the Yehuda Junction in the Chevron area on Friday, in which two Israeli soldiers, Staff Sergeant Ron Yonatan Roytman and Sergeant Yuval Shai Svilem, were killed and three others were lightly wounded.

On Sunday, the IDF announced that troops had sealed the homes of the two terrorists responsible for that shooting in preparation for their demolition. Both attackers were killed during the confrontation.

Israeli forces also conducted overnight operations in Chevron, with soldiers from the Paratroopers Brigade and Maglan Unit arresting 12 suspects. Weapons and illegal vehicles were seized during the operations.

In a separate operation earlier this month, Israeli security forces demolished the home of the terrorist responsible for the September 21 murder of Netanel Shukrun near Neve Tzuf in the Binyamin region. That operation was accompanied by raids targeting wanted suspects, terrorist infrastructure, and incitement throughout Yehuda and Shomron.

Against that backdrop, Sunday’s arrest underscored the importance of intelligence-led operations aimed at stopping attacks before they occur. Israeli authorities have not released the suspect’s identity or indicated whether he was acting independently or in coordination with a terrorist organization.

{Matzav.com}

A peculiar phenomenon at gatherings attended by Gedolei Yisroel is attracting attention in the chareidi community, as individuals compete for the opportunity to stand directly behind prominent rabbonim, sometimes resulting in pushing, arguments, and embarrassing scenes in full view of the public.

With Israel’s election campaign bringing large gatherings of Gedolei Yisroel to cities across the country, photographs and videos have repeatedly captured crowds of attendants, assistants, and other individuals jostling for position behind the rabbonim seated at the dais.

A report by Israeli journalist Moshe Birnbaum examined the phenomenon, raising an uncomfortable question: Why are so many people determined to be photographed standing behind a prominent rav, even when doing so creates disorder and detracts from the dignity of the occasion?

One particularly striking example occurred this past Av, when Gedolei Yisroel, admorim, and rabbonim gathered outside Military Prison 10 on a Thursday evening to protest the imprisonment of yeshiva bochurim arrested over their military draft status.

The gathering followed an earlier assembly of roshei yeshiva and was intended to express the chareidi community’s opposition to the arrest and imprisonment of individuals whose lives are devoted to Torah learning.

The event featured tefillos, impassioned addresses, and calls for the release of the imprisoned bnei Torah.

However, an entirely different scene unfolding near the dais attracted considerable attention.

Because numerous rabbonim had arrived accompanied by groups of attendants, gabbaim, and assistants, the area around the mizrach table became overcrowded. Individuals pushed and squeezed past one another in an effort to secure positions near the Gedolim, creating a scene that organizers apparently felt was inappropriate for the occasion.

Eventually, the master of ceremonies made an unusual announcement over the public-address system.

“One mashbak for each Gadol!”

The announcement, limiting each Gadol to a single personal attendant in the immediate area, was intended to relieve the congestion and preserve the dignity of the gathering.

The incident has become emblematic of a broader phenomenon that is increasingly visible at major chareidi events.

Throughout the current election campaign, photographs from political assemblies and gatherings attended by leading rabbonim show individuals crowded behind the dais, with some apparently determined to ensure that they appear in photographs and video footage alongside the Gedolei Yisroel.

According to the report, the space directly behind the rabbonim has effectively become an unofficial VIP area, with access to that location perceived by some as a reflection of personal importance and influence.

The moment an event begins, the area behind the Gedolim becomes highly sought after, even though only a limited number of people can reasonably be accommodated there.

Birnbaum observed that the phenomenon is particularly noticeable at chareidi gatherings, where proximity to prominent rabbonim can carry considerable social significance.

At ordinary political conventions, he noted, it is uncommon to see crowds of people struggling to position themselves immediately behind party leaders for the duration of an event.

The report offered a somewhat humorous breakdown of the unofficial hierarchy that can be observed at major chareidi gatherings.

At the lowest level are the ordinary attendees, who occupy the general seating area, from the back of the hall to the rows closer to the stage. These are generally people who have come simply to participate in the gathering.

The next category consists of more prominent attendees, who are seated in the front rows, sometimes in chairs bearing reserved signs. Their placement reflects a measure of recognition or honor, although they remain part of the audience.

Above them are what the report describes as second-tier VIPs, individuals who do not sit with the general public but stand along the sides of the stage, often behind security barriers. This group frequently includes assistants to rabbonim and other figures regarded as important enough to be granted access to restricted areas.

Finally come the first-tier VIPs: those who manage to stand directly behind the Gedolei Yisroel on the dais itself.

These individuals occupy the most visible positions apart from the rabbonim seated at the table, and their presence is prominently recorded in the photographs and videos distributed following the gathering.

But why does that particular location hold such appeal?

The report explored several possible explanations drawn from social psychology, particularly research concerning people’s desire to associate themselves with celebrities and other prominent personalities.

One concept discussed was “basking in reflected glory,” a psychological phenomenon in which individuals seek to associate themselves with the accomplishments, prestige, or public standing of others.

According to this explanation, standing close to an admired or influential figure can create the impression of a special relationship, allowing an individual to benefit socially from the prominence of the person beside whom he appears.

In the chareidi community, the report suggested, this dynamic can be especially pronounced because of the importance attached to being considered a mekurav, someone who enjoys personal access to a prominent rav or communal leader.

A person photographed directly behind a Gadol may be perceived as belonging to the rav’s inner circle, even when the photograph itself does not establish any such relationship.

The appearance of closeness can create an impression of influence, particularly in communities where access to leading rabbonim is highly valued.

The report also pointed to the growing influence of digital media in reinforcing the phenomenon.

In earlier years, photographs from major gatherings might have appeared in newspapers days later. Today, images and videos are distributed almost immediately through news websites, messaging groups, and social media.

As a result, an individual who manages to stand behind a prominent rav may find his face appearing in photographs viewed by thousands of people within minutes.

For some, the report suggested, this offers an opportunity for public recognition without having to deliver an address, hold an official position, or otherwise play a significant role in the gathering.

The phenomenon raises questions about the distinction between genuine service to Gedolei Yisroel and the desire to be publicly identified with them.

Personal attendants and gabbaim frequently perform essential responsibilities, helping elderly rabbonim navigate crowded venues, coordinating their schedules, and ensuring that they can participate in public gatherings without unnecessary difficulty.

The report’s criticism, however, focused on the excessive number of individuals attempting to occupy the same limited space, particularly when the competition results in pushing, arguments, or disorder.

The incident outside Military Prison 10 illustrated how the situation can reach a point where organizers must intervene publicly to restore order.

The instruction that only one mashbak accompany each Gadol was a practical response to the overcrowding, but it also highlighted the unusual extent to which individuals had gathered behind the rabbonim.

As election gatherings continue across Eretz Yisroel, the report suggests that the competition for positions behind the dais is unlikely to disappear.

For all the speeches, declarations, and political messages delivered at these events, the photographs sometimes tell another story altogether: a crowd of individuals determined to be seen standing as close as possible to the Gedolei Yisroel, even when the resulting spectacle threatens to overshadow the dignity of the gathering itself.

{Matzav.com}

Dear Matzav Inbox,

I would like to raise an issue that is causing tremendous frustration for families with boys in mesivta, and one that could have been avoided with a little communication and coordination between the yeshivos.

I am referring to the off-Shabbos arrangements for Chanukah this year.

For quite some time, the understanding was that many mesivtos would be giving off the first Friday, Shabbos, and Sunday of Chanukah. This made perfect sense. Chanukah is a time when families get together, when grandparents host Chanukah parties, when cousins see one another, and when parents look forward to having their sons home from yeshiva. Having those three days off gives families an opportunity to spend some meaningful time together without interfering too much with the yeshiva schedule.

Naturally, families began making plans accordingly. Chanukah parties were scheduled, relatives were invited, and arrangements were made around the assumption that the boys would be home that first weekend.

But now, apparently, some mesivtos have decided to announce that they will instead be giving off the second Sunday (a day, by the way, that isn’t even Chanukah anymore).

I am not here to debate the merits of one schedule versus another, although I certainly find it difficult to understand the logic of giving boys off on a Sunday after Chanukah instead of during Chanukah itself. My bigger question is: Where is the coordination?

How is it possible that we have so many mesivtos serving the same families and communities, yet nobody seems to have made sure that they are all on the same page?

Does anyone realize what this does to a family with two or three boys in different yeshivos? One son is home the first weekend, another is in yeshiva, and a third might be coming home the following Sunday. When exactly is the family supposed to get together?

And what about the extended family? A grandmother plans her annual Chanukah party for the first Sunday because that is when she was told the boys would be home. She coordinates with her children and grandchildren, perhaps dozens of people coming from different places. Then, suddenly, a few mesivtos announce a different schedule, and half the teenage grandsons won’t be there.

Are the grandparents supposed to move the party? Many people already rented halls and venues. Are all the aunts, uncles, and cousins supposed to rearrange their plans? And if they do, what happens to the boys whose yeshivos are following the original schedule?

The whole thing becomes a logistical nightmare.

And the frustrating part is that none of this was necessary. We are talking about a handful of days on the calendar. Surely, the mesivtos could have communicated with one another before finalizing their schedules. Surely, there could have been some discussion among the menahelim to establish a common arrangement, or at least a general understanding that would allow families to plan.

There is tremendous value in a bochur sitting at his grandparents’ Chanukah party, seeing his cousins, singing together, and participating in the family atmosphere. These gatherings are part of what makes Chanukah so special. They create memories and strengthen family relationships. They should not become casualties of unnecessary scheduling confusion.

I also wonder whether the people making these decisions fully appreciate how complicated family schedules have become. Years ago, perhaps it was simpler. Today, families often have children in several different yeshivos and schools, each with its own calendar. Coordinating a family gathering is difficult enough when everyone knows the schedule months in advance. When the schedules don’t match, it becomes almost impossible.

And what makes this particularly aggravating is the timing. If the mesivtos had coordinated from the beginning and announced a uniform schedule, families would have adjusted. Instead, people are discovering that the arrangements they thought they could rely on are not necessarily going to work.

I understand that every yeshiva has its own considerations, and I am sure the decisions were made with good intentions. But good intentions do not eliminate the need to consider how those decisions affect the families who depend on these institutions.

At this point, much of the damage may already be done for this year. Families will have to scramble, adjust their plans, and accept that some of their sons or grandsons may miss gatherings that were arranged specifically so everyone could be together.

But I hope the hanhalos of our mesivtos will take this issue seriously and establish a system of communication for the future. A little coordination before the calendars are announced would spare thousands of families a great deal of unnecessary aggravation.

Chanukah comes only once a year. Families should be able to look forward to celebrating it together without having to navigate a different vacation schedule for every son in yeshiva.

Is that really too much to ask?

Sincerely,

A Frustrated Mesivta Parent

To submit a letter to appear on Matzav.com, email MatzavInbox@gmail.com

DON’T MISS OUT! Join the Matzav Status by CLICKING HERE. Join the Matzav WhatsApp Groups by CLICKING HERE.

The opinions expressed in letters on Matzav.com do not necessarily reflect the stance of the Matzav Media Network.

It is with great sadness that Matzav.com reports the petirah of Rav Mordechai Galei zt”l, one of Eretz Yisroel’s most distinguished authorities in shechitah and bedikah, whose expertise and exceptional yiras Shomayim earned him the trust of generations of Gedolei Yisroel. Rav Galei was niftar early Sunday morning at Mayanei Hayeshua Medical Center in Bnei Brak following a prolonged illness. He was 75 years old.

For decades, Rav Galei was regarded as one of the foremost experts in the intricate halachos of shechitah, serving in senior positions within the Badatz Shearis Yisroel kashrus organization and overseeing its shechitah operations. His reputation for meticulous adherence to halachah made him a particularly trusted figure among Gedolei Yisroel, many of whom specifically sought meat from his shechitah and bedikah.

He was a brother of the renowned posek and mashpiah Rav Shimon Galei.

Rav Galei was born in Haifa on 11 Kislev 5711 to his father, Rav Shalom Galei zt”l, who had been a talmid of the Chofetz Chaim, and his mother, Mrs. Esther Ita Galei a”h.

Growing up in a home steeped in Torah and yiras Shomayim, he developed a lifelong dedication to Torah learning and scrupulous observance of halachah.

In his younger years, Rav Galei learned at Yeshivas Beis Meir in Bnei Brak, where he studied under the rosh yeshiva, Rav Zalman Rotberg zt”l. During those formative years, he established the foundations of the deep Torah knowledge and exacting standards that would later distinguish his work in shechitah and kashrus.

Upon reaching marriageable age, he married his wife, a member of the Abeles family of Be’er Yaakov. The couple subsequently established their home in Bnei Brak, where Rav Galei became a respected resident of the Ramat Elchanan neighborhood.

He maintained a particularly close relationship with the neighborhood’s rav, Hagaon Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein, and was known among local residents for his dedication to Torah and his expertise in the demanding responsibilities of shechitah.

Over the years, Rav Galei emerged as one of the most respected shochtim and bodkim in Eretz Yisroel. His responsibilities extended well beyond performing shechitah itself. He was recognized as an authority on the examination of chalafim, the specialized knives used for shechitah, an area requiring extraordinary precision and familiarity with the relevant halachos.

Among the Gedolei Yisroel who placed exceptional confidence in him was Rav Chaim Kanievsky zt”l, who relied heavily on Rav Galei’s expertise and trusted his shechitah.

His standing among Gedolei Yisroel was such that numerous leading rabbonim insisted that the meat served at their tables come specifically from animals slaughtered and examined under his supervision.

For many years, Rav Galei occupied senior positions within Badatz Shearis Yisroel, including overseeing its shechitah operations and supervising the work of shochtim and bodkim.

His responsibilities involved maintaining the stringent standards of the hechsher, examining the work of those entrusted with shechitah, and ensuring that the many details of the process were carried out in strict accordance with halachah.

Beyond his work with Shearis Yisroel, Rav Galei devoted considerable effort to preparing and examining future generations of shochtim and bodkim.

For extended periods, he was responsible for administering examinations to shochtim preparing to work overseas, helping ensure that those entrusted with providing kosher meat to Jewish communities around the world possessed the necessary knowledge, skill, and yiras Shomayim.

He was known for refusing to compromise on even the smallest detail when evaluating candidates, understanding the enormous responsibility involved in determining whether someone was qualified to perform shechitah for the public.

In recent years, Rav Galei endured considerable personal suffering. During the past year, he was diagnosed with a serious illness, and his condition gradually deteriorated.

Despite the physical difficulties associated with his illness, he continued his work in shechitah and the examination of shochtim for as long as he was physically able.

His extraordinary dedication was evident as recently as last week, when, despite his weakened condition and severe suffering, he left his sickbed and traveled to Haifa to personally oversee examinations for prospective shochtim.

According to accounts of the incident, even his physicians were astonished that he was able to undertake the journey and fulfill his responsibilities under such difficult circumstances.

In the final days of his life, Rav Galei’s medical condition worsened considerably, and numerous Gedolei Yisroel visited him at his bedside at Mayanei Hayeshua Hospital.

His brother, Rav Shimon Galei, remained near him during his final hours. Rav Shimon spent time at his brother’s bedside over Shabbos, offering tefillos for his recovery.

Rav Mordechai was niftar shortly after Shabbos, leaving his family, talmidim, colleagues, and the wider kashrus community in mourning.

The family’s grief was compounded by the fact that Rav Galei had suffered the devastating loss of his son, R’ Yechiel Yehoshua Galei z”l, approximately one year earlier. Yechiel Yehoshua, who was 42 at the time of his petirah, had endured severe suffering since childhood and was remembered as a pure and righteous individual who bore his difficulties with remarkable strength.

The Galei family had previously suffered another loss with the petirah of Rav Mordechai’s brother, Rav Yaakov Moshe Galei zt”l, in 5781. Rav Yaakov Moshe, who was 73 at the time of his petirah, had devoted himself to strengthening Torah life in Kiryat Ata and was remembered for his efforts to establish and support Torah institutions in the community.

Rav Galei leaves behind his wife, sons and daughters, sons-in-law, grandchildren, and other descendants, as well as his brother, Rav Shimon Galei.

His levayah was held Sunday morning at his home at 11 Avnei Nezer Street in Bnei Brak’s Ramat Elchanan neighborhood, with kevurah in Elad.

Yehi zichro boruch.

{Matzav.com}

A Father’s Day message posted by Rep. Ilhan Omar more than a decade ago and subsequently deleted has resurfaced amid a federal investigation into the Minnesota Democrat’s immigration and identity records, reviving longstanding allegations that she married her brother in 2009.

The controversy centers on a June 2013 social media post in which Omar referred to her father by a name resembling that of her former husband, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi. The apparent similarity has drawn renewed attention following an October 12 federal search of the congresswoman’s Washington, D.C., residence and the emergence of a court document identifying her under a disputed alternative name.

The New York Post reported Saturday that the deleted message, preserved in an online archive, referred to Omar’s father as “Nur Said,” a name that also appears in her former husband’s full name.

“Happy Father’s Day to my aabo Nur Said, I am forever grateful to Allah for giving me the best father …,” Omar wrote in June 2013, according to the archived post.

The message was reportedly removed from her account on September 19, 2019, several years after it was published. Fox News previously reported on the deletion, while the Daily Caller had drawn attention to the message in 2019.

The significance of the post is being debated because other public records identify Omar’s late father as Nur Omar Mohamed. Among those records is a 2020 memorial statement issued by the Congressional Black Caucus following his death.

Critics have pointed to the difference between the names, arguing that Omar’s reference to her father as “Nur Said” warrants further examination because her former husband’s name is Ahmed Nur Said Elmi.

However, the similarity does not independently establish that the two men were related. Somali naming conventions commonly incorporate the given names of a person’s father and paternal grandfather, and individuals may also be known by different names or nicknames.

The controversy dates back years, with allegations that Omar married Elmi, purportedly her brother, in 2009 to help him obtain legal immigration status in the United States.

Omar has consistently denied that Elmi is her brother, and the allegation has not been established as fact.

The renewed scrutiny follows a federal investigation examining whether false information may have been submitted in connection with Omar’s immigration or naturalization records.

Federal agents searched her Washington residence on October 12, an operation that attracted considerable attention because of the allegations surrounding her past marriage and identity documents.

A subsequent filing in federal court has added another element to the controversy.

According to the Post, federal prosecutors submitted a motion Wednesday seeking to prevent the public release of the search warrant associated with the investigation.

The filing identified the congresswoman as “Ilhan Nur Said Elmi, a/k/a Ilhan Abdullahi Omar.”

The designation has prompted questions about whether investigators are examining an alternative identity allegedly associated with Omar.

The document, however, does not explain why that name was included, nor does its appearance establish that the congresswoman used a fraudulent identity.

Two individuals familiar with the investigation reportedly told Fox News Digital that “Ilhan Nur Said Elmi” could be Omar’s legal name, an assertion disputed by her office.

When questioned Friday, Omar insisted that her “real name” is “Ilhan Abdullahi Omar” and rejected the suggestion that the alternative name accurately identifies her.

The disagreement has focused additional attention on the naming conventions used in Somalia, where a person’s name traditionally reflects paternal ancestry rather than the inherited family surnames common in the United States.

A previously circulated statement attributed to an Omar spokesperson offered another explanation for the 2013 message, claiming that “Nur Said” had been her father’s childhood nickname.

That explanation has resurfaced alongside the archived tweet, although the Post described the statement as allegedly attributed to her spokesperson rather than independently establishing its authenticity.

Omar’s office has forcefully rejected the renewed allegations.

In a statement provided to Fox News Digital on Thursday, a spokeswoman characterized the accusations as a “baseless, disgusting conspiracy theory.”

The spokeswoman also addressed the removal of the Father’s Day message, saying Omar deleted the post because she and members of her family had received threats.

The congresswoman herself discussed the accusations during a recent appearance on MS Now with host Chris Hayes.

During the interview, Omar dismissed the suggestion that she had married her brother as “insane.”

Hayes then pressed her on whether there might be any factual basis for the longstanding claims, asking if there was a “weird kernel of truth” to the allegations.

“Not to my knowledge,” Omar replied.

The response attracted attention because critics interpreted the wording as less categorical than an outright denial of any possible family connection.

Omar and her representatives, however, have repeatedly denied the central accusation that her former husband is her brother.

Omar came to the United States from Somalia as a refugee in 1995 and subsequently established herself in Minnesota politics before winning election to Congress.

Her marriage history has been the subject of public scrutiny for years.

She married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi in 2009, later divorcing him in 2017. She subsequently legally married Ahmed Hirsi in 2018.

Questions surrounding the earlier marriage have periodically resurfaced in political disputes, but the allegations concerning a purported sibling relationship have never been conclusively substantiated.

The current federal investigation has brought renewed attention to those claims because investigators are reportedly examining matters involving identity and immigration documentation.

The search of Omar’s residence and the court filing containing the disputed name have intensified scrutiny of records that previously received attention during earlier controversies.

Nevertheless, the precise scope of the investigation remains unclear, and the publicly described court documents do not establish that Omar committed immigration fraud or that her former husband was a relative.

The congresswoman has maintained that the allegations are false and politically motivated, while critics continue to demand a fuller accounting of her marriage history and identity records.

The archived Father’s Day message has now become a central part of that renewed debate, with attention focused on the name “Nur Said,” its connection to Omar’s late father, and its similarity to the name of her former husband.

For now, the questions raised by the deleted post remain unresolved. The existence of the message and the disputed federal filing has generated renewed scrutiny, but neither independently proves the longstanding allegation that Omar married her brother.

Additional details have emerged concerning the federal search of Omar’s Washington residence, which was carried out by approximately 25 Homeland Security Investigations agents on October 12.

During an interview with Chris Hayes, Omar said the search lasted roughly five hours and that agents removed 17 items, including telephones belonging to family members, notebooks, a camera, and a Somali language-learning book.

She also said agents presented her with a document concerning the constitutional protections afforded to members of Congress, which she declined to sign.

Omar has described the investigation as an attempt to intimidate her politically and said that threats against her family have become so serious that she intends to move from her Washington home.

Meanwhile, the federal government has sought to keep the underlying search warrant materials sealed. In a motion filed Wednesday, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro argued that investigators had not completed their work under the warrant and that releasing the documents prematurely could interfere with the investigation.

President Donald Trump unleashed a blistering attack on Barack Obama early Sunday morning, accusing him of campaigning for a Democratic Senate candidate whom Trump described as a “Muslim Brotherhood Jihadist” who hates Jews, Black Americans, and the United States. The president also denounced Obama’s record on Iran, ridiculed his past political endorsements, and urged Michigan voters to support Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers.

The extraordinary broadside, posted on Truth Social following Obama’s Saturday campaign appearance in Detroit, centered on Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed, a Muslim physician and former Detroit health director who is running against Rogers for the Senate seat being vacated by retiring Democrat Gary Peters.

Trump opened his statement with a sweeping condemnation of Obama’s presidency, particularly his administration’s handling of Iran and the 2015 nuclear agreement.

“Obama was a grossly incompetent President!” Trump wrote.

“He paid off Iran with $Billions, and gave them a road to a Nuclear Weapon,” the president continued, referring to the nuclear agreement negotiated during Obama’s administration and the billions of dollars in Iranian assets that became accessible following the lifting of sanctions.

Trump, who withdrew the United States from the agreement during his first administration, has repeatedly accused Obama of enabling Iran’s nuclear ambitions rather than permanently eliminating the threat.

The president then turned to Obama’s record of campaigning for Democratic presidential candidates, pointing to the defeats of Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Kamala Harris in 2024.

“He said that Crooked Hillary Clinton was going to WIN, he campaigned hard for her, and she lost in all directions and ways. He then campaigned full out for Kamala, and likewise, she lost,” Trump wrote.

Trump followed those remarks with his sharpest criticism of Obama’s latest endorsement, accusing El-Sayed of extremist sympathies and hostility toward Jews and other Americans.

“Now he’s campaigning for a Muslim Brotherhood Jihadist, who hates Jews and Blacks and AMERICANS and TRUMP, and he is going to lose, also,” Trump declared.

The allegations represent an escalation of attacks that Trump and other Republicans have directed at El-Sayed throughout the Michigan Senate campaign. El-Sayed has denied having ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and publicly available evidence has not established that he belongs to the organization. Trump’s additional accusations concerning the candidate’s alleged hatred of Jews and Black Americans were not accompanied by supporting evidence.

The president also questioned El-Sayed’s professional credentials, calling him a “Fake Doctor” and alleging that he operates the worst clinic in the country.

El-Sayed is a physician and epidemiologist who previously served as Detroit’s health director. Trump’s post did not provide evidence substantiating his allegations about the candidate’s medical qualifications or professional record.

Turning to his own political history in Michigan, Trump credited his administration with reviving the state’s automotive industry, strengthening employment, and preserving important military infrastructure.

“I won Michigan, BIG, have brought back the Car Industry, the Air Force Base, and everything else. Also, more jobs than ever before,” Trump wrote.

He then returned to El-Sayed, accusing the Democratic nominee of supporting open borders and warning that additional damaging information about him would emerge before Election Day.

“Michigan doesn’t want an arrogant, Open Borders, Fake Doctor, Jihadist, whose reputation will only get worse as more information is revealed – And there’s plenty,” Trump stated.

The president concluded his message with an endorsement of the Republican nominee.

“VOTE FOR MIKE ROGERS! He will never let you down!” Trump wrote.

The post came hours after Obama appeared before thousands of supporters at Cass Technical High School in Detroit, where he campaigned for El-Sayed and other Democratic candidates ahead of the November 3 midterm elections.

More than 4,300 people attended the event, where Obama defended El-Sayed against Republican criticism and presented the Senate contest as part of a broader effort to challenge the Trump administration.

Obama praised El-Sayed’s positions on healthcare and campaign finance, arguing that the Democratic nominee would continue work begun during his own presidency.

“He’ll finish the job we started,” Obama said, referring to the Affordable Care Act.

Obama also addressed the Republican attacks on El-Sayed’s Muslim background, comparing them to allegations about his own identity and religion during his presidential campaigns.

“We have seen this movie before. I starred in it,” Obama told the audience.

“This stuff didn’t work on me. Not in Michigan, it’s not going to work for Abdul,” he added.

The former president also criticized the Trump administration’s handling of the economy and the ongoing conflict with Iran, urging Democrats to use the midterm elections to impose greater accountability on Washington.

“We got to flip that circuit breaker, bring some accountability to this government,” Obama said.

Referring to the war with Iran, Obama told the Detroit audience that El-Sayed supported bringing the conflict to an end.

“Abdul is fighting for change, real change, change that will bring an end to this war,” he said.

Trump had already taken aim at Obama’s appearance during a Saturday campaign rally in Perry, Georgia, where he mocked the former president’s ability to attract supporters.

“You know, I saw Barack Hussein Obama was in Michigan, and the place was empty,” Trump told the crowd.

Reports from the Detroit rally, however, documented thousands of attendees.

The dispute over El-Sayed’s alleged connections to the Muslim Brotherhood has become a recurring issue in the Michigan Senate campaign.

Rogers and other Republican figures have pointed to El-Sayed’s past political activities and associations, including his support for a 2012 statement concerning Egypt’s then-president Mohamed Morsi, who was affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

They have also raised questions about donations from individuals associated with Muslim advocacy organizations and public comments made years ago by members of El-Sayed’s extended family.

El-Sayed has repeatedly denied any affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood and rejected the suggestion that those associations establish extremist ties. Independent examinations of the allegations have not established that he is a member of the organization.

The Republican nominee, Mike Rogers, previously served in Congress and chaired the House Intelligence Committee. A former FBI agent, Rogers has emphasized national security, immigration enforcement, and economic policy during his campaign.

El-Sayed, meanwhile, has focused on healthcare costs, economic concerns, and opposition to the Trump administration’s policies, including its handling of the war with Iran.

The two candidates have clashed repeatedly during debates and campaign appearances, with disputes over immigration, foreign policy, Israel, and Iran becoming prominent features of the contest.

Trump has previously attacked El-Sayed using similar language, including in a Truth Social post following a recent Senate debate in which he accused the Democrat of extremism and hostility toward the United States.

El-Sayed responded at the time by accusing Trump of deliberately distorting his name and using his Muslim faith as a political weapon.

“He knows my name is Abdul. He says it every day. But he’s not just attacking me. He’s attacking all of us. He thinks so low of us. He thinks he can use my name and my faith to distract us from the suffering his policies are inflicting on us at the pump, at the grocery store, and at the doctor’s office. He thinks we don’t know any better. It’s time for change,” El-Sayed said.

President Donald Trump warned that the United States could launch additional military strikes against Iran, declaring that his administration intends to permanently eliminate Tehran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons while leaving open the possibility of reaching a negotiated agreement with the Islamic Republic.

Speaking at a campaign rally in Georgia last night, Trump portrayed the American military campaign against Iran as a sweeping success that had crippled the country’s armed forces, devastated its nuclear infrastructure, and severely weakened its leadership. Nevertheless, he stressed that Washington’s central objective remains preventing Iran from ever acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Trump: I terminated the Iran nuclear deal—luckily, just in time. We have to make sure they never have a nuclear weapon. pic.twitter.com/q3D3cJm4vU

— Acyn (@Acyn) October 25, 2026

The president also defended his earlier decision to abandon the 2015 nuclear agreement negotiated under President Barack Obama, arguing that the arrangement had failed to prevent Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons.

Trump said he had withdrawn from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) “just in time”, describing the agreement as one that “was a road to a nuclear weapon for Iran.”

Turning to the military operations conducted against Iranian targets, Trump credited American forces with destroying much of the country’s nuclear enrichment infrastructure and substantially diminishing its ability to threaten the region.

“And we obliterated Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity with Operation Midnight Hammer and Operation Epic Fury. We defeated them militarily, financially, and otherwise. And now we are ensuring that just one thing, we have to make sure that they never, ever have a nuclear weapon. And we’ll do that very easily.”

Trump went on to ridicule the state of Iran’s military and political establishment, claiming that American operations had eliminated successive levels of the regime’s leadership and left the country with few remaining military assets.

“They don’t have any airplanes, no ships, no anything, no leaders. Level one leader is gone, level two leader is gone,” he stated, before joking, “I got to stop because I got to figure out who the hell are we negotiating with.”

The president’s comments followed an earlier exchange with reporters in which he declined to disclose whether he was preparing to authorize another American attack against Iran.

Asked how close he was to ordering additional strikes, Trump dismissed the question and suggested that publicly revealing military plans would undermine any potential operation.

“Would you really think I’d tell you that? I mean, can anybody from the Wall Street Journal ask a question so stupid?” Trump replied.

Despite refusing to discuss operational details, the president acknowledged that another attack remained a possibility. At the same time, he emphasized that negotiations could still produce an agreement, although he questioned whether Tehran could be trusted to honor its commitments.

“Let me tell you, while we’re thinking about doing it, and maybe tomorrow, do you really think I’m going to tell you? If I’m going to do it, and there’s a possibility I will, there’s also a possibility we’ll have a nice, big, beautiful agreement. They want to make a deal. But the problem is, will they hold the deal?”

Trump explained that his objective extends beyond inflicting temporary damage on Iran’s nuclear facilities. He argued that any military or diplomatic solution must prevent the regime from rebuilding its nuclear weapons capabilities in the years ahead.

“Look, I could have done the B-2 bomber thing a year ago and left. The problem is, over the course of a year, a year and a half, two years, they would have somehow figured a way to make a nuclear bomb. I’ve got to make it permanent. That’s the only reason I’m doing it, as long as I’m doing it.”

The president also offered an extensive account of what he described as the destruction of Iran’s conventional military capabilities, including its fighter aircraft, naval fleet, and radar installations.

He claimed that American forces had established control over critical military infrastructure while maintaining the movement of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategically important shipping route.

“We’ve done an amazing job. Your paper wrote yesterday, two days ago, that we’re getting more oil out of the Hormuz Strait than we did before the war started. We get it out very, very strongly. Our Navy has done an incredible job. Our military has done. They have no jet fighters left. They’ve knocked out every jet fighter in Iran. They’ve knocked out every ship, 259 ships, all at the bottom of the sea…I knocked out their radar. I knocked out all of the different things. And the only thing they have going for them right now is inflation.”

Trump then pointed to Iran’s deteriorating economic conditions as further evidence of the pressure being exerted on the regime, asserting that inflation had climbed to an extraordinary level.

“They’re setting a record in inflation. Their inflation as of this morning, I just read, was 301%. So we’ve done a great job, and the question is, do we finish that, which would not be difficult, or do we make a deal with them? And that’s going to be up to them,” he said.

The president’s warnings came amid growing speculation that the administration could order another round of strikes against Iranian targets, potentially within days.

On Friday, Tom Barrack, the American ambassador to Turkey and Trump’s special envoy for Syria and Iraq, indicated that military action could occur as early as the weekend.

During an interview with Lebanese-Australian businessman and podcaster Mario Nawfal, Barrack suggested that the possibility of an imminent strike remained very real, even as the White House continued pursuing a diplomatic resolution.

“Could there be a strike this weekend? Absolutely. The president has been clear, I’m giving you American policy, the president is very clear: he’s open, and available and accessible to a deal. And we’ve been at the table for months and months and months,” Barrack said.

The comments prompted questions about whether Washington had already settled on a timetable for renewed military action.

When reporters raised Barrack’s remarks with Trump on Friday, the president appeared to distance himself from the suggestion that an attack had been scheduled.

“[Barrack] is a pretty powerful man, I guess. If that’s the case, I don’t know anything about it,” the President responded.

Later Friday, however, Trump again threatened the possibility of additional military operations during an appearance at a campaign rally in Florida.

Referring to the earlier American campaign against Iran, the president suggested that another operation could be avoided if Tehran agreed to negotiate on terms acceptable to Washington.

“We may do another little Operation Epic Fury, or they will agree. If they’re smart, they will just say, ‘Let’s get down to business.’ But I doubt they will do that because perhaps they’re not smart.

Meanwhile, a report published by The Hill revealed that the Pentagon has already developed multiple plans for renewed strikes against Iran, with some scenarios reportedly under consideration for implementation after the November 3 congressional midterm elections.

According to individuals familiar with the preparations, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which oversees American military activity throughout the Middle East, has prepared operational plans that could be activated if Trump gives the order.

One source indicated that military planners have completed proposals for additional attacks, while another confirmed that several alternatives have been developed for review by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.

The existence of multiple plans would allow the president to choose among different military responses depending on developments in negotiations and the broader regional situation.

Pentagon officials declined to confirm the details of the reported preparations, emphasizing that developing military options is a routine responsibility of the Defense Department.

A Pentagon official told The Hill that the department’s “job is to develop and present military options to the President.”

“We don’t speculate on hypothetical situations or future operations,” the official added.

The reported planning does not establish that Trump has made a final decision to launch another offensive. Military commanders routinely prepare contingency operations, and the president has repeatedly emphasized that a diplomatic agreement remains possible.

Nevertheless, his latest remarks make clear that the administration is continuing to apply military and economic pressure on Tehran while demanding assurances that Iran will never be able to develop nuclear weapons.

Trump has portrayed the damage inflicted by previous American operations as providing Washington with substantial leverage in any future negotiations. At the same time, he has argued that destroying existing facilities will accomplish little if Iran is eventually able to rebuild them.

With the November 3 elections approaching and American military planners reportedly preparing additional strike options, the administration faces a consequential decision over whether to pursue another confrontation with Iran or attempt to secure a lasting nuclear agreement.

For now, Trump is leaving both possibilities open, insisting that Iran’s leadership must decide whether to reach an agreement or face the prospect of further American military action.

Additional reporting indicates that the renewed threats come as the Iran conflict approaches its eighth month, with the economic consequences of the fighting becoming an increasingly prominent issue ahead of the November 3 elections.

The prolonged confrontation has disrupted energy markets and contributed to higher fuel prices, placing additional political pressure on the administration as Republicans seek to maintain control of Congress.

American intelligence officials have also reportedly warned of increasingly advanced Iranian plots targeting U.S. diplomats and other personnel abroad. Security concerns have prompted the State Department to reduce staffing at several diplomatic facilities in the Middle East, including locations in Saudi Arabia.

Iranian officials, meanwhile, have reportedly prepared contingency plans of their own. Two senior Iranian security officials indicated that Tehran had considered targeting undersea communications cables in the Persian Gulf in response to further American and Israeli attacks, potentially threatening regional internet connectivity, banking systems, and commercial activity.

The United States military has reportedly completed preparations for several possible new attacks against Iran, with military planners developing options that President Donald Trump could authorize following the November 3 congressional midterm elections.

According to a report published by The Hill, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which directs American military operations throughout the Middle East, has prepared a range of potential operations against the Islamic Republic as the Trump administration considers whether to launch another round of military action.

Sources familiar with the planning told the publication that the proposals are ready for consideration by senior administration officials, although no final decision has been announced.

One individual familiar with the preparations said CENTCOM has developed plans for additional strikes that could be carried out upon receiving authorization from President Trump.

A second source confirmed that military commanders have assembled several operational options for Secretary of War Pete Hegseth to review.

That source stressed that Trump has deliberately avoided committing himself to a particular course of action, preferring to retain the ability to respond to developments without eliminating any potential military option.

The Pentagon declined to discuss the specific plans but acknowledged its responsibility to provide the president with military alternatives.

A Defense Department official told The Hill that the department’s “job is to develop and present military options to the President.”

“We don’t speculate on hypothetical situations or future operations,” the official added.

CENTCOM did not provide a response when contacted by the publication for comment.

The latest disclosures come amid mounting speculation that Washington could resume military operations against Iran, potentially targeting the country’s nuclear program and other strategic infrastructure.

The possibility of renewed American strikes has gained particular attention following Hegseth’s previously undisclosed visit to Israel earlier in the week.

During the trip, the secretary met with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Monday and visited American military personnel stationed in the Middle East.

The meeting with Netanyahu had not been publicly announced beforehand, and Hegseth later acknowledged that the two had met without revealing the substance of their discussions.

Speaking with reporters Tuesday in Wisconsin, Hegseth emphasized the extensive military relationship between the United States and Israel, particularly their shared efforts to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.

“We’ve worked with the Israeli military quite a bit. That’s nothing new. We have for a long time. They have great capabilities, and we appreciate their contributions to assuring Iran never gets a nuclear weapon,” Hegseth said.

He also described Israel as “good partners.”

The secretary’s remarks came as American officials were reportedly reviewing options for another confrontation with Iran, raising questions about whether the United States and Israel could again coordinate military operations.

A separate report published Thursday by The Atlantic indicated that Trump was considering a new military offensive against Iran shortly after the November elections.

According to officials familiar with those discussions, the proposed campaign could last several days and involve attacks against Iranian nuclear installations, missile production and deployment capabilities, drone infrastructure, and energy facilities.

Such an operation would represent another significant escalation in the administration’s confrontation with Tehran.

The timing of any potential military action remains uncertain, however, with senior American officials offering differing indications about when an operation might occur.

On Friday, Tom Barrack, the U.S. ambassador to Turkey and Trump’s special envoy for Syria and Iraq, raised the possibility that American forces could launch strikes even before the weekend was over.

During an interview with Lebanese-Australian entrepreneur and podcaster Mario Nawfal, Barrack said the possibility of imminent military action could not be dismissed, while emphasizing that Trump remained prepared to pursue a diplomatic agreement with Iran.

“Could there be a strike this weekend? Absolutely. The president has been clear, I’m giving you American policy, the president is very clear: he’s open, and available and accessible to a deal. And we’ve been at the table for months and months and months,” Barrack said.

His comments drew attention because they suggested that the administration might be contemplating military action on a considerably shorter timetable than the post-election scenario described in other reports.

Asked about Barrack’s remarks during a conversation with reporters later Friday, Trump appeared to distance himself from the suggestion that an immediate strike had already been decided upon.

“[Barrack] is a pretty powerful man, I guess. If that’s the case, I don’t know anything about it,” the president responded.

Nevertheless, Trump continued to raise the possibility of another military campaign against Iran during a rally in Florida later that day.

Addressing supporters, the president referred to the possibility of repeating Operation Epic Fury, the name associated with the previous American military campaign against Iranian targets.

“We may do another little Operation Epic Fury, or they will agree. If they’re smart, they will just say, ‘Let’s get down to business.’ But I doubt they will do that because perhaps they’re not smart.

The president’s remarks underscored his administration’s continuing effort to pressure Tehran into an agreement while keeping the threat of military force on the table.

Although Trump has repeatedly emphasized his willingness to negotiate, he has also made clear that the United States is prepared to employ military power if he determines that diplomacy will not achieve Washington’s objectives.

The latest reports suggest that military commanders are preparing for that possibility by developing multiple operational scenarios rather than relying on a single proposed course of action.

When The Hill contacted the White House seeking a response to the reported strike preparations, administration officials referred the publication to Trump’s statements to reporters Friday.

The White House did not publicly confirm whether the president had reviewed or approved any of the specific military plans described by the sources.

The distinction between military contingency planning and a final presidential decision remains significant. CENTCOM routinely develops operational options for potential conflicts, and the existence of such plans does not necessarily mean that an attack has been ordered.

Additional reports indicate that American and Israeli military officials have also developed proposals for coordinated strikes, with exercises reportedly involving aircraft flying over Iraq to rehearse possible operations. The planning is said to include the possibility of a relatively brief but intensive campaign.

The Pentagon has also reportedly been strengthening its military presence in the Middle East, with three American aircraft carrier groups expected to be positioned in the region by the end of October, providing additional military options should Trump decide to resume large-scale operations.

Trump previously stated on October 8 that the United States would not launch new attacks before the November 3 elections, even as he maintained that Iran would not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons.

A young child from Netivot desperately needs life-saving surgery.

His family cannot afford the enormous medical expenses and is turning to Acheinu Bnei Yisrael for help.

Whoever saves one Jewish life is considered to have saved an entire world.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE. 

Anti-Israel demonstrators gathered outside a performance by Jewish comedian Jerry Seinfeld in Washington, D.C., on Motzoei Shabbos, confronting people waiting to enter the theater and staging a protest in which pictures of Seinfeld and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu were reportedly struck with shoes.

The demonstration took place outside The Anthem, a major entertainment venue in Washington’s Southwest Waterfront district, where Seinfeld was scheduled to perform.

Videos of the protests can’t be shared here because of profanity throughout.

According to accounts of the protest, demonstrators directed anti-Israel chants toward the venue and its patrons, targeting Seinfeld over his outspoken support for Israel. Protesters also reportedly placed photographs of the comedian and Netanyahu on the ground and struck them with their shoes, an act intended to express contempt for the two men.

The incident represents another confrontation between anti-Israel activists and Seinfeld, who has become an increasingly frequent target of protests since publicly expressing solidarity with Israel following the Hamas terrorist attacks of October 7, 2023.

Seinfeld’s appearance in Washington was part of his ongoing stand-up comedy tour. The venue had scheduled his performance for 8 p.m., with doors opening at 7:15 p.m.

The comedian’s support for Israel has made his appearances a recurring focus of anti-Israel demonstrations, with activists previously interrupting his performances and confronting him at public events.

Earlier this month, protesters disrupted Seinfeld’s October 9 performance at the Chicago Theatre, shouting accusations about Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

During that incident, Seinfeld responded to the hecklers with sarcasm, drawing laughter and applause from the audience.

When one protester accused him of racism, Seinfeld mockingly responded, “I am a racist.”

He also told a heckler, “I’m gonna find out how much your ticket was and I’m sending it to Israel,” before joking that he would keep the money instead.

The Chicago confrontation was recorded and widely circulated online, drawing renewed attention to Seinfeld’s refusal to retreat from his public support for Israel despite repeated protests.

Seinfeld traveled to Israel with his family in December 2023, just weeks after the October 7 massacre, meeting with survivors, released hostages, and families affected by the attacks.

During that visit, he toured Kibbutz Be’eri, one of the communities devastated by Hamas terrorists, and met Israelis whose lives had been profoundly affected by the massacre.

He subsequently described the trip as one of the most powerful experiences of his life.

Israeli consumers will pay more for eggs beginning November 1, 2026, after the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security announced an approximately 2.1% increase in the government-controlled prices of eggs, adding between 27 and 33 agorot to the cost of a dozen, depending on size.

The new prices, announced Thursday, October 22, represent the first adjustment to regulated egg prices since November 2025 and reflect rising production and distribution costs throughout Israel’s poultry industry.

Under the revised pricing schedule, a carton of 12 medium-sized eggs will cost a maximum of 13.40 shekels, up from 13.13 shekels, an increase of 27 agorot.

A dozen large eggs will rise from 14.24 shekels to 14.54 shekels, an increase of 30 agorot, while a carton of 12 extra-large eggs will increase from 15.48 shekels to 15.81 shekels, a rise of 33 agorot.

All prices include Israel’s value-added tax.

The Agriculture Ministry explained that the increase follows a periodic review of the expenses involved in producing and marketing eggs, from poultry farms through distributors and retailers to the final consumer.

Among the factors contributing to higher costs are increases in poultry feed prices, employee wages, energy expenses, and packaging materials.

The price adjustment is being implemented under an automatic pricing mechanism introduced in 2023, which replaced the previous system requiring the approval and signatures of both the finance and agriculture ministers for each adjustment.

Under the current arrangement, regulated egg prices are reviewed quarterly using a predetermined formula designed to reflect changes in production and distribution expenses.

The mechanism allows prices to move either upward or downward, depending on changes in the underlying costs.

A price adjustment is triggered when cumulative changes exceed 3% and at least six months have passed since the previous adjustment. Alternatively, after a full year has elapsed, an adjustment may be implemented when the cumulative change exceeds 1%.

Because the last adjustment occurred in November 2025, the latest increase falls within the annual review provisions.

Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson is facing renewed scrutiny after a video clip circulated online showing him condemning Wikipedia as an intelligence agency-controlled source of propaganda, only to recommend the online encyclopedia’s coverage of the Gaza war moments later as a credible source of information.

The apparent contradiction, which unfolded within approximately 40 seconds during an episode of The Tucker Carlson Show, has attracted attention because of Carlson’s longstanding criticism of Wikipedia and his increasingly outspoken opposition to Israel’s military operations in Gaza.

In the clip, Carlson initially dismisses Wikipedia in sweeping terms, telling his guest that he “never recommend[s] Wikipedia for anything.”

He goes on to claim that the online encyclopedia is “controlled by the intelligence” agencies, both “foreign and domestic,” adding that “everything about it offends me.”

However, moments later, as the conversation turns to the war in Gaza, casualty figures, and American foreign policy, Carlson changes his assessment of the website’s usefulness.

He encourages viewers to consult Wikipedia’s coverage of Gaza since the October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attacks, suggesting that the contentious nature of the subject makes the article particularly useful.

According to Carlson, because the information has been subjected to intense scrutiny and competing political pressures, readers “can look at it with some confidence.”

He further argues that the entry cannot simply be dismissed as “Israeli propaganda” or “third world leftist propaganda.”

The remarks have raised questions about Carlson’s standards for evaluating information, particularly his willingness to endorse material from a website he had just characterized as fundamentally compromised.

The episode is especially noteworthy given Carlson’s previous accusations that Wikipedia has been transformed into an instrument of political and intelligence-agency influence.

In September 2025, Carlson interviewed Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, who has become one of the encyclopedia’s most prominent critics.

During that interview, the two discussed allegations that Wikipedia’s editorial processes had become dominated by ideological activists and that intelligence agencies had exerted influence over its content.

Promoting the interview, Carlson described Wikipedia as having been transformed into “the most comprehensive propaganda op in human history.”

Sanger, who helped establish Wikipedia in 2001, has repeatedly argued that the website abandoned its original commitment to neutrality.

He has criticized Wikipedia’s treatment of politically controversial subjects, its policies governing which news organizations may be cited, and the influence exercised by experienced editors who can remain anonymous.

Sanger has also proposed changes intended to make the website’s editorial decision-making more transparent and to restore what he considers its original standards of impartiality.

Wikipedia, meanwhile, maintains that its articles are governed by neutrality requirements and that its open editing process allows contributors to challenge inaccurate or inadequately supported information.

The controversy surrounding Carlson’s latest remarks comes amid a broader debate about Wikipedia’s treatment of Israel and the war in Gaza.

Jewish organizations and other critics have accused groups of Wikipedia editors of promoting anti-Israel narratives and presenting disputed allegations against Israel as established facts.

The Anti-Defamation League published research in 2025 alleging that a group of editors had coordinated efforts to influence articles concerning Israel, Zionism, and the Israel-Hamas war.

The organization argued that the editing activity contributed to coverage that disproportionately emphasized criticism of Israel while minimizing or omitting important context concerning Palestinian terrorism and antisemitism.

Those allegations have been part of a larger dispute over whether Wikipedia’s editorial procedures adequately protect politically sensitive articles from coordinated efforts to influence their presentation.

Wikipedia’s leadership has defended the encyclopedia’s underlying model, emphasizing that articles are expected to reflect reliable published sources and that disagreements over content can be addressed through its established editorial processes.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has revealed that he ordered the preparation of a contingency plan to protect Israel’s economy against possible international sanctions, including restrictions on its banking system, with digital currencies among the options under consideration. His remarks prompted an unusually sharp public response from the Bank of Israel, which warned that cryptocurrency cannot provide an effective means of circumventing economic sanctions.

In an interview with Israel’s Economy Channel, Netanyahu acknowledged that he is concerned about the possibility of foreign governments imposing financial restrictions on Israel and said the country must prepare alternative economic mechanisms to protect itself.

“Of course I’m concerned,” Netanyahu said. “You have to understand that there could be sanctions, including banking sanctions. You have to organize an alternative economic system. And you know what that is. You know what digital currencies are, and I’m working on that as well. And there are other things, too.”

Asked whether blockchain technology, which allows financial transactions to be recorded and managed through decentralized digital networks without relying on a central intermediary, could provide an alternative to the traditional banking system, Netanyahu confirmed that the government was examining that possibility.

“Yes, that is one of the ways,” he said. “And I have already requested that a plan be prepared for it.”

The prime minister’s comments indicated that his government is considering how Israel could maintain financial activity if international sanctions were to interfere with access to conventional banking services.

Netanyahu also issued a warning about the future of American military assistance to Israel, saying the country must prepare for the possibility that the substantial financial support it has received from Washington will eventually come to an end.

“If you think we will continue receiving what I secured twice, which amounts to tens of billions of dollars in American assistance for the defense budget, get used to the fact that it won’t continue, because America has changed,” Netanyahu declared. “It’s over. It’s only a question of time.”

His remarks suggested that Israel should not assume that the current level of American security assistance will remain available indefinitely, particularly as political attitudes and priorities in the United States continue to evolve.

The comments drew an immediate response from the Bank of Israel, which issued an unusually forceful statement challenging the economic feasibility of Netanyahu’s proposed approach.

“Cryptocurrencies cannot serve as a route for circumventing sanctions,” the central bank declared.

The bank argued that Israel’s economic interests would be better served by maintaining strong relationships with its principal trading partners and working to prevent sanctions rather than developing mechanisms intended to bypass them.

“The correct course for Israel’s economy is to preserve economic relations with our main trading partners and focus on preventing sanctions and their negative effects on the economy,” the bank stated. “This matter falls within the responsibility of the political leadership, and it would be appropriate to act to advance that objective.”

The statement amounted to a public disagreement between Israel’s central bank and the prime minister over how the country should prepare for the possibility of international financial restrictions.

Responding to the criticism, Netanyahu emphasized that cryptocurrency was merely one option under examination and that no decision had been made to adopt it.

“Cryptocurrency is one of the tools, not the only tool, and it is not certain that it will be used,” Netanyahu said. “I hear the objections and take them into account.”

The prime minister also defended his economic record, suggesting that his previous policies demonstrated his ability to guide Israel through difficult financial circumstances.

“I have received advice from various sources, including the Bank of Israel, and I think that, looking at my record over time, I have led the State of Israel to unprecedented economic prosperity,” Netanyahu said.

“I introduced a free-market economy here, broke up monopolies, reduced waste in the public sector, and we lowered taxes and prices as never before.”

{Matzav.com}

LISTEN:

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

LISTEN: