Feed aggregator

The Lakewood Vaad of Lakewood, NJ has released its endorsements for the November 3 general election, backing candidates from both political parties while urging residents to vote against a school board ballot question and highlighting the mounting financial, transportation and infrastructure challenges facing the township.

In a letter to the community, the Vaad endorsed Democratic U.S. Senator Cory Booker and Republican Congressman Chris Smith, continuing its longstanding practice of supporting candidates based on their relationships with Lakewood and their willingness to address the community’s needs rather than their political affiliations.

The Vaad’s recommendations come as Lakewood residents confront a series of pressing concerns, including the ongoing school transportation crisis, rising property taxes, increasing traffic congestion and financial pressures affecting local families and mosdos.

The organization acknowledged that the township is dealing with significant fiscal difficulties, including a financial shortfall, reductions in state aid and extraordinary expenses associated with severe winter weather. It also pointed to complications arising from state oversight of the Lakewood school district.

In the U.S. Senate race, the Vaad endorsed Booker, citing his longstanding relationship with community leaders and the assistance his office has provided on matters affecting Lakewood residents.

For the U.S. House of Representatives, the Vaad backed Smith, recognizing his decades of service to the district, his advocacy on religious freedom and family values, and his responsiveness to the concerns of the Orthodox Jewish community.

The Vaad also endorsed Republican Frank Sadeghi for another term as Ocean County commissioner, pointing to his accessibility and willingness to work with community representatives on the challenges associated with Lakewood’s continued growth.

At the township level, the Vaad endorsed Democratic Mayor Ray Coles and Republican Committeewoman Deborah Fuentes for reelection.

Both officials were praised for maintaining working relationships with community leadership and for their service during a period of significant municipal challenges.

Coles and Fuentes are competing for two seats on the five-member Township Committee against Republican Moshe Raitzik and Democrat Samantha Stokes.

In the Lakewood Board of Education election, the Vaad endorsed incumbents Samuel Melnik and Harriet Goldberg, along with Abraham D. Reich, who is seeking reelection through a write-in campaign because his name will not appear on the ballot.

The Vaad separately instructed voters to cast a no vote on the school board public question.

For the Board of Fire Commissioners, the organization endorsed incumbents Dovid Bender and Harrison Pfeffer.

The letter stressed that endorsing an elected official does not necessarily indicate agreement with every decision that official has made. Rather, the recommendations reflect the importance the Vaad places on accessibility, cooperation, communication and the ability to work constructively on behalf of Lakewood residents.

The endorsements are particularly significant in a township whose electorate has demonstrated overwhelming support for Republican candidates in major statewide and national races while continuing to elect Democrats to important local offices.

Early voting is scheduled from October 24 through November 1 at the Lakewood Municipal Building, located at 231 Third Street. Voting hours will be 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays.

Election Day is Tuesday, November 3, with polling locations open from 6 a.m. until 8 p.m.

Shas chairman Aryeh Deri has revealed previously undisclosed details of an emotional private meeting with Maran Rav Ovadia Yosef zt”l, during which the revered Sephardic Torah leader tearfully asked him to accept the second position on the Shas Knesset list, behind Eli Yishai, who had once served as Deri’s own assistant.

In an exclusive interview with journalist Yishai Cohen of Kikar Hashabbat, Deri described the extraordinary encounter, which took place on the morning before Shas was scheduled to submit its Knesset candidate list, as he prepared to return to political life after years away from the party’s leadership.

Deri recalled that Rav Ovadia summoned him into his private bedroom, closed the door, and sat him down on his bed before making a request that would require him to surrender the leadership position he had previously held.

“I will never forget that moment,” Deri said. “You ask me about it today? I myself cannot believe that I managed to withstand it. It was the morning before the candidate lists were submitted. Maran called me into his bedroom alone, closed the door, sat me down on his bed, took my hand, and embraced me.”

According to Deri, Rav Ovadia began by expressing his deep personal affection for him and asking for a promise that he would not refuse what he was about to request.

“‘Rav Aryeh, you are like my son, more than my son. I am going to ask you for something. Do not refuse me. Do you promise me?'” Deri recalled Rav Ovadia saying.

Deri responded, “‘Rav, have I ever refused you anything until today?'”

Only then did Rav Ovadia explain what he wanted: Deri would return to the Shas Knesset list, but Eli Yishai would remain in the first position, with Deri serving beneath him.

“‘This is a very difficult test,'” Rav Ovadia told him, according to Deri. “‘I am asking you not to be number one on the list. I know that Eli Yishai was your assistant, that you are older than him, and that you were always the leader of the movement. But I am asking you: Be number two on the list.'”

The request placed Deri in an extraordinarily difficult position. Having previously led Shas and played a central role in building the party into a major force in Israeli politics, he was now being asked to return in a subordinate position to a man who had once worked under him.

Deri said that seeing Rav Ovadia’s tears immediately settled the matter for him.

“I immediately bent down and kissed his hand,” Deri recalled. “Maran had tears in his eyes as he made the request, and I had tears in my eyes as I answered him affirmatively, kissed his hand, and said: ‘Kavod Harav, whatever you say will be.'”

After Deri agreed, Rav Ovadia offered him words of encouragement, invoking the well-known account in Chazal involving Hashem and Yeravam ben Nevat, in which Yeravam’s concern over who would occupy the leading position prevented him from accepting an extraordinary opportunity.

“Maran told me the story of HaKadosh Baruch Hu and Yeravam ben Nevat — ‘Who will be first?’ He kissed me and said: ‘You passed this test. Hashem will reward you.'”

Deri said that when he emerged from the bedroom and informed his family members and close associates of the decision, they were stunned.

For those who had worked alongside him during his earlier years as Shas chairman, the idea that he would willingly accept the second position behind Eli Yishai seemed almost inconceivable.

“When I came out and told my family and friends, nobody believed me,” Deri recalled. “They said to me: ‘Are you crazy? You’re going to be number two?! This is outrageous.'”

Deri said he refused to entertain their objections, insisting that Rav Ovadia’s request had ended any discussion about his position on the list.

“I answered them firmly: Maran asked — that’s it, end of discussion. I agreed to be number two. We submitted the Knesset list with me in second place, with Eli Yishai at the top and me beneath him.”

The episode occurred during Deri’s political comeback ahead of the 2013 Knesset elections, when Shas was navigating the sensitive question of how to reintegrate its former chairman while Eli Yishai continued to lead the party.

Former President Barack Obama has sparked criticism after accusing Jews who sought refuge in the Land of Israel of taking land from its Arab inhabitants and acting excessively, remarks that critics say disregard the Jewish people’s historical connection to Eretz Yisroel and the extensive legal purchase of property by Jewish communities before the establishment of the state.

Speaking before approximately 7,000 people in Belfast, Northern Ireland, Obama acknowledged centuries of persecution suffered by Jews, particularly in Europe, before arguing that the establishment of a Jewish homeland had involved injustices against the local Arab population.

“The fact is that the Jewish people, for millennia, were oppressed, discriminated against, killed,” Obama said. “Europe was responsible for much of it. They understandably sought a refuge. That is undeniable.”

He then added: “What is also undeniable is that they took land off people and they were excessive. And those people understandably said, ‘This is injustice and I want my land back.'”

The comments came during a public discussion with journalist and author Susan McKay at Belfast’s O2 arena, part of Obama’s speaking tour in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Earlier that day, he had received an honorary doctorate from Queen’s University Belfast.

Obama’s description of Jewish settlement drew objections from pro-Israel commentators, who argued that his account failed to distinguish between land purchased legally by Jews during the Ottoman and British Mandate periods and the displacement of Palestinian Arabs during the 1948 war.

Jewish communities had existed in Eretz Yisroel long before the modern Zionist movement, including in Yerushalayim, Tzefas, Teveria, and Chevron. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Jewish organizations and private individuals purchased substantial tracts of land, frequently from Arab landowners, including absentee owners residing outside the territory.

Critics noted that Obama’s formulation presented Jewish settlement primarily as a response to European persecution, without adequately addressing the Jewish people’s ancient religious and historical ties to the land.

The circumstances surrounding Israel’s establishment in 1948 also remain central to the dispute over the former president’s remarks. The United Nations approved a partition proposal in November 1947 calling for separate Jewish and Arab states. Jewish leaders accepted the proposal, while Arab leaders rejected it.

Fighting began following the partition vote, and armies from neighboring Arab countries entered the conflict after Israel declared independence in May 1948. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled from their homes during the war, while Jewish communities also faced attacks and displacement, including the expulsion of Jews from the Old City of Yerushalayim.

Obama’s remarks did not address these historical developments in detail, prompting critics to argue that his characterization left listeners with an incomplete account of how the conflict developed.

The former president went on to criticize the current Israeli government, suggesting that Israel’s military strength had encouraged its leaders to believe they could impose their preferred outcome without making meaningful concessions.

Obama argued that if Israel’s position was that its regional superiority entitled it to take what it wanted, “you have ceded moral ground.”

He said “the current Israeli government appears to have taken that” position and maintained that Israeli leaders must recognize that “7 million Palestinians are not going anywhere.”

Obama urged Israelis to reconsider how future generations would coexist with the Arab population, questioning whether the country could rely indefinitely on military superiority and physical barriers for its security.

“The citizenry of Israel has to rethink, to reimagine,” Obama said, asking, “how are your children and grandchildren going to live in this region? Are you just going to be behind walls and wipe out everybody around you, or are you going to find some just way of defending yourself while still acting in an ethical, moral way?”

At the same time, Obama directed criticism toward Palestinian political and military strategy, arguing that Palestinian leaders must recognize the impossibility of defeating Israel through armed confrontation.

He said the Palestinian approach must be one “that is not premised on beating their military.”

Obama urged Palestinians to pursue political and nonviolent methods rather than attempting to overcome Israel’s military capabilities, saying that efforts to secure change through force had repeatedly failed.

Referring specifically to Hamas’ October 7, 2023, massacre in southern Israel, Obama said, “you could not have designed something that was less likely to produce meaningful change.”

His remarks reflected a longstanding position that both Israelis and Palestinians must acknowledge the other’s continued presence in the region and pursue a political settlement rather than attempting to achieve their objectives through military force alone.

During his presidency, Obama frequently clashed with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu over Israeli settlement policy and the prospects for a Palestinian state. His administration nevertheless maintained extensive security cooperation with Israel and signed a ten-year, $38 billion military assistance agreement in 2016.

In December of that year, the United States abstained from a United Nations Security Council vote on Resolution 2334, allowing a resolution condemning Israeli settlements to pass. The decision drew sharp criticism from Netanyahu and other Israeli officials, who accused the Obama administration of abandoning Israel at the international body.

Obama’s latest statements also come as he has reentered Democratic electoral politics ahead of the November midterm elections. Days before his Belfast appearance, he recorded a campaign advertisement supporting Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic Senate candidate in Michigan who has called for ending American military assistance to Israel and has accused the Jewish state of genocide in Gaza.

The Belfast appearance was part of a broader speaking tour during which Obama discussed democracy, international affairs, and political polarization. He also warned that democratic institutions cannot be taken for granted and expressed concern about the direction of American and international politics.

Maran Rav Dov Landau, rosh yeshiva of Slabodka, has issued his first public response to Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s controversial remarks about the chareidi community, describing statements questioning the legitimacy of chareidi life in Eretz Yisroel as a deliberate and public chillul Hashem.

The remarks were delivered Wednesday evening during a meeting with rabbonim from Rechasim, who visited Rav Landau and Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch to seek their guidance and bracha ahead of the upcoming elections.

Rav Landau addressed both the importance of voting and the growing political attacks against the Torah community, invoking the longstanding instructions of the Chazon Ish regarding participation in Israeli elections.

“The Chazon Ish zt”l instructed unequivocally that there is an obligation to vote in government elections,” Rav Landau said. “The Chazon Ish’s instruction has not changed. On the contrary, today the obligation to vote is doubled and redoubled, because, rachmana litzlan, the Torah itself is being left vulnerable to attack, and those who study Torah are being treated as prey. Hashem should protect us.”

The rosh yeshiva then turned to the recent statements made by Smotrich, who had sharply criticized the chareidi community and Rav Landau himself during campaign appearances earlier in the week.

“People who are called observant Jews come along and publicly declare that, chas v’shalom, there is no justification for being chareidi in Eretz Yisroel,” Rav Landau said. “This is a deliberate chillul Hashem committed publicly.”

He added that the comments did not require a personal response, but that the broader attack on the honor of Torah demanded action.

“There is no need to answer him. But there is an obligation to act against this terrible chillul Hashem,” Rav Landau said.

In his remarks, Rav Landau identified voting for United Torah Judaism, represented by the Hebrew letter Gimmel, as a public declaration of the centrality of Torah learning.

“When we vote Gimmel, we proclaim loudly, ‘We have nothing left except this Torah.’ Only Torah! And only Torah! The Holy One, blessed be He, has nothing in His world except the four amos of halacha. Only Torah! And only Torah!”

Rav Landau went on to emphasize that participation in the election must be treated as a serious personal obligation, even when voting involves inconvenience, expense, or disruption to one’s regular schedule.

“It is forbidden to evade voting,” he said. “Even someone who is occupied with various matters must make an effort beyond his usual capabilities to vote Gimmel, even if doing so involves what appears to be a loss.”

He stressed that the number of people voting in each community carries significance beyond the immediate election results, describing the turnout as a measure of public commitment to kavod Shomayim and the preservation of Torah life.

“In every place, the number of those counted among those who sanctify Hashem’s Name has tremendous significance, both for the present and for future generations,” Rav Landau said.

He further instructed that voters should cast their ballots specifically in their own communities rather than seeking alternative arrangements to avoid traveling home.

“Therefore, everyone is obligated to vote specifically in his place of residence. There is no exemption because of a long journey, and one should not look for all kinds of other solutions. In all of this, one must always be stringent.”

The rosh yeshiva’s statements followed two campaign appearances in which Smotrich sharply criticized the chareidi community, accusing it of failing to appreciate the significance of Jewish sovereignty in Eretz Yisroel.

During an interview conducted by Arutz Sheva, Smotrich was asked why he had declined to publicly respond to criticism directed at him by Rav Landau.

The finance minister initially explained his reluctance by referring to the obligation to show respect for talmidei chachomim.

“Let no one think, G-d forbid, that my silence means agreement, because ‘be careful of their burning coals,'” Smotrich said, invoking the warning of Chazal concerning disrespect toward Torah scholars.

“If I thought responding would accomplish something, I would respond. I do not respond to a Torah scholar,” he continued.

However, Smotrich then made a personal remark about Rav Landau that drew outrage in chareidi circles.

“By the way, it pains me, and I pray to the Holy One, blessed be He, that He bring him back in repentance as well, but there is no need to respond,” Smotrich said.

In additional comments, the finance minister accused the chareidi community of failing to recognize what he views as the religious significance of the State of Israel.

“The chareidim are ungrateful to the Holy One, blessed be He. They are completely blind. I do not understand how anyone can be chareidi today,” Smotrich declared.

The comments provoked an angry reaction among chareidi political figures and members of the Torah community, particularly because they were directed in part at one of the generation’s leading roshei yeshiva.

Smotrich, who heads the Religious Zionism party, has repeatedly clashed with chareidi political leaders over the military draft, the role of the state, and the status of full-time Torah learning.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli police arrested two residents of Elad overnight following a pair of violent attacks targeting senior municipal officials, including the throwing of a stun grenade at the home of the city’s chief executive and the suspected arson of a vehicle belonging to the mayor’s chief of staff.

Investigators believe the attacks may have been carried out in retaliation for enforcement actions recently undertaken by the Elad municipality against the suspects, raising concerns about attempts by criminal elements to intimidate city officials.

The two suspects, men in their 20s and 30s, were taken into custody by officers from the Rosh Ha’ayin police station in Israel’s Central District following an intensive investigation into the incidents.

The violence began Wednesday evening when police received a report that a stun grenade had been thrown toward the fence surrounding a private residence in Elad. Officers rushed to the scene and began searching the surrounding area for those responsible.

Shortly afterward, authorities received another report involving a vehicle that had caught fire elsewhere in the city. Initial findings at the scene led investigators to suspect that the blaze had been deliberately set.

The targeted vehicle belonged to Shimon Suissa, who serves as chief of staff to the mayor of Elad. The stun grenade, meanwhile, had been thrown toward the residence of Amnon Maksimov, the municipality’s director-general.

The attacks, which occurred within a short period of one another, prompted police to investigate whether the two incidents were connected and whether senior city officials were being deliberately targeted.

According to preliminary findings by the Sharon District Central Investigations Unit, the suspected motive was municipal enforcement activity recently carried out against the two individuals now in custody.

Police suspect that the men responded to those enforcement measures by targeting municipal officials in an effort to frighten them and interfere with the city’s efforts to maintain public order.

Investigators have not publicly detailed the specific enforcement actions believed to have triggered the attacks.

Following several hours of investigative and operational activity, police located the two suspects during the night and placed them under arrest.

Both were transferred to the Sharon District Central Investigations Unit for questioning and were subsequently held in custody.

Police are expected to bring the suspects before a judge on Thursday and request an extension of their detention while investigators continue gathering evidence.

The Elad municipality issued a forceful statement Wednesday night condemning the violence and insisting that threats against city officials would not interfere with municipal operations.

“Following the incidents that occurred in recent hours, including threats directed at senior municipal officials, the Elad Municipality makes clear that it will not be deterred by criminal elements attempting to intimidate residents and the municipal leadership. These are unacceptable attempts to instill fear and undermine the public’s sense of security. The Elad Municipality will not allow these elements to dictate the municipal agenda,” the municipality said.

The investigation remains ongoing, and the two individuals are suspects who have not been convicted of any offense.

Federal authorities have launched an investigation after multiple letters containing unidentified suspicious substances were mailed to congressional offices, with at least one envelope bearing the initials of the Democratic Socialists of America and a return address previously associated with the socialist organization.

The FBI, U.S. Capitol Police and U.S. Postal Inspection Service are coordinating the investigation, according to security notifications distributed to congressional employees Thursday. Authorities are attempting to locate and intercept additional suspicious mail before it reaches lawmakers or their staff.

One of the envelopes photographed in the security alert carried the marking “DSA” and listed a return address at a building in Manhattan’s Financial District. The Democratic Socialists of America previously used an address at that same building on its membership documents. Investigators have not established whether the organization had any involvement in sending the letters, and the return address alone does not establish who mailed them.

Congressional personnel were advised that law enforcement agencies were actively working to prevent further deliveries, although officials acknowledged that some envelopes might evade detection.

“Law enforcement officials are working to intercept any additional letters before they are delivered, however, it is possible that some letters may reach their destinations,” the Senate email notice stated.

The warning indicates that the potentially hazardous correspondence may still be circulating through the postal system, raising concerns about the possibility of additional congressional offices receiving similar envelopes.

Authorities have also discovered some of the suspicious letters at locations outside congressional offices, suggesting that the mailing campaign may extend beyond Capitol Hill. The number of envelopes identified so far, the intended recipients and the nature of the substances have not been publicly disclosed.

The investigation follows a separate series of suspicious mailings reported earlier this week at election offices across the country. Officials in Louisiana and Oklahoma said their offices received envelopes containing an unidentified white powder Tuesday, prompting evacuations while emergency personnel examined the material.

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose also reported that his office had been targeted, although postal authorities intercepted the suspicious envelope before delivery. No injuries were reported in those incidents.

In a statement Wednesday evening, the FBI acknowledged that suspicious correspondence had been sent to multiple locations nationwide, including state election offices and offices of secretaries of state. Federal investigators said they were working with postal inspectors and other law enforcement agencies to collect and examine the letters. Authorities have not established whether the congressional mailings are connected to those incidents.

The discovery of suspicious substances in mail addressed to government officials has historically prompted heightened security precautions, particularly following the deadly anthrax attacks of 2001, when contaminated letters were sent to congressional offices and media organizations.

As of Thursday morning, the FBI, Capitol Police and Postal Inspection Service had not issued detailed public statements about the congressional investigation. The Democratic Socialists of America had also not responded to a request for comment concerning the return address appearing on at least one envelope.

{Matzav.com}

Voting in Israel’s 26th Knesset elections officially began Thursday, nearly two weeks before Israelis head to the polls, as thousands of eligible Israeli diplomats, government representatives, and their families stationed overseas began casting their ballots at embassies and consulates around the world.

Approximately 4,800 Israelis are eligible to participate in the early overseas voting process, which is being conducted at 101 polling stations located in 99 Israeli diplomatic missions. The operation, coordinated by the Central Elections Committee and the Foreign Ministry, will extend across numerous time zones over approximately 30 consecutive hours.

The first polling station opened in Wellington, New Zealand, marking the official beginning of voting for the October 27 election. Balloting subsequently commenced at Israel’s new embassy in Suva, Fiji, as the process began moving westward across the globe.

New York City is home to the largest overseas voting location, with approximately 700 eligible voters registered at the Israeli consulate. The substantial number reflects the concentration of Israeli diplomatic personnel and other authorized representatives stationed in the area.

The overseas voting arrangements are limited to designated Israelis serving abroad on official assignments, along with eligible family members. Unlike some other countries, Israel generally does not allow its citizens living overseas to vote in national elections simply by visiting an embassy or consulate.

Those permitted to participate include employees of Israeli embassies and consulates, military and economic attachés, representatives of government ministries, and qualifying relatives accompanying them on their assignments.

Under Israeli election law, certain employees of the Jewish Agency, Jewish National Fund, Keren Hayesod, and World Zionist Organization who are serving overseas may also qualify to vote at designated diplomatic polling stations, together with eligible spouses and children.

The voting operation requires extensive coordination between the Foreign Ministry and the Central Elections Committee. Election officials have arranged for the secure transportation of ballot papers and other materials to diplomatic missions, while local polling personnel have undergone special training to ensure that procedures are followed consistently.

Because the polling stations operate according to local time, the election process moves across the international date line and through Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas before concluding on the West Coast of the United States.

The final ballots are scheduled to be cast at Israeli consulates in Los Angeles and San Francisco, where polling stations will close at 8 p.m. Thursday local time, corresponding to 6 a.m. Friday in Israel.

Once voting concludes, participation figures will be transmitted to the Central Elections Committee. The completed ballot envelopes will be sealed, secured, and transported to Israel through diplomatic channels.

The votes will be processed under Israel’s double-envelope system, which allows election officials to verify eligibility and prevent duplicate voting while preserving the secrecy of individual ballots. They will be counted in Israel as part of the general election process.

The main election will take place Tuesday, October 27, when Israeli voters will choose the 120 members of the 26th Knesset. Most polling stations in Israel are scheduled to operate from 7 a.m. until 10 p.m.

Under the election timetable, the Central Elections Committee is scheduled to publish the official results by November 4.

{Matzav.com}

Agudath Israel of America will host a special Asifas Hisorerus V’Hoda’ah this Motzoei Shabbos, Parshas Noach, October 17, in Brooklyn, bringing together members of the community for an evening of gratitude to Hakadosh Boruch Hu following the extraordinary and miraculous Flydubai rescue.

The gathering, being held in conjunction with Agudas Yisroel Bais Binyomin and Hakhel, will provide an opportunity for the community to reflect on the remarkable events surrounding the rescue, express heartfelt thanks to the Ribbono Shel Olam, and draw inspiration from the powerful reminder of Hashem’s Hashgacha and protection.

The evening will feature divrei chizuk and hisorerus from Rav Moshe Tuvia Lieff, rov of Agudas Yisroel Bais Binyomin, and Rabbi Paysach J. Krohn, the renowned author and speaker. Both will address the significance of the miraculous events and the importance of recognizing and expressing gratitude for the extraordinary yeshuos witnessed.

Following the divrei chizuk, the gathering will continue with uplifting shiros v’sishbachos led by Sruly Williger and Shloime Dachs, giving attendees an opportunity to join together in song and heartfelt expressions of hoda’ah to Hakadosh Boruch Hu.

The event will take place at Agudas Yisroel Bais Binyomin, located at 2913 Avenue L in Brooklyn, beginning at 9:00 p.m. and concluding at approximately 10:15 p.m.

The asifah is open to both men and women.

At a time when Klal Yisroel continues to face challenges and uncertainty, the gathering will offer an opportunity to unite in appreciation for the remarkable chassodim of Hashem and to strengthen the recognition that every yeshuah calls for heartfelt hoda’ah.

The organizers invite the entire community to participate in what promises to be a meaningful and inspiring evening of gratitude, chizuk, and song.

Sen. Ted Cruz is warning that the election of Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed could create an extraordinary national security threat, alleging that the candidate’s family connections to the Muslim Brotherhood raise serious questions about whether he should be entrusted with classified American intelligence.

The Texas Republican delivered the warning Wednesday during an episode of his “Verdict” podcast, where he argued that El-Sayed’s election could potentially give him access to highly sensitive information concerning American military operations, intelligence activities, and national security planning.

“If he wins, I believe that poses an unprecedented national security risk,” Cruz told podcast co-host Ben Ferguson.

Cruz said his concerns stem in part from the possibility that El-Sayed could eventually serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee or Armed Services Committee, both of which receive sensitive briefings and oversee matters involving the military and intelligence community.

“I believe if Abdul El-Sayed has access to that classified material, that it will endanger the lives of service men and women,” Cruz said.

The senator emphasized that members of Congress do not undergo the same executive-branch security clearance procedures required of many government employees before obtaining access to classified information. Congressional access to such material is nevertheless governed by separate institutional rules and restrictions.

Much of Cruz’s criticism centered on El-Sayed’s recent appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” during which moderator Kristen Welker questioned him about possible connections between himself, his family, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

El-Sayed answered the question with a categorical “No.”

Cruz challenged that response by pointing to statements published years earlier by El-Sayed’s half-sister, Eman Abdelhadi, on social media.

In a 2012 post, Abdelhadi wrote, “My family has long been MB,” using an abbreviation commonly associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

In the same message, she said she “always felt” that the organization “has navigated the political sphere poorly/destructively.”

Cruz also referenced a separate social media post from 2013 in which Abdelhadi expressed concern about relatives in Egypt who supported the Muslim Brotherhood.

The posts, Cruz argued, contradicted El-Sayed’s public denial of family connections to the organization.

However, the statements attributed to his half-sister do not, by themselves, establish that El-Sayed is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, has participated in its activities, or has engaged in conduct that would compromise American national security.

Cruz also cited an opinion article El-Sayed published in the Huffington Post in 2011, during the political upheaval that eventually brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt.

In the commentary, El-Sayed argued that a government led by the organization would look “nothing like Iran.”

Cruz portrayed the article as evidence that El-Sayed had long held a sympathetic view of the Islamist movement, which subsequently governed Egypt under President Mohamed Morsi before being removed from power by the Egyptian military in 2013.

The senator also raised questions about financial support for El-Sayed’s Senate campaign, citing a reported $300,000 contribution from the candidate’s father-in-law, Tayeb Jukaku, to a super PAC supporting his election.

Cruz highlighted Jukaku’s association with the Islamic Society of North America, an organization that federal prosecutors identified as an unindicted co-conspirator during the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing prosecution.

That designation did not constitute a criminal conviction, and the association does not establish wrongdoing by Jukaku or El-Sayed. Cruz nevertheless argued that the combination of family connections, political positions, and financial relationships warranted greater scrutiny.

El-Sayed’s positions concerning Israel have also become a major source of controversy in the closely contested Michigan race.

The Democratic candidate has accused Israel of committing genocide during its military campaign against Hamas in Gaza and has advocated ending American military assistance to the Jewish state.

He also drew criticism after declining to directly affirm Israel’s right to exist during a CNN interview.

“Israel exists,” El-Sayed responded when questioned on the issue, dismissing the formulation as a political “gotcha game.”

El-Sayed has maintained that opposition to Israeli government policies should not automatically be treated as hostility toward Jews.

“To be anti-Israel is not the same as to be anti-Jewish,” he declared.

The controversy has intensified as El-Sayed competes against Republican Mike Rogers in one of the country’s most closely watched Senate contests, a race that could help determine which party controls the chamber following the November elections.

Recent polling has shown El-Sayed holding a narrow advantage over Rogers, although the contest remains competitive. A Washington Post-Schar School survey released in September placed El-Sayed at 48 percent and Rogers at 45 percent among likely voters, a difference within the poll’s margin of error.

The race has also attracted significant outside spending. A political action committee affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has recently begun financing campaign materials opposing El-Sayed, reflecting concern among pro-Israel activists about the possibility of his election.

Republicans have increasingly focused attention on El-Sayed’s background and views, while the Democratic candidate has accused his opponents of using allegations about his religion and family to divert attention from economic and healthcare issues.

His campaign previously characterized allegations connecting him and his relatives to the Muslim Brotherhood as “racist” and “untrue.”

Cruz, however, insisted that the controversy should be viewed as a matter of national security rather than an ordinary political disagreement.

“This is a profound danger,” Cruz said.

The senator urged Michigan voters to reject El-Sayed, warning that the consequences of the election could extend well beyond the state’s representation in Washington.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is resisting a federal recommendation that would automatically activate agents’ body cameras when they draw their weapons, setting up a dispute over accountability, officer safety, and the recording of sensitive encounters during immigration enforcement operations.

The Department of Homeland Security has rejected the proposed requirement, arguing that automatic recording technology could create serious operational problems, including accidental activation and the unintended recording of confidential interactions.

The disagreement follows a Government Accountability Office investigation that identified shortcomings in body-camera policies, training, and oversight at ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Investigators warned that unclear requirements could result in important enforcement encounters taking place without video documentation.

According to a report published Wednesday by Axios, DHS agreed with six of the GAO’s seven recommendations but declined to adopt the proposal calling for automatic camera activation and additional measures to ensure officers record arrests, searches, and detentions when required.

In explaining its objections, the department said the technology “presents significant operational risks, including inadvertent or false activations during routine movement.”

DHS officials also expressed concern that cameras triggered automatically could record conversations with confidential informants, crime victims, and other individuals whose identities or interactions require protection.

The department further warned that unintended recordings might capture people engaged in constitutionally protected activities, raising privacy and First Amendment concerns.

The dispute highlights a significant difference between the two federal law enforcement agencies. Customs and Border Protection already employs systems capable of activating body cameras automatically when officers draw firearms or turn on emergency lights. ICE, however, has not implemented comparable technology.

The GAO’s examination found that confusion over existing recording rules was widespread enough to raise questions about whether officers consistently understood when they were required to activate their cameras.

At six of the ten locations reviewed by investigators, personnel expressed uncertainty about the circumstances in which recording was mandatory.

Some employees characterized the rules as “not mandated,” “up to interpretation,” or containing “gray areas.”

The uncertainty extended to several common enforcement situations, including searches of vehicles, transportation of detainees, undercover assignments, and interviews with individuals already in custody.

These findings raised concerns that officers might fail to record significant encounters even when agency policy called for cameras to be operating.

The federal watchdog also examined how the agencies handled violations of their body-camera requirements and found remarkably little documented disciplinary action.

From the beginning of ICE’s body-camera program through September 2025, the agency had not issued a single written reprimand for violations of its recording policies.

Customs and Border Protection had issued just one such reprimand during the period examined.

The findings come as federal immigration authorities face growing public scrutiny over enforcement tactics, including several fatal shootings involving ICE personnel.

Body cameras have become a particularly contentious issue as the Trump administration expands immigration enforcement and critics demand greater transparency surrounding arrests and confrontations between federal agents and members of the public.

Earlier this year, White House border czar Tom Homan publicly supported expanding ICE’s body-camera program, emphasizing that the administration wanted Americans to have confidence in the professionalism of federal immigration officers.

Homan said in February that he had discussed the initiative with then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who approved the expansion.

“We have nothing to hide,” Homan said, adding that Americans “seek and deserve professional and trustworthy law enforcement.”

He explained that approximately $20 million included in federal spending legislation would help finance the expansion of body-camera use among immigration agents.

Homan also stressed that the administration would not excuse improper conduct by federal personnel.

“Any misconduct will not be tolerated and will be swiftly addressed,” he said.

At the same time, Homan defended ICE’s enforcement methods, rejecting suggestions that agents were conducting indiscriminate immigration sweeps.

He said officers generally begin operations with specific targets in mind, particularly individuals with criminal records who have been identified for arrest.

“When we leave this building, we know who we’re looking for,” Homan said.

The GAO’s investigation focused on whether ICE and CBP had established sufficient procedures to ensure body cameras were deployed appropriately, officers understood recording requirements, and violations were addressed consistently.

Investigators found that weaknesses in those areas made it difficult for the agencies to assess whether their camera programs were accomplishing their intended purposes.

The watchdog called for clearer operational standards, improved training, stronger oversight, and updated deployment plans that would allow agency leadership to measure the effectiveness of body-camera use.

Although DHS accepted most of the recommendations, its refusal to adopt automatic activation technology leaves unresolved one of the report’s central concerns: how to ensure that critical encounters are recorded when officers are focused on fast-moving or potentially dangerous situations.

The GAO concluded that without more consistent requirements and reliable measures of compliance, federal immigration agencies cannot adequately determine whether their body-camera programs are improving accountability, protecting officers, or strengthening public confidence in law enforcement.

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that individuals who disclose classified military information “should be shot,” revealing that a leak exposing the timing of a planned American strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities prompted him to postpone the operation over concerns that U.S. forces could be placed in danger.

Addressing supporters at a campaign rally in Bullhead City, Arizona, Trump expressed outrage over the release of sensitive details surrounding Operation Midnight Hammer, the June 2025 American bombing mission targeting Iranian nuclear installations.

The president said information about the planned departure and arrival times of American military aircraft had reached major news organizations before the operation was carried out, potentially compromising the element of surprise.

“Somebody leaked, some sleazebag. They ought to go to jail and be shot. For the rest of their life, they should be in jail,” Trump told the crowd.

Trump specifically accused individuals of disclosing the scheduled departure time of the aircraft from Missouri, along with details of when they were expected to reach their targets.

“They leaked that we were leaving at 12:07 from Missouri, and it was in The New York Times, CNN,” Trump said.

“They leaked the time we were leaving, the time we were arriving,” he said.

According to the president, the disclosure was serious enough that he personally raised the matter with Gen. Dan “Razin” Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to determine whether the mission could still proceed safely.

“I said, ‘General, that’s not good, is it?’ He said, ‘Not good, sir, but we can do it anyway.’ I said, ‘Let’s change the time.’ So I called off the raid,” Trump recalled.

Trump said he ultimately held the mission back for two days before allowing the military to proceed using the same departure schedule that had originally been planned. He suggested the decision helped mislead Iranian officials, who may have believed the leaked information was no longer accurate.

The president repeatedly returned to the danger posed by unauthorized disclosures, arguing that revealing operational details during an impending military attack could jeopardize American lives and national security.

“But they leak. Leakers should be, in my opinion, leakers should be shot,” Trump said. “In the old days, we used to shoot leakers.”

“When they leak what time you’re going to attack a country, and the reason you’re attacking is really for defense because you don’t want them to have a weapon that can blow up millions of people in one shot,” he added.

“No, leakers should be dealt with very, very strongly,” Trump continued. “To me, they’re the scum of the earth.”

Trump also directed his criticism toward the news media, accusing journalists of spreading inaccurate information and relying on sources he suggested might not exist.

“They’re almost as bad as a leaker,” Trump said of reporters.

“They leak false information, that makes them a leaker. Oftentimes, without a source. I think they make up a lot of their sources,” the president said.

The remarks came as Trump campaigned for Republican candidates ahead of the November 3 midterm elections. His appearance in Bullhead City included support for Arizona gubernatorial candidate Andy Biggs, but much of the president’s discussion turned to the continuing confrontation with Iran.

Trump portrayed the Iranian regime as increasingly disorganized following American military operations, suggesting that the country’s leadership had suffered such significant losses that officials were reluctant to assume positions of authority.

“Nobody wants to be the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Trump said. “Who would like to be the president of Iran?

“Please raise your hand. No, I don’t want to be.”

The president then acknowledged that the American campaign against Iranian leadership may have gone further than he initially anticipated.

“I probably went a little too far. I’m sorry, because I don’t know who the hell we’re dealing with anymore,” Trump added, before predicting that the confrontation would soon conclude.

Trump defended American military operations as essential to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, describing Tehran as the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism and warning that a nuclear-armed Iranian regime would pose a catastrophic threat to Israel, the broader Middle East, Europe, and the United States.

“If they had a nuclear weapon, within 24 hours they would use it,” Trump claimed. “They’ll knock out the Middle East, then they’ll start hitting us on the West Coast.”

“They’ll hit Europe because they’re crazy,” he said.

Trump’s assertions about how quickly Iran would use a nuclear weapon were his own predictions, rather than findings established by publicly released American intelligence assessments.

Operation Midnight Hammer involved American B-2 stealth bombers and other military assets striking Iranian nuclear facilities in June 2025, during the 12-day war between Israel and Iran. The operation targeted major installations associated with Tehran’s nuclear program, including deeply fortified sites.

Following the strikes, news organizations reported findings from a preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency assessment suggesting that the damage to Iran’s nuclear program might have been less extensive than the administration initially claimed. Trump strongly disputed those assessments.

The president’s latest account of a leak forcing a two-day postponement has not been independently substantiated in the public reporting. He did not identify the alleged leaker or provide documentation establishing that the disclosure caused the military to change its operational schedule.

Trump has repeatedly criticized unauthorized disclosures of national security information, and his administration has pursued investigations into leaks involving sensitive government and military matters.

The president also sought to reassure Americans about the economic consequences of the ongoing conflict, particularly higher fuel costs, predicting that gasoline prices would decline sharply once hostilities with Iran ended.

“When that ends, your gasoline is going to go down to even lower than it was before it started,” Trump said.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris is accusing both President Donald Trump and the Biden administration, in which she served for four years, of failing to exert sufficient pressure on Israel during the war against Hamas in Gaza, arguing that Washington should have intervened earlier and more aggressively to restrict Israeli military operations.

Speaking Wednesday at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies in Seoul, South Korea, Harris criticized American policy toward Israel under both administrations, portraying the Jewish state’s military campaign as unacceptable and faulting U.S. leaders for failing to use American influence to force a change in Israel’s conduct.

“Most recently, the failure to use our leverage to curtail the Israeli government’s horrific conduct in the war in Gaza, both under the current administration, which offers [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu a blank check, and our administration before, where we should have acted sooner and more forcefully,” Harris said.

The remarks amounted to an unusually direct criticism of former President Joe Biden, whose administration Harris helped lead as vice president throughout the Gaza war. They also represented another attack on Trump’s support for Israel and his relationship with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Harris’s comments come as she weighs another presidential campaign in 2028, following her defeat to Trump in the 2024 election. She has publicly acknowledged that she is considering another run for the White House.

Her latest statements are consistent with a series of increasingly critical remarks she has made about Israel, Netanyahu, and American military involvement in the Middle East.

In April, Harris accused Netanyahu of drawing Trump into the military confrontation with Iran, arguing that the conflict was unwanted by American voters and had contributed to higher gasoline prices.

“Trump entered a war – and he got pulled into it by Bibi Netanyahu, let’s be clear about that – that the American people didn’t want. Among the many consequences of it is jacking up the price of gas,” Harris said at the time.

Harris also generated controversy during the 2024 presidential campaign over her response to an anti-Israel protester who accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.

During an October 2024 campaign appearance at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, the demonstrator interrupted her remarks with accusations against Israel before being escorted from the venue.

Rather than directly rejecting the allegation, Harris appeared to validate the protester’s concerns, telling the audience that the issue “was real.”

“Listen, what he’s talking about, it’s real. That’s not the subject that I came to discuss today, but it’s real and I respect his voice,” she said.

The Republican Jewish Coalition responded to Harris’s latest remarks by accusing her of maintaining a record of hostility toward Israel. The organization described her criticism as “unsurprising” and pointed to several previous controversies involving her statements and positions on the Jewish state.

Among the incidents cited by the RJC was a confrontation at a Harris event just ten days after the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre, when an audience member accused Israel and the United States of genocide. According to the organization, Harris responded by telling the individual, “I appreciate your leadership”.

The RJC also recalled Harris’s decision to skip Netanyahu’s address to a joint session of Congress in July 2024, attending a sorority luncheon instead. The organization further criticized her record on legislation intended to counter the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.

Another point raised by the group was Harris’s opposition to Israeli military operations in Rafah. During the Gaza war, she repeatedly expressed concern about the humanitarian consequences of an Israeli offensive in the southern Gaza city. Israeli forces subsequently located and rescued hostages in the Rafah area, an outcome the RJC cited in challenging her position.

The organization also revisited an incident from 2021 in which a student accused Israel of “ethnic genocide” during an exchange with Harris. Her response at the time, “Your truth cannot be suppressed”, drew criticism from those who argued that she had failed to challenge the accusation.

Harris’s latest comments also drew a sharp reaction from Warren Kinsella, a Canadian attorney and author who worked on her 2024 presidential campaign. Following her remarks about Israel, Kinsella wrote that he was “ashamed to have worked with her.”

Her criticism of Biden represents a further shift from the position she maintained while serving in his administration. During the 2024 presidential campaign, Harris generally defended Israel’s right to protect itself following the October 7 Hamas attacks, even as she voiced concern about civilian suffering in Gaza.

Since leaving office, however, Harris has become increasingly willing to criticize the administration’s handling of the conflict. In her 2025 memoir, 107 Days, she faulted Biden for what she regarded as an inadequate public response to Palestinian suffering, suggesting that his expressions of concern lacked the intensity of his statements supporting Israel.

The Israel controversy was only one component of Harris’s appearance in Seoul, where she delivered a broader critique of American foreign policy and the Trump administration’s approach to international alliances.

She criticized Trump’s tariff policies and his handling of relations with South Korea, arguing that Washington was weakening important partnerships at a time of growing international instability.

Harris also warned about the dangers posed by artificial intelligence, calling for stronger international safeguards and cooperation between the United States and China to address emerging technological threats.

Her remarks come as she remains politically active ahead of the November midterm elections and considers whether to seek the Democratic presidential nomination again in 2028.

During her appearance in South Korea, Harris predicted that Democrats could capture both chambers of Congress in November, while declining to make a final announcement about her own political plans.

President Donald Trump announced Thursday that the scheduled execution of convicted Fort Hood terrorist Nidal Hasan will proceed on December 3, but that plans to broadcast the execution live to the public have been abandoned following objections to televising his death.

Hasan, the former Army psychiatrist responsible for the November 5, 2009, terrorist attack at Fort Hood, Texas, in which 13 people were murdered, is scheduled to be executed by firing squad. Trump said that while the general public will not be permitted to watch the execution through a livestream, victims of the massacre and their immediate families will have the opportunity to witness it if they wish.

The president explained his decision in a Truth Social post, acknowledging that publicly broadcasting Hasan’s execution could potentially discourage future acts of terrorism, but saying that many Americans would find such a spectacle deeply disturbing.

“I think streaming the execution for all to see might have been a strong deterrent for the World to witness how America deals with Terrorists and SCUM like Hasan but, many very good and well meaning people would rather not watch him die, through streaming, or through any other visual device,” Trump posted on Truth Social.

Trump made clear that the decision affects only the public broadcast and will not change the planned execution date or method.

“He will die, as scheduled, by firing squad, but this event will not be streamed,” he added.

The announcement reverses plans outlined last week by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who had indicated that Hasan’s execution would be made available for public viewing. That proposal generated criticism from both Republicans and Democrats, with opponents questioning the appropriateness of turning a military execution into a publicly broadcast event.

The United States has not conducted an execution open to the general public since the 1930s, making the proposed broadcast a significant departure from longstanding American practice.

Hasan, who was convicted in 2013 of 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted murder, carried out the massacre at a military processing facility where soldiers were preparing for deployment. He described the shooting as an act of jihad. The attack remains the deadliest mass shooting at an American military installation.

The decision to cancel the livestream followed objections from prominent Republicans, including Vice President JD Vance and House Speaker Mike Johnson. Johnson raised concerns that footage of the execution could be exploited by terrorist organizations as a recruitment tool, while Vance indicated that he had no intention of watching the broadcast.

Religious leaders and retired military officers also opposed making the execution publicly accessible. Seventy-two retired senior military officers signed a letter objecting to the proposed broadcast, while Archbishop Timothy Broglio, who oversees Catholic ministry within the armed forces, urged Catholic military personnel not to participate in the firing squad.

Trump had initially expressed support for the broadcast, but reports earlier this week indicated that he was reconsidering the proposal after consulting lawmakers, advisers and others who opposed it.

Hasan’s execution, if carried out as scheduled, would be the first conducted by the American military since 1961 and the first military execution by firing squad since 1945.

Elon Musk has placed responsibility for restrictions affecting Ukraine’s military satellite communications squarely on the United States government, saying that decisions limiting the capabilities of SpaceX’s Starshield network are controlled by American military authorities and ultimately President Donald Trump. His remarks come amid reports that Ukrainian forces have experienced disruptions to satellite connectivity at a critical stage in their war against Russia.

The controversy has intensified tensions between Washington and Kyiv, particularly as Ukrainian forces continue striking Russian oil facilities despite American pressure to scale back attacks on Moscow’s energy infrastructure.

Musk addressed the issue Wednesday, explaining that Starshield, the military-oriented satellite communications system developed by SpaceX, operates under government authority rather than the independent control of his company.

“Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS,” Musk wrote on X.

His statement drew a distinction between Starshield and the commercial Starlink service. According to Musk, the civilian network is subject to limitations intended to prevent its use in offensive military operations, while Starshield is specifically designed for government and military applications.

The dispute emerged following complaints from Ukrainian officials that satellite terminals had unexpectedly experienced reduced connection speeds, interfering with drone missions and raising concerns about the reliability of communications systems used by Ukrainian forces.

By emphasizing Washington’s authority over Starshield, Musk appeared to distance SpaceX from responsibility for the reported restrictions. The White House, however, has not publicly acknowledged directing any reduction in service. Reports indicate that at least some of the affected connectivity has subsequently been restored.

The satellite controversy has unfolded alongside mounting Ukrainian concerns about the future of American intelligence support, another critical component of Kyiv’s military operations.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Tuesday that his country had received no advance warning from allied intelligence services before five Russian ballistic missiles struck civilian infrastructure. His comments fueled questions about whether intelligence cooperation between Washington and Kyiv had already been affected.

Trump rejected suggestions that the United States had stopped providing intelligence assistance to Ukraine.

“We are helping them, and we are sharing intel,” the president told reporters.

Nevertheless, Ukrainian officials have reportedly been cautioned that intelligence cooperation could face additional limitations, especially if Kyiv persists in targeting Russian energy installations.

The disagreement comes against the backdrop of a separate controversy involving Trump’s arrangement with Russian President Vladimir Putin allowing Russian diesel imports into the United States. Ukrainian officials and some American lawmakers have criticized the move, arguing that renewed energy purchases could provide Moscow with additional revenue to sustain its military campaign.

Ukraine, meanwhile, has made attacks on Russian oil refineries a central element of its strategy to weaken Moscow’s war economy. By damaging refining facilities, Ukrainian commanders hope to disrupt fuel production, complicate military logistics and reduce income flowing to the Russian government.

Kyiv has shown little willingness to abandon those operations, even as its relationship with Washington becomes increasingly strained.

A senior Ukrainian official reportedly told the Financial Times that Ukrainian forces intended to continue setting Russian refineries ablaze, signaling that the government regards the campaign as an essential military tool rather than a bargaining chip to be surrendered under diplomatic pressure.

The determination to continue those strikes was evident Thursday, when Ukrainian drones reportedly attacked an oil refinery in Russia’s Ryazan region, extending a campaign that has become a major source of friction with the United States.

Zelenskyy has also voiced personal frustration over Washington’s shifting approach, describing a sense of betrayal as decisions affecting American military and technological assistance threaten to constrain Ukraine’s ability to wage the war.

The latest developments have prompted renewed scrutiny of whether the Trump administration is seeking to use American-controlled satellite infrastructure and intelligence cooperation as leverage to influence Ukrainian military decisions, particularly regarding attacks on Russian energy targets.

For Ukrainian commanders, access to reliable satellite communications remains essential for coordinating forces, operating drones and responding to Russian attacks. Any restrictions on those capabilities could have immediate consequences for operations on the battlefield, particularly while Kyiv continues its campaign against Russia’s oil industry.

The satellite disruptions were particularly damaging because Ukraine depends on the systems to guide drones traveling at high speeds. Ukrainian officials reported that some terminals initially lost connectivity when moving faster than 80 kilometers per hour, while subsequent restrictions imposed a ceiling of 160 kilometers per hour, approximately 100 miles per hour.

That limit created difficulties for Ukrainian interceptor drones attempting to pursue Russian attack aircraft, some of which travel substantially faster. Serhiy Beskrestnov, a Ukrainian defense adviser, said military personnel had received no advance notification of the changes, resulting in failed missions.

The episode also drew criticism from European officials. Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski publicly challenged Musk over the disruptions, questioning whether political considerations were influencing the availability of satellite services purchased by European customers.

Ukrainian officials contacted representatives of the White House, Pentagon and CIA seeking an explanation. American officials reportedly pointed to a possible technical malfunction, while a senior administration official denied that the White House had been responsible for the restrictions.

By Thursday, Ukrainian officials reported that both Starlink and Starshield services had been restored to full capacity, although questions remained about what had caused the interruptions.

The dispute has also attracted criticism from lawmakers in Washington, including Republican Sen. Thom Tillis, who expressed concern about restrictions affecting Ukraine’s ability to defend itself. Meanwhile, the renewed Ukrainian strike on the Ryazan refinery underscored Kyiv’s determination to continue targeting Russian energy infrastructure despite objections from the Trump administration.

The U.S. military has reportedly developed new plans for possible attacks against Iran that include the potential use of the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb, better known as the “Mother of All Bombs,” as President Donald Trump considers his options for renewed military action against Tehran.

According to a CNN report, Pentagon planners have been examining whether the enormous conventional weapon could be used against Iranian nuclear installations and other strategic targets if the president authorizes another round of strikes. The planning reportedly includes possible attacks on Iran’s energy infrastructure, although no decision to launch additional operations has been announced.

The weapon, commonly referred to by its acronym MOAB, is among the most powerful non-nuclear bombs ever developed by the United States. Weighing approximately 21,600 pounds, or nearly 11 tons, the GPS-guided bomb carries an explosive charge with a destructive force equivalent to roughly 11 tons of TNT.

Despite its extraordinary size and power, the MOAB has been deployed in combat only once. In April 2017, during Trump’s first administration, American forces dropped the bomb on an ISIS tunnel complex in Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province. The strike targeted fortified positions and an extensive network of underground passages used by the terrorist organization.

The possibility of using the weapon against Iran presents a considerably different military challenge, particularly because some of the country’s most sensitive nuclear installations are believed to be buried beneath substantial layers of rock.

One location reportedly under consideration is an underground Iranian facility known as Pickaxe Mountain, which has attracted attention because of its suspected connection to Tehran’s nuclear program.

The installation is believed to have been constructed deep inside a mountain and shielded by thick granite formations, raising questions about whether even a bomb as powerful as the MOAB could penetrate far enough to destroy its most important underground components.

Although the MOAB is designed to produce an exceptionally powerful blast over a broad area, it is not a specialized bunker-busting weapon. Its principal destructive effect comes from the enormous pressure wave generated by its explosion rather than its ability to burrow through layers of reinforced concrete and solid rock.

That distinction has led military analysts to question whether the bomb would be effective against deeply buried Iranian nuclear facilities, even if it caused extensive destruction to surrounding infrastructure, entrances, or surface installations.

The latest reporting indicates that the potential use of the MOAB is part of a broader set of military options requested by Trump in recent weeks. One official familiar with the discussions said the president had asked for additional strike plans covering “a lot of energy infrastructure,” with the massive bomb included among the weapons being considered.

Another official said the Pentagon’s plans for attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities specifically include the possibility of deploying the MOAB against Pickaxe Mountain.

The facility, located near Iran’s Natanz nuclear complex, has become a particular focus of American and Israeli concern. Iran previously described the underground installation as a future centrifuge assembly facility, but Israeli intelligence has raised suspicions that Tehran may have transferred advanced centrifuges and highly enriched uranium into the mountain.

Recent analysis of satellite photographs has also indicated increased construction activity at the site, including reinforcement of tunnel entrances and work believed to be taking place inside the mountain. Researchers have warned that the depth of the installation could make it extremely difficult to destroy through conventional airstrikes.

One individual familiar with the Pentagon’s deliberations questioned whether the MOAB would accomplish the military’s intended objectives.

“The MOAB is a massive information operation type weapon that is great for huge area clearance but not much else,” the source told CNN. “It is definitely not designed as a deep penetration warhead.”

The weapon’s enormous blast radius could also raise concerns about civilian casualties if deployed against infrastructure near populated areas.

Nevertheless, officials believe that the threat of deploying such a powerful weapon could have psychological value, demonstrating Washington’s willingness to escalate military pressure even if the bomb could not completely destroy Iran’s underground nuclear facilities.

The discussions come as the Trump administration weighs how to conclude the confrontation with Iran without allowing the regime to rebuild its nuclear capabilities. According to the reporting, some advisers have considered the possibility of carrying out additional strikes before withdrawing American forces from the region.

Trump has publicly indicated that he does not intend to resume attacks before the November 3 midterm elections, although officials familiar with White House deliberations have suggested that the administration’s plans could still change.

The United States has meanwhile maintained its naval blockade of Iranian ports, while Tehran has continued threatening international shipping and reinforcing sensitive military installations.

A White House official declined to discuss the reported military plans, saying the administration does not comment on sensitive operational matters that may or may not exist. The official reiterated that Trump “keeps all options on the table” to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

{Matzav.com}

For many, the idea of earning Smicha has been sitting quietly in the background for years.

It’s something people think about, often seriously, but are unsure how to act. Not because of a lack of interest, but because of a lack of clarity. Where do I start? How do I stay consistent? And most importantly, how does it realistically fit into an already full life?

That gap is exactly what Machon Smicha was created to address.

Machon Smicha is a structured, fully developed program designed specifically for the English-speaking Torah community. Its goal is simple: to provide a clear, guided path from initial interest to actual Smicha, without pulling participants away from their current responsibilities

At the core of the program is a carefully built system that removes the uncertainty that often comes with independent learning. Participants receive a complete set of Machon Smicha’s Translated and Explained Shulchan Aruch, giving them direct access to the material in a format that is both comprehensive and accessible. This is paired with a full online platform that includes organized learning modules, video shiurim, and built-in review systems to reinforce understanding.

Beyond the materials themselves, the structure of the program is what sets it apart. Each stage is clearly defined, with ongoing support from experienced rabbonim and maggidei shiur. Regular assessments ensure that participants are not only learning, but retaining and mastering the material as they progress.

At the same time, flexibility remains a central feature. The program is designed to work within the reality of busy schedules, allowing participants to move forward at a steady pace without compromising their professional or personal commitments.

Participants include yeshiva students, working professionals, educators, and retirees, all sharing the same goal of achieving Smicha practically and sustainably.

Upon completion of the program, participants receive Smicha signed by the Vaad Harabbanim of Machon Smicha.

If you  have been considering Smicha but have yet to find a clear way forward, Machon Smicha offers something that has often been missing: a structured path, a supportive system, and the empowerment to accomplish a dream.

The next cohort begins on Sunday, October 18, 2026 (7 Cheshvan 5787).

For more information or to register, visit onlinemachon.com/smicha.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and senior officials in United Torah Judaism are increasingly concerned that as many as 30,000 Ger chassidim could decline to vote in Israel’s October 27 Knesset elections, potentially dealing a serious blow to the chareidi party and Netanyahu’s chances of assembling a governing coalition.

The concern comes amid deep frustration within Ger over the government’s failure to secure legislation protecting yeshiva bochurim from military conscription, as well as a separate internal dispute within Agudas Yisroel over the composition of the United Torah Judaism electoral list.

According to reports aired Wednesday evening on Israel’s Channel 12, Ger has yet to mobilize its extensive electoral apparatus, despite the election being less than two weeks away. Unlike previous election campaigns, when the chassidus organized extensive efforts to bring voters to the polls, there have been virtually no public calls for participation, and local campaign headquarters have reportedly not been established.

The unusual silence has also been evident in Hamodia, the newspaper closely associated with Ger, where election coverage and appeals to vote have been noticeably absent.

Political officials fear that Ger could effectively conduct a quiet election boycott, with its members remaining home rather than voting for United Torah Judaism, the party they have traditionally supported.

Another possibility being discussed is that some Ger voters could cast ballots for minor parties with little chance of crossing the electoral threshold, effectively removing those votes from the allocation of Knesset seats.

Ger’s electoral strength is estimated at approximately 30,000 votes, representing roughly one Knesset seat, with the chassidus also exercising influence among other chassidic communities.

In an election in which the balance between competing political blocs could be determined by a relatively small number of votes, the loss of such a substantial voting bloc could have consequences extending well beyond United Torah Judaism itself.

Sources within Ger acknowledged to Channel 12 that considerable anger remains toward Netanyahu and indicated that the chassidus is currently making no concerted effort to encourage its members to vote.

Those sources suggested that Ger’s leadership is waiting to see whether political developments before Election Day will justify a change in its approach.

The dispute over the draft law is one major source of dissatisfaction.

Ger representative Yitzchok Goldknopf resigned as housing minister last year amid frustration over the coalition’s inability to advance legislation regulating the status of yeshiva bochurim.

His departure reflected a broader breakdown in relations between Ger and Netanyahu, with the chassidus taking an increasingly confrontational position toward government efforts to address the military draft issue.

Despite subsequent political discussions, Netanyahu has reportedly been unable to repair the relationship.

However, additional Israeli reporting Thursday indicated that the controversy involves more than dissatisfaction with the prime minister.

A significant internal dispute within Agudas Yisroel has also emerged following the decision by MK Meir Porush, representing Shlomei Emunim, and Eliakim Stark, representing Belz, to break away from Agudas Yisroel’s organizational framework shortly before the electoral lists were submitted.

The two established a separate faction within United Torah Judaism called Toras Chomas Yisroel, while retaining positions on the joint electoral list.

Porush was placed fourth on the United Torah Judaism list, while Stark was assigned the sixth position.

The arrangement has generated considerable opposition within Ger, where officials contend that the two representatives separated themselves from the authority of Agudas Yisroel’s institutions, including its Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah, while continuing to benefit from the electoral strength of the joint party.

According to Thursday’s reporting, some within Ger believe that a strong turnout by the chassidus could help secure an additional Knesset seat for United Torah Judaism, potentially enabling Stark to enter the Knesset.

One Ger source explained the calculation by pointing out that Goldknopf, who occupies the second position on the list, is expected to win his seat regardless.

The concern, according to the source, is that Ger’s votes could provide the additional support needed to elect Stark, despite the unresolved dispute over his faction’s relationship with Agudas Yisroel.

The controversy is particularly sensitive because Ger traditionally holds the senior position within Agudas Yisroel and has played a central role in organizing the party’s election campaigns.

Stark was selected as Belz’s representative by the Belzer Rebbe, replacing longtime MK Yisroel Eichler, who has served in the Knesset for much of the period since 2003.

Ger officials are reportedly seeking understandings regarding the distribution of political positions and the relationship between the factions before committing to a full election mobilization effort.

Among the demands being discussed is an arrangement with Degel HaTorah concerning the status of Porush and Stark, including the possibility of restricting future independent negotiations with their faction unless it returns to the Agudas Yisroel framework.

No agreement has yet been announced.

Despite the tensions, sources within Ger have indicated that a final instruction to vote for United Torah Judaism may still be issued before Election Day, as has been customary in previous elections.

Such a directive would ultimately depend on the decisions of the Gerer Rebbe, Rav Yaakov Aryeh Alter.

Political observers nevertheless warn that a last-minute call to vote might not produce the same level of participation as a fully organized campaign that had been operating for weeks.

The absence of election headquarters, public appeals and the usual mobilization efforts could make it difficult to generate the turnout Ger has traditionally delivered.

The developments come as both Shas and United Torah Judaism have declared that they will not support a future government unless legislation is passed protecting the status of yeshiva students.

Shas chairman Aryeh Deri reiterated that position Wednesday, insisting that his party would neither join nor support any coalition without an acceptable legislative arrangement.

For Netanyahu, the uncertainty surrounding Ger presents an additional political challenge as he attempts to retain the support of the chareidi parties while preparing for an election in which every Knesset seat could prove decisive.

As of Thursday, Ger had issued no formal instruction directing its members to abstain from voting, and discussions aimed at resolving the internal Agudas Yisroel dispute were continuing.

{Matzav.com}

Shas chairman Aryeh Deri declared Wednesday that his party will neither join nor support Israel’s next government unless legislation is passed securing the status of yeshiva bochurim and protecting them from military conscription, establishing a firm condition for coalition negotiations ahead of the October 27 Knesset elections.

Speaking in an interview with Yishai Cohen of Kikar HaShabbat, Deri made clear that the demand would apply to any government seeking Shas’s participation or parliamentary backing, regardless of which political party is tasked with forming the coalition.

Deri said the position reflects explicit instructions from the Shas Moetzet Chachmei HaTorah and Rishon Letzion Rav Yitzchak Yosef, who have insisted that the status of those studying Torah must be legally secured.

“We are continuing in the path of Maran,” Deri said, referring to Rav Ovadia Yosef zt”l. “Maran told us to do everything, absolutely everything, to regulate the status of yeshiva students, with the principle being that anyone who studies Torah should be able to continue.”

Asked whether legislation protecting yeshiva bochurim would be Shas’s first condition for entering a government after the elections, Deri responded unequivocally.

“We have already declared this. Maran the Rishon Letzion said it himself, and I said it as well. There will be no government in Israel that Shas supports or participates in without regulating the status of yeshiva students. How can we accept this sword of arrests hanging over them?”

The declaration comes as the controversy surrounding the military draft has intensified, with renewed enforcement measures against yeshiva bochurim and growing concern within the chareidi community over the possibility of additional arrests.

Deri accused government legal officials of deliberately escalating the confrontation for political purposes, arguing that arrests of yeshiva students would accomplish nothing toward addressing the IDF’s manpower needs.

He claimed that Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara and members of her office were attempting to use the draft controversy to generate protests and weaken Netanyahu’s political position ahead of the elections.

According to Deri, the prime minister had largely succeeded in preventing the draft issue from dominating the election campaign, partly because of the country’s ongoing security challenges. He alleged that opposition leaders and government legal officials were now seeking to bring the controversy back to the forefront.

Deri specifically accused the attorney general and her deputies of encouraging arrests in the expectation that they would provoke demonstrations by members of the Yerushalmi Faction.

He described the attorney general as an anarchist and accused her of acting maliciously, insisting that arresting yeshiva bochurim would not result in additional soldiers joining the military.

“Everyone admits that not a single arrest produces a soldier,” Deri said, arguing that the enforcement measures were also harmful to the army itself.

He concluded his criticism with a reference to the Jewish people’s history of overcoming persecution, declaring, “We survived Pharaoh, and we will survive this as well.”

Deri’s position closely mirrors the ultimatum recently issued by United Torah Judaism, whose chairman, MK Yaakov Asher, has likewise insisted that his party will not enter or support a government that fails to pass legislation regulating the status of yeshiva students.

Asher has emphasized that promises to address the issue at some unspecified future date will not be sufficient, and that the party expects concrete legislative action.

The declarations by both chareidi parties place the draft controversy at the center of potential coalition negotiations, with their leaders seeking assurances that the next government will address the issue before they agree to provide political support.

The latest statements also follow the disclosure earlier this week of remarks Deri made during a private gathering in Modiin Illit, in which he acknowledged the difficulty of achieving a comprehensive solution to the draft crisis under current political and legal circumstances.

In those remarks, reported by Israel’s Channel 13, Deri said senior rabbonim had instructed chareidi political leaders to gain time rather than expect an immediate resolution to the longstanding dispute.

“You cannot solve the problem. The instruction from the rabbonim was to buy time,” Deri was quoted as saying.

Those comments drew criticism from opposition figures, who accused the chareidi parties of deliberately delaying efforts to increase military enlistment.

Deri’s latest declaration, however, makes clear that Shas intends to insist on legislation protecting yeshiva students as a prerequisite for supporting the next coalition.

Opposition leaders Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Liberman responded sharply to Wednesday’s interview, accusing Deri of seeking to perpetuate military exemptions at a time when the IDF has repeatedly warned of serious personnel shortages.

Bennett argued that Netanyahu’s political alliance with the chareidi parties would place additional burdens on soldiers and reservists, while Liberman accused Deri of demanding permanent exemptions as the price of coalition support.

The dispute comes less than two weeks before Israelis are scheduled to vote, with the question of military service for chareidi men emerging as one of the most contentious issues separating the country’s political parties.

Israel’s government faces a Thursday deadline to update the country’s High Court of Justice on its enforcement of military conscription requirements for yeshiva bochurim, as the ongoing draft controversy intensifies and concerns mount over additional arrests of those who have not reported for military service.

The October 15 deadline comes amid increasing pressure from judicial and legal authorities to demonstrate that the state is actively enforcing conscription laws against eligible chareidi men. The issue has become a major source of tension between the government, the military, and the chareidi community, particularly following reports that the IDF was preparing a new operation to arrest yeshiva bochurim classified as draft evaders.

The court proceedings are part of the continuing legal battle over the status of yeshiva students following the expiration of the previous legal framework that allowed them to defer military service while continuing their Torah studies.

In June 2024, the High Court ruled that, without legislation providing a legal basis for exemptions, the government could not continue treating eligible chareidi yeshiva students differently from other citizens subject to military conscription.

The ruling also prohibited continued state funding for yeshivos on behalf of students whose military service was not legally deferred.

Since then, the government has struggled to establish a new legislative arrangement acceptable to the chareidi parties while also satisfying legal requirements and the IDF’s demands for additional personnel.

The latest court deadline is expected to require government officials to address the practical steps being taken to enforce conscription, including the handling of draft notices, restrictions on those who fail to report, and possible arrest measures.

The IDF has previously indicated that proactive enforcement operations could resume during October, raising concerns that large-scale arrests could trigger widespread demonstrations in chareidi neighborhoods.

Those concerns intensified following Israeli media reports that military authorities had planned an arrest operation for next week but postponed it after police raised objections.

According to those reports, the IDF had sought police assistance for an operation targeting yeshiva bochurim considered draft evaders. Police officials reportedly refused to commit the Tel Aviv District to securing the operation because of fears that the arrests would provoke major demonstrations.

Police reportedly warned that widespread protests could continue through the October 27 Knesset elections and potentially disrupt voting arrangements and public order.

The military subsequently acknowledged that the operation had been postponed because of police considerations.

The disagreement highlights the practical difficulties facing authorities as they attempt to implement conscription enforcement measures in communities where opposition to drafting yeshiva students remains strong.

The legal pressure on the government has intensified over the past several months. In April, the High Court ordered authorities to adopt more effective measures against eligible men who had not complied with draft orders, including personal economic restrictions and criminal enforcement proceedings.

In July, the Knesset attempted to suspend arrests and other enforcement measures against qualifying yeshiva students for three months. The High Court initially froze the legislation and subsequently struck it down in September, leaving the existing enforcement framework in place.

The court found serious defects in the legislative process and concluded that the measure improperly suspended enforcement against one population while leaving the underlying military service obligation intact.

The attorney general’s office has continued pressing the government and security establishment to demonstrate that enforcement is being carried out effectively.

In an August submission to the High Court, Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara reported that approximately 80% of those classified as draft evaders were from the chareidi community, despite an increase in enlistment among graduates of chareidi educational institutions.

The submission also acknowledged that demonstrations and resistance to arrests had complicated enforcement operations.

The government, for its part, has argued that aggressive arrests could undermine efforts to encourage voluntary enlistment and further deepen tensions between the chareidi community and state authorities.

Chareidi political leaders have repeatedly maintained that arrests of yeshiva bochurim will not produce meaningful increases in military enlistment and have warned that such measures could provoke widespread unrest.

The dispute has also become a central issue in the campaign leading up to the October 27 elections, with Shas and United Torah Judaism insisting that legislation protecting the status of yeshiva students must be a condition for their participation in the next government.

For now, the immediate question is how the government will respond to the court’s demands while military and police authorities remain divided over the practical implementation of additional arrest operations.

New York City Comptroller Mark Levine has reversed a major campaign promise to resume investing city funds in Israel Bonds, drawing fierce criticism from Jewish leaders and former city officials who accuse him of retreating under pressure from Mayor Zohran Mamdani and the Democratic Party’s anti-Israel wing.

Levine, who repeatedly pledged during his 2025 campaign to restore the city’s longstanding investment in Israeli government bonds, announced Wednesday that his office would not move forward with the purchases, citing financial concerns, credit ratings and what he described as technical obstacles.

The reversal represents a significant political victory for Mamdani, who has openly opposed the city’s purchase of Israel Bonds and has advocated boycotts targeting the Jewish state.

Levine insisted that his decision was based entirely on investment considerations rather than political pressure.

“I always said this would be based on financial considerations only, not politics — that’s still my position,” Levine told The New York Times.

“But as of now, we feel that because of some technical challenges, and because of financial considerations, that this is not an investment that we can make right now.”

The explanation marks a sharp departure from Levine’s position during last year’s Democratic primary, when he presented Israel Bonds as a reliable investment and explicitly promised to restore them to the city’s portfolio.

During a June 2025 debate against former Brooklyn Councilman Justin Brannan, Levine defended the bonds’ longstanding financial record.

“We have a globally diversified portfolio, and that should include investments in Israel and Israel bonds, which have paid solid dividends for 75 years,” he declared at the time.

Levine continued defending the proposed investments after taking office in January, including as recently as April, despite growing opposition from anti-Israel activists.

His announcement Wednesday effectively maintains the policy established by his predecessor, Brad Lander, who allowed the city’s Israel Bond holdings to expire in 2023 without purchasing replacements.

New York City had invested in Israel Bonds for nearly five decades, beginning in the 1970s. At the time Lander discontinued the purchases, the city held approximately $40 million in the securities.

The investments had historically generated returns of approximately 5%, and previous comptrollers had defended them as financially sound.

Levine’s reversal drew particularly sharp criticism from former City Comptroller Scott Stringer, who had expanded the city’s investments in Israel Bonds during his tenure.

“They were a very sound investment,” Stringer said Wednesday.

Stringer warned that the decision could embolden activists associated with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which seeks to isolate Israel economically.

“This inaction will further empower the BDS [boycott, divestment and sanctions] movement around the country. That is my worry. And it could continue to contribute to more antisemitism.”

Former Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind, founder of Americans Against Antisemitism, was even more outspoken in his condemnation of Levine.

“A perfect example of a coward: a sellout and a fraud trying to appease the dangerous lunatics on the left driving NY and the country off a cliff. Shame on you,” Hikind wrote on social media.

The decision was welcomed by Mamdani, who has made opposition to Israel a prominent feature of his political career.

Speaking at a Wednesday press conference, the mayor expressed approval of Levine’s announcement.

“I don’t believe that our city should purchase Israel bonds. We don’t purchase the bonds of any other sovereign nation. I don’t think we should make an exception when it comes to Israel,” Mamdani said.

The mayor’s comments underscored the political significance of Levine’s reversal, particularly given the differences between the two officials on Israel.

Levine, who is Jewish and has maintained close relationships with mainstream Jewish organizations, has generally described himself as a supporter of Israel while criticizing certain policies of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s government.

Mamdani, by contrast, has long identified with the movement to boycott Israel and has repeatedly faced criticism from Jewish organizations over his positions.

The two officials initially appeared headed for a confrontation over Israel Bonds when they took office at the beginning of the year, but have since developed a cooperative working relationship.

Levine’s decision removes one of the most visible disagreements between them.

The comptroller’s office maintained Wednesday that the decision should not be interpreted as a broader withdrawal from investments connected to Israel.

A spokesperson emphasized that Levine remains supportive of the Jewish state and said the city continues to hold more than $285 million in investments involving Israeli companies and other Israel-related assets.

Those holdings include publicly traded Israeli businesses and more than $1 million invested in Israeli real estate investment trusts.

The spokesperson said decisions concerning Israel Bonds and other securities are evaluated according to their suitability for the city’s investment portfolio and the financial interests of municipal employees and retirees.

New York City’s five public pension funds currently hold approximately $326 billion in assets, making the comptroller one of the most influential financial officials in municipal government.

The Israel Bond holdings previously represented a relatively small portion of the city’s overall investments, but their symbolic importance has made them a recurring source of political controversy.

Levine’s office pointed to changes in Israel’s credit ratings following the wars involving Hamas and Iran, as well as the performance of alternative investments.

Fitch Ratings lowered its outlook for Israel in 2024, while Moody’s and S&P Global also downgraded the country’s credit standing during the conflicts.

Although Moody’s and S&P have since restored their outlooks to stable, Israel’s overall credit ratings remain below their prewar levels.

Levine’s investment team also argued that the approximately 5% return available on certain two- and three-year Israel Bonds compares unfavorably with the city’s pension system, which recorded a 13% return over the previous year.

Critics countered that comparing fixed-income securities with the performance of an entire pension portfolio does not fully account for the different purposes and risk profiles of those investments.

They also noted that the comptroller’s office holds other securities with returns below those available from Israel Bonds.

In explaining why he had made such a firm campaign commitment before completing a full financial assessment, Levine acknowledged that he had expected Israel’s credit outlook to improve.

“Perhaps a year and a half ago,” he said, “I would have expected that the ratings would have been improved by now and/or that the interest rate would have gone up.”

Representatives of Israel Bonds disputed the suggestion that the securities were no longer attractive investments.

A spokesperson for the organization said Levine had repeatedly promised to restore the city’s purchases and had previously characterized the bonds as “a long-term safe and secure investment.”

The organization maintained that the description remains accurate.

Israel Bonds officials have also reported strong investor demand since the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre, with purchases more than doubling during the subsequent period.

Other major public institutions have continued investing in the securities despite the political and security challenges facing Israel.

New York State’s pension system, overseen by State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, reportedly holds more than $360 million in Israel Bonds.

Former CUNY trustee and financier Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, who has been active in promoting the investments, criticized Levine’s decision and pointed to the continued purchases by other public entities.

“I am grievously disappointed. NYS AND Palm Beach county alone hold $1 BILLION [in Israel bonds],” Wiesenfeld said.

“There has been no change in the high quality. Because of the US 10-year treasury, the rates are the highest ever. At least be truthful.”

The reversal has also been celebrated by anti-Israel activists who had urged Levine to maintain Lander’s policy of avoiding direct purchases of Israeli government debt.

For Jewish leaders who supported Levine’s campaign, however, the announcement has raised questions about the reliability of his commitments on issues involving Israel, particularly at a time when Mamdani’s administration is seeking to reshape the city’s relationship with the Jewish state.

Levine has left open the possibility of purchasing Israel Bonds at a later date if financial conditions change, but his office has announced no timetable for reconsidering the decision.