Feed aggregator

Shin Bet director Dovid Zini has compared suspicions of massive foreign financial interference in Israel’s recent elections to the intelligence and security failures of October 7, describing the alleged operation as the most serious strategic attack in the country’s history.

The extraordinary remarks were delivered during a closed gathering of Shin Bet personnel and revealed Thursday evening by Channel 12 News, amid an escalating dispute between Zini and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara over the investigation into suspected foreign efforts to influence the election results.

“I view the money that entered here during the elections in the same way as the failure of October 7. This is our Yom Kippur. This is the greatest strategic attack in the history of the state,” Zini reportedly told those attending the internal meeting.

His comments reflect the seriousness with which Israel’s domestic intelligence agency is treating allegations that hostile foreign interests funneled substantial sums into the country in an effort to influence the political process.

According to Channel 12, Zini informed Central Elections Committee chairman Justice Noam Sohlberg that foreign and hostile elements may have transferred as much as 100 million shekels into Israel in connection with the elections.

Zini reportedly expressed frustration that despite intelligence gathered by the Shin Bet, authorities had not authorized the questioning of even one suspect in the affair.

The dispute has placed the Shin Bet chief at odds with Baharav-Miara and other legal officials, who have insisted that investigators must establish an adequate evidentiary foundation before proceeding with interrogations, particularly when elected officials may be involved.

Law enforcement representatives have countered Zini’s criticism by maintaining that the Shin Bet has not provided all the necessary intelligence materials and supporting evidence required to authorize the proposed investigative measures.

Earlier Thursday, the Shin Bet issued a public statement acknowledging suspicions that money originating in foreign countries had been directed toward influencing Israel’s elections. The agency said additional intelligence work and investigative steps were necessary to determine the extent of the suspected activity.

The allegations have surfaced at an especially sensitive moment, with Israel’s political parties negotiating the formation of a new government following the elections and President Isaac Herzog completing consultations over which candidate should receive the mandate to assemble a coalition.

The allegations of foreign election interference remain under investigation and have not been established as fact. Justice Sohlberg has also clarified that even if the suspicions are ultimately substantiated, they would not provide grounds for altering the election results.

Additional reporting Thursday indicated that the investigation had begun moving forward, with the Shin Bet starting to transfer intelligence materials to a special investigative team that includes police representatives. The information was being delivered in stages as investigators sought to establish whether the suspected funding could be connected to specific individuals or criminal offenses.

The investigation has also focused on allegations that voters in Arab communities were offered cash or fuel vouchers in exchange for their votes, potentially using money originating outside Israel, including through the Palestinian Authority. Authorities have not established the full extent of the alleged activity or whether particular political figures were involved.

Zini and Baharav-Miara met Wednesday in an effort to resolve their disagreement over investigative procedures. Despite the tensions, the two sides reportedly reached an understanding on how to continue examining the allegations.

The Shin Bet chief has also reportedly acknowledged that the intelligence gathered thus far does not establish that the overall election outcome was affected, even as he continues to demand a thorough investigation of the suspected foreign funding.

Gadi Eisenkot emerged Thursday evening with a commanding advantage in the race to form Israel’s next government, securing recommendations from 67 Knesset members compared with 46 for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, as President Isaac Herzog concluded two days of consultations with the parties elected to the Knesset.

The most significant development came from United Torah Judaism, whose seven Knesset members declined to endorse either candidate, leaving Netanyahu without the support of a party that has traditionally been a central component of his political alliance. UTJ representatives cited the unresolved controversy over the drafting of yeshiva bochurim as a major factor in their decision.

The final tally leaves Eisenkot, chairman of the Yashar party, with the backing of six factions: Yashar, Beyachad, Yisrael Beiteinu, the Democrats, Ra’am, and the Joint List. Netanyahu received the support of Likud, Shas, Religious Zionism, Otzma Yehudit, and Zehut.

Thursday’s consultations concluded with a contentious appearance by Likud representatives, who urged Herzog to assign Netanyahu the task of forming a government despite Eisenkot’s numerical advantage.

Education Minister Yoav Kisch warned that the parties opposing Netanyahu could threaten the country’s Jewish character, declaring, “The left-wing parties must not turn out the lights on the Jewish state.”

Kisch proposed establishing a national government that would include all parties aligned with Netanyahu while allowing additional factions to join.

Herzog questioned whether Likud would consider excluding more extreme elements from a prospective coalition to make a broader unity government possible.

“Anyone who accepts our basic principles is welcome,” Kisch replied.

The president also confronted Transportation Minister Miri Regev over attacks directed at Eisenkot during the election campaign, arguing that such rhetoric was incompatible with calls for national unity.

“You can’t say about Eisenkot, ‘Either the right or Palestine,’ and then say we want a unity government. A little perspective,” Herzog told Regev.

Another issue raised during the meeting concerned tensions between Shin Bet chief Dovid Zini and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara over the investigation into suspected foreign interference in the elections.

Herzog informed the Likud delegation that Zini and Baharav-Miara had met Wednesday and reached understandings regarding the handling of the investigation. According to the president, the disagreement between the two officials had been resolved.

Earlier Thursday, representatives of Otzma Yehudit endorsed Netanyahu, while delegations from Yashar, Beyachad, the Democrats, and the Joint List recommended Eisenkot.

United Torah Judaism was the only faction to refrain from supporting either candidate, a decision that could prove especially consequential as coalition negotiations proceed.

On Wednesday, the first day of consultations, Shas, Religious Zionism, and Zehut recommended Netanyahu. Yisrael Beiteinu and Ra’am endorsed Eisenkot.

Although Eisenkot received recommendations from a majority of the Knesset, the parties supporting him have not necessarily agreed to serve together in a coalition. His ability to form a government will depend on overcoming significant political differences among the factions that endorsed him.

The position of United Torah Judaism has become particularly important amid reports of discussions about a possible government involving the chareidi parties and factions that have opposed Netanyahu.

With the consultations completed, Herzog is expected to deliver a statement before deciding which candidate will receive the presidential mandate to attempt to form the next government.

Under Israeli law, Herzog is not obligated to choose the candidate with the largest number of recommendations. His responsibility is to select the Knesset member he believes has the strongest prospect of assembling a governing coalition.

The president has until November 11 to make that decision. Whoever receives the mandate will initially have 28 days to form a government, with the possibility of a 14-day extension.

UTJ’s refusal to endorse Netanyahu follows mounting frustration within the party over his failure to secure legislation protecting the status of yeshiva students. Representatives of both Degel HaTorah and Agudas Yisroel have made clear that their future coalition decisions will depend heavily on an acceptable resolution to the draft issue.

{Matzav.com}

In a potentially dramatic development in Israel’s post-election coalition negotiations, Yisrael Beiteinu chairman Avigdor Lieberman has reportedly abandoned his longstanding refusal to join a government with the chareidi parties, authorizing negotiations with United Torah Judaism over the formation of a coalition that would exclude Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

The development was reported Thursday evening by Channel 12 political commentator Amit Segal, who said Lieberman has agreed to explore a coalition arrangement based on the military draft legislation he proposed in 2018, when he served as defense minister in Netanyahu’s government.

The reported reversal could significantly alter the political landscape, potentially giving the bloc seeking to replace Netanyahu a path to a 61-seat Knesset majority with the participation of the chareidi parties.

Throughout the election campaign, Lieberman repeatedly insisted that he would not join a government with Netanyahu, the Arab parties, or the chareidi parties. According to Segal, he has now decided to maintain his opposition to Netanyahu and the Arab parties while setting aside his objection to governing alongside chareidi representatives.

The proposed basis for negotiations is Lieberman’s 2018 draft law, which was rejected by the chareidi parties at the time but is now reportedly being viewed more favorably in light of subsequent legislative proposals.

Under the earlier framework, financial penalties against yeshivos that failed to meet enlistment targets would not take effect until after three years. The proposal also did not include personal sanctions against individual yeshiva bochurim, making it considerably less stringent than legislation promoted during the outgoing Knesset.

Segal reported that some chareidi figures now regret rejecting the 2018 proposal, particularly given the more severe measures that have since been considered.

One development being interpreted as particularly significant is United Torah Judaism’s decision Thursday morning not to recommend Netanyahu to receive the mandate to form the next government.

According to Segal, representatives of the bloc seeking to replace Netanyahu view that decision as an indication that UTJ may be seriously considering alternative coalition arrangements. Preliminary contacts between the sides have reportedly already begun.

The coalition formula being examined would combine 48 Knesset members from the anti-Netanyahu bloc with the 13 seats held by the chareidi parties, producing the 61-member majority necessary to establish a government.

Segal also raised the possibility that such an arrangement could involve a rotation agreement for the premiership between Yashar party chairman Gadi Eisenkot and Lieberman. That scenario, however, remains the commentator’s assessment rather than an agreement reached by the parties.

The situation is more complicated with Shas, which has already recommended Netanyahu for prime minister. Shas chairman Aryeh Deri remains interested in maintaining his party’s alliance with Likud, and senior Shas rabbonim have expressed reservations about joining a government led by Netanyahu’s opponents.

Earlier Thursday, Rav Moshe Maya stated that Shas should not enter a left-wing government and instead called for the establishment of a national unity government.

Nevertheless, figures in the anti-Netanyahu bloc reportedly believe that if United Torah Judaism agrees to participate in an alternative coalition, Shas could eventually follow.

Particular attention is being paid to the position of Hagaon Rav Dov Landau, whose guidance could play a decisive role in determining whether UTJ would consider joining such a government and potentially influence the broader chareidi political leadership.

Meanwhile, Eisenkot is reportedly pursuing a separate option that would allow him to establish a minority government as early as next week, without waiting for an agreement with the chareidi parties.

The anti-Netanyahu bloc is therefore examining two possible paths: moving quickly to swear in a minority government or continuing negotiations aimed at securing a stable 61-seat majority through the inclusion of United Torah Judaism and Shas.

Earlier this week, a senior United Torah Judaism official acknowledged that cooperation with Lieberman was possible despite years of bitter political hostility. The official said the decisive issue would be whether an acceptable draft law could be secured, making clear that without such legislation, there would be no basis for negotiations.

During Thursday’s consultations with President Isaac Herzog, Agudas Yisroel chairman Yitzchok Goldknopf reiterated the party’s demand for draft legislation without enlistment quotas or sanctions, a position that could complicate negotiations over the 2018 framework.

Another complication is Lieberman’s opposition to a minority government. Although Eisenkot is considering that option, Lieberman has previously argued that such an administration would be too unstable to survive.

No coalition agreement has been reached, and the chareidi parties have not committed to joining Eisenkot’s bloc.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Thursday that he is commuting the death sentences of all 548 inmates on the state’s death row, replacing their punishments with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole in one of the most sweeping acts of executive clemency in American history.

The extraordinary decision, made during the final months of Newsom’s eight-year tenure as governor, effectively eliminates the prospect of execution for hundreds of convicted murderers, including some responsible for California’s most notorious crimes. The move does not mean the prisoners will be released from custody, but it permanently removes capital punishment from their existing sentences once the commutations receive any required legal approval.

Newsom, a Democrat widely viewed as a potential presidential contender in 2028, said he believes the death penalty is fundamentally incompatible with California’s values and the principles of a fair justice system. He acknowledged that his decision would cause considerable anguish for the families of murder victims, describing it as one of the most difficult choices of his political career.

The action represents the largest mass commutation of death sentences in modern American history. California has long maintained the nation’s largest death row population, accounting for roughly one-quarter of all prisoners facing execution across the United States.

The decision builds on Newsom’s longstanding opposition to capital punishment. Shortly after taking office in 2019, he imposed a statewide moratorium on executions and ordered the dismantling of execution equipment at San Quentin State Prison.

Although California has not executed a prisoner since 2006, hundreds of inmates continued to carry death sentences, leaving open the possibility that a future governor could resume executions by lifting Newsom’s moratorium.

The new commutations are intended to prevent that possibility for the 548 prisoners currently facing execution.

The process, however, is not entirely within Newsom’s control. Under California’s Constitution, the governor must obtain approval from the state Supreme Court before commuting the sentence of anyone convicted of more than one felony. A substantial portion of the death row population falls into that category, meaning many of the commutations will require judicial review before becoming effective.

Newsom’s announcement immediately reignited a longstanding debate over capital punishment in California, where voters have repeatedly rejected attempts to abolish the death penalty.

In 2012 and again in 2016, California voters defeated ballot initiatives that would have eliminated capital punishment. In the 2016 election, voters also approved a separate measure intended to accelerate the appeals process for condemned prisoners.

Critics argue that Newsom’s decision disregards those election results and effectively circumvents the will of voters who have chosen to retain the death penalty.

Prosecutors and victims’ rights advocates have also warned that blanket commutations could reopen painful wounds for families who endured lengthy criminal trials and appeals before securing death sentences against those convicted of murdering their loved ones.

San Luis Obispo County District Attorney Dan Dow was among the prosecutors who urged Newsom not to take such action.

“A blanket commutation would be a slap in the face to every special-circumstance murder victim and the loved ones they left behind,” Dow said in a statement issued before Thursday’s announcement.

Supporters of Newsom’s decision contend that California’s capital punishment system has become extraordinarily expensive, inconsistent, and ineffective, with decades of litigation producing relatively few executions.

A recent examination of the state’s death penalty system found that California had carried out only 13 executions since reinstating capital punishment in the 1970s, despite more than 1,000 death sentences being imposed over that period.

The state’s condemned prisoners include individuals convicted of particularly brutal murders, among them Richard Allen Davis, who kidnapped and murdered 12-year-old Polly Klaas in 1993. The girl’s father, Marc Klaas, has been an outspoken critic of Newsom’s death penalty policies.

Newsom has also cited concerns about racial disparities, the possibility of wrongful convictions, and the enormous costs associated with capital cases. A 2025 report estimated that California spends approximately $200 million annually on legal proceedings involving death penalty cases.

The announcement comes as Newsom prepares to leave office in January 2027. His successor will inherit a state where capital punishment remains legal, but where the existing death sentences will have been replaced or submitted for judicial approval of commutation.

The governor’s action does not repeal California’s death penalty law, meaning prosecutors will still be permitted to seek capital punishment in future murder cases. Any broader abolition would require legislative or voter action.

For the 548 prisoners covered by Thursday’s announcement, however, the punishment Newsom is seeking to impose is life behind bars, with no possibility of parole.

Elon Musk’s personal fortune plunged by an estimated $33.5 billion on Wednesday as the value of his holdings in Tesla and SpaceX declined following sweeping Democratic victories in the midterm elections, raising concerns about the potential consequences for his business empire.

The billionaire suffered a 3.7% reduction in his estimated wealth in a single day, according to a report by the Washington Examiner. Investors were reportedly assessing the possibility that Democratic control of Congress could bring tougher oversight of Musk’s companies and their dealings with the federal government.

Despite the enormous decline, Musk retained his position as the wealthiest individual in the world. Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index placed his fortune at approximately $865 billion, nearly $490 billion more than that of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, whose wealth was estimated at $375 billion.

Tesla stock lost roughly 3.3% of its value Wednesday, while shares in SpaceX reportedly declined approximately 3.8%. Together, the two companies experienced a reduction in estimated market value approaching $100 billion.

The financial setback came immediately after an election cycle in which Musk committed extraordinary sums to supporting Republican candidates and organizations. Business Insider reported that his political expenditures totaled at least $446 million, including approximately $224 million directed toward races in Texas.

Those investments failed to prevent major Democratic gains in the state. Democratic state Rep. James Talarico defeated Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton in the U.S. Senate contest, while Democratic state Rep. Gina Hinojosa defeated Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.

The Texas results carry particular importance for Musk because several of his most significant business operations are based there. Tesla’s Gigafactory is located near Austin, and SpaceX conducts Starship launches from its Starbase facility in southern Texas.

Musk has also outlined plans to establish a major semiconductor manufacturing operation in the Austin area. Hinojosa’s stated intention to impose an immediate freeze on new data center development could create additional obstacles for his artificial intelligence ventures.

On Capitol Hill, the incoming Democratic majority could pursue investigations into Musk’s involvement with President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, as well as federal agreements and contracts involving his businesses.

The political losses extended beyond Texas. According to Wired, candidates supported by Musk’s America PAC had been defeated in 20 races as of Wednesday morning, while only one endorsed candidate had secured victory. Another 21 contests remained unresolved at that point.

Musk responded to the election results with humor on X, writing, “Guess my election-interfering space lasers didn’t work this time,”

He also indicated that the Democratic victories in Texas made SpaceX’s proposed orbital data center initiative appear increasingly appealing.

The broader financial markets, meanwhile, moved sharply higher despite the Republican defeats. The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed approximately 1,570 points, or 3%, while the S&P 500 advanced nearly 1.6% and the Nasdaq gained 1.44%.

Additional campaign finance reporting placed Musk’s total political contributions as high as $474 million, with approximately half directed toward Texas races. Much of that money flowed through Republican-aligned political committees, including groups supporting Paxton’s unsuccessful Senate campaign.

Musk’s losses were not confined to Texas. Republican candidates he supported also suffered defeats in other competitive states, despite substantial spending by his political operation.

The election results could now expose Musk to greater congressional scrutiny, particularly concerning his companies’ federal contracts and his previous role in the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency.

Iran is reviewing a new set of proposals that could reopen nuclear negotiations with the United States, with Qatar spearheading a diplomatic effort to avert another major military confrontation between Washington and Tehran, according to a report published Thursday by The New York Times.

Five officials familiar with the discussions, including an American official and two Iranian officials, described the proposals as meaningful, although their specific provisions have not been made public. The development signals a possible change in Tehran’s approach after weeks of resistance to renewed talks.

Qatari mediators have intensified their efforts over the past week, holding two rounds of meetings in Tehran and another in Doha. Representatives of Qatar also reportedly met Iranian officials in Armenia as part of the diplomatic initiative.

Vice President JD Vance has emerged as an important advocate of the mediation effort, reportedly seeking a negotiated outcome that would prevent another large-scale war. Last month, Vance sent a letter to Mohsen Rezaei, the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, proposing direct discussions covering both the ongoing conflict and Tehran’s nuclear program.

Rezaei later characterized the outreach as an indication that the United States had softened its stance toward Iran.

Vance, who had opposed a full-scale war with Iran before the American and Israeli strikes in February, expressed confidence earlier this week that diplomacy could produce results.

“The president and I both feel pretty good about the prospects for potentially coming to a negotiated settlement,” Vance said Monday, while making clear that President Trump continues to have military and nonmilitary options available.

The diplomatic push comes amid reports that American and Israeli officials have been evaluating the possibility of additional strikes against Iran. Military planners have reportedly examined potential targets that include energy installations and infrastructure vital to Iran’s economy.

One of the most difficult questions facing negotiators concerns Iran’s supply of highly enriched uranium. Trump has insisted that Tehran surrender the material, but Iranian authorities have refused to allow it to be transferred out of the country. Earlier diplomatic discussions had explored the possibility of reducing its enrichment level inside Iran under international monitoring.

The International Atomic Energy Agency estimated that Iran possessed approximately 440 kilograms of highly enriched uranium in June 2025, a quantity that specialists say could potentially provide material for several nuclear weapons.

Tehran has also demanded significant American concessions before agreeing to resume formal negotiations. In a televised speech Saturday, Rezaei called for the release of frozen Iranian assets, the lifting of sanctions on Iranian oil, and an end to the American naval blockade of Iranian ports.

Despite those public demands, officials familiar with the mediation effort reportedly believe Rezaei has shown greater flexibility in private conversations with Qatari representatives. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf have also been involved in the diplomatic contacts.

The latest initiative follows the collapse of a ceasefire negotiated between the United States and Iran in June. That arrangement had been intended to create conditions for nuclear talks and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, but subsequent hostilities prevented the agreement from taking hold.

Iranian officials have warned that another military offensive would bring retaliation against a wider range of targets. Senior figures in Tehran have also raised the possibility of withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The prospect of renewed fighting has alarmed Gulf governments, which fear their countries could become targets of Iranian retaliation if the United States and Israel launch additional attacks.

Anwar Gargash, a senior diplomatic adviser to the president of the United Arab Emirates, said at a security gathering in Bahrain over the weekend that Gulf countries oppose another regional war and prefer a diplomatic resolution.

Reuters reported Thursday that the diplomatic effort is continuing even as tensions remain high in the Strait of Hormuz, where several commercial vessels have experienced attacks or other security incidents in recent days. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said two tankers had struck naval mines, while another vessel caught fire.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also confirmed that direct and indirect communications with Iran remain active. He said President Trump would prefer a diplomatic solution but remains prepared to use military force if necessary.

One proposal previously presented by Qatar called for seven days of reciprocal confidence-building measures before broader peace negotiations. Iranian officials initially rejected that framework as inadequate, while continuing to press their own demands concerning sanctions, frozen assets, and shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

No agreement has been announced, and significant differences remain over whether nuclear restrictions or American economic concessions must come first.

After 55 agonizing days of uncertainty, legal complications, and intense halachic deliberations, Ukrainian authorities have finally released the body of R’ Yitzchok Elmakayes z”l, a Breslover chossid from London and father of seven who was found dead under circumstances suggesting a brutal murder during Rosh Hashanah in Uman.

The development, announced Thursday evening, brings an end to nearly eight weeks of painful delays that prevented the family from bringing their loved one to kevurah. The prolonged ordeal had generated mounting concern throughout the Breslover community and prompted the intervention of prominent rabbonim and poskim in Eretz Yisroel and Europe.

R’ Yitzchok z”l had traveled to Uman for Rosh Hashanah, joining tens of thousands of Yidden who gather annually at the tzion of Rav Nachman of Breslover. During the Yom Tov, he reportedly ventured into the fields and wooded areas surrounding the city for his customary hisbodedus, spending time in secluded tefillah.

He was subsequently discovered lifeless, with severe signs of violence on his body, immediately raising suspicions that he had been murdered.

Ukrainian police opened a criminal investigation, and the authorities retained his body for forensic examinations and investigative procedures at facilities in Cherkasy and Kyiv. As the investigation continued, however, the repeated delays in releasing the body became a source of anguish for the family and widespread concern among rabbonim.

At the center of the controversy was the serious halachic prohibition against delaying burial, known as halonas hameis, as well as the obligation to preserve the dignity of the deceased.

Early in the investigation, representatives of ZAKA in Ukraine, led by R’ Nachman Dickstein, presented the complicated circumstances to Hagaon Rav Chaim Dovid Weiss, the Satmar Raavad of Antwerp, widely known as the Chida Weiss.

Rav Weiss initially ruled that, under the particular circumstances, a limited delay in burial could be permitted to allow investigators to pursue the murder investigation and avoid a situation in which the case might be closed without identifying those responsible.

The ruling was understood to apply only for a necessary and restricted period.

As the weeks passed and the body remained in Ukrainian custody, however, the situation became increasingly contentious. Rabbonim and dayonim in Eretz Yisroel and abroad, together with askonim and legal representatives involved in the case, expressed growing concern that the original temporary allowance could no longer justify the continuing delay.

Senior Breslover rabbonim issued strongly worded letters calling for immediate efforts to secure the body’s release. Hagaon Rav Yaakov Roza, a member of Israel’s Chief Rabbinate Council and a prominent authority on matters of kevurah, also issued a firm halachic opinion calling for R’ Yitzchok to be brought to burial without further delay.

The matter reached a critical point earlier this week when a special gathering of rabbonim and poskim was convened at the Bnei Brak home of askan R’ Yidel Yaakov.

Among those participating were Hagaon Rav Moshe Bransdorfer, Gaavad of Heichal Horaah, and Rav Chaim Dovid Weiss himself, who was visiting Eretz Yisroel for his mother’s yahrtzeit.

During the gathering, the rabbonim examined the circumstances surrounding the continued detention of the body and concluded that the time had come to bring the prolonged delay to an immediate end.

The assembled poskim determined that the body must be released for kevurah without any additional postponement.

Following the gathering, askonim intensified their efforts with Ukrainian legal and law enforcement authorities, working to complete the remaining procedures necessary to secure the release.

Those efforts culminated Thursday evening in confirmation that the required paperwork had been finalized and that Ukrainian authorities had formally released R’ Yitzchok’s body.

The news was received with profound relief throughout the Breslover community, where the circumstances of his death and the extended inability to arrange his burial had caused deep distress.

The levayah was expected to depart in the coming hours from the courtyard of the tzion of Rav Nachman of Breslover in Uman, with Breslover chassidim and members of the local Jewish community gathering to accompany the niftar on his final journey.

R’ Yitzchok Elmakayes z”l leaves behind seven children and a grieving family who have endured nearly two months of uncertainty since his tragic death.

Yehi zichro boruch.

{Matzav.com}

[Video below.] Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday portrayed the Democratic Party’s midterm election victories as a sweeping rejection of President Donald Trump, accusing the president of undermining constitutional government and arguing that voters are demanding a more aggressive Democratic agenda aimed at wealthy Americans and major corporations.

Speaking on MS NOW’s “The Beat,” the Vermont independent said Tuesday’s election results reflected widespread anger toward Trump, but insisted that the outcome also demonstrated growing frustration with economic inequality, rising living costs and the financial struggles facing working-class families.

During the interview, host Ari Melber asked Sanders to explain what he believed the election results revealed about the country’s political mood.

“What do you see in the results?” Melber asked.

Sanders responded with a lengthy denunciation of Trump, accusing him of disregarding constitutional principles, presiding over corruption and involving the United States in an unlawful war.

“I see two things. Number one, profound disgust all over this country with the most dangerous president in the history of the United States, somebody who doesn’t believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, narcissist. I mean, really crazy stuff. Thinks the world revolves around himself. Running the most corrupt administration, maybe in the history of this country, starting a war that’s illegal and unconstitutional. But I see something else. I see this election about more than a rejection of Trump. I think all over this country, you have in the richest country on earth, 60% of our people live paycheck to paycheck, 800,000 people are homeless. The only major country that doesn’t guarantee healthcare to all people. More income and wealth inequality right now that has ever taken place in the history of America.”

Sanders, who has spent decades advocating for higher taxes on wealthy Americans, expanded government health coverage and stronger protections for workers, argued that Democrats should interpret their election victories as a mandate to confront the country’s wealthiest individuals rather than simply oppose Trump.

He singled out billionaire Elon Musk as an example of the enormous concentration of wealth in the United States, arguing that the economic struggles of ordinary Americans have reached a point where voters expect significant changes from their elected representatives.

“Musk himself owns more wealth than the bottom 53% of American households, and people are worried that their kids will be worse off than they are. So I think what people are saying is, look, we’re tired of Trumpism, but now we are demanding that the Democratic Party have the guts to take on the greed of the oligarchs and pass legislation that works for working families. That’s what I see.”

Sanders’ comments followed a decisive Democratic performance in the midterms, with the party capturing both the House and Senate and winning several closely contested races in states that had previously favored Republicans. The results will give Democrats control of congressional committees and greater authority to investigate the administration and challenge its legislative priorities.

The Vermont senator had campaigned extensively for Democratic candidates ahead of the election, repeatedly portraying Trump as a threat to democratic institutions while calling for expanded health care access, higher taxes on billionaires and legislation intended to ease the financial burden on working Americans.

Voter surveys conducted during the election indicated that economic concerns played a central role in the Republican defeats. Inflation, the cost of everyday necessities, dissatisfaction with Trump’s economic policies and opposition to the war with Iran were among the issues cited by voters who supported Democratic candidates.

Sanders’ interpretation of the results also reflected a broader debate within the Democratic Party over its direction following the election. While some party leaders have emphasized the success of candidates who appealed to moderate and independent voters, Sanders has argued that Democrats must go further by confronting corporate power and pursuing major economic reforms.

{Matzav.com}

[Video below.] New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is pushing back against suggestions that moderate Democrats were responsible for the party’s sweeping victories in Tuesday’s midterm elections, arguing that several of the winning candidates embraced policies associated with the progressive movement and demonstrated that a left-wing presidential candidate could succeed in 2028.

During an appearance Wednesday on NBC’s “Meet the Press NOW,” Mamdani challenged the characterization of the Democratic Party’s statewide winners as political moderates, pointing to successful candidates in Texas, South Carolina and Georgia who campaigned on issues ranging from universal prekindergarten to affordable housing and opposition to prolonged military conflicts.

NBC host Kristen Welker raised the question of whether the election results indicated that Democrats had found greater success with candidates closer to the political center.

“[W]ith the exception of Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, nearly all of the Democrats’ biggest statewide victories were more moderate candidates. What do you think that says, and what does it say about the progressive movement?” Welker asked.

Mamdani disputed that assessment, arguing that the policy proposals advanced by several victorious Democrats were consistent with the priorities of progressive politicians.

“Well, I want to push you a little bit on that, Kristen, because when we’re thinking about James Talarico, we’re talking about somebody who campaigned on universal pre-K. When we’re talking about Annie Andrews, we’re talking about somebody who campaigned on an end to endless wars. When we’re talking about Keisha Lance Bottoms, we’re talking about somebody who campaigned on streamlining the construction of affordable housing. And those are all the hallmarks of what progressive governance also looks like in this country. And I think it’s critically important that, when we look at these victories, no matter where they are across the United States, that we understand the unity of purpose that comes out of it, and the urgency of delivering change that Americans can feel in their wallets.”

The three Democrats cited by Mamdani scored major victories in traditionally Republican states. Talarico defeated Republican Ken Paxton in Texas, Andrews won a Senate seat in South Carolina, and Bottoms captured the Georgia governorship, becoming the first Black woman elected governor in American history.

Their victories were part of a nationwide Democratic surge that gave the party control of both chambers of Congress and delivered unexpected gains in states that had long favored Republicans. The results have intensified debate among Democrats over whether the party should embrace a more moderate political message or continue advancing progressive policies.

Mamdani, a democratic socialist who won New York City’s mayoral election in 2025, has become a prominent figure on the party’s left wing, particularly through his emphasis on housing affordability, public services and reducing everyday living expenses.

His comments suggested that he views the election results as evidence that progressive ideas can appeal to voters beyond heavily Democratic cities, even when the candidates promoting those policies do not identify themselves with the party’s leftmost faction.

Welker subsequently pressed Mamdani on what the results might mean for the next presidential election.

“So, Mayor, given this argument that you’re making, do you think there is a path for a progressive candidate in the presidential race in 2028?” she asked.

“Absolutely,” Mamdani replied.

{Matzav.com}

Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota celebrated the growing number of Muslim lawmakers in Congress on Wednesday following Abdul El-Sayed’s Senate victory in Michigan, while issuing a sharp warning to President Donald Trump that his administration would face demands for accountability over its treatment of Minnesota residents.

Omar, one of the most outspoken critics of Trump in Congress, welcomed El-Sayed’s election as a milestone for Muslim political representation in Washington, noting that eight Muslims would now serve in the House and Senate.

“Congratulations, Abdul El-Sayed. You turned that inshallah into alhamdulillah,” Omar wrote on X, using Arabic expressions meaning, respectively, “God willing” and “praise be to God.”

“I am overwhelmed with gratitude knowing that we will now have 8 Muslims serving in Congress,” the Minnesota Democrat continued.

El-Sayed’s victory in Michigan represents a significant development for Muslim representation in American politics, adding another prominent Muslim elected official to Congress following Tuesday’s midterm elections.

Omar portrayed the election results as a victory over those who had questioned whether Muslim candidates could achieve greater political influence in Washington.

“They told us we couldn’t speak up, couldn’t challenge the status quo, and couldn’t make it this far. But we did,” she wrote.

Omar’s remarks came shortly after El-Sayed defeated Republican Mike Rogers in Michigan’s closely watched Senate race, becoming the first Muslim elected to the United States Senate. The 42-year-old physician and former Detroit health director won by approximately seven percentage points, retaining the seat being vacated by retiring Democratic Sen. Gary Peters.

El-Sayed, the son of Egyptian immigrants, had defeated Rep. Haley Stevens in the Democratic primary with support from progressive figures including Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. His campaign advocated expanded government-funded health care and took strongly critical positions toward Israel, including accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza.

The Michigan race attracted national attention after Trump repeatedly attacked El-Sayed during the campaign, calling him a “jihadist” and accusing him of sympathizing with terrorist organizations. Trump also alleged connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, accusations El-Sayed rejected and for which no supporting evidence was established.

The incoming Muslim lawmakers include Omar, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, André Carson of Indiana, Lateefah Simon of California, Adam Hamawy of New Jersey, Darializa Avila Chevalier of New York and El-Sayed. California Democrat Aisha Wahab, whose race had not yet been called Wednesday afternoon, could bring the total to eight.

Just minutes after celebrating the election results, Omar turned her attention directly to Trump, accusing his administration of mistreating Minnesota residents and promising to pursue accountability.

“We’re getting justice and accountability for every single Minnesotan who’s suffered under Trump’s terrorization of our state,” Omar declared.

“Our time is now,” she added.

The Minnesota congresswoman has been involved in a longstanding confrontation with Trump over immigration enforcement, federal investigations and the administration’s treatment of Minnesota’s Somali community.

Trump has repeatedly criticized Omar and Somali immigrants, accusing Minnesota of being overwhelmed by crime and calling for tougher federal intervention. Omar and other Democrats have accused the administration of targeting immigrant communities and using federal enforcement powers for political purposes.

Omar herself won reelection Tuesday to a fifth term in Congress, defeating Republican John Nagel despite an ongoing federal investigation into allegations concerning her immigration history and financial disclosures. Omar has denied wrongdoing and characterized the investigation as politically motivated.

Her latest warning comes as Democrats prepare to assume control of both the House and Senate following sweeping midterm victories, giving them expanded authority to investigate the Trump administration, hold congressional hearings and challenge its policies.

Omar did not specify which investigations or legal proceedings she intends to pursue against the administration, but her promise of “justice and accountability” signals that she intends to use the Democrats’ newly strengthened position in Washington to press her longstanding grievances against Trump.

{Matzav.com}

Jewish families have taken possession of eight houses near Yericho in the Jordan Valley following a purchase that was kept confidential until the families moved in, marking a significant new effort to restore Jewish residential life to an area transferred to Palestinian Authority control under the Oslo Accords.

The Binyamin Regional Council and the Nachala Movement announced the development Wednesday, saying the properties were acquired through a discreet transaction supported by ownership documentation. The houses are located on state-owned land in the Yericho area, including near the ancient Hasmonean palaces.

The IDF confirmed that the families entered the properties “without prior coordination or authorization” from the military. Army officials said they were reviewing the circumstances of the acquisition and assessing the security situation.

“The IDF is currently operating in the area,” the military stated. “Further details will be provided later.”

According to a military source, the eight homes are situated in Area C of Yehudah and Shomron, where Israel maintains full security and civil authority. Yericho itself is located in Area A, which is administered by the Palestinian Authority.

The Binyamin Regional Council and Nachala said the transaction had been deliberately concealed until the families arrived, describing the acquisition as having taken place “under the nose of the Palestinian Authority.”

The organizations characterized the development as an important step toward reversing the consequences of the Oslo agreements, under which Israel relinquished control of Yericho in 1994. Their statement described the city as having been “abandoned” by Israel as part of that process.

Binyamin Regional Council chairman Yisrael Gantz, who also heads the Yesha Council representing Jewish communities throughout Yehudah and Shomron, welcomed the families and described their arrival as part of a broader effort to restore Jewish life to historically significant areas of Eretz Yisroel.

“We are dismantling the Oslo Accords through our actions; we are returning home,” Gantz declared.

Gantz recalled participating in a demonstration in Yericho when he was just 16 years old, on the night Israel transferred control of the city to the Palestinian Authority.

“Today, I have a 16-year-old son, and I have the privilege of accompanying families as they return to build a home here,” he said.

Nachala Movement chairwoman Daniella Weiss similarly hailed the development, calling it “a major step toward renewing Jewish settlement in Jewish cities.” She said the organization hopes the initiative will lead to the restoration of Jewish communities in additional locations throughout Yehudah and Shomron.

Weiss invoked the words of the novi Zechariah in describing the movement’s aspirations for the area.

“Families are working to fulfill the verse: ‘And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in its streets,’” she said, citing Zechariah 8:5.

The families’ arrival has also drawn attention to Yericho’s longstanding significance in Jewish history. The city, described in the Torah as the city of palm trees, was the first major city conquered by the Bnei Yisroel under Yehoshua after they crossed the Yarden and entered Eretz Yisroel.

Yericho was also the first city in Yehudah and Shomron transferred to Palestinian Authority administration in 1994. Under the arrangements accompanying the withdrawal, Palestinian security forces were expected to ensure that Jews could continue visiting two ancient shuls dating to the Byzantine period.

Those assurances were subsequently violated. On October 12, 2000, during the early stages of the Second Intifada, Palestinian rioters set fire to the Shalom Al Yisroel shul, destroying seforim and damaging its historic mosaic floor.

According to Jewish tradition, the ancient shul stands at the location where a malach appeared to Yehoshua and instructed him, “Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you stand is holy” (Yehoshua 5:15).

The new initiative has also prompted questions from Israeli security officials. According to a separate Israeli report, the IDF was forced to divert approximately three platoons of soldiers from other security assignments, including operations along the Jordanian border, to protect the newly arrived families.

The families, meanwhile, have begun settling into the houses, with some residents describing their arrival as the realization of a longstanding aspiration to renew Jewish life in Yericho.

{Matzav.com}

Vice President JD Vance privately delivered a harsh assessment of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s approach to Iran, accusing him of “being wrong on everything” and urging President Donald Trump to pursue a diplomatic agreement with Tehran rather than resume military operations, according to a report published Wednesday by Axios.

The reported criticism reveals significant disagreements within Trump’s inner circle over the administration’s handling of the Iran war, with Vance emerging as a leading advocate for negotiations while Netanyahu continued pressing Washington to renew military strikes against the Iranian regime.

According to sources familiar with the administration’s internal discussions, Vance led a group of senior officials who warned Trump that prolonging the conflict would carry serious political and economic consequences. The vice president reportedly argued that reaching an agreement with Iran offered a better alternative to another round of military confrontation.

Vance’s criticism of Netanyahu was particularly pointed. Sources told Axios that the vice president privately accused the Israeli leader of “being wrong on everything” concerning Iran, reflecting his frustration with Netanyahu’s assessments and recommendations regarding the conflict.

The disagreement came as Netanyahu reportedly continued urging Trump to restart military operations against Iran. Although the president was said to be inclined toward renewed strikes, he ultimately decided against taking immediate military action.

Vance and other administration officials had also warned Trump that the war was deeply unpopular with American voters and threatened to damage Republican prospects in the midterm elections. Those concerns gained new significance following Tuesday’s election results, which saw Republicans suffer major losses.

On Wednesday, Vance publicly attributed the Republican Party’s defeat to the conflict, arguing that the administration had underestimated the political consequences of the war.

“The reason we lost is the war,” Vance wrote on X.

The vice president pointed to voter dissatisfaction with the conflict, rising living costs and broader concerns about American foreign policy. According to his assessment, voters who supported Trump in 2024 but abandoned Republicans in the midterms were particularly troubled by the continuation of the Iran war and its economic effects.

The disagreement has also exposed competing approaches to Iran policy among Trump’s senior advisers. While Vance and White House envoy Steve Witkoff have favored renewed diplomacy, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has supported resuming military operations, a position reportedly shared by Netanyahu.

Other senior officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, have advocated maintaining the American naval blockade and economic sanctions against Iran, hoping that continued pressure will force Tehran to make concessions without another major military campaign.

American military officials have meanwhile continued preparations for the possibility of renewed combat, including additional deployments to the region. At the same time, Qatari mediators have been working to secure an agreement that could prevent further fighting and reopen direct negotiations between Washington and Tehran.

Trump acknowledged Wednesday that the Iran war had contributed to Republican losses by pushing gasoline prices higher, although he continued to defend the original decision to attack Iran.

“I think it’s largely true because it drove the gasoline up a little bit short term,” Trump said when questioned about Vance’s remarks.

The president nevertheless insisted that military action had been necessary to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons and maintained that he would make the same decision again.

In an interview with Axios earlier this week, Trump indicated that he was not prepared to rush into another military confrontation, leaving open the possibility of either negotiations or renewed strikes.

“One way or the other, we will do something, but there is no rush. We crippled them financially. They have no money, no gasoline and their people are getting very tired of it,” Trump said.

The political fallout from the war has also brought renewed attention to Vance’s potential presidential ambitions in 2028. The vice president has long expressed skepticism about prolonged American military involvement overseas, and his public criticism of the Iran conflict places him at odds with some of the administration’s more interventionist figures.

Vance has previously acknowledged disagreements with Netanyahu over Iran. In a June interview with CBS News, he said the Israeli prime minister had “certainly gotten some things wrong,” although he declined to identify specific disputes and described Netanyahu as a valuable American partner.

For now, Trump has not announced whether he intends to resume military strikes, pursue an agreement or continue relying on economic pressure. His decision will come amid growing political pressure at home, conflicting advice from senior administration officials and continued demands from Israel for a tougher approach toward Tehran.

{Matzav.com}

An El Al flight traveling from Israel to Bangkok was the scene of a medical emergency when a 79-year-old Israeli passenger suddenly lost consciousness, prompting an urgent appeal for medical assistance from fellow travelers. A United Hatzalah volunteer and an intensive care physician who happened to be aboard the aircraft rushed to his aid, providing treatment that allowed the flight to continue to Thailand without an emergency landing.

The incident occurred during the international flight when the elderly passenger became unresponsive. Recognizing the seriousness of the situation, flight attendants used the aircraft’s public address system to ask whether any doctors or emergency medical personnel were among the passengers.

Yechiel Mintz, a volunteer medic with United Hatzalah who was traveling to Thailand, immediately responded to the announcement and made his way to the passenger.

“During the flight, one of the passengers lost consciousness. The flight crew asked over the loudspeaker if there was a medic or doctor, and I immediately got up to help him,” Mintz recounted following the incident.

As Mintz began assisting the passenger, another traveler stepped forward to help. She was a physician from the intensive care unit at North Medical Center in Poriya, bringing specialized medical expertise to the emergency unfolding thousands of feet above the ground.

“A doctor from the intensive care unit at North Medical Center in Poriya, who was also on the flight, joined me,” Mintz said.

Working together, the two medical professionals provided care to the passenger while the aircraft continued toward its destination. Their intervention helped stabilize the situation and enabled the flight crew to avoid diverting to another airport for emergency medical assistance.

“Thanks to the rapid medical response, the flight continued to its destination without the need for an emergency landing,” Mintz said.

The aircraft ultimately remained on its scheduled route to Bangkok, sparing the passengers and crew an unscheduled diversion.

The passenger’s precise medical condition and the treatment administered aboard the aircraft were not disclosed. However, the successful intervention demonstrated the importance of having trained emergency responders available when a medical crisis occurs during a flight, particularly when immediate access to hospital care is impossible.

{Matzav.com}

A heartbreaking tragedy has struck a family in Ramat Beit Shemesh. A young mother suddenly passed away, leaving behind six orphaned children, only one of whom is married.

Their father has been battling a serious illness for two years and is unable to provide for his children. The family is struggling to afford even the most basic necessities.

These six yesomim have already suffered so much. Please open your heart and help provide them with food, clothing, and the support they desperately need.

Every donation makes a difference. CLICK HERE TO DONATE.

Israel’s aviation industry could be headed for a major consolidation, with Israir, controlled by businessman Rami Levy, exploring the possibility of acquiring rival airline Arkia from the Nakash family, according to reports Wednesday. El Al has also reportedly expressed interest in a potential acquisition, raising questions about the future of competition and airfare prices in Israel.

Israir, headed by CEO Uri Sirkis, confirmed that it had received an approach concerning a possible purchase of Arkia, although discussions remain preliminary and no agreement has been reached. Any transaction would represent a significant development in Israel’s airline industry, potentially combining two of the country’s leading carriers.

The reported interest comes as Arkia faces mounting financial difficulties and growing tensions between its controlling shareholders and employees. According to estimates cited in Israeli media, the airline lost approximately $30 million during the first nine months of 2026, with full-year losses potentially reaching $50 million to $60 million.

Arkia has cautioned that these figures are external estimates rather than officially disclosed financial results. As a privately held company, Arkia is not required to publish the same detailed financial statements as publicly traded airlines.

The company’s financial troubles have intensified disagreements between its employees and the Nakash brothers, who control the airline. On Tuesday, workers demonstrated outside Arkia’s offices in Bnei Brak to protest proposed restructuring measures and the possibility that their ownership stake could be reduced as part of a financial rescue plan.

Employees currently hold approximately 20% of Arkia’s shares, down from roughly 30% in previous years, according to published reports. Their representatives are demanding assurances that any restructuring or infusion of capital will preserve their rights and protect their influence over the company’s future.

The Histadrut’s transportation and seaports workers union has already warned that labor action could follow if the dispute remains unresolved.

The Nakash family is reportedly seeking to stabilize the airline through a combination of new investment and operational changes. An earlier acquisition proposal valued at approximately NIS 140 million was reportedly considered but ultimately failed to produce an agreement.

For Israir, acquiring Arkia could provide a major opportunity to expand its international operations, increase its aircraft fleet and gain access to additional routes, airport slots and aviation infrastructure.

The two airlines already account for a substantial portion of Israel’s passenger traffic. According to figures cited in the reports, Arkia carried approximately 1.44 million passengers during the period examined, compared with roughly 1.56 million passengers flown by Israir.

A merger would create a considerably larger airline with a stronger position in both domestic and international travel. It could also allow the combined company to reduce operating costs, consolidate services and expand its network of destinations.

However, the possibility of combining two major competitors is likely to attract close scrutiny from Israel’s Competition Authority, particularly because the transaction could reduce the number of independent airlines serving Israeli passengers.

El Al’s reported interest presents another potential complication. As Israel’s largest airline, any attempt by El Al to acquire Arkia would likely face substantial regulatory questions concerning market concentration and the potential effect on ticket prices.

According to additional Israeli reports, representatives of Israir and Arkia have already held an initial meeting, with another round of discussions expected later this week. Levy is reportedly personally involved in the negotiations, although neither airline has announced a binding agreement.

The Nakash family has also explored selling Arkia to other investors. One previous proposal reportedly involved American investor Elliott Zemel, who offered approximately NIS 140 million for the airline, but the negotiations collapsed. More recent reports indicate that the owners have sought approximately NIS 170 million for the company.

Israir issued a statement emphasizing that its consideration of the acquisition should not be interpreted as confirmation that a transaction will take place.

“If the company examines the matter and a decision is reached, it will report accordingly in accordance with the law. The company wishes to clarify that there is no certainty that the examination will result in a transaction, and it does not constitute any commitment or promise,” Israir said.

Arkia, meanwhile, said decisions concerning its ownership rest with its shareholders, while management remains focused on maintaining operations, serving customers and protecting employees.

The airline also pointed to its expansion into long-haul destinations, including North America and the Far East, despite the financial pressures facing the aviation industry.

For Israeli travelers, the most immediate concern is whether a merger would eventually translate into higher ticket prices. Although a combined Israir-Arkia operation could create a stronger competitor to El Al, it would also eliminate one of the country’s major independent carriers.

Any acquisition would require regulatory approval, resolution of the employee ownership dispute and an agreement over Arkia’s substantial financial liabilities. For now, the airline continues operating while its shareholders consider potential buyers and restructuring alternatives.

{Matzav.com}

A Likud-affiliated attorney is calling on Shin Bet director David Zini to resist any unlawful instructions that could obstruct the investigation into suspected foreign interference in Israel’s elections, warning that efforts to improperly shield individuals from questioning could amount to interference with a criminal investigation.

Attorney David Peter made the remarks Wednesday during an interview with Avi Mimran on Kol Chai Radio, amid growing tensions between the Shin Bet and Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara over the handling of allegations involving foreign funding and possible attempts to influence the election results.

Peter argued that the investigation carries enormous implications for public confidence in Israel’s democratic process and must be pursued thoroughly, regardless of the political affiliations or positions of those potentially involved.

Addressing reports that the attorney general could restrict certain investigative measures, Peter raised the possibility of parliamentary immunity being improperly extended to individuals who do not legally qualify for such protection.

“If the attorney general issues an unlawful directive, for example, extending the immunity of an elected official to people who are not elected officials, such as parliamentary aides to Arab Knesset members, that is an unlawful order. It is a form of obstruction of an investigation,” Peter said.

His remarks reflected his legal interpretation of a hypothetical situation, rather than any judicial finding that Baharav-Miara had actually obstructed the investigation.

Peter maintained that Zini should be prepared to defend the Shin Bet’s investigative authority before Israel’s Supreme Court if disagreements with the attorney general threaten the agency’s ability to pursue the allegations.

“I personally expect the head of the Shin Bet to appear before the High Court of Justice himself, or through his representatives,” he said.

The attorney emphasized that he was not prejudging the investigation’s findings or suggesting that any particular individual had already been proven responsible for wrongdoing.

“I don’t know what the results of this investigation will be,” Peter acknowledged. “An issue of such enormous importance to the public life of all of us, regardless of political camps, cannot be left without being investigated to its conclusion.”

He further argued that if Zini discovers that officials within the law enforcement establishment are attempting to prevent investigators from establishing the facts, the Shin Bet chief has a responsibility to bring those concerns to light through the appropriate legal channels.

The controversy has intensified following reports that Zini sought authorization to question senior Arab political figures, including Ra’am chairman Mansour Abbas, Ta’al chairman Ahmad Tibi, Balad leader Sami Abu Shehadeh and Ayman Odeh. Baharav-Miara has insisted that investigators must establish an adequate evidentiary basis before questioning individuals or employing expanded national security investigative powers.

According to Israeli media reports Wednesday, Zini told Central Elections Committee chairman Justice Noam Sohlberg that foreign and potentially hostile elements may have transferred as much as 100 million shekels into Israel in an effort to influence the election. The Shin Bet has indicated that the suspected activity may involve thousands of individuals, although investigators have not yet established the full extent of the alleged operation.

Baharav-Miara has rejected accusations that she is blocking the investigation, maintaining that she has authorized significant investigative measures and that anyone against whom sufficient evidence emerges will be questioned. She has also objected to automatically classifying the entire affair as a national security investigation, arguing that such a designation requires appropriate legal justification.

Meanwhile, Zini and Baharav-Miara met Wednesday at Shin Bet headquarters following intervention by President Isaac Herzog. The two reportedly agreed to improve cooperation and move forward with the investigation. Representatives of the Shin Bet and Israel Police are expected to meet Thursday to coordinate their work.

During the Kol Chai interview, Peter also addressed the political maneuvering following the elections, particularly the question of whether President Herzog would ask Netanyahu or former IDF chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot to attempt to form the next government.

“On a substantive level, it is almost irrelevant who receives the mandate. The question is whether a government can actually be formed,” Peter said.

He strongly opposed the possibility of Eisenkot establishing a coalition dependent on Arab political parties, which he characterized as supporters of terrorism. Peter argued that such an arrangement would lack the political legitimacy and stability necessary to govern effectively.

Instead, he advocated the formation of a broad national government led by Netanyahu, suggesting that Likud remains willing to cooperate with other political factions to assemble a parliamentary majority.

“The right’s hand has always been, and will always remain, extended for various forms of political cooperation,” Peter said.

Peter maintained that the preferred outcome would be a government united around Netanyahu’s leadership, while acknowledging that the ultimate decision would depend on which candidate could secure sufficient support in the Knesset.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump said Thursday that he intends to keep Secretary of War Pete Hegseth in his administration, pushing back against mounting Republican pressure to remove the Pentagon chief following the GOP’s crushing losses in Tuesday’s midterm elections.

“I have every intention to keep him,” Trump told ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl. “I get these calls, you know, about him. I don’t understand why.”

The president’s remarks came as Hegseth faced increasing criticism over his leadership during the war with Iran, which has become a major political liability for Republicans. Some within the party believe the conflict contributed significantly to the Democratic victories that cost Republicans control of Congress.

Vice President JD Vance has also pointed to the Iran war as one of the factors behind the party’s electoral setbacks, adding to the pressure surrounding Hegseth, who was among the administration’s most outspoken advocates of the military campaign.

Several Republicans have urged Trump to consider replacing Hegseth before Democrats take control of the Senate. Among them is retiring North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis, who has encouraged the president to make a leadership change while Republicans still possess the votes needed to confirm a successor.

Hegseth could also face impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives as early as next week, when lawmakers return to Washington for the lame-duck session. Democrats have indicated that even if an immediate impeachment effort fails, they intend to pursue further action against him after the new Congress convenes on January 3.

During the opening stages of Operation Epic Fury, Hegseth became one of the administration’s leading public defenders of the Iran campaign, frequently challenging reporters who questioned the operation’s progress or effectiveness.

However, he has not held a press briefing on the conflict since May, even as additional information has emerged about extensive damage inflicted by Iranian attacks on American military installations across the Middle East. Among the facilities affected was a strategically important port in Bahrain used to support U.S. aircraft carriers.

On Wednesday, Hegseth rejected suggestions that he leave the Pentagon to pursue a newly available U.S. Senate seat in Tennessee, his home state. The seat is opening following Senator Marsha Blackburn’s victory in the state’s gubernatorial election, which will allow her to appoint a successor.

Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell dismissed speculation about Hegseth’s departure and insisted that the secretary remains fully committed to his position.

“We will continue to drive [Trump’s] agenda at the Department of War — despite threats of sham witch hunts from Democrats — and Secretary Hegseth is 100% committed to leading the Department until the end of President Trump’s term in office,” Parnell said.

Despite those assurances, people familiar with internal White House discussions have indicated that Trump has been privately consulting advisers about whether Hegseth should remain in his Cabinet. Those discussions have not resulted in a decision to dismiss him, and administration insiders caution that his removal is far from certain.

“Somebody has to own this,” a person close to the administration said Wednesday. “When the word ‘war’ is in your title, then you might be the person in the crosshairs.”

The effort to remove Hegseth has also attracted support from Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who filed eight articles of impeachment accusing the Pentagon chief of continuing military operations against Iran without congressional authorization. Massie is seeking a House vote on the resolution when lawmakers return next week.

The political pressure comes at a particularly sensitive moment for the administration. Republicans will retain control of the Senate until January, giving Trump a limited opportunity to secure confirmation of a replacement before Democrats assume the majority. Trump acknowledged Thursday that appointing a new secretary would be easier under the current Senate.

The situation has drawn comparisons to 2006, when President George W. Bush announced Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s departure immediately after Republicans suffered major midterm losses amid widespread dissatisfaction with the Iraq war.

Trump, however, has continued defending Hegseth publicly, telling reporters Wednesday that he was “doing a very good job.”

The president also expressed hope Thursday that he could establish a productive working relationship with the incoming Democratic congressional leadership.

“I think we can get along,” Trump said. “It’s good for the country if we do. The country has had enough.”

{Matzav.com}

Likud Knesset member Amit Halevi is welcoming President Donald Trump’s announcement that the United States intends to end military assistance to Israel, arguing that the move could strengthen Israel’s independence, free its defense industries from American restrictions and eliminate a major source of diplomatic pressure from Washington.

In an interview Wednesday with Ariel Berman on Kol Chai Radio, Halevi took a position sharply at odds with Israeli officials who have expressed concern about losing billions of dollars in annual American military assistance. Rather than viewing the development as a setback, Halevi suggested that Israelis should recite the Shehecheyanu bracha in celebration.

Halevi revealed that he had personally presented Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu with a proposal to end direct American military assistance early in his tenure in the Knesset. He argued that decades of financial support had created a relationship of dependency that Washington repeatedly exploited to influence Israeli decisions.

“I came to the prime minister with a plan to end the aid,” Halevi said.

Explaining his position, Halevi maintained that financial assistance between countries inevitably comes with political expectations and obligations.

“When you receive money, generally speaking, there are no free lunches in the international system,” he said. “And therefore, you become dependent.”

According to Halevi, the consequences extend well beyond diplomatic disagreements. He said American assistance has also imposed restrictions on Israel’s defense manufacturers, limiting their ability to export weapons systems, share military technology and independently develop certain capabilities.

He pointed to the Biden administration’s decision to delay weapons shipments to Israel during the war as a particularly clear example of how American military assistance can become a tool for exerting political pressure.

Halevi emphasized that his proposal does not call for weakening the relationship between Jerusalem and Washington. Instead, he wants the two countries to replace the existing assistance arrangement with a partnership based on mutual strategic and economic interests.

“Everything I said in my plan, which the prime minister accepted, was to transfer the money from direct aid, like charity, to cooperation,” Halevi explained.

Among the alternatives he proposed were joint investment funds, collaborative military technology development and initiatives advancing shared American and Israeli interests throughout the Middle East.

“Israel contributes much more than four billion dollars to the United States,” Halevi asserted, arguing that Israel should no longer be portrayed as a country dependent on American financial generosity.

The lawmaker maintained that Israel’s intelligence capabilities, military technology and regional strategic position provide substantial benefits to the United States, making the relationship far more reciprocal than conventional descriptions of American aid suggest.

Halevi also addressed the American midterm elections and growing criticism of Israel’s relationship with Washington. He rejected the argument that Israel had dragged the United States into military conflicts, maintaining that both countries face common security threats and that Israel plays a crucial role in confronting them.

He warned about the spread of radical Islam in Europe and criticized Western governments for failing to recognize the seriousness of the threat. He also faulted Israel’s diplomatic and security establishments for continuing to operate according to outdated assumptions.

“The prevailing conception today, both among our senior diplomatic officials and among military personnel, has not changed,” Halevi said.

Trump announced Tuesday that the United States would discontinue approximately $4 billion in annual assistance to Israel at the end of 2026, saying he and Netanyahu had discussed the arrangement for months. The president argued that Israel had become economically strong enough to purchase its own weapons and that continued American aid had become a political liability for Republicans.

The announcement has raised significant questions because the existing American-Israeli military assistance agreement, signed in 2016, provides $38 billion over ten years and remains in effect through September 2028. The arrangement includes $3.3 billion annually in military financing and another $500 million for missile defense cooperation.

Congress would play a major role in implementing any early termination of the arrangement, and the administration has not yet explained how existing commitments would be handled. Israel also has billions of dollars in outstanding American weapons orders, further complicating any abrupt change.

Halevi said Netanyahu had previously instructed officials to prepare for a gradual reduction in American assistance ahead of negotiations over a new agreement. He expressed confidence that replacing direct financial support with expanded defense cooperation would ultimately benefit both countries, while giving Israel greater freedom to make its own security decisions.

{Matzav.com}

A gathering of prominent rabbonim in Bnei Brak has issued an urgent halachic ruling demanding the immediate burial of R’ Yitzchok Elmakias z”l, whose body has remained in Ukrainian custody for 55 days after he was discovered dead in a forest near Uman under circumstances that raised suspicions of murder.

The ruling followed a meeting Tuesday evening at the home of askan R’ Yehuda Yaakov, attended by Rav Moshe Bransdorfer, Gaavad of Heichal Hora’ah, and Rav Chaim Yosef Dovid Weiss, known as the Chida, the Satmar Raavad of Antwerp, who is currently visiting Eretz Yisroel.

During the gathering, serious allegations emerged that certain askanim had improperly invoked Rav Weiss’s name to justify prolonging the delay in burying the deceased, despite his explicit instructions that any postponement be limited to a brief period.

According to information presented at the meeting, shortly after Rosh Hashanah, individuals involved in the case approached Rav Weiss claiming to possess information suggesting that the perpetrators were Jewish and that Ukrainian authorities needed additional time to investigate the suspected murder.

Based on those representations, Rav Weiss reportedly permitted the burial to be delayed for no more than one or two days to accommodate the investigation.

However, the individuals who obtained his written authorization allegedly withheld the document for approximately three weeks. When they eventually released it after Yom Tov, they reportedly removed its date, creating the misleading impression that the rov had authorized a delay extending for nearly a month.

The allegations went further. According to the account presented at the meeting, Rav Weiss subsequently issued another letter, approximately one month ago, explicitly prohibiting any further postponement of the burial. That document was allegedly suppressed and never made public.

Rav Weiss reportedly expressed deep distress upon learning that his name had been used to support a prolonged delay that he had never sanctioned, particularly given the serious halachic concerns surrounding halonas hameis, the prohibition against unnecessarily delaying burial.

Following the discussion, the assembled rabbonim issued a forceful joint ruling declaring that there was no halachic justification for any action that would further postpone the kevurah.

In their written decision, the rabbonim stated that no demands or requests may be made that would cause additional delays, and that every possible effort must be undertaken to bring the deceased to kever Yisroel immediately in Ukraine.

They further declared that deliberately obstructing the burial, whether directly or indirectly, was strictly prohibited, particularly if motivated by improper considerations.

Rav Weiss added a handwritten warning to the ruling, stating that anyone responsible for delaying the burial because of outside considerations would ultimately be held accountable.

He also categorically rejected claims that he had approved an extended postponement, declaring that reports suggesting he had permitted the body to remain unburied for longer than one or two days were entirely false.

The controversy surrounds the death of R’ Elmakias, a London resident whose body was discovered in a wooded area of Uman nearly two months ago. The circumstances of his death have prompted serious suspicions of foul play, although the investigation remains in the hands of Ukrainian authorities.

His remains have not yet been released, with Ukrainian officials reportedly insisting that the investigation must be completed before the body can be transferred for burial.

Beyond the demand for immediate kevurah, Rav Weiss addressed a separate dispute concerning where the deceased should be buried once Ukrainian authorities authorize his release.

Some individuals have advocated transporting the body to London, where R’ Elmakias lived and where his mother and brother reside.

Rav Weiss, however, ruled that the burial should take place in Uman, near the location where the deceased was found.

In explaining his position, he cited the Shulchan Aruch and other halachic authorities concerning the importance of burying a deceased person in the city where he died rather than transporting the body elsewhere unnecessarily.

He also referenced the Shach, citing the Tashbatz, as well as other poskim who discuss the considerations of kavod hameis and the circumstances under which transferring a body from one location to another may be permitted.

Addressing the argument that burial in London would make it easier for relatives to visit the grave, Rav Weiss noted that family members already travel to Uman regularly. He also discussed the deceased’s family circumstances in explaining why burial in Ukraine would be appropriate.

The rov further cited the Chasam Sofer in support of his conclusion that, under the circumstances, burial in Uman would best preserve the dignity of the deceased while avoiding unnecessary transportation.

The case has drawn attention because of the prolonged delay and the unusual circumstances surrounding the investigation. In 2021, three yeshiva bochurim were killed in a light aircraft crash over Ukraine’s Carpathian Mountains, and their bodies were subsequently transported out of the country for burial, one in London and two in the United States.

In the present case, however, Rav Weiss’s ruling calls for burial in Ukraine itself, both because of the halachic considerations he outlined and because of the urgency of ending the prolonged delay.

{Matzav.com}

Former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer sharply challenged Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday over the reasons behind Republicans’ midterm election losses, arguing that the political damage came not from President Donald Trump’s decision to attack Iran, but from Washington’s failure to finish the military campaign and secure a decisive victory.

Fleischer, who served as press secretary under President George W. Bush, took issue with Vance’s assertion that the Iran war had contributed significantly to Republican defeats in Tuesday’s congressional elections. He maintained that the administration’s decision to agree to a ceasefire before achieving its objectives had prolonged the conflict’s economic and political consequences.

“The problem was not the Iran War. It was the cease fire,” Fleischer wrote on social media, directly challenging the vice president’s assessment.

“If you start a war, you need to win it and finish it – otherwise don’t start it,” he added.

According to Fleischer, American forces should have continued their offensive until Iran’s ruling regime was sufficiently weakened to collapse. He argued that a decisive military victory six months earlier could have reopened the Strait of Hormuz, restored international oil shipments and prevented the prolonged instability that has weighed on the American economy.

Although Fleischer defended Trump’s original decision to use military force against Tehran, he criticized the administration for suspending operations without eliminating the threat posed by Iran’s leadership.

“Once the decision was made, we should not have stopped until the regime fell,” Fleischer wrote.

He also contended that the unfinished campaign had left American troops deployed in the region while energy prices remained elevated, creating precisely the kind of economic pressures and foreign-policy uncertainty that could hurt Republicans at the ballot box.

Vance, however, offered a substantially different explanation for the election results, pointing to public frustration with the war itself and its consequences for American households.

“The reason we lost is the war. The president himself said so last night,” Vance wrote on social media.

The vice president referred to polling of voters who backed Trump in the 2024 presidential election but supported Democratic candidates in 2026. According to Vance, those voters identified ending the Iran conflict, reducing inflation, putting American interests first and reconsidering Washington’s relationship with Israel among their leading priorities.

Trump, questioned Wednesday about his vice president’s remarks, indicated that he agreed with Vance’s assessment while insisting that the military operation had been essential to American national security.

“I thought it was good. I knew that when I went in. We stopped them from having a nuclear weapon, and they’ll never have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said.

The president also defended his original decision to authorize strikes against Iran, saying he would make the same choice again despite the political fallout.

“If I had it to do again, I’d have to do it again, because long term it’s the only answer. You can’t let Iran have a nuclear weapon.”

{Matzav.com}