Feed aggregator

Britain’s Green Party has formally declared itself an anti-Zionist party, adopted a policy defining Zionism as a form of racism, and endorsed replacing Israel with a single Palestinian state stretching across all of what it calls “historic Palestine,” triggering fierce condemnation from Israel, British Jewish organizations and even several of the party’s own senior lawmakers.

The extraordinary resolution was approved Sunday at the Green Party of England and Wales’ annual conference in Brighton by a vote of 1,022 to 813, making the position official party policy.

Under the newly adopted policy, Zionism — the movement supporting Jewish national self-determination and the existence of a Jewish state — is to be “treated as any other form of racism.”

The motion describes Zionism as an “ethnonationalist political project” and argues that it “privileges one ethnic group on the basis of the subjugation of others.”

It goes considerably further than criticizing the Israeli government, the war in Gaza or Israeli policies in Yehuda and Shomron. The resolution declares the Green Party itself anti-Zionist and endorses the establishment of a “single democratic Palestinian State in all of historic Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital,” together with what it describes as equal rights for all and a Palestinian right of return.

Such a formula would eliminate Israel as a Jewish state and replace the current Israeli-Palestinian framework with one Palestinian state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

The resolution also reaffirms Green Party support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, a complete arms embargo, and what the party describes as “Palestinian liberation.”

The motion insists that its target is Zionism as a political ideology rather than Jews as an ethnic or religious group. It states that “not all Jews are Zionists and not all Zionists are Jews.”

But Jewish organizations and opponents within the Green Party said that distinction does little to address their concerns, particularly because Zionism in its broadest sense — support for Jewish self-determination in Israel — is held by a large majority of British Jews.

The controversy intensified because conference delegates rejected an amendment that would have explicitly protected Green members from being pressured, disciplined or otherwise targeted because of their affiliation with Jewish communal institutions.

The rejected amendment would have said the policy could not be used to “pressure, proscribe or discipline members based on affiliation with Jewish community institutions.”

That decision has fueled fears among some Jewish Green members that belonging to a synagogue or Jewish organization that supports Israel could potentially place them at odds with official party policy.

Salma Yaqoob, a supporter of the motion and a former member of George Galloway’s Respect Party who is now a Green, denied that Zionist members would be targeted.

“Nobody will be removed, challenged, disciplined, suspended because they put forward or articulate their belief in Zionism,” Yaqoob said.

The assurances did not end the controversy, particularly since delegates had just voted against language specifically protecting members from disciplinary consequences over their Jewish communal affiliations.

The measure is now expected to face a possible legal challenge under Britain’s Equality Act. Barrister Adam Wagner KC, who was involved in the case that found Jeremy Corbyn-era Labour responsible for unlawful acts involving antisemitism, said there was a substantial possibility that the Green policy could violate British equality law.

“I think there is a strong risk that the motion as passed contravenes the Equality Act 2010, which applies to political parties, as it will discriminate against and harass people who hold Zionist beliefs and Jewish people more generally,” Wagner said.

He said Zionism, when understood broadly as belief in the existence of a Jewish nation-state, “is likely to be a protected belief” under British law.

The resolution sharply divided the Green Party itself. Four of the party’s five MPs opposed the measure, while former party leader Caroline Lucas, the Greens’ first member of Parliament, also argued against it during the conference debate.

Adrian Ramsay and Ellie Chowns said after the vote that they were “deeply saddened” by the result. MPs Siân Berry and Carla Denyer also opposed the resolution and pledged support for Jewish members who believe they are being targeted because of the new policy.

Chowns warned before the vote that the proposal risked deepening division rather than helping Palestinians or Israelis.

“Zionism is a contested concept with no single definition,” Chowns said. “If this motion passes, the party risks alienating many people, including in Jewish communities. Defining a highly personal and variable identity simply as racism risks reinforcing exactly the zero-sum politics we desperately need to get beyond.”

Denyer similarly warned that the language “risks alienating a significant proportion of Jewish people, including those who vehemently disagree with the Israeli government.”

Green Party leader Zack Polanski, who is Jewish, was not present for the vote. He had left the Brighton conference and was campaigning in the Holborn and St Pancras parliamentary by-election in London.

Polanski’s absence itself became a source of controversy, with some senior Greens reportedly believing he should have taken a clearer stand on one of the most divisive policy questions the party has faced.

Asked by the BBC ahead of the vote whether he personally regarded Zionism as racist, Polanski said, “Well, in the motion, it is defined as the displacement and genocide of the Palestinian people. I think that is clearly racism.”

Polanski and the party’s MPs and co-deputy leaders subsequently issued a joint statement insisting that the Greens “will never tolerate any form of discrimination or harassment.”

“We know there is no conflict between supporting the rights of Palestinians and the rights of Jewish people,” the statement said.

Four Green MPs nevertheless accompanied that statement with their own messages emphasizing that they had opposed the Zionism resolution.

The motion was promoted by a group known as Greens for Palestine, which had encouraged people who were not already Green Party members to join the party so they could help ensure the proposal was debated and adopted.

That campaign has fueled an internal argument over whether the party’s membership is being transformed by activists focused primarily on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather than the environmental issues traditionally associated with the Greens.

“There are now two Green parties – the everyday members, and those who have joined for just one reason, Palestine, and who have no interest in anything else,” one Green member who opposed the motion said.

The vote prompted an immediate and unusually harsh response from Israel.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry said the resolution “constitutes a clear antisemitic text according to the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition, as it denies the Jewish people’s right to self-determination.”

The ministry went further, declaring that “the Green Party in Britain has stopped functioning today as a political party and has turned into a terror-supporting entity.”

“The Greens have officially adopted Hamas’s green flag and its ideological platform calling for the elimination of the State of Israel through armed struggle,” the ministry charged.

“The shocking decision adopted today by the Green Party, which legitimizes armed struggle, calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state from the sea to the river, in effect for the destruction of the State of Israel, and equates Zionism with racism. It is no longer a political text. This is a text that crosses the boundaries of political discourse, and as long as it is not removed, it constitutes a stain on the history of the United Kingdom.”

The Foreign Ministry called on Britain’s other political parties to repudiate the resolution.

“All parties in Britain, and first and foremost the Labour Party, must immediately and unequivocally reject this distorted text.”

Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar also ordered that Polanski be barred from entering Israel, with the Foreign Ministry saying the decision had been coordinated with the relevant Israeli authorities.

President Isaac Herzog condemned the Green Party decision as “a disgrace and a shame.”

“Those who claim the antisemitic lie that ‘Zionism is racism’ deliberately endanger Jews and Israelis everywhere,” Herzog said.

Opposition leader Yair Lapid responded that it is “not Zionism that’s racism, it is the Green Party.”

British Jewish organizations issued similarly blistering condemnations.

The Movement for Progressive Judaism said, “The motion is antisemitic in its formulation and intention. By adopting it, the Green party has made antisemitism party policy and become a racist party.”

“Jewish self-determination is a right. Declaring it racist is an attack on Jews. The Green party has chosen to brand Jews who hold this belief as racists and make their equal participation in the party conditional on renouncing it.”

Adam Langleben, who helped coordinate Jewish Labour Movement complaints during the Labour Party’s antisemitism crisis under Jeremy Corbyn, described the Green resolution in equally stark terms.

“This is without doubt the most antisemitic and racist motion brought before a mainstream political party in my lifetime. It is Corbynism on steroids, and would seem even more open to legal challenge.”

The phrase “Zionism is racism” carries a particularly charged history. In 1975, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 3379 declaring that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.” The resolution was condemned by Israel and the United States and became one of the most controversial UN resolutions concerning Israel. It was revoked by the General Assembly in 1991.

The world of chazzanus is mourning the passing of renowned chazzan Reb Chaim Adler z”l, one of the leading figures in Ashkenazic chazzanus of his generation, who was niftar over Yom Tov at the age of 86.

For approximately 75 years, beginning when he first stood before the amud as an 11-year-old boy, Reb Chaim used his distinctive and powerful voice in shuls and at gatherings around the world. He became particularly identified with the Great Synagogues of Tel Aviv and Yerushalayim, where generations of mispallelim heard him lead the tefillos.

Reb Chaim was born on 23 Tishrei 5700, October 6, 1939, in the Florentin neighborhood of Tel Aviv. His musical abilities became apparent at an early age, and by 11 he was already serving as a baal tefillah.

Blessed with a powerful lyrical tenor and an impressive dramatic range, he eventually became one of the best-known practitioners of traditional Ashkenazic chazzanus. Yet those who knew his approach said that the beauty of the voice was never intended to become an end in itself. For Reb Chaim, the purpose of chazzanus remained the tefillah.

Over the course of his career, Reb Chaim served for many years as chief chazzan of the Great Synagogue in Tel Aviv. He was later appointed chief chazzan of the Great Synagogue in Yerushalayim, becoming a central and familiar presence there as well.

His tefillos were particularly renowned during the Yomim Noraim and Selichos, when large crowds would come to hear him lead the congregation. His distinctive nusach, powerful voice and emotional delivery made those tefillos memorable for countless people over the decades.

Reb Chaim’s style drew heavily from the tradition of his rebbi, the celebrated chazzan Leib Glantz. He placed particular emphasis on the words of the tefillah and on traditional recitative melodies, while incorporating chassidish motifs he had absorbed during his childhood together with elements of the nusach associated with Yeshivas Chevron.

He summed up his philosophy of chazzanus in a memorable line: “חזן צריך להיות א דאוונער, לא זמר”.

“A chazzan has to be a davener, not a singer.”

That distinction defined his approach throughout his life. He viewed chazzanus not as a concert performance, but as a means of expressing and elevating tefillah, using melody and voice to give deeper expression to the words being recited.

Beyond his decades at the amud, Reb Chaim appeared in concerts around the world and recorded numerous albums. His recordings encompassed classics of traditional chazzanus, chassidish niggunim and Yiddish folk songs, helping preserve the musical traditions to which he had devoted his life.

His influence extended to younger generations as well, both through his recordings and through the many people who heard him personally over the decades. His son, noted chassidish singer Yisrael “Srulik” Adler, continues the family’s musical tradition.

For those who followed his career, Reb Chaim represented more than an accomplished chazzan with an exceptional voice. He embodied a tradition of Ashkenazic tefillah in which the nusach, the words and the emotions of the mispallel were bound together, carrying an old tradition into a new generation.

He leaves behind his wife, children, grandchildren and a large community of admirers and mispallelim who heard his voice during a career that stretched across three-quarters of a century.

With his passing, the world of traditional chazzanus has lost one of its most recognizable voices, but the tefillos and recordings he leaves behind will preserve a legacy built around the principle he expressed so simply: a chazzan must first and foremost be a davener.

Yehi zichro baruch.

{Matzav.com}

Israeli passengers who overpowered the alleged terrorist co-pilot aboard Flydubai Flight FZ1073 say they faced another frightening confrontation moments later when members of the cabin crew demanded that they untie and release the attacker, leaving the Israelis wondering whether anyone else aboard the aircraft might be involved, the NY Post reports.

The extraordinary new account adds another layer to the September 30 attempted attack aboard the Dubai-to-Tel Aviv flight, during which Omani co-pilot Hamam al-Hammami allegedly attacked Captain Smit Machchhar with an emergency crash axe and sent the Boeing 737 MAX into a catastrophic plunge before passengers and other pilots regained control.

“They were asking us to untie the terrorist — we had no idea why,” said banking executive Tzvika Manes, one of the three civilians who took down the would-be hijacker.

“They were saying to free the terrorist — we got instantly suspicious of them,” said real estate professional Daniel Schlichter, who was sitting in the second row, close to the cockpit .

Manes, 40, had been returning from a family vacation in Japan with his wife and three daughters, ages 11, 7 and 6, when the flight suddenly turned into a battle for survival.

According to authorities and passenger accounts, al-Hammami attacked Machchhar from behind inside the cockpit after asking for an opportunity to pray. Armed with an emergency crash axe kept aboard the aircraft, he repeatedly struck the captain as the plane began a terrifying descent.

Machchhar, despite suffering serious injuries and impaired vision, managed after repeated efforts to unlock the cockpit door. That decision proved critical, giving those outside access to the cockpit and an opportunity to stop the attack.

Manes, Israeli plumber Yaniv Hayoun and Asaf Rajuan rushed forward and fought al-Hammami, eventually overpowering him. Other passengers also became involved as the chaotic struggle unfolded near the cockpit.

At the same time, the aircraft was dropping at an extraordinary rate. Flight data examined since the incident indicates that FZ1073 lost roughly 16,000 feet in approximately 30 seconds at the most extreme stage of its descent, subjecting those aboard to powerful negative G-forces.

Hayoun, who had no professional flight training, reached the controls and helped stabilize the aircraft using knowledge he remembered from watching the television program “Air Disasters.” Two Flydubai pilots who were traveling aboard the flight as passengers subsequently entered the cockpit and assumed control of the jet.

Meanwhile, the Israelis had to make certain that al-Hammami could not resume his attack. They forced him face-down and secured his hands behind his back, initially using zip ties and later reinforcing the restraints with headphone wires Schlichter collected from passengers around the cabin.

As he was subdued, Hayoun heard the terrorist cry, “Kill me, kill me” — apparently because he failed in his Jihadist mission, Manes said.

It was at that point, according to Manes and Schlichter, that the confrontation with members of the Flydubai cabin crew began.

Some crew members insisted that the restrained co-pilot be untied. After what the passengers had just witnessed, the request immediately raised suspicions among the Israelis, who refused to allow al-Hammami to be released under any circumstances.

“They said, ‘You are not God, you are not going to kill him,’” Manes recalled. “We didn’t want to kill him, we just wanted him not to kill us.”

The Israelis stressed that they were not trying to harm the restrained attacker unnecessarily. In fact, Schlichter and Manes said they gave the injured al-Hammami an oxygen mask while keeping him securely tied.

“We wanted him to live so he could be investigated,” Schlichter said.

The dispute then escalated into a struggle over who would control the area outside the cockpit. Cabin crew members maintained that they were responsible for the aircraft and needed to remain in the forward section.

The Israeli passengers, however, had no way at that moment to know whether the co-pilot had acted entirely alone. After hearing crew members demand that the man who had allegedly just tried to destroy the aircraft be released, they were unwilling to take any chances.

They ordered the cabin crew away from the cockpit and told them to sit several rows farther back in the aircraft.

“We told them, “Now the policy is we’re in charge and you do what we say,’ ” Manes said.

“We didn’t know what to think, we were in a suspicious mode for every steward.”

Schlichter and a group of other passengers escorted the crew members to approximately the fifth or sixth row, putting distance between them and the cockpit.

“We shouted at them and told them to sit down,” said Schlichter, who has two children and two granddaughters.

The passengers then recruited a physically imposing passenger to stand guard near the cockpit and ensure that nobody entered without their approval, Manes said.

By then, the two Flydubai pilots who had been traveling aboard the aircraft had reached the cockpit and were handling the flight. Their presence was another of the crucial circumstances that allowed the crippled aircraft to reach safety after Machchhar was incapacitated.

The confrontation with the cabin crew eventually subsided. Once the crew members began to “understand that this was a special case,” Schlichter said, they turned their attention to caring for frightened passengers, distributing blankets and water throughout the cabin.

There has been no allegation by investigators that members of the Flydubai cabin crew were involved in al-Hammami’s alleged plot, and no evidence of such involvement has publicly emerged. The passengers’ account instead describes their suspicions during the confusion immediately after a violent terrorist attack, when they had no way of knowing whether the co-pilot was acting alone.

Flydubai has declined to discuss the crew’s conduct while investigations remain underway.

“We remain fully committed to supporting the ongoing investigation and are in close coordination with the relevant government authorities and regulators,” it said in a statement.

The United Arab Emirates has formally characterized al-Hammami’s alleged actions as an attempted terrorist act. Authorities in several countries are now examining his background and how he was permitted to serve as a co-pilot on flights to Israel despite reports that concerns about his extremist views had previously resulted in restrictions on his flying in Oman.

Investigators are also examining whether al-Hammami acted alone or had assistance from an extremist organization. Israeli officials have said the initial evidence points toward a lone attacker, although that assessment has not ended the broader investigation.

The episode has also triggered a major examination of aviation-security procedures in Israel after it emerged that the UAE had transmitted passenger and crew information, including names and nationalities, to Israeli authorities before the flight. Questions are now being asked about why an Omani national who had reportedly previously raised extremism concerns was not flagged before being permitted to repeatedly operate flights to Israel.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered a broad review of security procedures governing foreign civilian flights to Israel, while Israeli authorities have moved to tighten restrictions involving flight crews holding citizenship in countries without diplomatic relations with Israel.

For Manes, however, the institutional questions came later. During the crisis itself, his attention remained on al-Hammami and on ensuring that the attacker could not again threaten his family or anyone else aboard.

“I stayed with the terrorist until we landed safely in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia. After that I hugged my daughters and told them they were going to be OK, and that they are heroes,” Manes said.

Once the aircraft was safely on the ground in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, the adrenaline that had carried passengers through the emergency began to disappear. Some suffered panic attacks. Others began crying as the enormity of what they had survived sank in.

For many, the trauma was compounded by the prospect of boarding another Flydubai aircraft for the journey home.

“They didn’t want to fly back to Israel on another flydubai flight. Many wouldn’t step foot on the plane until they were personally told by the Mossad that the pilots had been cleared,” he said.

Manes, CEO of Barak Capital Underwriting, described himself as a “regular finance guy” who never imagined being thrown into a violent midair fight with the lives of his wife and young daughters hanging in the balance.

He said it was hearing his children that caused him to act.

“When I heard my daughters crying ‘Father I don’t want to die’ — that was the trigger for me to run and fight, I wasn’t thinking of anything, it was just fight or flight,” Manes said.

The struggle itself was brutal. The passengers did not know whether al-Hammami still had possession of a weapon as they fought him at close quarters.

“Punches were flying, we were kicking him, we didn’t know if he still had his knife, we couldn’t see it,” Manes said. “None of us were fighters or heroes, we were just normal guys who wanted to save our families.”

Schlichter, 59, who was also returning from a vacation in Japan with his wife, remembered the terrifying sounds filling the aircraft during the crisis.

“It was sounds you only hear in a movie,” Schlichter said.

Manes emerged from the ordeal covered in bruises. Beyond the physical fight, he described the almost indescribable sensation aboard the aircraft as it plunged thousands of feet.

“The G-Force was like something I never felt like in my life, it felt like everything was soaking, it was a crazy feeling,” he said.

Schlichter said that during the plunge, he became convinced that he was about to die.

“It was the longest minute I’ll ever have in my life, I remember everything, I remember clearly thinking about 9/11, then I thought about my children, my family, how awful it would be for them to hear what happened,” he said.

The aircraft ultimately survived through a remarkable convergence of events: Machchhar remained conscious long enough to open the cockpit door despite his wounds; passengers were close enough to intervene; Hayoun was able to help stabilize the jet; two qualified Flydubai pilots happened to be traveling aboard and could assume command; and the attacker was restrained before he could regain access to the controls.

Both Manes and Schlichter said afterward that they struggled to comprehend how so many crucial pieces could have fallen into place at precisely the right time.

“Statistically this kind of miracle can not be happening, the chance that each one of us, especially would be on the same second where they had to be, I can’t even fathom how unlikely it is,” Schlichter said.

Manes had a simpler explanation.

“I believe that definitely we had divine protection,” Manes said. “Someone up there is watching over us.”

{Matzav.com}

[Video below.] President Trump lavished praise on Israeli plumber Yaniv Hayoun, one of the passengers credited with helping save a Flydubai jet from an alleged terrorist co-pilot, calling Hayoun a “hero” and joking that after his extraordinary performance in the cockpit, “he can be my plumber.”

Trump released a video message from the Oval Office honoring Hayoun, who helped overpower Omani co-pilot Hamam al-Hammami after he allegedly attacked Captain Smit Machchhar with a crash axe and attempted to bring down Flydubai Flight FZ1073 as it headed from Dubai to Tel Aviv.

“He’s an “Israeli plumber. And he’s a Trump fan and I’m a fan of his – a big fan,” Trump said.

“He saved that flight yesterday. He did an amazing job.”

Hayoun’s role in the drama went well beyond helping restrain the attacker. As the Boeing 737 MAX plunged toward the ground following the violent cockpit struggle, Hayoun entered the cockpit and briefly took hold of the controls, helping pull the aircraft out of its dive before trained reserve pilots aboard the flight could take over.

In one of the more remarkable details to emerge from the incident, Hayoun said his understanding of what to do came in part from watching television programs about aviation disasters, including the Smithsonian Channel’s Air Disasters, which examines crashes and other aviation emergencies and reconstructs how pilots respond to them.

The aircraft reportedly plunged more than 17,000 feet in less than two minutes during the attack. Hayoun said he pulled back on the controls and helped arrest the descent — applying what he remembered from watching aviation-disaster programs despite having no formal pilot training.

“He’s my kind of guy. He can be my plumber. He can be whatever he wants to be. What a job he did – he’s a hero,” the president added.

Trump also congratulated Hayoun’s family and ended his message on a personal note, telling the Israeli plumber, “You like me, and I like you. Thank you, Yaniv.”

Hayoun was among a group of passengers whose intervention helped prevent what authorities believe could have become one of the deadliest aviation terror attacks in years. The aircraft was carrying more than 170 people when al-Hammami allegedly attacked Machchhar inside the locked cockpit.

Despite suffering severe wounds, Machchhar managed to unlock the cockpit door, allowing passengers and crew members to enter. Hayoun and others then fought with al-Hammami and eventually subdued and restrained him.

Dr. Shota Musaev, an Israeli dentist aboard the flight, also played a critical role, helping overpower the attacker and then providing emergency medical treatment to the badly wounded captain.

After Hayoun helped stabilize the aircraft, two additional Flydubai pilots who happened to be traveling aboard the flight took control. The plane was diverted to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, where it landed safely.

Hayoun returned to Israel still wearing a bloodstained shirt and was soon embraced by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who publicly praised him and the other passengers who intervened. Netanyahu even posted a glowing recommendation for Hayoun’s plumbing business, describing him as “a hero who has saved many lives.”

“He can help you too — I highly recommend him!” Netanyahu wrote.

The Israeli passengers involved in stopping the attack have since been recommended for the Presidential Award for Civilian Heroism, while Israeli officials have also announced plans to honor those involved in saving the flight at a future Independence Day torch-lighting ceremony.

Trump’s video followed a meeting between Hayoun and U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee, who welcomed Hayoun and his wife, Meital, to the U.S. Embassy in Yerushalayim.

Huckabee presented Hayoun with one of Trump’s signature red MAGA hats bearing the president’s autograph. The ambassador said Trump had personally given him the signed hat during a visit to the White House, and he decided Hayoun had earned it through his actions aboard the aircraft.

“Thank you for saving the lives of 170 people,” Huckabee told him.

Huckabee told Hayoun that had he not acted, nearly 200 families might instead have been mourning, and said Trump had been deeply impressed by the Israeli’s willingness to risk his own life for people he did not know.

The ambassador told Hayoun that he himself had never done anything comparable and therefore believed the signed presidential hat belonged with the Israeli plumber.

Hayoun described the survival of the aircraft and everyone aboard as the product of a remarkable series of circumstances that fell into place at precisely the right moments.

He spoke about the “little miracles” that allowed him and the other passengers to wrest control of the cockpit from the attacker and save the aircraft.

Hayoun also used his meeting with Huckabee to send a personal message of gratitude to Trump for his support of Israel.

“Given how much you have done for our country, I felt that the public’s gratitude toward you and President Trump, who has done so much for us, was insufficient,” Hayoun said in Hebrew in the video.

He then thanked Trump and told him “how much we value and love you both for what you are doing for our country.”

{Matzav.com}

Rav Meir Tzvi Bergman, Rosh Yeshivas Rashbi, paid a special visit on Sunday, Isru Chag Sukkos, to the residence of the Gerrer Rebbe.

The meeting between the two gedolei Yisroel lasted approximately 15 minutes and included a discussion of divrei Torah as well as pressing issues currently confronting the Torah community.

A central subject of the conversation was the ongoing military draft crisis in Israel and the need to strengthen and stand behind the bnei yeshivos amid continuing efforts to conscript yeshiva students.

During the private meeting, Rav Bergman and the Gerrer Rebbe also drank l’chaim together.

The visit provided a rare glimpse of a personal meeting between two of the most senior figures representing the Litvishe and chassidish Torah communities, coming immediately after Sukkos and against the backdrop of the continuing battle over the status of bnei yeshivos.

At the conclusion of their discussion, the Gerrer Rebbe personally accompanied Rav Bergman toward the exit.

Rav Bergman, seeing the Rebbe accompanying him, asked that he not trouble himself to continue escorting him.

PHOTOS:

{Matzav.com}

The Flydubai co-pilot accused of attempting to carry out a mass-casualty terrorist attack aboard a Tel Aviv-bound passenger jet had reportedly flown to Israel on multiple occasions before the attack — and investigators are now examining whether those earlier trips helped him prepare for what Israeli reports say was a premeditated plan to crash an aircraft at Ben Gurion Airport.

Hamam al-Hammami, the 29-year-old Omani national accused of attacking Captain Smit Machchhar aboard Flydubai Flight FZ1073 on September 30, allegedly sought employment specifically with airlines that operated flights to Israel and used earlier flights to familiarize himself with the route, according to Israeli reports citing information emerging from the investigation.

Channel 13 reported that al-Hammami told investigators that his interest in flying for an airline serving Israel predated his employment with Flydubai.

“I searched and checked which airlines fly to Tel Aviv and therefore I chose Flydubai. I tried to be hired by all the companies. I planned the attack before I was hired,” he reportedly told investigators.

Israeli reports have since gone further, saying investigators believe al-Hammami’s ultimate intention was to continue toward Israel while maintaining the appearance of an ordinary commercial flight and then crash the aircraft into Ben Gurion Airport during the final stages of its arrival.

That reported plan has transformed the significance of al-Hammami’s previous flights to Israel. If the account emerging from the investigation is accurate, his repeated arrivals at Ben Gurion may have provided him with firsthand familiarity with the route and the ordinary operational sequence of an Israel-bound commercial flight.

But there is an important distinction between familiarity with Ben Gurion Airport and access to secret Israeli security information.

Commercial pilots do not need to conduct clandestine reconnaissance to learn a great deal about flying into Ben Gurion. Much of the information necessary to operate a commercial aircraft into Israel is deliberately published and distributed to airlines and flight crews as part of the international aviation system.

Israel’s Civil Aviation Authority provides pilots with information governing Israeli airspace, airports, flight procedures and emergency requirements. Airlines and crews also receive operational information concerning Ben Gurion’s hours, capacity, runway and airport restrictions, arrival and departure procedures and the process for obtaining permission to operate flights.

Knowing the normal approach to Ben Gurion, therefore, is not evidence by itself that a pilot was gathering intelligence. A commercial pilot is supposed to know how to fly into the airport.

Repeated flights, however, provide something that an aviation chart cannot: experience.

A pilot who routinely operates a particular route becomes familiar with how the journey unfolds in practice — the transition into Israeli-controlled airspace, communications with air-traffic controllers, approach instructions, runway assignments under different conditions, movement after landing, arrival at the assigned gate and the ground procedures preceding the aircraft’s next departure.

All of that is ordinary professional knowledge for an airline pilot. None of it necessarily involves obtaining classified information.

But if a pilot already intends to use an aircraft as a weapon, investigators are examining whether otherwise routine knowledge could acquire a very different significance. Someone who has repeatedly flown the route would know from experience what an uneventful arrival looks and sounds like and how the sequence normally progresses as the aircraft gets closer to its destination.

The emerging allegations about al-Hammami’s intended target make that question particularly significant. Israeli media reported that he planned to maintain the appearance of a normal flight for as long as possible before crashing into Ben Gurion Airport. Reports said this was one reason he allegedly waited until the aircraft had reached Jordanian airspace before launching his attack on the captain.

According to another report, if he determined that reaching Israel was impossible, al-Hammami had considered crashing the aircraft into a U.S. military installation in Jordan instead. These reported details remain allegations emerging from the investigation and have not all been independently confirmed by Emirati authorities.

There is currently no public evidence that al-Hammami obtained classified information about Ben Gurion’s security apparatus during his previous visits.

A foreign pilot does not, merely by landing at Ben Gurion, receive information about Israeli intelligence capabilities, classified security deployments, emergency counterterrorism procedures or undisclosed vulnerabilities surrounding the airport.

Nor are foreign crews simply permitted to wander unrestricted through sensitive sections of the airport. Their movements and aircraft handling are governed by airport procedures, with foreign carriers required to use authorized ground-service providers and follow established security and operational rules.

The term “reconnaissance,” therefore, requires some caution. The publicly known evidence establishes that al-Hammami could have accumulated considerable operational familiarity with the route and airport through repeated flights. Whether he deliberately collected additional information about Israeli security is a separate question that investigators have yet to answer publicly.

The larger scandal may ultimately involve something else entirely: Israel knew who was sitting in the cockpit.

Before Flight FZ1073 departed Dubai, the United Arab Emirates transmitted the passenger and crew manifest to Israel, including the names and nationalities of those aboard. Regional officials said Israeli authorities raised no objection to any member of the crew before the flight departed.

Such advance transmission is routine. Israel operates an interactive Advance Passenger Information system designed to receive passenger and crew information from international carriers before flights reach the country. The system allows crew lists to be transmitted and updated before departure.

That means al-Hammami’s identity and nationality were not details discovered only after he allegedly picked up a crash axe inside the cockpit. His information had been transmitted before the aircraft took off.

The question now roiling Israel’s security establishment is what happened — or failed to happen — after that information arrived.

The Shin Bet has said responsibility for checking manifests from foreign airlines lies with the Transportation Ministry. Transportation Ministry officials have responded that the ministry is not an intelligence agency and does not possess the capability to conduct intelligence investigations into every foreign pilot and passenger.

The ministry maintains that foreign airlines are responsible for properly vetting their crews and complying with Israeli restrictions, while intelligence agencies possess the information and capabilities necessary to identify national-security threats.

International aviation rules similarly place substantial responsibility on an aircraft’s home country and airline. Commercial pilots undergo licensing procedures, background checks and medical and psychological evaluations, but implementation and enforcement differ between jurisdictions. Flydubai and its crews fall under the regulatory oversight of the United Arab Emirates.

That system becomes particularly problematic in al-Hammami’s case because information that might have changed the security assessment apparently existed elsewhere.

Reports indicate that Omani authorities had already become concerned about al-Hammami while he worked for Oman Air. He was reportedly monitored after accessing extremist material and was ultimately removed from flying duties and assigned to an office position because of concerns about his radical views.

He later left Oman Air and eventually joined Flydubai. Reports citing sources familiar with the matter say Flydubai did not consult the Omani government about his background before hiring him.

Al-Hammami subsequently found himself flying commercial aircraft to Israel — despite being an Omani national and despite Oman having no diplomatic relations with Israel.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said longstanding Israeli arrangements with foreign airlines were intended to prevent nationals of countries without diplomatic relations with Israel from operating such flights. He said the Flydubai case apparently exposed a “loophole” in that system.

Reports have raised the possibility that al-Hammami possessed dual citizenship or another status that may have enabled him to avoid the nationality restriction. His father is reportedly Omani and his mother Syrian, although Oman has not publicly provided a complete account of his citizenship status.

The result was an extraordinary disconnect: according to the reports now being examined, Oman possessed information raising concerns about al-Hammami’s extremist views; Flydubai hired him and assigned him to Israel-bound flights; Israel received his name and nationality before his flights; and none of those pieces produced an intervention before September 30.

The security failures appear even more troubling because the problem of screening foreign airline crews had already been discussed within the Israeli government well before the Flydubai attack.

Israeli officials had debated for years which agency should bear responsibility for foreign aviation security. Previous reviews reportedly warned about gaps in the system, while two committees recommended creating a dedicated national authority responsible for civil aviation security.

A 2021 government decision shifted additional responsibilities toward the Transportation Ministry. By 2023, officials from the National Security Council, Shin Bet, Mossad and Transportation Ministry were discussing how foreign crews should be evaluated and how intelligence relevant to their backgrounds could be incorporated into the screening process.

A confidential State Comptroller report in 2024 reportedly identified additional weaknesses, and the National Security Council warned in 2025 that portions of the government’s aviation-security decisions had still not been properly implemented.

The problem was not theoretical. Reports indicate that nationals of countries including Iran, Lebanon, Pakistan and Oman had previously arrived at Ben Gurion as members of foreign airline crews, despite the obvious security sensitivities involved.

The Transportation Ministry has insisted that Flydubai had been specifically instructed to perform background checks on its crews and comply with Israeli nationality restrictions. The airline had reportedly confirmed that those restrictions were incorporated into its crew-assignment system.

Yet al-Hammami continued flying the route.

The September 30 attack finally exposed the consequences of those gaps. According to UAE investigators, al-Hammami attacked Captain Machchhar inside the cockpit with an emergency crash axe and attempted to seize control of the Boeing 737 MAX as it flew toward Israel.

During the struggle, the aircraft plunged thousands of feet. Despite suffering serious injuries, Machchhar managed to open the cockpit door, allowing passengers and crew members to overpower al-Hammami. Reserve pilots aboard the flight then stabilized the aircraft and diverted it to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.

The UAE Attorney General has formally described al-Hammami’s actions as an attempted “terrorist act,” while investigators continue examining his motive, digital devices, ideological background and any possible connections to extremist organizations.

The investigation has now spread beyond Israel, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Oman. Australian counterterrorism authorities are examining al-Hammami’s years in Melbourne, where he studied at RMIT University approximately a decade ago. Reports have alleged that during his time in Australia he visited radical mosques and extremist websites.

Social-media material associated with al-Hammami has also become part of the investigation. One video reportedly showed Israeli aircraft viewed from cockpits before concluding with an image of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Al Qaeda leader killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2022.

Other material referred to Humam al-Balawi, the Jordanian doctor who became an Al Qaeda suicide bomber and killed seven CIA personnel and a Jordanian intelligence officer in Afghanistan in 2009.

Those discoveries may provide evidence of al-Hammami’s ideological interests, but investigators have not publicly established that Al Qaeda, Iran or another organization directed the attack. UAE authorities have said they are continuing to investigate possible connections while examining physical and digital evidence.

Israel has already begun tightening the system. Following the attack, Netanyahu ordered National Security Council Director Shmuel Ben Ezra to appoint an inspector to conduct a comprehensive review of security arrangements governing foreign civilian aviation to Israel.

Israel is also moving toward expanded screening of foreign pilots and tighter restrictions on crew members holding citizenship — including dual citizenship — from countries that do not maintain diplomatic relations with Israel.

The Prime Minister’s Office has indicated that Israel intends to know precisely who is flying every aircraft entering the country and to conduct an additional Israeli security assessment rather than relying entirely on the airline or foreign government that licensed the pilot.

The central question surrounding al-Hammami’s earlier visits to Ben Gurion therefore has two very different parts.

What could he have learned? Through repeated flights, he could have become thoroughly familiar with the normal operational experience of approaching, landing and operating at Ben Gurion — much of it based on information available to any properly authorized commercial pilot and reinforced through firsthand experience.

There is currently no public basis for concluding that those visits gave him classified knowledge of Israeli security systems, intelligence capabilities or secret vulnerabilities at the airport. If investigators discover evidence that he deliberately gathered such information, that would represent a significant new development.

But the second question may prove harder for Israeli authorities to explain: How did a pilot who had reportedly already attracted security concerns elsewhere, whose nationality and identity were transmitted to Israel before his flights, and who may have specifically sought employment that would allow him to fly to Tel Aviv, repeatedly make it into the cockpit of commercial aircraft headed for Ben Gurion Airport?

{Matzav.com}

The Torah community in Yerushalayim is mourning the passing of Rav Yehuda Weisbecker zt”l, longtime proprietor of the legendary Otzar Haseforim bookstore in Geulah, who for decades served generations of roshei yeshiva, marbitzei Torah, avreichim and bnei yeshiva. He was 93.

Rav Yehuda was niftar on Friday, Hoshana Rabbah, following a lifetime distinguished by his love of Torah, his respect for lomdei Torah, his integrity and his devotion to helping others.

A son of Rav Yisroel Moshe Weisbecker z”l, Rav Yehuda became a familiar and beloved figure in Yerushalayim and was particularly well known throughout the Torah world because of Otzar Haseforim, the renowned seforim store on Rechov Levush Mordechai in Geulah.

For decades, the store was far more than a place to purchase seforim. It became a destination in its own right for anyone searching for a particular work or trying to determine which sefer would best help him in his learning.

Roshei yeshiva, rabbonim, avreichim and bochurim knew that a visit to Otzar Haseforim meant entering a store where the person behind the counter understood the seforim on the shelves and, often, understood what the customer actually needed.

That was one of Rav Yehuda’s defining qualities. He did not regard himself merely as a bookseller. His extraordinary familiarity with the world of Torah literature made him a trusted adviser to generations of lomdim.

A bochur learning a particular masechta could describe what he was looking for and Rav Yehuda would know which sefer might open the subject for him. An avreich immersed in a difficult sugya could ask for guidance and receive recommendations for works that approached the subject from different directions and could help him develop a comprehensive understanding of the matter.

His advice was also marked by honesty. If Rav Yehuda believed that a particular sefer was not suited to the person standing before him, he would gently say so rather than simply make the sale. His concern was that the sefer should serve the lomed, not merely leave the store.

That approach helped make Otzar Haseforim one of the best-known seforim stores in the Geulah area, serving the enormous Torah community concentrated in the surrounding neighborhoods and yeshivos. Over the years, countless members of the Yerushalmi Torah world came through its doors, and Rav Yehuda earned their trust through his knowledge, patience and straightforward manner.

His reverence for Torah was evident outside the store as well. In Sanhedria Murchevet, where he lived for many years, Rav Yehuda was known as an exceptionally upright individual and a baal chesed who conducted himself with simplicity and consistency.

He maintained a fixed place for tefillah and was exceptionally careful about his established sedarim of learning. Those sedarim were fixtures of his day, maintained with determination throughout the years and not readily surrendered to the demands and distractions of everyday life.

Those who knew him recalled the natural combination that characterized him: the man who spent his working hours surrounded by seforim was himself deeply attached to learning. The respect he displayed toward the roshei yeshiva, avreichim and bochurim who entered his store reflected his own appreciation for Torah and those who devoted themselves to it.

In his later years, Rav Yehuda moved from Yerushalayim to Modiin Illit. During that period, he endured considerable yesurim, which he accepted with ahavah and emunah.

He was zocheh to leave behind a distinguished family and generations of descendants following the derech Hashem, continuing the values of Torah and yiras Shomayim that defined his life.

The levayah took place Friday, Hoshana Rabbah, leaving from Shamgar Funeral Home in Yerushalayim and proceeding to Har Hamenuchos, where Rav Yehuda was brought to kevurah after midday.

Yehi zichro baruch.

{Matzav.com}

The attempted downing of a Flydubai passenger jet bound for Israel has raised a frightening new question for aviation and counterterrorism officials: Could terrorist movements or hostile states seek to radicalize trained commercial pilots, effectively turning trusted members of airline crews into 9/11-style suicide attackers from inside the cockpit?

Miri Eisin, a former IDF colonel who spent more than two decades in military intelligence, warned that the September 30 attack aboard Flydubai Flight FZ1073 could represent a new type of aviation terrorism — one far more difficult to stop than the traditional hijacking model because the potential attacker is already authorized to fly the aircraft. Pasted markdown

“An individual doesn’t get the idea on his own to crash a plane full of people including himself. Somebody told him that if you do that you get your 72 virgins,” Eisin said.

“If you think back to past plane hijackings, including 9/11, the hijacker was never the pilot of the plane. . . . This could be a new kind of suicide bomber,” she said.

Eisin said her immediate suspicion following the Flydubai attack was that Iran or one of its proxies might have played a role, while stressing that she has no direct evidence tying Tehran to the incident and that the international investigation remains underway.

That distinction has become even more important as investigators have gathered additional information. Israeli sources familiar with the initial findings now say the evidence increasingly points toward accused co-pilot Hamam al-Hammami acting alone rather than as an operative dispatched by Iran or an organized terrorist group. Investigators have not publicly established an operational connection between al-Hammami and Iran, Hezbollah, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or Al Qaeda.

President Trump has also raised the possibility that Iran could have been involved in the attack, though he has not presented evidence establishing such a connection.

Eisin nevertheless said the concept behind the attack resembles methods she associates with Iran and its terrorist proxies — using radicalization and unconventional means to strike Israel or Israeli interests.

“This to me is very much something that could have come from Hezbollah or the IRGC Quds Force, this is the kind of things that they think of,” she said.

The suspect has been identified as al-Hammami, a 29-year-old Omani national who was serving as co-pilot aboard the Dubai-to-Tel Aviv flight. UAE authorities have formally described his actions as an attempted terrorist attack.

Al-Hammami allegedly attacked Indian captain Smit Machchhar inside the cockpit with the aircraft’s emergency crash axe, a piece of safety equipment normally stored inside the flight deck. The revelation that the weapon was already aboard the aircraft has shifted attention away from how he could have smuggled a weapon through airport security and toward the much harder problem of protecting an aircraft from one of the people entrusted to fly it.

During the violent struggle, the Boeing 737 MAX entered a steep descent, dropping thousands of feet while the badly wounded Machchhar fought to regain control and reach the cockpit door.

Despite serious injuries, Machchhar eventually managed to unlock the cockpit. Crew members and passengers then rushed in, subdued al-Hammami and restrained him while two other Flydubai pilots who were traveling aboard the aircraft took control and diverted the jet to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia.

Machchhar has since described believing that he was going to die during the attack but realizing that opening the cockpit door offered the only chance to save everyone aboard. His actions allowed those outside to enter the flight deck and overpower the attacker.

Saudi authorities detained al-Hammami following the emergency landing and later transferred him to the United Arab Emirates, where investigators have been reconstructing his background, digital history, employment record and possible contacts.

The investigation has uncovered indications that concerns about al-Hammami’s alleged extremist views existed well before the attack. Reports indicate that he had previously worked for Oman Air but was removed from flying duties after authorities became concerned about extremist material and possible radicalization.

Despite that history, he subsequently found work elsewhere in commercial aviation and ultimately joined Flydubai, raising urgent questions about whether information known in Oman was ever shared with other airlines or governments.

There is also a separate question about how an Omani citizen was assigned to a flight bound for Israel. Oman does not maintain diplomatic relations with Israel, and Israeli security procedures were supposed to prevent nationals of countries without diplomatic relations from serving aboard incoming flights unless specifically cleared.

Those failures have already prompted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to order a comprehensive review of security procedures governing foreign civilian flights entering Israel, including how overseas airline crews are vetted and how information is exchanged among Israeli security agencies, foreign governments and airlines.

Netanyahu has said that al-Hammami had undergone “Islamic radicalization.”

Eisin said a pilot’s education, career and professional standing provide no guarantee against extremist indoctrination. The very assumption that a highly trained professional would be less susceptible to radicalization, she argued, could itself create a dangerous blind spot.

“Just because someone’s a pilot doesn’t mean they can’t be radicalized, people from all walks of life could be radicalized. [Syrian dictator] Bashar al-Assad was a doctor, Josef Mengele was a doctor,” she said.

“And if you kill Israelis, the whole world applauds you,” she added.

Oded Ailam, a former senior Mossad counterterrorism official and former deputy head of the agency’s global operations, agreed that the incident exposes a particularly difficult security vulnerability, although he has expressed greater skepticism that al-Hammami was formally recruited by a state or terrorist organization.

Ailam said turning an established commercial pilot into a suicide attacker would require a much more complicated recruitment and psychological process than convincing an inexperienced young terrorist to carry explosives into a civilian target.

“Recruiting and convincing a pilot to do something like that, it’s not the same as telling a 15-year-old to strap on a bomb and walk into a promenade and explode himself. This is a very sophisticated and long operation,” he said.

Ailam has said that, based on what is publicly known so far, he considers a lone-actor scenario more plausible. But he cautioned that a “lone wolf” does not necessarily develop extremist ideology in isolation.

“The lone wolf is influenced by the pack of wolves around him, he’s influenced by jihadists, by extremists in mosques, he’s influenced by prominent Iranians calling for death to Israel,” he said.

That possibility has become especially significant as investigators examine al-Hammami’s online activity. Social-media accounts associated with him contained extremist and anti-Israel material, and posts that appeared after the attack included imagery connected to senior Al Qaeda figures.

One video reportedly showed Israeli aircraft filmed from cockpits and concluded with an image of Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s successor as leader of Al Qaeda. Material connected to Humam al-Balawi — the Jordanian doctor who became an Al Qaeda suicide bomber and killed seven CIA personnel and a Jordanian intelligence officer in Afghanistan in 2009 — also appeared in material linked to the accounts.

Those discoveries have intensified the investigation into al-Hammami’s ideological development. They have not, however, established that Al Qaeda recruited him, directed him or knew about his attack beforehand.

In fact, Al Qaeda supporters subsequently attempted to capitalize publicly on the Flydubai incident, praising the attacker and urging copycat attacks against American and Israeli aviation. That propaganda has heightened concerns that even if al-Hammami acted independently, his actions could provide a model for others already working within the aviation industry.

For Ailam, that possibility may ultimately present a more complicated threat than a conventional terrorist cell. Organized networks can potentially be penetrated, monitored and disrupted. An individual who becomes radicalized while continuing to function normally in a trusted professional position may leave far fewer warning signs.

“Terror combined with mental disturbances in the pilot, when you combine it together the outcome is horrific. There are a lot of people who are being radicalized who are airline pilots,” he said.

The attack has exposed a weakness built into much of the aviation-security architecture created after September 11. For the past quarter-century, enormous resources have been devoted to keeping unauthorized people out of cockpits. Reinforced cockpit doors, screening procedures and strict access rules are designed largely around the assumption that the threat comes from the passenger cabin.

The Flydubai attack inverted that assumption. The alleged attacker was already sitting behind the reinforced door, had legitimate access to the controls and could reach an emergency axe stored there for safety purposes.

Ailam has noted that pilots occupy a uniquely trusted position aboard an aircraft. Aviation systems cannot operate if every captain and co-pilot is treated as a potential terrorist, yet traditional passenger screening offers little protection when the person posing the threat is a credentialed flight crew member.

That dilemma is likely to become a central subject of aviation-security reviews following the incident. Authorities are examining whether more continuous background screening of pilots is needed, particularly when they fly sensitive international routes, and whether intelligence about extremist behavior must be shared more effectively across national borders.

Ailam has also called for greater international intelligence cooperation and continued monitoring capable of detecting sudden extremist associations or significant behavioral changes among people occupying highly sensitive aviation positions, while warning against indiscriminately treating pilots as suspects.

Another potential response could involve cockpit technology. Current security systems are heavily designed to prevent outsiders from opening the cockpit door, but the Flydubai incident raises the opposite problem: how other authorized crew members can regain access if someone inside the cockpit becomes the threat.

Ailam predicted that airlines and regulators will now have to examine technological systems capable of allowing trusted crew members to regain cockpit access during an emergency without undermining the reinforced-door protections introduced after 9/11.

“It’s impossible to screen every pilot, the answer will have to be technological,” he said.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump has announced that more than 20 million Medicare beneficiaries will receive a one-time $90 payment this month to help offset their Medicare Part B premiums, with the first direct deposits expected to arrive within days and paper checks following later in October.

The White House says approximately 20.8 million people will qualify for the rebate, which will be funded with roughly $2 billion already appropriated by Congress to the Medicare Improvement Fund. No new application is required for eligible beneficiaries, and the administration says the payments will be issued automatically.

Most recipients who already receive federal payments electronically are expected to see a $90 direct deposit on or around October 8. Those who do not have direct deposit information on file will instead receive a $90 paper check from the U.S. Treasury later in the month.

The paper checks will carry the notation, “Medicare Improvement Fund Payment; $90 Payment to Offset October Premium.” Beneficiaries receiving direct deposits are also expected to receive an email or letter from President Trump later in October explaining the payment.

The rebate represents a little under half of the standard Medicare Part B monthly premium for 2026, which is $202.90. Part B generally covers outpatient medical care, including doctor visits, diagnostic testing and other medical services outside of inpatient hospital coverage.

Trump announced the program Friday night, describing the recipients as more than 20 million “wonderful Seniors” and saying his administration was redirecting money that had been sitting in a federal Medicare fund.

Trump called the Medicare Improvement Fund, “a pointless ‘Slush Fund’ that has only been used by Dumocrats in Congress to pay for the Waste, Fraud, and Abuse for their Special Interest friends, and drive up Healthcare costs.

“We are finally using this Fund, along with my Most Favored Nations Deals, to substantially LOWER costs for our Seniors,” the president said in a Truth Social post.

The Medicare Improvement Fund was established by Congress in 2008 as a mechanism for financing improvements to Medicare’s fee-for-service program. The administration says Congress has allocated approximately $2 billion to the fund and that this is the first time the money is being distributed directly to beneficiaries in this fashion.

The fund has long played a role in congressional health-care budgeting, with lawmakers from both parties adjusting or redirecting money assigned to it as part of larger health-care and budget legislation. The Trump administration is now using the available money for direct premium rebates rather than another Medicare program or legislative purpose.

Not every Medicare beneficiary will qualify. The payment is specifically aimed at certain Medicare Part B enrollees, rather than all Americans enrolled in Medicare.

Beneficiaries whose Part B premiums are already paid by Medicaid will not receive the rebate. People who pay an Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount, commonly known as IRMAA, because their incomes exceed certain thresholds are also excluded.

The administration has additionally indicated that some beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage will not qualify depending on how their premiums are handled, meaning the total number receiving the $90 payment is substantially smaller than the overall Medicare population.

For eligible beneficiaries, however, there is nothing they need to submit to receive the money. Medicare and Treasury records will be used to determine eligibility and deliver the payment automatically.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says recipients should therefore be wary of anyone contacting them and claiming that personal information or payment is required to obtain the rebate. Eligible beneficiaries do not need to pay a fee, purchase anything or provide banking information to a caller in order to receive the money.

The timing places the payments in Americans’ bank accounts and mailboxes approximately a month before the November 3 midterm elections, when control of Congress will be at stake. The announcement is the latest in a series of financial initiatives and proposed payments unveiled by the Trump administration in recent weeks.

Trump framed the Medicare rebate as part of his broader pledge to protect Medicare and Social Security and lower health-care expenses for older Americans.

“I pledged to protect and preserve Medicare and Social Security, which were on the verge of RUIN by Joe Biden, who foolishly and maliciously let tens of millions of Illegal Aliens into our Country, and we are doing just that for America’s Seniors,” Trump added on Truth Social.

The administration has also emphasized its efforts to lower prescription-drug prices through agreements based on what Trump calls “Most Favored Nations” pricing, under which Americans would pay prices more closely aligned with those charged for medications in other developed countries.

The $90 Medicare payment comes just days after the administration began another unusual health-care refund program, this one involving approximately 950,000 Americans who purchased insurance through the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

Under that initiative, the administration is distributing $500 payments to eligible consumers in roughly 30 states. Administration officials say those consumers were effectively overcharged because of excessive user fees collected under the Biden administration from health insurers participating in the federal Obamacare marketplace, with the costs ultimately passed along to consumers.

Trump emphasized that the Medicare money and the Affordable Care Act refunds are two separate programs.

The president clarified the $90 senior payment is “separate from the equally substantial Refund ‘Checks’ we are sending to One Million Americans who were overcharged for their Unaffordable Care Act plans by Joe Biden.”

The Medicare payments are expected to cost the federal government close to $1.9 billion if all 20.8 million eligible beneficiaries receive $90. The administration maintains that because the money has already been appropriated to the Medicare Improvement Fund, the initiative does not require Congress to approve a new $2 billion spending package.

The program has nevertheless drawn scrutiny over the administration’s authority to use the Medicare Improvement Fund for direct cash rebates. The fund was created for improvements to Medicare’s fee-for-service system rather than specifically as a mechanism for mailing payments to beneficiaries, making the administration’s interpretation of how the money may be used a significant element of the initiative.

The $90 payment also arrives as Trump continues promoting a much larger proposal that would provide a $5,000 “Trump Dividend” to American citizens if Republicans retain control of Congress in the midterm elections.

Unlike the Medicare rebate, the proposed $5,000 payment is not currently an authorized federal benefit and would involve vastly more money. Depending on precisely who qualified, a nationwide $5,000 payment could carry a price tag exceeding $1 trillion and would require substantial additional federal funding.

Trump nevertheless reiterated that pledge while announcing the Medicare payments.

“Because I delivered on this very important issue for the American People, they can also rest assured the highly popular $5,000 Trump Dividend will be distributed to every US citizen if, and when, the Republicans win the Midterm Elections!,” Trump added.

The administration says eligible Medicare beneficiaries should begin seeing the $90 payments almost immediately, with electronic payments arriving first and Treasury checks continuing through October.

{Matzav.com}

The U.S. Coast Guard has suspended its massive search for six people aboard a medical transport jet that vanished while flying from Bermuda to Boston, after searchers discovered wreckage from the aircraft in the Atlantic Ocean off Nantucket but found no sign of the four crew members and two passengers.

The Canadian-registered Gulfstream G100, operated by Latitude Air Ambulance, disappeared early Saturday morning while transporting a Bermudian patient and a relative to Boston for medical care. Four Canadians — two pilots and two medical personnel — were also aboard.

The aircraft, registration C-GJRP and using the call sign “Heartbeat 104,” departed Bermuda’s L.F. Wade International Airport at approximately 11:40 p.m. Friday and was scheduled to arrive at Boston Logan International Airport at roughly 1:30 a.m. Saturday.

But as the jet approached the northeastern United States, something went badly wrong.

Air traffic control recordings provide a chilling glimpse of the aircraft’s final minutes. The crew apparently reported an electrical problem, while communications with controllers became increasingly difficult.

“Roger, you said you’re coming in blind. Is that what you said?” a controller was heard asking.

The pilot’s response was too weak to be clearly heard in the publicly available recording.

“Are you declaring an emergency or no?” the controller asked.

After another faint transmission, the controller responded: “You’re coming in a little weak so I didn’t hear what your response was, if you were declaring an emergency or not.”

The controller subsequently confirmed that the pilot had declared an emergency. Local emergency personnel were alerted to prepare for the aircraft, with dispatchers initially reporting that the incoming plane was experiencing an electrical issue.

Then both radio and radar contact disappeared.

Flight-tracking data showed the Gulfstream had been cruising at approximately 24,000 feet before suddenly losing altitude. Depending on the tracking source, the jet plunged to roughly 10,000 or 11,000 feet in only a few minutes — a descent of approximately 13,000 feet — before its tracking signal vanished.

Controllers repeatedly tried to contact the aircraft and asked other planes in the area to determine whether they could see the Gulfstream on their collision-avoidance systems or establish radio communication with it. Those efforts were unsuccessful.

The aircraft never arrived at Logan Airport.

Shortly after 2 a.m., federal authorities notified the Coast Guard that the aircraft was missing, triggering a major search-and-rescue operation over the waters south of Nantucket.

The mission involved Coast Guard aircraft, helicopters, boats and cutters, along with assistance from the New York Air National Guard and Massachusetts authorities. Searchers flew repeated patterns over the Atlantic while vessels combed the water below.

On Nantucket itself, police checked the island’s airport in case the jet had somehow landed there without normal communications. At daybreak, local officers and the harbormaster began searching the island’s southern shoreline for any sign of the aircraft.

Later Saturday, the grim first breakthrough came: Coast Guard crews located a debris field in the ocean roughly 20 miles off Nantucket. Authorities subsequently confirmed that the wreckage came from the missing Gulfstream.

The discovery effectively confirmed that the aircraft had gone down, but there was initially still hope that some of the six people aboard might have survived. Coast Guard crews continued searching through the night and into Sunday.

The Coast Guard ultimately covered more than 4,400 square miles during approximately 66 hours of searching, using aircraft and vessels in an effort to locate survivors. None of the six people was found.

On Sunday evening, officials announced that the active search was being suspended.

“Suspending a search is not an easy decision,” Rear Adm. Matthew Lake, commander of the Coast Guard’s Northeast District, said. “We express our deepest condolences to the families and loved ones affected by the tragedy and our gratitude for our partner agencies who helped support search efforts.”

The six people aboard consisted of four Canadian nationals and two Bermudians. Latitude Air Ambulance said the four Canadians were two pilots and two members of its medical team. They had flown to Bermuda to pick up the patient and accompanying relative for the medical evacuation to Boston.

Latitude Air Ambulance, based in Hamilton, Ontario, specializes in international medical transportation, including flights designed to move patients between countries for treatment or return them home while receiving medical care.

The aircraft itself was a Gulfstream G100, a twin-engine business jet commonly configured for corporate travel and specialized operations such as medical transport. The type is capable of long-distance flights and normally carries sophisticated navigation and communications equipment.

Investigators are now trying to determine what could have caused the aircraft’s apparent electrical problems, rapid descent and disappearance.

One of the most significant clues is the pilot’s apparent statement that the aircraft was “coming in blind.” It has not yet been publicly established precisely what the pilot meant by that phrase or which systems had failed, but investigators are expected to examine whether the aircraft had lost critical navigational instruments, displays or communications equipment.

Former U.S. Transportation Department Inspector General Mary Schiavo said a combination of lost instruments and deteriorating weather could become extremely dangerous because pilots deprived of reliable visual and instrument references can rapidly become spatially disoriented.

“Something bad happened with this big drop, and they flew into this big storm. It’s a terrible place to have a loss of your instruments and be flying blind,” Schiavo said. “It’s very easy to get disoriented and not know if you’re turning, climbing, descending, etc. Spatial orientation hits pretty quickly.”

There is not yet, however, an official determination that weather caused or contributed to the crash. Weather observations indicated rain in the region, while surface winds were reportedly not particularly severe. Investigators will need to reconstruct the precise conditions encountered by the aircraft at its altitude and location.

The jet’s rapid descent will also be a major focus. Flight-tracking information indicates that it remained near 24,000 feet for more than an hour before dropping approximately 13,000 feet in only a few minutes. It remains unclear whether that descent was intentionally initiated by the pilots in response to an emergency or resulted from a loss of control or other malfunction.

Investigators will also examine the possibility of cascading electrical failures. A serious electrical malfunction can affect radios, navigation instruments and cockpit displays, although modern business jets have multiple backup systems specifically intended to prevent a single failure from disabling the aircraft.

The debris recovered from the ocean is being preserved for investigators. Officials said during the search that some pieces were difficult to immediately identify because of their condition.

“It’s very difficult at this point to identify exactly what those components are,” Coast Guard search-and-rescue coordinator Kastriot Kastrati said. “The debris that we have recovered, we’ve safeguarded and kept for future investigative efforts.”

Authorities are also expected to search for the aircraft’s flight recorders, commonly known as black boxes. Recovering them could be crucial to determining what happened inside the cockpit during the final minutes, including which systems failed, what warnings the pilots received and why the jet descended so sharply.

Because the wreckage is believed to be in the Atlantic off Nantucket, investigators may need specialized underwater equipment to locate and recover the main portion of the aircraft and its recorders.

The National Transportation Safety Board has been gathering information about the accident, while Canadian aviation authorities are also involved because the aircraft was Canadian-registered and its crew members were Canadian.

The tragedy has touched three countries. Canadian officials said they were working with American authorities and expressed concern for the missing crew, while Bermuda officials remained in contact with the relatives of the two Bermudians aboard.

Before the debris was located, Bermuda Premier David Burt expressed hope that the occupants would still be found alive.

“My thoughts are with everyone on board and their families during this deeply worrying time,” Burt said. “We are praying that all six people will be found safe, and we thank the search and rescue crews for their continuing efforts.”

Canadian Transport Minister Steven MacKinnon likewise said authorities were closely following developments.

“My thoughts are with everyone on board, as well as their families, loved ones and colleagues during this incredibly difficult time,” MacKinnon said. “We are closely monitoring the situation and are working with the relevant authorities as search and rescue efforts continue.”

The investigation now turns from rescue to determining exactly what happened during the short and frightening interval between the first indication of electrical trouble and the Gulfstream’s disappearance from radar.

For now, the known sequence is stark: a routine medical evacuation left Bermuda for Boston; the pilots reported trouble as they approached Massachusetts; the aircraft apparently began operating with severely impaired communications or navigation; it plunged approximately 13,000 feet; and then, over the dark Atlantic south of Nantucket, “Heartbeat 104” disappeared.

{Matzav.com}

Manhattan’s office market has staged a remarkable comeback from the dark predictions of the pandemic era, with companies gobbling up space, availability falling to its lowest levels since 2020 and rents for top-tier buildings surging as employers compete for increasingly scarce premium offices, the NY Post reports.

The turnaround is a striking reversal from the so-called “doom loop” that many analysts warned could engulf New York City after COVID emptied Manhattan’s skyscrapers and remote work raised questions about whether workers would ever return in large numbers.

Instead, Manhattan’s roughly 450 million square feet of office inventory is filling rapidly, while major brokerages are reporting that the tightening market is pushing rents higher. Third-quarter leasing remained well above historical averages, continuing an unusually strong run of demand stretching back several quarters.

The numbers from several of the city’s largest commercial real-estate firms show how dramatically conditions have shifted. Colliers and Savills put Manhattan office availability at approximately 13% in their latest third-quarter surveys, around the lowest level recorded since the early months of the pandemic.

The improvement has been building throughout 2026. By the end of the first half of the year, Manhattan had recorded its strongest first-half leasing activity since 2002, and availability had fallen dramatically from its post-pandemic peak. The momentum continued through the summer and into the third quarter.

Rents have followed demand upward. CBRE found that Manhattan asking rents had increased from a year earlier, but CBRE research director Michael Slattery cautioned that citywide averages obscure just how competitive the market has become for the offices companies most want.

“asking rent averages don’t tell the full story,” said CBRE research director Michael Slattery.

“The best space is being leased quickly, leaving lower-quality space on the market. As a result, rent growth for the most desirable floors is likely higher than overall figures suggest,” he added.

That divide between highly desirable modern offices and older, less competitive buildings has become one of the defining characteristics of Manhattan’s recovery. Companies are aggressively pursuing newer buildings with modern amenities, attractive locations and high-quality space, leaving tenants with fewer choices in the upper end of the market.

Colliers reported that Midtown asking rents climbed from $80.71 per square foot to $84.99 over the past year. Across Manhattan, Class A asking rents reached record territory during the third quarter, underscoring the strength of demand for premium offices.

Savills similarly found substantial rent growth in the most desirable segment of the market, with asking rents for top-quality space rising sharply over the year. Its third-quarter report recorded 10.3 million square feet of Manhattan leasing, bringing the total for the first nine months of 2026 to 33.5 million square feet, 5.6% ahead of the comparable period last year.

Colliers measured just over 10 million square feet of third-quarter leasing and found that the quarter surpassed both five-year and ten-year historical averages. It marked the fourth consecutive quarter in which Manhattan leasing exceeded 10 million square feet, a streak the firm said had not occurred since 2002.

Driving much of the demand are the industries that have traditionally consumed large amounts of Manhattan office space — finance, insurance, real estate and law — joined by an increasingly important new force: artificial intelligence.

Finance, insurance, real-estate, technology and law firms together have accounted for the overwhelming majority of major leasing activity this year, with technology companies emerging as particularly aggressive consumers of space.

One of the most dramatic examples is Anthropic, the artificial-intelligence company behind Claude. The company agreed to lease the entire 16-story building at 330 Hudson Street in Hudson Square, totaling approximately 466,000 square feet — an enormous expansion from the roughly 15,000 square feet it previously occupied in Manhattan.

The Anthropic transaction ranked among the largest Manhattan leases of the third quarter and provided a vivid illustration of how rapidly growing AI companies are reshaping parts of the office market. Other technology companies have also taken substantial space as the sector expands its New York workforce.

Dell has meanwhile established a significant presence at 1 Penn Plaza, adding another major technology name to the companies competing for Manhattan offices.

Law firms are providing another powerful source of demand. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett finalized a massive lease of approximately 916,000 square feet at 570 Fifth Avenue, a new Midtown office tower under development by Extell.

Proskauer Rose, meanwhile, renewed its lease and expanded its footprint at 11 Times Square to approximately 478,000 square feet, making it one of the largest transactions of the third quarter.

The surge in leasing has created a problem few expected Manhattan landlords to face so soon after the pandemic: in the buildings tenants most want, there simply is not much room left.

Vacancy and availability in the best modern, amenity-rich properties have tightened dramatically, leaving large companies seeking immediate expansion space with surprisingly few options.

“I have law tenants who want to add more than 50,000 square feet and there’s close to zero available,” said a prominent commercial broker who declined to be named.

“Forget the pandemic — we haven’t seen a market so tight for premium floors since before 9/11,” the broker added.

The scarcity is particularly striking because only a few years ago New York’s enormous inventory of empty and subleased offices fueled predictions of a prolonged commercial real-estate crisis. At the pandemic-era peak, Manhattan office availability had climbed above 18%, leaving tens of millions of square feet competing for tenants.

That excess inventory has since been shrinking steadily. Colliers reported that available Manhattan office space had fallen by roughly one-third from its post-pandemic peak, while sublease inventory has dropped to levels not seen since before the pandemic.

The third-quarter surge was spread across Manhattan rather than confined to a single neighborhood. Major leases, renewals and expansions were recorded from the World Trade Center area through Midtown and the Plaza District, with both established buildings and projects still under construction attracting commitments.

At 625 Madison Avenue near East 58th Street, General Atlantic signed a long-term lease for more than 150,000 square feet across five floors in Related Companies’ planned 53-story tower. The building is not expected to open until 2029, but General Atlantic has already committed to making it its new global headquarters.

The investment firm plans to house more than 330 New York employees there, demonstrating that tenants are willing to make large, long-range commitments even as other companies insist they need space immediately.

That need for immediate occupancy is creating an unusual squeeze. Several major office towers are planned, including Vornado Realty Trust and Ken Griffin’s 350 Park Avenue, BXP’s 343 Madison Avenue and SL Green’s 346 Madison Avenue, but those projects will not deliver large blocks of new space for years.

For companies that need to expand now, future towers do little to solve the immediate shortage.

“Nobody’s moving to New Jersey yet, but some companies are thinking about it for support staff,” the broker said.

The possibility illustrates how tight certain portions of the Manhattan market have become. Businesses that once could choose among numerous large blocks of high-quality space are increasingly being forced to compromise on location, wait for future construction or consider placing some employees outside Manhattan.

JLL broker Kristen Morgan recently described the same problem among technology and artificial-intelligence companies looking for large blocks of office space in Hudson Square. A proposed new tower there could take roughly 18 months to build, she said, while fast-growing companies are looking for offices immediately.

The broader recovery does not mean every Manhattan office building has escaped the problems created by remote and hybrid work. Older properties with outdated layouts, fewer amenities or less desirable locations continue to face considerably more pressure than trophy and Class A towers, and some obsolete office properties remain candidates for conversion to residential use.

But that divide is itself helping explain why broad market statistics can understate the intensity of the current competition. A substantial amount of nominally “available” Manhattan office space is not necessarily space that major employers actually consider competitive for their needs.

For landlords controlling the buildings companies do want, the shift has increasingly translated into higher rents, fewer concessions and greater leverage in negotiations — conditions almost unimaginable when empty Midtown towers and abandoned offices dominated discussions about New York’s post-pandemic future.

Five years after predictions that remote work could send Manhattan commercial real estate into a self-reinforcing “doom loop,” the immediate challenge in the most desirable corners of the market has become almost the reverse: employers are expanding, the best floors are disappearing quickly, and some companies cannot find enough premium space to accommodate the workers they want to put back in their offices.

{Matzav.com}

Al Qaeda supporters are openly calling for new attacks on American and Israeli air travelers in the wake of the attempted terrorist takeover of a Flydubai flight to Tel Aviv, invoking both the September 11 attacks and last week’s near-disaster while praising the alleged attacker and urging others to follow his example.

The chilling appeal appeared Friday in al-Bayan, a weekly publication launched in July by supporters of Al Qaeda, and explicitly connected the September 30 attack aboard Flydubai Flight FZ1073 with the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States.

“The war isn’t over yet — planes carrying Zionists, Americans and all the other infidels fighting against Islam are still hovering in the skies and can be targeted, as happened on September 11th and 30th,” the Arabic-language article threatened.

The propaganda was accompanied by imagery of an aircraft striking the World Trade Center on September 11 alongside material referring to the attempted takeover of the Dubai-to-Tel Aviv flight.

The publication went on to suggest that additional attacks could be carried out even by individuals who do not formally belong to Al Qaeda or share all of its religious beliefs.

“America and the Zionists have far more enemies today than before,” the article said. “Perhaps a man who does not believe in God will target them and his operation will ultimately benefit Islam.”

It then added an explicit threat against the United States: “The day will come when the empire of evil America will end.”

The material was reportedly being distributed through Telegram channels connected to the publication on Saturday before apparently being removed.

The propaganda has drawn additional scrutiny because of disturbing material that appeared on social-media accounts belonging to Hamam al-Hammami, the 29-year-old Omani co-pilot accused of attacking the captain of Flight FZ1073 and attempting to seize control of the aircraft.

About nine hours after the attack had been thwarted — when al-Hammami was already in custody — a series of posts appeared on accounts associated with him on LinkedIn and Instagram. The accounts were subsequently deleted.

It remains unclear who uploaded the posts, whether someone else had access to the accounts or whether the material had been scheduled for automatic publication before the attack.

One of the videos contained cockpit footage focusing on nearby Israeli aircraft, including El Al planes. In one portion of the footage, a cockpit display showed the date October 11, 2023, during the period when al-Hammami was working for Oman Air.

The video concluded with images of two notorious Al Qaeda figures: Ayman al-Zawahiri, who succeeded Osama bin Laden as the terror organization’s leader and was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Afghanistan in 2022, and Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi, the Jordanian doctor who carried out a devastating suicide bombing against CIA personnel in Afghanistan in 2009.

The appearance of al-Balawi in the material has particularly caught the attention of terrorism specialists because of potential parallels between the two men’s backgrounds.

Terrorism expert Evan Kohlmann initially said Al Qaeda supporters appeared to be attempting to capitalize on the Flydubai attack after the fact. But the social-media material associated with al-Hammami, he said, could substantially alter the picture.

“It’s interesting, if this is accurate, then he probably isn’t an ISIS supporter,” Kohlmann said.

“I think what stands out to me most here is the reference to Humam al-Balawi.”

Al-Balawi was a physician who became known in jihadist circles through his activity on extremist internet forums. Jordanian intelligence subsequently recruited him as an asset and he eventually became involved in an intelligence operation with the CIA, which believed he could help penetrate Al Qaeda’s senior leadership.

Instead, al-Balawi remained loyal to Al Qaeda. In December 2009, he entered Forward Operating Base Chapman in Afghanistan and detonated a suicide vest, killing seven CIA officers and contractors as well as a Jordanian intelligence officer. The attack was one of the deadliest suffered by the CIA in decades.

Kohlmann noted that al-Balawi’s professional and educational background had made his transformation into a suicide bomber particularly startling to intelligence officials.

“It was a shock to everyone that someone from that kind of professional, successful background would blow himself up on behalf of Al-Qaida,” he said.

Investigators are now examining whether the reference to al-Balawi held particular significance for al-Hammami, who similarly came from a professional background and had established a career in commercial aviation.

Al-Hammami was born in the United Arab Emirates to an Omani father and Syrian mother and spent several years of his life in the UAE. He later studied abroad, including in Britain and Australia, and pursued a career as a commercial pilot.

His employment history has become a central part of the widening international investigation. A LinkedIn profile associated with al-Hammami indicated that he spent approximately seven years with Oman Air before leaving in February 2025. He subsequently worked for Royal Air Maroc before joining Flydubai, where Israeli officials say he had been employed for approximately eight months before the attack.

Multiple reports have indicated that al-Hammami was removed from flying duties while at Oman Air because of concerns about extremist views and was reassigned to another position. Other reports have alleged that extremist material was discovered on his electronic devices.

Those allegations have not been publicly substantiated in detail by Oman Air or the Omani government, and investigators are examining what information existed at the time, whether it was shared with other governments or airlines, and what background checks were conducted before Flydubai hired him.

The social-media material discovered after the attack has added another dimension to those questions. Along with the video featuring al-Zawahiri and al-Balawi, another post reportedly included an AI-generated image depicting the Islamic holy sites in Mecca, Medina and Yerushalayim connected by a glowing path, accompanied by a poem speaking of rejecting humiliation, refusing to fear death and defending one’s dignity.

The September 30 attack itself came perilously close to catastrophe. According to UAE authorities, al-Hammami attacked Captain Smit Machchhar inside the cockpit with an emergency crash axe and attempted to take control of the aircraft.

The violent struggle sent the aircraft plunging thousands of feet as Machchhar fought his attacker. Despite suffering serious injuries, the captain managed to open the cockpit, allowing crew members and passengers to intervene and overpower al-Hammami.

Two additional Flydubai pilots who were aboard the aircraft were then able to take control. Flight FZ1073 was diverted to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, where it landed safely. Al-Hammami was detained by Saudi authorities before subsequently being transferred to the UAE.

UAE Attorney-General Hamad Saif Al Shamsi has now formally characterized what occurred aboard the flight as an attempted terrorist attack, the strongest official determination yet regarding the nature of the incident.

Investigators are continuing “to uncover all the circumstances of the incident, its motives, and related connections, in addition to completing technical examinations and examining physical and digital evidence,” according to the UAE prosecutor.

Israeli officials have said they believe al-Hammami underwent Islamist radicalization, while reports in Israel have specifically linked his ideology to Al Qaeda. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the emerging evidence indicates that the incident was an attempted mass-casualty terrorist attack rather than an ordinary cockpit altercation.

The investigation has expanded well beyond the UAE and Israel. Australian authorities are examining al-Hammami’s years in Australia, where he arrived on a student visa in 2014 and reportedly spent approximately two years studying before his visa was ultimately canceled in 2019 after his enrollment lapsed. Australian Federal Police, Victoria Police and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation are reviewing his connections and activities in the country.

Authorities are also examining his time in Britain, where he completed aviation-related studies. The international probe is attempting to reconstruct not only his professional career but the progression of his alleged radicalization and whether he established contacts with extremist individuals or organizations along the way.

The Al Qaeda propaganda appearing after the attack does not establish that al-Hammami was an Al Qaeda operative or that the organization directed the attempted takeover. No public evidence has yet demonstrated that he received instructions from Al Qaeda, communicated with its leadership or carried out the attack on the organization’s behalf.

That distinction remains central to the investigation. Terrorist organizations frequently celebrate attacks they did not organize and attempt to transform individuals who acted independently into symbols for future recruits. Authorities are therefore working to determine whether Al Qaeda is merely exploiting al-Hammami’s attack for propaganda purposes or whether there was some connection predating the incident.

The newly discovered social-media material has made that question considerably more urgent. The references to al-Zawahiri and particularly al-Balawi indicate at minimum an apparent familiarity with prominent figures associated with Al Qaeda, while the timing of the posts — appearing hours after al-Hammami had already been arrested — has left investigators trying to determine who actually published them.

The Transportation Security Administration said it is following the investigation and coordinating with other authorities in response to the aviation-security implications of the attack.

“TSA is aware of the security incident involving flyDubai and are closely monitoring the situation,” the agency said.

“The safety and security of passengers, employees, and aviation operations remain our highest priorities. We are coordinating with appropriate aviation, law enforcement, and international partners to assess available information.”

The case has also triggered a major examination of aviation-security procedures in Israel and the UAE after revelations that al-Hammami had previously been the subject of concerns over extremist views yet was subsequently hired by Flydubai and permitted to repeatedly serve aboard flights bound for Israel.

Israeli authorities reportedly received the passenger and crew information for Flight FZ1073 before the aircraft departed Dubai, but al-Hammami was not flagged. Israel and Oman do not maintain diplomatic relations, raising additional questions about how an Omani national was assigned to an Israel-bound flight and whether existing nationality restrictions on foreign airline crews were properly enforced.

Flydubai has suspended service between Dubai and Tel Aviv following the incident, while authorities in several countries continue examining al-Hammami’s history, digital activity and possible contacts.

For counterterrorism officials, the investigation now has two distinct dimensions: determining whether al-Hammami acted entirely on his own or had outside assistance, and confronting an Al Qaeda propaganda apparatus that is already seeking to turn the failed attack into a model for another one.

The immediate disaster aboard Flight FZ1073 was prevented when the wounded captain, crew members, passengers and reserve pilots managed to regain control of the aircraft. The danger authorities are confronting now is that extremists are openly urging someone else to try again.

Tucker Carlson has ignited a fierce controversy after questioning why Britain fought Nazi Germany in World War II, arguing that London had no reason to enter the conflict over Poland and repeating elements of Adolf Hitler’s justification for the 1939 invasion — remarks that prompted former British cabinet minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg to tell Carlson that he was “verging on defending Hitler.”

The extraordinary exchange came during a lengthy interview between Carlson and Rees-Mogg that was initially centered on Britain’s military preparedness, Russia and the war in Ukraine. Their discussion eventually turned to civilian casualties in wartime and then to the Second World War itself.

“I think it’s very difficult to have fought the Second World War without innocent people being killed,” Rees-Mogg said.

Carlson responded by questioning the premise of Britain’s involvement altogether.

“I’ve never understood why fight the Second World War in the first place?” Carlson said.

Rees-Mogg appeared taken aback.

“Well,” he replied, “that’s a very fundamental question.”

Carlson then turned to Hitler’s invasion of Poland, which began on September 1, 1939 and led Britain and France to declare war on Germany two days later. Britain had given Poland a security guarantee earlier that year as Hitler’s expansion across Europe accelerated.

Rees-Mogg argued that Hitler had already demonstrated an appetite for continued territorial expansion, telling Carlson, “Hitler would’ve taken as much as he could’ve done, as he was showing.”

Carlson pushed back by invoking Germany’s territorial losses after World War I.

“Well, Hitler said that 15% was once Germany and it was given to Poland at the Treaty of Versailles. That was German territory with Germans in it. That was his case. And by the way, that was true.”

Carlson insisted that he was not defending Hitler, but said the Nazi invasion should not be portrayed as an inexplicable act of aggression divorced from Germany’s territorial grievances after World War I.

“I’m certainly not here defending Hitler. I’m just saying the idea that Hitler just randomly rolled into Poland is a lie and everyone believes it because they know nothing about the actual facts. But the truth is, Germany had big pieces of it carved off, including part of Prussia and it was given to this other country. It infuriated the Germans. Maybe it shouldn’t have, but it did. And that was the justification for it.”

He then argued that none of those disputes justified Britain entering the war.

“The U.K. had nothing to do with it at all,” Carlson said.

Rees-Mogg countered that Britain had commitments to its allies, but Carlson maintained that entering the war had ultimately devastated Britain.

“They destroyed their empire and their country fighting this war that they still pretend was a good idea, but it wasn’t,” Carlson said.

Rees-Mogg strongly rejected that assessment.

“It was fundamental. It was the classic good-versus-evil,” he said.

Carlson asked whether Britain had actually benefited from defeating Nazi Germany.

“Has the U.K. benefitted from it?” he asked.

“We did the right thing,” Rees-Mogg replied.

“Is it a better country than it was?” Carlson asked.

“To have defeated Hitler? Yes,” Rees-Mogg answered.

Carlson pressed him again: “So, the U.K. is a better country now? It’s a healthier country now?”

Rees-Mogg responded with a familiar argument about what Nazi victory might have meant for Britain.

“Otherwise, we’d all be speaking German.”

“Who cares?” Carlson shot back.

“I do,” Rees-Mogg replied.

Carlson continued, “There are a lot of people in Britain who can’t speak English. So, it would be nice to have like, at least a European language spoken in your country.”

“No, I see no advantage speaking German over any other language. We want to speak English, thank you so much,” Rees-Mogg responded.

The debate later became even sharper when Carlson argued that Hitler had repeatedly indicated that he did not want a war with Britain. Rees-Mogg cautioned Carlson against taking Hitler’s declarations at face value, noting the Nazi dictator’s record of making assurances and then violating them.

“You seem to be putting more trust in Hitler than I would,” Rees-Mogg told him. “He said all sorts of things.”

Rees-Mogg then directly confronted Carlson over the direction of his argument.

“I’m very surprised you’re verging on defending Hitler. I think this is not really what you want to be doing,” he said.

Carlson answered sarcastically before explicitly rejecting the accusation.

“Yeah, I guess I’m just a secret Nazi,” he said. “I’m actually not a secret Nazi. And hardly a public Nazi. I’m just someone who tries to think clearly about cause and effect.”

“I’m reassured,” Rees-Mogg replied.

Rees-Mogg maintained that Nazi Germany eventually would have turned against Britain regardless of whether London initially stayed out of the conflict.

“Germany would have invaded us,” he said.

Historically, Carlson’s argument touches on genuine German resentment over the territorial settlement imposed after World War I, but Hitler’s attack on Poland went far beyond an effort to recover German-populated territory. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had secretly agreed in August 1939 to divide spheres of influence in Eastern Europe, and after Germany invaded Poland from the west on September 1, Soviet forces invaded from the east on September 17.

Nazi rule in occupied Poland subsequently involved mass executions, deportations and persecution, culminating in the systematic murder of Polish Jewry and millions of other victims.

Britain’s decision to declare war also followed years of German expansion. Hitler had remilitarized the Rhineland, annexed Austria in 1938 and, after the Munich Agreement transferred the Sudetenland to Germany, occupied the remaining Czech lands in March 1939. Britain subsequently guaranteed Poland against German aggression.

The Carlson-Rees-Mogg clash therefore centered on a broader historical question: whether Britain could or should have remained outside the European conflict as Nazi Germany continued expanding across the continent.

Carlson repeatedly framed the issue through what the war ultimately cost Britain, arguing that victory over Germany came alongside the collapse of the British Empire, enormous loss of life, economic devastation and a diminished international position. Rees-Mogg countered that those costs did not make the decision to resist Hitler wrong.

The remarks quickly generated criticism from prominent conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic. Among the sharpest responses came from U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee.

“When it seemed impossible for Toxic Tucker to descend deeper into the sewer here he goes opining that UK should have let Nazis take over. Forget that Hitler murdered 11 million people? I thought Tucker was against killing? He needs help. Serious help.”

Sen. Ted Cruz also rejected Carlson’s argument.

“Yes, Tucker, the UK is better off for winning WWII. America is better off for winning WWII. And the world would be much worse off if the Nazis had won WWII. This is not complicated.”

The controversy is not Carlson’s first involving revisionist arguments about World War II. In 2024, he hosted Darryl Cooper for an interview in which Cooper described Winston Churchill as the “chief villain” of World War II, triggering widespread criticism from historians and political figures. Carlson defended the decision to host Cooper as part of a willingness to challenge accepted historical narratives.

The latest discussion arose as Carlson challenged Rees-Mogg’s support for Britain maintaining a strong defense posture and continuing to support Ukraine against Russia. Carlson repeatedly questioned whether Britain was risking another catastrophic conflict by confronting Moscow, while Rees-Mogg argued that military preparedness and Western support for Ukraine are intended to deter aggression rather than provoke a war.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu has delivered a blistering assessment of Britain’s deteriorating relationship with Israel, saying he still considers the United Kingdom an ally but accusing its government of “appeasing” Islamist forces, attacking the country that is helping protect Britain from terrorism and risking turning itself into a “rogue state.”

In an extensive interview with the Daily Mail, Netanyahu drew a sharp distinction between Britain itself and the policies of its current government, arguing that the longstanding alliance between the two countries remains important even as relations between Yerushalayim and London have deteriorated dramatically.

“It’s not very good, is it? I mean, when they appease our common enemies and attack us, it doesn’t say much,” Netanyahu said when asked about the state of the relationship.

Netanyahu argued that domestic political pressures inside Britain are increasingly influencing the government’s approach toward Israel and Islamist movements.

“There is a pressure from inside Britain to appease these various Islamist forces in Britain,” Netanyahu said. “And once you start appeasing, you don’t stop. That’s what we learn. Churchill called it the slumber of democracies. And by that, he meant the democracy sort of slumbers while their enemies begin to attack them… until they hear the jarring gong of danger.”

His comments came amid one of the most strained periods in Israeli-British relations in years. Britain has moved sharply against Israeli policies in recent months, including banning trade in goods from Israeli communities in Yehuda and Shomron and imposing additional sanctions connected to Israeli activity there.

Netanyahu portrayed the dispute as part of a much larger ideological struggle, saying Israel’s wars against Hamas, Iran and other Islamist forces are being fought on behalf of the broader West as well.

He described the conflict as one of “Western civilization against these barbarians. And there’s so much deception. There’s so much propaganda. I mean, trying to glorify Hamas, trying to glorify the Islamists that have killed Britons. It killed Americans; it killed Israelis. It killed nationals of dozens and dozens of countries.”

Netanyahu rejected what he described as the demonization of Israel in Britain and elsewhere in Europe, arguing that Israel is simultaneously defending itself and helping protect other countries in the region from Iran and its proxies.

“And Israel is painted as this great devil. We’re not the devil. We’re a tiny country fighting here in the heart of the Middle East, not only to protect ourselves but also to protect the modern Arab states against the Iranian domination and these murderous proxies.”

The prime minister then pointed to intelligence cooperation between Israel and Britain, claiming Israeli intelligence has repeatedly supplied information that helped British authorities prevent terrorist attacks.

That issue has become particularly prominent following the recently uncovered suspected plot targeting RAF Fairford, the British air base that has hosted American bombers involved in operations against Iran. British authorities have said there are strong indications of Iranian involvement in the suspected plot.

Netanyahu has asserted that Israeli intelligence warned Britain about the threat before British authorities moved against the suspects.

“It was stopped. It was prevented,” Netanyahu said. Without Israel’s intelligence assistance, he added, “it would probably have gone through, and we don’t know how many British lives would have been lost.”

Netanyahu had made the same allegation days earlier during an interview with Fox News, saying that Israel had provided Britain with information about the suspected Iranian-backed operation shortly before London took additional punitive measures against Israel.

“We gave the Brits the intel that there was going to be an attack and that it’s an Iranian-sponsored attack, and pretty much the next day they slapped sanctions on us. It’s wild.”

The RAF Fairford case has taken on added significance after British police arrested several suspects in connection with the alleged plot. The U.S. Air Force subsequently withdrew its bombers stationed at the base, returning B-1 and B-52 aircraft to bases in the United States.

The suspected Iranian connection has sharpened Netanyahu’s criticism of London. He argued that Britain is benefiting from Israeli intelligence while simultaneously adopting policies hostile to Israel, even as Israel fights the same forces threatening British security.

“It’s mind-blowing hypocrisy; I don’t know how many lives we have saved by giving Britain information about impending attacks,” Netanyahu said, adding that British authorities are “appeasing; they’re attacking Israel, [the country] that is fighting the terrorists in the terrorist regime that is attacking them. They appease their enemies, and they attack their protectors.”

Asked whether Israel would continue providing Britain with intelligence despite the worsening political relationship, Netanyahu declined to commit publicly to what future cooperation would look like.

He said he “wouldn’t get into that,” while emphasizing that until now, “Israeli intelligence has repeatedly helped protect Britain from attacks.”

Netanyahu went further in his criticism of the British government, accusing it of allowing electoral considerations and pressure from anti-Israel and Islamist constituencies to shape foreign policy.

“In order to ingratiate itself with its political base, [the British government] has gone rogue. Like a rogue state,” Netanyahu said, arguing that Britain’s political establishment should recognize the “Islamist Leftist alliance as natural adversaries.”

Netanyahu argued that there is a fundamental contradiction between the values professed by Britain’s political left and those of the Islamist movements with which he says elements of the left have aligned themselves.

“What do these people do? ….they deprive women of any rights. They murder their own people in Gaza, or Lebanon, or Iran. Executing all their enemies. They are the opposite of democracies,” he said.

“And what does the government in Britain do? It turns on the one democracy that is fighting these monstrous regimes in this terrible state, the worst terrorist state on the planet. That’s what Britain is doing,” Netanyahu claimed.

The criticism follows another diplomatic clash between Netanyahu and London this summer, when the Israeli prime minister referred to the country as the “Islamic Republic of Britain.” The British government called that characterization “completely unacceptable” and raised the matter directly with Israeli officials.

Netanyahu has framed Britain’s changing politics as part of a broader challenge facing Western Europe, arguing that governments unwilling to confront radical Islam and uncontrolled migration could eventually find their national character fundamentally altered.

In his latest interview, he warned that Britain risks reaching precisely that point if it does not regain control of its borders.

Netanyahu said that if “the British didn’t regain control of its borders, then they would lose Britain.”

Despite the extraordinary severity of his criticism, Netanyahu stopped short of declaring the historic relationship between the two countries broken. He said he continues to regard Britain as an Israeli ally and expressed hope that the current trajectory can still be reversed.

“There’s still time for Britain to recover, to regain its senses. I hope that it does, because we’ve had an extraordinary relationship with Britain over the decades, and I’m the first one to regret that it’s… that it’s gone where it’s going,” Netanyahu concluded.

{Matzav.com}

A bitter dispute over responsibility for screening foreign airline crews has erupted in Israel following the attempted Flydubai attack, with the Israeli Transportation Ministry insisting that it does not conduct intelligence background checks on foreign pilots even as government documents reportedly show that the ministry was assigned responsibility for overseeing the security of foreign flights — and had been warned for years that the system was dangerously inadequate.

The questions have become especially urgent after it emerged that the United Arab Emirates transmitted information about the passengers and crew of Flydubai Flight FZ1073 to Israel before the aircraft departed Dubai. The list included the name and nationality of co-pilot Hamam al-Hammami, the 29-year-old Omani accused of attacking Captain Smit Machchhar and attempting to seize control of the Tel Aviv-bound aircraft.

The Israel Tax Authority, which operates the National Center for Passenger Assessment, has confirmed that the passenger and crew information was received from Flydubai. However, the Transportation Ministry says that its own Security Division never received the crew list and does not have access to such lists.

That has left Israeli authorities confronting the central question of how al-Hammami — an Omani national who reportedly had already been flagged over extremist activity during his earlier aviation career — was permitted to repeatedly fly into Israel without being stopped.

The Transportation Ministry has strongly rejected claims that it was supposed to independently investigate the intelligence background of every foreign pilot entering Israeli airspace.

“We are not an intelligence body that checks the intelligence background of foreigners,” a representative of the ministry’s Security Division said. “We have no forces abroad. We have no staff that checks every person there.”

Transportation Minister Miri Regev has similarly argued that intelligence assessments regarding threats are the responsibility of Israel’s security agencies.

“Those who are supposed to say what the threat level is, and whether you can travel to a given destination, are security officials,” Regev said.

The ministry says its system instead requires foreign airlines to screen their own personnel and comply with Israeli restrictions governing who may serve aboard flights entering the country. Flydubai, according to the ministry, had explicitly committed to carrying out the necessary background checks on its crews.

“Flydubai received explicit instructions, committed to carrying out the required background checks on its crews and announced in writing that it had implemented the national restrictions on flights to Israel in the crew assignment system,” the ministry said.

“The list of crew members for flight FZ1073 was not received by the Transportation Ministry, and the Security Division does not have access to the flight lists,” it added.

The ministry said the incident remains under investigation and that any violation of the security requirements will be addressed.

“The incident is under investigation by security officials,” the ministry said. “To the extent that a deviation from the instructions is found, it will be handled accordingly.”

The explanation, however, has intensified rather than quieted the controversy because internal government documents reportedly show that senior Israeli officials had spent years debating precisely this problem: who was responsible for ensuring that foreign airlines and their personnel did not pose a security threat to Israel.

A 2021 cabinet decision shifted responsibilities away from the Shin Bet and placed responsibility for overseeing certain aspects of foreign-flight security with the Transportation Ministry and the Civil Aviation Authority. The Civil Aviation Authority was tasked with ensuring that security arrangements in foreign countries not classified at the highest risk level complied with international requirements.

By 2023, concerns were already being raised about the ability of the existing system to identify dangerous foreign crew members. A meeting involving the National Security Council, Shin Bet and Mossad reportedly examined the vulnerabilities associated with foreign airline personnel flying into Israel.

The problem was not theoretical. Pilots and crew members holding citizenship from countries without diplomatic relations with Israel — including Iran, Lebanon and Pakistan — had reportedly reached Ben Gurion Airport on foreign carriers in previous years. Omani nationals also entered Israel as airline crew members on numerous occasions.

A confidential State Comptroller report in 2024 reportedly found deficiencies in the government’s handling of foreign-flight security. That same year, the cabinet instructed the National Security Council to establish an interagency team involving the Transportation Ministry, Civil Aviation Authority, Shin Bet, Mossad and Finance Ministry to examine the security structure governing international commercial flights into Israel.

Those discussions exposed a fundamental problem: the Transportation Ministry was being asked to assume responsibility for an area requiring intelligence capabilities that ministry officials said they did not possess.

The Shin Bet reportedly maintained that it lacked the personnel and budget necessary to resume responsibility for screening foreign flights. The National Security Council, meanwhile, concluded that the Transportation Ministry should fulfill its responsibility but acknowledged that the Civil Aviation Authority would require additional manpower and funding to do so effectively.

Inside the Transportation Ministry itself, there was significant opposition. Security officials reportedly warned that the ministry simply lacked the tools necessary to determine whether a seemingly ordinary foreign crew member had a dangerous background in another country.

According to one official familiar with the discussions, “The entire professional team at the Transportation Ministry strongly opposed the transfer of authorities, except for the head of the Civil Aviation Authority, Shmuel Zakai.”

“They all stood up and told Minister Miri Regev that it would be a grave mistake to take on such a huge responsibility.”

Despite those objections, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ultimately determined in 2025 that responsibility for the security framework surrounding foreign flights would remain with the Transportation Ministry.

Even before that final decision, the National Security Council reportedly issued a written warning in March 2025 stating that the Transportation Ministry was not adequately carrying out its role in overseeing the security arrangements for foreign flights.

Particularly troubling is the claim that despite acknowledging that it lacked the intelligence capabilities necessary to independently vet foreigners, the Transportation Ministry did not request assistance from the Shin Bet or Mossad to investigate individual passengers or crew members.

Critics say the intelligence agencies themselves were aware of the gap but did not step in to fill it.

“The Shin Bet and Mossad knew full well that the Transportation Ministry was in pieces, that it had no people, no positions, and no capabilities,” one source familiar with the process said. “How did they just shrug off responsibility like that and dump everything on the Transportation Ministry? The responsibility lies with the Transportation Ministry — but the Shin Bet and Mossad also enabled this failure, and the writing was on the wall.”

The Transportation Ministry has rejected that account as “completely false,” arguing that responsibility for aspects of foreign-flight security has existed within the ministry for decades and was not suddenly transferred to it in recent years.

The ministry has also pointed to two previous committees headed by the National Security Council that recommended establishing a dedicated national aviation-security authority responsible for all flights. The Transportation Ministry says it supported that proposal, but the recommendations were never implemented.

The immediate security question is complicated further by what Israel apparently knew before Flight FZ1073 departed. UAE authorities provided Israel with the flight’s passenger and crew information, but no Israeli authority raised a warning that prevented al-Hammami from taking his seat in the cockpit.

The ministry maintains that it did not receive that information directly. It also says Flydubai itself had assured Israeli authorities that its system incorporated Israel’s nationality restrictions for flight crews.

Those restrictions have become central to the investigation because al-Hammami is reported to be an Omani citizen. Oman does not maintain diplomatic relations with Israel, and his presence aboard repeated flights to Tel Aviv has raised questions about whether existing nationality restrictions were enforced at all.

The case becomes still more serious in light of reports about al-Hammami’s history. He reportedly trained with Oman Air before concerns arose over extremist material and his ideological views. He was removed from flying duties and reassigned to an administrative position before eventually leaving the airline and later joining Flydubai.

Investigators are now examining whether Flydubai adequately checked his previous employment and whether information held in Oman about his alleged radicalization was ever communicated to the airline or to Israeli authorities.

Al-Hammami reportedly flew to Israel numerous times during his months with Flydubai, meaning the September 30 flight was not his first entry into Israeli airspace. Investigators are also examining allegations that he deliberately sought employment with an airline serving Tel Aviv because he had already conceived a terrorist attack against Israel.

The Transportation Ministry acknowledged another uncomfortable reality during a briefing following the attack: it cannot guarantee that the current system will prevent a similar case from occurring again.

“Nothing is 100% when it comes to security,” a ministry representative said.

Ministry officials reportedly argued that the only way to guarantee that no dangerous foreign pilot ever flies into Israel would be to prevent foreign airlines from serving the country altogether — something that would effectively leave international service largely dependent on Israeli carriers.

The ministry’s Security Division has also been operating with limited staffing. Reports indicate that a relatively small number of permanent government employees oversee a broad range of aviation-security responsibilities, with much of the work performed by contractors. Officials have argued that the division was never equipped to function as an intelligence-screening agency for thousands of foreign aviation personnel.

The Shin Bet had itself previously identified vulnerabilities in the arrangement and reportedly recommended transferring broader oversight to a dedicated aviation-security framework. Yet years of committees, cabinet discussions, warnings and disagreements failed to produce such a body before the Flydubai incident.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has now ordered National Security Council Director Shmuel Ben Ezra to appoint an inspector to conduct a comprehensive review of the security arrangements governing foreign civilian flights to Israel. The inquiry is expected to examine the division of responsibility between the Transportation Ministry, Civil Aviation Authority, Shin Bet, Mossad and other agencies, as well as the flow of passenger and crew information before foreign aircraft depart for Israel.

The government has also tightened rules governing foreign crews following the attack, including restrictions intended to prevent citizens or dual citizens of countries without diplomatic relations with Israel from serving aboard Israel-bound flights.

The investigation is therefore no longer focused solely on how one allegedly radicalized pilot reached the cockpit of a Flydubai aircraft. It is examining a security structure in which an airline says it performed the required checks, the Transportation Ministry says it is not an intelligence agency, the intelligence services had previously identified vulnerabilities, government bodies debated responsibility for years, and Israel nevertheless received information about the flight before takeoff without al-Hammami being stopped.

For Israeli investigators, the question is now not simply how al-Hammami slipped through. It is which agency was supposed to make sure that he could not.

{Matzav.com}

Israel’s Supreme Court has overturned the Central Elections Committee’s decision to bar the country’s two major Arab electoral lists and MK Ofer Cassif from participating in the October 27 Knesset election, while Balad chairman Sami Abu Shehadeh withdrew from the race after a majority of the justices signaled that they were prepared to uphold his individual disqualification.

Sitting as the High Court of Justice in an expanded nine-member panel, the court unanimously ruled that both Ra’am, led by MK Mansour Abbas, and the Joint List could remain on the ballot. The Joint List brings together Hadash, Ta’al and Balad.

The rulings reversed decisions handed down by the Central Elections Committee on September 23, when the committee voted to exclude Ra’am and the Joint List and separately disqualified Cassif and Abu Shehadeh. The various petitions against the parties and candidates alleged, among other things, support for armed struggle against Israel or rejection of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

The Supreme Court determined that the evidence against the two electoral lists did not satisfy the exceptionally high legal threshold required under Section 7A of Basic Law: The Knesset. Israeli jurisprudence has generally interpreted the provision narrowly, reserving disqualification for extreme cases supported by substantial evidence.

The court was divided, however, over Cassif, a Jewish lawmaker from Hadash who has repeatedly drawn controversy over statements and actions sharply critical of Israel and the IDF. By a 7-2 vote, the justices declined to approve the Central Elections Committee’s decision to disqualify him, allowing him to run in the upcoming election.

Justices David Mintz and Alex Stein dissented, concluding that Cassif should be barred under Section 7A on the grounds that the evidence demonstrated support for armed struggle against the State of Israel. The seven other justices found that the evidence did not meet the stringent standard necessary to remove a candidate from the ballot.

The outcome was markedly different for Abu Shehadeh, whose candidacy became the most contentious of the four cases. During Thursday’s hearing, Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit indicated that a majority of the nine-member panel was prepared to uphold his disqualification, although the justices were divided over the precise legal conclusion.

The judges gave Abu Shehadeh an opportunity to withdraw his candidacy before a formal ruling was issued. He subsequently announced that he was leaving the race, making a final court determination on his eligibility unnecessary and leading the proceedings concerning him to be dismissed.

The controversy surrounding Abu Shehadeh centered heavily on an Arabic-language article he published on October 8, 2023, one day after the Hamas-led massacre in southern Israel.

In that article, Abu Shehadeh described the October 7 assault as “an important historic event militarily, politically and strategically,” while also writing about what could be learned from Hamas’s success in surprising Israel.

Abu Shehadeh has maintained that the article did not constitute support for the massacre or for terrorism, insisting that he opposes armed struggle and political violence. His attorneys argued that the material presented against him did not reach the legal standard necessary to prevent a candidate from running for the Knesset.

The Supreme Court justices nevertheless reacted harshly to his remarks. During the hearing, Amit indicated that the panel regarded Abu Shehadeh’s statements as “painful, outrageous and repugnant,” even though the justices disagreed over whether the legal requirements for disqualification had ultimately been established.

The original effort to disqualify Abu Shehadeh was advanced by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit party. On September 23, the Central Elections Committee voted to prevent him from running, accepting arguments that his statements demonstrated support for armed struggle against Israel and rejection of the country’s character as a Jewish and democratic state.

Abu Shehadeh and his attorneys rejected those allegations, arguing that the proceedings were politically motivated and aimed at suppressing Arab political representation. His legal team also warned that a formal Supreme Court ruling approving his disqualification could establish a precedent affecting Arab candidates in future elections.

That concern played a role in his decision to withdraw. Rather than allow the court to issue what appeared likely to be the first final Supreme Court ruling removing an Arab political leader from a Knesset race under the existing disqualification law, Abu Shehadeh pulled his name from the ballot.

The Supreme Court’s decisions mean that the Joint List and Ra’am will now compete in the October 27 election, while Cassif will remain a candidate on the Joint List. Abu Shehadeh, despite Balad itself remaining part of the permitted Joint List, will not be on the ballot.

The ruling could also have significant implications for the political arithmetic following the election, particularly if neither the coalition nor the principal opposition parties secure the 61 Knesset seats required for a governing majority.

President Trump’s senior national security officials quietly gathered at Camp David for an hours-long meeting Friday to consider the administration’s next moves against Iran and whether the United States should become more directly involved in the rapidly escalating war against the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen.

The previously undisclosed meeting brought together some of the most powerful figures in the administration as Trump weighs whether diplomacy with Tehran has reached a dead end and whether major U.S. military operations against Iran could soon resume.

Vice President JD Vance chaired the Camp David session, according to three U.S. officials familiar with the discussions. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, War Secretary Pete Hegseth, White House special envoy Steve Witkoff, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine were among those participating.

The meeting lasted several hours and was not announced publicly by the White House.

“Things were decided or at least deeply discussed,” one official said, referring to the deliberations over the worsening Middle East crisis.

The timing was particularly notable. The Camp David gathering was reportedly the first secret meeting of this kind involving Trump’s top national security team since June 2025, shortly before Israel launched its 12-day war against Iran.

This time, the officials met with two interconnected military crises on the table: the future of the U.S. confrontation with Iran and a major Saudi-backed offensive against the Houthis in Yemen.

Trump has been publicly signaling that his patience with Tehran is running out following the failure of the latest diplomatic effort to end the war. U.S.-Iran negotiations have stalled after Trump rejected Tehran’s most recent peace proposal, which included an offer concerning the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran had proposed reopening the strategic waterway in exchange for a package that included sanctions relief, the release of billions of dollars in frozen Iranian assets and broader ceasefire arrangements. The Trump administration has insisted that any agreement must also address Iran’s nuclear program and other unresolved issues rather than dealing with the Strait of Hormuz in isolation.

Trump has indicated that a return to large-scale U.S. military action remains very much on the table.

“They’ll either sign a very fair deal, or they won’t exist any longer,” Trump said Thursday while traveling to Oklahoma.

Trump has also said that renewed U.S. bombing of Iran after the November midterm elections is “possible,” while leaving open the possibility that military action could occur sooner.

In another appearance Thursday, Trump said Iran “is ready to fold up” and predicted that the conflict could be brought to an end rapidly.

“I’m ensuring that Iran will be very quickly ended,” Trump said.

The president has argued that months of American and Israeli military action have severely damaged Iran’s military capabilities, including its air defenses, navy and nuclear infrastructure, while economic pressure has further weakened Tehran.

At the same time, Iranian officials have publicly warned that the country is preparing for another major round of fighting if diplomacy fails, raising fears that renewed American strikes could trigger an even broader regional confrontation.

Asked Friday afternoon what he intended to do next regarding Iran, Trump declined to reveal whether a decision had already been made.

“If I told you, you would have a major story,” Trump told reporters.

The second major issue before the officials at Camp David was Yemen, where the conflict has dramatically escalated after the Houthis seized territory giving them control over the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints.

The narrow passage connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and ultimately the Indian Ocean. A substantial share of global maritime trade passes through the route, making control of the strait strategically important to Saudi Arabia, the United States and other nations dependent on Red Sea shipping.

Houthi advances along Yemen’s Red Sea coast have given the Iran-backed group new leverage over international shipping and Saudi oil exports. The Houthis have also stepped up missile and drone attacks against Saudi Arabia, including attacks targeting energy infrastructure.

Saudi Arabia and forces aligned with Yemen’s internationally recognized government have been preparing a large counteroffensive intended to push the Houthis away from the Red Sea coast and regain control of the Bab al-Mandeb area.

Saudi leaders approved plans for the operation after weeks of preparation. The offensive calls for Yemeni government-aligned ground forces to advance under Saudi air cover.

The Saudis have repeatedly asked Washington to join the operation by launching direct American airstrikes against Houthi positions.

The Trump administration has rejected those requests twice in recent weeks, although U.S. officials have stressed that the decision could change if the Saudi-led operation runs into serious trouble.

Saudi Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman personally spoke with Hegseth to brief him on the planned campaign and again request U.S. air support.

For now, the United States has stopped short of direct combat in Yemen. American forces have nevertheless been providing substantial intelligence and targeting assistance to the Saudis, with U.S. officials saying Washington supplied information on more than 200 Houthi targets during the past two weeks.

Trump reportedly came close to authorizing strikes against the Houthis following an earlier request from Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman but ultimately decided against immediate U.S. military intervention.

American military commanders have also expressed reservations about opening another front. U.S. Central Command officials reportedly view Iran as the military’s primary regional focus and have questioned whether a renewed American air campaign in Yemen could divert resources and attention from that confrontation.

The situation on the ground has now moved rapidly beyond the planning stage. Yemen’s internationally recognized government announced Sunday that it had launched a major military operation against the Houthis, with Saudi support, aimed at retaking territory seized by the Iranian-backed group.

Rashad al-Alimi, chairman of Yemen’s Presidential Leadership Council, said the campaign would seek to reclaim Houthi-held areas and called on the rebels to surrender.

Saudi-backed Yemeni forces are focusing heavily on the strategically critical Red Sea corridor and the territory surrounding Bab al-Mandeb. Fighting has also intensified around Taiz, where recent Houthi advances have threatened government-controlled territory and raised fears that the city could again face siege conditions.

Saudi forces have resumed airstrikes as the fighting intensifies, effectively ending a prolonged period in which the Saudi-Houthi front had been comparatively quiet.

The renewed Yemen war and the unresolved confrontation with Iran are closely linked in Washington’s calculations because Tehran has long armed and supported the Houthis, while the group’s control of strategic waterways gives Iran and its allies additional leverage over international trade and energy supplies.

The Camp David meeting therefore confronted the Trump administration with a broader strategic question: whether to concentrate American military power directly against Iran while allowing Saudi Arabia and its Yemeni allies to handle the Houthi front, or to become more deeply involved in both theaters simultaneously.

Trump has so far resisted the Saudi request for direct American strikes in Yemen, but officials familiar with the deliberations say that option has not been removed from consideration.

Meanwhile, diplomatic contacts with Iran have not completely ended. Tehran has continued signaling through intermediaries that it is prepared to negotiate, while Iranian officials insist that Washington must offer acceptable terms rather than demand what they characterize as surrender.

Trump, however, has made clear that he considers Iran’s latest offer insufficient and has repeatedly warned that the alternative to an agreement will be renewed military pressure.

With the Camp David discussions concluded, the administration has not disclosed what decisions, if any, were reached. But the presence of Vance, Rubio, Hegseth, Witkoff, Ratcliffe and Caine at an unannounced hours-long session underscored the seriousness of the decisions now confronting the White House as fighting expands across the region.

Two Iranian nationals have been charged in Britain with allegedly preparing a terrorist bombing against Manchester’s Jewish community, with prosecutors accusing them of obtaining bomb-making instructions and materials, scouting Jewish sites and communicating with a third person believed to be operating from Iran.

Rahman Salehi, 35, and Salam Ahmadyan, 36, were charged with preparing to commit an act of terrorism or assisting another person in committing an act of terrorism on or before September 20. Both men were arrested by British counterterrorism police last month and are now being held in custody pending further court proceedings.

Prosecutors allege that the men were planning to use a homemade explosive device against Jewish targets in Manchester. The locations allegedly researched included the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue and the Manchester Jewish Museum in nearby Cheetham Hill.

The case has taken on added significance because prosecutors told Westminster Magistrates’ Court that Salehi and Ahmadyan were allegedly communicating with a third individual believed to be an Iranian national operating from inside Iran. That person is accused of directing and coordinating elements of the plot and providing the defendants with instructions for constructing a homemade bomb.

The alleged instructions included a document detailing how to create an explosive device using powdered chlorine and automotive brake fluid. Prosecutors say the suspects also obtained video material explaining how to manufacture or assemble an improvised explosive device.

The men are further accused of acquiring liquids, components and other equipment that could be used to construct the device, as well as using encrypted messaging applications while making preparations for the alleged attack.

British prosecutors say the preparations extended beyond obtaining bomb-making information. Salehi and Ahmadyan allegedly researched possible targets online, obtained photographs, maps and plans of locations under consideration and physically conducted what prosecutors described as hostile reconnaissance in Manchester’s Jewish community.

Among the sites allegedly surveilled was Heaton Park Synagogue, the same shul that was the scene of a deadly terrorist attack on Yom Kippur last year. In that attack, terrorist Jihad al-Shamie rammed a vehicle into the synagogue gates and launched a stabbing attack while wearing what appeared to be a suicide belt. Two members of the congregation, Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, were killed, and three other people were seriously wounded.

The latest alleged plot was uncovered as Manchester’s Jewish community approached the anniversary of that attack, further heightening concern among local Jews already living with increased security around shuls and other Jewish institutions.

Both defendants entered Britain illegally aboard small boats crossing the English Channel, according to information presented in court. Salehi arrived in Britain in 2020 after previously spending approximately five years in Germany, where he had also sought asylum.

Salehi was subsequently granted asylum in Britain in 2023. Ahmadyan arrived by small boat in 2023 and still has an outstanding asylum application.

The details of their immigration histories have fueled a broader debate in Britain over illegal migration and security screening, particularly because the charges allege that two individuals who entered the country illegally later became involved in preparations for a terrorist attack against British Jews.

British Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood addressed that issue while responding to the charges.

“This news will be deeply distressing for our Jewish communities, coming so soon after Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. I know this will be especially true in Manchester, as we mark one year since the terrorist attack at Heaton Park Synagogue.”

Referring to the fact that both suspects entered Britain by small boat, Mahmood said it “is a reminder of the importance of our relentless work to tackle illegal migration into this country. While numbers are down, I know there is more we must do.”

Police carried out searches at addresses in Liverpool and Salford as part of the investigation. Counterterrorism investigators are continuing to examine the defendants’ alleged communications, the materials recovered during the investigation and their suspected relationship with the individual believed to be in Iran.

At their appearance before Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Salehi spoke through a Kurdish interpreter and Ahmadyan through a Farsi interpreter. Neither man entered a plea. District Judge Nina Tempia ordered both held in custody until their next scheduled appearance at the Old Bailey on October 23.

The Crown Prosecution Service emphasized that the charges remain allegations and that the defendants are entitled to a fair trial.

British counterterrorism officials say the alleged plot has been disrupted and that they do not currently believe there is an ongoing danger to the public connected to the case.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Vicki Evans said authorities are treating the allegations with the utmost seriousness and stressed that the Manchester case is separate from the investigation into suspicious activity near RAF Fairford, the British air base used by U.S. bombers.

“While this incident and the investigation into the RAF Fairford incident are not connected in any way, I want to reassure the public that CTP [counter-terrorism police] working with our national security partners, are using the full range of our capabilities to protect the U.K. from any hostile acts,” her statement continued.

The RAF Fairford investigation began after five men were arrested near the installation amid suspicions of another possible attack. The two cases are not believed to be connected, despite both unfolding amid heightened British concern over terrorism and possible hostile activity linked to Iran.

{Matzav.com}

On this Motzoei Yom Tov, as we bid farewell to the beautiful chag that ended tonight (in chutz la’aretz, and the night before that for those in Eretz Hakodesh), we’d like to wish all of our readers ah gutten vinter.

As you take down your sukkahs and resume your regular routine, try to hold on to the warmth and inspiration of the Zeman Simchaseinu and Simchas Torah as you head into the long days of winter. The winter is representative of the lengthy golus in which we find ourselves, and just as we try to hold on to the warmth of summer as we endure the dark days of winter, we likewise try to hold on to the uplifting moments of our lives to help us get through this long and bitter exile.

We pray that all of Klal Yisroel merit only bracha and yeshuos during this season, and may we be zoche to greet Moshiach, bimeheirah beyomeinu, speedily, in our day.

Ah gutten vinter.

{Matzav.com Newscenter}

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has revealed that he seriously considered retiring at the conclusion of the Court’s last term before ultimately deciding to remain on the bench, saying at age 76 he believes he can still make a meaningful contribution to the Supreme Court and the country.

Alito, one of the Court’s most influential conservative justices, said in a rare interview with CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford that retirement is now something he expects to reconsider at the end of every Supreme Court term.

His comments address months of speculation over whether he might step aside while President Trump is in the White House and Republicans control the Senate, giving Trump an opportunity to nominate a substantially younger conservative to Alito’s seat.

“I thought about it,” Alito told Crawford when asked whether he had considered retiring.

“Well, it’s something I think that somebody at my age has to think about every term,” he explained. “But I thought that I could still make a valuable contribution, which is why I became a justice and a judge in the first place. So that was basically it.”

Asked whether that means he intends to reconsider retirement each year, Alito answered, “Yeah, I think I have to.”

Alito’s decision means that, at least for the new Supreme Court term, the nine-member Court will retain its current composition and its 6-3 conservative majority.

The retirement question carries enormous political consequences because Supreme Court justices serve lifetime appointments. If Alito were to retire while Trump remains president and Republicans retain sufficient control of the Senate to confirm a nominee, Trump would have an opportunity to select Alito’s successor.

Trump has already appointed three members of the current Court — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. An Alito vacancy would therefore give him an opportunity to appoint a fourth justice.

Trump said earlier this year that he was prepared for the possibility of Supreme Court vacancies and specifically praised Alito as “one of the greatest of all time,” while expressing interest in finding a younger jurist with a similar judicial philosophy.

Alito, however, said the political identity of a possible successor was not what ultimately governed his decision to remain.

“I think it’s too hard to predict,” he said. “It’s too hard to predict how for anybody, and particularly when you reach a certain age, what your situation will be a year from now, two years from now and so forth.”

“And it’s too hard to predict what the political situation will be and what any president might do with respect to a replacement,” he added.

The issue has drawn comparisons to the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who resisted calls from some liberals to retire while President Barack Obama was in office. Ginsburg remained on the Court until her death in September 2020 at age 87, allowing Trump to nominate Barrett to replace her shortly before that year’s presidential election.

Asked whether remaining on the bench could create a similar risk from the perspective of those who want Alito’s judicial philosophy preserved on the Court, Alito rejected the idea that anyone could reliably plan years ahead for the political and personal circumstances surrounding a future vacancy.

Alito said his primary consideration was instead whether he still had something worthwhile to contribute to the institution he joined two decades ago.

“I think I can still make a contribution,” he said. “And it’s hard to give up the opportunity to do something that I think will be good for the Constitution and good for the country as long as I’m able to do it.”

Alito was nominated to the Supreme Court by President George W. Bush in 2005 and confirmed by the Senate in January 2006, succeeding Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Before joining the nation’s highest court, he served for approximately 15 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Now 76, Alito is the Court’s second-oldest justice. Justice Clarence Thomas, 78, is the oldest and longest-serving current member of the Court, having joined it in 1991.

Together, Thomas and Alito have become central figures in the Court’s conservative majority, though their approaches and areas of emphasis sometimes differ. Alito has been particularly influential in cases involving religious liberty, abortion, voting law and constitutional interpretation.

His most consequential majority opinion came in 2022 in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the recognition of a federal constitutional right to abortion, returning authority over abortion law primarily to elected lawmakers at the state and federal levels.

In his new CBS interview, Alito also reflected more broadly on what he believes the Court has accomplished during his tenure.

“We have stood up for freedom of speech, which is endangered. We have done a lot to protect religious liberty,” Alito said.

“We have vindicated the principle that the laws should be applied equally to everybody, regardless of race or ethnic background,” he continued. “We have tried to restore the original structure of the government as it was set out in the Constitution — but that’s an ongoing project.”

Alito’s description reflects his own view of the Court’s work. Critics of the conservative majority strongly dispute that assessment and argue that a series of its decisions have weakened protections involving abortion, voting rights and other areas. Alito has consistently defended his approach as an effort to apply the Constitution according to its original meaning rather than reach preferred political outcomes.

“I have a theory about how the Constitution should be interpreted. I believe it has a fixed meaning. And it still means today what it was understood to mean when it was adopted. And I will not depart from that,” Alito said. “But it is not necessary in every case to go as far as one might want to go if you were just writing the opinion for yourself.”

Alito’s retirement deliberations come four years after Justice Stephen Breyer became the most recent member of the Supreme Court to leave the bench. Breyer retired on June 30, 2022, after nearly 28 years as a justice.

Breyer had faced sustained calls from liberal activists and Democratic lawmakers to retire while President Joe Biden was in office and Democrats controlled the Senate, allowing them to ensure that his seat would be filled by a liberal successor.

Biden nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson, who had previously clerked for Breyer, to fill the vacancy. The Senate confirmed her, and Breyer himself administered her judicial oath on the day his retirement took effect.

Despite sitting on opposite sides of many of the Court’s most significant cases, Alito revealed in the CBS interview that he and Breyer developed a close friendship during their years together on the bench.

“He is a brilliant man and very erudite. But he wears his erudition lightly, and doesn’t take himself too seriously. I do miss him. He lit up lunch time, every time we had lunch,” Alito said. “And he would pop in here to talk about all kinds of things. He would pop in here to talk about cases. But he would also come in to talk about whatever he happened to be interested in at the time, literature or music or things that were going on in the world. And it was delightful.”

Breyer, in turn, described Alito as “a good friend” and said that despite their frequent disagreements over cases, he was “always interested in what he thinks.”

“Our relationship is a good example of a simple fact that I have noticed here at the Court over the years,” Breyer said. “We can be personal friends without always agreeing about legal results.”

Alito said Breyer’s willingness to maintain those relationships across ideological lines provided an example that other justices could follow.

“Steve reached out to everybody. He was very outgoing and charming and gregarious,” Alito said. “His personality is a lot different from mine. But I should probably do more along the lines of what he did. And probably we all can take more of a lesson from him.”

The latest retirement discussion follows an unusual episode at the end of the Court’s previous term, when NPR mistakenly reported on June 30 that Alito had announced his retirement.

The report briefly appeared publicly before NPR withdrew it and acknowledged that no such announcement had been made. Veteran NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg subsequently called the erroneous report “the worst professional mistake of my more than 50 years in journalism” and sent Alito a personal apology.

Alito then addressed the continuing speculation more directly in an August interview with The Wall Street Journal.

“Obviously I’m here for another term,” he said at the time.

The new CBS interview provides the fuller explanation: Alito had, in fact, considered leaving. He simply decided that this was not yet the time.

The justice is also stepping further into public view with the release of his first book, “So Ordered: An Originalist’s View of the Constitution, the Court and Our Country,” a collection of speeches and reflections outlining his approach to constitutional interpretation and his concerns about the country’s legal and civic institutions.

In discussing his background, Alito described the influence of his Italian immigrant family and the values with which he was raised. His father’s birth record from Italy, presented to him by the Italian Embassy after his Supreme Court confirmation, remains one of his most treasured possessions.

“It’s very moving for me,” Alito said. “Neither of these two people who walked to town could read or write … so the official had to do it. So it’s (a) meaningful document for me.”

Alito said his parents and grandparents deeply believed in the possibilities offered by the United States.

“They really did believe in the American dream, and they believed in the fundamental values that underlie our country … the view that’s expressed in the Declaration of Independence that all people are created equal and that they’re endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights,” Alito said. “That’s how I was raised.

“But it’s not just how I was raised,” he continued. “It’s what I believe, and what I believed after a lifetime of education and experience. I still believe in all of that.”

Looking at the arc from his immigrant family’s beginnings to his own seat on the nation’s highest court, Alito described it simply.

“It is the American dream,” Alito said. “And it’s been a dream that’s been realized by generation after generation.”

{Matzav.com}